Southern Miss taking on 7 bowl teams in 2006

[colorado_loves_football]

Tulsa never beat a ranked team, unless Fresno St. was ranked and I don't know if they were or not. Regardless they never beat more then 1 ranked opponent and so they didn't prove anything. There are at least 30 teams in the country that could play the same schedule as Tulsa and do better. That means that at least 30 teams were more qualified.

Depends, I guess what 'ranked' means, all teams are ranked somewhere. Whether or not Fresno St. was top-25 is something I don't know but probably unlikely, they were 8-4 at the time (as was Tulsa).
As far as Tulsa not being competitive enough, that depends on what you consider to be 'competitive'. They beat some respectable teams, S. Mississippi was a pretty good team, by-and-large. They lost to Houston, but Houston managed to beat S. Mississippi, also. Houston played in the Ft. Worth Bowl, losing to Kansas a Big XII N. team. So, Tulsa is likely somewhere between Kansas and Iowa St., competitively-speaking.
I believe Tulsa was a respectable team. So, you may be correct they didn't 'earn' a BCS bid, simply by beating Fresno St. But, I think they will be poised, this year to be a better team, that's more what I was implying.
They obviously weren't better than Oklahoma, and Oklahoma was #22.

[Spence]

I believe Tulsa was a respectable team. So, you may be correct they didn't 'earn' a BCS bid, simply by beating Fresno St. But, I think they will be poised, this year to be a better team, that's more what I was implying.

I agree with that statement. You just have to remember that there is a difference between respectable and being one of the best. Wisconsin was respectable as well this year. They weren't one of the best.

[colorado_loves_football]

I agree with that statement. You just have to remember that there is a difference between respectable and being one of the best. Wisconsin was respectable as well this year. They weren't one of the best.

Now you are opening up another 'proverbial' can of worms, with that analogy, Spence. Wisconsin beat Auburn, supposedly the 'best' team not to qualify for a BCS bowl, according to the Sporting News (before the bowls were played). Seems to me, Wisconsin was pretty good, unless 9-3 isn't good.
I give them credit for being better than many expected, and I enjoyed seeing Brian Calhoun do well back in his home state, after transferring from Colorado, where he was as much a spectator as a participant.
I might have enjoyed seeing Wisconsin and Ohio St play for a Big Ten title, but that didn't happen, unfortunately. Consider if Wisconsin had beaten Ohio St, in a 'hypothetical' championship arrangement. It would have been a nice 'send-off' for Barry Alvarez, and likely would have put Wisconsin in the Fiesta Bowl. That's yet another reason I would like to see a 'championship' arrangment implemented. As it was, Barry Alvarez was rewarded with a 'win' in the Capital One Bowl. What's in your wallet?

[Spence]

Alvarez was one of the best coaches in the B-10. He was a great "game planning" coach. Wisconsin rarely had a bad year under Alvarez. He was an old school coach. He likes big lines, big backs, and smart QB's. His teams were rarely "athletic" teams but they alway seemed to give everyone all they could handle. He raised Wisconsin football higher then any other previous coach.

[Jason G]

Let's see if I can open up a can of worms here. You guys talk about teams and whether or not they are ranked but how much faith should we put in the rankings? Most rankings are at the very least influenced by human polls and thus can reflect some biases and inaccurate perceptions.

Often times I know that I disagree with the rankings. Sometimes teams may play some teams that I think should be ranked but are not. Also, when teams make their schedules they can't possibly know who will be ranked and who will not.

Did I stir the pot enough there?

[Spence]

A lot of people disagree with rankings both human and computer. I think most disagree that this team is ranked a head of that team, or that another team is ranked as much as 4 or 5 spots too high or low. Most people though, I think, agree on the teams that should be ranked. At least the top 15 or 20 teams. Why else would the human polls and the computer polls be so close in terms of what teams are ranked?

Someone may look at last year's final poll, for example, and think West Virginia should be ranked above Ohio State and LSU or that TCU should be ranked ahead of LSU, Ohio State, Alabama and Virginia Tech. I think that most would agree that all the teams should be ranked though, and most of the time with in 5 spots one way or the other of where they are actually ranked. So it really isn't a question of who is ranked, but rather what position in the polls they hold.

I can see where bias most effects the preseason and early polls, teams being ranked based on who they are and what they did last season, instead of a genuine ranking based on the team they have right now. But preseason polls are just an educated guess based on returning players and past history. They are flexable and are adjusted during the course of the games to correct the mistakes. Most of the time the right teams end up being ranked very close to where they should be.



Who among the following teams shouldn't be ranked at all?


1. Texas (62) 13-0
2. USC 12-1
3. Penn State 11-1
4. Ohio State 10-2
5. LSU 11-2
6. West Virginia 11-1
7. Virginia Tech 11-2
8. Alabama 10-2
9. TCU 11-1
10. Georgia 10-3
11. Notre Dame 9-3
12. Oregon 10-2
13. UCLA 10-2
14. Auburn 9-3
15. Wisconsin 10-3
16. Florida 9-3
17. Boston College 9-3
18. Miami 9-3
19. Texas Tech 9-3
20. Louisville 9-3
21. Clemson 8-4
22. Oklahoma 8-4
23. Florida State 8-5
24. Nebraska 8-4
25. California 8-4

[Jason G]

Point well taken on all counts, and I emphatically agree with what you said about preseason and early season polls. My problem is that it seems like the preseason polls become the model that the rest of the polls work off of for the rest of the season yet those first ones were conjured up without any team having taken the field. Once one team is ranked ahead of another it is hard for the lesser ranked school to pass them in the rankings if neither clearly distinguishes itself from the other.

Actually I did think last year was kind of an anomoly in that I didn't have too big a problem with the top 25 rankings, well at least who was in. I do remember thinking, though, after the bowl games last season that Florida State shouldn't have been in the Top 25 with 5 losses just because of how they played in their last two games, one where they had no pressure and the other that they lost after having such a long time to prepare. Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Georgia Tech, and even Kansas all also had 5 losses and I believe they played slightly tougher schedules than did FSU. But like you said I'm not dropping out any of the teams from the top 15 or 20.

I guess overall what my point has been lately is that I think we base too much on perception, history, and tradition. I think this true when it comes to polls, media attention and coverage, and so on. The college football landscape is starting to exhibit more parity between the "haves" and "have-nots" but I think a lot of poll voters and media types either wish this wasn't the case or don't realize that it is becoming more of a reality. Some do, some don't. In my humble opinion, it is better than it was just a few years back but still isn't where it needs to be yet either.

[Spence]

I guess overall what my point has been lately is that I think we base too much on perception, history, and tradition. I think this true when it comes to polls, media attention and coverage, and so on. The college football landscape is starting to exhibit more parity between the "haves" and "have-nots" but I think a lot of poll voters and media types either wish this wasn't the case or don't realize that it is becoming more of a reality. Some do, some don't. In my humble opinion, it is better than it was just a few years back but still isn't where it needs to be yet either.

The polls for the most part have always been based on perception, history, and tradition. The way the polls are conducted haven't changed much at all. The perception of some about the difference between the majors and the mid majors is exaggerated on both sides. The mid majors are light years closer to the majors because of the 85 scholarship rule and because of extended media coverage of the mid majors(such as ESPN thursday night football). The problem the mid majors have is that while several teams have made the jump to average or slightly above average, for the most part, the overall conference strength is still lagging behind the majors conference strength. So it isn't all bias when a strong team from a mid major conference doesn't get the same respect as a strong team from a major conference. Which means that the mid majors need to bolster their OOC schedules to strengthen their argument to be considered among the best in CFB.

On the other hand, mid majors are unfairly held back when it comes to the early polls. This makes it very hard to get into the BCS bowls. In reality, in a normal year, it is almost impossible for any team top rise to the top of the polls from below the 10 or 12 spot in the poll. Mid majors rarely if ever start in the top 10 or 12, so in that respect it is an unfair system to their top teams.

It is just as hard for teams from the Major conferences that don't start that high in the polls, though. Look at Iowa, excluding last year, when they were as strong as anyone in the country. They didn't get their shot at the #1 or 32 spot, based on past history. Since the system doesn't have an accurate way to compare 119 teams, the only thing you can do is use past history and tradition to rank teams. If Utah would have been given the right to play for the national championship a couple of years ago, and Oklahoma would have won their bowl game big, would people perception be that justice was served. Even if Utah would have held the game close, people would have said Oklahoma or Auburn should have been the team to be there. Even if Utah would have beaten USC, there would be a lot of doubt as to whether that Utah should be considered the NC.

That is why I suggested all the 1's. 2's, etc playing each other because it removes all doubt as to SOS and lets teams be considered due to actual comparisons against their peers. Playoff's wouldn't so that because their would always be doubt whether a left out team should be in the playoffs.

Mid majors as a whole need to improve their over all strength to be able to get considered for the bigger games. That may sound unfair, but if you think about it, that is what the teams from the major conference have had to prove over the last 100 years.

It is possible to go from not being a player, to being a major player in CFB. You need to look no futher then Miami(Fla.) or Florida St. to know it can happen pretty quickly playing the right competition. The key is and has always been the schedule. If you win with a good schedule you will get noticed. If you win, over time, with a good schedule you will be a player. Someone with a shot at a national championship. No one in the early to middle seventy's would have given Miami any shot at being included in a BCS championship game, if it would have been around then. They earned their respect over time, playing a good schedule.

[Jason G]

I agree with most everything you are saying here. It does all get back to the scheduling in the long run. That is why I can't emphasize the need for systematic scheduling (no matter what the format as long as all teams are given equal consideration) enough.

I am not even really arguing that non-BCS teams should have a shot at the national championship. At least not yet. In the arguments I raise I usually have overall respect for the leagues and their teams in mind. I'd like to see the non-BCS leagues earn the right to have teams play in more January bowls. I am in favor of small steps first. I'd be happy with the MWC champ playing in a game like the Cotton Bowl and the C-USA champ going to a game like the Outback Bowl. As it is now it is BCS or Liberty Bowl or Motor City Bowl or whatever tie-in the league has to a lower tier bowl, there is no middle ground and there should be.

Now if a non-BCS school goes undefeated and plays a decent (it's not realistic to think that too many big name teams would schedule them esp. at home) schedule they should have a shot at a BCS bowl although it likely wouldn't be the NC game. I believe the way the BCS will be structured this upcoming season that will be the case.

[Spence]

I agree with most everything you are saying here. It does all get back to the scheduling in the long run. That is why I can't emphasize the need for systematic scheduling (no matter what the format as long as all teams are given equal consideration) enough.

I am not even really arguing that non-BCS teams should have a shot at the national championship. At least not yet. In the arguments I raise I usually have overall respect for the leagues and their teams in mind. I'd like to see the non-BCS leagues earn the right to have teams play in more January bowls. I am in favor of small steps first. I'd be happy with the MWC champ playing in a game like the Cotton Bowl and the C-USA champ going to a game like the Outback Bowl. As it is now it is BCS or Liberty Bowl or Motor City Bowl or whatever tie-in the league has to a lower tier bowl, there is no middle ground and there should be.

Now if a non-BCS school goes undefeated and plays a decent (it's not realistic to think that too many big name teams would schedule them esp. at home) schedule they should have a shot at a BCS bowl although it likely wouldn't be the NC game. I believe the way the BCS will be structured this upcoming season that will be the case.

I agree completely. I have no problem with giving some of the mid-majors more after Christmas bowls and the change to prove themselves during bowl season. Even New Years day bowls , I wouldn't have a problem with doing. The big problem with the NYD bowls is that the majors have them tied up in contracts. Those bowls have nothing to do with the BCS bowls, they just are a way of testing the majors against each other to confirm that these conferences are close in strength. Letting mid majors in that scenario would be a good thing in my opinion. I don't care what conference a team comes from as long as they prove they can play during the season. I don't think giving a mid major an automatic bid to a BCS bowl is the answer to mid major respect. As a matter of fact I believe it would go the other way.

If a team, any team, proves during the season that they can play with anyone, they should be in a top bowl game. Systematic scheduling would get them respect if they earn it. Handing out the right to be in the game because they happen to win a conference championship, in an over all weak league, does not.

Systematic scheduling is the only way that I can think of, that you can compare all 119 teams fairly and rank them accordingly. That sort of scheduling doesn't honor tradition and may hurt the money making abilities of some teams(by having, say, Ohio State play away from home against a small school who can not draw enough to pay what the Bucks usually get), but it is fair and honest way of finding out who the best teams in the nation happen to be on a per year basis.

[colorado_loves_football]

Who among the following teams shouldn't be ranked at all?


1. Texas (62) 13-0
2. USC 12-1
3. Penn State 11-1
4. Ohio State 10-2
5. LSU 11-2
6. West Virginia 11-1
7. Virginia Tech 11-2
8. Alabama 10-2
9. TCU 11-1
10. Georgia 10-3
11. Notre Dame 9-3
12. Oregon 10-2
13. UCLA 10-2
14. Auburn 9-3
15. Wisconsin 10-3
16. Florida 9-3
17. Boston College 9-3
18. Miami 9-3
19. Texas Tech 9-3
20. Louisville 9-3
21. Clemson 8-4
22. Oklahoma 8-4
23. Florida State 8-5
24. Nebraska 8-4
25. California 8-4

This ties into what I was saying earlier with respect to how teams are paired together, competitively.

Given how far up TCU was, overall, why weren't they paired together with a 'comparable' opponent? It shows there are likely a few 'holes' in the way teams are paired, competitively, in bowl games.

As far as using a New Year's day venue for a 'non-BCS' title, I would prefer to stick with tradition, and keep the Liberty Bowl in place, for that purpose. It's hard to argue that last year's pairing of Tulsa and Fresno St, wasn't 'fair'. Both teams were 8-4 and Tulsa won, but not easily.

Assuming TCU had say, been selected over Fresno St, that might have served as a legitimate way to select a 'non-BCS' representative to the BCS, but unless the 'playoff' format is applied, it's not a 'fair' pairing of teams, competitively, so I might be against that, in principle.

One game that might have invited TCU, had it been possible, is the Alamo Bowl. TCU has played in San Antonio before, the GalleryFurniture.com bowl, and likely would have filled it to capacity. As it was, the Alamo Bowl had a 'classic' pairing in Michigan vs. Nebraska.

So, as much as I hate to admit it, it's possible the BCS got it 'right' at least in the big picture. Iowa St, nearly won the Big XII N. division, likely would have but for a last-minute OT loss to Kansas (a game that likely saved their head coach). So, the Houston Bowl, gave TCU a quality opponent, in Iowa St. But, I might have preferred seeing TCU play Oregon, in a BCS game, had that been possible.

I give the BCS credit for getting it right, this year. Few, if any, of the games were mis-matches. Some might argue that the Peach Bowl was, but many, including myself, thought it was a 'quality' pairing of teams. In some ways, the BCS resembles the NCAA's in that you often aren't aware of who's better until after the games are played. Northwestern St, certainly played to the level of their competition.

I want tradition to remain a part of the BCS. I'm a traditionalist at heart.
TCU, by joining the MWC, actually maybe assured themselves a Houston Bowl bid, since the MWC champion doesnt really have a 'lock' anywhere.
They likely thought it would earn them a Liberty Bowl invitation, something even Tulsa wasn't assured of until after the dust settled.

So, Im mostly happy with how things turned out, but I would prefer a more representative way to select a national champion. The BCS is getting closer to getting it right, but they still miss some of the things I think that make it 'fun', or in other words, need to be mindful of how a 'non-BCS' team might do, in a hypothetical 'playoff' arrangment.

[Spence]

So, Im mostly happy with how things turned out, but I would prefer a more representative way to select a national champion. The BCS is getting closer to getting it right, but they still miss some of the things I think that make it 'fun', or in other words, need to be mindful of how a 'non-BCS' team might do, in a hypothetical 'playoff' arrangment.

I think that everyone involved in the polls does just that when they decide how to rank the top teams.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't necessarily object to the fact that teams are ranked, but there needs to be more 'representative' way to do it. I don't understand, for example, why they couldn't just make it a 50/50 proposition, or in other words, allow the voters 1/2 and the computers 1/2. Having two 'human' polls obviously 'slants' the poll toward being biased.

That being said, I would still prefer allowing for competition to select the teams to the BCS. I"ve already outlined how that might happen. It would require some restructuring (minimal, given how many teams there are) to allow for it to happen. But, ten conferences, more-or-less, equally divided, and represented to the BCS would allow for the BCS to be more impartial, and would also allow for competition to select the teams.

Apply my model to the NCAA basketball tournament, if necessary. Unless I'm mistaken, there are something of the order of 35 conferences. I used to know how many there are, but I lost count. Anyway, the NCAA awards every conference champion a bid, then awards 'at large' bids to fill the 65 team bracket. My proposal is better, because it eliminates the need for 'at large' teams, it cuts right to the heart of the matter.
Ten conference champions are all that are necessary to 'fill' a BCS bracket. It doesn't even 'compromise' tradition, because the bowls can be used for seeding purposes. Having three games, post-bowls, if anything simply gives the BCS more attention, and since the 5th bowl, will already be played, it's just a variation on that format. In a sense it's the NCAA 'finals' without all the mess.

[Spence]

There are 2 human polls and 6 or 8 computer polls. The BCS a couple of years ago changed the weight given to each, because the computers didn't seem to like USC. They gave 1/3 to each human poll and 1/3 to the computers. It probably would be a lot better if they let the computers have more weight. Like they used to have.

[colorado_loves_football]

There are 2 human polls and 6 or 8 computer polls. The BCS a couple of years ago changed the weight given to each, because the computers didn't seem to like USC. They gave 1/3 to each human poll and 1/3 to the computers. It probably would be a lot better if they let the computers have more weight. Like they used to have.

I know it likely had everything to do with 2003 when LSU and Oklahoma were paired in the Sugar Bowl, but interesting to me, by-and-large that year worked out ok. USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, LSU beat Oklahoma. Two #1 teams were left standing, after the dust settled. That's what happens when you don't have a playoff, more often than not.

Incidentally, TCU wasn't the only 'non-BCS' team vyign for a BCS bid that year. They simply had the best chance, but Miami (OH) finished ranked sufficiently high (top-12) to be offered an 'at large' bid. But K-State beating Oklahoma ruined whatever chances they might have had.
For all intents and purposes, they were like TCU was, last year. They 'settled' for a GMAC pairing against a C-USA 'also-ran' in Louisville.
A 'better' pairing likely would have allowed Boise St, and Miami (OH).
As it was TCU did everyone a favor by losing to S. Mississippi.
S. Mississippi 'earned' a Liberty Bowl invitation, TCU 'earned' a Ft. Worth Bowl 'bid', and Boise St, 'earned' a Ft. Worth Bowl bid, as well.
I might even go so far as to say that was the best thing for TCU, that year. Boise St was a quality opponent, one year removed from being in the Liberty Bowl. Miami (OH) proved they were a better team than Louisville, and Utah showed they were a better team than S. Mississippi.
I don't necessarily mind how the BCS pairs teams together, and the 'provision' to allow a top-12 team direct access likely will give more 'non-BCS' teams opportunity to play in a BCS bowl. I just wish it had been in place before now. And incorporated with a playoff. Then I'll be happy.