When is the last time...

[muck]

We had three (or more) undefeated teams heading into the bowl season?

[GWPFFL BrianW]

We had three (or more) undefeated teams heading into the bowl season?

 

Last year.

[detlef]

Last year.

And at least a couple more times since 2000.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

If your question is when was the last time there were 3 or more undefeated teams where 1 of them WASN'T a JV team (BSU TCU etc) then you go back to 2004, where USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn were all undefeated.

[detlef]

If your question is when was the last time there were 3 or more undefeated teams where 1 of them WASN'T a JV team (BSU TCU etc) then you go back to 2004, where USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn were all undefeated.

Seeing as how Muck went to TCU, I'm guessing he's including them. On the other hand, what's your take on SOS rankings? I already know part of the answer because I'm sure you feel they're fundamentally skewed by the fact that not all 7-5 teams are equal. That a win vs 7-5 Iowa should count for more than a win vs 8-4 San Diego St. Mind you, I do think most of these SOS rankings somehow take that into account. Regardless.

 

So, let's just say that BSU's SOS is artificially high based on the above. Again, I'm guessing that these guys have somehow taken this into account to a degree, but let's just say, not entirely. Let's just take all the "JV" schools out of the picture.

 

How do you explain where the Big 10 stacks up against the other Big Conferences in terms of SOS? I mean, you can't discount them as well, can you? Check out Sagarin's rankings.

 

At the top of the SOS, you see a who's who of Pac 10, SEC, and Big 12 schools. Then comes most of the ACC. Then, finally, you get to the Big 10.

 

Sagarin

Another one

This one is kinder to you, but not to the extent of compete vindication

[muck]

All -

 

Thanks for answering my stupid question.

 

 

******************************************

 

If your question is when was the last time there were 3 or more undefeated teams where 1 of them WASN'T a JV team (BSU TCU etc) then you go back to 2004, where USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn were all undefeated.

 

If TCU doesn't make the NC game (which'll only happen if Oregon or Auburn lose this coming weekend --- unlikely), I hope they get a shot at Wisconsin or whomever from the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl ... and hopefully will give you a nice opportunity to appologize.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Seeing as how Muck went to TCU, I'm guessing he's including them. On the other hand, what's your take on SOS rankings? I already know part of the answer because I'm sure you feel they're fundamentally skewed by the fact that not all 7-5 teams are equal. That a win vs 7-5 Iowa should count for more than a win vs 8-4 San Diego St. Mind you, I do think most of these SOS rankings somehow take that into account. Regardless.

 

So, let's just say that BSU's SOS is artificially high based on the above. Again, I'm guessing that these guys have somehow taken this into account to a degree, but let's just say, not entirely. Let's just take all the "JV" schools out of the picture.

 

How do you explain where the Big 10 stacks up against the other Big Conferences in terms of SOS? I mean, you can't discount them as well, can you? Check out Sagarin's rankings.

 

At the top of the SOS, you see a who's who of Pac 10, SEC, and Big 12 schools. Then comes most of the ACC. Then, finally, you get to the Big 10.

 

Sagarin

Another one

This one is kinder to you, but not to the extent of compete vindication

 

I'd prefer to watch the Big Ten vs SEC in 3 different bowl games, to make that judgment. SOS in most cases is based purely on w-l of your opponents. BCS conference vs BCS Conference is an entirely different debate.

 

My argument all year long has been the BCS NC game (THIS exclusive 2 team crap system) should be played between the the top 2 BCS Conference Champions. Now if you want to bring up SOS rankings and computers into that debate as to who the top 2 conference champions are, then I would have no problem with that, and I'm sure a valid argument can be made. But in this system, their should be some minimum requirements (conference championship) . If that disregards mid majors like TCU and Boise (who aren't in the discussion now and rightfully so) then that's just too bad. Go to congress and argue about THAT instead of what it REALLY was about (and addressed) that they had a impossible road to get to the big money BCS game. It was addressed when they added a 5th BCS game, making it virtually impossible NOT to see a mid-major in one of the BCS games. You have all of these teams that play out a 12 games season, and in the end, only 2 make it with no real playoff, no way to judge completely what happened on the field. Playing the little sisters of the poor 8 out of your 12 games isn't championship worthy.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

All -

 

Thanks for answering my stupid question.

 

 

******************************************

 

 

 

If TCU doesn't make the NC game (which'll only happen if Oregon or Auburn lose this coming weekend --- unlikely), I hope they get a shot at Wisconsin or whomever from the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl ... and hopefully will give you a nice opportunity to appologize.

 

TCU is Rose Bowl bound or BCS NC bound. Congrats to them.

[detlef]

I'd prefer to watch the Big Ten vs SEC in 3 different bowl games, to make that judgment. SOS in most cases is based purely on w-l of your opponents. BCS conference vs BCS Conference is an entirely different debate.

 

My argument all year long has been the BCS NC game (THIS exclusive 2 team crap system) should be played between the the top 2 BCS Conference Champions. Now if you want to bring up SOS rankings and computers into that debate as to who the top 2 conference champions are, then I would have no problem with that, and I'm sure a valid argument can be made. But in this system, their should be some minimum requirements (conference championship) . If that disregards mid majors like TCU and Boise (who aren't in the discussion now and rightfully so) then that's just too bad. Go to congress and argue about THAT instead of what it REALLY was about (and addressed) that they had a impossible road to get to the big money BCS game. It was addressed when they added a 5th BCS game, making it virtually impossible NOT to see a mid-major in one of the BCS games. You have all of these teams that play out a 12 games season, and in the end, only 2 make it with no real playoff, no way to judge completely what happened on the field. Playing the little sisters of the poor 8 out of your 12 games isn't championship worthy.

Dude, for the sake of argument, I actually did disregard the non-AQ teams, but you still went right back to your tired argument. And, considering what I've seen in terms of SOS, the last of the BCS conferences that matter who should be making any noise about "sisters of the poor" is the Big 10. Because they're basically looking up at everyone of consequence.

 

And, no, most SOS rankings are not purely based on the w-l of your opponents, they're typically based at least on that plus the w-l of your opponents opponents if not other factors as well. If most were just based on w-l of your opponents, then they'd be the same.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Dude, for the sake of argument, I actually did disregard the non-AQ teams, but you still went right back to your tired argument. And, considering what I've seen in terms of SOS, the last of the BCS conferences that matter who should be making any noise about "sisters of the poor" is the Big 10. Because they're basically looking up at everyone of consequence.

 

And, no, most SOS rankings are not purely based on the w-l of your opponents, they're typically based at least on that plus the w-l of your opponents opponents if not other factors as well. If most were just based on w-l of your opponents, then they'd be the same.

 

It depends on the computer that's used. However, the official SOS rankings, IS in fact based on w-l record. And I think I answered your question about comparing the conferences? What do you want me to say? You pull out some computer ranking. I guess you're right? What good is that computer going to do when the Big Ten goes 2-1 vs the SEC in bowl games this year? I mean show me something on the field. I mean the SEC has 10 bowl eligible teams (I bring that up because they damn sure didn't schedule any tougher than the Big Ten in non-conference). So in other words, if you're beating those teams you're getting credit with a good... wait for it "opponent win-loss" record. We've already established that there are a lot of lousy teams that have 6 or 7 wins. Pac 10 gets a bump because they do play a 9th conference game, and as a whole schedule harder than anyone (maybe not the ACC) in non-conference. So there you have 2 explanations right there. As far as where teams are ranked. Really not sure what your point is.

[detlef]

It depends on the computer that's used. However, the official SOS rankings, IS in fact based on w-l record. And I think I answered your question about comparing the conferences? What do you want me to say? You pull out some computer ranking. I guess you're right? What good is that computer going to do when the Big Ten goes 2-1 vs the SEC in bowl games this year? I mean show me something on the field. I mean the SEC has 10 bowl eligible teams (I bring that up because they damn sure didn't schedule any tougher than the Big Ten in non-conference). So in other words, if you're beating those teams you're getting credit with a good... wait for it "opponent win-loss" record. We've already established that there are a lot of lousy teams that have 6 or 7 wins. Pac 10 gets a bump because they do play a 9th conference game, and as a whole schedule harder than anyone (maybe not the ACC) in non-conference. So there you have 2 explanations right there. As far as where teams are ranked. Really not sure what your point is.

Actually, I think they did. As much as everyone loves to dog the SEC for it's non-conference schedule, I think they have more OOC wins against ranked BCS schools as well as the most OOC wins against bowl bound BCS schools. Now, I understand the bowl-bound bit is a stretch but let's have a look...

 

After all, you're the one who was arguing against "good losses", right? So let's just stick to wins against teams who have managed 6 or more wins while "running the gauntlet of a BCS conference schedule.

 

LSU has WVU and NC (WVU is ranked and NC is bowl bound)

Arkansas has ranked A&M

Bama has Penn St

Auburn and SC have Clemson (I know, lame but whatever they're bowl bound)

 

Big 12?

Missouri (bowl bound Illinois)

Nebraska (likely bowl bound UW)

OU (ranked FSU)

 

 

Big 10?

MSU and Michigan have bowl bound Notre Dame (who we'll count for the sake of conversation)

OSU has bowl bound Miami

and I think that's it.

 

Mind you, the Pac 10 is not much better though they do have one less OOC game to schedule

Stanford has ND as well

AZ has Iowa

Oregon has Tenn

OSU has Louisville

Which is not a murderer's row by any stretch but it's still "better" than the Big 10

 

So, there you have it, they're worst of the Big 4 in that one as well.

 

ETA: I should say that this list has plenty of teams that nobody should be beating their chests about. But it does include every bowl bound (or potentially bowl bound) team. And it's not like any of these conference benefits more than the others by the inclusion of borderline teams.

Edited November 29, 2010 by detlef

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Ok, but once again, why was this even brought up? You're not talking to some joker pac 10 fan here that will start a thread crapping on another conference. When did I start thumping my chest about the Big Ten? What difference is that going to make if the Big Ten goes 2-1 vs SEC in bowls? It's not going to make any difference. And u missed Western Michigan for Michigan State who is bowl eligible, and also potentially Arizona State for Wisconsin if they can knock off Arizona, and 8-4 Ohio for Ohio State. But again, who cares? I do find it funny that you argue with me about win-loss record not being SOS, and then you go and rattle off teams that are bowl eligible (with at least .500 records or better) to make your point.

[Living the Dream]

The so called eye ball test is what we had to go by all season with boise, and we see how they turned out, when they actually played someone of substance for the first time since Sept.

 

Oregon passes the eye ball test now, yet they have not played a team that is ranked right now in the AP, except Stanford, and Stanford hasnt beat a single one. Boise has at least played one, in Va Tech. i could care less how bad Stanford pounds the weak sisters of a conference that right now, only has 3 bowl eligible teams. When you have a conference of 10, and only get 3 teams eligible, its pathetic.

 

SEC has 10 of 12,

Big 12, 8 of 12,

big 10, 8 of 11

ACC - 9 of 12

Big East - 6 of 9

 

 

The Pac-10 is so bad this yr, every other BCS conference is sending over half their teams to bowls, and only 30% of the pac-10 right now are eligible. So what does that say about the 2 bullies on the block in this conference.

 

so please save us all the extra Pac-10 game. 6 of the 10 in this conference has a losing record, its not like the Big 12, which has 5 teams with at least 9 wins, and 2 others with 7. the 3rd best team in the Pac-10 has 7 wins, where the 7th best team in the Big 12 has 7 wins. And no one is saying the Big 12 is dominant. But there are some here saying the Pac-10 is. the pac-10 will send fewer to bowls than any BCS conference regardless if Wash beats 2-9 Wash St, and the Big East is sending 6 of 9. Just pathetic we have to argue against how terrible this conference is this yr with tools who are pounding their chest about SOS, where the pac-10 loses most of those games, and the top 2 are not involved in that SOS. Hmmm, maybe they wouldnt be ranked in the top 5 if they had played someone of substance.

[detlef]

Ok, but once again, why was this even brought up? You're not talking to some joker pac 10 fan here that will start a thread crapping on another conference. When did I start thumping my chest about the Big Ten? What difference is that going to make if the Big Ten goes 2-1 vs SEC in bowls? It's not going to make any difference. And u missed Western Michigan for Michigan State who is bowl eligible, and also potentially Arizona State for Wisconsin if they can knock off Arizona, and 8-4 Ohio for Ohio State. But again, who cares? I do find it funny that you argue with me about win-loss record not being SOS, and then you go and rattle off teams that are bowl eligible (with at least .500 records or better) to make your point.

Actually, my primary point in making this post was to refute your bolded argument that the SEC has done nothing more OOC than the Big 10. It started with me noticing that they had 2 wins vs ranked teams OOC, but I figured I'd just include all the "decent" BCS teams.

 

As for why I didn't include Ohio and Western Michigan is because I specifically only included bowl teams from BCS conferences. I actually did so because I assumed you'd want to discredit teams that managed to win 6 games while playing a C-USA or MAC or WAC schedule. Were I to include them, there'd be plenty to go around for all the conferences.

 

Sorry, I missed ASU. My bad.

[detlef]

When you have a conference of 10, and only get 3 teams eligible, its pathetic.

You bring this up as if it hadn't been completely exposed as a baseless argument.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Actually, my primary point in making this post was to refute your bolded argument that the SEC has done nothing more OOC than the Big 10. It started with me noticing that they had 2 wins vs ranked teams OOC, but I figured I'd just include all the "decent" BCS teams.

 

As for why I didn't include Ohio and Western Michigan is because I specifically only included bowl teams from BCS conferences. I actually did so because I assumed you'd want to discredit teams that managed to win 6 games while playing a C-USA or MAC or WAC schedule. Were I to include them, there'd be plenty to go around for all the conferences.

 

Sorry, I missed ASU. My bad.

 

Yeah but what was the original point? You started this by talking about Ohio State as if I was on here week in and week out touting how great the Big Ten is and slamming other conferences. I save that trash talk for the bowls. I'm not gonna be like our resident Pac 10 fans and tout its conference from September to December, and then have to eat a bunch of crow when the cream of the crop of their conference all get destroyed in bowls. The only thing I've said all year long, is that the top of each conference, all have outstanding teams, and it was a crock that any of those teams would've gotten passed up by a Boise or a TCU.

 

On a sidenote, I'm interested in seeing how fair it would be to Pac 10 fans should Oregon get beat by Oregon State, and undefeated TCU passes up 1 loss Pac 10 Champion Oregon. I think that is a crock.

[detlef]

Yeah but what was the original point? You started this by talking about Ohio State as if I was on here week in and week out touting how great the Big Ten is and slamming other conferences. I save that trash talk for the bowls. I'm not gonna be like our resident Pac 10 fans and tout its conference from September to December, and then have to eat a bunch of crow when the cream of the crop of their conference all get destroyed in bowls. The only thing I've said all year long, is that the top of each conference, all have outstanding teams, and it was a crock that any of those teams would've gotten passed up by a Boise or a TCU.

 

On a sidenote, I'm interested in seeing how fair it would be to Pac 10 fans should Oregon get beat by Oregon State, and undefeated TCU passes up 1 loss Pac 10 Champion Oregon. I think that is a crock.

You mean, a TCU team that beat the very same OSU team that beat OU? OSU is not a ranked team and just got run off the field last week. If OU can't take care of them, they have no business making a claim for the NC game.

[Living the Dream]

You bring this up as if it hadn't been completely exposed as a baseless argument.

 

 

by who you, It was brought up last night on the BCS special. Id say its the most based argument against the pac-10 in a decade.

 

And out of my whole post, this is all you got. You are proving to be as pathetic as your lil brothers Prof and Wildcat. how can any of you tools argue this is a good conference, when it only has 4 teams with winning records, 2 of which have 4 loses or more, and 2 ranked teams, who have beaten 1 ranked team combined all season. If this was the Big 12, you would be crowing these facts over and over, but since its your conference you argue SOS and an extra pac-10 game, which isnt looking so strong these days now is it.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Living the Dream

[detlef]

by who you, It was brought up last night on the BCS special. Id say its the most based argument against the pac-10 in a decade.

That an indictment of a conference is that, despite having the toughest SOS across the board and by playing an extra conference game (so they trade 5 likely wins against D-1AA patsies for losses) they have less 6 win teams? Really? That's it?

 

You really need to back off the discount of the extra conference game. So, using your logic, since the bottom of the conference is so weak, let's just assume the top 5 beat the bottom 5. Now, again, using your logic, for those top teams, that's no different than scheduling some weak-sauce OOC game. After all, they make these schedules for the future, right? So, when OU put Tenn on the schedule, that was a legit game. Do you think they were going to go out and schedule Ohio State as well? No other nationally prominent team would. So, all those 5 wins by the good Pac 10 teams over the bad ones are traded for wins over teams like Duke or worse.

 

Then there's the bottom half, who also already have a decent OOC game on their slate. Was Washington going to add Auburn to go with Nebraska? Or were they going to grab Idaho. Me thinks Idaho because that's what everyone else does. Now, maybe all 5 of those teams don't win the game, but someone is subbing Stanford for New Mexico and someone is subbing OU for Idaho.

 

Net, at very least, you've got 2-3 more teams with a win. Simple math dictates it. And guess what, you've got 4 Pac 10 teams that would be already eligible if they traded a loss for a win and one more that would still have a shot at being eligible if they could. Now they have 7-9 bowl eligible teams out of 10. One of which can't go. This is before you even bother discussing that OSU has 2 OOC losses vs top 10ish teams.

 

That's why your point is silly.

Edited November 29, 2010 by detlef

[Living the Dream]

That an indictment of a conference is that, despite having the toughest SOS across the board and by playing an extra conference game (so they trade 5 likely wins against D-1AA patsies for losses) they have less 6 win teams? Really? That's it?

 

 

Seriously, Oregon still played Portland St, and Stanford played Sacremento st. And each of these so called teams played another patsy in Wash st, UCLA, and Oregon St. So they had their chance to win 6 games, sorry not buying the fact that a few of these teams played non AQ Boise and TCU and got their ass kicked. UCLA beat Texas, as still only managed 4 wins this season. Oregon st beats 2-9 wash St, and they get their 6th win. This conference had its chances, and choked them all away. Why not take some responsibility for losing conference games they should have won, as the reason they didnt get a 6th win for a bowl, instead of crying about playing Iowa, texas, TCU and Boise. You won half those and it still didnt help UCLA, and 1 n Oregon St lost 2 of them, TCU and Boise, and if they beat 2-9 wash St at home, they get in a bowl. Sack up, quit crying about poor us, we played TCU and Boise. 5 yr ago, when these games were scheduled, these were considered easy wins for Oreogn St. And after they get their ass kicked, its poor us. pathetic. Sack up.

[Living the Dream]

That an indictment of a conference is that, despite having the toughest SOS across the board and by playing an extra conference game (so they trade 5 likely wins against D-1AA patsies for losses) they have less 6 win teams? Really? That's it?

 

You really need to back off the discount of the extra conference game. So, using your logic, since the bottom of the conference is so weak, let's just assume the top 5 beat the bottom 5. Now, again, using your logic, for those top teams, that's no different than scheduling some weak-sauce OOC game. After all, they make these schedules for the future, right? So, when OU put Tenn on the schedule, that was a legit game. Do you think they were going to go out and schedule Ohio State as well? No other nationally prominent team would. So, all those 5 wins by the good Pac 10 teams over the bad ones are traded for wins over teams like Duke or worse.

 

Then there's the bottom half, who also already have a decent OOC game on their slate. Was Washington going to add Auburn to go with Nebraska? Or were they going to grab Idaho. Me thinks Idaho because that's what everyone else does. Now, maybe all 5 of those teams don't win the game, but someone is subbing Stanford for New Mexico and someone is subbing OU for Idaho.

 

Net, at very least, you've got 2-3 more teams with a win. Simple math dictates it. And guess what, you've got 4 Pac 10 teams that would be already eligible if they traded a loss for a win and one more that would still have a shot at being eligible if they could. Now they have 7-9 bowl eligible teams out of 10. One of which can't go. This is before you even bother discussing that OSU has 2 OOC losses vs top 10ish teams.

 

That's why your point is silly.

 

 

You are assuming these 4-7 and 5-6 teams win these out of conference games, they proved they couldnt beat the weak sister of the weak sister conference. OSU beats 2-9 wash St at home, they are in a bowl. They didnt, and now they are not going . Sack up.

[detlef]

Seriously, Oregon still played Portland St, and Stanford played Sacremento st. And each of these so called teams played another patsy in Wash st, UCLA, and Oregon St. So they had their chance to win 6 games, sorry not buying the fact that a few of these teams played non AQ Boise and TCU and got their ass kicked. UCLA beat Texas, as still only managed 4 wins this season. Oregon st beats 2-9 wash St, and they get their 6th win. This conference had its chances, and choked them all away. Why not take some responsibility for losing conference games they should have won, as the reason they didnt get a 6th win for a bowl, instead of crying about playing Iowa, texas, TCU and Boise. You won half those and it still didnt help UCLA, and 1 n Oregon St lost 2 of them, TCU and Boise, and if they beat 2-9 wash St at home, they get in a bowl. Sack up, quit crying about poor us, we played TCU and Boise. 5 yr ago, when these games were scheduled, these were considered easy wins for Oreogn St. And after they get their ass kicked, its poor us. pathetic. Sack up.

Dude, I suggest you go back and read your own post. You point out that Stanford and Oregon scheduled crap OOC teams (which every single team in the country does) and got easy wins vs the bottom of the conference. What does that have to do with ASU, Washington and OSU?

 

Sure, OSU is in if they took care of business vs WSU. As for BSU being an easy mark when they were scheduled. Assuming that schedule was written prior to the '05 season, they had just come off a season where they went 11-0 before losing a bowl game to a 1-loss Louisville team 44-40. So, I doubt OSU was picking them up to for homecoming. But, regardless, BSU and TCU are still games that any 7-5 or 6-6 team would not be expected to win, this year. Add that to Stanford and OU, and now they've got to go 6-2, including 7 conference games.

 

Again, not of what you're saying matters. I'm talking about simple math. Simple math that very much discredits your argument.

[detlef]

You are assuming these 4-7 and 5-6 teams win these out of conference games, they proved they couldnt beat the weak sister of the weak sister conference. OSU beats 2-9 wash St at home, they are in a bowl. They didnt, and now they are not going . Sack up.

Actually, I assumed that 2-3 of those teams win the OOC games and that was being conservative. The Pac 10 has one very bad team, WSU. Everyone else, including the 5 teams who would either be in a bowl or still able to make a bowl, would be absolutely expected to beat the types of teams that most BCS schools would schedule with that extra game.

[Living the Dream]

Dude, I suggest you go back and read your own post. You point out that Stanford and Oregon scheduled crap OOC teams (which every single team in the country does) and got easy wins vs the bottom of the conference. What does that have to do with ASU, Washington and OSU?

 

Sure, OSU is in if they took care of business vs WSU. As for BSU being an easy mark when they were scheduled. Assuming that schedule was written prior to the '05 season, they had just come off a season where they went 11-0 before losing a bowl game to a 1-loss Louisville team 44-40. So, I doubt OSU was picking them up to for homecoming. But, regardless, BSU and TCU are still games that any 7-5 or 6-6 team would not be expected to win, this year. Add that to Stanford and OU, and now they've got to go 6-2, including 7 conference games.

 

Again, not of what you're saying matters. I'm talking about simple math. Simple math that very much discredits your argument.

 

you are assuming these teams under 500 win these games. I simply do not agree they do. They showed on the field when they couldnt beat 2-9 wash St they are not good. So simple math doesnt guarantee wins, like you are assuming.

[Living the Dream]

Actually, I assumed that 2-3 of those teams win the OOC games and that was being conservative. The Pac 10 has one very bad team, WSU. Everyone else, including the 5 teams who would either be in a bowl or still able to make a bowl, would be absolutely expected to beat the types of teams that most BCS schools would schedule with that extra game.

 

 

they didnt win the games on the schedule. Give it up dude. There is no guarantee they win the games if the schedule were different. You arguing this is proving just how clueless you 3 are. Oregon St was absolutely expected to beat 2-9 wash St, and they didnt. end of story.