by W.H.

Last month, before the college football bowl season, we broke down the non-conference records of four major conferences. The surprising find in the data collected was the dominant winning percentage of the ACC. But as bowl season came and went, so did any notion of the ACC being a powerhouse in college football. However, two things did happen as the championship played out that once again stirred the annual protesting of the illegitimacy of the BCS Championship. First of all the Big 12, the darling of media outlets this season, went a measly 4-3 against serious non-conference competition. Three of the its prominent Heisman hyped quarterbacks (Bradford, Daniel, and Harrell) struggled mightily when faced with non-Big 12 defenses. Secondly, the nation watched an undefeated non-BCS conference team be shunned by the sporting press for the second time in four years.

Much of the voting in both the media and coaches' polls is based on strength of schedule, but most of the actual strength considered is based on the assumption that teams in BCS conferences play superior football than non-BCS conference teams. However the national title match-up, decided by the BCS rankings which are heavily dependent on human polling, featured two BCS conference teams with one-loss while leaving four other one loss BCS conference teams out in the cold. Not to mention two undefeated non-BCS conference teams. How could anyone assume to know that Florida and Oklahoma were more deserving than USC, Penn State, Texas, Alabama, Utah and Boise State? Obviously Alabama lost to conference rival Florida, but Oklahoma lost to conference rival Texas. USC and Penn State both lost to bowl bound conference opponents. And of course Utah and Boise State hadn't lost to anyone at that point, but they hadn't played anyone of significance, right?

There were 4 BCS conferences that had teams with similar records vying for the national title. Based of some non-disclosed factors the voters determined that Oklahoma and Florida were more deserving of a chance at the national title. Both defeated multiple bowl bound teams during non-conference play (Oklahoma: TCU, Cincinnati & Florida: FSU, Miami, Hawaii). But so did USC and Texas (USC: Ohio State, Notre Dame & Texas: Rice, Florida Atlantic). Penn State and Alabama played weaker non-conference schedules but all six of those teams defeated multiple bowl bound conference opponents. Even Utah and Boise State beat multiple bowl bound teams, including a couple from the “elite” conferences affiliated with the BCS.

When it was all said and done Florida, Utah, USC, and Texas stood with one loss or less, multiple victories against BCS conference opponents, and a BCS Bowl victory. And yet only Florida got a national title. What did they do to deserve it? Well they beat Oklahoma but Texas accomplished the same. They beat Alabama but Utah destroyed the Crimson Tide. Florida played a strong schedule except for lowly Citadel, a subdivision team. USC played all BCS conference teams excluding Notre Dame, a bowl bound independent who technically is a member of the BCS.

Could it have been that Florida became national champion based on the SEC's reputation and bowl performance? They played similar opponents and had a similar record as three other teams from other conferences. Are we supposed to believe that the SEC is that much better than the rest of college football? The SEC didn't even have the best bowl record of any conference, USC's Pac-10 went undefeated. The only way to prove anything is to look at how each conference fared against non-conference competition this season, including bowls.

TOTAL CONFERENCE RECORD vs NON-CONFERENCE OPPONENTS

* not a BCS affiliated conference

Yes that is the Mountain West Conference, Utah's home, with the highest winning percentage against BCS conference opponents. Surely those ten wins must have come against Baylor and Duke right? Well that shouldn't matter, even if it were true, because there cannot be weak teams in BCS conferences, because that would negate the strength of schedule advantage that BCS conferences claim makes them more deserving for national titles. Regardless, here's who the MWC beat this season: Alabama (11-2), Oregon State (9-4), @ Michigan, Stanford, UCLA, @ Washington, @ Arizona State (#15 at the time), Iowa State, Arizona (8-5), @ Tennessee. If those last four opponents don't sound that impressive, just keep in mind that those victories were claimed by UNLV, New Mexico, and Wyoming, three of the four worst teams in the MWC.

Let me spell this out for you, some of the best teams in the Mountain West beat some of the best teams in BCS conferences, some of the lesser teams in the Mountain West beat some of the lesser teams in BCS conferences. They even were 2-0 vs the mighty SEC with one win coming on the road and the other on a “neutral” field (because making Utah play an SEC team in New Orleans in neutral, right?). If this isn't enough evidence to indite the BCS for anti-trust activities, Utah's victory over Alabama brought the Non-BCS school record to 3-1 in BCS bowls.

Notice that the Pac-10 won 62% of their games against BCS opponents. The entire conference only scheduled two cupcake Sub-division opponents; Texas Tech, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech each scheduled the same amount by themselves (How else do you think Clemson could get a bowl bid?). The Pac-10 also plays a 9 game conference schedule, the longest in the country. This means that not only does each team only get 3 non-conference games, but a team would have go undefeated in non-conference play and win at least 3 conference games in order to get a bowl bid (see Kentucky & South Florida). Since the Pac-10 schedules almost entirely against BCS conferences and the MWC and WAC, their schedules are consistently tougher than the SEC which schedules most non-conference games against the Sun Belt. (Look just because I'll argue the validity of the WAC & MWC doesn't mean I'll take a stab at defending the Sun Belt. It might as well be a subdivision conference.)

This season the extra game the Pac-10 plays cost Stanford and Arizona State a chance at bowl eligibility due to their 4-5 records. Here's a list of teams with 4 or less conference wins who went to bowls: Kansas, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, LSU, South Carolina, Maryland, Wake Forest, Clemson, NC State, Miami, North Carolina, Minnesota, Wisconsin, South Florida, and UConn. Perhaps Stanford and Arizona State should have won their non-conference games, you say? In Stanford's defense, their losses came @ TCU and @ Notre Dame. Arizona State lost to Georgia, and to UNLV in overtime.

Looking at regular season records helps evaluate each conference from top to bottom. However, there are some other ways to measure each conferences quality wins and strength of schedule. Bowl records help evaluate how the best teams from each conference stack up against each other. But we can also examine the percentage of wins each conference had that came against bowl teams, or even the number of road wins against BCS conference opponents.

Below is a breakdown of the three previously mentioned statistics plus a basic formula I came up with to measure strength of schedule for each conference as a whole. Leaving out games played in bowls, I took the percentage each conference scheduled against BCS conferences and subtracted the percentage of games each conference scheduled against Sub-Division cupcakes. I call it the “Meaningful Game Percentage”.

* not a BCS affiliated conference

Once again the Pac-10 shows its might with over 50% of wins coming against bowl teams. That undefeated record in bowl games didn't hurt. The MWC and WAC don't hold up as well in that category but do represent in road BCS wins and meaningful games. And let's not forget about the SEC which has shown up ranked consistently higher than most conferences in every category.

So how can we know which conference is the toughest? I've developed a system which ranks every conference based on the following six statistics. Remember, we're looking for the best non-conference performance in order to evaluate each conference independently. Obviously the lower the score the better, since if you're #1 you're #1.

Vs BCS- According to the NCAA the BCS conferences are the best in the nation. This statistic shows how each conference fares against what the BCS committee feels is the toughest non-conference competition there is.

W-L% vs D I- Excluding Sub-Division opponents, this is the total winning percentage of each conference during non-conference and bowl games.

Bowls- The winning percentage of each conference against the top teams in the nation during the post-season.

% of W's- This statistic shows what percentage of a conference's total victories came against the top teams in the nation.

Road BCS- Home field advantage plays a prominent role in college football. Especially in BCS conferences. This tells which conferences have the most victories in their opponents backyards.

MG%- Since we can't measure a strength of schedule without making assumptions about conferences, this subtracts the percentage of games played against Sub-Division cupcakes from the games played against BCS conference opponents.

CONFERENCE RANKINGS IN ABOVE CATEGORIES

* not a BCS affiliated conference

The 2008-09 national championship went to an SEC team, but a Pac-10 team didn't get a shot. Yet as a whole the Pac-10 had a better record in bowls, won a higher percentage of games against bowl teams, and played more meaningful games than anyone. Did USC get hosed? Well, about as much as Utah did. And they're looking to make sure their undefeated seasons never get overlooked again.  In fact I would never argue that Texas, Oklahoma, and Penn State weren't deserving of national recognition this year. Those teams dominated their opponents and deserved consideration for the championship regardless of how their conferences stacked up as a whole.

But let's face it, USC deserved a shot at the title as much or more so than Oklahoma. And Utah may not be a BCS team but their conference isn't a joke. If they were in the Big 10 this season they would have played a softer schedule and probably been in the national title game. It was a bad year for the Big 10 and it could have been a banner year for the MWC, but that is how the college football landscape is, it changes every year. It's not the NFL where a division or conference can dominate for decades.

And that's the point. These rankings weren't designed to show that one team was better than another. They were meant to show how each major conference stacks up against each other. There cannot be a championship system that rewards similar teams based on assumptions or media hype about their conference. The bottom line is that the BCS conferences are not infallible. They may have more of the top teams in the nation, but that doesn't mean that head to toe they can be held to the standard created by their best. There is no substitute for head to head match-ups. But in a sports system that rarely sees the best teams on the same field the only true evaluation for the national champion should be who they've played and who they've beaten, not their reputation.

wh@sportymcbloggin.com