Final 2007 BlogPoll Ballot Submitted
The 2007 college football season has flown by and the duty has devolved upon me to cast my final BlogPoll ballot of the year. As I did last year, I will endeavor to explain my rankings thoroughly, and, as usual, I did not look at my previous ballot or anyone else's rankings (be they bloggers, sportswriters, or sports information directors) when compiling my final standings.
These, from my perspective, are the top 25 teams in the land:
- Louisiana State
- Georgia
- West Virginia
- Southern California
- Oklahoma
- Ohio State
- Missouri
- Virginia Tech
- Tennessee
- Oregon
- Boston College
- Kansas
- Michigan
- Texas
- Auburn
- Illinois
- Florida
- Cincinnati
- South Florida
- Arizona State
- Brigham Young
- Penn State
- Clemson
- Oregon State
- Hawaii
Although I did not determine to award automatically the No. 1 ranking to the winner of the designated B.C.S. championship game, Sunday Morning Quarterback was right to recognize that the winner was bound to be deserving of the national title by virtue of having beaten the other. Consequently, it was with no misgivings that I awarded Louisiana State (12-2) the top spot on my ballot.
Yes, the Bayou Bengals have two losses, but so does every other B.C.S. conference champion and I have a tough time accepting the legitimacy of any national championship contender that isn't a B.C.S. conference champion. Only two of L.S.U.'s twelve victims had records worse than 5-7 and the Fighting Tigers were victorious over a murderer's row of a slate that included a highly motivated Independence Bowl champion Alabama (7-6), Chick-fil-A Bowl champion Auburn (9-4), defending national champion Florida (9-4), Liberty Bowl champion Mississippi State (8-5), Big Ten champion Ohio State (11-2), Outback Bowl champion Tennessee (10-4), and A.C.C. champion Virginia Tech (11-3). As I noted recently, Louisiana State's two losses came in triple overtime against eight-win conference opponents. No other team's achievement over the course of the campaign equaled that of the Bayou Bengals, the champions of a league that went 7-2 in postseason play.

Even more impressive is the fact that Louisiana State won despite being coached by Forrest Gump.
The next three spots went to a trio of teams with identical records: Georgia (11-2), West Virginia (11-2), and Southern California (11-2). I ranked them in that sequence for the following reasons:
- Each of these teams had one respectable loss and one shameful setback. The Red and Black clearly had the least embarrassing "bad" loss, falling to the South Carolina Gamecocks (who were bowl eligible and finished at .500) before Jasper Brinkley's season-ending (and season-altering) injury. The Mountaineers' loss to five-win Pittsburgh in a rivalry game was worse than the defeat dealt the 'Dawgs by the Palmetto State Poultry, and the worst of the three by far was U.S.C.'s collapse against four-win Stanford.
- Likewise, Georgia had the best "good" loss of the bunch, falling on the road in Knoxville to a Tennessee team that represented its division in the S.E.C. championship game, won a New Year's Day bowl game, and finished with ten wins. The Men of Troy sustained a marginally lesser loss in Eugene at the hands of nine-win Sun Bowl champion Oregon. The Ducks defeated in El Paso the selfsame nine-win South Florida squad that defeated W.V.U. in Tampa.
- All three eleven-win squads had two virtually meaningless victories: Georgia beat Division I-AA Western Carolina and Ole Miss (3-9), Southern California beat Idaho (1-11) and Notre Dame (3-9), and West Virginia beat Marshall (3-9) and Syracuse (2-10). (Only the degree of difficulty encountered by Washington in posting a 4-9 season against a rugged schedule kept the Huskies from being counted among the Trojans' worthless wins.)
- In the Classic City Canines' nine meaningful victories, though, the Bulldogs played eight teams with winning records: Independence Bowl champion Alabama (7-6), Chick-fil-A Bowl champion Auburn (9-4), Florida (9-4), Georgia Tech (7-6), W.A.C. champion Hawaii (12-1), Music City Bowl champion Kentucky (8-5), Insight Bowl champion Oklahoma State (7-6), and Sun Belt co-champion Troy (8-4). By contrast, West Virginia beat six teams with winning records: PapaJohns.com Bowl champion Cincinnati (10-3), Connecticut (a very dubious 9-4), Hawaii Bowl champion East Carolina (8-5), Liberty Bowl champion Mississippi State (8-5), Big 12 champion Oklahoma (11-3), and International Bowl champion Rutgers (8-5). The Trojans brought up the rear by getting the better of only four teams with winning records: Arizona State (10-3), Armed Forces Bowl champion Cal (7-6), Illinois (9-4), and Emerald Bowl champion Oregon State (9-4).
Not so much this year, Pete.
On balance, the Bulldogs had the best resume of these three 11-2 teams. Georgia faced a daunting slate including only one Division I-A team that finished more than one game below .500, yet the Red and Black went 7-1 against bowl-bound opponents despite having to negotiate a regular-season schedule featuring squads that collectively went 5-2 in postseason play.
Aside from the Mountaineers' Fiesta Bowl victory over the Sooners, the quality wins posted by Georgia, Southern California, and West Virginia were comparable, as the differences between Arizona State, Auburn, Cincinnati, Florida, and Illinois are slight. The improvement in poll position W.V.U. earned by beating O.U. was hampered by the weakness of the Mountain Men's best loss (to South Florida, as compared to Oregon and Tennessee for the Trojans and the 'Dawgs).
Georgia posted a solid 5-1 ledger against teams that finished with eight or more victories, and West Virginia was a sparkling 6-1 versus competition of that caliber, whereas the Trojans went 3-1 against such opposition. The fact that U.S.C. faced nearly as many Division I-A teams with losing records (eight in a thirteen-game season) as Georgia faced Division I-A teams with winning records (nine in a thirteen-game campaign) also helped cause the Men of Troy to lag slightly behind the Bulldogs and the Mountaineers.
Finally, the degree of dominance demonstrated by the respective contenders was a significant factor, as well. West Virginia saved its best for last, hanging 48 points on Oklahoma in Glendale, but the Mountaineers ran hot and cold down the stretch, beating Mississippi State by 25, Rutgers by 28, and Connecticut by 45, but also struggling with Louisville, Cincinnati, and Pitt, in the final six outings of the regular season. Although U.S.C. appeared to peak after falling at Oregon in late October, the Trojans still only eked out a seven-point win over fading California and Pete Carroll's squad scored more than 24 points only once in Southern California's last five regular-season contests.
Georgia, on the other hand, showed the most significant improvement in the season's second half. Although the Bulldogs, the Mountaineers, and the Trojans all demolished their opponents in B.C.S. bowl games, no team in the country ended its predetermined slate on more of a tear than the Red and Black. Following their close shave in Nashville, the Classic City Canines averaged over 37 points per game in their last five regular-season matchups and beat their three biggest rivals by margins of 12, 25, and 14 points, respectively.
These three wins came, in sequence, against Florida at a neutral site at which the 'Dawgs had lost 13 of their previous 15 meetings with the Gators, against Auburn in a venue in which the Plainsmen held an all-time 17-8 advantage heading into the game, and against Georgia Tech on the Yellow Jackets' home field. Furthermore, the Bulldogs beat by a dozen points a Florida squad whose other three losses came by a combined 13 points and the Red and Black likewise outscored by a 45-20 margin an Auburn team whose other three losses were by a cumulative 14 points. Georgia badly beat a pair of nine-win teams that everyone else barely beat.

We play hard, we win big, and we smooch on good-looking women after the game. Any of you stodgy Big Ten types got a problem with that?
Finishing fifth overall, in spite of the Sooners' latest B.C.S. bowl meltdown, was Oklahoma (11-3). The Big 12 champion ended the season on a down note, but O.U.'s loss to West Virginia in the Fiesta Bowl marked the only setback suffered by Bob Stoops's troops in which the margin of defeat was more than a touchdown. All three of Oklahoma's losses were to bowl-bound teams and, although the Sooners' loss to a 6-7 Colorado squad was something of an embarrassment, there is no shame in losing to two teams who won January bowl games.
On the successful side of the team's ledger, Oklahoma had six victories over teams with winning records, beating ten-win Holiday Bowl champion Texas, ten-win GMAC Bowl champion Tulsa, and twelve-win Cotton Bowl champion Missouri twice, with three of those four conquests occurring outside of Norman. The Sooners' slate was not diluted by the inclusion of any Division I-AA opponents and, although O.U. defeated four teams who finished the season with three or fewer wins, Oklahoma won six contests over teams who went a collective 4-1 in bowl games.
Yes, I know Ohio State (11-2) played in the national championship game, but I questioned the Buckeyes' fitness for that bowl berth and O.S.U.'s was not a resume worthy of a top five ranking. Jim Tressel's squad claimed five of its eleven victories against Akron (4-8), Kent State (3-9), Minnesota (1-11), Washington (4-9), and Division I-AA Youngstown State. Solid wins over Alamo Bowl champion Penn State, Capital One Bowl champion Michigan, and nine-win Wisconsin earned the Buckeyes a spot at the table, but wins over six Division I-A teams with six or more losses, coupled with a home loss to an Illinois team that got blown out in Pasadena and a B.C.S. championship game outcome that effectively was decided well in advance of the contest's conclusion, caused Ohio State to slip to No. 6.
The seventh spot belonged to Missouri (12-2). The Tigers' only losses were to Oklahoma, although Mizzou's reputation was not helped by the fact that the Sooners defeated them by a larger margin at a neutral site than they had earlier in the season in Norman. Nevertheless, the Big 12 North champions recorded quality victories over eight-win Arkansas, nine-win Illinois, Orange Bowl champion Kansas, and Gator Bowl champion Texas Tech. Only two of Missouri's eleven victories over Division I-A opposition were recorded against teams who won fewer than five games.
Trailing the Tigers was Virginia Tech (11-3). The Hokies lost ground after falling to the Jayhawks in the Orange Bowl, although all of V.P.I.'s setbacks were respectable: two of them were close contests, one of them was a road game against the eventual national champion, and all of them were to teams who won eleven or more games.
It didn't help that the Hokies also awarded athletic scholarships to those Vick thugs, though.
Virginia Tech's victories over one-win Duke, four-win North Carolina, and Division I-AA William & Mary counted for next to nothing, but the Hokies otherwise tackled a respectable slate, beating eight Division I-A opponents that finished no worse than 5-7. Among V.P.I.'s valuable victories were wins over Champs Sports Bowl champion Boston College, nine-win Clemson, Hawaii Bowl champion East Carolina, and nine-win Virginia.
A New Year's Day bowl win propelled Tennessee (10-4) to a No. 9 ranking. The Volunteers were dragged down by lopsided road losses to Armed Forces Bowl champion Cal, Florida, and Independence Bowl champion Alabama, but the Big Orange had a quality loss to L.S.U. and registered wins against six teams with winning records, including eight-win Arkansas, Sugar Bowl champion Georgia, Music City Bowl champion Kentucky, Liberty Bowl champion Mississippi State, and nine-win Wisconsin.
On the strength of the Ducks' season-long record of achievement, the final spot in the top ten went to Oregon (9-4). Only two of the victims of the team from Eugene finished worse than 5-7 and the Ducks put up worthwhile wins over ten-win Arizona State, Humanitarian Bowl champion Fresno State, eight-win Houston, Capital One Bowl champion Michigan, Rose Bowl champion Southern California, and nine-win South Florida. On account of those impressive victories, Oregon would have finished higher, were it not for the fact that only one of the squad's losses (to Emerald Bowl champion Oregon State) really qualified as respectable. In retrospect, there was nothing but shame in falling to a six-loss Cal team and to Arizona and U.C.L.A. squads that ended up with losing records, although Oregon's strong finish and valid excuse (Dennis Dixon's injury) earned the Ducks the No. 10 ranking.
Lurking just outside the top ten is Boston College (11-3), an A.C.C. divisional champion that notched victories over eight-win Bowling Green, nine-win Clemson, eleven-win Virginia Tech, and nine-win Wake Forest. Wins over six Division I-A squads that finished above .500 offset wins over a pair of 3-9 teams in Army and Notre Dame, but, even after the Eagles extended their postseason winning streak in the Champs Sports Bowl, their rise was hampered by losses to six-loss Florida State and seven-loss Maryland. The case for B.C. was not helped by the fact that the student-athletes of Chestnut Hill faced eight bowl teams who went a combined 1-7 in the postseason.
All year long, my criticism of Kansas (12-1) has remained the same: as soon as the Jayhawks beat someone, I'll rank them higher . . . but not until then. K.U. laid an egg against Missouri, thereby depriving Mark Mangino's club of the opportunity to prove itself against Oklahoma. The Jayhawks' win in the Orange Bowl earned them a ton of credibility in my book, boosting them all the way to 12th.

Out of respect for Kansas's B.C.S. bowl win, I am even going to forego the opportunity to turn the phrase "a ton of credibility" into a joke about Mark Mangino's weight. He does, however, appear to be wearing a skirt in this picture. I'm just saying.
I couldn't, in good conscience, rank Kansas any higher than that, though, because, once you get past the Hokies, the Jayhawks' marquee win was over Central Michigan. V.P.I. is the only Division I-A team K.U. beat that finished the season with fewer than six losses. Kansas defeated three 5-7 teams (Kansas State, Nebraska, and Toledo), two 3-9 teams (Baylor and Iowa State), a 1-11 team (Florida International), and a Division I-AA team (Southeastern Louisiana). The Jayhawks' victims went a combined 1-4 in bowl games. The Orange Bowl win legitimized K.U.'s season, but there's only so much legitimacy a schedule like this can earn a team.
Something similar may be said for Michigan (9-4) in the aftermath of the Wolverines' Capital One Bowl win over the Gators. The Maize and Blue beat three nine-win teams (Florida, Illinois, and Penn State) but Michigan failed to be competitive in losses to Ohio State, Oregon, and Wisconsin, two of which were played in Ann Arbor. The Wolverines' narrow victory over the defending national champions counts for quite a lot, but there's only so much even the most impressive season-ending bowl win can do to overcome the season-opening embarrassment of a close loss to a Division I-AA school.
I wasn't sold on Texas (10-3) until the Longhorns' blowout win in the Holiday Bowl cemented the Burnt Orange's status as a top 15 team. Mack Brown's club claimed half of its ten wins against squads with winning records, including ten-win Arizona State, Conference USA champion Central Florida, Insight Bowl champion Oklahoma State, Texas Bowl champion Texas Christian, and Gator Bowl champion Texas Tech. Those victories bolstered the Longhorns' resume, but they were not enough to get Texas within striking distance of the top ten, as the 'Horns also beat a trio of 3-9 teams (Baylor, Iowa State, and Rice) and lost to five-win Kansas State, blunting the benefit of the Burnt Orange's quality loss to Big 12 champion Oklahoma.
Although I hate Auburn (9-4), I could not deny the Tigers the No. 15 ranking after Tommy Tuberville's team took care of business in tight ballgames against Independence Bowl champion Alabama, eight-win Arkansas, nine-win Clemson, and nine-win Florida, with three of those four victories being earned outside of the so-called Loveliest Village. All of the Plainsmen's losses were to bowl teams with eight or more wins to their credit and three of those losses were by a touchdown or less, including the Tigers' tussle with L.S.U. in Baton Rouge.
When you look at Illinois (9-4), it's easy to focus on the losses. Of the four setbacks suffered by the Fighting Illini, only the early-season close contest against Cotton Bowl champion Missouri was not an embarrassment: being beaten handily by Michigan and Southern California, and falling to a .500 Iowa team, did little for the reputation of Ron Zook's charges. However, six of Illinois's Division I-A victories were over teams at or above .500, including eleven-win Ohio State, nine-win Penn State, and nine-win Wisconsin. That fact improved the Illini's standing, but their ascension was hampered somewhat by the fact that, while the teams that beat Ron Zook's squad went 3-0 in bowl games, the teams that lost to Illinois went 1-4 in postseason play.

Dude, you got obliterated in the Rose Bowl. You'll take your No. 16 ranking and like it. (You want to know why you got obliterated? Southern speed, my man. O.K., Southern California speed, but still. . . .)
Florida (9-4) fell to No. 17 after taking it on the chin in Orlando, but the defending national champions put together a body of work that earned them a spot just outside the top 15. Only one of the Gators' full-fledged Division I-A victims finished with a record worse than 5-7 and U.F.'s wins came against the likes of ten-win Tennessee, eight-win Kentucky, and Sun Belt co-champions Florida Atlantic and Troy. Three of Florida's four losses were close contests, three of them were played elsewhere other than Gainesville, and all of the Saurians' setbacks were suffered at the hands of teams that won nine or more games and posted a cumulative 4-0 record in bowls. The Gators faced eight bowl teams and, between them, those squads went a combined 7-1 in postseason play.
I struggled over where to place Cincinnati (10-3). On the one hand, half of the Bearcats' wins were over teams that finished with winning records, including nine-win Connecticut, Emerald Bowl champion Oregon State, International Bowl champion Rutgers, and nine-win South Florida. On the other hand, Cincy's other five wins came against the likes of Marshall (3-9), San Diego State (4-8), Syracuse (2-10), and Division I-AA Southeast Missouri State. All of Cincinnati's losses were by narrow margins, but two of those setbacks came against a .500 Louisville club and a five-win Pittsburgh squad. In the end, a quality loss to Fiesta Bowl champion West Virginia and a handful of victories over solid teams earned the 'Cats the No. 18 ranking.
Despite the Bulls' embarrassing loss to Oregon in El Paso, South Florida (9-4) remained in the top 20 on the strength of a resume that included wins over Chick-fil-A Bowl champion Auburn, Conference USA champion Central Florida, Sun Belt Conference co-champion and New Orleans Bowl champion Florida Atlantic, and Fiesta Bowl champion West Virginia. Aside from the Sun Bowl drubbing U.S.F. absorbed, all of the Bulls' losses were close contests and the four teams that defeated South Florida all finished with eight or more wins.
I didn't want to drop Arizona State (10-3) all the way to No. 20, but the Sun Devils' pretty record did not withstand much in the way of scrutiny. Eight of A.S.U.'s ten wins came against teams that finished the season with four (San Diego State, Stanford, and Washington), five (Arizona, San Jose State, and Washington State), or six (Colorado and U.C.L.A.) wins.
Of the Sun Devils' two victories over teams with winning records, one came against Armed Forces Bowl champion Cal, which went 7-6. That leaves Arizona State with just one quality victory (over Emerald Bowl champion Oregon State) to offset losses to Oregon, Southern California, and Texas, none of which were competitive. A B.C.S. conference team simply cannot have less to show for a ten-win season than that.
I gave the Devils their due.
I felt badly for not finding a spot in the top 20 for Brigham Young (11-2), but I had trouble finding what I would call a "marquee victory" for the Cougars. When a team's most prominent victories are over the winners of the New Mexico Bowl and the Poinsettia Bowl and over the loser of the Armed Forces Bowl, it's hard to make a case for that team to be ranked any higher, particularly when its record is padded with wins over Colorado State (3-9), San Diego State (4-8), U.N.L.V. (2-10), and Division I-AA Eastern Washington. Eleven wins and victories over a pair of Pac-10 teams (albeit ones with losing records) got B.Y.U. into the rankings, but lopsided losses to Tulsa and U.C.L.A. kept the Cougars from rising any higher.
Having seen four 9-4 teams settle into all but one of the five spots from No. 15 through No. 19, we now begin another run of 9-4 squads from No. 22 to No. 24, starting with Penn State (9-4). (Another nine 9-4 teams find themselves among the others receiving consideration.)
The Nittany Lions' case was not helped by victories over Buffalo (5-7), Florida International (1-11), Notre Dame (3-9), or Temple (4-8), and Joe Paterno's club derived only incremental benefit from P.S.U.'s wins against Indiana (7-6), Iowa (6-6), and Texas A&M (7-6), two of which were narrow escapes. Aside from a close loss to seven-win Michigan State, all of Penn State's setbacks came against quality competition. That fact, when coupled with the Lions' impressive 38-7 pasting of nine-win Wisconsin, gave P.S.U.'s resume adequate heft to get the Alamo Bowl champions into the top 25.
Only one of the eight Division I-A victories claimed by Clemson (9-4) came against a team with fewer than six losses, but only one of the Tigers' Division I-A wins was over an opponent with more than seven losses. Other than Duke (1-11), Wake Forest (9-4), and Division I-AA Furman, every team Tommy Bowden's squad defeated had a record between 5-7 and 8-6. Three of Clemson's losses were to teams that won nine or more games, and two of those were close, but the Tigers fell to seven-win Georgia Tech and their second- and third-best wins were over Florida State and Central Michigan, two teams who finished with six losses apiece after coming up short in bowls with the word "city" in their nomenclature.
I wanted to rank Oregon State (9-4) higher than 24th, but, although I believe the Beavers to be a good team, there is a limit to the level of achievement represented by O.S.U.'s---excuse me, O.S.'s---resume. The Beavers deserve credit for quality wins over nine-win bowl champions Oregon and Utah, but Oregon State was dragged down by the rest of its schedule.
The rest of its schedule . . . and the uniforms, of course.
Seven of the Beavers' nine victims were Arizona (5-7), Cal (7-6), Maryland (6-7), Stanford (4-8), Washington (4-9), Washington State (5-7), and Division I-AA Idaho State, who ranged from mediocre to awful. Even though the squad from Corvallis faced a slate that was less than daunting, four of O.S.'s eight Division I-A victories came by margins of a touchdown or less and none of the Beavers' four losses was competitive. Road losses to such bowl-bound teams with ten or more victories as Arizona State, Cincinnati, and Southern California by margins of 12, 31, and 21 points, respectively, may have been forgivable, but a home loss by 26 points to a U.C.L.A. team that finished with a losing record is inexcusable.
Finally, I awarded the No. 25 ranking to Hawaii (12-1). A twelve-win season has to count for something, but the Warriors no more deserve a higher ranking than they deserved their Sugar Bowl berth. June Jones's former charges claimed ten of their twelve victories in singularly unimpressive fashion, beating Idaho (1-11), New Mexico State (4-9), U.N.L.V. (2-10), Utah State (2-10), and Division I-AA Charleston Southern and Northern Colorado while having to escape narrowly upset bids by Louisiana Tech (5-7), Nevada (6-7), San Jose State (5-7), and Washington (4-9). Wins against Humanitarian Bowl champion Fresno State and ten-win Boise State were inadequate to overcome the utter annihilation the Aloha State Adventurers endured in New Orleans.
Varying degrees of consideration were given to Air Force (9-4), Boise State (10-3), Central Florida (10-4), Connecticut (9-4), Fresno State (9-4), New Mexico (9-4), Texas Tech (9-4), Tulsa (10-4), Utah (9-4), Virginia (9-4), Wake Forest (9-4), and Wisconsin (9-4). Because this posting has gone on long enough already, I will not go through the reasons those teams were not included, but, if anyone is interested in learning why a particular squad did not make the grade, you may leave me a comment below and I will do my best to offer an explanation. No teams with five or more losses were considered for inclusion in my top 25.
If it was a bowl game, I wasn't either driving a car or practicing law while it was being played, and it wasn't broadcast on the NFL Network, I watched it. Heck, I even watched Appalachian State beat Delaware in the Division I-AA national championship game because that outcome was relevant to my evaluation of the Wolverines' resume.
As always, I welcome your constructive criticisms in the comments below. The final BlogPoll will be released on Thursday afternoon. In the meantime, while you're in a ballot-oriented mood, be sure to go vote for Sunday Morning Quarterback for best sports blog. Also, be on the lookout for the next CFB Weekly radio show, for which I was interviewed again in the aftermath of Georgia's Sugar Bowl victory.
Go 'Dawgs!
0 recs |
37
comments
Comments
KU
by ElectricSweater on Jan 9, 2008 7:19 PM EST 0 recs
On balance, I believe it does make sense
The Hokies and the Jayhawks, by contrast, played a close game. Although K.U. certainly and deservedly gets credit for winning that contest, other factors come into play, as well:
- Virginia Tech played in and won its conference championship game. Kansas did neither.
- Virginia Tech beat six Division I-A teams with winning records. Kansas beat seven Division I-A teams with losing records.
- Virginia Tech played nine games against bowl teams. Kansas played six games against bowl teams.
- Virginia Tech beat four teams that won eight or more games. Kansas beat two teams that won eight or more games.
- Virginia Tech's second-best victory was over Clemson. Kansas's second-best victory was over Central Michigan.
by T Kyle King on
Jan 9, 2008 7:39 PM EST
up
0 recs
Why play the game then?
I understand using team's schedules as an argument for or against landing them in a bowl, but this seems to be taking it a little too far. I mean, regardless of who they played, Kansas proved that it was a better team than Virginia Tech by beating them on a neutral field.
And I understand why you can't rank some teams above teams they beat. For instance, no way can you rank 5-win Pitt over Fiesta Bowl Champions WVU, whom they beat. But when you have a 12-1 Orange Bowl Champion whose only loss was to a Top 10 team, it seems unreasonable to rank them below the team they beat to earn that Orange Bowl Championship.
Also, I would tend to lean towards USC's loss on the road to the then number 2 ranked team led by the leading candidate for the Heisman as being more forgivable than Georgia getting stomped by Tennessee. No disrespect to Georgia, I would still rank them ahead of USC just on the basis of the Stanford vs. So. Carolina losses, but I think that Oregon with Dixon and Stewart in the backfield could have been national champions.
by pmac on
Jan 9, 2008 9:00 PM EST
up
0 recs
I agree with you about Oregon . . .
If one player is the difference between a team being a national title frontrunner and its being unable to score on conference opponents that finished with losing records, that player is, by definition, the best player in college football. (The same goes for freshman tailbacks who turn a 6-5 team that didn't go to a bowl game into a 12-0 national champion, but that's a separate conversation.)
Your position regarding U.S.C.'s loss to Oregon and Georgia's loss to Tennessee is reasonable. You are right that the Trojans lost a close game to the Ducks in Eugene, whereas the Bulldogs lost a blowout in Knoxville. In the end, other factors (such as the South Carolina and Stanford losses, which you sensibly mentioned) overcame that fact in my mind, but the distinction you draw is a valid one.
Oregon and Tennessee truly are comparable teams, which is why I ranked them within one poll position of one another. Neither the Ducks nor the Big Orange faced a Division I-AA team and both beat six teams with winning records and three teams with losing records.
Oregon beat Arizona State, Michigan, and Southern Cal, whereas Tennessee beat Arkansas, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Both teams played nine conference games and both teams beat 9-4 teams from B.C.S. conferences in bowl games.
I gave Tennessee the nod for two reasons. First of all, the Volunteers represented their division in the S.E.C. championship game and, therefore, played an extra game. All other things being equal, 10-4 trumps 9-4.
Secondly, and more importantly, Tennessee had the better set of losses. The Vols lost to Cal in Berkeley; the Ducks lost to Cal in Eugene. Tennessee lost to a pair of seven-win teams; Oregon lost to a pair of seven-loss teams. Tennessee's best loss was a close contest against the eventual national champion; Oregon's best loss was a close contest against the eventual Emerald Bowl champion.
In the end, though, Oregon's and Tennessee's resumes are close and, due to the margins by which the Ducks beat U.S.C. and the Big Orange beat Georgia, it is reasonable to call the Trojans' setback the better of the two. These are splittable differences and, while we draw divergent conclusions, your point is a fair and legitimate one.
by T Kyle King on
Jan 9, 2008 9:44 PM EST
up
0 recs
One player does not make a team.
Lazy journalism has talked over and over how Dixon's loss was Oregon's demise. They lost 13 starters, 7 on offense and six on defense by week #9 and still recovered to route a team who beat both Auburn and West Virginia.
by bcsbusters on
Jan 10, 2008 8:11 AM EST
up
0 recs
As for your larger point . . .
I hope I will not come across as flippant when I respond, "If you're going to consider the winner of a B.C.S. bowl better than the loser without regard to the rest of the season, then why play the season?"
If one is a playoff advocate---as many people are, and as you may be, but as I am not---the point raised by your question is a tenable one. Irrespective of whether we should have a playoff, though, the fact is that we do not have a playoff at present, and my method of ranking teams is designed to take into account the season in its entirety. One win counts as that---one win---and only as that; its value is only as good as the quality of the opposition.
Certainly, Kansas deserves substantial credit for beating Virginia Tech. I gave the Jayhawks that credit by placing them as high as I did, which was higher than I ever before had placed them. Likewise, the Hokies' ledger was diminished by the defeat and V.P.I. dropped accordingly.
It seems undeniable to me, though, that Virginia Tech had the better season, even if Kansas had the better game. Prior to beating the Hokies, the 'Hawks had not defeated so much as a single team that finished with fewer than six losses. One good night in Miami cannot overcome a string of victories over cupcakes.
Look at it this way: Kansas played two good teams in 2007, Missouri and Virginia Tech. The Jayhawks faced both at neutral sites, winning one by a close margin and being beaten handily in the other.
V.P.I., by contrast, faced six teams better than the second-best team K.U. beat: Boston College (twice), Clemson, East Carolina, Kansas, Louisiana State, and Virginia. Virginia Tech tangled with three of those teams on the road and with two of them at neutral sites.
In their seven outings against those half-dozen opponents, the Hokies went 4-3, with two of the three losses, and none of the four victories, being close. Two of those wins were on the other team's home field.
When we separate the wheat from the chaff, we find that Virginia Tech was over .500 against good teams, winning by more than a touchdown every time the Hokies won and losing by more than a touchdown only a third of the times they lost. K.U., on the other hand, was right at .500 against good teams, faced fewer quality competitors, never won by more than a touchdown when the Jayhawks won, and never lost a close contest when they lost.
As I have indicated before, I understand and respect the perspective expressed by you on behalf of "a 12-1 Orange Bowl Champion whose only loss was to a Top 10 team." Once again, I recognize that this is a valid point of view and I freely admit that Kansas's schedule, while weak, was not of the low caliber of Hawaii's.
Over the course of the campaign, though, even with the win over Virginia Tech that gave them their only quality scalp of the season, the 'Hawks accomplished less than the Hokies, which is why I gave V.P.I. the nod over K.U.
I hope that explains my position, even if it does not persuade you of the correctness of it. I thank you for taking the time to comment; complaints as well stated and sensible as yours are always welcome, as Bulldog Nation is a vast and varied place and I always am open to constructive criticisms offered in a reasonable manner, as yours quite clearly were.
by T Kyle King on
Jan 9, 2008 10:14 PM EST
up
0 recs
i'm with you, pmac...
you can't lose like they did in what is basically home territory two years in a row like that, once against a mid-major, and once against a coachless team...they sucked, and should be behind the other BCS 2-loss teams. and they lost to Colorado!....let's stop trying to sugar-coat that loss, it was embarassing.
i think OSU would beat OU anyway. Wf'nVU made them look like JV out there.
VT should be lower (behind Kansas somewhere)
they haven't shown the KI to win big games this season. any team that can't win BIG games, can't be reasonably considered great. top-ten great, at any rate. (let's not argue that the ACC champ game was big, mmmm-k?)
yeah, Kansas played a pat schedule, but they still showed they are the better of the 2 teams invited to the Orange Bowl.
at any rate, in spite of the fact that there is a certain preponderance of mediocre teams this season, and any rankings outside the top-five are either debatable or trivial...and likely both....i still take umbrage with OU's inclusion therein.
your argument that the worth of the season cannot hinge on the Bowl game is trite, and when my fellow Dawg fans used it in 2005, i felt ill.
i agree that beating Auburn, GT, and UF in the same year was thrilling, but if we had gone out and lost to UH i would look back on this season with contempt. (excepting a few major gems)
i don't want to GET to Miami on Jan 8, 2008....i want to WIN in Miami on Jan 8, 2008.
and if we lose to UF or Au or LSU or Ala en route...i will still go outside and howl at the moon with my Dawgs. but whoever we beat better not try and claim that they are the National Champ, because their schedule was more difficult. eh?
(losing to GT next year is wholly unacceptable)
by dawgaddict on Jan 10, 2008 12:04 AM EST 0 recs
Two more cents
Additionally, I think it's a little unfair to reward Virginia Tech for beating BC in the title game - they lost to them in the regular season, just as Kansas lost to Missouri. But Kansas didn't have the chance to play Missouri twice. If we take that in to account, VT was 3-3 against the teams you mentioned. One of those losses was to Kansas. Another was an absolute mauling by LSU, a champion, yes, but also a two loss team.
And then there's ECU, a team you describe as being better than the second-best team Kansas played. I don't know which team that is, but if it's Oklahoma State, I have to disagree. If it's Texas A&M, or Colorado, again I disagree. ECU, a five loss team against a worse schedule than Kansas', shouldn't make that list. Taking that into account, VT is now 2-3 against teams better than Kansas' second tier opponents. With one of the losses, again, to Kansas itself.
If you want Kansas out of the top five, that's defensible. But out of the top ten and below their Orange Bowl victim? That's not fair.
by randomterrace on Jan 10, 2008 2:17 AM EST 0 recs
Why doesn't the win over B.C. count?
Even if I concede your point about East Carolina (which I will admit may have some merit), that leaves V.P.I. at 3-3 against competition of the caliber of K.U.'s two best opponents. That gives the Hokies an equal .500 record against quality teams, in addition to their having played an extra game and won their conference crown, and your point that Virginia Tech had three times as many losses as Kansas cuts the other way, as well: Virginia Tech had three times as many meaningful wins as Kansas, too.
by T Kyle King on
Jan 10, 2008 7:41 AM EST
up
0 recs
a ha-penny
by randomterrace on Jan 10, 2008 2:58 AM EST 0 recs
If we're going by wins and losses . . .
The Chippewas won eight games. Colorado won six and Oklahoma State and Texas A&M each won seven.
Your point may be a fair one, but, if you accept the premise that not all victories are created equal, I believe you have to concede my point that Virginia Tech survived a much tougher schedule than the Jayhawks did.
by T Kyle King on
Jan 10, 2008 7:36 AM EST
up
0 recs
Great Poll Kyle
Since the SEC won't play any valid non-conference games because everyone is so tough inside your conference, I thought I'd give you a formal, bipartisan, and neutral look at some of your evaluations.
You totally discredit Oregon for losing to a 6-6 California team (who was ranked in the Top-5 at the time) but didn't mention at all the humbling loss the same Bears team gave to Tennessee, who played in the Championship Game for the best conference in the Universe.
You gave LSU kudos for losing to an 8 win Arkansas team, who was shellacked by Missouri, almost by the same score that Missouri shellacked Mississippi.
I think there was one point in the season that you folks were talking about having 11 bowl eligible teams, because Mississippi, Vandy, Kentucky and South Carolina were doing so well. Where are these teams now?
And what of the Bears collapse due (to injuries more than anything)? It looks almost...South Carolina-ish doesn't it?
I've told you many times before that Georgia is a favorite of mine, simply because I have a great deal of respect for Mark Richt.
He is the epitome of class and integrity. I cannot say much of the same for the boastful, self full-filling enterprises of this conference.
Well Done is of much greater reward than well said and when all is said and done, the SEC went 12-9 this year versus the other BCS Conferences (mostly home games as well) and when digging a little deeper, you folks were a dismal 2-5 against teams ranked in the Top-35.
If you folks would just shut up and play and quit talking about how great you are, which is hard to evaluate because you don't play anyone but yourselves, you would probably get your due credit that in a lot of circumstances you would have earned.
That venom is not directed at you Kyle for I know first hand how gracious and fair you are in your evaluations. That is directed at your fan base and media idiots who can't seem to get off the SEC bandwagon.
If you folks were that much better than every one else, wouldn't your non-conference records be something like 18-3 or 16-5. And wouldn't your record against the Top-35 be at least 6-1 if not 7-0.
Two and five hardly registers on the radar gun for me. In baseball terms, I would have put that 83 mile an hour fastball to bed ages ago, within the first half of the season when Tennessee lost to CAL, Auburn lost to South Florida and Mississippi lost to Missouri.
The SEC is running about average, but I know that somehow, you folks just can't live with that.
But when you rebuke Kansas for a soft schedule, and don't rebuke yourself for never traveling or playing a non-conference slate of significance, you really look a bit bipolar don't you think?
Personally, I don't see much difference between the top-8 teams this year and until we settle it on the field the championship is as mythical today as ever.
One thing I learned a long time ago is if you start pointing fingers (about the Rose bowl), you usually have three more pointing right back at you. To all SEC fans, well done is of much greater reward than well said. You folks really are not any better than the rest of the country...I would have thought that Dixie land would have figured that out in the civil rights era of the 60's.
Enjoy the glass slipper, as fragile as it may be.
by bcsbusters on Jan 10, 2008 8:07 AM EST 0 recs
WVU what?
WVU should be ranked ahead of UGA after losing (ahem, CHOKING!) to Pitt in their FINAL REGULAR SEASON GAME....in what dimension is Pitt better than Tennessee OR South Carolina?
and i must say Sir, the WAC and BigEast certainly acquitted themselves admirably this year in Bowl games, thx for bringing this to my attention. (1-3, 3-2, respectively)
the only conference that approached remotely the success the SEC had in Bowl games is the MWC.
so, perhaps you should argue that BYU is deserving of a top-8 ranking, so they can be included in the 8-team playoff?
don't forget friend, with a top-8 playoff, there would've been NO BigEast competitor and NO mid-major competitor.
which, according to your imparted impression of SEC fans, would suit us just fine...
PS-the jab at Dixie was childish, and it's inclusion would've suited me better at the beginning of your post, so i would've known to ignore your ENTIRE rant.
by dawgaddict on
Jan 10, 2008 9:39 AM EST
up
0 recs
In the same world that
I do not think they were deserving of the BCS this year, and the ass kicking I am referring to was West Virginia leading 28-0 in the first quarter against Georgia. Kudos for coming back, but if West Virginia is so bad and the Big-East sucks, how do you explain the fact that the Big-East is 7-1 against the SEC in the last 5 years.
As far as Dixie, why do you fly the flag on the state capitol of a number of your conference teams if it is so childish, and why is it that 90% percent of the crowds are white in your neck of the woods and the majority of the players are all black?
I've lived in the South, I'm well aware of the mindsets and this SEC superiority is very similar as I've told Kyle before to the civil rights issues.
I wouldn't expect you to see it this way, you're from the South where it is a way of life you are accustomed to.
by bcsbusters on
Jan 10, 2008 12:51 PM EST
up
0 recs
Cut it out, BCSBusters
You don't get to come here to my site and call my people a bunch of racists while, at the same time, generalizing about "you folks" in a condescending, and equally bigoted, manner.
(For the record, by the way, the Georgia flag was changed seven years ago and a deal also was struck to remove the Confederate battle flag from atop the South Carolina capitol. An extensive interview with a college history professor who was living in the Palmetto State at the time of the controversy appeared at this site some time back, revealing that there are many nuances to this issue.)
I'm simply not going to put up with this kind of knee-jerk name-calling supported by nothing more than the claim that you've "lived in the South."
If you want to express a contrary view about college football, fine, but do it in a respectful manner and deal with the person in front of you, not with the caricature you presume him to be. I refuse to have my readers accused of holding stereotypical views of others while being treated like stereotypes themselves.
Straighten up or get banned. Those are your choices. I'm sorry to have to be so harsh about it, but I've asked politely repeatedly and I'm done being nice about it.
by T Kyle King on
Jan 10, 2008 1:49 PM EST
up
0 recs
The 2006 Sugar Bowl...
However, since you brought it up, I think that the public's memory of the 2006 Sugar Bowl is different from the reality of the game. West Virginia blasted Georgia in the first 16 minutes of that game; we all remember that they took a 28-0 lead. However, they ended up winning by only three points, 38-35.
In that game, WV had 502 total yards compared to UGA's (apparently embarrasing) total of 501. All told, that was not a blasting, that was a close game.
by mcboyt on
Jan 10, 2008 10:04 AM EST
up
0 recs
38-35
by NCT on
Jan 10, 2008 11:06 AM EST
up
0 recs
Kind of like the Miami - UCLA game in 1998
by bcsbusters on
Jan 10, 2008 12:53 PM EST
up
0 recs
A Reply to BCSBusters
In resume ranking, all that is taken into consideration is what a team accomplished on the field this year. I am unconcerned with how many miles a team traveled in the last decade or what bowl results it produced two years ago. These factors simply are not a part of the equation when I am compiling my rankings.
I would note, however, that, while West Virginia won the 2006 Sugar Bowl fair and square, mcboyt and NCT are right that hanging on to win 38-35 after leading 28-0 does not qualify as "blasting" by any reasonable definition of the term.
In light of the Bulldogs' effective containment of Boise State in 2005, Oklahoma State in 2007, and Hawaii in the 2008 Sugar Bowl, I would argue that the first 16 minutes of the 2006 Sugar Bowl mark the only instance in which an out-of-conference opponent with an innovative scheme got the better of the Georgia defense in the Willie Martinez era, thus making the Red and Black one of the best examples with which to refute the "Gang of Six" (read: "Offensive Chic") nonsense. (Georgia's containment of Urban Meyer's spread option---which, if memory serves, scored no offensive points against Georgia in the second half in 2005 or 2006, and which surrendered multiple sacks of Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow in 2007---and of Al Borges's Gulf Coast offense---which scored 15 and 20 points, respectively, in blowout losses in 2006 and 2007---further underscores this point.)
I take issue with the claim that S.E.C. teams do not play valid non-conference games. Alabama played Florida State this season, opens next season against Clemson, and has a series upcoming with Penn State. Florida annually plays Florida State, South Carolina annually plays Clemson, and Tennessee has gone on the road to face Miami (Florida), Notre Dame, and numerous Pac-10 opponents. Mississippi State played West Virginia and L.S.U. played Virginia Tech. Even Auburn, often fairly maligned for diluting its slate, has scheduled recent outings against Georgia Tech, Kansas State, Southern California, and South Florida.
Georgia plays Georgia Tech every year, faces Clemson intermittently, and has home-and-home series either upcoming or underway with Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma State, and Oregon, all of whom went to bowl games this year.
I specifically mentioned Cal as one of the three teams who beat Tennessee handily and I docked the Volunteers' poll position accordingly. As I noted in a previous comment in this thread, the Big Orange narrowly got the nod over the Ducks for other reasons. I freely admit that the differences between the two teams are slight and I acknowledge that California and South Carolina underwent similar declines in 2007. Oregon caught the Golden Bears at their height, but so did Tennessee . . . and, for that matter, Georgia likewise got the Gamecocks at their best.
According to a poll taken here at Dawg Sports before the B.C.S. pairings were announced, Georgia fans overwhelmingly wanted to receive a bid to the Rose Bowl. Michael Adams does not speak for Bulldog Nation, as evidenced by the fact that the university president is booed lustily at every sporting event he attends.
All fan bases everywhere have more than their fair share of yahoos, in other regions every bit as much so as in the South, and media trends are cyclical. The Worldwide Leader in Sports certainly was not on the S.E.C. bandwagon in 2003 or in 2004.
The fragile glass slipper suits us just fine. It fit Florida in 1996 and in 2006, Tennessee in 1998, and L.S.U. in 2003 and in 2007. There's a pretty fair chance it may fit Georgia in 2008. If the S.E.C.'s glass slipper is fragile, the one worn by most of the rest of Division I-A must be absolutely shattered.
I respect your point of view and I appreciate your comment, but, like dawgaddict, I would be more receptive if you could leave out the tired old cheap shots about events from 40 years ago, which, frankly, evidence as much narrowminded prejudice as you assault we Southerners for supposedly embodying.
If you think Georgia fans aren't enlightened enough when it comes to racial equality, we'd like to introduce you to our beloved athletic director, Damon Evans.
Incidentally, BCSBusters, the last time you sent me an e-mail, I tried to reply and it didn't get through. If you send me another e-mail, I'll be sure to get back to you promptly. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts.
by T Kyle King on Jan 10, 2008 12:48 PM EST 0 recs
Events 40 years ago...
Kind of like voting Ohio State ahead of Kansas when the schedule issues are about the same. And what can a team really do about their schedule, when they are made 6-8 years in advance, especially considering the way teams drop one another with alarming regularity.
The fact that you won't give Kansas any respect because they haven't played anyone in retrospect comes down to the fact that Kansas does not have the rich history and tradition that Ohio State, Georgia or Alabama has. One loss is one loss, especially when they played Missouri tougher than both Arkansas and Mississippi did, which doesn't speak to the strength of your conference, after all we are resume ranking.
I like to dig a little and stir the pot, because the pot needs stirring. You say that Georgia wanted the Rose Bowl, and that is fine and dandy, but Oregon wanted to play Florida in the Capitol One Bowl, or Missouri in the Cotton.
SEC and Big-10 fans like to remind me that, this is simply a conference tie in and they can do nothing about it. How is that any different than the Rose Bowl, with our conference tie ins? We have the Rose and the Holiday Bowl for premier bowl slots. Thats it! You folks have about eight significant bowl slots. When the Gator, Capitol One, Cotton, Chick Fil-A, Alamo or Peach Bowls start including more PAC-10 slots, I think the Rose Bowl alliances from our side would be willing to budge.
I just simply like to give back what we always endure and if it makes you folks a little uncomfortable because an ex-southerner calls a spade a spade, then so be it.
I respect your knowledge and writing and candor nonetheless.
by bcsbusters on Jan 10, 2008 2:14 PM EST 0 recs
Who would you prefer...
by dawgaddict on
Jan 10, 2008 11:06 PM EST
up
0 recs
that looks like garbage, sorry.
by dawgaddict on
Jan 10, 2008 11:10 PM EST
up
0 recs
All comes out in the wash
by fotodog on Jan 10, 2008 5:11 PM EST 0 recs
If you want to ban me Kyle so be it...
by bcsbusters on Jan 10, 2008 5:21 PM EST 0 recs
Then go be a jerk to someone who deserves it
Even if your outrage is justified, your anger is misdirected. I am proud of the community we have built here at Dawg Sports, where the disagreements are sometimes fierce but the exchanges almost always are civil. I'm willing to give anyone a fair hearing and an honest fight, but there are lines that must be respected.
If some S.E.C. fans somewhere along the way rubbed you the wrong way, I am sorry for that, but you have no business taking it out on me or folks like NCT, 34hawk, fotodog, LD, and the many other regular commenters who clearly make a concerted effort to be courteous, open-minded, and intellectually honest.
I don't care if you and "the rest of the world" are "tired of the SEC superiority banter." When have I ever engaged in such banter? I know it is gauche to toot my own horn, but, if I am going to be attacked unfairly, I am going to defend myself against accusations which quite simply are untrue.
When Pac-10 bloggers raised the specter of the East Coast bias, I'm the one who addressed the issue in detail in a concerted effort to find common ground. When Pac-10 bloggers criticized S.E.C. out-of-conference scheduling, I tried to engage them in a thoughtful discussion in pursuit of a goal that is in the best interests of college football as a whole.
When Phillip Fulmer, Urban Meyer, Les Miles, and Nick Saban made derogatory public remarks about other leagues and other teams, I took each and every one of them to task for it. I have made a genuine effort to pay attention to the so-called "mid-majors" and to give credit where credit is due.
If you doubt the accuracy of any of those assertions, let me know which ones you question and I will provide you with the links to each of them.
Yes, a certain percentage of S.E.C. fans take an unfairly dim view of the rest of college football . . . probably a percentage similar in size to that fraction of Big Ten and Pac-10 fans who feel free to take cheap shots at Southerners based on Hollywood stereotypes.
If you've been reading this site at all, you know I'm not that guy. I don't know what "we always endure," but you aren't enduring it from me, so don't kid yourself into believing you're giving anything back.
You can't give it back to someone who didn't dish it out in the first place. If you are mad at some segment of Southerners, then pick your targets with precision and direct your criticisms at those who deserve them. I'm not going to let my weblog become the virtual street corner at which you turn my readers and me into collateral damage in your on-line drive-by shooting.
If you feel justified in taking cheap shots at folks who don't deserve it because you lack the discernment to distinguish the authors and commenters at Dawg Sports from the sorts of people you dislike, you need to find someplace else to vent your spleen and you need to stop engaging in the hypocrisy of believing you have any business condemning others for being prejudiced against whole groups of people based on unreasonable overgeneralizations.
You're a smart guy, BCSBusters, and you offer some genuinely insightful opinions. I believe you're above this sort of childishness, but, if I have given you too much credit for mental ability or manners, you can take it someplace else. Vaya con Dios.
by T Kyle King on Jan 10, 2008 9:47 PM EST 0 recs
from the peanut gallery
by flightdocdawg on Jan 10, 2008 10:28 PM EST 0 recs
A couple of questions
Re: BYU. If Virginia Tech gets credit for winning their second shot at Boston College, why does BYU not get a significant boost from beating UCLA - albeit narrowly - in a bowl game?
Re: relative rankings of Virginia Tech and Kansas. I'm biased in this area because I think that Beamer and his teams have been getting a pass for years for playing cynical percentage football with deeply unbalanced teams. Having watched the Orange Bowl, I was struck that many members of the Hokies team might be more individually talented than Kansas, but when VT was faced with a team that attacked their weaknesses and had an offense, they lost. In other words, all the Hokies really had to do was let their defense do their thing, hand the ball to Ore a few times, and not let their QBs do much of anything - and yet the coaches couldn't respond to pressure from Kansas, and the players wobbled repeatedly. That to me doesn't say "winnar," but I am openly biased in this instance.
Re: penalties for conference structure. I can't get riled about the relative weight that you assign to "teams that X beat" when it comes to USC because the record shows what it does. You play in the schedule / conference that you have, after all. The Pac 10 was all over the place this year, and Idaho was supposed to be the only non-conference patsy until Nebraska and Notre Dame decided to have seasons that were rank on the order of hakarl (Icelandic putrified shark, if you were wondering.)
However, why is it that a Pac 10 winner / team gets slightly penalized for playing one game fewer because the Pac 10 doesn't need a conference championship? There's nothing magical about a conference championship, it just means that you've had one more game to account for a conference apparently having too many teams for them to play one another in the course of a 12 game season.
Finally, when you're looking back at the season based on resume, why are you adjusting your impression of a loss based on events after the fact? This struck me most with the Cal - Oregon game. When the game kicked off, both teams were 4 - 0, Cal was ranked #6 and Oregon was ranked #11. Cal hit a late season skid of epic proportions, but to look at Oregon and say "well you lost to a 7 - 6 Cal team" introduces an ex post facto re-evaluation that isn't strictly pertinent to the quality of the contest at the time it was played. Oregon lost to a team that went 5 - 0 on the strength of that result and which had beaten Tennessee. If Oregon had lost to late-season Cal, I could better understand the (mild) opprobrium.
by DC Trojan on Jan 10, 2008 11:31 PM EST 0 recs
As always, DC Trojan . . .
If you will pardon me for keeping you in suspense regarding the remainder of your inquiries, I will answer your first question now:
B.Y.U. got something of a boost for beating U.C.L.A. in the Las Vegas Bowl (a quality mid-major gets points for beating a B.C.S. conference opponent on a neutral field), but, differences in overall schedule strength aside, the Cougars benefited from their rematch less than the Hokies did for two reasons:
- Virginia Tech lost narrowly to Boston College in the regular season but beat the Eagles fairly convincingly in the postseason. Brigham Young lost to the Bruins by a large margin in the regular season but beat U.C.L.A. narrowly in the postseason. A close loss followed by a convincing win is better than a large loss followed by a close win.
- Boston College was a significantly better team in 2007 than U.C.L.A. turned out to be, so there is less dishonor in losing to the Eagles and more benefit to beating them.
by T Kyle King on
Jan 11, 2008 8:08 AM EST
up
0 recs
I believe I conveyed to you Kyle
There is a tremendous bias here, especially in this part of the country, towards football played anywhere else. The entire country has had to withstand, not only ESPN, but Sports Illustrated's banter that the Big-12 and SEC are the greatest and the West Coast teams suck.
I've said on many occasions that it is not an East Coast Bias, but a College Football Association alliance. The same themes have played out. From upholding the significant traditions of a team like Oklahoma, LSU, Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Michigan or Ohio State.
I visit your site often Kyle, and there is no one that is any more in awe of your work and your community than I.
But when you make a casual reference towards the teams along the west coast, and don't reciprocate the same component back towards the teams along the southeast, that is still a bias, that is still discrimination.
I started a poll this year, and I watched upwards of 17 hours of football every Saturday, and then went back and evaluated film for three days before releasing my poll. I quit after 7 weeks. I couldn't logically evaluate the difference between the teams, without my own bias exhibited, no matter how significant or slight along the way.
The rift between the Big-10 and PAC-10 versus the CFA is well documented in history, and since the same people are still in power, isn't it odd we are still having these same issues today and hurling the same insults back and forth?
When a person like James Carville comes along and bashes the PAC-10, Mountain West or WAC, and even more specifically the Rose Bowl, I like you Kyle, draw the line.
I've mentioned before in this series of articles that there isn't any difference between your conference tie in with the Sugar, Capitol One or Gator Bowls than there is with the PAC-10. Georgia's situation this year in wanting to get to the Rose Bowl isn't any different than California's situation in 2004.
Nearly every team that has been snubbed by the BCS(other than Oregon in the Fiesta) has gone on to lose their bowl game, instigating the over used and over blown phrase "The BCS Got it Right.
Do you think that every person that has been passed over for a job promotion that they felt they deserved did not have trouble coming back to work and giving 100%. This is human nature.
When Texas loses two straight Holiday Bowls to Oregon and Washington State, not a word was said about the BCS got it right, but the minute California or this years version Arizona State loses, we hear, Oh, by golly, I guess the BCS was right after all.
Just like you Kyle, I will defend this conference, and if there was a playoff, I think the PAC would defend itself very well. But I don't run around boasting of it (and I'm not saying that you do Kyle, I'm saying that this region of the country does and that is something that is well documented).
This BCS thing is one of the most destructive, discriminatory and biased systems in all of sports. It runs parallel in my mind to the civil rights movement. It may not be the life or death extremes that the Civil Rights movement created, but in a football and competition since, it is.
The only reason that a team like Hawaii, Utah or Boise State has gained entry into the BCS is because of President Cowen at Tulane threatened an anti-litigation lawsuit and he would have won, most certainly. I believe that you know that as you are in the Litigation industry. But just like in 1952, when Notre Dame and Penn threatened litigation, they backed out due to fear of retaliation by the NCAA and its alliance.
Alliances run deep in college football, and the people who control the Harris Poll run college football and with 85% of the voters tied specifically to the CFA, it looks a little more than a bit bicurious.
What is hurting college football is the ridiculousness and careless nature of the polls, and there many examples of bias exhibited.
When LSU lost to Kentucky, many of my friends in sports called to say that the SEC is out of the BCS now. I simply replied, just wait and watch how this one shakes out. The same thing happened when LSU lost to Arkansas. My reply, just wait, the stink bomb is about to be released on college football.
And sure enough it was. Do I think LSU is a great team? Absolutely! Do I think that the SEC is a great conference? Absolutely, but I don't think it is any better than the other conferences. On any given day, in this era of 85 scholarships, injuries and turnovers can change the tides of fortune quickly.
LSU's losses to Arkansas and Kentucky should look any better than West Virginia's loss to Pittsburgh, or USC's loss to Stanford. While amazing to some, if you look closely, injuries and turnovers determined both. Both Oregon and California were excellent teams this year, much like West Virginia and Oklahoma, but injuries and turnovers created misfortune.
But at the end of the day, when everything shakes out, low and behold, Oklahoma, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, USC and Georgia are always going to be ranked ahead of these teams.
Everyone, including myself, has ripped on Hawaii. I didn't think they deserved the BCS, but all they did was win every game on their schedule. How is their 41-10 loss to Georgia any different than Tennessee's 41-17 loss to Alabama, especially when Alabama loses to Louisiana-Monroe? Especially when Georgia loses 35-14 to Tennessee, especially when Tennessee loses to California, especially when Oregon loses to CAL and yet through all of that craziness, you are going to tell us that Oregon's loss to California looks extremely unforgiving.
That is social bias and discrimination in the college football setting and that personifies the BCS.
All I've done in four years is try to point these things out and demonstrate how they relate to the civil rights movement. The BCS is one of the most destructive devices we have in the sports world because it is no longer about sportsmanship and character building, which in reality is the mission of athletics at any non-professional level.
I am glad we had this conversation Kyle. If you think less of me than so be it, but I am sick and tired of this argument always running against the grain of the West Coast programs, not just the PAC-10, and in all actuality, I've been very supportive of the Big-East as well, for they bear the brunt of the BCS favoritism as well.
There are four conferences and four conferences only that benefit from the BCS (Big-12, SEC, Big-10 and the ACC) at the expense of everyone else. To say this is healthy for college football is an atrocity.
If you want to ban me then so be it. I will STILL continue to visit your site because I think your one of the best writers I have ever come across, and if you feel attacked, I think you now have a feeling of how many people across the country feel when their seasons are discredited by the BCS and its CFA alliance.
But I will defend my knowledge of this issue because I don't think one percent of the American c


