College Football 2010: So it begins

[Solomwi]

Was just looking at the BCS breakdown. Wow, the computers really dislike Oregon and Boise, at least relative to the polls.

[Ben Kenobi]

And? So what? Neither was as ridiculous as BSU at number 1.

Well they are unbeaten in 2 years.

That's a good question. Who was the last BCS team to beat BSU?

[Solomwi]

Yes, against the equivalent of a tough FCS schedule. Grand Valley State was undefeated in 2005-6. Should they have been ranked?

Washington, in 2007. Since then, they've beaten 4 BCS teams over two and a half seasons. Wow, that's impressive.

[Ben Kenobi]

Grand Valley State was undefeated in 2005-6. Should they have been ranked?

They beat two ranked BCS teams. How is that an FCS schedule? They also have one ranked non BCS team, Nevada left on the schedule. If you are going to hate on the club, at least get it right.

Who have the Ducks beaten? Ranked Stanford? How is the Ducks' interconference schedule harder when they played SEC Tennessee vs ACC VT?

[Solomwi]

It's an FCS schedule because they play a grand total of two BCS teams. That puts them one above James Madison, Indiana State, Jacksonville State, etc., and even with McNeese State.

Yes, Stanford is a more impressive win than either VT or OSU, especially given the manner in which the games were won. Meanwhile, Oregon has four BCS wins this year, matching BSU's three-year total. LSU has six, including, to use your measure, three over ranked teams. Auburn has five, with South Carolina and Arkansas both being better wins than any Boise claims. Oklahoma has also matched Boise's three-year total this year, with four, including two over ranked teams. Same for Michigan State. Now, there's one big difference between Boise and all of the other teams I've mentioned: those teams play BCS teams week in and week out. That takes its toll, and makes winning a particular game more difficult than if that same game comes on the heels of several games against the likes of New Mexico State, Toledo, and San Jose State.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, Stanford is a more impressive win than either VT or OSU, especially given the manner in which the games were won.

Stanford is comparable to the Oregon State game. VT is comparable with the SEC game against Tennessee. So how is SEC Tennessee better than VT? The answer, they aren't.

Did McNeese State win any of those games? No. As for style points, that is a total load of garbage, which is why my rankings completely ignore style points. Les Miles is undefeated. Sure he didn't look pretty doing it, but he's still undefeated. Am I to rank a one-loss Bama who looked great losing over Les Miles? Style points are intrinsically subjective.

LSU has six, including, to use your measure, three over ranked teams.

I have them ranked 6th. Well above Bama.

Auburn has five, with South Carolina and Arkansas both being better wins than any Boise claims.

I have them ranked 5th, which is again above Bama. So how are my rankings out to lunch when they compare with the BCS?

Look, both teams have to play Bama. All three are in the SEC West. All or none could win out, and until then, the question as to whether LSU or Awbrun should be in the national championship is unsettled.

Oklahoma has also matched Boise's three-year total this year, with four, including two over ranked teams.

And I have OK right behind the SEC teams. That's probably the biggest difference. I'm not sure Oklahoma is even the best in-state team, and they still have to play OK State.

Same for Michigan State. Now, there's one big difference between Boise and all of the other teams I've mentioned: those teams play BCS teams week in and week out. That takes its toll, and makes winning a particular game more difficult than if that same game comes on the heels of several games against the likes of New Mexico State, Toledo, and San Jose State.

We hear this garbage, week in and week out. And yet, Boise beat two ranked BCS teams in 3 weeks to start the year. They played as hard or harder interconference schedule than any of the BCS teams, and still have two tough games on the schedule, Hawaii and Nevada, who was also ranked. That's four challenging games that I'd consider at BCS conference level play. They also still play Fresno St, who is BCS quality as well. So that's 5.

Is there a gap? Undoubtedly. The herd tells us that sacred conferences like the ACC and the Big East shall receive automatic bowl berths. And yet, I don't see you *****ing about me ranking them well below the other conferences. That tells me that the whole argument revolves around one team.

I'm also amused you've not mentioned the Utes or the Wolfpack. Or TCU. Just Boise. I had them all ranked higher than BCS teams, and that doesn't make your radar. Why is this?

Since then, they've beaten 4 BCS teams over two and a half seasons.

True, but they've also lost three times to non-BCS teams. Once to TCU and once to Hawaii, and once to East Carolina.

So the scoreboard, at least since 2007, (which is 3 full seasons, not 2 and a half), is BCS 1, Non BCS 3. Granted they play more non-BCS teams than BCS teams, but I don't see the gap as wide as you would have us believe.

Going undefeated in a non-BCS division is hard. Doing it year in, year out is even harder. If Boise goes undefeated this year, the last time a team other than TCU beat them will be longer than the eligibility period for their team. They've had complete turnover.

[Solomwi]

Jesus Christ, Ben. Stanford is not comparable to OSU. Stanford is a better team than either OSU or VT. If VT is comparable to UT (and for the record, I think VT is better, though at least UT didn't lose to a founding father), then beating UT by five touchdowns is more impressive than squeaking by VT. Whether McNeese won those games is irrelevant. The point is that BSU plays an FCS-level schedule. And WTF are you on about style points for? A three-touchdown win, as opposed to a three-point win, generally tells us something about the relative merits of the winners, all else roughly equal. And where in the world did you drag Alabama in from? The point was that each of those teams has matched or bettered BSU's three-year record against BCS teams this year alone.

We hear this garbage, week in and week out. And yet, Boise beat two ranked BCS teams in 3 weeks to start the year.

This tells me you don't understand the situation or the argument at all. Let me try to spell it out a bit for you: playing in a BCS conference has two major effects, neither of which were in play because Boise played two BCS teams in weeks one and three, sandwiched around Wyoming. First, it wears you down physically over the course of a season. Minor injuries take longer to heal, because you don't have as much opportunity to rest players, and the bumps and bruises that don't amount to minor injuries mount up. Second, you don't get as many effective bye weeks, where even though you have a game Saturday against Northeast Tech A&M State College for the Blind, you can spend the week practicing for the next game, against a conference team. Boise's schedule was set up perfectly to avoid those effects, even if they could arise with just two BCS games on the schedule.

They played as hard or harder interconference schedule than any of the BCS teams, and still have two tough games on the schedule, Hawaii and Nevada, who was also ranked. That's four challenging games that I'd consider at BCS conference level play. They also still play Fresno St, who is BCS quality as well. So that's 5.

Even if we grant the harder OOC schedule, you're ignoring that they play a creampuff conference schedule, while the BCS teams don't. And no, that's not five. That's two, with the Beniverse adding three that fit your Cinderella fetish. Even very generously granting you those, that's only five. That's less than half the schedule, compared to 10 for Oklahoma, LSU, and Oregon, and 9 for Auburn and Michigan State.

Is there a gap? Undoubtedly. The herd tells us that sacred conferences like the ACC and the Big East shall receive automatic bowl berths. And yet, I don't see you *****ing about me ranking them well below the other conferences. That tells me that the whole argument revolves around one team.

As usual, you're wrong about what the argument revolves around. The ACC and Big East both lack an undefeated team, so they're not relevant to the discussion.

I'm also amused you've not mentioned the Utes or the Wolfpack. Or TCU. Just Boise. I had them all ranked higher than BCS teams, and that doesn't make your radar. Why is this?

Why would I? Boise and TCU are the only two actually in the picture, and TCU's schedule is no better than Boise's. The same arguments apply. Nevada is neither undefeated nor ranked. Utah, bully for them, is stepping up to the plate next year. For this year, they're still able to sprinkle a handful of big games in with a soft conference schedule. Besides, you've made it clear that the second level of determination, behind record, for your ranking is conference strength. Given that you have the conferences ranked WAC>MWC>everyone else, one representative from the WAC/MWC is all that's needed to make the point.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point is that BSU plays an FCS-level schedule.

And McNeese plays 5 BCS level teams? My point is that they don't. Boise does. Hawaii, Nevada, Fresno St as interconference. VT and Oregon State.

beating UT by five touchdowns is more impressive than squeaking by VT

beating 2-4 Tennessee is more impressive than 5-2 Virginia Tech? Sorry. I'm not an SEC homer where SEC rules all.

with the Beniverse adding three that fit your Cinderella fetish

Hawaii just beat a ranked Nevada. Sorry, but those ain't creampuffs. Fresno St. isn't a creampuff either. What, do you just see WAC, and assume 'creampuff'?

Why would I?

The ACC and Big East both lack an undefeated team

So let's see. The fact that Utah is unbeaten is irrelevant. The fact that the Wolfpack was undefeated was irrelevant. Gotcha. So being undefeated really isn't the issue here. The issue is that unless it's got BCS on it, it ain't worth ****. Gotcha.

You made it crystal clear. You'll see what you want to see, but not the reality, that there are good teams besides Boise and TCU in the MWC and the WAC.

[Solomwi]

That's the most dishonest, disingenuous post I've seen from you in some time. And that's quite a high bar. Of course, dishonesty is necessary when justifying the unjustifiable, I guess. Prance off back into fairyland, where the WAC and MWC are strong conferences and the only thing keeping them from showing it is that horde of big, bad BCS wolves, Ben.

[Guynemer]

I can't believe I'm defending Ben, but the MWC has, over the past three years or so, been better than the Big East, and--at minimum--the equal of the ACC (and the Big Ten until the last season or so). The bottom half is terrible, but that is also true of the aforementioned BCS conferences.

As for the WAC, well... the less said, the better. Still, it's still eminently possible (and appears quite likely this season) that Boise State is the best team in the land.

[Tupac Shakur]

It's also possible that Michigan State is the best team in the country.

[Guynemer]

Indeed, quite possible; not particularly likely, however. The odds of the best team in the country requiring a perfectly-executed fake field goal in overtime to beat Notre Dame at home roughly equals 5%.

[Donegeal]

Be that as it may, Wisconsin has the same record as OSU, with only one loss, to a higher-ranked undefeated team. What we "think" is one thing; the fact is that Wisky beat Brutus, and should (for the moment) be ranked ahead of them.

And therein lies the problem with the college football ranking system. It is a poll of what teams you think are the best. There are no 'facts'. There are just opinions. I equate college football ranking to scoring ice dancing.

[Guynemer]

True enough. That's why "National Champion" should always be in quotation marks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And therein lies the problem with the college football ranking system. It is a poll of what teams you think are the best. There are no 'facts'. There are just opinions.

Indeed. I'd probably rank Ohio State above Wisconsin... Heck, I believe I did.