Should BCS Be Replaced By Playoffs? -- Guynemer's Proposal

[DanS]

Until Penn State joined the Big Ten, it played a wussie schedule.

Re the chances then, wouldn't you agree that they are now substantially less than 1/29? ND is playing 13 this year...

[Ming]

Yeah... but what are the chances of having one or no undefeated teams at the end of the year. There are just too many ways that we end up with teams with equal records playing resonablly tough schedules being picked by a computer program.

[JohnT]

Dan: The odds are way less, given the structual changes that have taken place in college football since 1973. Of particular impact is the decrease of allowable team members (85 is the current maximum, I don't think there was a limit in 1973) and scholarships (now limited to, I think, 25). This prevents the major teams from locking up a lot of good prospects which makes the field more equal.

In regards to strength of schedule, in 1973 it looked like this for the unbeatens:

Team, results, strength of schedule

Oklahoma, 11-0-1, 3
Notre Dame, 11-0-0, 34
Ohio State, 11-0-0, 38
Michigan, 10-0-1, 43
Penn State, 12-0-0, 54
Miami (Ohio), 11-0-0, 75

Nebraska had the #1 toughest schedule and finished 9-2-1. #2 was the 6-5-0 Colorado Buffalos.

In case you're interested, the page where I got this info has Oklahoma a clear #1 over Notre Dame.

[JohnT]

Ming, the last time that there was no unbeaten team was 1996, when a 12-1 FL team won the N. Championship (schedule strength ranked #1). We also had a situation where no eligible team went unbeaten in 1993, though an on-probation Auburn team went 11-0-0.

Other years with no unbeatens: 1989, 1985, 1983, 1978, 1977, 1967. I only went back to 1960 for that info, though I should note that in 1964 and 1965 Princeton and Dartmouth respectively were the only unbeaten teams for those years (yes, they were division 1-A then).

I would be very interested if somebody could take the BCS formula and apply it to the above years and compare them to the actual poll results.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DanS


Until Penn State joined the Big Ten, it played a wussie schedule.

Re the chances then, wouldn't you agree that they are now substantially less than 1/29? ND is playing 13 this year...

You know your absolutely right in the eighties they only played teams like Nebraska, Pitt (a perrenial top 20 back then) Syracuse, West Viriginia, Texas and Texas A&M, Notre Dame

Nothing teams. Give me a break.



A complete myth if you ask me.

Given the fact that they had problems being an independent lining up games with decent opposition I'ld say they filled their schedule with credible opponents (Considering they are not Notre Dame who by shear name recognition has a decent shot at having any conference team of their choice lining up to play them) I'ld say the athletic directors did a superior job scheduling PSU in those years.

[DanS]

Not a myth at all. Why do you think they ended up joining the Big 10, if not to put better teams on the schedule?

[DanS]

JohnT: So wouldn't you agree that Imran's "pretty good actually" wrt 5 unbeatens bears little resemblance to reality?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DanS
Not a myth at all. Why do you think they ended up joining the Big 10, if not to put better teams on the schedule?

PSU needed no credibility for their football program. The decision to enter the Big 10 was done solely in order to bolster the other programs specifically basketball. The possibility of having a few Rosebowls with the immense $$'s didn't hurt either.

Strength of football schedule was not the priority.

[DanS]

OK, let's approach this another way. Do you believe JohnT's reference to Penn State in '73 having the 54th toughest schedule in the NCAA? If so, do you think they deserved to be the national champs with that tough of schedule?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by DanS
JohnT: So wouldn't you agree that Imran's "pretty good actually" wrt 5 unbeatens bears little resemblance to reality?

Oh yeah. As a matter of fact, 1973 was an aberration given that Nebraska and Oklahoma did not play each other that year, Michigan and OSU tied, and Notre Dame played an uncharacteristically weak schedule (though I should note that ND played relatively weak schedules from 1966-1976. It isn't until 1977 that they had a top-10 tough schedule (8th)).

Otoh, in the same period Penn State played a patsy schedule, only once in the top 20 (18th) and many times far, far less - #75 in 1970, when they went 7-3-0. Things were different in the 1980's when their schedule strength was the following:

1980, 6
1981, 1
..82, 2
83, 9
84, 1
85, 37
86, 17
87, 22
88, 25
89, 23

Except for 1985, they had top-25 schedule strength the entire decade and the reason they were so "bad" in '85 is because that was, I think, in the depths of the Gary Mueller years at ND (5-6-0 in 1985).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DanS
OK, let's approach this another way. Do you believe JohnT's reference to Penn State in '73 having the 54th toughest schedule in the NCAA? If so, do you think they deserved to be the national champs with that tough of schedule?

Noo I can't realistically argue strength of schedule for the 70's as I was a wee lad and not following as I did in the 80's. And for the record they weren't champs in 73. Only untainted championship years were in 82 and 86. In 82 they had a monster schedule and went undefeated and I might add all without Big 10 help.

I would recon tho' that the hey days of the late 60's and 70's gave them the credibility they needed in order to line up the schedules they did in the 80's (which I obviously take exception to as being called weak) .

Up until the 60's they were considered a regional power for Pennsylvania football but were not given National prestige. It took Joepa about 10 years to build the program to a perrenial contender and then the scheduling followed the strength of the program (another lag of 10 years). If memory serves scheduling was doen in the independent years about 5 years out.

[JohnT]

Og:

As I've done a number of times in this thread, I direct you to the following site:

http://rhip.phys.utk.edu/Ranking/

It gives a wealth of information including the strength of schedule rankings for every team, every year since 1869.

For example, here is the strength of schedule rankings for 1973:

http://rhip.phys.utk.edu/cfr/cfr/output/1973/CF_1973_Ranking_Schedule.html

Here is how Penn State fared that year:

http://rhip.phys.utk.edu/cfr/cfr/output/1973/CF_1973_Team_Penn_State.html

Here's how the guys ranking system would've ranked the teams for that year:

http://rhip.phys.utk.edu/cfr/cfr/output/1973/CF_1973_Ranking_CWDR.html

Here is an explanation of how he came up with the rankings, and why he went through all this work (he doesn't like the BCS either, but wanted to come up with a comparable system). He even gives an analysis of the various polls that you see compiled in the BCS:

http://rhip.phys.utk.edu/Ranking/Documentation/rankingofsportsteamsv01.html

Thanks to the wonderful technology of information retrieval (only been around for a few thousand years), you don't have to live in a particular era to learn about that era.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

John T,

As I alluded to inmy earlier post I take no excpetion to the 73 season. I didn't witness it with any objectivity being but 8 years old at the time.

My objection was to the statemement made by DanS saying that PSU played a wussie schedule until they got into the Big 10. This is not true as the period of time inthe mid 80's speaks to the strength of schedule they put together as an independent.

Moreover as PSU one of the last hold out big independents( including to my mind only Miama and Notre Dame at the time as being perrenial football powerhouses) when they went inot teh big 10 the last bastionof independents fell. Miami and others formed the Big East leaving Notre Dame as the lone hold out.

PSU did not need to go to the Big 10 for football and inmany respects would have been better suited not going there as it locked them pre BCS to going to the Rosebowl where they may or may not have been vying for a national CHampionship (ala the split championship with Nebraska which to my mind was a farce).

[Tuberski]

Here is something to consider:

You get, in the BCS rankings a"quality win" bonus. Oklahoma gets one for Texas.

Should there be something like a "non-quality loss"?

Oklahoma, again, lost to an unranked Texas A&M team.

I'm not dogging Oklahoma or saying Texas should be ahead of them.

What I'm saying, is that, if strength of schedule means so much, shouldn't losing to an unranked team provide some kind of penalty, just like beating a ranked team provides a bonus?

ACK!

[DanS]

"My objection was to the statemement made by DanS saying that PSU played a wussie schedule until they got into the Big 10. This is not true as the period of time inthe mid 80's speaks to the strength of schedule they put together as an independent."

OK, there was a decade or so there where they didn't play a wussie schedule and weren't in the Big 10.