Michigan State and Missouri, two teams widely suspected as frauds, went down Saturday, clearing the way for the legitimate contenders for this year's playoff race.
Right ... there is no playoff, but the way the schedule is setting up for the next five weeks, more teams will be eliminated as we approach the final month of the college football season.
Only five unbeaten teams remain, and one will certainly go down next week as TCU visits Utah. The winner stays in the race for at least a BCS bowl berth, not to mention maybe a shot at the BCS title game. Alabama, the one-loss team best positioned to sneak into the title game picture, still has an Iron Bowl date with hated rival Auburn.
Auburn, though for now perhaps still No. 3 in the human polls, is virtually guaranteed to play in the BCS title game should it defeat 'Bama (and Georgia) and go on to win the SEC title. Though currently No. 3 in the human polls, expect the War Eagles to jump Boise State in those polls in the latter part of the season if they stay unbeaten.
Then there is Oregon, which also controls its own destiny after Saturday night's emphatic victory over a game USC team in the L.A. Coliseum. The Ducks will remain No. 1 in the polls and this week should vault past Auburn as the top team in the BCS standings. The scores will be close - mostly depending on how many voters decide to put Auburn ahead of Boise State this week - but those two teams will be well ahead of the Broncos and the rest of the pack.
This week's projected BCS standings:
1. Oregon, 2. Auburn, 3. Boise State, 4. TCU, 5. Utah, 6. Alabama, 7. Oklahoma, 8. Wisconsin, 9. Nebraska, 10. LSU, 11. Ohio State, 12. Missouri, 13. Stanford, 14. Michigan State, 15. Arizona.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Why Computers Still Won't Matter
There are a number of dissenting comments on my piece - The Meaninglessness of Computers. A couple of posters didn't quite agree with my analysis and a few others simply think that this year will be different. That this year, for the first time since the last BCS formula overhaul in 2004, a team that's either No. 1 or No. 2 in the polls will miss the BCS title game.
My response: Still not going to happen.
The primary reason why a No. 2 team (let along a No. 1) in the polls will not be jumped by another team in the BCS title game is this: The voters have learned over the years to game the system. They know how much power they wield, but more importantly, they know how to use that power.
Because the BCS formula is set up so heavily titled in favor of the human element, the voters essentially have veto power over the computers. That veto power is manifested in the way they've voted in the two teams they want to see in the BCS championship game.
The last time the computers might have made a difference was 2006, when Florida and Michigan were jockeying for the No. 2 spot to face Ohio State in the BCS title game. But the computers finished in a dead heat between these two teams, so the voters' desire to shift to the Gators proved decisive.
It hasn't been close since.
Since 2006, the voters have learned that the way to make sure their 1-2 choices would face each other is to make very clear who's No. 2. In the BCS setup, the differential between each place in each of the three components is .0400. Of course, that margin may expand or shrink based on the actual vote count. But if every voter put Team A at No. 2 and Team B at No. 3, the gap would be .0400 in that poll.
Now, take a look at the voting results between the second and third place teams from 2007-2009, in each of those years a team ranked either first or second in the computers failed to make the BCS title game:
2007: Coaches poll gap - .0386, Harris poll gap - .0580. Total - .0966
2008: Coaches poll gap - .0294, Harris poll gap - .0478. Total - .0772
2009: Coaches poll gap - .0495, Harris poll gap - .0498. Total - .0993
Those kinds of gaps are difficult for the computers to overcome. In essence, the aforementioned Team B would need to be 3 full places ahead of Team A in all computers to overcome the difference. It doesn't happen.
In 2007, Virginia Tech was No. 1 in the computers, but the yawning gap in the polls that LSU owned ensured the Tigers got to play for the BCS title. The same went for computer No. 2s Texas and Cincinnati, respectively against Florida and Texas in '08 and '09.
So of course in 2010 this hypothesis will be applied to Boise State. At the moment, it's easy to deduce that the Broncos, despite being No. 2 in the polls, may fall short in the final standings because of their deficiencies in the computer rankings.
But we're not at the final weekend yet, where the standings will be the only one that matters. The voters are typically vacillating with their ballots right now. And with the protection of anonymity, they're free to make dramatic changes without having to give any reason or being detected by anyone.
On the final weekend of the season, their views will harden and they will make a determination on whom they want in the BCS title game. While the voters don't vote as an entire bloc in either poll, a consensus usually emerges and most everyone toes the line. Besides, some voters have been known to rig their ballots by placing a competitor team way down to diminish its chances.
While the voters seem content to place Boise State at No. 2 right now, don't be so sure that they'll still feel that way if Auburn goes through the rest of the schedule unscathed. Conversely, should Auburn, Michigan State and Missouri all lose a game before the end of the season as expected, then the voters will make a clear determination between Boise State and TCU/Utah, and that will be enough for the Broncos to overcome whatever might be their computer deficit.
The only wild card this year is Alabama, which is the only one-loss team that has the potential to jump Boise State in the polls. All other one-loss teams currently in contention lost to teams that are still ahead of them but behind Boise State, making such a jump extremely unlikely.
But even if the Tide re-emerge as a factor, the computer-ranking differential between Alabama and Boise State will not be as significant as what the voters ultimately decide. If they feel that a one-loss Alabama is more worthy than an undefeated Boise State, then expect them to defect to the Tide at No. 2 en masse, once again rendering the computer rankings meaningless.
So it's back to the polls. This is where truly every vote counts.
My response: Still not going to happen.
The primary reason why a No. 2 team (let along a No. 1) in the polls will not be jumped by another team in the BCS title game is this: The voters have learned over the years to game the system. They know how much power they wield, but more importantly, they know how to use that power.
Because the BCS formula is set up so heavily titled in favor of the human element, the voters essentially have veto power over the computers. That veto power is manifested in the way they've voted in the two teams they want to see in the BCS championship game.
The last time the computers might have made a difference was 2006, when Florida and Michigan were jockeying for the No. 2 spot to face Ohio State in the BCS title game. But the computers finished in a dead heat between these two teams, so the voters' desire to shift to the Gators proved decisive.
It hasn't been close since.
Since 2006, the voters have learned that the way to make sure their 1-2 choices would face each other is to make very clear who's No. 2. In the BCS setup, the differential between each place in each of the three components is .0400. Of course, that margin may expand or shrink based on the actual vote count. But if every voter put Team A at No. 2 and Team B at No. 3, the gap would be .0400 in that poll.
Now, take a look at the voting results between the second and third place teams from 2007-2009, in each of those years a team ranked either first or second in the computers failed to make the BCS title game:
2007: Coaches poll gap - .0386, Harris poll gap - .0580. Total - .0966
2008: Coaches poll gap - .0294, Harris poll gap - .0478. Total - .0772
2009: Coaches poll gap - .0495, Harris poll gap - .0498. Total - .0993
Those kinds of gaps are difficult for the computers to overcome. In essence, the aforementioned Team B would need to be 3 full places ahead of Team A in all computers to overcome the difference. It doesn't happen.
In 2007, Virginia Tech was No. 1 in the computers, but the yawning gap in the polls that LSU owned ensured the Tigers got to play for the BCS title. The same went for computer No. 2s Texas and Cincinnati, respectively against Florida and Texas in '08 and '09.
So of course in 2010 this hypothesis will be applied to Boise State. At the moment, it's easy to deduce that the Broncos, despite being No. 2 in the polls, may fall short in the final standings because of their deficiencies in the computer rankings.
But we're not at the final weekend yet, where the standings will be the only one that matters. The voters are typically vacillating with their ballots right now. And with the protection of anonymity, they're free to make dramatic changes without having to give any reason or being detected by anyone.
On the final weekend of the season, their views will harden and they will make a determination on whom they want in the BCS title game. While the voters don't vote as an entire bloc in either poll, a consensus usually emerges and most everyone toes the line. Besides, some voters have been known to rig their ballots by placing a competitor team way down to diminish its chances.
While the voters seem content to place Boise State at No. 2 right now, don't be so sure that they'll still feel that way if Auburn goes through the rest of the schedule unscathed. Conversely, should Auburn, Michigan State and Missouri all lose a game before the end of the season as expected, then the voters will make a clear determination between Boise State and TCU/Utah, and that will be enough for the Broncos to overcome whatever might be their computer deficit.
The only wild card this year is Alabama, which is the only one-loss team that has the potential to jump Boise State in the polls. All other one-loss teams currently in contention lost to teams that are still ahead of them but behind Boise State, making such a jump extremely unlikely.
But even if the Tide re-emerge as a factor, the computer-ranking differential between Alabama and Boise State will not be as significant as what the voters ultimately decide. If they feel that a one-loss Alabama is more worthy than an undefeated Boise State, then expect them to defect to the Tide at No. 2 en masse, once again rendering the computer rankings meaningless.
So it's back to the polls. This is where truly every vote counts.
Monday, October 25, 2010
The Guru's BlogPoll Ballot (Week 9)
The Guru's BlogPoll ballot, with notes below:
* Oregon, Boise State and TCU continue to occupy the top three spots on my ballot, and I have seen no reason to move them or change the order. Auburn, off victories over Arkansas and LSU, moved up to No. 4. There are now just seven undefeated teams, with the number guaranteed to shrink by at least one as TCU will face Utah in two weeks.
* Wisconsin is now the highest-ranked one-loss team, at No. 8. The Badgers own victories over Ohio State and Iowa and their only loss was to No. 5 Michigan State.
* Why is Alabama No. 13 on this ballot while it's in the top five in the polls: Alabama's best victories this season so far have been discredited - though Florida and Penn State were both ranked when they faced the Tide, neither team is in the top 25 now and both are fighting to stay bowl eligible. 'Bama's loss to South Carolina (a two-touchdown loss) also has been devalued as the Gamecoks subsequently lost to Kentucky. Alabama will gain some placements among one-loss teams if it can defeat LSU and Auburn, but until then, it doesn't deserve to be ranked any higher.
* Other teams considered this week: San Diego State, Hawaii, West Virginia, Northwestern, Baylor, Kansas State.
BCS Guru Ballot - Week 9
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oregon Ducks | -- |
| 2 | Boise St. Broncos | -- |
| 3 | TCU Horned Frogs | -- |
| 4 | Auburn Tigers |  3 |
| 5 | Michigan St. Spartans |  -1 |
| 6 | Utah Utes | -1 |
| 7 | Missouri Tigers | 5 |
| 8 | Wisconsin Badgers | 2 |
| 9 | Stanford Cardinal | -- |
| 10 | Ohio St. Buckeyes | 1 |
| 11 | Oklahoma Sooners | -5 |
| 12 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | 1 |
| 13 | Alabama Crimson Tide | 1 |
| 14 | Arizona Wildcats | 1 |
| 15 | Florida St. Seminoles | 3 |
| 16 | LSU Tigers | -8 |
| 17 | Oklahoma St. Cowboys | -- |
| 18 | Iowa Hawkeyes | -2 |
| 19 | Nevada Wolf Pack | 1 |
| 20 | South Carolina Gamecocks | 1 |
| 21 | Arkansas Razorbacks | 1 |
| 22 | Virginia Tech Hokies | 1 |
| 23 | Miami Hurricanes | -- |
| 24 | Mississippi St. Bulldogs | -- |
| 25 | USC Trojans | -- |
| Dropouts: West Virginia Mountaineers, Kansas St. Wildcats, Northwestern Wildcats | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings »
* Oregon, Boise State and TCU continue to occupy the top three spots on my ballot, and I have seen no reason to move them or change the order. Auburn, off victories over Arkansas and LSU, moved up to No. 4. There are now just seven undefeated teams, with the number guaranteed to shrink by at least one as TCU will face Utah in two weeks.
* Wisconsin is now the highest-ranked one-loss team, at No. 8. The Badgers own victories over Ohio State and Iowa and their only loss was to No. 5 Michigan State.
* Why is Alabama No. 13 on this ballot while it's in the top five in the polls: Alabama's best victories this season so far have been discredited - though Florida and Penn State were both ranked when they faced the Tide, neither team is in the top 25 now and both are fighting to stay bowl eligible. 'Bama's loss to South Carolina (a two-touchdown loss) also has been devalued as the Gamecoks subsequently lost to Kentucky. Alabama will gain some placements among one-loss teams if it can defeat LSU and Auburn, but until then, it doesn't deserve to be ranked any higher.
* Other teams considered this week: San Diego State, Hawaii, West Virginia, Northwestern, Baylor, Kansas State.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
SEC's Stranglehold Is Far From Over
Two weeks ago, somebody must've spiked my iced tea with Jagerbomb as I wrote the now plainly laughable SEC's Stranglehold on the BCS Is Over piece.
Tonight I'll wash down my roasted crow with some moonshine.
(OK, admittedly, the sensationalistic headline was quite calculated to gain attention. But the Guru did sincerely believe that the SEC's four-year BCS run was truly over.)
Somehow, things worked out quite well for the SEC once again, this time, with two unbeaten SEC West teams duking it out on the Plains. Auburn, with a hard-fought victory over LSU, is now the only unbeaten SEC team, with only Alabama in its way of an unblemished regular season and a spot in the SEC title game.
The Tigers won't ascend to No. 1 in the polls, but they'll gain enough points - coupled with their superior computer ratings - to be the new No. 1 team in the BCS standings. Oregon, the consensus No. 1 in the polls, will hold on to the No. 2 spot.
For the first time this season, the top two teams in the BCS standings will control their own destiny. If Oregon and Auburn both win their remaining games, they will meet in the BCS title game no matter what happens to any other team in any other game.
So the big loser of the week is the one that didn't even play. Boise State. The Broncos have a Tuesday night date with Louisiana Tech, but no matter what happens from here on out, they will not have a chance to play for the BCS championship without a loss by Oregon or Auburn. There's a possibility they might even drop to No. 3 in one of the polls this week.
Only seven teams now remain unbeaten: TCU, Utah, Michigan State and Missouri are the others. There may be as many as six undefeated teams at the end of the season (if highly unlikely) since TCU and Utah will face each other. And one-loss teams, particularly Alabama, are now creeping back into the picture.
Yeah, so much for that whole "the SEC is finished" business.
This week's projected BCS standings: 1. Auburn, 2. Oregon, 3. Boise State, 4. TCU, 5. Michigan State, 6. Missouri, 7. Alabama, 8. Utah, 9. Wisconsin, 10. LSU, 11. Oklahoma, 12. Ohio State, 13. Stanford, 14. Nebraska, 15. Florida State.
Tonight I'll wash down my roasted crow with some moonshine.
(OK, admittedly, the sensationalistic headline was quite calculated to gain attention. But the Guru did sincerely believe that the SEC's four-year BCS run was truly over.)
Somehow, things worked out quite well for the SEC once again, this time, with two unbeaten SEC West teams duking it out on the Plains. Auburn, with a hard-fought victory over LSU, is now the only unbeaten SEC team, with only Alabama in its way of an unblemished regular season and a spot in the SEC title game.
The Tigers won't ascend to No. 1 in the polls, but they'll gain enough points - coupled with their superior computer ratings - to be the new No. 1 team in the BCS standings. Oregon, the consensus No. 1 in the polls, will hold on to the No. 2 spot.
For the first time this season, the top two teams in the BCS standings will control their own destiny. If Oregon and Auburn both win their remaining games, they will meet in the BCS title game no matter what happens to any other team in any other game.
So the big loser of the week is the one that didn't even play. Boise State. The Broncos have a Tuesday night date with Louisiana Tech, but no matter what happens from here on out, they will not have a chance to play for the BCS championship without a loss by Oregon or Auburn. There's a possibility they might even drop to No. 3 in one of the polls this week.
Only seven teams now remain unbeaten: TCU, Utah, Michigan State and Missouri are the others. There may be as many as six undefeated teams at the end of the season (if highly unlikely) since TCU and Utah will face each other. And one-loss teams, particularly Alabama, are now creeping back into the picture.
Yeah, so much for that whole "the SEC is finished" business.
This week's projected BCS standings: 1. Auburn, 2. Oregon, 3. Boise State, 4. TCU, 5. Michigan State, 6. Missouri, 7. Alabama, 8. Utah, 9. Wisconsin, 10. LSU, 11. Oklahoma, 12. Ohio State, 13. Stanford, 14. Nebraska, 15. Florida State.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Pac-10's Senseless Championship Game
Larry Scott has done a lot of things right since he became commissioner of the Pac-10. He's had a few flubs, too. But hey, can't fault the man for trying. At least he thinks the Pac-10 brand is worth something and tries to get the proper market capitalization for it.
But this latest piece of news is both puzzling and alarming.
The realignment part was fine. You were never going to please everybody. The revenue distribution scheme is OK, though it's a bit of a head scratcher why UCLA deserves any extra cash - considering the Bruins have done nothing for the conference since 1998.
The real atrocity, however, is the decision to play the conference championship game on a campus site, hosted by the team with the best record.
Huh?
So all the dalliances with Texas and other Big 12 schools, the Plan B of grabbing Utah and Colorado, the big splash of an NYC preseason press conference, the new logo, the talk of a TV network ... all that, so you can play the inaugural Pac-12 title game at 54,000-seat Autzen Stadium in Eugene?
In a conference that boasts more major metropolises than any other, with L.A., San Francisco, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, not to mention also San Diego, you chance having to host the crown jewel event of the conference - the Super Bowl, if you will - in Corvallis? Or Tucson?
Scott invoked the NFL on the rationale of bestowing home field advantage on the team with the best record, but does he recall the Buffalo Bills hosting four straight Super Bowls in the early 1990s? The NFL is not stupid enough to play its showcase event on a contingency basis.
To be sure, next season is going to be tricky for the new Pac-12. USC is still on probation (pending an appeal) and therefore won't be eligible to play for the championship. Otherwise, it would've been a slam dunk to play the inaugural game at the Rose Bowl.
Maybe Scott is concerned that without the Trojans, it would be difficult to sell 90,000 tickets. He's hedging his bets - better to play in front of a full house in Eugene or Tucson than a sparse crowd in Pasadena. He clearly wanted to avoid a repeat of those memorable ACC title games in Jacksonville, where empty seats outnumbered paying customers.
But L.A. is not Jacksonville. And the Pac-10 is not the ACC (if Scott doesn't believe that, then what the hell is point of expansion?).
We say here that an inaugural Pac-12 title game in Pasadena - even without USC - would've been a smashing success. The nation's second-biggest media market doesn't have an NFL team, but does know how to throw a party (heard of the Academy Awards? Super Bowl? World Cup? Olympics?). The sheer novelty of the event would've guaranteed a sellout. And L.A. is a short flight away from anywhere in Pac-12 country, with lots of cheap lodging.
And that's how you build the momentum for a nascent project. Chances are, the Pac-12 title might be worth a trip to the BCS title game. The exuberant fans would want more, and this event would become as anticipated as the SEC championship game or the new Big Ten title game (bet you Jim Delaney wouldn't chance having that game played in West Lafayette or East Lansing).
Then you can start spreading the game around, all in major media markets with an NFL stadium as to preserve neutrality. Qwest Field, University of Phoenix Stadium, Oakland Coliseum, Invesco Field at Mile High, Candlestick, Qualcomm, and back in L.A., at the Rose Bowl, or maybe even the new NFL stadium (2018, is that enough time, Roger?).
What a wonderful opportunity. The Pac-10 title game could've been the envy of college football. Outside, in the sunshine, with some of the most attractive styles of play and players who'd soon suit up to play at these stadiums on Sundays. And yeah, the cheerleaders and song girls, too.
(And don't forget the media. If you're a national college football writer, where would you rather be? Atlanta?)
But no. Inexplicably, out of fear of failure than anything else, the Pac-10 decides to play it safe. Scott punts on fourth-and-inches.
So much for the self-proclaimed "Conference of Champions."
But this latest piece of news is both puzzling and alarming.
The realignment part was fine. You were never going to please everybody. The revenue distribution scheme is OK, though it's a bit of a head scratcher why UCLA deserves any extra cash - considering the Bruins have done nothing for the conference since 1998.
The real atrocity, however, is the decision to play the conference championship game on a campus site, hosted by the team with the best record.
Huh?
So all the dalliances with Texas and other Big 12 schools, the Plan B of grabbing Utah and Colorado, the big splash of an NYC preseason press conference, the new logo, the talk of a TV network ... all that, so you can play the inaugural Pac-12 title game at 54,000-seat Autzen Stadium in Eugene?
In a conference that boasts more major metropolises than any other, with L.A., San Francisco, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, not to mention also San Diego, you chance having to host the crown jewel event of the conference - the Super Bowl, if you will - in Corvallis? Or Tucson?
Scott invoked the NFL on the rationale of bestowing home field advantage on the team with the best record, but does he recall the Buffalo Bills hosting four straight Super Bowls in the early 1990s? The NFL is not stupid enough to play its showcase event on a contingency basis.
To be sure, next season is going to be tricky for the new Pac-12. USC is still on probation (pending an appeal) and therefore won't be eligible to play for the championship. Otherwise, it would've been a slam dunk to play the inaugural game at the Rose Bowl.
Maybe Scott is concerned that without the Trojans, it would be difficult to sell 90,000 tickets. He's hedging his bets - better to play in front of a full house in Eugene or Tucson than a sparse crowd in Pasadena. He clearly wanted to avoid a repeat of those memorable ACC title games in Jacksonville, where empty seats outnumbered paying customers.
But L.A. is not Jacksonville. And the Pac-10 is not the ACC (if Scott doesn't believe that, then what the hell is point of expansion?).
We say here that an inaugural Pac-12 title game in Pasadena - even without USC - would've been a smashing success. The nation's second-biggest media market doesn't have an NFL team, but does know how to throw a party (heard of the Academy Awards? Super Bowl? World Cup? Olympics?). The sheer novelty of the event would've guaranteed a sellout. And L.A. is a short flight away from anywhere in Pac-12 country, with lots of cheap lodging.
And that's how you build the momentum for a nascent project. Chances are, the Pac-12 title might be worth a trip to the BCS title game. The exuberant fans would want more, and this event would become as anticipated as the SEC championship game or the new Big Ten title game (bet you Jim Delaney wouldn't chance having that game played in West Lafayette or East Lansing).
Then you can start spreading the game around, all in major media markets with an NFL stadium as to preserve neutrality. Qwest Field, University of Phoenix Stadium, Oakland Coliseum, Invesco Field at Mile High, Candlestick, Qualcomm, and back in L.A., at the Rose Bowl, or maybe even the new NFL stadium (2018, is that enough time, Roger?).
What a wonderful opportunity. The Pac-10 title game could've been the envy of college football. Outside, in the sunshine, with some of the most attractive styles of play and players who'd soon suit up to play at these stadiums on Sundays. And yeah, the cheerleaders and song girls, too.
(And don't forget the media. If you're a national college football writer, where would you rather be? Atlanta?)
But no. Inexplicably, out of fear of failure than anything else, the Pac-10 decides to play it safe. Scott punts on fourth-and-inches.
So much for the self-proclaimed "Conference of Champions."
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Guru's BlogPoll Ballot (Week 8)
No significant changes for the ballot from last week, aside from Ohio State getting bumped down. Notes below:
* Sometimes you wonder if the voters actually pay attention, and this goes for any poll, including the BlogPoll. How else would one explain that Ohio State somehow stayed ahead of Wisconsin in all the major polls this week after a loss in a game that wasn't close? Or that Iowa is SIX spots ahead of Arizona (in coaches and Harris polls), despite losing to the Wildcats and playing a schedule that's not nearly as competitive (Sagarin has Arizona's SOS at No. 27 and Iowa No. 78)?
* Don't look now, but Virginia Tech, left for dead after losing to I-AA James Madison to start the season 0-2, is now in the driver's seat in the ACC Coastal and has regained its preseason status as the team to beat in the conference. The Hokies' surge will help Boise State in the computer ratings, but more importantly, with the voters. VT is back on the Guru's ballot, at No. 23.
* Other teams considered: Miami (Fla.), Texas, Air Force, USC.
BCS Guru Ballot - Week 8
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oregon Ducks | -- |
| 2 | Boise St. Broncos | -- |
| 3 | TCU Horned Frogs | -- |
| 4 | Michigan St. Spartans | 5 |
| 5 | Utah Utes | 2 |
| 6 | Oklahoma Sooners | -- |
| 7 | Auburn Tigers | 4 |
| 8 | LSU Tigers | 2 |
| 9 | Stanford Cardinal | 3 |
| 10 | Wisconsin Badgers | 14 |
| 11 | Ohio St. Buckeyes | -7 |
| 12 | Missouri Tigers | 6 |
| 13 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | -8 |
| 14 | Alabama Crimson Tide | -- |
| 15 | Arizona Wildcats | 4 |
| 16 | Iowa Hawkeyes | 4 |
| 17 | Oklahoma St. Cowboys | 5 |
| 18 | Florida St. Seminoles | -1 |
| 19 | West Virginia Mountaineers | 2 |
| 20 | Nevada Wolf Pack | -12 |
| 21 | South Carolina Gamecocks | -8 |
| 22 | Arkansas Razorbacks | -7 |
| 23 | Virginia Tech Hokies | -- |
| 24 | Kansas St. Wildcats | -- |
| 25 | Northwestern Wildcats | -- |
| Dropouts: Air Force Falcons, Oregon St. Beavers, Michigan Wolverines | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings »
* Sometimes you wonder if the voters actually pay attention, and this goes for any poll, including the BlogPoll. How else would one explain that Ohio State somehow stayed ahead of Wisconsin in all the major polls this week after a loss in a game that wasn't close? Or that Iowa is SIX spots ahead of Arizona (in coaches and Harris polls), despite losing to the Wildcats and playing a schedule that's not nearly as competitive (Sagarin has Arizona's SOS at No. 27 and Iowa No. 78)?
* Don't look now, but Virginia Tech, left for dead after losing to I-AA James Madison to start the season 0-2, is now in the driver's seat in the ACC Coastal and has regained its preseason status as the team to beat in the conference. The Hokies' surge will help Boise State in the computer ratings, but more importantly, with the voters. VT is back on the Guru's ballot, at No. 23.
* Other teams considered: Miami (Fla.), Texas, Air Force, USC.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Did Boise State Get Screwed?
After all the hubbub last week that Boise State was going to be No. 1 in the BCS Standings, the Broncos promptly checked in at No. 3 in the first official release. Despite a 48-0 victory over San Jose State, they dropped two spots, behind Oklahoma and Oregon.
So is there a conspiracy against the Broncos?
The answer, surprisingly, is no.
Boise State's "fall" has much more to do with Ohio State and Nebraska losing than anything else. Oklahoma was the strongest team in the computer rankings in the standings last week, and what held the Sooners back was their placement in the human polls. With two teams ahead of them losing, they naturally moved up (two and three spots, respectively, in the Harris and coaches polls). And their computer ratings were enough to make up the human poll deficit and get them to No. 1 this week.
The Broncos also fell .0023 points behind Oregon, an infinitesimal gap. A swing of one spot by one of the computers would be enough to move them past the Ducks. They were hurt, in this area, by the weakness of their opponent San Jose State - not a ton, but just enough.
Overall, though, it has been a good week for the Broncos. Despite falling to No. 3 in the BCS standings, the really important development for Chris Petersen's gang is that it's now a solid No. 2 in both of the polls that matter in the BCS. There had been much speculation that the voters would be unwilling to let Boise State break the glass ceiling, purportedly at No. 3. This week's polls dispelled that myth.
Besides, the Broncos' 48-0 victory in San Jose actually offered an important comparison. Alabama beat the same Spartans team, at home, 48-3. With their strength of schedule continuing to be an issue as they get into conference play, every bit of favorable common opponent comparison helps, particularly with the voters.
All that said, the Broncos should take absolutely nothing for granted and they by no means control their own destiny. They need to continue to win impressively and in the meantime hope for their BCS conference rivals to lose games along the way. As I noted in last week's post, since the formula was last "fixed" in 2004, no team finishing first or second in the final polls has failed to play in the BCS title game.
This year will not be different. That's why this week's standings actually brought good news for the Broncos.
So is there a conspiracy against the Broncos?
The answer, surprisingly, is no.
Boise State's "fall" has much more to do with Ohio State and Nebraska losing than anything else. Oklahoma was the strongest team in the computer rankings in the standings last week, and what held the Sooners back was their placement in the human polls. With two teams ahead of them losing, they naturally moved up (two and three spots, respectively, in the Harris and coaches polls). And their computer ratings were enough to make up the human poll deficit and get them to No. 1 this week.
The Broncos also fell .0023 points behind Oregon, an infinitesimal gap. A swing of one spot by one of the computers would be enough to move them past the Ducks. They were hurt, in this area, by the weakness of their opponent San Jose State - not a ton, but just enough.
Overall, though, it has been a good week for the Broncos. Despite falling to No. 3 in the BCS standings, the really important development for Chris Petersen's gang is that it's now a solid No. 2 in both of the polls that matter in the BCS. There had been much speculation that the voters would be unwilling to let Boise State break the glass ceiling, purportedly at No. 3. This week's polls dispelled that myth.
Besides, the Broncos' 48-0 victory in San Jose actually offered an important comparison. Alabama beat the same Spartans team, at home, 48-3. With their strength of schedule continuing to be an issue as they get into conference play, every bit of favorable common opponent comparison helps, particularly with the voters.
All that said, the Broncos should take absolutely nothing for granted and they by no means control their own destiny. They need to continue to win impressively and in the meantime hope for their BCS conference rivals to lose games along the way. As I noted in last week's post, since the formula was last "fixed" in 2004, no team finishing first or second in the final polls has failed to play in the BCS title game.
This year will not be different. That's why this week's standings actually brought good news for the Broncos.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
It's ... Oklahoma!
The voters in the coaches and Harris polls probably got a proper shock last week when they found out that, had there been a BCS standings last week, Boise State would've been ranked No. 1. Some of them probably would've been OK with that, but many of them wouldn't.
Well, circumstances allowed them to "rectify" things this week. With upsets of poll No. 1 Ohio State and also top 5 Nebraska, Oregon is expected to ascend to No. 1 in both of the BCS polls this week. But the idle Ducks won't be top-ranked in the first official BCS standings ... and neither will Boise State, which is expected to check in at No. 2 after walloping San Jose State.
Oklahoma, coming off a 52-0 pasting of Iowa State, is projected to open the 2010 BCS standings at No. 1. The Sooners will be behind Boise State in the polls, but the slim deficits there won't offset OU's lead in the computer ratings. The Broncos will still have a robust computer score even though San Jose State is now 1-6 - because the Spartans have played a top 5-ranked schedule thus far. Boise's computer advantage will keep it ahead of Oregon.
So what does all this mean going forward? Expect lots of shifts in the BCS standings in the coming weeks because both the polls and computer scores will remain volatile for some time. With losses by Ohio State, Nebraska and Nevada, the unbeaten ranks have now dwindled to just 10. Four of them are guaranteed to lose, two as soon as next week, as a pair of unbeatens will be matched up (Oklahoma at Missouri, LSU at Auburn).
We're just getting warmed up.
The Guru's projected BCS standings: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Boise State, 3. Oregon, 4. TCU, 5. Auburn, 6. LSU, 7. Michigan State, 8. Alabama, 9. Nebraska, 10. Ohio State, 11. Wisconsin, 12. Utah, 13. Stanford, 14. Missouri, 15. Oklahoma State.
And two P.S.'s:
1) Follow the Guru on Twitter, as I will be tweeting every Saturday night, shortly after the end of the final relevant game, followed by a full post.
2) The Guru will grudgingly give the World Wide Leader some respect for putting together a weekly show at 8:15 p.m. ET on ESPN each Sunday. This is the way to go, as opposed to the abomination that we had to suffer through the past four years. I don't think much of the analysis on the program (particularly the guy with two first names), but it's better than the weekly 90-second sham on Fox's NFL post game show.
Well, circumstances allowed them to "rectify" things this week. With upsets of poll No. 1 Ohio State and also top 5 Nebraska, Oregon is expected to ascend to No. 1 in both of the BCS polls this week. But the idle Ducks won't be top-ranked in the first official BCS standings ... and neither will Boise State, which is expected to check in at No. 2 after walloping San Jose State.
Oklahoma, coming off a 52-0 pasting of Iowa State, is projected to open the 2010 BCS standings at No. 1. The Sooners will be behind Boise State in the polls, but the slim deficits there won't offset OU's lead in the computer ratings. The Broncos will still have a robust computer score even though San Jose State is now 1-6 - because the Spartans have played a top 5-ranked schedule thus far. Boise's computer advantage will keep it ahead of Oregon.
So what does all this mean going forward? Expect lots of shifts in the BCS standings in the coming weeks because both the polls and computer scores will remain volatile for some time. With losses by Ohio State, Nebraska and Nevada, the unbeaten ranks have now dwindled to just 10. Four of them are guaranteed to lose, two as soon as next week, as a pair of unbeatens will be matched up (Oklahoma at Missouri, LSU at Auburn).
We're just getting warmed up.
The Guru's projected BCS standings: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Boise State, 3. Oregon, 4. TCU, 5. Auburn, 6. LSU, 7. Michigan State, 8. Alabama, 9. Nebraska, 10. Ohio State, 11. Wisconsin, 12. Utah, 13. Stanford, 14. Missouri, 15. Oklahoma State.
And two P.S.'s:
1) Follow the Guru on Twitter, as I will be tweeting every Saturday night, shortly after the end of the final relevant game, followed by a full post.
2) The Guru will grudgingly give the World Wide Leader some respect for putting together a weekly show at 8:15 p.m. ET on ESPN each Sunday. This is the way to go, as opposed to the abomination that we had to suffer through the past four years. I don't think much of the analysis on the program (particularly the guy with two first names), but it's better than the weekly 90-second sham on Fox's NFL post game show.
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Guru's BlogPoll Ballot (Week 7)
Well, well, here comes the first real shakeup of the Guru's ballot. More points below:
* Let's not mince words here: The Guru was dead wrong about Alabama. The Tide might still be very good, but nowhere near as good as I thought. And the fashion with which South Carolina dominated them, there is zero reason why the Gamecocks shouldn't be ranked ahead on the ballot, with the 'Cocks' only loss to undefeated Auburn.
* Oregon assumes the mantle of No. 1, though we've learned not to make any proclamations about how the Ducks are better than everyone else. Let's just wait and see if they can get through the Pac-10 gauntlet undefeated.
* Only 13 teams remain unbeaten and the likelihood of Boise State and/or TCU being the only unbeaten teams at the end of the regular season increases each week. At this point, I can't see any reason to put any one-loss team ahead of either the Broncos or the Frogs.
* Other teams considered this week: NC State, Kansas State, Florida and Miami (Fla.).
BCS Guru Ballot - Week 7
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oregon Ducks | 1 |
| 2 | Boise St. Broncos | 1 |
| 3 | TCU Horned Frogs | 2 |
| 4 | Ohio St. Buckeyes | -- |
| 5 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | 1 |
| 6 | Oklahoma Sooners | 1 |
| 7 | Utah Utes | 1 |
| 8 | Nevada Wolf Pack | 1 |
| 9 | Michigan St. Spartans | 2 |
| 10 | LSU Tigers | 11 |
| 11 | Auburn Tigers | 12 |
| 12 | Stanford Cardinal | 1 |
| 13 | South Carolina Gamecocks | -- |
| 14 | Alabama Crimson Tide | -13 |
| 15 | Arkansas Razorbacks | -1 |
| 16 | Air Force Falcons | 2 |
| 17 | Florida St. Seminoles | 3 |
| 18 | Missouri Tigers | -1 |
| 19 | Arizona Wildcats | -9 |
| 20 | Iowa Hawkeyes | -4 |
| 21 | West Virginia Mountaineers | 3 |
| 22 | Oklahoma St. Cowboys | 3 |
| 23 | Oregon St. Beavers | -- |
| 24 | Wisconsin Badgers | -- |
| 25 | Michigan Wolverines | -13 |
| Dropouts: Florida Gators, Miami Hurricanes, Kansas St. Wildcats | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings »
* Let's not mince words here: The Guru was dead wrong about Alabama. The Tide might still be very good, but nowhere near as good as I thought. And the fashion with which South Carolina dominated them, there is zero reason why the Gamecocks shouldn't be ranked ahead on the ballot, with the 'Cocks' only loss to undefeated Auburn.
* Oregon assumes the mantle of No. 1, though we've learned not to make any proclamations about how the Ducks are better than everyone else. Let's just wait and see if they can get through the Pac-10 gauntlet undefeated.
* Only 13 teams remain unbeaten and the likelihood of Boise State and/or TCU being the only unbeaten teams at the end of the regular season increases each week. At this point, I can't see any reason to put any one-loss team ahead of either the Broncos or the Frogs.
* Other teams considered this week: NC State, Kansas State, Florida and Miami (Fla.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
