Blogpoll Final Ballot: Week 9
 |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas |  3 |
| 2 | Alabama |  1 |
| 3 | Florida | |
| 4 | Iowa | 2 |
| 5 | Cincinnati | |
| 6 | Oregon | 4 |
| 7 | Boise State | 2 |
| 8 | TCU | 1 |
| 9 | LSU | 1 |
| 10 | Georgia Tech | 2 |
| 11 | Houston | |
| 12 | Penn State | 1 |
| 13 | Southern Cal | 7 |
| 14 | Pittsburgh | 2 |
| 15 | Notre Dame | 3 |
| 16 | Ohio State | 1 |
| 17 | Oklahoma State | 2 |
| 18 | Virginia Tech | 4 |
| 19 | Arizona | |
| 20 | Miami (Florida) | |
| 21 | Wisconsin | 1 |
| 22 | California | 1 |
| 23 | Utah | 2 |
| 24 | Auburn | |
| 25 | Texas Tech | |
| Last week's ballot | ||
Why yes, that does indeed look very similar to the first draft
Only one big change from the draft ballot. As someone mentioned in the comments, Texas's resume looks better than Alabama's now that all of Alabama's opponents have waned in recent weeks (OMG the SEC is just too strong to have any good teams other than the top two). That pushes the Longhorns to the top of the poll.
The other major quibble people had in the comments was where to rank Boise and Oregon in relation to each other. A lot of people said "Head to head, Boise must be first," and the counter-argument is "You can't rank teams based on one game." I clearly fall into the latter camp, as you can see by the ballot to your left.
Despite Boise head-to-head victory, and even their better overall record, I am of the opinion that the Ducks have put together a better overall resume to this point. Ironically, many of those pushing for Boise State to be moved past Oregon were saying things like
"In those cases, you have other data points,"
which, dude, that's an argument against your position, not for it. The two teams' respective resumes are below, along with the Sagarin ratings and records of all their opponents. You can decide for yourself what you think, I say it tips in favor of the Ducks. If enough people can put together MULTIPLE DATA POINTS and come up with legit reasons for Boise to take the crown, I'm all ears. "They stay ahead until they lose" is not legit, it's idiotic AP Poll-ism.
The only other qualm people brought up in the comments was potentially moving TCU past Boise State. For now, the main reason I left it as-is was that I didn't want to separate Oregon and Boise by more than one poll position. This week, they play relatively similar opponents in San Diego State and Louisiana Tech. If there's a big enough difference in their outcomes, I'll consider a move.
| Oregon | Boise State | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 47-20 #9 USC 6-2 | 19-8 #2 Oregon (7-1) | Slight Boise |
| 2 | 42-3 #16 California (6-2) | 51-34 #32 Fresno (5-3) | Big Oregon |
| 3 | 31-24 #20 Utah (7-1) | 49-14 #88 Bowling Green (3-5) | Medium Oregon |
| 4 | 43-19 #38 Washington (3-5) | 28-21 #92 Tulsa (4-4) | Big Oregon |
| 5 | 24-10 #45 UCLA (3-5) | 45-7 #98 San Jose State (1-6) | Big Oregon |
| 6 | 38-36 #79 Purdue (3-6) | 54-9 #123 Hawaii (2-6) | Push |
| 7 | 52-6 #119 Washington State (1-7) | 34-16 #136 UC Davis (4-4) | Big Oregon |
| 8 | 8-19 #6 Boise (8-0) | 48-0 #145 Miami NTM (1-8) | Big Boise |
| H2H | L @ Boise, 8-19 | W v. Oregon, 19-8 | Medium Boise |
That is all.
Due to "popular" demand:
http://jimharbaughscramble.blogspot.com/
Nobody said they were the best team. They have, however, assembled the best resume at this point.
Varsity Blue
You guys are idiots... Boise beat tar out of Oregon and the score could have been much more decively had Boise not turned the ball over as they were getting ready to score. They should not be penalized because they beat who is on their schedule. Not many teams have the guts to schedule Boise home or away. Oregon has many opportunities to impress because of the conference they play in and they deserve credit for those victories. Could the PAC 10 beat over rated this year, maybe, maybe not. Oregon's success just helps bolster Boise's creditability. But when a team gets thoroughly dominated by another then you have no choice but to rank the victor ahead of the other especially if it is undefeated. Boise has beat who they have played and all convincingly with the exception of Tulsa.
Because they play in an INFERIOR conference, that is actually less talented than the MAC. That's just a fact. If Toledo would have been 12-0 last year with a victory over Michigan, would you have supported them as being worthy of the BCS title game? Sounds like you would, and that my friend, is idiotic.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
Michigan wasn't a top 10 team. No sugar coat. Boise does have that, which is much better than your normal non-automatic qualifying conference unbeaten. A better example may be Utah last year who had wins over Michigan and Oregon State. If they'd played Alabama in the regular season, they'd been a shoe in having a top 10 win and a very respectable win over Oregon State. Utah also had a little more respect coming from the MWC.
Likewise, if Boise had at least one more major win, I think they'd have something more to lean on. If they played in a better conference, they'd have something to lean on. They just don't.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
Michigan sucked last year; they don't count as a big win. Oregon State was comparable to (if not a little worse than) Fresno State. So Utah finished undefeated and had their sole great win over Alabama. Now if Alabama were undefeated going into that game (pretend the Florida game never happened), would you have still ranked them above Utah? Of course not. Utah won convincingly (although less convincingly then Boise State over Oregon), had no losses, and thus deserved to be ranked above them.
First, a couple of side points, Oregon State(#24) was a 9-4 team that was in the Pac10 hunt until the final game of the season. They were much better than Fresno State. Second, Utah also beat a pair of top 20 teams in TCU(#7) and BYU(#25).
That schedule is comparable to Alabama's, and as I've said previously, if the schedule is comparable, then I'm for head-to-head being the determining factor.
I'll also point out that I think there is a difference between regular season and BCS bowls. BCS polls in the regular season are the play-in. Your whole body of work is the goal. Once you get into the BCS, that is the final determinant. Qualifying is over.
I say this because in order to get into the BCS, you should have to prove yourself through a rigorous schedule (again, schedules have to be comparable). So again, that's why head to head in the BCS bowl is different than a head to head in the season.
Boise State's schedule this year isn't comparable to Oregon. It hardly holds a candle. That's why I don't think head-to-head is the determining factor.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
Oregon State was definitely better than Fresno. I think I must have mixed the years when I was looking through ESPN.
At any rate, while Utah's conference play included decent teams in TCU (who was actually good) and BYU (who beat nobody worthwhile and probably shouldn't have been ranked), the Alabama win occurred when Mark Ingram wasn't 100%, which resulted in only 31 rushing yards for Alabama, meaning that they had to beat them through the air. Boise State, meanwhile, beat a perfectly healthy Oregon team.
And to continue my general theme here about how it is complete bullshit to deny non-BCS conference teams the right to play for the national Championship.
2008 Utah vs. Top 25: 5-0, vs. Top 10: 2-0
2008 Florida vs. Top 25: 4-1, vs. Top 10: 2-0
The quality of opponent that Florida played that was ranked outside the top 25 was somewhat higher than Utah's. But does that justify ranking Florida above Utah when Utah went undefeated against a reasonably strong schedule. I would say absolutely not. Utah played a championship calibur season and had every right to play in the National Championship game and was disallowed in favor of Oklahoma.
2008 Oklahoma vs. Top 25: 4-2, vs. Top 10: 1-2
There is a large faction of college football fans and media that are inherently biased against mid-majors because they play weak conference schedules. That doesn't mean that they can't field good teams. Mid-majors have a 3-1 record in BCS games (the loser being Hawaii, who played perhaps the weakest schedule in history to get a berth). This is a better winning percentage (I know it's a small sample size) then any BCS conference.
First, general note: Your numbers are for the entire season including bowls. So selection of the team to the MNC would be between a OU team that was 3-1 against the top 25 and 1-1 against the top 10 going in and a Utah team that was 4-0 against top 25 and 1-0 against the top 10.
Second, That made the comparison for who to send to the MNC that much tougher. Comparing a 1 game difference is much closer than a 2 game difference, especially when that loss was to the team that arguably should have gone to the MNC instead of OU.
The whole circle of death in the Big12 South really left a bad taste in my mouth. At the time, I thought Texas was surely the better team, but they were jobbed. So bias had me saying it should have been Texas not OU in the title game, probably overlooking Utah entirely.
Looking back on it now, I think what hurt Utah more than anything was how shaky of a top 10 team TCU was. The Horned Frogs had only beaten a shaky BYU team. The rest of their schedule was pretty pedestrian (wins against UDub and UCLA weren't worth much last year). TCU didn't get their second win over a ranked opponent until they beat Boise in the bowl game. People just didn't know enough about them at the time.
Since Utah's best win was either a shaky TCU/BYU team or an Oregon State team that faded a bit down the stretch, I could see voters being a little skeptical, and I think that's fair.
Was it right in the end? Probably not. Was it fair? I think you could say so.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
My original point was that the AP voters, at least, should have voted Utah #1 if going by resume voting because Utah finished undefeated with a slightly weaker schedule, which should trump a 13-1 record. I threw in Oklahoma as a side note.
I too, feel that Texas probably deserved a shot at Florida. However, I wouldn't have ranked Oklahoma over Utah in that situation, especially as Texas Tech had a shaky end to the season with a close win over Baylor and Oklahoma was a poor defensive team. At the time, I was understanding of the decision to place Oklahoma above Utah because they beat TCU by much more than Utah did. At the same time, one team finished undefeated against a decent schedule, the other didn't.
In the end, my main problem with the situation is that if Notre Dame (or any other big name school for that matter) were to have played the same schedule that Utah did and went undefeated, then they would have played for the championship. And I think that if Notre Dame did exactly what Boise State has done thus far, there would be no discussion of ranking Oregon over them (well, there would be here, but that's because we hate Notre Dame).
Yeah, I think I agree with just all about all of that.
That said, I think you've got to look at how Iowa and Cincy are being talked about right now, too. They're kind of getting the Utah treatment. It'll be interesting to see the final shakedown.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
At the end of the day, I don't see Iowa being passed by a one-loss Oregon or LSU team, particularly with wins over OSU (who is overrated; their offense is possibly worse than Iowa's) and PSU. Probably won't happen to Cincy either, unless the rest of the Big East rips itself apart and it appears that Cincy has no quality wins at the end of the year.
I'm not sold that a one loss LSU won't jump one or some of the undefeated. If they defeat Alabama, then they beat Florida in the SEC championship game, what happens then? Do you think the pollsters leave the SEC champ out of the title game if Iowa, Cincy, TCU, and Boise all go undefeated? I could see Cincy being hard to exclude. Even Iowa and TCU have a really sound argument, but do the pollsters leave out their beloved SEC, especially if LSU gets two top 5 wins over the next 5 weeks, including the SEC title game? Someone's going to get shafted in that scenario.
I don't think Oregon has enough left on the schedule to make major jumps (assuming, as I've probably beaten into the ground, they have already passed Boise). Oregon only has Arizona left who is ranked. After that, the only other one loss team with perhaps enough schedule left to make a run is Pitt who has ND and Cincy. That seems infinitely unlikely.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
LSU probably still wouldn't have the quantity of quality wins to match Iowa or Cincy in the computer polls. I imagine that the human polls would break just about even, and the computer polls would rank one of them (probably Iowa) number 2. TCU and Boise would get passed though (and in that scenario, they should because there's no head-to-head).
I personally hope that the BCS screws over multiple teams this year, as every year the BCS screws up, we come closer to a playoff.
that Boise tried to get a Home/Home with Michigan and/or other elite programs hard enough, check out Bruce Feldman on Twitter:
"Boise thru ESPN reached out to 10 elite programs offering to host BSU in 2011. No one accepted. WAC Commish just told me he's not surprised." Next tweet: "Boise wasn't even askin 4 a home-and-home, just 1 road game. Said WAC's Karl Benson "It's one of the consequences of Boise State's success."
This is why I don't penalize Boise for the UC-Davis game. They most likely tried to schedule someone better, but were summarily turned down. And then, after they beat someone who will schedule them, they're told their body of work isn't enough to be ranked over the team they manhandled. This isn't '07 Hawaii we're talking about here.
You guys are certifiably insane.
I think everyone can agree that Boise St, TCU, BYU and Utah have been far and away the best mid-major teams this decade. The other three schools all managed to play two BCS teams this year.
Looking back on their schedule since 2002 it seems like they only play BCS teams that will give them a home-and-away series. That's probably great for their athletic department but when it restricts the number of good teams they play, it's bad for their chances at a national championship. I don't know what to make of Feldman/Benson's comments but they haven't recently scheduled any one-off road games.
Mid-major teams have to play at least two BCS conference teams in order to rightly deserve a BCS bowl berth. We all saw what happened when Hawaii crushed their incredibly soft schedule to reach 13-0 and then met Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. Boise St should just join the MWC and then that would become a BCS conference.
While Boise State would make the league more competitive, there is also a much greater potential for the teams to destroy each other's hopes for a BCS game if they don't become a BCS conference. And the rest of the conference probably doesn't want another team around that would beat the snot out of them with regularity.
Here's why I blame them for the UC Davis game, they only won 34-16. Comparatively, Fresno State beat them 54-0.
I have a long, rambling comment coming soon in reply to a comment further up. Out in a bit.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
It's a mark against them, but at the same time, every team in the country has a letdown game or two against vastly inferior competition. Nobody was saying that Michigan should be ranked below a one-loss Florida team in '06 despite winning only two games of consequence (ND, who turned out to suck against everyone good, and Wisconsin) early in the season, after a very close call against a terrible Ball State team. The reason was that they had beaten some good teams and were undefeated.
Do you hold Iowa's crappy wins similarly against them?
I do. I think they're fine where they are in the human polls. They don't deserve to be on top with the Florida/Texas/Bama group. I think they're ~= TCU. The Penn State win might balance out the week 1 block FG game. Both teams have other close games against questionable foes.
I could call Oregon on par with Iowa, but I may give Iowa the benefit of the doubt for no losses. I give Iowa the definite nod over Boise because the schedule. This just furthers my other comments, if Boise's schedule was slightly comparable to Oregon's, BSU would be ahead.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
Oh, and I can't remember who was arguing this, but to say that "Boise State could have beat them by a lot more if it weren't for a few costly fumbles" is wrong as well. That's like saying if Michigan would have converted on that goal line stand, the game would be different. We didn't score. The game isn't different.
They won by a smaller margin by making mistakes. You can't discount those mistakes.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
I agree, but Boise State still beat the crap out of them. 154 yards of total offense is domination no matter which way you slice it.
You could if they were roughly equal. If this were Oregon and Cal, or OSU vs. PSU, then people would be right to say head to head wins. But since we're talking about a school that plays in an inferior conference against inferior opponents, a conference that has fewer players go the NFL than the MAC does, and you are matching them against a team that simply destroyed USC in a way that not even their most ardent supporters, or politically correct pollsters would ever acknowledge that Boise could do, then you are quite justified Tim. No apologies.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
The head to head is in the table 3 times (once a slight edge, once a medium, and once a big edge to Boise, I guess we can thank god that they all at least edged Boise's way). The game also makes it into looking at this a different way 3 times (and constitutes every single point, on whatever scale that is, Boise State gets).
I think it is interesting that the quality of Oregon's play is increasing with time (with the exception of the Masoli less @UCLA game).
9/03 @ No. 14 Boise State 0-1 (0-0) L 19-8
9/12 Purdue 1-1 (0-0) W 38-36
9/19 No. 18 Utah 2-1 (0-0) W 31-24
9/26 No. 6 California 3-1 (1-0) W 42-3
10/03 Washington State 4-1 (2-0) W 52-6
10/10 @ UCLA 5-1 (3-0) W 24-10
10/24 @ Washington 6-1 (4-0) W 43-19
10/31 No. 5 USC 7-1 (5-0) W 47-20
Given the schedule I think it would be much more difficult to finish Oregon's with one loss than Boise State's undefeated. Given Boise State's conference I don't think you can let them get away with scheduling like they are Ohio State (2 MAC, 1 1-AA, 1 CUSA and 1 BCS on the out of conference schedule).
I think the whole head to head thing gets blown totally out of proportion. In a league where you play a round robin it's a great tiebreaker, but there are so many circumstances that go into each game that it is impossible to make a fair evaluation. Injuries are a huge factor, where they fall in the schedule is also important. You need to look at the season in whole and weigh it together. The Texas fans last year drove me nuts. "We beat Okl head to head" wah wah wah. You had a case if Texas Tech didn't have the same case against you that everyone just dismissed.
PLEASE NOTE: Oregon now has MORE (underline, bold italics) injuries than it did against Boise State. It was a MORE complete squad when they played Boise than they are now. Why can't anyone wrap their heads around the idea that Boise State might just be the best team that Oregon has played all year.
I guess a good team can;t have an off day in its first game against a decent opponent in your view. If you think in any world, under any scenario, that Boise's players are as good as SC, go right ahead. I think that is absolutely ridiculous, and is contradicted by every single thing we know about talent and every talent measurement we have.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
I wonder if Tim think the Patriots are the true NFL Champs in 2007-08. Or the Giants last year. Thankfully, he does not have a say in that. Thankfully, the NFL does not determiine things through things like votes and biases and agendaa.
Ranking Boise ahead of Oregon due to head to head might be idiotic AP-ism, but putting a team behind a club that it thouroughly dominated in the same season is idiotic coach poll-ism.
No Sugarcoat.
www.justcoverblog.com
God Bless Your Cotton Pickin' Maize & Blue Hearts
Jamie, I do generally agree with you, but there's one simple fact against Boise.
BOTH TEAMS HAVE PLAYED MORE THAN ONE GAME THIS YEAR. Aside from the Oregon game, Boise has done absolutely shit. Aside from the Boise game, Oregon has gone out and dominated a number of teams.
Varsity Blue
Here's why I disagree with that example:
Regular Season:
Patriots over Giants
Boise State over Oregon
Playoff/BCS-trend:
Giants over Patriots
Oregon over Boise State
The one regular season game doesn't define anything. It's how you finish. As the BCS poll is a "if the season finished today" outlook, Oregon has finished better right now, just like the Giants finished better in the SuperBowl.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
You would have put the Giants over the Patriots if you had to rank them before the '08 playoffs? Boise State won when the two schools played. They are, IMO, the best team Oregon has played all year. Oregon seemed offensively fine the next week, putting up 38 on Purdue and 31 on Utah, two teams that have decent defenses. Also implicit in everyone's analysis is that USC is a good team. This very well might not be true since they were almost beaten by Ohio State and Oregon State and actually lost to Washington. Losing to Washington is like losing to Purdue, which is why Ohio State is not a good team this year. Also, Cal blows. They have beaten no one of consequence this season and been manhandled by anyone good.
Boise and Oregon scheduled a game this year so people would know who was better between the two of them. Boise won that game by thoroughly dominating Oregon in a manner that had not occured since Chip Kelly took over as O-Coordinator. I remember the last time the Ducks had a big road non-conference game at Michigan. They pounded Michigan, in the ass, and made us look stupid in the big house. Boise State gets a visit from UO, beats them handily, and now everyone wants to just write off the clear, on the field result.
There is no point in playing games if you can go undefeated and still get jumped by a team who ass you beat purple.
I was actually kind of confused by how jaimemac phrased his statement as well, but as this conversation has continued, it's not the primary or even secondary point.
My initial point is saying that Boise must stay ahead of Oregon until they lose can't be a blanket statement. If Boise doesn't appear to be a better team as the season goes on, they shouldn't be ranked higher. The Broncos haven't appeared to be the better team.
Oregon has demolished teams of consequence. Boise State has struggled at times with two teams that are arguably worse than everyone not named Washington State on Oregon's schedule. Do not get to levy criticism of those games just because Boise won? I don't think so.
Again, I'm not writing off any result, I'm looking at ALL the results. If Boise State was doing things comparable to what Oregon has done, I'd say sure, the head-to-head is a solid tie breaker. They haven't. There is no tie. Oregon has played like the better team over the course of the season.
Non-football example. I'm going to give you 12 payments of hypothetical cash. You have the choice of having a big lump sum of hypothetically $50 in the first installment followed by 11 payments of hypothetically $1. You're second option is to have the first payment be $1 and the following 11 payments to be a hypothetical $30. Which is the better hypothetical deal? The second. The second is Oregon, who's wins are a much higher value.
Another point here is that if Boise really wanted to be in this conversation, Miami(OH), Tulsa, Bowling Green, and UC Davis would be better teams or at minimum, the Broncos dominate everyone on their schedule (if it's that hard to get bigger name opponents). You criticize the teams that Oregon has beat, how about you criticize those, especially Tulsa or Fresno, on Boise's schedule. You can say that USC and Cal aren't great teams, but they are leaps and bounds better than Fresno or Tulsa. Oregon dominated USC and Cal. BSU struggled with Tulsa and Fresno (and to some extent UC Davis, seeing as Fresno dominated them 51-0 while Boise only beat them 34-16).
When it comes to the head-to-head, it's obvious that Oregon had an off day. That happens even to the really good teams now and again. If you were to play Oregon vs Boise State 100 times, that wouldn't happen every time. That's what sucks about football and the push for a playoff. One game playoffs don't really tell you who's the better team for that year. They tell you who was the better team that day. That day, Boise was the better team. From everything I see all year, Oregon is the better team.
That's why you keep playing games. It's not about the chance of one result, even if it is head to head. You keep playing games to show that hey, that game was just an off day. We're better than that. That's the point of playing games.
I think there is more than enough fair criticism of Boise State right now. The ONLY thing that leans in favor of the Broncos over Oregon is the head to head match up, and that's not such a big deal when looked at a wider scope of the season.
We want the top two teams to play for the MNC. That's not decided on one night in September, that's decided over 3.5 months.
Oh, and what the hell does Michigan vs Oregon 2007 have anything to do with anything on this topic?
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
Well, the Giants were had to win a playoff in order to win the Super Bowl. Furthermore, they actually had to win a H2H against the Patriots. If the college football season is a playoff, you can't just throw out the first week because you don't like the result.
I disagree that the college season is a 100% playoff. It's a poorly configured pool play with subjective tie breakers. It's a play-in, not a play-off.
I'm not throwing out any result. Quite the contrary, those who say head-to-head matter more are throwing out seven other results (as Tim says, data points). Those seven other results make Oregon look like the much better team. They've beat 3 top 25 teams including USC and Cal more than convincingly. Boise hasn't dominated anyone comparable to that level, not even Oregon.
Going back to the Giants, they lost to the Patriots, but they earned their way back into playing for the title. If that regular season game would make the difference, they wouldn't have played the Super Bowl. Same thing with the Broncos/Ducks. Oregon lost early, they've made a run (same caveat about rankings being if the season ended today), they deserve to be above Boise.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
If this was theoretically:
* Boise beat ACME St
* Oregon lost to ACME St
* Boise is still undefeated, Oregon has 1-loss against significantly stronger competition, therefore Oregon wins, I can buy that.
But we have such a defintive head-to-head matchup between two schools, you HAVE to take that into account. I fear that if Oregon jumps Boise, then there is almost no way ever a non-BCS school can ever compete for a national title. And if you're going to call the lower teams "D-I" teams and let big boys rack victories up against the Troy St's and other Sun Belt / non-BCS fodder and derive benefit FOR this, then you have to hold the losses to these lesser teams against them as well.
One Div-I (FBS) team beat a comparable Div-I (FBS) team and the records are comparable. You have to hold the loser accountable.
"So I come out of Ohio Stadium after we beat the Buckeyes, and right there on the hood of my friend's car, some one took a dump, in the shape of an 'O'. no shit. Oh, sorry, bad pun."
Sorry about that.
This is why Boise MUST stay in front. If they'd lost a game elsewhere, duh. I'm not a head-to-head purist when both teams have a loss. If Oregon's loss had been to some other Boise-level team and BSU had beaten some other Oregon-level team instead, there's at least an argument as to which resume is stronger (and I might well come down on Oregon's side there). But if a team can win out for an entire season and still end up behind someone they beat, then what was the goddamn point of them playing the games at all? They did everything in their control to prove themselves better, and you ignore it. Might as well split the MWC, WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA off into Division 1-One-and-a-half-A and let them have fight for their own national title, because you've already shown that under no circumstances are they going to be allowed to compete for this one, events on the field be damned.
way ever a non-BCS team can ever compete for the BCS title."
Hooray. Why would you fear that? I fear ever turning on a BCS title game and seeing Boise, Houston, TCU in the game.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
If a non-bcs team deserves it, why shouldn't they play for the national championship? Again, Boise beat the pants off of what many of you are calling a top 5 team. How is that somehow indicative of an inferior on field product?
unless there is no other evidence to separate teams. And no one, not Chris Peterson, not his Mom, nor any of his players, think they would have any chance to put the pounding on SC that Oregon just did, which is unprecedented. Between Boise and Oregon, there is a tone of evidence to separate them.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
USC has two good wins: OSU and Notre Dame. Both were very close contests. They also have a very questionable loss to a mediocre Washington team and just got pounded by the team that Boise State dominated earlier in the season. There is no reason to suppose that Boise State couldn't kill USC this year either.
You and I will never find common ground then, though I respect your opinion. If you don't believe that Boise's collection of mainly 2 and sometimes 3 star talent, every year, is worse than USC, then more power to you. Does that mean it's impossible that they could win a matchup? No, as we know upsets happen. But if you think Boise could put up 400 yards on the ground and 600 total on SC, as Oregon did, ok. You must be one of those guys that think recruiting rankings don't matter and that there is not a difference in top teams from different conferences, or talent levels of different conferences. I happen to believe that there are, and that the players Boise recruits are, with some exceptions, players that are not considered good enough to play for teams in any BCS conference. Then they validate that by not getting into the NFL either. The WAC had less people drafted every year than the MAC does.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
West Virginia's 2005 team that went 11-1 and won a BCS game against Georgia had a total of three four star recruits in the three years leading up to their win. The majority of the team consisted of two star recruits, with a respectable smattering of three star recruits. Boise State has recruited on a similar level.
Both teams recruited system players, and relied on good coaching and disciplined yet innovative approaches to win games. Boise State has been doing this all decade, and once Rodriguez landed on his feet in West Virginia, he managed to do the same. This approach yields less talent of the highest calibur, but can result in great teams.
For the record, recruiting rankings matter. They highly correlate to individual performance at a collegiate level. However, they do not necessarily correlate to team performance because team performance is generally at its peak when everyone's skills and potential are utilized, which can transcend recruiting rankings.
They struggled against Fresno State and Tulsa. This is the same reason Iowa is considered worse than Texas, Alabama, or Florida despite Iowa having a higher number of wins over BCS teams and wins over ranked opponents.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
If you don't allow non-BCS teams to compete in the national championship, then why should they bother competing at all. At least in the NCAA tournament, a non-big conference team has a theoretical chance.
I personally hope that Oregon does jump Boise for the national title. That way, when the MWC and the WAC sue the BCS under anti-trust laws (or whatever it is they would use, I'm in engineering school, not law), they'll win, and we can get rid of the whole system and institute a playoff.
No it doesn't. What do you think they did for the 80 or so years they've played football, most of which they never stood a chance to play in a bowl game? There are tons of schools in inferior conferences that know they have no chance at the BCS game (or in the past, at the big bowl games). Status quo.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
They used to have a shot at the national title. That's how schools like BYU won them. Furthermore, the national title didn't used to be the main goal in college football, for the precise reason that there are too many teams, no playoffs, and the selection method is subjective. Instead, the main goal was winning the conference.
Times have changed. Schools in inferior conferences do have a shot at a BCS bowl, by going undefeated. Before the season begins, every school stands a chance at having an undefeated season and has a theoretical chance at making it to a BCS bowl. However, not every school has a shot at the national championship, not because of the talent on their team, but because there is a system that prohibits them from competing for it before the season starts. This is why people hate the BCS in the first place, because it is a system in which your team does not control its own destiny. Instead, idiotic voters in the Harris poll and coaches who don't pay attention to the rest of the country do.
the point I was making was regarding the title game. And Boise never did, nor did most inferior conference teams, have a chance at the championship pre-BCS. BYU was controversial at the time, but BYU was also a more prominent team back then than they are today, as they had consistent QB candidates for Heisman. And I do not like the BCS either, in fact I'd prefer the old system to it, but I'm arguing under the system we have. Boise has a great chance every year now to go to a BCS Bowl, and that is great motivation--I was respondent to a point that said they have no motivation--that is not true IMO.
And one last point regarding the BCS--it's purpose is to have the #1 and 2 teams meet in the final game, which was the chief criticism of the old system. Therefore it can't be about only on-field merit, as a playoff system is the only way to get to that. So it remains a system of perception within the polls, (unfortunately). and in that system, there is no way an inferior conference team can ever be considered for the title game, because I can't conceive of a scenario where I would ever believe that a WAC team was better than even the third place finisher in the SEC, for example. And I think everything we know about talent supports that.
MGoBlog "Circle Jerker"
Your version of resume ranking is somewhat simplistic, because you simply rank the wins and compare them all head-to-head for quality. Furthermore, you do not seem to be taking anything into account other than the score (Boise State dominated Oregon, and the score differential would have been much bigger if not for a few sloppy mistakes and running the ball a lot once it was clear that time was a factor at the beginning of the fourth quarter) yet you only give Boise a medium edge in the head-to-head result).
I would compare each team's wins against similar opponents, using the following statification system: games v. top 10, games v. 10-25, games v. 25-50, games v. 50-100, games v. 100+. This makes sense because an elite team should never, under any circumstance, be losing to a team above #50 and should sleepwalking against FCS schools and teams that might lose to FCS schools. Furthermore, I would give a increased weight to the head-to-head, because there is no head-to-head tree that puts Oregon over Boise.
Results:
Top 10 (weight = 8)
Oregon: (USC, blowout; Boise State, non-competitive loss)
Boise State: (Oregon, non-competitive win)
Edge: Boise State (medium, +2)
10-25 (weight = 4)
Oregon: (Cal, blowout; Utah, competitive win)
Boise State: None
Edge: Oregon (extra huge, +5)
25-50 (weight = 2)
Oregon: (Washington, blowout; UCLA, non-competitive win)
Boise State (Fresno, blowout)
Edge: None
50-100 (weight = 1)
Not going to bother listing every game, it's an obvious draw.
100+ (weight = 0.5)
Edge: Oregon (slight, +1)
H2H (weight=4)
Edge: Boise State (big, +3)
Final Score
Oregon: 5*4 + 1*0.5 = 20.5
Boise State: 2*8 + 3*4 = 28