Interesting numbers

[Don]

Since 1998 the old school BCS (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 10 and SEC) have NEVER played a NON-D1A team away. Over that span they have played a few games away against the low end D1A schools. To make a fair comparison I looked only at HOME games for the BCS schools.


Since 1998 the current members of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 10, and SEC are a combined 173-9 (95.05%) vs NON-D1A teams and are a combined 518-55 (90.40%) at home vs the current members of the CUSA, MAC, SunBelt, and WAC.

That means that the "BCS" that have been BCS the whole time would go 19-1 vs NON D1A and would go 18-2 vs CUSA, MAC, SunBelt, and WAC teams. That's not a BIG difference.

So why slam teams for playing NON-D1A and NOT slam for playing CUSA, MAC, SunBelt, and WAC?

[CJHawkeyes]

Since 1998 the old school BCS (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 10 and SEC) have NEVER played a NON-D1A team away. Over that span they have played a few games away against the low end D1A schools. To make a fair comparison I looked only at HOME games for the BCS schools.


Since 1998 the current members of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 10, and SEC are a combined 173-9 (95.05%) vs NON-D1A teams and are a combined 518-55 (90.40%) at home vs the current members of the CUSA, MAC, SunBelt, and WAC.

That means that the "BCS" that have been BCS the whole time would go 19-1 vs NON D1A and would go 18-2 vs CUSA, MAC, SunBelt, and WAC teams. That's not a BIG difference.

So why slam teams for playing NON-D1A and NOT slam for playing CUSA, MAC, SunBelt, and WAC?


The five percent difference you listed is huge. Based on those numbers, it would take I-AA teams an extra 500+ games to reach 55 wins and that doesn't take into account who those wins come against. That said, as one of the biggest advocates for eliminating I-AA games, it doesn't mean I'm not criticial of teams playing I-A weaklings. As I said in other threads, the problem with allowing I-AA games is that it increases the pool of teams equal to or worse than the best I-AA team from 30? teams to 150 teams. If you limit I-A teams to I-A opponents, you limit their ability to schedule weaklings because there are only so many teams to go around. On top of that, if I-A actually adopted rules that encourage teams to schedule those near the top of the I-A rather than the bottom, there would be no need to slam those playing weak I-A teams because they would only be hurting themselves. As it stands, those critical of BCS schools playing weak schedules know teams can get away with this strategy, but no one appears willing to do anything to change it.

[Don]

The five percent difference you listed is huge. Based on those numbers, it would take I-AA teams an extra 500+ games to reach 55 wins and that doesn't take into account who those wins come against.

I thought we were discussing the D1A teams NOT other divisions. My numbers stand for D1A!!


That said, as one of the biggest advocates for eliminating I-AA games, it doesn't mean I'm not criticial of teams playing I-A weaklings. As I said in other threads, the problem with allowing I-AA games is that it increases the pool of teams equal to or worse than the best I-AA team from 30? teams to 150 teams. If you limit I-A teams to I-A opponents, you limit their ability to schedule weaklings because there are only so many teams to go around. On top of that, if I-A actually adopted rules that encourage teams to schedule those near the top of the I-A rather than the bottom, there would be no need to slam those playing weak I-A teams because they would only be hurting themselves. As it stands, those critical of BCS schools playing weak schedules know teams can get away with this strategy, but no one appears willing to do anything to change it.

You keep saying these things without backing them up. The biggest offenders in playing weak schedules are the NON BCS schools.

Consider this. In the "BCS era" that seems so popular. The top 25 teams in winning percentage are:
1 Boise St. (92-21-0)--0.81416
2 Texas (93-22-0)--0.8087
3 Miami "(FL) (89-23-0)--0.79464
4 Oklahoma (91-25-0)--0.78448
5 Ohio St. (87-25-0)--0.77679
6 Virginia Tech (88-26-0)--0.77193
7 Georgia (86-28-0)--0.75439
8 Michigan (84-28-0)--0.75
9 Florida St. (85-30-0)--0.73913
10 Florida (84-30-0)--0.73684
11 USC (84-30-0)--0.73684
12 Tennessee (83-30-0)--0.73451
13 Louisville (82-30-0)--0.73214
14 TCU (79-30-0)--0.72477
15 Wisconsin (81-33-0)--0.71053
16 Nebraska (81-34-0)--0.70435
17 Marshall (78-34-0)--0.69643
18 LSU (77-35-0)--0.6875
19 Oregon (75-35-0)--0.68182
20 Kansas St. (77-37-0)--0.67544
21 Toledo (73-36-0)--0.66972
22 Auburn (74-37-0)--0.66667
23 Utah (70-36-0)--0.66038
24 Boston College (72-38-0)--0.65455
25 South Fla. (65-37-0)--0.63725

Using James (Big 10) Howell's computer system the top 25 teams in SOS over that period are:

1 Florida State
2 Southern California
3 Colorado
4 Michigan
5 Florida
6 Stanford
7 Notre Dame
8 Washington
9 UCLA
10 Tennessee
11 Alabama
12 Ohio State
13 Texas A&M
14 North Carolina
15 Oklahoma
16 South Carolina
17 Auburn
18 Iowa
19 Penn State
20 California
21 Arizona
22 Miami (Florida)
23 Louisiana State
24 Texas
25 Northwestern

If you study the two lists you will find that there are 11 teams that are listed on BOTH lists. That means that there are 11 teams that not only play tough schedules but also win a lot of games.

These are by conference.

ACC: Florida State and Miami (Florida)
Big 10: Michigan and Ohio State
Big 12: Oklahoma and Texas
PAC 10: Southern California
SEC: Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, and Louisiana State

Conversely, there are 5 teams that are in the top 25 in winning percentage but in the BOTTOM 40 in SOS. All of these are NON-BCS teams.

If you want to level the playing field then force these teams to play somebody OOC to beef up their SOS.

[CJHawkeyes]

Don,

If I'm not mistaken, you argued that there is little difference in results between a BCS school playing a school from the nonBCS conferences listed at home versus playing a I-AA opponent. I simply countered by pointing out based on the records you listed that it would take I-AA teams 500+ more games to reach the 55 win total reached by the nonBCS opponents in 573 games. That is a huge difference to me.


That said, I never claimed the nonBCS teams were not the biggest offenders of weak schedules and my post had nothing to do with defending nonBCS teams anyway. Of course, since nonBCS teams play most of their schedule versus their own kind, it goes without saying. However, the problem with "forcing" nonBCS schools to beef up their schedules is not helped by the fact that the BCS creates no incentive for strong BCS teams to play strong nonBCS teams. If obtaining the required schedule was a simple thing such that nonBCS schools could have the same confidence that an unbeaten season would put them in the the title game, don't you think they would do it? For a top BCS team, the difference between a win versus a top nonBCS team and a I-AA opponent is insignificant. Why take the risk when you can just play for an unbeaten season by virtue of wearing the BCS label?

[GatorGrad]

I bet someday, you will see the major conferences somehow competing in their own "league." I don't know when or how, but I could definitely see it happening. The big conferences simply won't want to share the $$$.

[Blue Hen]

There are some CF fans that would like to see a bunch of BCS teams secede from the NCAA and form their own little semi-professional sports league ( me included, sometimes). All 66 would not go. The Dukes, Vandys, Stanfords, Northwesterns, etc would probably stay with the NCAA. You'd probably end up with about 40-50 super powers forming their own "league" in your scenario.
This would be excellent because the remaining D1 NCAA FB teams could then proceed with the transformation of CF to a 'championship' sport from an 'exhibition' sport.

[buckeyejim]

There are some CF fans that would like to see a bunch of BCS teams secede from the NCAA and form their own little semi-professional sports league ( me included, sometimes). All 66 would not go. The Dukes, Vandys, Stanfords, Northwesterns, etc would probably stay with the NCAA. You'd probably end up with about 40-50 super powers forming their own "league" in your scenario.
This would be excellent because the remaining D1 NCAA FB teams could then proceed with the transformation of CF to a 'championship' sport from an 'exhibition' sport.

I doubt we'll ever see this because that would mean that the other sports (basketball, baseball, track & field, swimming, gymnastics, etc., etc., etc.) would not be able to compete for NCAA Championships if those schools bolted from the NCAA. The NCAA would NEVER allow football to bolt and still stay in for all other sports.

[Blue Hen]

I guarantee that we'll never see it.....for the reason you state.

[CJHawkeyes]

Don,

BTW, what did I say in the second part you quoted that needs to be backed up?

[Hubbs]

I bet someday, you will see the major conferences somehow competing in their own "league." I don't know when or how, but I could definitely see it happening. The big conferences simply won't want to share the $$$.

The perfect system:

All conference teams play every team in their conference. Example Sec school a plays sec school B-L. No OCC games, no weak D2 schools nothing else. Its that way in every conference (Notre Dame would have to join a conference). Then you take the winner from each conference and have a playoff system. If the #'s dont work then add at large bids based on W-L and toughness of schedule.

No top 25 rankings: Just conference champ vs conference champ every season to determine NC game.

[Blue Hen]

I'm with you Hubbs. You're basically advocating replacing mythical, opinionated 'rankings' with actual, indisputable 'standings'....as far as determining a genuine national champ. Standings are always better than rankings. Bowl division CF is about the only team sport where opinions trump standings....no good.
I still think divisional races with a conference champ game can work as well as round robin scheduling for conferences. Just get that 'voting' $hit out of the mix !

[Hubbs]

Thats the great thing about it. No more Oklahoma or Nebraska situations where you lose your conference and still get invited to the show. I think it would work. No argument about conference superiority cause it would be a "in house" thing. Then the Playoffs would be magnified and scouting and coaching would once again matter in college football. Their wouldnt be any more common opponets.

P.S. It will never happen

P.P.S. Plus you still get the Dec 16th Texas Christian vs BYU matchup on a tuesday night!!!:eek: