It's the College Football thread!

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I believe a lot of the past BCS controversy has been manufactured just for controversy's sake. This year is just a particularly egregious example.

Disagree. Most other years, that has been a very legit debate about just who should go to the title game. This year (with a couple games pending), it would be hard to make much of a debate. However, we're just one successful Lloyd Carr argument with an official away from having three undefeated teams, and some much-justified gnashing of teeth in State College, PA.



And stop DanSing me!

[DanS]

I will be the first to admit that the competition this year for ND was surprisingly light. According to Sagarin, ND had the 20th toughest schedule this year. But Michigan had the toughest schedule and I think they are much better than their 7-4 record. I think the ND win over Michigan in the Big House was a quality win.

[Drake Tungsten]

Pac 10 was better than most conferences this year, if only because the rest of the country was even more meh. Hard to argue against the strength of any conference whose top 3 teams are a combined 30-2 this year.

Even the less than stellar Pac 10 teams are dangerous, as Stanford showed by damn near beating Notre Dame this week (Oregon beat Stanford 44-20 on the road, btw).

I will be the first to admit that the competition this year for ND was surprisingly light.

They were unlucky in that. Who would've predicted that Pitt, Purdue and Tennesee would all be so bad this year?

[DanS]

The Big 10 was by far the toughest this year. 7 of the top 10 hardest schedules were in the Big Ten. Top to bottom, a very good conference.

[Drake Tungsten]

Big 10 has an argument, as does the SEC. I'd rank it Pac 10, Big 10, SEC this year...

[Guynemer]

And Notre Dame was one ridiculously fortuitous out-of-bounds fumble away from beating a USC team that pimp-slapped Oregon from here to Timbuktu. Your point?

DanS has it. The Irish victory in Ann Arbor is far more impressive than anything Oregon has on its resume this year. Not to mention that I have little patience for teams that schedule I-AA competition... Montana, honestly.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Irish loss to Michigan State is more unimpressive than anything Oregon has on its resume. We seem to be looking at the issue from two completely different perspectives...

[Guynemer]

Pac-10 has only five bowl eligible teams this year, only four teams with seven wins. Big 10+1 had seven 7+ win teams.

Don't get me wrong. The Pac-10 is a good conference, especially at the top. But top to bottom, no way on god's green earth on they #1. One could make that argument that even the ACC and Big 12 were stronger overall this year; I'm not sure I'd believe that, but it's darned close. That said, you won't be seeing me lay down any money on USC's eventual opponent.

1. Big 10
2. SEC
3a. Pac 10
3b. Big 12
3c. ACC
6. Big East
7. WAC
8. MAC
9. MWC
10. C-USA
11. Sun Belt

[DanS]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Big 10 has an argument, as does the SEC. I'd rank it Pac 10, Big 10, SEC this year...

You have to look at the entire conference. Forget what reismark was yapping about. There were a lot of weak teams in the SEC this year, as often is the case. Half the teams had losing records. Compare to the Big Ten where only 4 of 11 teams had losing records.

Sagarin's math is good. The SEC is only the 5th best conference this year. Only slightly better than the Big East.

http://www.kiva.net/~jsagarin/sports/cfsend.htm

[Guynemer]

See, I've grown up with MSU football, and I'm used to their patterns. They absolutely live for rivalry games and games against elite competition, especially early in the season. Then they have one close loss, and they completely fall apart.

An overtime loss to a peaking MSU team with a dangerous offense, to me, is more impressive than the white flag the Ducks ran up the flagpole in the second half against the Trojans. But, po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder why the SEC is 2nd on your list. By all measures they've had a dreadful year. And I believe they have less bowl eligible teams than spots given to them.

[Drake Tungsten]

You have to look at the entire conference. Forget was reismark was yapping about. There were a lot of weak teams in the SEC this year, as often is the case. Half the teams had losing records. Compare to the Big Ten where only 4 of 11 teams had losing records.

I've thought about it a bit more and think that the Big 10 might be better than the Pac 10. Ranking conferences is a crap shoot anyway, though, so I doubt I'm going to bother revising my off-the-cuff rankings...

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I wonder why the SEC is 2nd on your list. By all measures they've had a dreadful year. And I believe they have less bowl eligible teams than spots given to them.

Part of my reasoning is how many high-quality teams they have. I think LSU, Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama all qualify. They only have six bowl-eligible teams, but they won't be the only conference not filling their commitments--as I said, the Pac 10 only has five bowl teams this year. Hell, even in the Big 10 won't fill their commitments if OSU goes into the BCS. Good year to be a bowl-eligible team from a non-BCS conference.



Just out of curiosity, what is everyone's philosophy when ranking teams? My primary consideration is what I think would happen when two teams play, but I also try to consider the teams' season as a whole (and thus I have Oregon in my Top 10, despite my earlier statement re: Wisconsin, Michigan).

[Drake Tungsten]

Just out of curiosity, what is everyone's philosophy when ranking teams? My primary consideration is what I think would happen when two teams play, but I also try to consider the teams' season as a whole (and thus I have Oregon in my Top 10, despite my earlier statement re: Wisconsin, Michigan).

This is the differing perspectives I mentioned. I primarily look at a team's season as a whole. If teams have similar records, I try to look at the quality of wins and opponents. Imaginary head-to-head matchups play little to no role in my thought process.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Part of my reasoning is how many high-quality teams they have. I think LSU, Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama all qualify. They only have six bowl-eligible teams, but they won't be the only conference not filling their commitments--as I said, the Pac 10 only has five bowl teams this year. Hell, even in the Big 10 won't fill their commitments if OSU goes into the BCS. Good year to be a bowl-eligible team from a non-BCS conference.

And, ironically, the Big East may have more bowl eligible teams than it has spots (West Virginia, Louisville, South Florida, Rutgers, and maybe UConn) .

Speaking of which, I wonder how much ill will would be shown towards the Big East if it was Louisville that won that 3 OT game against WVU. I bet that Louisville would be ranked in the Top 10 in both polls (partly because of what they did last year and somewhat of a bias against WVU)... then again the Cardinals just lost Brohm for the rest of the year.

Just out of curiosity, what is everyone's philosophy when ranking teams? My primary consideration is what I think would happen when two teams play, but I also try to consider the teams' season as a whole (and thus I have Oregon in my Top 10, despite my earlier statement re: Wisconsin, Michigan).

Basically the same as Drake's. I don't think you can really do justice to a hypothetical head to head matchup. How do you really know how teams will matchup? There have been enough upsets to indicate that it is difficult to really judge such things.

Though that doesn't stop me from making my unsupported head to head boasts to get others' blood boiling .