Auburn got Jacked Up!

[Dave66]

It is a sad day in college football when a football team can go through the SEC undefeated and not make it to the national championship game. The only reason USC and Oklahoma are in is because of where they were ranked in the preseason polls. Preseason polls should be thrown ot once the season starts. Every team should be ranked after week 1 in the college football season based on week 1 only and not last year. Lets break this down further:

Auburn beat:

LSU 9-2
Georgia 9-2
Tennessee (twice) 9-3
Alabama 6-5
Louisiana Tech 6-6

USC beat:

Virginia Tech 10-2
California 10-1
UCLA 6-5
Notre Dame 6-5
Oregon St 6-5
Arizona St 8-3

Oklahoma beat:

Texas Tech 7-4
Texas 10-1
Texas A&M 7-4
Colorado 7-5
Oklahoma St 7-4

Based on the above information alone it should be Auburn vs USC.

Finally, before anyone flames me for being a Auburn homer......I HATE AUBURN. I am a huge LSU fan!!!

Geaux Tigers beat the Hawkeyes

[Joe]

at least 2 teams have a chance to play for the championship and not just one. that's what its all about.. right?

[Cap Ologist]

Anybody who can go into Kyle Field and come from behind, shut out Texas and dominate the Big 12 Championship game in a game they should dominate shouldn't be out of it either. I'm not an OU fan, I'm an Aggie. But until we get rid of polls and bowls, college football will always be a whore.

[Tigercat]

Most years the SEC from top to bottom is the strongest conference in the nation. Even with the likes of Vandy and Kentucky. This year is not one of those years. Only 6 bowl eligible teams when most SEC OOC schedules are cupcake city doesn't cut it.

I'm an LSU fan too, but Auburn just got unlucky in the fact that they picked the wrong year to make a run from within the SEC. Actually maybe they were lucky, because they became a solid team at just the right year where they could run through the SEC.

[QuikSand]

The only reason USC and Oklahoma are in is because of where they were ranked in the preseason polls.

As we all know, a variety of "computer polls" (which have really nothing to do with computers, but rather are a human-determined series of weightings of wins, strength of schedule, and so forth) play a role in the modern BCS ranking system.

And, to my knowledge, the "computer polls" seem to agree that the top two teams are USC and Oklahoma. In fact, not only do they reach this conclusion -- but they are unanimous in that conclusion. Each and every computer ranking places Auburn third, behind the other two teams. (In fact, the only curiosity is that the computer rankings would place OU - the team you would choose to exclude - ahead of USC, but that's not the point here) And as we know - the computer rankings are completely unaffected by any preseason opinions, as they are all driven completely by this season's results and outcomes.

To suggest that "the only reason" for Oklahoma to be more highly rated than Auburn is because of preseason expectations is just unfounded. There is a series of perfectly neutral experts, who judge the results based on what has happened this season, and each and every one of them reached the same conclusion -- Auburn #3. It's not unreasonable to think that at least *some* of the human voters, in their collective wisdom, saw some of the same things and reached the same conclusion on their own, regardless of who was where before the season started.

[Dave66]

Funny thing is, I believe that Oklahoma is going to beat USC by at least 10 points

[digamma]

I don't think having Louisiana Tech on your list up there helps your argument. It's also convenient that you leave out that Auburn's other two non-conference games were Louisiana Dash Whatever and The Citadel.

[panerd]

You're right, screw this BCS.

Let's send OU to the orange bowl, USC to the Rose Bowl, and Auburn to the Sugar Bowl. That solution is soooo much better. Then we could end up with three undeafeated teams.

[Dave66]

I don't think it was convenient. I was just listing Auburn, USC and Oklahoma opponents that had winning records.

[Dave66]

We may actually have 4 undefeated teams after the bowl games are over!!!!!

[digamma]

I don't think it was convenient. I was just listing Auburn, USC and Oklahoma opponents that had winning records.
Yeah, that's why it's convenient. You're only considering data that supports your argument.

Still, La. Tech's 6-6 isn't a winning record.

(And, like you, I have no dog in this fight. I would have liked to have seen Auburn in there instead of USC, but in the end, I think the result is probably right.)

[Cuckoo]

I don't think it was convenient. I was just listing Auburn, USC and Oklahoma opponents that had winning records.

You forgot Bowling Green for Oklahoma. Just to let you know.

[MrBug708]

Louisana Tech, UL Monroe, and Mid Tenn St. I believe The Citadel was full this year. Our Sisters of the Poor was on K-State's schedule this year so they couldn't play Auburn

[ISiddiqui]

Let's send OU to the orange bowl, USC to the Rose Bowl, and Auburn to the Sugar Bowl. That solution is soooo much better. Then we could end up with three undeafeated teams.

Fine with me. Just don't pretend that the 'national championship' is anything but a subjective measure.

[VPI97]

Fine with me. Just don't pretend that the 'national championship' is anything but a subjective measure.I don't think the NCAA has ever claimed otherwise.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think the NCAA has ever claimed otherwise.

The BCS has, however.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Preseason polls don't matter, really. Believe me, if the poll voters really thought Auburn was better, they would have switched them around. But they didn't. It does happen. In 2001/2002, when the Huskers played Miami in the championship game, the poll voters swapped Colorado and Nebraska even though Colorado had 2 losses to Nebraska's 1 loss, and Nebraska did not play the last week (Nebraska made the BCS championship game by a hair anyway based on a win by Troy State (Husker opponent) over North Texas in the last week).

Believe me, if the voters thought having OU in was an injustice, they would have voted for Auburn. Obviously, they disagreed with your conclusion.

This is why at least a 4 team playoff (adding only a single game to two teams schedules) is needed. Just think, USC v. Cal/Texas and OU v. Auburn, with the winners playing in the Quaker State Championship Game.

[thealmighty]

Auburn got jacked up?? Auburn got jacked up???


That's bullshit. The real team that got screwed is TCU. :mad: :eek:

They beat, uh, they almost beat, umm.....:confused:


...never mind.

[Celeval]

I don't think having Louisiana Tech on your list up there helps your argument. It's also convenient that you leave out that Auburn's other two non-conference games were Louisiana Dash Whatever and The Citadel.
Maybe if Auburn hadn't ducked out of the Georgia Tech game, they'd have a good enough SOS to make it to the champ game. :-D

[Butter]

If we had a +1 game, would we have Utah v. USC and Oklahoma v. Auburn? Or would it have been USC v. Texas and OU v. Auburn. Because if it's the latter I don't see how this "+1 game" BS is going to solve anything.

[KWhit]

Maybe if Auburn hadn't ducked out of the Georgia Tech game, they'd have a good enough SOS to make it to the champ game. :-D
I doubt it. I mean, we're talking about Georgia Tech, right?

[KWhit]

The problem is that there is almost never exactly 2 teams that deserve a chance at the National Championship after the reg. season is over. A lot of tuimes there's just one undefeated team and a lot of 1-loss teams. Other years (like last year) there are no undefeated teams at all, but 3 or more 1-loss teams.

The BCS system is never going to work cleanly on a consistant basis. It's time for the NCAA and university presidents to get their heads out of their asses and institute a playoff system like every other sport and every other division of football. It's silly that we have to talk about this every year.

[QuikSand]

I recall seeing an interesting stat earlier this year - and don't know if it remains true.

Does anyone know how many BCS-conference teams the entire SEC has beaten this year? (Not including intraconference games, of course)

At one point, just a few weeks ago, someone told me the number was "one."

[Celeval]

I doubt it. I mean, we're talking about Georgia Tech, right?
Yeah, you're right. I mean, we beat them last year; who knows what would happen in the Ga Dome.

[Celeval]

I recall seeing an interesting stat earlier this year - and don't know if it remains true.

Does anyone know how many BCS-conference teams the entire SEC has beaten this year? (Not including intraconference games, of course)

At one point, just a few weeks ago, someone told me the number was "one."
Not true now, and I don't think it was true then - SEC (by my count) ended up 4-4 against BCS-conference/eligible teams.

Florida over Florida State (ACC)
Georgia over Georgia Tech (ACC)
Kentucky over Indiana (Big 10)
LSU over Oregon State (PAC-10)

Texas over Arkansas (Big 12)
Clemson over South Carolina (ACC)
Notre Dame over Tennessee (Independent)
Rutgers over Vanderbilt (Big East)

Included Notre Dame, since they're basically a BCS Conference to themselves.

[KWhit]

I recall seeing an interesting stat earlier this year - and don't know if it remains true.

Does anyone know how many BCS-conference teams the entire SEC has beaten this year? (Not including intraconference games, of course)

At one point, just a few weeks ago, someone told me the number was "one."
I think the number is 3. I know for a fact that UGA has beaten 1 (Georgia Tech - the only one they played) and Florida beat FSU. LSU beat Oregon State. I don't know about any others.

I have no idea how that stacks up against other conferences (probably not too well). SEC teams don't play many OOC games anyway, and for the most part they play lesser opponents when they do.

Basically though, it's impossible to really know which conference is better from year to year - the sample size is just too small. We only get a handful of games that pit the conferences against each other- especially with the top level teams.

We shouldn't have to guess at a conference's strength in order to determine who the best teams in the country are. They should play it out on the field.

[KWhit]

Dola - forgot about Indiana-Kentucky.

[Warhammer]

I think at the time it was, I was having an argument with someone a few weeks ago about top teams that the SEC beat out of conference and all I was able to come up with then was Oregon State.

That is one of the things killing Auburn this year, the SEC was not that great this year.

Not true now, and I don't think it was true then - SEC (by my count) ended up 4-4 against BCS-conference/eligible teams.

Florida over Florida State (ACC)
Georgia over Georgia Tech (ACC)
Kentucky over Indiana (Big 10)
LSU over Oregon State (PAC-10)

Texas over Arkansas (Big 12)
Clemson over South Carolina (ACC)
Notre Dame over Tennessee (Independent)
Rutgers over Vanderbilt (Big East)

Included Notre Dame, since they're basically a BCS Conference to themselves.

[Celeval]

I think at the time it was, I was having an argument with someone a few weeks ago about top teams that the SEC beat out of conference and all I was able to come up with then was Oregon State.It was probably two then - UK over Indiana was Sep. 18, and LSU over Oregon State was Sep. 4. The Florida State and Georgia Tech games were the weeks before and of Thanksgiving, respectively.

[Balldog]

Anybody who can go into Kyle Field and come from behind, shut out Texas and dominate the Big 12 Championship game in a game they should dominate shouldn't be out of it either. I'm not an OU fan, I'm an Aggie. But until we get rid of polls and bowls, college football will always be a whore.

Didn't Reggie McNeal miss half that game?

Colorado is not exactly Big 12 Championship worthy, they were probably the 5th best team in the conference at best. I can't imagine if Auburn would have played a team like Ole Miss in their conference championship.

I don't really care who plays though.

All three teams have a legit reason to think they should be playing.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I think all the undefeated teams should play SMU. The highest point differential wins the National Championship.

[Arles]

I recall seeing an interesting stat earlier this year - and don't know if it remains true.

Does anyone know how many BCS-conference teams the entire SEC has beaten this year? (Not including intraconference games, of course)

At one point, just a few weeks ago, someone told me the number was "one."
I remember seeing that as well, but it was "ranked teams from BCS conferences." The only ranked opponent from a BCS conference beaten by the SEC is FSU (Florida). The SEC as a whole had an extremely soft non-conference schedule this year (highlighted by Auburns group of patsies).

Still, I think Auburn did get a raw deal in all this. If you win all your games in a top tier conference, you ought to atleast have a chance to play for the championship.

But the big loser in all this is Cal. Both Cal and Texas had a similar schedule and MOV (Cal was +24, Texas' +22), but the big difference is how they fared in their loss.

Cal lost to USC by 6 points and had a chance to win on the final possession in USC territory. The Bears outgained the Trojans (on the road) by a mark of 424 to 205 with Rodgers going 29/34 for 267 yards (1-0 TD/INT) and Arrington get 100 yards. Texas, on the other hand, got shutout and dominated by Oklahoma in a game where they completed 8 passes and had only 240 total yards of offense to OU's 414.

That one game marks the only discernable difference between the two teams. Yet, in a week where Cal won by 10 on the road against a 6-4 team and Texas didn't play, Cal somehow lost 28 points in the coach's poll. Makes you wonder how many Big-12 coaches knocked Cal down and lifted up Texas to ensure the Big 12 got the money. This is one instance where it sucks to be the Pac-10 with only 5 coach's votes to the Big 12's 7.

[Celeval]

Still love how Utah isn't mentioned. I know they're not in the power conferences, and whatnot; but when it comes down to it, even they had a better out-of-conference schedule than Auburn did. Could even make an OOC argument about Oklahoma, as they face one other bowl eligible team (2) than OU (1) . Do I think they should be playing for the title? Not in the current setup. But they have just as much right to have a dog in the race as Auburn does. We need a playoff.

OOC Scheds:
USC: Virginia Tech (10-2, ACC), Notre Dame (6-5, Ind), BYU (5-6, MWC), Colorado State (4-7, MWC)
Oklahoma: Bowling Green (8-3, MAC), Oregon (5-6, PAC-10), Houston (3-8, C-USA)
Utah: Texas A&M (7-4, Big12), North Carolina (6-5, ACC), Arizona (3-8, PAC-10), Utah State (3-8, Sun Belt)
Auburn: Louisiana Tech (6-6, WAC), LA-Monroe (5-6, Sun Belt), The Citadel (3-8, I-AA)

[KWhit]

For the record, I did mention Utah in the other thread.

:)

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yet, in a week where Cal won by 10 on the road against a 6-4 team and Texas didn't play, Cal somehow lost 28 points in the coach's poll.

Southern Miss is crap. TCU who is more crap rolled them by 25 and Cincinnati rolled them by 28. Cal could only manage 10.

[Arles]

Celeval,

The problem is that Utah's nonconference schedule marked their best opponents while teams like USC, Oklahoma and Auburn played there best opponents in conference. Auburn beat LSU and Georgia (both top 11), Oklahoma beat No. 5 Texas and USC beat No. 4 Cal. Utah didn't even play one team in the top 20, beating only No. 25 A&M in top 25. I have a hard time putting a team in the National Championship game when they didn't even play a top 20 team all year.

[KWhit]

Celeval,

The problem is that Utah's nonconference schedule marked their best opponents while teams like USC, Oklahoma and Auburn played there best opponents in conference. Auburn beat LSU and Georgia (both top 11), Oklahoma beat No. 5 Texas and USC beat No. 4 Cal. Utah didn't even play one team in the top 20, beating only No. 25 A&M in top 25. I have a hard time putting a team in the National Championship game when they didn't even play a top 20 team all year.
Which is why we need a playoff system. It's a pipe dream, I know, but an 8-team playoff would let us see if Utah could compete with the top teams in the country.

College football is the only sport where AT LEAST half of the teams have NO shot at winning a national championship even if they never lose a game. What kind of screwy system is that???

[HornedFrog Purple]

The Pac-10 has 3 ranked teams. The Big 12 South by itself of whom Texas has to play every one of them has 4. The 5th place team in the South, Oklahoma State rolled UCLA who is the 5th place team in the Pac-10.

The Pac-10 didn't cut it as a conference this year. It's not the fault of Texas.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Which is why we need a playoff system. It's a pipe dream, I know, but an 8-team playoff would let us see if Utah could compete with the top teams in the country.

College football is the only sport where AT LEAST half of the teams have NO shot at winning a national championship even if they never lose a game. What kind of screwy system is that???

The system is called the power of the almighty dollar.

[Arles]

Southern Miss is crap. TCU who is more crap rolled them by 25 and Cincinnati rolled them by 28. Cal could only manage 10.
Hey, atleast So Miss was 6-4 when they played in Mississippi. Texas only beat a 3-5 Arkansas team by 2 and a 4-7 Kansas team by 4. Cal only had one win all season of less than 10 points (Oregon), Texas had three with all being sub-500 teams.

[Arles]

The Pac-10 has 3 ranked teams. The Big 12 South by itself of whom Texas has to play every one of them has 4. The 5th place team in the South, Oklahoma State rolled UCLA who is the 5th place team in the Pac-10.
Of course the Big 12 North had none. So, the Big 12 has 4 ranked teams with 12 teams, and the Pac-10 had 3 ranked teams with 10 teams. I would hope that with 2 extra teams you would get an extra ranked team.

The Pac-10 didn't cut it as a conference this year.
Is that why Sagarin has the Pac-10 as the top conference in the country this year?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc04.htm

1 PAC-10 - 79.08
2 BIG 12 - 77.81
3 ATLANTIC COAST - 77.60
4 I-A INDEPENDENTS - 75.26
5 SOUTHEASTERN -75.03
6 BIG TEN - 73.15

This isn't hard to figure out when you look at performance and the difficulty of the schedules in the Pac-10. Six of the top 8 schedules came from teams in the Pac-10 (UCLA was No. 11):

Oregon State - No. 1
Arizona State - No. 4
Arizona - No. 5
Washington - No. 6
Stanford - No. 7
USC - No. 8

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yes Sagarin having the independents at #4 is quite revealing...

Blaming the 2 extra Big-12 coaches is a bad argument also because Cal lost more points than those 2 would have taken away. Somebody else took points from Cal also.

If you want to blame anything blame Hurricane Francis who moved the game to this past weekend instead of early in the season when it should have happened.

[Arles]

Yes Sagarin having the independents at #4 is quite revealing...
Why? There's only two teams and both are going to bowl games (9-2 Navy and 6-5 Notre Dame). I doubt any other conference has 100% attendance in bowls.

Blaming the 2 extra Big-12 coaches is a bad argument also because Cal lost more points than those 2 would have taken away. Somebody else took points from Cal also.
Not neccessarily. There are only 61 coaches that get polled. So, those two extra coaches make up 3.3% of the total vote. The 28 points Cal went down represent only 0.14% of the total vote. This isn't the senate where one person = 1 vote. It's very possible that some of the Big 12 coaches caused that 28 point swing.

[Samdari]

As we all know, a variety of "computer polls" (which have really nothing to do with computers, but rather are a human-determined series of weightings of wins, strength of schedule, and so forth) play a role in the modern BCS ranking system.

And, to my knowledge, the "computer polls" seem to agree that the top two teams are USC and Oklahoma. In fact, not only do they reach this conclusion -- but they are unanimous in that conclusion. Each and every computer ranking places Auburn third, behind the other two teams. (In fact, the only curiosity is that the computer rankings would place OU - the team you would choose to exclude - ahead of USC, but that's not the point here) And as we know - the computer rankings are completely unaffected by any preseason opinions, as they are all driven completely by this season's results and outcomes.

To suggest that "the only reason" for Oklahoma to be more highly rated than Auburn is because of preseason expectations is just unfounded. There is a series of perfectly neutral experts, who judge the results based on what has happened this season, and each and every one of them reached the same conclusion -- Auburn #3. It's not unreasonable to think that at least *some* of the human voters, in their collective wisdom, saw some of the same things and reached the same conclusion on their own, regardless of who was where before the season started.

What you say is technically true QS, but misses the point. The spots in the BCS was decided by preseason polls. To wit, had Auburn been rated ahead of Oklahoma in both polls to start the season, and the computer rankings were exactly as they stand now, Auburn would be #2 in the BCS standings. The computer rankings hgd no effect on the final BCS rankings except margin between 2 and 3, which is essentially meaningless.

You can argue that Oklahoma was more deserving, and I don't claim to know how to separate these teams (on paper anyway). But, to say that these spots were not decided by preseason expectations is disingenuous.

[HornedFrog Purple]

And the fact that your own argument of two additional teams in the Big-12 kills your kudos of the Sagarin rating. The SEC has more ranked teams than the Big-12 yet trails in the Sagarin rating by 2.78.

The only thing Sagarin tells you is conference strength with the same amount of teams. Throw out Baylor and your choice of Kansas or Kansas State and see where it leads you verses the Pac-10.

I can find ratings that said Texas A&M had the toughest schedule in the country this season. Whoopdie doo.

Why? There's only two teams and both are going to bowl games (9-2 Navy and 6-5 Notre Dame). I doubt any other conference has 100% attendance in bowls.

Case in point.

[digamma]

What you say is technically true QS, but misses the point. The spots in the BCS was decided by preseason polls. To wit, had Auburn been rated ahead of Oklahoma in both polls to start the season, and the computer rankings were exactly as they stand now, Auburn would be #2 in the BCS standings. The computer rankings hgd no effect on the final BCS rankings except margin between 2 and 3, which is essentially meaningless.

You can argue that Oklahoma was more deserving, and I don't claim to know how to separate these teams (on paper anyway). But, to say that these spots were not decided by preseason expectations is disingenuous.
The computer rankings had a rather large effect. Because the poll portion of things is calculated based on total number of poll points received divided by total possible number of poll points, Auburn would have not only had to be # 2 in the polls, they would have had to be #2 in the polls by 50-65 points--which isn't unanimous, but is really significant. (Texas passing Cal is a fine example of this.)

Also, Auburn tied OU at one point in one of the polls and were just a few points behind in the second. OU has increased its lead each week since then. I don't think the pre-season had much to do with that.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Not neccessarily. There are only 61 coaches that get polled. So, those two extra coaches make up 3.3% of the total vote. The 28 points Cal went down represent only 0.14% of the total vote. This isn't the senate where one person = 1 vote. It's very possible that some of the Big 12 coaches caused that 28 point swing.

Yes, and if every Big-12 coach who voted moved Texas ahead of Cal, it still would not account for 28 points.

If you assume both conferences held serve and voted for their team in their conference, yes the Big-12 had an advantage. But not 28 points worth.

Someone(s) else out there was not impressed by Cal's game against Southern Miss is my assumption.

[Arles]

And the fact that your own argument of two additional teams in the Big-12 kills your kudos of the Sagarin rating. The SEC has more ranked teams than the Big-12 yet trails in the Sagarin rating by 2.78.
Because they have more bad teams and played a sauce non-conference schedule. The SEC and Big 12 each have only four of their 12 teams above .500. The Pac-10 had 4 teams above .500 with only 10 teams, all while playing the toughest schedule in the country and having two teams in the top 4.

It's really not all that hard to see why the Pac-10 was better than the Big 12 or SEC.

Throw out Baylor and your choice of Kansas or Kansas State and see where it leads you verses the Pac-10.
If you throw out the 13 wins the Big 12 got against those teams and replace those games with ones against better conference opponents and/or nonconference games like the Pac-10 faced in Oklahoma, LSU, Iowa, Virginia Tech, Utah, Notre Dame and BYU, you would probably be worse off.

I can find ratings that said Texas A&M had the toughest schedule in the country this season. Whoopdie doo.
Why don't you post the top 10 for those ratings and we'll see how many Pac-10 and Big-12 teams are in there? For the Sagarin, it's 6 Pac-10 to 1 Big 12 in the top 8.


Why? There's only two teams and both are going to bowl games (9-2 Navy and 6-5 Notre Dame). I doubt any other conference has 100% attendance in bowls.
Case in point.
The Independents are a bit different in that there are only 2 teams. You are talking about an 8-team difference between the Pac-10 and a 10-team one against the Big 12 or SEC. That difference is mitigated where are talking 1-2 teams.

[HornedFrog Purple]

My final point will be that Texas played 4 teams currently ranked in the BCS (OU #2, Texas A&M #20, Texas Tech #22 and Oklahoma State #24) and went 3-1. Cal played 2 (USC #1 and Arizona State #19) and went 1-1. Yes Cal had the better win at #19 vs #20 but Texas had more of them.

[Arles]

Yes, and if every Big-12 coach who voted moved Texas ahead of Cal, it still would not account for 28 points.

If you assume both conferences held serve and voted for their team in their conference, yes the Big-12 had an advantage. But not 28 points worth.

Someone(s) else out there was not impressed by Cal's game against Southern Miss is my assumption.
Your missing the point. If the two extra Big 12 coaches put Texas at 2 or 3 and Cal at 20, you have your difference.

[Arles]

My final point will be that Texas played 4 teams currently ranked in the BCS (OU #2, Texas A&M #20, Texas Tech #22 and Oklahoma State #24) and went 3-1. Cal played 2 (USC #1 and Arizona State #19) and went 1-1. Yes Cal had the better win at #19 vs #20 but Texas had more of them.
Problem is that you are talking margins. Cal played 2 teams that would be between 26 and 30 (Oregon State and UCLA) that got left off because the BCS stops at 25. If you look at the Sagarins, both Cal and Texas are 3-1 against teams in the top 30. If you are saying there's no difference between playing 1 and 19 than 2 and 20, I contend that there's even less a difference between facing #22 and #24 and two teams between 26 and 30. According to the SOS ranking, Cal had the No. 16 schedule and Texas the No. 19. You can't make a determination when the schedules are that close. So, instead, you have to look at their big games and Cal look immensely better against USC and ASU than Texas did against OU and A&M.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Your missing the point. If the two extra Big 12 coaches put Texas at 2 or 3 and Cal at 20, you have your difference.

I think you are pushing the realm of reality, but I can see what you are saying. I doubt it happened it happened that way though. Of course, we will never know.

Somehow I don't see Franchione or Bob Stoops (I forget if he got a vote or not) boosting Mack Brown, but that's just me. :D

[HornedFrog Purple]

If you are saying there's no difference between playing 1 and 19 than 2 and 20, I contend that there's even less a difference between facing #22 and #24 and two teams between 26 and 30.

In this case, the #24 beat the #30 head to head.

[MrBug708]

And the fact that your own argument of two additional teams in the Big-12 kills your kudos of the Sagarin rating. The SEC has more ranked teams than the Big-12 yet trails in the Sagarin rating by 2.78.

The only thing Sagarin tells you is conference strength with the same amount of teams. Throw out Baylor and your choice of Kansas or Kansas State and see where it leads you verses the Pac-10.

I can find ratings that said Texas A&M had the toughest schedule in the country this season. Whoopdie doo.



Case in point.

You should just give us Utah and Boise St and see where that leads :D

[GrantDawg]

I'm not even going to argue whether Auburn is better than USC or OU. Any system that says five undefeated teams cannot play it out to crown a champion is flawed. Auburn, Utah, and Boise State all got "jacked-up," but the fans are the ones who are truly getting screwed.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Hey, atleast So Miss was 6-4 when they played in Mississippi. Texas only beat a 3-5 Arkansas team by 2 and a 4-7 Kansas team by 4. Cal only had one win all season of less than 10 points (Oregon), Texas had three with all being sub-500 teams. Yeah, well, for some reason the BCS though it would be a good idea to drop MOV from the formulas for the objective rankings. I guess they figured the guys running them weren't smart enough to take MOV into account in a way that wouldn't give undue credit to running up the score or give an appropriate bonus for finding a way to win (neither position being one that I agree with).

And the systems being what they are within that limitation, they all agree that Texas is a better one-loss team than Cal.

[Arles]

Yeah, well, for some reason the BCS though it would be a good idea to drop MOV from the formulas for the objective rankings. I guess they figured the guys running them weren't smart enough to take MOV into account in a way that wouldn't give undue credit to running up the score or give an appropriate bonus for finding a way to win (neither position being one that I agree with).

And the systems being what they are within that limitation, they all agree that Texas is a better one-loss team than Cal.
The fact that it changed in the final week (when Texas didn't play and Cal won by 10 on the road) is what gets me. According to the numbers, Cal played in a better conference, had a tougher schedule than Texas, had a bigger margin of victory, lost earlier than Texas and Cal's only loss came against a better team. Plus, you throw in the fact that Cal looked significantly better in its top two games (USC and ASU) than Texas did against OU and A&M, and I am having a hard time finding one solid piece of evidence that points to Texas being a better team than Cal.

[Mr. Wednesday]

You're going to have to ask the statistics/computer guys. They could probably tell you better than I could why their systems think Texas is better than Cal. I think they've been consistent about it, though... I think they had UT ahead of Cal before the USM game.