Week 14 Rankings
Let's go ahead and get the numbers up - Oklahoma takes #1 over Utah & Alabama, but more importantly Texas, who's at #2. And the difference is big - 30+ points. (Scroll down past the rankings and you'll see a comparison of all their games and how much each was worth.) Alabama will get a chance to pad their SoS next week against Florida, but in general they've played the easiest schedule of the BCS teams in the top 30 and the 4th easiest schedule of all BCS teams.
Georgia Tech jumps 8 spots to #13 after their victory over Georgia, and North Carolina moves up to #16. Everyone else is pretty much in the same spots. USC is still at #10, but a win over UCLA next week will probably vault them into the top five.
| Week 14 Achievement Rankings | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Conf | Team | Pts | W | L | W% | oPts | oW | oL | oW% | rank∆ |
| 1 | Big12 | Oklahoma | 474.16 | 11 | 1 | 91.7% | 1277.93 | 99 | 58 | 63.1% | 02 |
| 2 | Big12 | Texas | 441.82 | 11 | 1 | 91.7% | 1342.58 | 95 | 61 | 60.9% | 00 |
| 3 | MtnWest | Utah | 422.68 | 12 | 0 | 100.0% | -346.01 | 75 | 71 | 51.4% | -02 |
| 4 | SEC | Alabama | 407.04 | 12 | 0 | 100.0% | 381.09 | 89 | 77 | 53.6% | 01 |
| 5 | SEC | Florida | 396.58 | 11 | 1 | 91.7% | 1246.85 | 98 | 60 | 62.0% | 01 |
| 6 | Big12 | Texas Tech | 386.76 | 11 | 1 | 91.7% | 21.92 | 75 | 60 | 55.6% | 01 |
| 7 | WAC | Boise State | 383.61 | 12 | 0 | 100.0% | -728.45 | 73 | 73 | 50.0% | 01 |
| 8 | Big10 | Penn State | 378.43 | 11 | 1 | 91.7% | 67.50 | 75 | 69 | 52.1% | -04 |
| 9 | MAC | Ball State | 358.23 | 12 | 0 | 100.0% | -1598.36 | 69 | 87 | 44.2% | 01 |
| 10 | Pac10 | USC | 357.37 | 10 | 1 | 90.9% | 310.56 | 78 | 74 | 51.3% | -01 |
| 11 | Big10 | Ohio State | 311.17 | 10 | 2 | 83.3% | 763.95 | 87 | 56 | 60.8% | 00 |
| 12 | BigEast | Cincinnati | 285.50 | 10 | 2 | 83.3% | 48.00 | 80 | 72 | 52.6% | 02 |
| 13 | ACC | Georgia Tech | 281.07 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | 490.02 | 76 | 58 | 56.7% | 08 |
| 14 | MtnWest | TCU | 273.65 | 10 | 2 | 83.3% | 45.43 | 80 | 65 | 55.2% | -01 |
| 15 | ACC | Boston College | 266.94 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | 874.42 | 88 | 69 | 56.1% | 07 |
| 16 | ACC | North Carolina | 235.77 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | 972.61 | 81 | 61 | 57.0% | 08 |
| 17 | SEC | Georgia | 232.89 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | 925.34 | 90 | 54 | 62.5% | -05 |
| 18 | MtnWest | Brigham Young | 227.49 | 10 | 2 | 83.3% | -1011.45 | 64 | 78 | 45.1% | -01 |
| 19 | ACC | Virginia Tech | 225.78 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | 1305.66 | 94 | 62 | 60.3% | 07 |
| 20 | Big10 | Michigan State | 221.46 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | 624.07 | 86 | 69 | 55.5% | -02 |
| 21 | Big12 | Oklahoma State | 213.43 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | 476.38 | 82 | 63 | 56.6% | -06 |
| 22 | BigEast | Pittsburgh | 211.21 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | 876.41 | 87 | 63 | 58.0% | 05 |
| 23 | ACC | Florida State | 210.02 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | 934.74 | 83 | 52 | 61.5% | -03 |
| 24 | Pac10 | Oregon | 205.38 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | 60.85 | 75 | 76 | 49.7% | 08 |
| 25 | CUSA | Tulsa | 203.85 | 10 | 2 | 83.3% | -1537.42 | 66 | 91 | 42.0% | 00 |
| 26 | Big12 | Missouri | 203.72 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | 567.37 | 90 | 67 | 57.3% | -10 |
| 27 | Pac10 | Oregon State | 184.93 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | 819.15 | 86 | 64 | 57.3% | -08 |
| 28 | SEC | Mississippi | 171.39 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | 548.14 | 85 | 60 | 58.6% | 03 |
| 29 | Big10 | Northwestern | 161.80 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | -469.25 | 69 | 76 | 47.6% | -01 |
| 30 | CUSA | Rice | 160.92 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | -811.46 | 71 | 84 | 45.8% | 05 |
| 31 | MAC | Western Michigan | 156.31 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | -793.57 | 72 | 74 | 49.3% | -08 |
| 32 | Big10 | Iowa | 154.19 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | -55.87 | 76 | 67 | 53.1% | -02 |
| 33 | Big12 | Nebraska | 150.94 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | 782.30 | 87 | 69 | 55.8% | 07 |
| 34 | Pac10 | California | 143.07 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | 277.89 | 78 | 74 | 51.3% | -01 |
| 35 | ACC | Wake Forest | 140.12 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | 1199.03 | 85 | 69 | 55.2% | 10 |
| 36 | ACC | Maryland | 133.70 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | 775.19 | 80 | 63 | 55.9% | 01 |
| 37 | CUSA | East Carolina | 133.25 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | -310.58 | 80 | 87 | 47.9% | 05 |
| 38 | BigEast | Connecticut | 128.56 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | 253.15 | 75 | 65 | 53.6% | 01 |
| 39 | ACC | Clemson | 127.71 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | 839.14 | 82 | 54 | 60.3% | 12 |
| 40 | MtnWest | Air Force | 121.53 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | -226.47 | 77 | 66 | 53.8% | -02 |
| 41 | Indy | Navy | 116.71 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | -188.89 | 73 | 69 | 51.4% | 09 |
| 42 | ACC | Miami (FL) | 114.47 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | 876.67 | 81 | 64 | 55.9% | -06 |
| 43 | BigEast | South Florida | 109.36 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | -75.69 | 73 | 67 | 52.1% | 00 |
| 44 | BigEast | West Virginia | 107.62 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | 265.44 | 76 | 64 | 54.3% | -10 |
| 45 | MAC | Central Michigan | 91.72 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | -787.24 | 71 | 75 | 48.6% | -16 |
| 46 | SEC | South Carolina | 90.41 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | 530.31 | 82 | 63 | 56.6% | -05 |
| 47 | BigEast | Rutgers | 88.51 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | 451.79 | 78 | 60 | 56.5% | 02 |
| 48 | ACC | NC State | 85.05 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | 1159.73 | 85 | 58 | 59.4% | 10 |
| 49 | Big12 | Kansas | 84.28 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | 792.02 | 87 | 56 | 60.8% | 08 |
| 50 | CUSA | Houston | 67.01 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | -561.87 | 74 | 71 | 51.0% | -04 |
| 51 | WAC | Fresno State | 60.76 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | -540.30 | 73 | 81 | 47.4% | -03 |
| 52 | SEC | LSU | 60.38 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | 265.36 | 80 | 64 | 55.6% | -08 |
| 53 | SunBelt | Troy | 52.44 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | -1226.89 | 65 | 76 | 46.1% | -01 |
| 54 | Big10 | Wisconsin | 45.34 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | 288.69 | 81 | 65 | 55.5% | -01 |
| 55 | WAC | Nevada | 40.30 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | -86.91 | 79 | 66 | 54.5% | 08 |
| 56 | ACC | Virginia | 35.29 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | 1386.10 | 82 | 49 | 62.6% | 00 |
| 57 | WAC | Hawaii | 34.86 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | -183.36 | 84 | 75 | 52.8% | 04 |
| 58 | Big10 | Minnesota | 21.09 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | -360.81 | 74 | 72 | 50.7% | 02 |
| 59 | SEC | Vanderbilt | 18.27 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | 680.58 | 86 | 70 | 55.1% | -04 |
| 60 | MAC | Buffalo | 16.77 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | -213.16 | 87 | 78 | 52.7% | -13 |
| 61 | WAC | Louisiana Tech | 14.32 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | -1062.31 | 67 | 78 | 46.2% | -07 |
| 62 | Pac10 | Arizona | 7.53 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | -517.78 | 69 | 83 | 45.4% | 00 |
| 63 | MtnWest | Colorado State | -5.57 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | 96.94 | 81 | 63 | 56.3% | 02 |
| 64 | Indy | Notre Dame | -13.87 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | 180.89 | 75 | 77 | 49.3% | 00 |
| 65 | SEC | Kentucky | -17.20 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | 133.55 | 79 | 63 | 55.6% | -06 |
| 66 | SunBelt | Florida Atlantic | -30.37 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | -617.95 | 73 | 77 | 48.7% | 06 |
| 67 | WAC | San Jose State | -32.43 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | -863.37 | 63 | 70 | 47.4% | 00 |
| 68 | SunBelt | Arkansas State | -33.52 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | -1174.45 | 60 | 69 | 46.5% | 06 |
| 69 | MAC | Northern Illinois | -35.32 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | -945.83 | 73 | 72 | 50.3% | -03 |
| 70 | Big10 | Illinois | -38.09 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | 509.07 | 81 | 52 | 60.9% | -02 |
| 71 | SEC | Arkansas | -38.31 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | 915.51 | 85 | 48 | 63.9% | 08 |
| 72 | CUSA | Southern Miss | -39.43 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | -504.50 | 76 | 77 | 49.7% | 03 |
| 73 | Pac10 | Stanford | -54.33 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | 238.57 | 73 | 66 | 52.5% | -03 |
| 74 | BigEast | Louisville | -59.56 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | 38.96 | 70 | 58 | 54.7% | -03 |
| 75 | Pac10 | Arizona State | -62.93 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | -267.48 | 65 | 64 | 50.4% | 08 |
| 76 | MAC | Bowling Green | -63.34 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | -932.04 | 65 | 78 | 45.5% | 08 |
| 77 | Big12 | Colorado | -66.92 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | 428.65 | 76 | 57 | 57.1% | -08 |
| 78 | SEC | Auburn | -74.70 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | 35.13 | 73 | 60 | 54.9% | -05 |
| 79 | CUSA | Memphis | -78.98 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | -1154.20 | 64 | 78 | 45.1% | 06 |
| 80 | SunBelt | LA-Lafayette | -85.70 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | -1339.88 | 58 | 82 | 41.4% | 02 |
| 81 | SunBelt | Middle TN State | -86.78 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | -1253.76 | 57 | 81 | 41.3% | 00 |
| 82 | ACC | Duke | -87.27 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | 1131.14 | 79 | 53 | 59.8% | -05 |
| 83 | MAC | Temple | -89.17 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | -477.36 | 70 | 71 | 49.6% | 10 |
| 84 | SEC | Tennessee | -89.77 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | 424.74 | 78 | 65 | 54.5% | 06 |
| 85 | Big12 | Kansas State | -91.85 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | -210.28 | 68 | 64 | 51.5% | 01 |
| 86 | CUSA | UTEP | -96.89 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | -234.58 | 73 | 70 | 51.0% | -10 |
| 87 | MtnWest | UNLV | -105.89 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | -112.06 | 73 | 70 | 51.0% | 02 |
| 88 | MAC | Akron | -106.43 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | -753.01 | 67 | 76 | 46.9% | -10 |
| 89 | Big10 | Purdue | -107.51 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | 713.66 | 83 | 50 | 62.4% | -01 |
| 90 | Big12 | Baylor | -109.96 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | 943.02 | 81 | 52 | 60.9% | -03 |
| 91 | Pac10 | UCLA | -111.29 | 4 | 7 | 36.4% | 266.68 | 74 | 66 | 52.9% | -11 |
| 92 | SunBelt | FL International | -139.43 | 4 | 7 | 36.4% | -1006.26 | 61 | 77 | 44.2% | -01 |
| 93 | SEC | Mississippi State | -140.83 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | 195.92 | 75 | 58 | 56.4% | -01 |
| 94 | MtnWest | New Mexico | -143.87 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | 232.05 | 80 | 63 | 55.9% | 03 |
| 95 | CUSA | Marshall | -146.90 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | 120.35 | 78 | 54 | 59.1% | 00 |
| 96 | Big12 | Texas A&M | -149.41 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | 629.57 | 78 | 64 | 54.9% | 00 |
| 97 | CUSA | UAB | -167.75 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | -804.62 | 65 | 68 | 48.9% | 07 |
| 98 | MAC | Ohio | -168.41 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | -712.25 | 69 | 64 | 51.9% | 05 |
| 99 | CUSA | Central Florida | -172.23 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | -532.56 | 67 | 66 | 50.4% | -05 |
| 100 | MtnWest | Wyoming | -173.35 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | -279.41 | 72 | 61 | 54.1% | -01 |
| 101 | BigEast | Syracuse | -178.95 | 3 | 9 | 25.0% | 843.67 | 81 | 47 | 63.3% | -03 |
| 102 | WAC | Utah State | -180.21 | 3 | 9 | 25.0% | 670.20 | 87 | 57 | 60.4% | 03 |
| 103 | Big10 | Indiana | -192.89 | 3 | 9 | 25.0% | 472.71 | 82 | 51 | 61.7% | -02 |
| 104 | Big10 | Michigan | -205.82 | 3 | 9 | 25.0% | 796.74 | 85 | 59 | 59.0% | -02 |
| 105 | SunBelt | LA-Monroe | -216.87 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | -1407.91 | 54 | 74 | 42.2% | 01 |
| 106 | MAC | Kent State | -223.10 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | -1015.47 | 63 | 69 | 47.7% | 03 |
| 107 | MAC | Toledo | -236.85 | 3 | 9 | 25.0% | -497.03 | 71 | 71 | 50.0% | -07 |
| 108 | Indy | Army | -246.66 | 3 | 8 | 27.3% | -745.34 | 64 | 67 | 48.9% | 00 |
| 109 | MAC | Eastern Michigan | -252.35 | 3 | 9 | 25.0% | -286.24 | 73 | 60 | 54.9% | 02 |
| 110 | WAC | New Mexico State | -266.96 | 3 | 9 | 25.0% | -545.89 | 68 | 66 | 50.7% | -03 |
| 111 | Big12 | Iowa State | -308.29 | 2 | 10 | 16.7% | -377.96 | 68 | 65 | 51.1% | 02 |
| 112 | WAC | Idaho | -313.92 | 2 | 10 | 16.7% | -566.82 | 69 | 64 | 51.9% | 04 |
| 113 | CUSA | Tulane | -315.80 | 2 | 10 | 16.7% | -152.76 | 76 | 67 | 53.1% | -03 |
| 114 | Pac10 | Washington State | -319.52 | 2 | 11 | 15.4% | -28.01 | 74 | 65 | 53.2% | -02 |
| 115 | Indy | Western Kentucky | -320.43 | 2 | 9 | 18.2% | -784.01 | 64 | 57 | 52.9% | 00 |
| 116 | MtnWest | San Diego State | -323.50 | 2 | 10 | 16.7% | -121.87 | 74 | 60 | 55.2% | 01 |
| 117 | MAC | Miami (OH) | -368.91 | 2 | 10 | 16.7% | -810.44 | 66 | 68 | 49.3% | -03 |
| 118 | CUSA | SMU | -378.05 | 1 | 11 | 8.3% | 56.62 | 77 | 55 | 58.3% | 00 |
| 119 | Pac10 | Washington | -393.31 | 0 | 11 | 0.0% | 1037.99 | 83 | 57 | 59.3% | 01 |
| 120 | SunBelt | North Texas | -396.01 | 1 | 11 | 8.3% | -527.35 | 70 | 68 | 50.7% | -01 |
The ACC extends their lead over the rest of the conferences by quite a bit - going 3-1 against the SEC will do that for you. The Big12 is well behind in #2, and the SEC and BigEast are close together at #3 & #4.
| Week 14 Conference Achievement Rankings | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Avg Points | Conference | non-conf W | non-conf L | non-conf W% | non-conf oPts | non-conf oW | non-conf oL | non-conf oW% |
| 1 | 142.99 | ACC | 37 | 11 | 77.1% | -3717.74 | 227 | 189 | 54.6% |
| 2 | 100.97 | Big12 | 38 | 10 | 79.2% | -5156.25 | 218 | 244 | 47.2% |
| 3 | 84.67 | SEC | 37 | 11 | 77.1% | -4835.61 | 222 | 248 | 47.2% |
| 4 | 84.23 | BigEast | 28 | 12 | 70.0% | -2867.79 | 199 | 203 | 49.5% |
| 5 | 65.39 | Big10 | 32 | 12 | 72.7% | -4240.37 | 210 | 216 | 49.3% |
| 6 | 31.33 | MtnWest | 25 | 11 | 69.4% | -4998.71 | 144 | 206 | 41.1% |
| 7 | -3.78 | Pac10 | 14 | 17 | 45.2% | 1338.53 | 205 | 145 | 58.6% |
| 8 | -28.95 | WAC | 18 | 18 | 50.0% | -2472.93 | 186 | 171 | 52.1% |
| 9 | -70.44 | CUSA | 18 | 30 | 37.5% | -910.23 | 272 | 217 | 55.6% |
| 10 | -71.24 | MAC | 22 | 30 | 42.3% | -3437.06 | 265 | 263 | 50.2% |
| 11 | -115.44 | SunBelt | 12 | 27 | 30.8% | -1824.95 | 215 | 215 | 50.0% |
Here's the scoop on Oklahoma & Texas. Originally, the table is set up by date, but as usual you can click on the headers to sort. The last column, "Game Pts", is how many points they earned for that particular game.
| Oklahoma & Texas, Game by Game | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team | vs/@ | oConf | Opponent | oPts | oW | oL | Res. | pts | opts | diff | GamePts |
| Oklahoma | vs | zAA | Chattanooga | -412.08 | 0 | 2 | W | 57 | 2 | 55 | 12.51 |
| Oklahoma | vs | BigEast | Cincinnati | 280.11 | 10 | 2 | W | 52 | 26 | 26 | 64.36 |
| Oklahoma | @ | Pac10 | Washington | -393.35 | 0 | 11 | W | 55 | 14 | 41 | 22.32 |
| Oklahoma | vs | MtnWest | TCU | 272.42 | 10 | 2 | W | 35 | 10 | 25 | 63.38 |
| Oklahoma | @ | Big12 | Baylor | -102.55 | 4 | 8 | W | 49 | 17 | 32 | 31.82 |
| Oklahoma | v | Big12 | Texas | 438.52 | 11 | 1 | L | 35 | 45 | -10 | -17.31 |
| Oklahoma | vs | Big12 | Kansas | 82.12 | 7 | 5 | W | 45 | 31 | 14 | 38.35 |
| Oklahoma | @ | Big12 | Kansas State | -94.13 | 5 | 7 | W | 58 | 35 | 23 | 31.90 |
| Oklahoma | vs | Big12 | Nebraska | 149.11 | 8 | 4 | W | 62 | 28 | 34 | 47.83 |
| Oklahoma | @ | Big12 | Texas A&M | -151.00 | 4 | 8 | W | 66 | 28 | 38 | 29.59 |
| Oklahoma | vs | Big12 | Texas Tech | 381.62 | 11 | 1 | W | 65 | 21 | 44 | 77.47 |
| Oklahoma | @ | Big12 | Oklahoma State | 212.96 | 9 | 3 | W | 61 | 41 | 20 | 66.30 |
| Texas | vs | SunBelt | Florida Atlantic | -26.46 | 6 | 6 | W | 52 | 10 | 42 | 24.73 |
| Texas | @ | CUSA | UTEP | -98.78 | 5 | 7 | W | 42 | 13 | 29 | 31.40 |
| Texas | vs | CUSA | Rice | 160.25 | 9 | 3 | W | 52 | 10 | 42 | 49.22 |
| Texas | vs | SEC | Arkansas | -42.01 | 5 | 7 | W | 52 | 10 | 42 | 26.62 |
| Texas | @ | Big12 | Colorado | -67.41 | 5 | 7 | W | 38 | 14 | 24 | 33.88 |
| Texas | v | Big12 | Oklahoma | 468.51 | 11 | 1 | W | 45 | 35 | 10 | 86.20 |
| Texas | vs | Big12 | Missouri | 205.68 | 9 | 3 | W | 56 | 31 | 25 | 54.92 |
| Texas | vs | Big12 | Oklahoma State | 212.96 | 9 | 3 | W | 28 | 24 | 4 | 52.45 |
| Texas | @ | Big12 | Texas Tech | 381.62 | 11 | 1 | W | 33 | 39 | -6 | -17.81 |
| Texas | vs | Big12 | Baylor | -102.55 | 4 | 8 | W | 45 | 21 | 24 | 24.98 |
| Texas | @ | Big12 | Kansas | 82.12 | 7 | 5 | W | 35 | 7 | 28 | 48.24 |
| Texas | vs | Big12 | Texas A&M | -151.00 | 4 | 8 | W | 49 | 9 | 40 | 23.68 |
9 comments:
I have to bring up this point, which no one else has:
The whole OU vs. UT paradox isn't a "problem with the BCS".
It's a problem w/ the Big 12 and their choice of tiebreakers.
Why would they chose something that amounts to, essentially, a coin flip? Other conferences have non-BCS related tie-breakers. SoS? # of I-AA teams played? record vs. non-conf, BCS teams, etc....
People can bitch about the BCS, but this time, that's not the issue.
I couldn't agree more, Griffin. This is a problem with the Big12, and if Texas and others are going to be mad, they should be mad at their conference commissioners for making the BCS a part of their conference tiebreaker system.
They shouldn't get too mad though - if they hadn't lost to Texas Tech, they wouldn't be in this position. That goes for all the one-loss teams.
BTW, the SEC already has a stipulation in their conference rules that says the same thing as the Big 12 tiebreaker EXCEPT "if the higher ranked team lost to the lower ranked team and the teams are within 5 BCS spots of each other"
Why wouldn't that be the same for all conferences?
Yup - that's probably the way the Big 12 should've done it. But it's too late now.
It wouldn't (and shouldn't) be the same for all conferences because all conferences aren't the same. They enjoy a whole bunch of autonomy and say as to how their conference is run, whether it's scheduling, TV contracts, dividing money, which teams are a part of the conference, and how their championship is decided - they're not gonna give up that power.
Here's another one for you - if Missouri beats Oklahoma, then Texas will probably get the #2 slot. But what if Oklahoma wins in a squeaker? Texas already beat Missouri 56-31 this season - what if Oklahoma wins 42-39? Texas has the better win there, why not have them leapfrog Oklahoma back? What if there's a bad call by the refs that affects the outcome of the game in favor of Oklahoma? Should the voters go with Texas then? In either case, I'd argue that putting the Longhorns back to #2 would be justified.
sure, not saying all conferences need to be the same. But if you're going to have a rule that invites a quagmire, it's best for all if it's the same.
As for your scenario, how about this one: What if Ala loses a tight one to UF ? That will be bamas only loss. How far would they drop? My guess is the computers would kill them for losing to the only other good team on their schedule. But it's interesting to think about. I think in your scenario, USC gets the nod. Voters would be weary of putting a non-conf champ into the NCG.
Now, if USC loses to UCLA next week and UM beats OU....bring on the Utes! :)
Yeah, you're right - the computers already don't like Alabama, mainly because their SoS is weak any way you slice it. They wouldn't recover from even a close loss too Florida because MoV isn't allowed in the BCS computers.
The main thing that will stop people from invoking the "Texas didn't win their conference championship" argument is the fact that Oklahoma was CHOSEN as the Big12 South representative. In a way, it might be a relief to voters if Missouri wins because then they'll know that putting Texas at #2 is definitely the right thing to do. It'll give them a chance to correct a wrong choice.
USC isn't getting in because the Pac10 is seen as weak this year, which they are. Sure they played ridiculous tough teams in non-conf play, but they lost - that matters. Same thing with Penn State - the Big 10 is seen as weak, so they're out. The Big12 is seen as the toughest, so Texas has a huge edge because of that. But it is amazing to see just how dominant the Trojans' D has been this year - as impressive as Oklahoma's offense, if you ask me.
All good points.
One thing I hope to see is the ACC commissioners furiously updating their rule books lest they have a similar situation in the future wrt to division champs and three way ties.
As for USC D...eh...What's the best offense they've faced? Ore St? Maybe after what Ore did to Ore St, they're the best O. I would have loved to see them in the fiesta vs. a Big 12 team, though. That would have been a great game. Too bad they'll get to kill PSU in the rose bowl.
Let's consider a major benefit this wrangling might bring over the longer term.
Undefeated seasons have become rare beasts in conferences where the winners must play a thirteen-game season (Big 12, SEC, etc.). The one-loss tiebreaker, therefore, is here to stay.
Oklahoma is clearly benefitting from having Cinninnati and TCU on its slate, boosting its strength of schedule. Now, whether OU thought these two opponents would provide more than a light workout when the games were scheduled, I'm not sure.
What is clear is that non-conference scheduling needs a rethink in the athletic offices across the country. Creampuffs are out; competitive inter-conference games are in.
As a fan, you've got to love that.
The ACC was just nuts this year - ten teams at 5-3 or 4-4 in conference play? That's about as balanced as you get. But you're right, Griff - I'm sure all conferences are going to take a look at their tiebreaker procedure this off season.
No, the Trojans haven't really played anyone of note except for Ohio State and maybe Oregon, but it's how their D has played that I'm impressed with. For example, against their other, non-USC opponents, Ohio State averaged over 30 points a game. Oregon averaged over 44, Arizona averaged over 40, and Cal averaged over 34 - USC held them all to 10 or under. So even though their opponents might not have been great, USC's D made them look borderline inept. It is a shame that we won't get to see what they'd be able to do against a Big12 South team, but Penn State's offense is pretty potent, though I tend to think it'll be more of the same too.
As far as undefeated seasons go, I think you're right, Phil. An undefeated season is rare, and one-loss teams do need to be able to point to a strong SoS to distinguish themselves. But it's a double-edged sword since it's easier to go undefeated if you play cupcakes, and if you're undefeated and play in a BCS conference you're basically on top.
It's a risk that a lot of coaches and teams are willing to take - just look at Texas Tech and Alabama this year. They played extremely easy non-conf schedules (yes, Bama's non-conf was easy - Clemson was vastly overrated and the other three were cupcakes). It's worked out for Alabama since they're undefeated, and though Texas Tech is a one-loss, they're not getting consideration any more not because they played two I-AA teams but because they got destroyed in their one loss.
Sure Oklahoma went semi-tough with Cincy and TCU (I think they knew what they were getting, which I give them props for - http://thenationalchampionshipissue.blogspot.com/2008/01/oklahoma-non-conf-scheduling.html). That's definitely helped them out, and I hope a lot of other teams see that and recognize the value of playing a tough non-conf schedule.
If you ask me, they shouldn't allow any games against I-AA teams to count for bowl qualification. If you want the revenue that comes with a guaranteed win over a cupcake, that's fine, but you've gotta give up standing and a little bowl consideration to get it. I'm not saying that teams shouldn't be allowed to play I-AA teams, but I think they should be forced to choose - you get either an easy W and revenue or you take a step closer to a good post-season bowl. Don't give them both, that just reinforces negative (scheduling cupcakes) behavior.
Post a Comment