Is Ohio State Nothing More Than B.Y.U. With Better P.R.?
by T Kyle King
on Feb 1, 2008 8:14 AM EST
in Football
Just as Sunday Morning Quarterback's stats relevance watch is confirming arithmetically what most college football fans have understood intuitively (namely, that defense wins games), so, too, have LD's final 2007 Lebowski rankings verified what many of us suspected.
These are the strength of schedule rankings for the five Division I-A college football teams that finished last season with 11-2 records:
West Virginia - 43rd
Southern California - 51st
Ohio State - 60th
Brigham Young - 70th
I solicited feedback on my final BlogPoll ballot and I am glad to know that the sequence in which I ranked the Bulldogs, the Mountaineers, and the Trojans was the correct one. However, despite my best efforts to judge fairly non-B.C.S. conference teams generally and Brigham Young specifically, I may owe the Cougars an apology, as, in retrospect, there is no way to justify ranking the Buckeyes fifteen spots higher than B.Y.U. based upon their identical records against similar schedules.
Here is what Ohio State accomplished in 2007:
W 20-2 v. Akron (4-8)
W 33-14 at Washington (4-9)
W 58-7 v. Northwestern (6-6)
W 30-7 at Minnesota (1-11)
W 23-7 at Purdue (8-5)
W 48-3 v. Kent State (3-9)
W 24-17 v. Michigan State (7-6)
W 37-17 at Penn State (9-4)
W 38-17 v. Wisconsin (9-4)
L 28-21 v. Illinois (9-4)
W 14-3 at Michigan (9-4)
L 38-24 v. Louisiana State (12-2)
Here, by contrast, is what Brigham Young achieved last season:
L 27-17 at U.C.L.A. (6-7)
L 55-47 at Tulsa (10-4)
W 31-6 v. Air Force (9-4)
W 31-24 at New Mexico (9-4)
W 24-14 at U.N.L.V. (2-10)
W 42-7 v. Division I-AA Eastern Washington
W 35-16 v. Colorado State (3-9)
W 27-22 v. Texas Christian (8-5)
W 35-10 at Wyoming (5-7)
W 17-10 v. Utah (9-4)
W 48-27 at San Diego State (4-8)
W 17-16 v. U.C.L.A. (6-7)
Even though I knew the Buckeyes didn't deserve a spot in the national championship game, I still gave Ohio State too much credit. It isn't just that Jim Tressel's squad doesn't belong in a bowl game against an S.E.C. team---the 0-9 record speaks for itself---it's that the Buckeyes are very nearly as comparable to the Mountain West champion as they are to the Pac-10 champion.
Admittedly, there is a disparity---not all nine-win teams are created equal; hence, the ten-spot differential in schedule strength---but LD's numbers tell us that B.Y.U. took on a slate not altogether dissimilar to the one O.S.U. faced. The Buckeyes ran up against five Division I-A teams that finished with nine or more wins, beating three of them; the Cougars crossed paths with four Division I-A teams that finished with nine or more wins, beating three of them. Five of Ohio State's wins came against either Division I-AA teams or Division I-A teams with four or fewer victories; four of Brigham Young's wins were over similarly suspect competition.
I'm not saying B.Y.U. should have been ranked above, or even particularly near, the Buckeyes. (For one thing, Ohio State's losses were considerably more forgivable than Brigham Young's, despite the Cougars' season-ending ten-game winning streak.) However, LD's Lebowski rankings indicate that the Big Ten champions compiled an 11-2 ledger that represented a level of achievement approximately equidistant between the identical records of U.S.C. and B.Y.U., yet I ranked Ohio State two spots behind Southern California and fifteen spots ahead of Brigham Young.
That conclusion cannot be justified. I may have given the Cougars too little credit for their season and I certainly gave the Buckeyes too much---much too much---credit for theirs.
Go 'Dawgs!
0 recs |
8
comments
EmailComments
Yet another reason I love this site
by Maize n Brew Dave on Feb 1, 2008 5:36 PM EST 0 recs
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner Kyle...
But you can read my response to our unfriendly - turned - friendly debate which occurred last month at my blog site: www.ncaa-schedule.com Read the following articles:
- A Response to T. Kyle King
- The Final Analysis, "The Quality Opponent Factor."
by bcsbusters on Feb 1, 2008 5:58 PM EST 0 recs
Pretty Amusing
by Ken on Feb 2, 2008 8:47 AM EST 0 recs
How's this for critical thinking, dipwad?
Ken, you and your snarky Ohio State brethren---who felt free to malign my "attempt at stats-crunching," accuse me of "obsession," and refer to the Bulldog faithful as "the worst of the SEC" (and worse)---need to take five minutes and learn something before running your obnoxious mouths. Here are a few points that proponents of critical thinking ought to find salient:
- As I have made clear on numerous occasions, I respect other conferences.
- When Lloyd Carr conducted himself with more class than Urban Meyer during the campaign for a 2006 national championship game berth, I criticized the Florida coach and praised the Michigan coach for it.
- When Nick Saban bashed the Big Ten, I called the Alabama coach to account for it.
- I set forth a detailed case why L.S.U. and Oklahoma deserved national championship game berths more than Ohio State just prior to the start of bowl season.
- I made a concerted effort to find a middle ground with Big Ten fans even after one of them wrote that he would rather root for Adolf Hitler than for the S.E.C.
It also evidently escaped your notice that my reliance on those rankings dealt exclusively with the strength of schedule component, which showed that, yes, as a demonstrable matter of fact, Ohio State's schedule was roughly equally as comparable to B.Y.U.'s as it was to U.S.C.'s.
The next time you want to smart off to someone, Ken, take five minutes and educate yourself just a little bit. Otherwise, you only come across as a moron and a jerk . . . which, based upon the previous comment thread of which you were a part, was both your intended objective and an honest portrait of who you are.
by T Kyle King on
Feb 2, 2008 8:47 PM EST
up
0 recs
Thanks For Actually Reading The Article...
by bcsbusters on Feb 2, 2008 11:23 AM EST 0 recs
I think he was referring to my rankings, not yours
by LD on
Feb 2, 2008 12:35 PM EST
up
0 recs
Thanks, LD
Ken, LD's Lebowski rankings are an intellectually consistent exercise which I respect while respectfully disagreeing with the results. This is why my BlogPoll ballot looked very different from the Lebowski rankings.
As I hope was clear, my point was not that the Lebowski rankings were correct; rather, I was looking at the fact that five teams finished with identical 11-2 ledgers and there was a dramatic disparity between the strengths of their respective schedules . . . which, again, is an objective fact, not a subjective judgment.
My point was that my subjective judgment about the relative merits of Southern California's, Ohio State's, and Brigham Young's respective 11-2 ledgers was mistaken, based upon the objective fact that the Buckeyes' slate was nine spots behind the Trojans' in difficulty and ten spots ahead of the Cougars' in difficulty. Based upon the identical records and the similar gaps in schedule difficulty, it is hard to claim (as I originally, and erroneously, did) that O.S.U. deserves to be ranked appreciably nearer to U.S.C. than to B.Y.U.
I wasn't endorsing the Lebowski rankings as a suitable substitute for my top 25; rather, I was relying on the objective strength of schedule component and the identical records of three teams to demonstrate that the Buckeyes are overrated.
I'm not in any pain over Georgia's omission from the national championship game; I regularly argued that the Bulldogs, who did not win their conference championship, did not deserve a place in that contest. What is apparent, though, is that Ohio State didn't belong there, either.
As for the fact that "critical thinking isn't required to be a Dawg blogger," this is true; anyone can be any kind of blogger (or a blog commenter) without possessing a lick of critical thinking skills . . . but no one can do those things well without possessing such abilities.
LD and I may disagree, but his critical thinking skills cannot be gainsaid. BCSBusters and I may not see eye to eye, but his critical thinking skills cannot be denied.
I believe that a random look through the entries appearing at this weblog would demonstrate that instances of critical thinking regularly appear here at Dawg Sports. (I would add, incidentally, that it appears almost comically cognitively dissonant for anyone to argue in opposition to my critical thinking skills in reply to a posting in which I admitted, after being confronted with new evidence, that I had been wrong about a previous conclusion I reached. If that isn't critical thinking, what is?)
So far, Ken, the only one who isn't demonstrating much in the way of critical thinking skills is you. If you have actual arguments to offer, rather than mere animadversions, I would welcome the opportunity to hear them.
by T Kyle King on
Feb 2, 2008 1:15 PM EST
up
0 recs
Well Said...
My whole campaign against the BCS is simply that I think there should be a better way to conduct and determine a sport that obviously creates a lot of passion among its followers.
I am merely trying to point a few things out that our perception of a team is largely formed around their history and tradition rather than their on field (present day production).
You made great points, Kyle, regarding the misconception surrounding the branded identity of The Ohio State Universities of the world and the BYU's of the world.
I would only add that your mistake, as you admitted, happens over and over and over in relation to college football and the polling mechanism utilized.
It seemed like the country felt that LSU was the team going in that didn't deserve to be there, in 2007, when I thought all along it was the opposite, The Ohio State was the team who didn't deserve to be in the BCS Championship game.
My point in the podcast is that we put far too much emphasis in being 12-0, 11-1 or 10-2, when the fact of the matter is a 9-3 team could actually be better than a Ohio State, Hawaii or LSU this past season based on the strength of their schedule.
Why do we automatically think a team that is 11-1 should be the favorite, when a 10-2 team like Georgia may have played a significantly tougher schedule, and may actually be the more deserving team.
This is a good example of comparing Green Bay to New York in the NFL. New York played a significantly tougher schedule than Green Bay and it showed when the playoffs rolled around. It isn't always about the record.
Obviously, I think this isn't a good example for LSU this year, as they did play one of the tougher schedule's this year based on their 5-0 record against teams who recorded at least 9 victories and their 7-2 overall record against teams who finished with at least 7 wins overall.
The only teams that rivaled this were Oregon, with a 5-1 record against 9 win programs and a 6-1 overall record against teams who won at least 7 games, while Georgia was 3-1 against 9 win programs, but an impressive 8-1 against teams with at least 7 wins.
Unless we create a mechanism where we can play it off on the field, the branded identity of the elite is always going to be given the benefit of the doubt when utilizing the BCS and if you bothered to research this issue like I have for 5 years I think you would agree as well.
My mission is simply to show, through well documented statistics and history, that PARITY has arrived and we can no longer simply pass off the notion that TOSU is better than a BYU, Louisville (last year) or Utah in the past, because the 85 scholarship rule and the role that injuries and turnovers play from Saturday to Saturday is the ultimate equalizer.
I do not believe Hawaii deserved the BCS game this year, but then again, why is it that TOSU lost 41-14 last year, and got back into the game this year (benefiting from a soft schedule that I think everyone agrees with), while Hawaii lost 41-10 and everyone talks as if they don't belong at that level? There is a bit of a double standard here, and in the process, this creates the doubt needed to project the elite powers above the Boise's, Fresno's, Utah's and BYU's of the west, and also the UCF's, ECU's and South Florida's of the east.
Personally, I thought both ECU and UCF could have beaten Hawaii this year, even if they played a 3 or 5 game series like in baseball.
If you agree with even the slightest bit of my argument, then it is time to change the BCS, because the whole system can be manipulated. If we were running a research project or standardized testing with the same parameters as the BCS is would be grossly invalid and publicly scorned.
by bcsbusters on Feb 2, 2008 8:08 PM EST 0 recs
New FanPost
