Another Year of BCS Screwjobs. PART I: Which Two BCS Undefeateds Belong in the Title Game?
Last year we devoted substantial time and energy to complaining about the ridiculous BCS math that rewarded a title opportunity to Oklahoma over a number of deserving candidates. We expended more words discussing the way some BCS conferences get rewarded for scheduling weak opponents while their brethren of the BCS cloth get condemned for playing tougher teams. And in the end, after bowl season, we used the Mayan Calender, the Map to Shangri-La, and some shit from the Da Vinci Code to develop a ranking system that rated the top conference in college football once you weed out all the hype and actually look at the quality of teams they beat. Of course, it amounted to a big fucking waste of time. We had no gripe with the quality of the eventual champion, only the team the BCS Gods decided should be sacrificed at the feet of said champion. In all, it was a spot of fun as our cousins across the pond would say. But they don't care about college football so they, like us, consider the BCS bollucks.
Last year a round of 3 card poker between athletic directors decided the three way tie for who would Big 12 champion (all the prospective team had to do was defeat Missouri, not a major concern). Oklahoma's A.D. took home the flush and the Big 12 dealer's response was, "not you again". Oklahoma promptly went out, beat Missouri, and then did what it does best in BCS Bowl games... lost... for the fifth time in a row. So this season the powers-that-be in the Big 12 put out a hit on Oklahoma Heisman winning QB Sam Bradford to ensure the Sooners wouldn't be alive to represent them in national competition again. What America is left with is the Texas Longhorns. An undefeated Big 12 team with an experienced big game quarterback. A team that is so qualified they squeaked by with a last minute field goal in their conference title game.
Man this thing is heavy, you want me to lift if with my right arm?
Texas vs Alabama is actually a pretty solid title game with very little to gripe about for BCS haters. There were 5 undefeated teams: Texas, Bama, Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State. By this point you should be aware that Texas plays in the Big 12 and Alabama plays in the hall of glory named the SEC. However, if Texas had lost the Big 12 the BCS would need to fill the championship with one of the other undefeateds.
Because Cincinnati plays in the Big East, the red-headed stepchild of the BCS, they would have been a suitable opponent for the BCS's greater good. However, they lack the drawing power of a Texas or Florida. TCU and Boise State are from the unwanted conferences the BCS was designed to collude against. They represent a nether region of college football where teams get to play against potential champions, but don't get to play for a championship. More than likely, neither of them would have ever been let in the title game. Not with a Texas loss, a Cincinnati loss, or an Alabama campus outbreak of swine flu. When Texas's Big 12 winning field goal went through the uprights a giant sigh of relief from BCS headquarters caused a blizzard on the east coast. Now the BCS governors wouldn't have to unveil their fiendish plan to stop these lesser teams from playing in the championship, an Alabama v Florida rematch.
You decide what's worse: a SEC title game rematch or this?
So is the Big East really that bad of a conference? Why did Cincinnati never have a real shot if both they and Texas were undefeated? Using our basic pre-bowl breakdowns from last season lets take a look at each conference. This is a basic comparison to measure the overall wins and losses from each conferences' non-conference games. Because the BCS conferences insist that their strength of schedule is what makes them superior to the others in the top division. Therefore all all BCS opponents are considered the same strength whether they be Texas or Baylor. Just as all Non-BCS opponents are considered the same whether they be Utah or Utah State.
An interesting thing happens in between the lines here. It isn't that the Big East has a better winning percentage in non-conference games than the Big 12. But the fact that the Big East, despite having four fewer teams, scheduled more BCS opponents. In fact the Big 12 didn't even average one BCS opponent per team in non-conference play. How could that happen? Because Texas, the number 2 team in the country and the potential national title holder, didn't play a non-conference game against a BCS team. Cincinnati played two, including one on the road. And now I hear the faint beckoning of demons calling us to the dark side, "but Texas plays in the Big 12 and their conference is much tougher."
Yes o' wise and hallowed voices of old world, the Big 12 is every year exactly the same level of difficulty. This season Texas had important conference games against ranked teams: Nebraska ( #22 in final BCS), Oklahoma State (#19 in final BCS). Meanwhile Cincinnati's "weaker" Big East conference schedule pitted them against West Virginia (#16 in final BCS) and Pittsburgh (#17 in final BCS). Those conference schedules seem strikingly similar if not favorable towards Cincy. In non-conference play the Bearcats even went on the road to beat Oregon State (#18 in final BCS). Texas, not so much. Even Alabama made up for their joke game, Chattanooga (they get around, laid down for Oklahoma last year), by taking on Virginia Tech (#11 in final BCS) in a neutral site.
Here's a breakdown of the top 3 teams:
In the end it's pretty close. Texas and Alabama each got a ranked opponent win thanks to their conference championship games. Alabama certainly looks the strongest other than that Chattanooga win. Some people think Cincinnati would benefit from a move to the Big 10. And that could help, in terms of giving them more consideration in the polls while allowing them to play a weaker schedule. Should Cincinnati have been in over Texas? Four of the six computer polls thought so, but the humans voted to keep good ol' historically good Texas. The Big 12 after all is equally strong every season, right?
Last year a round of 3 card poker between athletic directors decided the three way tie for who would Big 12 champion (all the prospective team had to do was defeat Missouri, not a major concern). Oklahoma's A.D. took home the flush and the Big 12 dealer's response was, "not you again". Oklahoma promptly went out, beat Missouri, and then did what it does best in BCS Bowl games... lost... for the fifth time in a row. So this season the powers-that-be in the Big 12 put out a hit on Oklahoma Heisman winning QB Sam Bradford to ensure the Sooners wouldn't be alive to represent them in national competition again. What America is left with is the Texas Longhorns. An undefeated Big 12 team with an experienced big game quarterback. A team that is so qualified they squeaked by with a last minute field goal in their conference title game.
Man this thing is heavy, you want me to lift if with my right arm?
Texas vs Alabama is actually a pretty solid title game with very little to gripe about for BCS haters. There were 5 undefeated teams: Texas, Bama, Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State. By this point you should be aware that Texas plays in the Big 12 and Alabama plays in the hall of glory named the SEC. However, if Texas had lost the Big 12 the BCS would need to fill the championship with one of the other undefeateds.
Because Cincinnati plays in the Big East, the red-headed stepchild of the BCS, they would have been a suitable opponent for the BCS's greater good. However, they lack the drawing power of a Texas or Florida. TCU and Boise State are from the unwanted conferences the BCS was designed to collude against. They represent a nether region of college football where teams get to play against potential champions, but don't get to play for a championship. More than likely, neither of them would have ever been let in the title game. Not with a Texas loss, a Cincinnati loss, or an Alabama campus outbreak of swine flu. When Texas's Big 12 winning field goal went through the uprights a giant sigh of relief from BCS headquarters caused a blizzard on the east coast. Now the BCS governors wouldn't have to unveil their fiendish plan to stop these lesser teams from playing in the championship, an Alabama v Florida rematch.
You decide what's worse: a SEC title game rematch or this?
So is the Big East really that bad of a conference? Why did Cincinnati never have a real shot if both they and Texas were undefeated? Using our basic pre-bowl breakdowns from last season lets take a look at each conference. This is a basic comparison to measure the overall wins and losses from each conferences' non-conference games. Because the BCS conferences insist that their strength of schedule is what makes them superior to the others in the top division. Therefore all all BCS opponents are considered the same strength whether they be Texas or Baylor. Just as all Non-BCS opponents are considered the same whether they be Utah or Utah State.
| Conference | vs BCS Opponents | vs Non-BCS Opponents | vs FBS Sub Division Opponents |
| SEC | 10-4 (71%) | 21-2 (91%) | 11-0 |
| ACC | 8-9 (47%) | 10-7 (59%) | 13-1 (93%) |
| BIG 10 | 4-7 (36%) | 19-5 (79%) | 9-0 |
| BIG 12 | 4-7 (36%) | 22-6 (78%) | 9-0 |
| PAC 10 | 6-5 (55%) | 11-4 (73%) | 4-0 |
| BIG EAST | 7-7 (50%) | 16-0 (100%) | 10-0 |
An interesting thing happens in between the lines here. It isn't that the Big East has a better winning percentage in non-conference games than the Big 12. But the fact that the Big East, despite having four fewer teams, scheduled more BCS opponents. In fact the Big 12 didn't even average one BCS opponent per team in non-conference play. How could that happen? Because Texas, the number 2 team in the country and the potential national title holder, didn't play a non-conference game against a BCS team. Cincinnati played two, including one on the road. And now I hear the faint beckoning of demons calling us to the dark side, "but Texas plays in the Big 12 and their conference is much tougher."
Yes o' wise and hallowed voices of old world, the Big 12 is every year exactly the same level of difficulty. This season Texas had important conference games against ranked teams: Nebraska ( #22 in final BCS), Oklahoma State (#19 in final BCS). Meanwhile Cincinnati's "weaker" Big East conference schedule pitted them against West Virginia (#16 in final BCS) and Pittsburgh (#17 in final BCS). Those conference schedules seem strikingly similar if not favorable towards Cincy. In non-conference play the Bearcats even went on the road to beat Oregon State (#18 in final BCS). Texas, not so much. Even Alabama made up for their joke game, Chattanooga (they get around, laid down for Oklahoma last year), by taking on Virginia Tech (#11 in final BCS) in a neutral site.
Here's a breakdown of the top 3 teams:
| | TEXAS | ALABAMA | CINCINNATI |
| RECORD | 13-0 | 13-0 | 12-0 |
| WINS vs RANKED OPPONENT | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| % of WINS vs BCS FOES | 69% | 77% | 75% |
| FBS WINS (= bad) | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| WINS vs BOWL TEAMS | 8 | 9 | 7 |
In the end it's pretty close. Texas and Alabama each got a ranked opponent win thanks to their conference championship games. Alabama certainly looks the strongest other than that Chattanooga win. Some people think Cincinnati would benefit from a move to the Big 10. And that could help, in terms of giving them more consideration in the polls while allowing them to play a weaker schedule. Should Cincinnati have been in over Texas? Four of the six computer polls thought so, but the humans voted to keep good ol' historically good Texas. The Big 12 after all is equally strong every season, right?
Comments