BCS NC Game - Pecking Order

[GWPFFL BrianW]

If nobody is arguing the merits of Auburn v TCU, why were those the two schedules shown?

 

Good point, not sure why that comparison is made. Let me clarify. No one with any influence on the BCS system is arguing that.

[untateve]

If nobody is arguing the merits of Auburn v TCU, why were those the two schedules shown?

 

My argument, which I noted in a different post, was that if BSU had won on a late fg last night and Auburn had lost on a late fg last night, BSU would be going to the BCS NC over Auburn. I used TCU's schedule in my example because they are undefeated right now.

 

I believe that a 1-loss Auburn should go in over an undefeated BSU (or an undefeated TCU). And again, none of this would be a concern if there was a playoff system.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

My argument, which I noted in a different post, was that if BSU had won on a late fg last night and Auburn had lost on a late fg last night, BSU would be going to the BCS NC over Auburn. I used TCU's schedule in my example because they are undefeated right now.

 

I believe that a 1-loss Auburn should go in over an undefeated BSU (or an undefeated TCU). And again, none of this would be a concern if there was a playoff system.

 

You mean a playoff like this? http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=336394

[Rockerbraves]

I respect what Florida has done, but Oregon would run circles around this Gator team. Don't know what the line would be but I would venture a guess that it would be more than a touchdown at least.

 

The point is, comparing NFL schedules to College is ridiculous. And in the NFL all of the teams start out on the same playing field. It isn't handicapped like College Football. Schedule means nothing in the NFL to be honest. The teams are way to closely matched.

More than a TD is what I would suspect the Jets would be over Carolina.

 

NFL teams do not start our on the same playing feild. Scheduling has nothing to do with it? On paper is sure does seem that way when the #1 team gets the #1 team from another divison while the last place team gets a game against the last place team of that division. Maybe that is part of the reason why the NFC South division is so crazy with the last place team winning it the next year. Can't blame that all on scheduling but it has to effect teams records.

[untateve]

You mean a playoff like this? http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=336394

 

That could work.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

More than a TD is what I would suspect the Jets would be over Carolina.

 

NFL teams do not start our on the same playing feild. Scheduling has nothing to do with it? On paper is sure does seem that way when the #1 team gets the #1 team from another divison while the last place team gets a game against the last place team of that division. Maybe that is part of the reason why the NFC South division is so crazy with the last place team winning it the next year. Can't blame that all on scheduling but it has to effect teams records.

 

But the scheduling is based simply on where you finished in your division the year before. It's done by a computer. It isn't Ohio State and Oklahoma getting together 7 years ago and saying, hey lets have a home and home in 2011 or whenever they start that.

 

There's no emotion in it. Everyone starts out 0-0 and not ahead of anyone else. You win, you get rewarded. And the whole point of the regular season is simple. Win enough games to get to the playoffs. Which if you're really successful, you're rewarded with a bye and 2 games at home before a neutral field Championship game. In College football, before the season you had fellow coaches sit down and say ok, Alabama is gonna have a BETTER chance than ANYONE else. Even though they hadn't played a down of football.

 

Scheduling in the NFL doesn't have anything to do with that. Yes, 1st place plays 1st place, but 1st place may not be any good. Look at teams that faced Minnesota, Dallas, or Cincinnati. Those teams aren't bad this year because of who they are facing. They are bad, because they are bad. It may not be nice to say, but it's the truth. You are what your record says in the NFL.

[Ursa Majoris]

I believe that a 1-loss Auburn should go in over an undefeated BSU (or an undefeated TCU). And again, none of this would be a concern if there was a playoff system.

Couldn't agree more about the playoff system (which could easily be combined with the current bowls) but your insistence that a one-loss SEC team should always trump a 12-0 team from a "lesser" conference merely locks out a whole bunch of teams, rendering their seasons pointless, in effect, if the aim is to be national champ.

 

You do have a valid point about the portion of the schedule that teams can arrange themselves so BSU could schedule harder non-conference games, though that's a double edged sword as many of the perennial contenders (SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, etc) tend to schedule at least one or two powder puff games.

[neilfish2]

No one is arguing that, but they are arguing undefeated TCU over 1 loss Big Ten Champion Wisconsin. I think that's a joke. I also think it's a joke to have them over 1 loss Oklahoma State if they win the Big 12. Same goes for 1 loss Pac 10 Champ Oregon (should Oregon State beat them). My point is, this year, with the exception being the ACC and Big East, any conference champion deserves to be there more than TCU. Just my opinion.

[detlef]

Couldn't agree more about the playoff system (which could easily be combined with the current bowls) but your insistence that a one-loss SEC team should always trump a 12-0 team from a "lesser" conference merely locks out a whole bunch of teams, rendering their seasons pointless, in effect, if the aim is to be national champ.

 

You do have a valid point about the portion of the schedule that teams can arrange themselves so BSU could schedule harder non-conference games, though that's a double edged sword as many of the perennial contenders (SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, etc) tend to schedule at least one or two powder puff games.

Well fwiw, BSU is even doing something about their conference schedule next year by joining the new MWC. If you check out who is going to be in that, you'll see they'll need to apologize to basically nobody about their conference schedule. If they continue to schedule well OOC, then I hope they can undo this whole bias. And no, I dont agree with Brian that they should have to whore themselves out by agreeing to play anyone anywhere without getting a home and home out of it. That's complete arrogance

[Living the Dream]

Further proof that this guy should be banned from posting in the CF forum.

 

 

Yea, I should have waited until after the Boise game and eliminated them from the conversation in the initial paragraph.

 

So here is the fix

 

If Oregon, or TCU had to run through Bama on the road, LSU, Ark, and S car twice, both of them would have 2 loses.

 

 

Oregon has now only beaten 1 ranked team, and 2 4 loss teams that used to be ranked. And Stanford hasnt even beat a ranked team, yet both of them are in the top 5. Where Auburn and LSU have practically had to beat a ranked team every other week to stay in the top 5. Doesnt seem fair to me. And Boise just lost to the only ranked team they have played since Sept.

[Living the Dream]

Seems someone else is onto something

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/blog?name=f...&id=5854929

 

Sitting with a buddy in a near-empty bar in Birmingham on Saturday morning at around 1 a.m. CST, I kept thinking how a lot of folks in SEC and Big Ten country must feel really vindicated. One of the great dramas of the 2010 season had just wrapped up after a riveting final two hours. The case of Boise State, after so much hand-wringing and spirited debate, could finally be put to bed.

 

 

 

Since the middle of September, the storyline with Boise State that had seemed so different than it was for virtually everyone else in the BCS title discussion -- not whether they won or lost, but by how much they won -- played a big part in their undoing Friday night in Reno.

 

The Broncos were riding a 24-game win streak and looked set to take down another overmatched foe from the FBS underclass when one-loss Nevada started punching back. With BSU leading 24-7, it felt like so many of these late-night Broncos telecasts. After the season-opening 33-30 win over Virginia Tech, the Broncos had run off nine double-digit wins, eight of which came by at least four TDs.

 

 

 

Boise backers would dismiss the "what if" speculation about how, if the Broncos were in the SEC or the Big Ten or the Pac-10, they'd probably lose three -- no, make that four -- games because the attrition factor would trip them up. Such debate was met with doubt from many corners, including rival coaches who faced Boise and some other supposed power teams. They talked up Boise's talent and ability to execute. Why go into such a hypothetical subject? In a sport in which there is no playoff, we are relegated to the hypothetical.

 

 

 

But what Friday night proved was Boise's potential ability to handle the grind part of the "big-boy" schedule. And what I think so many Boise defenders overlooked wasn't just the physical attrition required to survive against bigger, tougher, deeper teams on a weekly -- or more correctly, "regular" -- basis, but also the mental attrition. There's a focus required. Your margin for error is diminished.

 

 

 

Boise hadn't been really tested -- not much, anyway -- until the second half on the road at Nevada.

 

 

 

And the Broncos wilted. For a very long time people will associate Boise going down with Kyle Brotzman missing two chip-shot field goals at crunch time, but there were so many other reasons the Broncos lost. They uncharacteristically dropped pass after pass. Their defense got out of position. They missed tackles.

 

 

 

The team that led the country in run defense and was in the top seven nationally in 12 of the 17 stat categories the NCAA keeps tabs on was outrushed by Nevada by a stunning 239-8 margin in the second half and OT.

 

 

 

Kellen Moore's big-play passing game -- which had shredded so many opponents this season as the undersized junior QB connected on a gaudy 65 percent of his passes of at least 15 yards downfield -- managed to hit on only two of seven (29 percent) of such throws against the Pack's 103rd-ranked pass D. In the trenches, where Boise has always looked like the tougher team in WAC games, the Broncos wore down.

 

 

 

Nevada came into the matchup leading the country in average per carry on first down. The Broncos held them to just 26 yards on eight runs in the first half, but after the break, according to ESPN Stats & Information, Nevada went for 88 yards on 15 carries on first downs (a 5.9-yard average). The Pack ran for almost twice as many yards as Boise and hit on nine of 17 third downs, compared to Boise's 4-of-10 mark.

 

 

 

The Broncos were a compelling storyline for the 2010 season, but they were tested three times, which isn't a lot for a BCS title contender at this point in the season. It wasn't enough for a lot of skeptics, and it mattered because this group wasn't able to handle the adversity.

 

 

 

It was quite a 180-degree turn from how things had looked in Alabama about 10 hours earlier in the day. The Auburn team that had been tested repeatedly -- and, in the eyes of a bunch of skeptics, had showed too many flaws -- looked like they were overmatched by an inspired Alabama team at home in the Iron Bowl. The Crimson Tide jumped out to a huge lead early. Bama QB Greg McElroy had a 300-yard passing day by the second quarter. The Tide D had stuffed Cam Newton, sacking him several times, and forced a couple of three-and-outs.

 

Cam Newton and the Tigers showed what they're made of in the Iron Bowl.Auburn was down by three touchdowns and appeared to be about to go down by a fourth. Bama star RB Mark Ingram caught a pass from McElroy and raced upfield. It looked like one of the vintage plays from the Heisman Trophy winner as he darted toward the end zone. He slowed down as Tigers D Zac Etheridge approached from an angle; from behind came Antoine Carter. Auburn's precocious 260-pound defensive end swatted at the ball, which popped out and spun through the Tigers' end zone for a touchback.

 

 

 

"It was a huge play," said Tigers coach Gene Chizik. It was. Carter had been giving chase the whole way. The odds of him actually catching Ingram on such a long run were slim. Then again, so were the Tigers' hopes of rallying from a 21-0 deficit in Bryant-Denny Stadium. But the odds didn't matter. Not to Carter or the Tigers.

 

 

 

"It's all about giving great effort and about finishing," Carter told me at midfield amid the postgame celebration. "We talk about 'finishing' all the time. We talk a lot about never giving up on a play, about never giving up.

 

 

 

"Finishing. That's all we talk about. Since Day 1, our coaches have talked every day about finishing."

 

 

 

Carter later said he'd never heard of Leon Lett or Don Beebe. But he didn't need that kind of inspiration. This was about a program that has been broadsided with so much adversity all season, especially in the past month, and has pushed through in a remarkable fashion. Carter's play on the brink of a blowout epitomized it.

 

 

 

It sparked something. Consider this: In the first half, Bama amassed a season-high 235 yards after catch on 19 receptions. In the second half, Alabama was held to only 18 yards after catch on eight receptions, per ESPN Stats & Information.

 

 

 

The Tigers pulled off their biggest comeback victory in school history. It was also the eighth comeback win of the season and the fourth time the Tigers came back from double digits. That last stat is often used by critics as a reason to downgrade the worth of a BCS title contender, but if anything it should show how tough and resilient a team is.

 

 

 

"We've been in situations before many times," said Tigers DL Zach Clayton. "We know we had the ability to come back. We never get flustered."

 

 

Easier said than done, of course.

 

 

 

Eventually, Newton got cranked up even though the Tide had bottled up Auburn's run game. The threat of Newton and the Tigers running hobbled the Tide defense as the Auburn QB went 6-of-8 off play-action with three of those completions going for touchdowns. Those numbers are even more amazing when you consider that the Bama D had only allowed two TD passes off play-action in its previous seven SEC games (to go with three INTs).

 

 

Bama, with its two star running backs, did not look like the more physical team. They relied on a lot of quick-game action to blow the game open, but never got their running game working. Ingram and Trent Richardson had 20 combined carries and averaged just 3 yards per run, and neither had a run go more than 9 yards on the day. The Tide, which had gone 3-for-4 on third downs in the first half, went 0-8 in the second half.

 

 

 

After the game, Chizik talked about what a great job his staff does making halftime adjustments. His team certainly has the body of work to back that up.

 

 

 

A few other random notes on a wild Friday:

 

 

 

• It was impossible to avoid the talk of the Cam Newton investigation in Tuscaloosa. Before the game, the stadium PA man blasted "Son of a Preacher Man" and "Take the Money and Run" as the Tigers warmed up on the field. After the game, Chizik dismissed a question in the postgame presser about the status of the NCAA investigation: "I'm not addressing any of that."

 

 

 

Newton wasn't made available to the media. His teammates politely sidestepped any questions related to the off-field matters surrounding him, but a few acknowledged there is something to the QB and the rest of them getting an added emotional push from all the drama.

 

 

 

The Tigers move on to the SEC title game. It's doubtful that Newton will take questions there either. SEC commish Mike Slive, who lives less than an hour down the road, didn't make an appearance at the Iron Bowl. If he did, he would've been peppered with questions about the Newton investigation.

 

 

 

My hunch is the next time you see Newton addressing the media will be from behind a podium at the Heisman ceremony in a few weeks after he wins the trophy.

 

 

 

• I caught up with Tigers WR Emory Blake after the game. He had always impressed me as a very sharp kid from the time I was around him when he was out in California as a high schooler (when he came to the Elite 11 camp with his dad, Jeff). The younger Blake, who caught three passes Saturday, including the Tigers' first TD, took a very winding path to Auburn. The kid who played high school ball in Austin, Texas, had wanted to play for Pete Carroll and then seemed headed to Texas Tech. Gus Malzahn had recruited him hard when the Tigers OC was coaching at Tulsa. One of the places Blake never thought he'd end up was Auburn.

 

 

 

"I didn't want to come here," he told me. The reason: Blake couldn't forget the Tigers' 3-2 snoozer against Mississippi State in 2008. "I watched that 3-2 game against Mississippi State with my dad and I said 'I'll never go there.'" But when Malzahn was hired at Auburn, he was persistent, staying on Blake and convincing him he could be a dangerous slot receiver in a very dynamic offense. "I had a lot of faith in Coach Malzahn," Blake said.

 

 

 

• No team has been as disappointing as Texas this season, but Pittsburgh goes in that next batch of programs that really flopped in 2010. The Panthers have now lost five games. After being drilled by WVU 35-10, they've lost two games at home this year to teams that are unranked, by 28 and 25 points.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Living the Dream

[detlef]

With the degree to which some are racing to the conclusion that BSU's loss last night vindicates the assertion that they weren't battle tested enough to expect a shot at the title if they ran the table, you'd think this was the first time an elite team was tripped up by a motivated and talented underdog.

 

Not completely dismissing the possibility or any merit to that theory, mind you, but you all need to realize that is simply a part of college ball. Of course, Auburn certainly seems to be a better team than BSU, this much is certain. They got punched in the face and came back. That's why Auburn is still in line for the NC game and BSU is not.

 

And the way it's being talked about, you'd think that BSU just laid down and got their ass kicked. That or that they lost to an average team that had no business even playing with them. The reality, however, is that, despite getting caught on their heels and in unfamiliar territory, they did rise up. Nevada tied it, their great RB turned in an amazing run and they went ahead. Nevada tied it again, their great QB and one of their great WRs connected on a spectacular play. And then the kicker pushed it. Should it have gotten to that point? Well, not based on what we saw in the 1st half. But maybe, just maybe, a bit of perspective wouldn't hurt.

Edited November 27, 2010 by detlef

[godtomsatan]

So much for that eye test with these Boise St Broncos. When they finally were challenged in the 4th qtr, they were not prepared to be hit in the mouth. They were never that good in the first place. we saw it when va Tech gift wrapped the game in week 1. Nevada wasnt as generous.

 

Not taking too much defense of Boise St., but when they were "hit in the mouth", they scored a 79-yard touchdown. When they got hit in the mouth again, they made an amazing pass and catch to get them into FG range with 1 tick left. They missed some kicks and lost a ballgame. They didn't get quit or overwhelmed.