Do the ‘Little Guys’ Deserve a Spot in the National Title Game?
Posted 09-14-2010 at 11:17 PM by DrakeHawk20
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/JUSTIN%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/JUSTIN%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG] Ever since The University of Utah finished the 2004-2005 season undefeated after a convincing win over The University of Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl much debate has begun whether schools from the non-BCS conferences, aka ‘The Little Guys’, deserve a shot in the subjective BCS National Championship Game. After all, these arguments, no matter how much data we throw into these calculations, will always have a little human error in them. This is why I want to note up front that I support a football playoff (like every other sport on this planet, although we need to work on the logistics) to objectively determine the national champion in college football.
However, we do not have a football playoff so we must debate whether teams like Utah in 2004 and 2008, or Boise State in 2006 and 2009 deserve a chance to play for the coveted crystal football. Arguments have been made on both sides of this debate, but the one common denominator remains – Not a single non-BCS school has ever played for the BCS National Championship. Does this need to change? Let’s discuss…
The supporters will argue that you can’t penalize these teams for beating everyone on their schedule. The bulk of their schedule is playing teams in their respective conferences. To their credit, however, these teams have scheduled non-conference games against quality BCS conference foes.
Boise State has scheduled Oregon State (2004-06, 2010), Georgia (2005), Washington (2007), Oregon (2008-09), and Virginia Tech (2010). However, in the years when Boise State went undefeated, they did not play more than one BCS conference team during the regular season. The years they faced more than one BCS conference foe (2005) they finished the year 9-4. This year Boise State does play two BCS conference foes and are already halfway home with a come from behind victory over a now overrated Virginia Tech team. The only realistic shot at defeat is now at the hands of Oregon State on the blue turf in Boise.
Utah has scheduled Texas A&M (2004), Arizona (2004-05), UCLA (2006-07), Oregon State (2007-08), Michigan (2008), Oregon (2009), Pittsburgh (2010), and Notre Dame (2010). Interestingly, Utah went undefeated in the years they played two BCS conference teams (2004 and 2008). Further, with the move to the Pac-10 in 2012, Utah will now get its chance to prove themselves on the big stage week in and week out and if they go undefeated, they will undoubtedly deserve a shot to play for it all. In the short history of the BCS, these are the only two schools that have had any legitimate argument for a chance to play for the national championship.
The skeptics, on the other hand, argue that the schedule is what will break the backs of the non-BCS conferences for a legitimate shot at the national title. Here’s a look at the strength of schedules (SOS) from the four non-BCS schools that have played in a BCS bowl game. I will include Iowa as a comparison to these schools: (Disclaimer: These rankings are post bowl games).
Even after taking the bowl games into account, you can clearly see that not one non-BCS school has an average SOS less than 70, while Iowa has a SOS half of two of those teams, including highly touted Boise State. In fact, after a hard fought victory a couple weeks ago over a now overrated Virginia Tech team, it seemed Boise State was almost guaranteed a spot in the 2011 national title game. However, the loss of Virginia Tech to James Madison last week definitely dampens Boise State’s hopes to play for the BCS National Championship. The fact that Boise State has to depend on Virginia Tech’s success to increase their SOS just spells doom for teams in non-BCS conferences; these teams can’t control their own fate. For this reason alone, it will be nearly impossible for an undefeated non-BCS school to make it into the national championship game.
Further evidence is supported by the ELO-CHESS, an unbiased predictor of team ranking used by Sagarin in the BCS rankings. Rarely have these teams ranked high enough to make a move to the top 2 spots in the BCS rankings at the end of the regular season. Bear in mind these rankings are reflective after the bowl season, so the high ranking by Boise State after the 2006 season was due to beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl and Utah’s ranking in 2008 was due to beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, both of which significantly enhanced their strength of schedule and, hence, their computer ratings.
Again, perception is king in college football and while Boise State has done better in that category (in both the Coaches and Harris polls), they still do not have much of a chance to play for the national title because of the factors mentioned above. What would be interesting to think about is if the plus-1 format (a format some experts would like to adopt) would enable teams like the 2006 Broncos or the 2008 Utes to play for the BCS National Championship or would they get passed over, again, by another (and probably more deserving) BCS conference team? Let the debate begin!
However, we do not have a football playoff so we must debate whether teams like Utah in 2004 and 2008, or Boise State in 2006 and 2009 deserve a chance to play for the coveted crystal football. Arguments have been made on both sides of this debate, but the one common denominator remains – Not a single non-BCS school has ever played for the BCS National Championship. Does this need to change? Let’s discuss…
The supporters will argue that you can’t penalize these teams for beating everyone on their schedule. The bulk of their schedule is playing teams in their respective conferences. To their credit, however, these teams have scheduled non-conference games against quality BCS conference foes.
Boise State has scheduled Oregon State (2004-06, 2010), Georgia (2005), Washington (2007), Oregon (2008-09), and Virginia Tech (2010). However, in the years when Boise State went undefeated, they did not play more than one BCS conference team during the regular season. The years they faced more than one BCS conference foe (2005) they finished the year 9-4. This year Boise State does play two BCS conference foes and are already halfway home with a come from behind victory over a now overrated Virginia Tech team. The only realistic shot at defeat is now at the hands of Oregon State on the blue turf in Boise.
Utah has scheduled Texas A&M (2004), Arizona (2004-05), UCLA (2006-07), Oregon State (2007-08), Michigan (2008), Oregon (2009), Pittsburgh (2010), and Notre Dame (2010). Interestingly, Utah went undefeated in the years they played two BCS conference teams (2004 and 2008). Further, with the move to the Pac-10 in 2012, Utah will now get its chance to prove themselves on the big stage week in and week out and if they go undefeated, they will undoubtedly deserve a shot to play for it all. In the short history of the BCS, these are the only two schools that have had any legitimate argument for a chance to play for the national championship.
The skeptics, on the other hand, argue that the schedule is what will break the backs of the non-BCS conferences for a legitimate shot at the national title. Here’s a look at the strength of schedules (SOS) from the four non-BCS schools that have played in a BCS bowl game. I will include Iowa as a comparison to these schools: (Disclaimer: These rankings are post bowl games).
Even after taking the bowl games into account, you can clearly see that not one non-BCS school has an average SOS less than 70, while Iowa has a SOS half of two of those teams, including highly touted Boise State. In fact, after a hard fought victory a couple weeks ago over a now overrated Virginia Tech team, it seemed Boise State was almost guaranteed a spot in the 2011 national title game. However, the loss of Virginia Tech to James Madison last week definitely dampens Boise State’s hopes to play for the BCS National Championship. The fact that Boise State has to depend on Virginia Tech’s success to increase their SOS just spells doom for teams in non-BCS conferences; these teams can’t control their own fate. For this reason alone, it will be nearly impossible for an undefeated non-BCS school to make it into the national championship game.
Further evidence is supported by the ELO-CHESS, an unbiased predictor of team ranking used by Sagarin in the BCS rankings. Rarely have these teams ranked high enough to make a move to the top 2 spots in the BCS rankings at the end of the regular season. Bear in mind these rankings are reflective after the bowl season, so the high ranking by Boise State after the 2006 season was due to beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl and Utah’s ranking in 2008 was due to beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, both of which significantly enhanced their strength of schedule and, hence, their computer ratings.
Again, perception is king in college football and while Boise State has done better in that category (in both the Coaches and Harris polls), they still do not have much of a chance to play for the national title because of the factors mentioned above. What would be interesting to think about is if the plus-1 format (a format some experts would like to adopt) would enable teams like the 2006 Broncos or the 2008 Utes to play for the BCS National Championship or would they get passed over, again, by another (and probably more deserving) BCS conference team? Let the debate begin!
Total Comments 0
Rss