Boise State win does not debunk BCS

[JohnStOnge]

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?s.../news?slug=tb-

Once again, a very knowledgable football person apparently has not actually looked at what the BCS system had to say about this game. Here is a quote from Bowden:

"No machine and no person can see into the hearts of the young men who play college football or into the minds and guts of the men who coach them. If they could have on Jan. 1, 2007, everyone, instead of no one, would have picked the Boise State Broncos to beat Goliath."

The problem with that statement is that the Boise State was ranked higher in the BCS rankings than Oklahoma was. 8th vs. 10th. And five of the six "machines" used in the system picked the Broncos to win.

How can someone think that the team rated 8th in the BCS rankings beating the team rated 10th by one point on a neutral field debunks the BCS? How, by narrowly beating a lower rated team, did Boise State compromise the assumption that the "correct" two teams are playing for a national title?

If the Broncos had beaten, say, LSU this line of argument might be valid. But they didn't. Heck, if anything, what happened with Boise State contributes to the argument that the sports reporters who criticize the BCS when it ranks teams in orders they don't agree with might not be as credible as the system they're criticizing.

I do favor playoffs for the highest level of college football. And I do think BSU showed it could compete with and beat what I think would be a playoff caliber team in a 16 team playoff. But the line of argument taken by Bowden and others like him just doesn't wash. The 8th rated team beating the 10th rated team by one point doesn't "prove" the 8th rated team was underestimated by the system.

[GannonFan]

I agree with that - same thing happened when Utah beat Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl a couple of years ago - Utah was clearly the better team coming in and everyone knew it, even though Pitt was from one of the BCS conferences. I think this is all just smoke screen - people talk of how great this is and yet there's no movement whatsoever on the landscape to allow a team like Utah or a team like Boise to have any shot at winning the BCS championship just simply because they will never be in the BCS championship game. Boise didn't accomplish anything more this year than Utah did a few years ago - non BCS schools are simply treading water and making no real gains towards acceptance by the BCS conferences and they never will. Money talks and the BCS conferences have it and they aren't going to voluntarily share it with anyone outside their closenit circle.

[Marcus Garvey]

I agree with that - same thing happened when Utah beat Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl a couple of years ago - Utah was clearly the better team coming in and everyone knew it, even though Pitt was from one of the BCS conferences. I think this is all just smoke screen - people talk of how great this is and yet there's no movement whatsoever on the landscape to allow a team like Utah or a team like Boise to have any shot at winning the BCS championship just simply because they will never be in the BCS championship game. Boise didn't accomplish anything more this year than Utah did a few years ago - non BCS schools are simply treading water and making no real gains towards acceptance by the BCS conferences and they never will. Money talks and the BCS conferences have it and they aren't going to voluntarily share it with anyone outside their closenit circle.

Well said. The BCS Schools further maintain their stanglehold on the money with their scheduling practices. The top teams in the "Big 6" make sure that the Utahs, TCU's and Boise States of college football stay down. Some outright refuse to schedule them, while others put so many conditions on a match-up that there's no incentive for the "little guys." The BCS teams that will play fair with them are irrelevant, as they're generally the mid-level to bottom rung teams: Indiana, N'wester, Baylor, Oregon St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Miss. St., UNC, Duke, Cinncy, etc...

By not having an opportunity to play legitimate Top 25 programs, it's nearly impossible for someone outside of the BCS leagues to get into the championship game.

[JohnStOnge]

Boise didn't accomplish anything more this year than Utah did a few years ago - .

Well...I do think Oklahoma this year was a good bit better than Pittsburgh was then. But I don't think Oklahoma was so great as to inspire the hype that's been going on. Fortunately I've posted enough about the Sagarin ratings over the years for those who "know" me to know that I consider them to be more credible than polls. It's not something I'm just making up now to argue a point. And the Sagarin ratings had Oklahoma ranked 14th going into this game.

Tremendous accomplishment by Boise State...but I don't think they beat a team that would have a real good shot at winning it all if the top subdivision had a playoff format like "ours" does. To me, when you really step back and look at it the Boise State win did not, in itself, add all that much to the argument for a playoff.

Now, I do think that it supports the idea that, if there is ever a playoff system similar to that in "our" subdivision, conference automatic bids shouldn't be limited to the BCS leagues.

[GannonFan]

Well...I do think Oklahoma this year was a good bit better than Pittsburgh was then.

Eh, hard to say. The Big 12 was not terribly good this year and Oklahoma won it even without their best offensive player, who was just coming back for this game. But we agree they weren't a great team anyway you look at it.



Now, I do think that it supports the idea that, if there is ever a playoff system similar to that in "our" subdivision, conference automatic bids shouldn't be limited to the BCS leagues.

I don't know about that. Just because Boise St was so good this year doesn't mean that the WAC, in perpetuity, would be deserving of an automatic bid. You have a year like this were a conference like the Big 10 maybe has 3 or 4 real good teams (Wisconsin, Penn St, Michigan, Ohio St) that would have some deserving teams left out. If they ever go to a playoff, I wouldn't expect a 16 team version - maybe a 4 or 8 - and in that I would advocate for no automatic bids - the BCS conferences will still probably get their champ in anyway, and most of the time deservingly so, but you wouldn't be locked into picking maybe undeserving teams just because of an automatic bid. You can get away with it in a 16 team field but it would be pretty glaring in a small tourney.

[JohnStOnge]

What I like about automatic bids is that it allows teams to control their own destiny. I like power ratings but I'd still rather have a system where every team knew going into the season that it completely controls whether it gets into the tournament or not. For that reason I'd give every conference in what we know call the "BS" an automatic bid. I realize that means some teams that couldn't even finish in the top half of other conferences would get in, but I like the "control desinty" aspect. Nobody has to rely on anybody's opinion or on power ratings to get in unless they don't get it done with respect to what they know they have to do.

If there are some conferences that are just too weak maybe some consideration should be given to stiffening the standards for being in the top subdivision.

[andy7171]

I think a popint we are all missing is that, had OU not lost Peterson for the majority of the season, they would be ranked higher and possibly in the championship game. OU, with Peterson back, was that team that played Boise. Maybe, perhaps that is the thinking behind Boise being the underdog.
Or maybe that a BCS league champion would be favored over a non BCS at large team?

[JohnStOnge]

I think a popint we are all missing is that, had OU not lost Peterson for the majority of the season, they would be ranked higher and possibly in the championship game. OU, with Peterson back, was that team that played Boise. Maybe, perhaps that is the thinking behind Boise being the underdog.
Or maybe that a BCS league champion would be favored over a non BCS at large team?

Kind of an interesting little factoid is that, this year, Oklahoma was 7 - 0 without Peterson playing and 4 - 3 with him.

I'm not saying I think OU was a better team without Peterson. But I also think the bottom line is that the Sooners were not a top of the heap BCS league team. Very good, but not at the same level as teams like LSU, USC, Ohio State, etc.