Sunday, December 02, 2007

A Total Farce

So, with the losses of the two most “plausible” BCS title teams we are left with a situation that is a total, irrevocable farce. The BCS is indefensible at this point, and any so called “champion” that comes from it a fraud.

Here’s what we have (All schedule strengths based on NCAA standings) -

- An assumed “number one” team that lost at home (to Zook no less) while playing the 48th toughest schedule in the nation. They won their conference after playing 12 games, a conference without a conference championship game.

- A number of contestants in the beauty contest for “number two” that include (in relative order) –

- A two loss conference champion (via championship game) that played the nation’s 24th toughest schedule but lost to 7-5 and 8-4 conference opponents. However, both losses occurred in triple overtime on a failure to complete the requisite 2 point conversions. They also played 13 games.

- Another two loss conference champion (via championship game) that, to its credit, played the nation’s 3rd hardest schedule, but lost to the team above 48-7, and at home to the conference opponent it later beat. They played 13 games.

-Another two loss conference champion (via championship game) that played the nation’s 39th toughest schedule, but had terrible losses 6-6 and 8-4 conference opponents. 13 games were played.

- Yet another 2 loss conference champion, this one without a conference title game, but did play every conference opponent in a 12 game schedule. However, they played the nation’s 80th ranked schedule and lost to a 4-8 conference opponent at home, and another 8-4 conference foe on the road.

- A two loss team that didn’t even get to play for its conference title, lost at home to a 6-6 conference opponent and was soundly beaten by a team that lost the conference title game. Yet, they played the nation’s 25th hardest schedule, have won 6 in a row, are 4-0 against ranked teams. However, they played only 12 games.

Moreover, the following are evidently totally eliminated –

- An undefeated team that played 12 games, but played the nation’s 117th ranked schedule.

- A one loss team that only lost to an 11-2 conference opponent. But, they played the nation’s 81st toughest schedule, didn’t compete for their conference title, and played only 12 games.

You can make various credible arguments for any of the two loss teams to play in the “title” game. Hell, you can make perfectly reasonable arguments that many of those teams are more deserving than the assumed “number one” who played but 12 games against the 48th hardest schedule.

The difference between the 1 loss team that is a “lock” and the 1 loss team that is evidently to be excluded outright? Well, that’s the difference between a 48th ranked and 81st ranked schedule, which is (opponents W/L record) –

48th ranked – 60-55
81st ranked – 53-62

So the difference between manifest destiny and automatic exclusion is 7 wins of your total opponents, or 6% of the total win-loss record.

It is perfectly alright to enjoy this fine mess as the nature of college football, and that which makes it so great and exciting. However, it you buy into that thesis, you cannot believe that a “national champion” exists in even the remotest sense of the word under our current “system”.

Lastly, assuming it is to be Ohio State against LSU, one can almost hear the sighs of despair from Columbus. Another Buckeye evisceration at the hands of an SEC will set the Big Ten and Ohio State back decades. Good luck with that match-up OSU, especially with the Tigers given a month to heal.


Anonymous said...

Heavens to Mergzatroid, Batman!

All this ranting and raving is irrelevant!

All this time spent blogging will do nothing more than make your wife dislike you and your kiddies miss you!

Accept, Grasshopper, accept!

Your article is premised on the argument that strength of schedule is a meaningful substitute for the BCS rankings, or alternatively, that the BCS rankings are flawed since they do not, at least take into account strength of schedule.

How on earth can it be objectively, and statistically determined that the existing strenght of schedule determination formula accurately determines strength schedule?

It can't.

Both the BCS and the Strength of Schdule measures, though separate, are equally faith based arguments.

And, doesn't it puff up your mighty Gaytors that the team that marched up and down the field..and up and down the field....and up and down the field on them during one of the most dominating halves of football played this season will play for all the marbles?

And, doesn't this situation, which arises in one form or another most years, provide fodder for the baseline of this blog and guarantee your continued cyberexistence?

Does not this situation result in continued hits to your blog which, is at least an attempted commercial enterprise (I do note a store with some feebly designed wares), thus creating the faint possibility of commercial success?

And, of course, the moneymen will make money and SEC will end up getting more than any other conference since they will likely end up with two BCS teams and have favorable positions in 3 of the other 4 well-moneyed games: Peach, Outback and Citrus?

I urge you, relax...sit back, light a cigar and enjoy!

Next Year Cometh Anon and your Gaytos should be favorites to win it all!

Henry Louis Gomez said...

You missed the whole point of the post. It's not that SoS is the or the BCS are infallible, just the opposite. There are so many ways to slice this pie that none is more valid than the others.

And for the record, our being Gators has no bearing on the discussion. We've denounced the BCS since the beginning of this blog, and even after the Gators won under the system.

We're college football fans that want to see a legitimate champion crowned. That's all.

Anonymous said...

No Senor Slowmez, you miss the point.

The post, hereinafter referred to as the "farce post" is a farce in and of itself as it asserts, based on another faith based statistic, SoS (I am sure you Gaytors reserve the capitalized SOS for references to the sainted Steven Orr Spurrier [Steven Spurrier is to Gainesville as Randolph Scott was to Rock Ridge ]) that whatever results the BCS conjures are going to be inaccurate.

One must further cull the remaining teams in order to determine if there is meaningful criticism of the BCS to be made this year.

LSU walloped Va. Tech and beat a decent Tennessee team with, essentially, the 2nd string D-Line, an injured second string QB and no Ducet for half the game, while losing to a 7 and an 8 win team, each of with an outstanding offense with viable 1st round NFL draft picks ively, each in triple overtime.

As Charlotte wrote in her web, "Some Pig!"

At any rate, Va. Tech is legitimately vanquished.

What of Oklahoma? They lost to stinky Colorado and a Texas Tech team that is the rough equivalent of Kentucky and Arkansas. So, by any standards, one loss worse than LSU.

Ooopsy Stoopsy!

UGA, well they didn't play LSU, LSU beat, with a reduced team, the same UT team that beat UGA. They are legitmately back benched to LSU. Sorry Barry von Richtofen, but Fat Fil Fulmer was your Capt. Brown!

At first blush, perhaps USC could be crying, "Where's the beef?" But they lost to Stanford...Stanford!!!!!!!!!!!
Sit Down, Waldo!

And, let's face it no one who hasn't won their conference deserves a seat at the NC table, under the BCS or a playoff system.

There are 11 conferences in the BCS. There are no meaningful playoff systes devised to date that do not either exclude conference champions or include "at-large" bids. So, as posited, a playoff system ends with the same problem as the BCS...someone named NC without true bona fides.

I shudder at the thought that a team that cannot win it's conference should even be invited to a playoff tournament or that a conference winner would be excluded due to the same considerations that motivate the behaviors of the Big Money Mullahs running the BCS.....advertising dollars.

This by the way, cures the Jayhawks' misguided BCS delusions.

In short, the BCS will present us with a credible LSU in the NC game and all that action kept yesterday's ratings quite high, as it was designed to do and a playoff system could not have resulted in a more credible game.

But you guys do good work here, even though it is something akin to a two-man elephant walk.

Henry Louis Gomez said...

Anonymous, you can pretend that I read your comment and disagree with it. But between you and me, you lost me with the first insult.

Have a great day and thanks for your continued readership.