Questions from a Football Noob

[SelzShoes]

I'm not much of a football guy but I've found myself watching more college games this season than I have in the past 30 or so years. I have a couple questions and thought the forum might be able to give some answers.

Question 1: It seems RPI in college basketball has more respect than the BCS system for football. Now I understand the absence of a playoff in football has much to do with that; however why is RPI treated (generally) as a definitive while the BCS only receives attention for it's flaws? (NOTE: I'm referring to the computer formulas--not the BCS system itself.)

Question 2: Growing up in Champaign Big Ten Football was often referred to as the "Big 2, Little 8." In fact, I think Illinois is number 3 in all-time Big 10 winning percentage, with a sub-.500 record. Why is the Big East's strength questioned with what appears (to my untrained eye) 3 quality clubs; while the Big Ten has historically, with a similar imbalance, been considered an elite conference?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SelzShoes

I'm not much of a football guy but I've found myself watching more college games this season than I have in the past 30 or so years. I have a couple questions and thought the forum might be able to give some answers.

Question 1: It seems RPI in college basketball has more respect than the BCS system for football. Now I understand the absence of a playoff in football has much to do with that; however why is RPI treated (generally) as a definitive while the BCS only receives attention for it's flaws?

Question 2: Growing up in Champaign Big Ten Football was often referred to as the "Big 2, Little 8." In fact, I think Illinois is number 3 in all-time Big 10 winning percentage, with a sub-.500 record. Why is the Big East's strength questioned with what appears (to my untrained eye) 3 quality clubs; while the Big Ten has historically, with a similar imbalance, been considered an elite conference?

I'll try to address these:

Question 1

I think that the RPI in basketball is more widely accepted because of the number of games played. There are usually around 25 games played before the NCAA tourney, so that gives a much larger sample size. Also, the BCS was created to determine the Top 2 teams, and that is it. I'd assume that there would be a lot more criticism of the RPI if it was used to replace the NCAA tourney and just went straight to the top 4 in the RPI as the Final Four.

Question 2

I think part of it goes to the amount of historical success a conference has had. The Big 10 has been around a long, long time, and prior to the BCS had the long time tie in with the Rose Bowl, considered "The Granddaddy of all Bowl Games." Michigan and Ohio State are two of the top all-time programs, with Penn State having a ton of historical success as well, although only recently joining the Big 10.

Since the Big East was almost disbanded a couple of years ago, there is the perception that it is not a stable conference. Their teams, historically, have not consistently been among the nation's elite, in football at least.

[Passacaglia]

Statistically, I can't believe that Illinois is number 3 in Big 10 winning percentage, and is sub 500. There's just too many teams for that to be possible. Anyway, I think the Big 2, Little 8 notion really left in the 90s -- that is to say, Michigan and Ohio State are the two teams that you can count on to always be in the thick of it every year, but other schools will challenge for the title, simply less often. This year is doing a lot to bring that perception back, but it's just an off year for the conference -- if you keep watching, you'll see a more parity than this in the conference.

[SelzShoes]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Statistically, I can't believe that Illinois is number 3 in Big 10 winning percentage, and is sub 500. There's just too many teams for that to be possible. Anyway, I think the Big 2, Little 8 notion really left in the 90s -- that is to say, Michigan and Ohio State are the two teams that you can count on to always be in the thick of it every year, but other schools will challenge for the title, simply less often. This year is doing a lot to bring that perception back, but it's just an off year for the conference -- if you keep watching, you'll see a more parity than this in the conference.

I did find a since 1945 standing that does show more clubs at +500, I think the list I remember might have had a 1969 start date--which would have played into the Big 2, Little 8 perception.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Statistically, I can't believe that Illinois is number 3 in Big 10 winning percentage, and is sub 500. There's just too many teams for that to be possible. Anyway, I think the Big 2, Little 8 notion really left in the 90s -- that is to say, Michigan and Ohio State are the two teams that you can count on to always be in the thick of it every year, but other schools will challenge for the title, simply less often. This year is doing a lot to bring that perception back, but it's just an off year for the conference -- if you keep watching, you'll see a more parity than this in the conference.

To be fair, Wisconsin is ranked #9 in the BCS with only one loss to Michigan. There usually seem to be at least 3 teams in the Big Ten doing well each year recently, but it isn't always the same 3 teams.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by BrianD

There usually seem to be at least 3 teams in the Big Ten doing well each year recently, but it isn't always the same 3 teams.

Usually it's the team that doesn't have to play Ohio State or Michigan...

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by cartman

Usually it's the team that doesn't have to play Ohio State or Michigan...

That's PRESEASON rankings. Everyone loved Purdue last year, because they didn't have to play either of them. Then they tanked.

[SelzShoes]

Thank you cartman, that's just the kind of answer I was looking for.

You know, with college basketball, I can watch NEC and Patriot League games on the DirecTV, and can spot the flaws even with the best clubs. I was watching Ball St and Toledo last night, and they looked like decent teams to me, not the lower tier clubs they really are. I'm still learning how to watch the game. The weekly football thread has been interesting to read to see how my perceptions fit with people who know what to look for in a game.