The complaints are rolling in from Notre Dame fans upset about the Irish’s #16 ranking in the initial BCS standings, which is primarily the result of their #23 ranking in the computer polls. This low ranking is the result of Notre Dame’s unexpectedly weak strength of schedule — supposedly ND’s strong suit, but not this year. With the exception of USC, pretty much all of ND’s opponents thus far are having off-years. Michigan, a Top 10 team in the preseason, is 4-3. Pittsburgh, which went to a BCS bowl last year, is 3-4. Purdue is 2-4. Washington is 1-5. The only Irish opponent besides the Trojans doing relatively well is Michigan State, and even the Spartans are just 4-2 after a 4-0 start. It remains to be seen whether the Spartans are about to go into free-fall, but it’s certainly possible.
And Notre Dame’s schedule doesn’t get any stronger from here on out. They’ve got BYU (3-3), Tennessee (a disappointing 3-2), Navy (3-2), Syracuse (1-5, including losses to UConn and Rutgers, with their only win coming against lowly Buffalo), and Stanford (3-2, and likely to lose most, if not all, of their remaining 5 conference games against the meat of the Pac-10).
In comments on another post, an ND fan writes: “Sure, certain teams we play may have up years and down years. Go ahead and try to design a tougher schedule for 8 years down the road.” That commenter is exactly right. BYU, Navy and Stanford are about where you’d expect them to be, but who knew Pittsburgh, Michigan, Purdue, Washington, Syracuse, and even Tennessee and quite possibly Michigan State would all have sub-par years, all at once? The Irish couldn’t possibly have predicted that when they made up their schedule.
The thing is, though, we USC fans made the exact same argument two years ago, when the Trojans were denied a spot in the Sugar Bowl because of our “weak” schedule… and I don’t recall getting much sympathy from Irish fans back then. Indeed, it seems to be an annual pastime for Notre Dame fans to crow about how much stronger their schedule is than USC’s (and everyone else’s). Now that the tables have turned, perhaps they’ll take a more reasonable view of things?
In 2003, USC’s opponents included Auburn, a preseason Top 10 team that finished 7-5, and, ahem, Notre Dame, a traditional powerhouse that went 5-7. Our conference schedule was also unusually weak, since it so happened that the one team we didn’t play in conference that year was the Pac-10’s second-best team, 8-4 Oregon. And on top of it, the whole Pac-10 was “down” that year. Was any of that USC’s fault? No, but we got tarred with the “lousy schedule” moniker anyway, and we got punished by the computers for it. As a result, we had to share our national championship with LSU, even though the human pollsters thought we were #1 in the country.
The moral of the story? The BCS sucks, and we should decide the champion on the field from a group that includes all the major conference champions, if not all Division 1-A conference champions, plus a few at-large teams. Conference standings are (for the most part) a fair barometer of a team’s strength; national rankings that attempt to compare apples to oranges using things like strength of schedule, which are entirely out of a team’s control, are not.
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
October 18th, 2005 at 5:29:56 pm
things like strength of schedule, which are entirely out of a team’s control
That’s not entirely true. Partially out of a team’s control, yes. But certainly a team can control whether it schedules, for example, Indiana State and Sam Houston State (Texas Tech) rather than, say, Fresno State and Arkansas (USC).
October 18th, 2005 at 5:34:13 pm
I told this guy at work the same thing … he asked why were weren’t ranked any higher. I told him since we beat the man out of teams like Pittsburgh, Michigan and Purdue, it looks like we may have to hope for some top 15 losses.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:34:58 pm
I agree with your diagnosis of the BCS problem as it currently relates to ND and has related to USC in the past. Its so very unfortunate that such a flawed system will end up making a $13M difference for ND. Stupid BCS…
I think there are two top ten teams that play this weekend (UT and TT), thus, the Irish should have some positive movement in the polls (yes, I take a win against BYU for granted, in spite of last year’s poor outing).
Why is the BCS still around? I understand that big money is involved, but one would think that, by now, a more fair yet equally profitable (commercially speaking) solution would have been formulated.
The Big Ten presents an interesting problem to this year’s BCS: does any Big Ten team deserve to go? I dont see how. But, despite all logic, the BCS will put a sorry Big Ten team in a major bowl while an SEC team takes it in the rear one more time. Stupid BCS.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:39:28 pm
I see a very serious consequence of ths ’strength of schedule’ factor. Many of the great rivalries of the game will be lost to preserve ’strength of schedule’ (Notre Dame would have had to drop MSU in the early 90s during the Perles era). No more will little guys get to play big guys with the hopes of using the ‘big game’ for recruiting to improve their lot. No more will Hawaii get scheduled as a fun trip for the kids. The service academies will never see a real opponent. Some of what make college football great will be lost.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:40:10 pm
despite all logic, the BCS will put a sorry Big Ten team in a major bowl
Don’t forget the sorry Big East team!
October 18th, 2005 at 5:46:42 pm
Check out Jeff Sagarin’s ratings. He has ND as the toughest schedule in the country.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt05.htm
October 18th, 2005 at 5:46:50 pm
I can agree with a powerful team’s weak early schedule when its weak opponents are in the same state (e.g. Texas Tech playing Sam Houston State). But, other than that, I see it as a lack of huevos. When I was at NMSU we played UTexas, got killed, and justified it by saying we gained exposure, etc. Now, that was beneficial to NMSU, but quite chicken-shit of UT. In my opinion, anyway.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:48:55 pm
ND still schedules BYU and Stanford, and they arent contributing to a better strength of schedule rating.
But I agree that it would be terrible to part with great rivalries to save one’s chances at a BCS berth.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:49:23 pm
That’s because the Irish’s three victories over ranked teams — Pittsburgh, Michigan and Purdue — have all lost their luster as those teams have fallen apart. But maybe, just maybe, Notre Dame had something to do with those collapses. All three looked legit until Charlie Weis’ team skewered them on their own home fields.
http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2194153
October 18th, 2005 at 5:52:24 pm
Add Pat Forde’s comment to your post, Mr. Inclusive of all opinions.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:52:27 pm
alphadog, you really shouldn’t be complaining about a potential $13M difference given that the Irish have an easier time than most other teams to make it to a BCS game. They only have to be ranked in the top 12. The other at large guarentees don’t even start til the top 6.
As for the Big 10, both Penn State and Wisconsin are 6-1, I’d hardly call that weak.
Penn State lost AT Michigan, in a very close game (lost at the very end in fact), to a team that despite its rough year is still a pretty good team. In fact I seem to recall you Irish fans being particularly proud of that little victory, or is it not so important now?
October 18th, 2005 at 5:53:38 pm
I have always found it kind of strange in the BCS that you hurt yourself by winning and lowering your own strength of schedule. Part of the reason some of those teams ND has beaten have poorer records then in years past is because ND has beaten them. it is kinda like looking into a series of mirrors.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:53:53 pm
Yes, Pat. And the same was absolutely true of USC and Auburn in 2003 (the season-opener).
October 18th, 2005 at 5:54:59 pm
Depsite my agreement that settling it on the field is always the way to go, a playoff would’ve taken ALOT of the air outta that amazing USC-ND game this weekend.
You can’t argue on that point.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:00:53 pm
Right, no appreciation for tradition. Beating the winningest program in college history and setting their season into a tailspin is just like hitting Auburn in the first game of the season.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:02:58 pm
Anonymous, I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or what? But in case you forgot, Auburn was ranked #7 in the preseason polls, and that game against USC was billed as a battle between two teams with national-championship aspirations. Instead, Matt Leinart — in his debut as a starting QB — demolished and demoralized the Tigers. Regardless of whether they are as good historically as Michigan, USC’s win had the exact same effect, “sending their season into a tailspin.”
October 18th, 2005 at 6:05:42 pm
How about just forgetting all the BCS/Bowl Alliance crap. Everything worked fine before then. It certainly helped Southern Cal claim a boatload of “national championships”.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:05:46 pm
All three looked legit until Charlie Weis’ team skewered them on their own home fields.
For Pitt, that came the very first week of the season, before Pitt had played anybody else. They then went on to stink up the field @Nebraska, vs. Ohio, and @Rutgers.
For Michigan, they played Wisconsin tough @Wisconsin, but Wisconsin has no defense. They also played ND early, and looked horrible in their victory over Northern Illinois (which is, at least, a decent cupcake). And then they coug’d it versus Minnesota at home. Michigan is a decent team with tons of talent, but they’re nothing to write home about. As for Purdue, they beat Akron but lost lustre by looking weak against Arizona, and then went on to lose to Minnesota, ND, Iowa, and Northwestern–in other words, any team with a pulse.
Sagarin’s ratings likes Notre Dame for a few reasons. First, they’ve played a lot of away games. Second, their home games have been against strong winning teams (especially an undefeated USC). Third, Purdue and Michigan at least have faced strong competition, so their bad records are watered down in Sagarin’s formula.
Notre Dame will find its early opponents picking up more wins, which will help, but their late schedule will likely be too weak for it to matter much. They have to hope Tennessee wins a couple dogfights in the SEC that they might no longer be favored in. Oh, and they have to beat Tennessee.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:16:04 pm
What about just eliminating the conference system all together? What purpose does it serve?
October 18th, 2005 at 6:16:04 pm
Notre Dame will find its early opponents picking up more wins
…while past opponent Washington and future opponent Stanford go winless the rest of the way.
Also, Purdue’s schedule is tough. Not sure how many more wins they’ll pick up. Two, probably. At least one of the losses will be to Michigan State — ND can’t lose in that game. :)
The big question, it seems to me, is Michigan State. Will they recover from their two straight losses, or will their season go into a tailspin?
Also, can Pittsburgh beat Louisville and West Virginia? Doubtful. Not a ton more wins there, either.
Oh well, at least the Irish have USC to root for. ;)
October 18th, 2005 at 6:22:32 pm
Sorry Big 10? Not so sure about that.
The problem with the Big 10 is that its top teams are about the same skill level (not saying whether that level is high or low). This usually results in several 1 or 2 loss teams. This is compounded by the fact that several good programs live in the Big 10 - Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, etc. Enough that some can have off years and the top teams still beat each other up.
Big East, however, has indeed become a joke in football.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:31:18 pm
PS - I agree, the BCS sucks. Muchly.
One loss is enough to disqualify you from the championsip game. Moreover, a weak schedule may well propel you upwards, over a more deserving team with a tougher schedule. Should Penn State be out now, should they run the table and win the Big 10 convincingly in the process? I don’t know. Does the NFL take the top two record teams and play the for the Super Bowl? No, for that reason!
We should indeed have a playoff of somekind.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:49:04 pm
” Yes, Pat. And the same was absolutely true of USC and Auburn in 2003″
And it was particularly true for LSU, who beat Georgia TWICE- and Georgia was no slouch that year.
The BCS is markedly more fair than the prior system. At least there’s an attempt to match the top 2 teams.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:50:26 pm
At minimum, any decent system should not result in people rooting for other teams. That is freakish. It is also the number one biggest thing I cannot figure out about you. I realize that Michigan and USC are probably the strongest teams we beat, but there is no way in hell I am going to “root” for them. I hope they and their sorry institutions crash and burn from here to eternity, but really I couldn’t care less except for the one weekend that they play Notre Dame. Ultimately, everyone knows who the powerhouse teams are. Changes to this group happen over the course of generations, much like the fading away of the once formidable Ivy League. The Florida teams are the most recent entrees into this crowd. Everyone knows who consistently gets the best recruits, staff, facilities, fans. I don’t care even if you line up all the one-hit-wonders in the same year: Oregon State, Fresno State, Boise State, Utah, Missouri, Louisville, and on and on, that is NOT a strong schedule.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:54:31 pm
” At minimum, any decent system should not result in people rooting for other teams. That is freakish.”
You mean like how in a playoff system, teams in one bracket would be pulling for certain outcomes in other brackets?
October 18th, 2005 at 7:03:30 pm
When is Notre Dame going to finally join the Big Eleven? Or better yet, when are Penn State and Notre Dame going to join the Big Least and make it a real conference again?
If Notre Dame joins the Big Least, they should keep their rivalries with USC, Michigan, and Navy. In that instance, I’d agree BC gets left out, but that’s their fault for jumping ship to the ACC.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:04:21 pm
Back in 2003 when USC was edged out of the BCS championship game I too remember all those people who were complaining about how easy a schedule that USC had. The most ironic thing was that in 2002 just the year before and the year USC lost just 2 games and beat Iowa in the Orange Bowl, USC had the #1 SOS according to the BCS system. So it wasn’t as if USC was trying to schedule weak teams (like LSU did by scheduling a 13th game against a 1AA team that year) but simply the “luck” of the draw.
By the way, to the commenter who posted that it hurts your SOS when you beat a team…that is generally not true. While each computer poll has its own way of determiing SOS, in most cases you throw out the actual wins and losses against your opponents to determine SOS as to that team. So when LSU beat Georgia twice that year, Georgia’s record for SOS purposes was as a 1 loss team…while for everyone else who played and lost to Georgia it was a 3 loss team.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:06:10 pm
You mean like how in a playoff system, teams in one bracket would be pulling for certain outcomes in other brackets?
Or how in the old, pre-BCS system, a team from any conference other than the Big 10 or Pac 10 had to root for whoever was playing against the undefeated teams from those conferences, so that the Rose Bowl wouldn’t create a situation where a split championship is likely? Or how, if one undefeated team did reach the Rose Bowl, the other undefeated team(s) would root against that team in the Rose Bowl itself?
Teams will ALWAYS end up rooting for or against other teams… it’s not freakish, it’s normal and inevitable. Don’t you think #8 and #9 seeds root for #16 in the NCAA tournament first round? But certainly it’s very odd when, say, a Hawaii-Boise State game on the last night of the season definitively determines who goes to the Sugar Bowl, USC or LSU. I’ll agree with you to that extent.
Also… I’m not sure who you think you’re bashing with your litany of “one-hit wonder” teams, but just for the record, in the period 2000-2008, USC has played or will play during the regular season: Penn State, Kansas State (twice), Auburn (twice), Virginia Tech, Nebraska (twice), Ohio State (twice) and Notre Dame (every year). If those teams don’t qualify as worthy opponents, your criteria are warped. There are other major-conference teams as well (Colorado multiple times, Arkansas, probably others I’m forgetting), as well as Fresno State (which is no slouch of a team), BYU (a scheduling choice which Domers can hardly make fun of), Hawaii (sort of like “our Navy”), etc. I’m not saying USC plays the toughest schedule on the planet, nor that it’s tougher than Notre Dame’s most years, but it’s not like we’re filling our schedule with Louisiana-Lafayettes or North Texases, either. USC is by no means the worst offender, if you want to talk about teams that consistently play cupcake schedules.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:21:27 pm
I still think ND has its BCS future in its own hands. They only need to win 9 games while I bet every other team who gets to a BCS bowl this year will have won at least 10 games. And certainly if they win those 9 games they will be among the top 12 teams in the BCS system by the end of the yaar…which guarantees them the BCS bowl game. Contrast that with California last year which lost only to USC, finished 5th in the BCS yet did not get to go to a BCS game while 3 teams that finished behind them in the BCS standings went instead.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:25:40 pm
One of the things that made the great matchup between Ohio State & Texas this year really unusual, besides these two major programs having never met on the field, was that it was the first time since 2002 that either team had played a ranked team in the preseason.
[OSU beat #7 Washington State in their 2002 championship season.]
October 18th, 2005 at 7:31:35 pm
Hey now, the Huskies will probably win one more game. We DO play Arizona AND Washington State. Hell we might even win TWO! (300% improvement over last season too)
October 18th, 2005 at 7:51:57 pm
It would probably help the PAC-10 out if some of the other teams played tougher non-conference opponents like USC is doing. UCLA made an attempt, but Oklahoma isn’t having a typical year. Ironically, a 10-1 UCLA just might be THE team that gets hosed out of a BCS game by a 9-2 ND if the games go a certain way (this is a stretch, but they are right in that “ranking range” to have this happen with UCLA ranked higher than ND, but ND still in the BCS top 12 and 9-2).
I’m hoping ND wins out. If so, I really like our chances of making the BCS top 12. There are at least 6 matchups of BCS teams ranked ahead of us before any conference championships. There are 4 ACC teams, 3 SEC teams, 3 PAC-10, and 3 Big Ten teams in front of ND now. There is a pretty good chance that even with our weak schedule, we move up enough in the AP and Harris polls for strength of schedule not to bump us lower than 12.
Let’s hope the team responds well against BYU and Tennessee. If we do win out and miss out on a BCS game, there would most likely be a number of one loss teams that would probably deserve to go more than we do. Damn that Michigan State game.
October 18th, 2005 at 8:15:48 pm
Objection, the AP poll isn’t used in the BCS poll. While ND could conceivably move up slightly in the Harris and Coaches polls, there still figure to be a buttload of one-loss teams ahead of them. The computer rankings will have to improve appreciably. It will be close, but my guess is, without another loss, ND finishes #11 or #12 in the BCS.
Now, God forbid this should happen, but suppose fUCLA upsets USC and wins a spot in the Rose Bowl. Now USC is 11-1. Should ND go to a BCS game instead of USC, when ND’s major claim to fame is that they *almost* beat USC? I’d strongly consider rioting if that happened, and/or fly to BCS headquarters and commit an act of arson.
October 18th, 2005 at 8:29:10 pm
Hey, we at Stanford do play a decent out of conference team this year–ND. Granted, we’re likely to lose the majority, and quite possibly all, of our remaining games, but still, Rick Tellshow projects the Farm’s final SOS to be the 12th hardest in the country this year, while he puts that of UCLA at 80th and the second-lowest in the Pac-10. Arizona State has played LSU and Northwestern, and Washington also played ND, for instance. The LA area schools aren’t the only Pac-10 teams who play a decent non-conference opponent this year.
October 18th, 2005 at 8:29:21 pm
Andrew-
Right, I always mix the AP and Coaches’ poll.
I don’t think if USC gets beat and finishes 11-1 that a 10-1 Texas Tech gets in also assuming they lose to Texas. The ‘at-large’ would likely go to ND (if ND is 9-2 also) and USC. Texas Tech would be pissed (as well they should, but if you want to talk about SOS, look at theirs!). I think it would take a Texas loss and an SC loss for your hypo to come about. Could happen, but if it does I think the ND problem goes away with ND finishing outside the top 12 in the BCS.
Do I think the ND exception makes sense? No. I honestly think ND or Big East Champion (the way the league is now) for that other championship spot makes a lot more sense. Then if another team out of that group deserves an at large, so be it.
October 18th, 2005 at 8:57:21 pm
Heh, so many doom and gloom scenarios this early in the rankings.
October 18th, 2005 at 9:24:35 pm
Objection, forget Texas Tech. What about Miami, Florida State, or Virginia Tech (whichever one finished with one loss but is not the ACC champion)? How about Georgia, Alabama, LSU, or Auburn (again, whichever doesn’t win the SEC but finishes with one loss)? I’d take one of those teams over Notre Dame.
October 18th, 2005 at 9:25:43 pm
Mike, I don’t care how good you think the Farm’s schedule is, you lost to UC-Davis. It’s bad enough to schedule a I-AA patsy, but as soon as you lose to it, I don’t care if you’re playing Notre Dame, Miami, and Texas for your OOC. You’re on the shit list.
October 18th, 2005 at 10:23:12 pm
Deep question
Re: Eliminating the conferences and what purpose they serve.
They serve alot of purposes actually. First it allows schools to share costs of things like refs. Second, it simplifies scheduling. Third, it helps with revenue. Fourth, rule consistency. Fifth, it helps in ALL sports to be affiliated, especially when it comes to tournaments. I could keep going.
Frankly I don’t see any benefits to getting rid of the conferences. Teams would still be scheduling most games regionally, and its easier to schedule games with teams on a consistant back and forth basis. You wouldn’t clear up any of the confusion that happens allready because with football atleast there is just no way to play enough games to come away with a completely objective champion (not to mention the time involved in such an undertaking).
Now I wouldn’t mind seeing a simplification of the conferences. There are, what, 107 teams in 1-A. limit it to 8 conferences, each with two divisions. then you can have a 12 or 16 team play off (depending on the number of wild card teams you want to throw in).
I figure the Pac-10 could pick up Fresno State and Boise State, or maybe steal Colorado and Colorado state and become the Pac-12.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:39:07 pm
What people like Forde forget is that rivalry games are more often than not close. Emotion is the reason why, and emotion is what make CFB so great. SC & ND would have played their asses off even if both were 0-5 heading into the game. No one other than alums would have watched, but emotion is the great equalizer in rivalry games. The fact of the matter is, Oregon has beaten a team (ASU) better than any team ND has defeated. ASU’s losses are to LSU, SC, & Oregon. ASU will end the year 8-4, possible 9-3. Will Michigan? Maybe, but they have to win out. Oregon-SC is not a rivalry game, which is why they collapsed in the second half. You can never take rivalry games into consideration, other than W-L, when evaluating a team’s performance.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:05:26 am
“like LSU did by scheduling a 13th game against a 1AA team that year”
Western Illinois was scheduled because another team backed out very late in the pre-season. It’s hard to see how it possibly helped LSU.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:03:55 am
Yes, and if memory serves, the team that backed out against LSU was Virgina Tech, who has yet to honor the home-and-home that was started by LSU’s visit to Blacksburg in 2002.
Brendan, it was LSU that had to share its National Championship wih USC in 2003. I don’t recall Leinhart wearing a ‘F*ck the BCS’ T-shirt last year when he held the crystal football.
But seriously, for 2003, you should blame Oklahoma. And also for 2004, as Auburn would have been a better opponent.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:31:04 am
I don’t blame LSU, Oklahoma, Auburn or USC. I blame the lack of a playoff. I don’t begrudge LSU its half of the national championship; it’s unfortunate that you apparently begrudge USC its half. The point isn’t which team you or I think is more deserving. The point is, it should be decided on the field.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:56:01 am
Actually, I am fine with the idea of co-champions, and I am happy to have USC and LSU both claim to be the best team of 2003. And it would have been great to see them play each other that night in New Orleans.
You said: “As a result [of the BCs], we had to share our national championship with LSU, even though the human pollsters thought we were #1 in the country.”
Sounds to me like a little bit of begrudging (?) towards LSU. Which is fine, and healthy, and part of what makes college football so much fun. So what if there is not one winner? I think there is too much emphasis on that, and that there needs to be more on the conferences and the games on ‘any given Saturday’. For four months, Christmas comes once a week.
I say that USC can rightly claim to have been one of the two best teams in 2003 and 2004. I imagine that they will be able to say the same or better this year. And, damn, they are really good.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:02:44 am
Yes I begrudge it, but again, my grudge is not against LSU per se, it’s against the broken system.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:05:16 pm
Continuing the KellyGreen saga, Sean, that guy who was so upset about the supposed lack of class from the Trojans is now slamming the Mormon faith in the lead up to this weeks game against BYU…classy, really classy.