Early BCS projections: Boise State #1, Oregon #2

[chris_in_pdx]

TCU #3, And Ohio State #5.

Bullshittery, or justified?

 

[mook]

Awesome. My home town (Boise) and the school I graduated from (Oregon).

I would've laughed my ass off if somebody had told me this would ever happen in the early 90's. Back then BSU was on a decade-long losing streak to the University of Idaho, and Autzen Stadium was just a good place to get high at Grateful Dead concerts.

 

[mook]

They had a pretty good joke at the University of Idaho--"How do you keep a bronco from masturbating?" "Paint his dick black and silver (U of I colors) and he won't beat it for ten years."

But who is the joke now.

 

[mook]

BTW--I've come around after reading this board that it's pretty much bullshittery. BSU doesn't really deserve it.

 

[tlongII]

BSU definitely deserves it. Why would Oregon deserve #1 more?

 

[Wheels]

Right now their schedules might be similar... BUT I would think personally if someone went through Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, and possibly Big 12 play undefeated that they would be more deserving of a BCS NC spot, than a BSU who went through the vaunted WAC.

 

[Minstrel]

I think a BSU/Oregon national championship game would be hilarious. To be honest, even with a loss, I think Alabama is probably still one of the two best teams in college football. Short of collapses by either team, the "best" title game would probably be Alabama/Ohio State, even if each of them end up with a loss.

The system simply harshly penalizes a bad day. That's why I don't think you can take all these things too seriously...college sports is built for bizarre and fluky champions, moreso than pro sports. March Madness' one-loss-and-done system, college football not having a real playoffs and killing teams for 1-2 losses...it's designed for chaos.

 

[Wheels]

I'll agree to your Bama statement about them being one of the best 2 teams even if they have one loss.

 

[mook]

I wonder why they don't go with a playoff system similar to what World basketball does. Use an 8 year rotation based on prior performance to establish elite contenders, maybe weighted more by more recent years performance, then make the last 3 or so games of the season a single-elimination event. It'd be an 8 team tournament.

Sigh. I guess it's been debated to death. It'll never happen.

 

[ABM]

If they indeed ended up #1 and #2...Oregon would be #1. BSU can't pass them due to their wimpy SOS.

 

[espn_hall_of_famer]

TCU #3, And Ohio State #5.

Bullshittery, or justified?

That's about spot-on. I think the good thing about the BCS is that it gets it pretty close to correct based on who they have schedule to that point and then adjusts accordingly.

Obviously BSU to this point has done what they needed to do, they beat one top-10 team and one top-25 team and then had 3 marshmallows. Ohio State has beating one top-25 school and 5 marshmallows.

This will right-size as long as the top teams stay undefeated. Ohio State goes on to play Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan, while BSU will play one decent opponent in Nevada, who may not be top-25 by the time BSU gets there as Nevada has a very weak schedule and all it will take is a slip in one of their next few games to go out of the top-25. So it could be BSU ends up down around 4-5 when their strength-of-schedule catches up to them.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Oregon will deserve more if they are undefeated at the end of the year. Maybe even get the #1 spot if they don't lose. But I don't see that happening.

I have no problem with Boise being #1. Honestly, I think they may very well be the 2nd best team in the country (Bama still #1 in my mind).

 

[THE HCP]

I'm just glad they don't have this BCS bullshit with college hoops! How many times has a #1 team played a #2 team in the big dance?

 

[espn_hall_of_famer]

I'm just glad they don't have this BCS bullshit with college hoops! How many times has a #1 team played a #2 team in the big dance?

That's because they are too different methodologies.

If college football was about giving a trophy to the team that was playing the best ball in the final couple weeks of the season and can survive a "win or go home" format, then you'd likely not see #1 going against #2 for the trophy.

At the same time, that would also make college football on Saturday much less relevent since games like South Carolina upsetting Alabama wouldn't matter, so folks likely would quit watching the games and go wash their cars or something.

Think about how relevent regular season college basketball is with 60-some teams going to the dance? Do you really care to watch Kentucky play Vanderbilt a few weeks prior to the Tourney if you're busy (knowing both will be seeded a month later when it matters)? It would be an entirely different story if they played all season to then determine which two teams had the better seasons statistically based on a number of statistical measures, then those two best teams played for all the marbles. Not as good for us, but it gets it right every year that way.

 

[HailBlazers]

So how about BCS chooses the seeds for a playoff? Then you got a mix of both.

 

[blazerboy30]

If Boise and Oregon played on a neutral field for the NC, my money would be on Oregon.

 

[espn_hall_of_famer]

So how about BCS chooses the seeds for a playoff? Then you got a mix of both.

I think that goes without saying. You don't build something 100-times better than the original and then go back to the broken original.

The problem has always been about tradition and smaller teams losing their revenues and the abiltiy to stick some trophy in a trophy case (since the college bowl model does have more winners than grade school soccer). They just have to figure out a way to do revenue sharing that makes middle-of-the-road programs happy and and have a goal to shoot to at least get a meaningful trophy.

Once they get there, they'll absolutely use the BCS model since it at least provides a cut-and-dry ranking system that does at least get it approximately correct based no the full season and what they accomplished. It's biggest failure is the inability to really account statistically for beating spreads or at least using some type of margin of victory.

 

[MickZagger]

Has BSU beat a ranked team?

This is all kinda moot though. The more they play in that weak conference the more they are going to go down in the BCS rankings.

I'm still predicting BSU gets beat by Nevada.

 

[espn_hall_of_famer]

Has BSU beat a ranked team?

This is all kinda moot though. The more they play in that weak conference the more they are going to go down in the BCS rankings.

I'm still predicting BSU gets beat by Nevada.

They beat OSU right? They are solidly ranked after just beating #9 Arizona themselves and only having losses to Boise and TCU. Also, some folks will consider Virginia Tech "ranked" because they were #10 in the nation prior to being exposed as a fraud. Not saying that will count on the computer SOS, but some dorks (usually the same obdurate folks that think PER isn't a valid stat) seem to want to consider rankings back when a team played that team because it provided some type of psychological advantage.

 

[MickZagger]

Oregon's wins have been more impressive. VTech was not legit. Like I said, the more games they play in the WAC, the lower BSU's BCS ranking will go down.

 

[espn_hall_of_famer]

Oregon's wins have been more impressive. VTech was not legit. Like I said, the more games they play in the WAC, the lower BSU's BCS ranking will go down.

Agree 110%. I was just responding to your post asking if they beat a ranked team.

I think they likely deserve #1 at this point since they've at least played the Beavs and V-Tech and some OK marshmallows. The Ducks basically played cream puffs and Stanford. That said, as you said it is only up for the Ducks as they play USC, Cal, Arizona, etc. and BSU goes on to play nobody except Nevada, who may be no better than USC or Cal as far as that goes.

 

[blazerboy30]

Agree 110%. I was just responding to your post asking if they beat a ranked team.

I think they likely deserve #1 at this point since they've at least played the Beavs and V-Tech and some OK marshmallows. The Ducks basically played cream puffs and Stanford. That said, as you said it is only up for the Ducks as they play USC, Cal, Arizona, etc. and BSU goes on to play nobody except Nevada, who may be no better than USC or Cal as far as that goes.

Would you put your money on Boise if they played the Ducks on a neutral field? Would you REALLY put them at #1?

 

[Natebishop3]

The analysts are so full of shit. This blowhard on ESPN is going on about how Oregon isn't as good as OSU because they had trouble with WSU. Never once did he mention that Thomas went down with an injury, or that Barner was taken to the hospital. Nearly half the top players were injured at some point during that game. Does that get a mention? No. And despite all the injuries, they STILL crushed WSU by 20. I don't understand the hate.

 

[espn_hall_of_famer]

Would you put your money on Boise if they played the Ducks on a neutral field? Would you REALLY put them at #1?

Probably not. BSU does have a knack for getting up for big games (like their 1-2 hard games annually along with a bowl game). So they've mastered the art of just over-achieving, but on a neutral field, I can't see BSU staying with the Ducks for four quarters as they simply are on another level this year.

That said, I would put BSU #1 based on the information we have to date. I think the Ducks have shown me more when I look at dominating teams in second halves (which is really when it matters in CFB) but they don't have the W/L resume BSU has. So I think it is one of those things where you give BSU the nod not based on who you think might be better, but who they've played and the W/L record, and knowing that BSU has nobody left to beat, so the Ducks will earn their way above BSU by simply beating powerhouse teams (like USC, Arizona, Cal, etc.) from here on out.

 

[Paxil]

I'm just glad they don't have this BCS bullshit with college hoops! How many times has a #1 team played a #2 team in the big dance?

Bingo. Points out how flawed the rankings are. All the top 25 teams can beat each other on any given day.

 

[tlongII]

Va Tech has won 4 in a row and the Beavs just won at UA. I think BSU's wins are more impressive than the Ducks at this point without question.

 

[Natebishop3]

Va Tech has won 4 in a row and the Beavs just won at UA. I think BSU's wins are more impressive than the Ducks at this point without question.

So if the Ducks crush OSU, will they be better than BSU in your eyes?

 

[MickZagger]

The analysts are so full of shit. This blowhard on ESPN is going on about how Oregon isn't as good as OSU because they had trouble with WSU. Never once did he mention that Thomas went down with an injury, or that Barner was taken to the hospital. Nearly half the top players were injured at some point during that game. Does that get a mention? No. And despite all the injuries, they STILL crushed WSU by 20. I don't understand the hate.

What analyst(s) was it?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

As a Duck fan I honestly believe that if Oregon State was currently undefeated they would be the #1 ranked team in the nation, Ducks #2 and Ohio State would be #3.

 

[MickZagger]

Va Tech has won 4 in a row and the Beavs just won at UA. I think BSU's wins are more impressive than the Ducks at this point without question.

VTech also lost to a 1-AA school. They aren't ranked, which isn't impressive. Not so sure that BSU would beat Stanford by 21 either. Look at margin of victory and opponents Oregon has beat. Its not even a question.