It's rather amusing to hear the assorted TV knuckleheads bellyache about the computer rankings in the BCS. They don't understand how the computers work. They think the BCS formula gives the computers too much influence. Blah blah blah.
So here's a hint: Don't worry about it.
That's right, don't worry about it. As in, the computers don't make a whit of difference when it comes to the only BCS standings that matter - the final one. It might as well not be part of the formula.
Since the adaptation of the current formula, in 2004 after the hue and cry over the 2003 split championship debacle, every single team that ranked either first or second in the two human polls (AP in 2004, Harris since 2005, and the Coaches poll) played in the BCS national title game.
Let's take a look: (Coaches-AP/Harris)
2004: USC (1-1) vs. Oklahoma (2-2)
2005: USC (1-1) vs. Texas (2-2)
2006: Ohio State (1-1) vs. Florida (2-2)
2007: Ohio State (1-1) vs. LSU (2-2)
2008: Oklahoma (1-2) vs. Florida (2-1)
2009: Alabama (1-1) vs. Texas (2-2)
It's a perfect 12-for-12. If the BCS formula never existed, these teams would've still met for the title anyway.
On the other hand, finishing first or second in the computers meant nothing. A few teams did that and ended up watching the BCS title game on TV:
2006: Michigan (T-2 in computers), lost out to T-2 Florida
2007: Virginia Tech (1), lost out to No. 2 LSU and No. 3 Ohio State
2008: Texas (2), lost out to No. 3 Florida
2009: Cincinnati (2), lost out to No. 3 Texas
For the context of this year, it means that all the speculation about Boise State's computer ratings is mere sound and fury. At the end of the season, it's entirely up to the 173 voters in the Coaches poll and Harris poll to decide whether they're willing to put the Broncos in the top 2 of their ballots.
Take last year for example. The Broncos went undefeated but finished sixth in the Coaches and Harris polls. They also finished sixth in the computer ratings. But if you take No. 2 Texas' poll points and apply them to the Broncos, they would've made it to the BCS title game to face Alabama, despite being sixth in the computers ratings.
See, that's the genius of the current BCS formula. It pretends to be a lot more than what it really is: A beauty pageant. In reality it's no more scientific than the Miss Universe contest or American Idol, but every bit as political. Your knowledge of the voters' biases will produce a better prediction of the final standings than your ability to comprehend Wes Colley's methodology.
So if you're a Broncos fan, curb your enthusiasm over this week's standings that placed Boise State No. 2. And don't get too dismayed when it fell to No. 6 as was the case a week ago. Stop wasting your time trying to figure out the Broncos' strength of schedule. But do put pressure on these voters (if you know how, and here's a little help) to give Boise State a fair shake.
It's just like writing your congressman, and probably just as satisfying and useful. But at least now you know better than to blame the machines.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The Guru's BlogPoll Ballot (Week 5)
The Guru's BlogPoll ballot this week, with a number of changes from last week, particularly Texas being dropped out of the poll altogether. Find the nuggets below:
* Why is Texas dropping from No. 4 to all the way out of the ballot? Simple. The way the Longhorns played this season, especially after getting pistol-whipped by UCLA on Saturday, does not warrant their being included on the ballot. Texas had trouble beating two god-awful teams (Rice and Wyoming), one middling (Texas Tech) and lost to one that couldn't handle Kansas State and was annihilated by Stanford. That's not the resume of a top 25 team and the future isn't all that bright for this ordinary squad, either.
* Alabama and Ohio State flip-flopped for the top two spots. The Tide's stirring comeback over Arkansas, on the road, is a better victory than Ohio State's signature win, a home victory over Miami. 'Bama has beaten two ranked teams (also a rout of Penn State) whereas the Buckeyes mostly toured the MAC.
* Penn State plummets by 10 spots despite a narrow win over Temple. It's not so much that the Owls are awful (they're actually not), but with a few one-loss teams emerging on the ballot, Penn State's place needed to be adjusted. Frankly, the Lions don't deserve to be ranked ahead of Arkansas, who nearly beat Alabama (even though it's at home).
* Other teams considered for this week: Texas, South Carolina, Houston, Florida State, Clemson, Kansas State and Michigan State.
BCS Guru Ballot - Week 5
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama Crimson Tide |  1 |
| 2 | Ohio St. Buckeyes |  -1 |
| 3 | Boise St. Broncos | -- |
| 4 | TCU Horned Frogs | 1 |
| 5 | Oregon Ducks | 2 |
| 6 | Utah Utes | 4 |
| 7 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | -1 |
| 8 | Stanford Cardinal | 7 |
| 9 | Florida Gators | -1 |
| 10 | Oklahoma Sooners | -1 |
| 11 | Nevada Wolf Pack | 10 |
| 12 | Arizona Wildcats | 7 |
| 13 | Wisconsin Badgers | -2 |
| 14 | USC Trojans | -2 |
| 15 | N.C. State Wolfpack | -- |
| 16 | Missouri Tigers | 2 |
| 17 | LSU Tigers | 3 |
| 18 | Iowa Hawkeyes | 4 |
| 19 | Michigan Wolverines | 4 |
| 20 | Auburn Tigers | 4 |
| 21 | Arkansas Razorbacks | -7 |
| 22 | West Virginia Mountaineers | 3 |
| 23 | Penn St. Nittany Lions | -10 |
| 24 | Air Force Falcons | -- |
| 25 | Miami Hurricanes | -- |
| Dropouts: Texas Longhorns, Fresno St. Bulldogs, Pittsburgh Panthers | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings »
* Why is Texas dropping from No. 4 to all the way out of the ballot? Simple. The way the Longhorns played this season, especially after getting pistol-whipped by UCLA on Saturday, does not warrant their being included on the ballot. Texas had trouble beating two god-awful teams (Rice and Wyoming), one middling (Texas Tech) and lost to one that couldn't handle Kansas State and was annihilated by Stanford. That's not the resume of a top 25 team and the future isn't all that bright for this ordinary squad, either.
* Alabama and Ohio State flip-flopped for the top two spots. The Tide's stirring comeback over Arkansas, on the road, is a better victory than Ohio State's signature win, a home victory over Miami. 'Bama has beaten two ranked teams (also a rout of Penn State) whereas the Buckeyes mostly toured the MAC.
* Penn State plummets by 10 spots despite a narrow win over Temple. It's not so much that the Owls are awful (they're actually not), but with a few one-loss teams emerging on the ballot, Penn State's place needed to be adjusted. Frankly, the Lions don't deserve to be ranked ahead of Arkansas, who nearly beat Alabama (even though it's at home).
* Other teams considered for this week: Texas, South Carolina, Houston, Florida State, Clemson, Kansas State and Michigan State.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
A Crystal Ball for Conference Realignment
Colorado is headed to the Pac-10 a year early after posting bail. Nebraska paid its own ransom to be released from the Big 12. BYU has declared independence. The WAC is suing Nevada and Fresno State like a jilted lover.
And the fun is only beginning.
The 2011 season is going to look a lot different from the 2010 season. But take this to the bank: The 2013 season is going to look a lot different from the 2011 season. More teams will move. More BCS berths will be negotiated.
The lynchpin of all this movement will be the Big Ten. Should it decide that adding Nebraska achieved its goals, fine. But should it decide it must have Notre Dame (and three other teams), then look out.
The domino effect will hit the Big 12 and Big East hard. But even if the Big Ten stands pat, the Big 12 might have another play up its sleeve anyway. And that's going to help blowing up the Mountain West, or meld it back with the WAC.
Is your head spinning yet? Good. The Guru will now break it all down.
Let's review the 11 I-A conferences and the independents. What they look like now, what they will look like next year, and what they might look like even before the current BCS contract runs out:
2011 Season-
SEC, ACC, Big East, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt - unchanged from 2010.
Pac-10 - Adds Colorado and Utah in 2011. Two divisions (Washington and Oregon schools plus Colorado and Utah in the North; California and Arizona schools in the South), with the winners meeting in the Pac-12 title game.
Big Ten - Adds Nebraska in 2011. Two division winners meeting in the Big Ten title game.
Big 12 - Loses Nebraska and Colorado in 2011. Conference championship game eliminated.
Mountain West - Loses Utah and BYU and adds Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada (the latter two pending a lawsuit by the WAC).
WAC - Loses Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada. Only six teams remain in the conference.
Independents - BYU joins Notre Dame, Army and Navy.
2013 Season (Scenario 1: Big Ten does nothing)-
Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Sun Belt and Independents - unchanged from 2011.
Big 12 - Adds TCU and Houston. Both added to the South Division with four Texas schools while the North Division has six non-Texas schools. Restores conference title game.
Big East - Adds Villanova (moving up from I-AA).
Conference USA - Loses Houston and adds Temple.
MAC - Loses Temple.
Mountain West* - Loses TCU.
WAC* - Adds Montana (moving up from I-AA).
* The MWC and WAC may decide to merge if, a) Montana stays in I-AA, b) San Jose State drops football or moves down to I-AA, c) Louisiana Tech leaves for the Sun Belt, d) Hawaii becomes independent in football and joins the Big West or WCC in other sports. Should at least two of those scenarios materialize, then a 12- or 14-team new conference is a possibility.
2013 Season (Scenario 2: Big Ten goes for it)-
Pac-10, SEC, ACC and Sun Belt - unchanged from 2011.
MWC, WAC, C-USA and MAC - unchanged from Scenario 1.
Big Ten - Adds Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Missouri and Kansas. Notre Dame and Pittsburgh join the North Division with Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota and Northwestern. Missouri and Kansas join the South Division with Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue and Indiana.
Big 12 - Loses Missouri and Kansas. Adds TCU and Houston. Remains a 10-team conference.
Big East - Loses Pittsburgh and adds Villanova (moving up from I-AA).
Independents - Loses Notre Dame. Army, Navy, BYU and maybe Hawaii remain.
Yes, this is a little hard to digest. But all this maneuvering should make life easier for the BCS. A weakened MWC, without Utah, BYU and also TCU, has no chance of landing an automatic BCS bid. Even a MWC-WAC merger, with no marquee school other than Boise State still in it, should not be enough to produce an AQ-worthy conference.
So as they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Bet you didn't know the BCS was invented by the French.
And the fun is only beginning.
The 2011 season is going to look a lot different from the 2010 season. But take this to the bank: The 2013 season is going to look a lot different from the 2011 season. More teams will move. More BCS berths will be negotiated.
The lynchpin of all this movement will be the Big Ten. Should it decide that adding Nebraska achieved its goals, fine. But should it decide it must have Notre Dame (and three other teams), then look out.
The domino effect will hit the Big 12 and Big East hard. But even if the Big Ten stands pat, the Big 12 might have another play up its sleeve anyway. And that's going to help blowing up the Mountain West, or meld it back with the WAC.
Is your head spinning yet? Good. The Guru will now break it all down.
Let's review the 11 I-A conferences and the independents. What they look like now, what they will look like next year, and what they might look like even before the current BCS contract runs out:
2011 Season-
SEC, ACC, Big East, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt - unchanged from 2010.
Pac-10 - Adds Colorado and Utah in 2011. Two divisions (Washington and Oregon schools plus Colorado and Utah in the North; California and Arizona schools in the South), with the winners meeting in the Pac-12 title game.
Big Ten - Adds Nebraska in 2011. Two division winners meeting in the Big Ten title game.
Big 12 - Loses Nebraska and Colorado in 2011. Conference championship game eliminated.
Mountain West - Loses Utah and BYU and adds Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada (the latter two pending a lawsuit by the WAC).
WAC - Loses Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada. Only six teams remain in the conference.
Independents - BYU joins Notre Dame, Army and Navy.
2013 Season (Scenario 1: Big Ten does nothing)-
Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Sun Belt and Independents - unchanged from 2011.
Big 12 - Adds TCU and Houston. Both added to the South Division with four Texas schools while the North Division has six non-Texas schools. Restores conference title game.
Big East - Adds Villanova (moving up from I-AA).
Conference USA - Loses Houston and adds Temple.
MAC - Loses Temple.
Mountain West* - Loses TCU.
WAC* - Adds Montana (moving up from I-AA).
* The MWC and WAC may decide to merge if, a) Montana stays in I-AA, b) San Jose State drops football or moves down to I-AA, c) Louisiana Tech leaves for the Sun Belt, d) Hawaii becomes independent in football and joins the Big West or WCC in other sports. Should at least two of those scenarios materialize, then a 12- or 14-team new conference is a possibility.
2013 Season (Scenario 2: Big Ten goes for it)-
Pac-10, SEC, ACC and Sun Belt - unchanged from 2011.
MWC, WAC, C-USA and MAC - unchanged from Scenario 1.
Big Ten - Adds Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Missouri and Kansas. Notre Dame and Pittsburgh join the North Division with Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota and Northwestern. Missouri and Kansas join the South Division with Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue and Indiana.
Big 12 - Loses Missouri and Kansas. Adds TCU and Houston. Remains a 10-team conference.
Big East - Loses Pittsburgh and adds Villanova (moving up from I-AA).
Independents - Loses Notre Dame. Army, Navy, BYU and maybe Hawaii remain.
Yes, this is a little hard to digest. But all this maneuvering should make life easier for the BCS. A weakened MWC, without Utah, BYU and also TCU, has no chance of landing an automatic BCS bid. Even a MWC-WAC merger, with no marquee school other than Boise State still in it, should not be enough to produce an AQ-worthy conference.
So as they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Bet you didn't know the BCS was invented by the French.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Why BYU's Independence Makes Sense
(Latest Simulated BCS Standings)
By John Cownover
Guest Column
I have read some columns that said that essentially said it is embarrassing that "BYU is leaving the MWC for the WCC" … which is really only a half-truth (if even that). Does it really matter what athletic conference you are in for anything besides football? The short answer is no!
Quick question: What's Butler's conference? Maybe you know, but I don't … and they were a half-court prayer away from beating mighty Duke in the title game. My point is that conferences don't matter in "Olympic" sports (including basketball).
Not only are the WCC schools a better academic and cultural fit for BYU, consider the resulting exchange in markets. BYU goes from the likes of Laramie, Albuquerque and Colorado Springs to Los Angeles, San Francisco and Portland. BYU loses the Fort Worth market, but keeps San Diego; the weak sister is either Provo/Salt Lake or Spokane … big step up from the sad sack MWC markets.
In my opinion, the basketball competition in the WCC is bit of an upgrade (but certainly not a huge one) from the MWC. Other than basketball and football, nobody (besides coaches, athletes and their families) care about the rest of the sports. Case in point, did you know that BYU won the national championship in men's volleyball in 1999, 2001 and 2004? And that they also and a national title in rugby in 2009? Neither did I until I looked it up last week.
Obviously ESPN extends BYU's exposure exponentially, but does football being broadcast on BYUtv really make a difference? As a BYU alumnus and an active Mormon, the answer is unequivocally yes. Admittedly, very few non-LDS people even know BYUtv exists, much less watch it. But many members are BYU alumni, former students, have children attending BYU or are just fans … those folks would love an convenient location to watch BYU football.
Anecdotally, I have DirecTV and get 120 channels or so, but I don't subscribe to the package that allows me to get The Mtn. Although I am an alumnus, I'm not enough of a fanatic to pay for The Mtn just so I can watch BYU play Wyoming … or New Mexico … or Air Force in football. But I do get BYUtv and, assuming it's convenient, I will watch most every game they play next year.
BYU detractors will point to the inarguable fact that Boise State, Utah and TCU have all been better than BYU in football for 10 years or so. Having said that, BYU has been a relevant football school for approaching 40 years. I would be interested to know how many times over the past 40 years BYU has finished the season ranked in the top 25. My guess is that it's very close to the number of times that TCU, Utah an Boise State have combined finishes in the top 25 over the same time frame.
Plus, BYU has a national championship in football during that period (which trumps all BCS bowl appearances, by the way). I know it was 25 years ago … and counting. But, the Pittsburgh Steelers are still 6-time Super Bowl champions even though four of those titles came five years or more before BYU won a national title.
Please do not think I am suggesting BYU is on par with Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas, etc. (or the Pittsburgh Steelers for that matter). They are more like UCLA (in football), Washington, Arkansas, Purdue, etc. (or maybe the Chargers in the NFL … except BYU has won a title). Certainly not blue bloods, but not historical slouches either.
And about BYU getting the Notre Dame BCS exception. Obviously they won't get the top 8 inclusion. But I think it's entirely possible they get a top 6 exception and fully expect they will get a top 4 exception. More that anything this will prevent the BCS to from committing to the Mountain West.
For argument sake, let's assume BYU is treated exactly like Notre Dame (even though we know that won't happen). How many times in 10 years will BYU finish in the BCS top 8? At most, two. If I'm the BCS I'd take my chances with the possibility of giving BYU an invite once every four or five years as opposed to being locked into Boise State, TCU or heaven forbid, Wyoming or New Mexico, every single year.
Now to Texas and the Big 12/Pac-10. I live in SEC country and all the talk is "How can Texas (and OU/A&M) justify getting more money that the rest of the schools? Why do those other schools let them get away with it?"
We can sit around reading Mother Goose stories pretending it's not true, but the whole realignment chaos was/is controlled by four factors. We need to admit that #1 is light years ahead of #2, which is light years ahead of #3, which is virtually interchangeable with #4. The factors are 1) TV markets, 2) football relevance, 3) basketball relevance and 4) academics.
With that as a backdrop, most schools within a given conference are in the top 2 or 3 in one of the above factors. Likewise, most schools are not in the top 2 or 3 in ALL of the factors. Take the SEC, for instance … Alabama is a football behemoth and delivers huge TV numbers (because they are a national brand). Now, do they even have their own basketball arena or do they just share one with the local high school? … or with Auburn?
Academically, they are really not all that much different from the rest of the SEC, except Vanderbilt. Vandy, of course, is dreadful in football, but they are okay in basketball, deliver a very nice local market and are an academic giant. From my perspective, the only real freeloaders in the SEC are Mississippi and Mississippi State.
This is virtually identical for all BCS conferences … except the ten-school Big 12. We'll do TV last because that's the most interesting and dramatic.
Historically best football programs: Oklahoma, then Texas is a very close second; Texas A&M is a distant third; then et al.
Historically best basketball programs: Kansas by a mile, then OU, then Texas; Baylor is good now, but not too long ago Dave Bliss was covering up an on-team homicide … and Texas Tech has only moderate interest because of the ghost of Bobby Knight.
Best academic institution: Texas, and it's not real close. A&M is second and I don't have a clue after that.
If you're scoring at home, Texas Oklahoma and A&M are routinely 1, 2 or 3 so far … now to TV. A colleague of mine recently sent me the most current population statistics for all U.S. DMAs (that's Designated Market Areas, which is basically TV markets). If you look at the markets that University of Texas football dominates (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin … not to mention all the ancillary markets like Midland/Odessa and Corpus Christi), the four major markets combined (which is what Texas football delivers) are larger than any DMA in the country except New York.
Now tell me, why does Texas get the majority of the money? Because they do the majority of the work … in the classroom, on the basketball court, on the football field and where it matters most … on TV!
TV is also why the Mountain West, even with BYU, Utah and Boise State, had zero chance of ever getting into the BCS unless they add the Cotton Bowl to the existing rotation (which I think is likely to happen). I know the arguments for dropping the Big East and adding the Mountain West, but do you really think the networks would be okay with dropping the northeast markets for the MWC markets?
Not a chance!
By John Cownover
Guest Column
I have read some columns that said that essentially said it is embarrassing that "BYU is leaving the MWC for the WCC" … which is really only a half-truth (if even that). Does it really matter what athletic conference you are in for anything besides football? The short answer is no!
Quick question: What's Butler's conference? Maybe you know, but I don't … and they were a half-court prayer away from beating mighty Duke in the title game. My point is that conferences don't matter in "Olympic" sports (including basketball).
Not only are the WCC schools a better academic and cultural fit for BYU, consider the resulting exchange in markets. BYU goes from the likes of Laramie, Albuquerque and Colorado Springs to Los Angeles, San Francisco and Portland. BYU loses the Fort Worth market, but keeps San Diego; the weak sister is either Provo/Salt Lake or Spokane … big step up from the sad sack MWC markets.
In my opinion, the basketball competition in the WCC is bit of an upgrade (but certainly not a huge one) from the MWC. Other than basketball and football, nobody (besides coaches, athletes and their families) care about the rest of the sports. Case in point, did you know that BYU won the national championship in men's volleyball in 1999, 2001 and 2004? And that they also and a national title in rugby in 2009? Neither did I until I looked it up last week.
Obviously ESPN extends BYU's exposure exponentially, but does football being broadcast on BYUtv really make a difference? As a BYU alumnus and an active Mormon, the answer is unequivocally yes. Admittedly, very few non-LDS people even know BYUtv exists, much less watch it. But many members are BYU alumni, former students, have children attending BYU or are just fans … those folks would love an convenient location to watch BYU football.
Anecdotally, I have DirecTV and get 120 channels or so, but I don't subscribe to the package that allows me to get The Mtn. Although I am an alumnus, I'm not enough of a fanatic to pay for The Mtn just so I can watch BYU play Wyoming … or New Mexico … or Air Force in football. But I do get BYUtv and, assuming it's convenient, I will watch most every game they play next year.
BYU detractors will point to the inarguable fact that Boise State, Utah and TCU have all been better than BYU in football for 10 years or so. Having said that, BYU has been a relevant football school for approaching 40 years. I would be interested to know how many times over the past 40 years BYU has finished the season ranked in the top 25. My guess is that it's very close to the number of times that TCU, Utah an Boise State have combined finishes in the top 25 over the same time frame.
Plus, BYU has a national championship in football during that period (which trumps all BCS bowl appearances, by the way). I know it was 25 years ago … and counting. But, the Pittsburgh Steelers are still 6-time Super Bowl champions even though four of those titles came five years or more before BYU won a national title.
Please do not think I am suggesting BYU is on par with Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas, etc. (or the Pittsburgh Steelers for that matter). They are more like UCLA (in football), Washington, Arkansas, Purdue, etc. (or maybe the Chargers in the NFL … except BYU has won a title). Certainly not blue bloods, but not historical slouches either.
And about BYU getting the Notre Dame BCS exception. Obviously they won't get the top 8 inclusion. But I think it's entirely possible they get a top 6 exception and fully expect they will get a top 4 exception. More that anything this will prevent the BCS to from committing to the Mountain West.
For argument sake, let's assume BYU is treated exactly like Notre Dame (even though we know that won't happen). How many times in 10 years will BYU finish in the BCS top 8? At most, two. If I'm the BCS I'd take my chances with the possibility of giving BYU an invite once every four or five years as opposed to being locked into Boise State, TCU or heaven forbid, Wyoming or New Mexico, every single year.
Now to Texas and the Big 12/Pac-10. I live in SEC country and all the talk is "How can Texas (and OU/A&M) justify getting more money that the rest of the schools? Why do those other schools let them get away with it?"
We can sit around reading Mother Goose stories pretending it's not true, but the whole realignment chaos was/is controlled by four factors. We need to admit that #1 is light years ahead of #2, which is light years ahead of #3, which is virtually interchangeable with #4. The factors are 1) TV markets, 2) football relevance, 3) basketball relevance and 4) academics.
With that as a backdrop, most schools within a given conference are in the top 2 or 3 in one of the above factors. Likewise, most schools are not in the top 2 or 3 in ALL of the factors. Take the SEC, for instance … Alabama is a football behemoth and delivers huge TV numbers (because they are a national brand). Now, do they even have their own basketball arena or do they just share one with the local high school? … or with Auburn?
Academically, they are really not all that much different from the rest of the SEC, except Vanderbilt. Vandy, of course, is dreadful in football, but they are okay in basketball, deliver a very nice local market and are an academic giant. From my perspective, the only real freeloaders in the SEC are Mississippi and Mississippi State.
This is virtually identical for all BCS conferences … except the ten-school Big 12. We'll do TV last because that's the most interesting and dramatic.
Historically best football programs: Oklahoma, then Texas is a very close second; Texas A&M is a distant third; then et al.
Historically best basketball programs: Kansas by a mile, then OU, then Texas; Baylor is good now, but not too long ago Dave Bliss was covering up an on-team homicide … and Texas Tech has only moderate interest because of the ghost of Bobby Knight.
Best academic institution: Texas, and it's not real close. A&M is second and I don't have a clue after that.
If you're scoring at home, Texas Oklahoma and A&M are routinely 1, 2 or 3 so far … now to TV. A colleague of mine recently sent me the most current population statistics for all U.S. DMAs (that's Designated Market Areas, which is basically TV markets). If you look at the markets that University of Texas football dominates (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin … not to mention all the ancillary markets like Midland/Odessa and Corpus Christi), the four major markets combined (which is what Texas football delivers) are larger than any DMA in the country except New York.
Now tell me, why does Texas get the majority of the money? Because they do the majority of the work … in the classroom, on the basketball court, on the football field and where it matters most … on TV!
TV is also why the Mountain West, even with BYU, Utah and Boise State, had zero chance of ever getting into the BCS unless they add the Cotton Bowl to the existing rotation (which I think is likely to happen). I know the arguments for dropping the Big East and adding the Mountain West, but do you really think the networks would be okay with dropping the northeast markets for the MWC markets?
Not a chance!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Guru's BlogPoll Ballot (Week 4)
How did the Guru earn the top spot for Mr. Stubborn in the Blog Poll last week? Simple. The Guru's ballot has been remarkably consistent, without wild swings one way or the other for most teams. But just what does that mean? Answer below:
* It must be said that the Guru's ballot is very unique this way: It's not only reflective of the events that have taken place so far, but it's also predicative of how these teams would do going forward. And the predicative portion is incrementally influenced by the reflective. Absent of major upsets, of course you'll see little movement on the Guru's ballot this early in the season.
* That being said, it's hardly a case of the Guru sticking to a preseason ranking without shaking things up. For example, Alabama has risen from No. 5 to No. 2, Oregon from No. 9 to No. 7, all without teams ahead of them losing. Michigan is punished this week for winning unimpressively over I-AA UMass. The Guru pays attention to everything.
* Transitive property, a rather controversial concept, is an element in this formula. And why not. Oregon scored 45 unanswered points to wallop Tennessee. But on the same field, a week later, Florida struggled to beat the same Vols team. Of course Oregon should be ranked ahead of Florida. Arizona beats Iowa head-to-head, and absent of other remotely common opponents, the Wildcats have to be ahead of the Hawkeyes.
* "Good losses" are not punished the same way as an average or a bad loss. That's why Penn State, until proven otherwise, kept its ranking despite losing at Alabama. Ditto for Pittsburgh. These two Keystone State teams, plus Iowa, are the only teams with losses that remain on the ballot - they all lost to ranked teams.
* Other teams receiving consideration this week: Oregon State, Houston, South Carolina, Miami (Fla.), Florida State, Air Force, N.C. State, California and Clemson.
BCS Guru Ballot - Week 4
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio St. Buckeyes | -- |
| 2 | Alabama Crimson Tide | -- |
| 3 | Boise St. Broncos | -- |
| 4 | Texas Longhorns | -- |
| 5 | TCU Horned Frogs | -- |
| 6 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | 1 |
| 7 | Oregon Ducks | -1 |
| 8 | Florida Gators | -- |
| 9 | Oklahoma Sooners | 1 |
| 10 | Utah Utes | 1 |
| 11 | Wisconsin Badgers | 2 |
| 12 | USC Trojans | -- |
| 13 | Penn St. Nittany Lions | 2 |
| 14 | Arkansas Razorbacks | 5 |
| 15 | Stanford Cardinal | 1 |
| 16 | Fresno St. Bulldogs | 1 |
| 17 | Pittsburgh Panthers | 1 |
| 18 | Missouri Tigers | 2 |
| 19 | Arizona Wildcats | -- |
| 20 | LSU Tigers | 2 |
| 21 | Nevada Wolf Pack | -- |
| 22 | Iowa Hawkeyes | -13 |
| 23 | Michigan Wolverines | -2 |
| 24 | Auburn Tigers | 1 |
| 25 | West Virginia Mountaineers | -- |
| Dropouts: Houston Cougars, North Carolina Tar Heels, Cincinnati Bearcats | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings »
* It must be said that the Guru's ballot is very unique this way: It's not only reflective of the events that have taken place so far, but it's also predicative of how these teams would do going forward. And the predicative portion is incrementally influenced by the reflective. Absent of major upsets, of course you'll see little movement on the Guru's ballot this early in the season.
* That being said, it's hardly a case of the Guru sticking to a preseason ranking without shaking things up. For example, Alabama has risen from No. 5 to No. 2, Oregon from No. 9 to No. 7, all without teams ahead of them losing. Michigan is punished this week for winning unimpressively over I-AA UMass. The Guru pays attention to everything.
* Transitive property, a rather controversial concept, is an element in this formula. And why not. Oregon scored 45 unanswered points to wallop Tennessee. But on the same field, a week later, Florida struggled to beat the same Vols team. Of course Oregon should be ranked ahead of Florida. Arizona beats Iowa head-to-head, and absent of other remotely common opponents, the Wildcats have to be ahead of the Hawkeyes.
* "Good losses" are not punished the same way as an average or a bad loss. That's why Penn State, until proven otherwise, kept its ranking despite losing at Alabama. Ditto for Pittsburgh. These two Keystone State teams, plus Iowa, are the only teams with losses that remain on the ballot - they all lost to ranked teams.
* Other teams receiving consideration this week: Oregon State, Houston, South Carolina, Miami (Fla.), Florida State, Air Force, N.C. State, California and Clemson.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Who's to Blame for Boise State's Fall?
As everyone suspected, the biggest loser of James Madison's upset of Virginia Tech is really Boise State. In the latest Simulated BCS Standings, the Broncos fell from No. 2 all the way to No. 6.
To the uninitiated, it's easy to blame the computers for Boise's sudden fall. But take a closer look, then you'll know it's the usual suspects - the unaccountable coaches - who are the most responsible for the change in the BCS standings.
In three of the BCS computers, the Broncos stayed just about exactly where they were: Remaining No. 1 in Jeff Sagarin; dropping from No. 1 to No. 2 in Richard Billingsley; and staying unranked (going from No. 48 to No. 54) in Kenneth Massey. In the median ranking we used for the simulation, they were No. 6, the same as a week ago.
The only change came from Colley Matrix, but there's an entirely reasonable explanation for Boise going from No. 1 to No. 47. Colley's methodology is bias free, meaning there was no preseason rankings, and after last week - the opening weekend - every team that won was ranked No. 1 and every team that lost ranked No. 82. Boise's drop here has as much to do as its being idle as Virginia Tech's loss to James Madison.
Colley's rankings will continue to have some radical shifts in the coming weeks, so significant fluctuation there for any team is expected until at least mid-season. But even with the seemingly dramatic drop from No. 1 to out of the rankings, the Broncos' net loss in the computer component is 360 points.
They lost nearly 500 points in the AP Poll, despite remaining No. 3.
Obviously, with the AP not part of the official BCS standings, this won't matter that much. The Broncos lost 26 points in the Coaches Poll, which was not terribly significant. The Harris Poll, which makes up the other one-thirds of the standings, typically apes the other two polls when it's released later in the season.
The Broncos actually don't have a whole lot to fear from the computers, despite the common conjecture that their weak conference schedule will harm their ratings there. The reality is that if they remain undefeated, they will be ranked very high in the computers, enough to stay in the hunt for a spot in the BCS title game.
But the humans are another matter. With Harris and Coaches' polls accounting for two-thirds of the BCS standings, those two will decide who gets to play in the BCS title game, regardless of what transpires with the computers. In the six seasons since the BCS last tweaked its formula, every team that finished either first or second in these two polls played in the BCS title game.
If the Broncos are ranked in the top 2 in these two polls, they're in. If they're not, they're out. It's simple as that. They can control what they do on the field, and therefore, can influence the computer ratings. But they will be completely helpless when it comes to the recesses of the human mind, those of the 173 Harris and Coaches voters.
This is why Boise State needs to win every game impressively. While the computers, by BCS rule, cannot take margin of victory into consideration, every human voter can't help but be swayed by how a team wins as much as if a team wins. And while the computers can examine a team's strength of schedule in depth, most of the voters will be focusing on just one or two of what they perceive to be important opponents.
So if you're Boise State, the machines are the least of your worries.
To the uninitiated, it's easy to blame the computers for Boise's sudden fall. But take a closer look, then you'll know it's the usual suspects - the unaccountable coaches - who are the most responsible for the change in the BCS standings.
In three of the BCS computers, the Broncos stayed just about exactly where they were: Remaining No. 1 in Jeff Sagarin; dropping from No. 1 to No. 2 in Richard Billingsley; and staying unranked (going from No. 48 to No. 54) in Kenneth Massey. In the median ranking we used for the simulation, they were No. 6, the same as a week ago.
The only change came from Colley Matrix, but there's an entirely reasonable explanation for Boise going from No. 1 to No. 47. Colley's methodology is bias free, meaning there was no preseason rankings, and after last week - the opening weekend - every team that won was ranked No. 1 and every team that lost ranked No. 82. Boise's drop here has as much to do as its being idle as Virginia Tech's loss to James Madison.
Colley's rankings will continue to have some radical shifts in the coming weeks, so significant fluctuation there for any team is expected until at least mid-season. But even with the seemingly dramatic drop from No. 1 to out of the rankings, the Broncos' net loss in the computer component is 360 points.
They lost nearly 500 points in the AP Poll, despite remaining No. 3.
Obviously, with the AP not part of the official BCS standings, this won't matter that much. The Broncos lost 26 points in the Coaches Poll, which was not terribly significant. The Harris Poll, which makes up the other one-thirds of the standings, typically apes the other two polls when it's released later in the season.
The Broncos actually don't have a whole lot to fear from the computers, despite the common conjecture that their weak conference schedule will harm their ratings there. The reality is that if they remain undefeated, they will be ranked very high in the computers, enough to stay in the hunt for a spot in the BCS title game.
But the humans are another matter. With Harris and Coaches' polls accounting for two-thirds of the BCS standings, those two will decide who gets to play in the BCS title game, regardless of what transpires with the computers. In the six seasons since the BCS last tweaked its formula, every team that finished either first or second in these two polls played in the BCS title game.
If the Broncos are ranked in the top 2 in these two polls, they're in. If they're not, they're out. It's simple as that. They can control what they do on the field, and therefore, can influence the computer ratings. But they will be completely helpless when it comes to the recesses of the human mind, those of the 173 Harris and Coaches voters.
This is why Boise State needs to win every game impressively. While the computers, by BCS rule, cannot take margin of victory into consideration, every human voter can't help but be swayed by how a team wins as much as if a team wins. And while the computers can examine a team's strength of schedule in depth, most of the voters will be focusing on just one or two of what they perceive to be important opponents.
So if you're Boise State, the machines are the least of your worries.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Guru's BlogPoll Ballot (Week 3)
The biggest debate this week revolves around a team that didn't even play over the weekend: Boise State. The Broncos may have been idle, but their Week 1 victim went down meekly to I-AA James Madison, serving up fresh talking points about the legitimacy of their victory.
Did Boise State simply beat an overrated Virginia Tech, which lost by a bigger margin to JMU on its home field? Or did the Hokies suffer a terrible hangover, with mistakes and injuries taking their toll when they were uninspired to start with?
The Guru isn't about to punish the Broncos for the Hokies' sins. Teams should be ranked purely on the outcomes of the games at the time they played, not retroactively in a revisionist view. Virginia Tech can go 2-10 for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that it was a formidable team when it faced Boise State at FedEx Field on Labor Day.
Here's the Guru's ballot, with more ruminations below:
* The Broncos did fall back one spot on my ballot, but that had nothing to do with the VT-JMU game and everything to do with the Alabama-Penn State game. The Crimson Tide earned the promotion to No. 2 after that solid victory. Likewise for the Oregon Ducks, who ran off 45 straight points against Tennessee and confirmed that they have the most lethal offense in the country.
* Four teams dropped out of the rankings after losses, three of them in embarrassing fashion. Virginia Tech, without further comment; BYU, which was walloped by Air Force; and Georgia Tech, beaten by a Kansas team that a week ago managed 3 points against I-AA North Dakota State in a loss.
* Notre Dame dropped out of the ballot and was replaced by Michigan. Well, we've seen this movie before: 2009. The Guru remains skeptical of the Wolverines - but not skeptical of QB Denard Robinson, who by any reasonable measurement should be the clear Heisman frontrunner. If Robinson can stay healthy and Michigan does what it's supposed to - win the next three games vs. UMass, Bowling Green and Indiana - then maybe we'll feel a little more conviction about the Wolverines.
* Other teams receiving consideration for this week's ballot: Oregon State, Miami (Fla.), Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Arizona, Florida State, BYU, Clemson, Connecticut and Washington.
Did Boise State simply beat an overrated Virginia Tech, which lost by a bigger margin to JMU on its home field? Or did the Hokies suffer a terrible hangover, with mistakes and injuries taking their toll when they were uninspired to start with?
The Guru isn't about to punish the Broncos for the Hokies' sins. Teams should be ranked purely on the outcomes of the games at the time they played, not retroactively in a revisionist view. Virginia Tech can go 2-10 for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that it was a formidable team when it faced Boise State at FedEx Field on Labor Day.
Here's the Guru's ballot, with more ruminations below:
BCS Guru Ballot - Week 3
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio St. Buckeyes | -- |
| 2 | Alabama Crimson Tide | 3 |
| 3 | Boise St. Broncos | -1 |
| 4 | Texas Longhorns | -1 |
| 5 | TCU Horned Frogs | -1 |
| 6 | Oregon Ducks | 3 |
| 7 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | -1 |
| 8 | Florida Gators | -1 |
| 9 | Iowa Hawkeyes | -1 |
| 10 | Oklahoma Sooners | -- |
| 11 | Utah Utes | -- |
| 12 | USC Trojans | -- |
| 13 | Wisconsin Badgers | 1 |
| 14 | Houston Cougars | 1 |
| 15 | Penn St. Nittany Lions | 3 |
| 16 | Stanford Cardinal | 8 |
| 17 | Fresno St. Bulldogs | 2 |
| 18 | Pittsburgh Panthers | 2 |
| 19 | Arkansas Razorbacks | 3 |
| 20 | Missouri Tigers | 3 |
| 21 | Michigan Wolverines | -- |
| 22 | LSU Tigers | 3 |
| 23 | North Carolina Tar Heels | -- |
| 24 | Cincinnati Bearcats | -- |
| 25 | Auburn Tigers | -- |
| Dropouts: Notre Dame Fighting Irish, Virginia Tech Hokies, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, BYU Cougars | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings »
* The Broncos did fall back one spot on my ballot, but that had nothing to do with the VT-JMU game and everything to do with the Alabama-Penn State game. The Crimson Tide earned the promotion to No. 2 after that solid victory. Likewise for the Oregon Ducks, who ran off 45 straight points against Tennessee and confirmed that they have the most lethal offense in the country.
* Four teams dropped out of the rankings after losses, three of them in embarrassing fashion. Virginia Tech, without further comment; BYU, which was walloped by Air Force; and Georgia Tech, beaten by a Kansas team that a week ago managed 3 points against I-AA North Dakota State in a loss.
* Notre Dame dropped out of the ballot and was replaced by Michigan. Well, we've seen this movie before: 2009. The Guru remains skeptical of the Wolverines - but not skeptical of QB Denard Robinson, who by any reasonable measurement should be the clear Heisman frontrunner. If Robinson can stay healthy and Michigan does what it's supposed to - win the next three games vs. UMass, Bowling Green and Indiana - then maybe we'll feel a little more conviction about the Wolverines.
* Other teams receiving consideration for this week's ballot: Oregon State, Miami (Fla.), Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Arizona, Florida State, BYU, Clemson, Connecticut and Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
