NCAA Football 2012 - Week 11

[MJ5150]

At least LSU played Oregon recently. I think Arkansas played a decent OOC school recently too. Alabama played Penn State.

If Notre Dame actually aligned with a real football conference, I think you'd see some of those tougher games drop off in favor of a Tennesse Tech or Bemidji State.

-Mike

[Eublet]

Also, Notre Dame isn't going to schedule that game either. They just signed a 5-game agreement with the ACC for crying out loud. Using ND in any argument about scheduling is laughable at this point. They're looking for the easiest road they can find themselves, and cancelling games with traditional power teams in order to do it.

[Smokin' Toaster]

Someone is not reading schedules correctly, because Notre Dame played more top 25 teams this year than anyone else in the top 5. Hardly the easiest road.

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by MJ5150

At least LSU played Oregon recently. I think Arkansas played a decent OOC school recently too. Alabama played Penn State.

-Mike

Alabama scheduled Virginia Tech when they were having their big run, then Penn St right when they were having their big year. We also scheduled Clemson when Bowden was getting the machine going there. Same goes for Michigan with Hoke.

Auburn took on USC when there was the big West Coast thing.

Tennessee has been very strong about scheduling big OOC games, until Dooley came along. Fulmer, as much as I can't stand him, at least understood the importance of big games like that, and he recruited nationally because of it.

Georgia has never shied away from big games. Richt put Boise St on the schedule when no other SEC team wanted anything to do with them.

When you look at the elite teams in other conferences, I don't see them doing more than any of the teams I just named with regard to OOC scheduling. The teams the regularly play Notre Dame are an exception, but that has more to do with tradition than anything else. USC has played ND late in the season for years, and fans would be ticked if the game was canceled. It has nothing to do with the PAC being better at scheduling strong OOC games. I just don't see this argument against the SEC at all as having any teeth. In general, all conferences schedule cupcakes, and I don't see the SEC being any worse. I do think we'll have to move to a 9-game conference schedule though. I think that's healthy and good, but it'll instantly mean 7 more losses for SEC teams, which will make bowl eligibility harder for the mid-tier teams. That's huge, and has more to do with revenue than anything else. It's the dollars that are detracting from the game, not a fear of playing harder games itself. That's another reason I find this argument weak.

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

Someone is not reading schedules correctly, because Notre Dame played more top 25 teams this year than anyone else in the top 5. Hardly the easiest road.

Agreed, but it was just luck of the draw this year. That's respectable. But for example, Alabama's schedule was supposed to have been killer this year, but turns out that Arkansas and Auburn both suck. We couldn't help that. The SEC East was supposed to be easier for Missouri in year 1, but it turns out Georgia, SoCar, Florida and Vandy are all great teams. It's just hard to predict. My point about ND is that they don't control their schedule based on toughness at all. They play a lot of traditional games because they have been playing them for decades, whether those teams are good or not. When they have a chance to make some major changes, they choose to drop Michigan and play 5 ACC teams with no conference championship game. That's pathetic...you can't deny it. I'm sure there could be a year down the road where the ACC is on top, say Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT all get things rolling. Notre Dame could have a tough time if they have to play those teams then. But there's no doubt they picked the ACC on purpose, because they suck. Any conference in the country would have given ND the same deal the ACC gave them because of the huge marketing engine that ND is. They took the easiest road possible. It was blatant and showed weakness IMO.

[Smokin' Toaster]

We all know about opinions.

Some people held the opinion that Texas A&M would lose on Saturday.
And some people hold the opinion that any circumstance that doesn't fit their world view is luck of the draw.
Some people would probably hold the opinion that if their team had the exact same schedule as this year's Notre Dame schedule or the exact number of top 25 teams on their schedule it would be because their team has balls as big as the Goodyear blimp, or at least as big as those of a herniated elephant.

And some people are just wrong.

[GregC]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

Someone is not reading schedules correctly, because Notre Dame played more top 25 teams this year than anyone else in the top 5. Hardly the easiest road.

That's only if you use preseason rankings, which frankly aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

[Smokin' Toaster]

Originally Posted by GregC

That's only if you use preseason rankings, which frankly aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

I don't think so Greg. Let me quote myself from October 30. I'm pretty sure I was quoting the standings for that week, because look at what I said about Texas Texas A&M, and BYU. And my opinion stinks too, I was wrong about Alabama going undefeated.

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

I don't know Greg, a quick look at the schedules to date show Kansas State having beaten 3 ranked opponents, Oklahoma(6), West Virginia(5), and Texas Tech(18).

Notre Dame has beaten Michigan(17), Michigan State(11), Stanford(8), Oklahoma(8), and BYU(briefly #25-week 3, well before the Notre Dame game, but still ranked at some point, which cannot be said of any Oregon opponent to date). Notre Dame has one more opponent who could possibly be ranked at gametime, USC. As you know, this is a bitter rivalry and often records can be thrown out.

Alabama has played 2 ranked opponents, Michigan(8, preseason), and Mississippi State (13). Of course, they have LSU(5) and Texas A&M(16) coming up. They too have a rivalry game on the schedule that on many years you can throw out the records.... but not this year.

Oregon has yet to play a ranked opponent, but they do have Stanford (13) , USC(18), and Oregon State(13) coming up. It's pretty certain that they will have zero wins over top 10 opponents at the end of the regular season, although in fairness Stanford was in the top 10 at one time.

Conclusions?

Oregon is completely untested. Even if they defeat their ranked opponents, I doubt they will have a lot of credibility with anyone but Duck partisans.

Kansas State and Alabama will be the undefeated teams having defeated the highest ranked opponent (#5), assuming that Alabama beats LSU.


Stack 'em up

Notre Dame - currently 4 (5 if you count BYU, debate if you like, 6 if USC wins out)

Kansas State Currently 3 (4 if you give them Texas, but Texas is long gone out of the top 25 and the game isn't until December).

Alabama - Currently 2, but probably 4 by seasons end, assuming Texas A&M beats Mississippi State - Not a given at all, but I'll give them Texas A&M because A&M has been in the in the top 25 all season, and at #16, a loss to Mississippi State might not knock them out of the top 25.

Oregon - Currently zip, zilch, zero, nada. By season end maybe 3, probably 2, and no top 10 opponent.

[Smokin' Toaster]

And FWIW, I'm on record taking ND to task for the boneheaded decision and ACC fiasco. I was absolutely beside myself when I discovered it interrupted the ND - Michigan series, possibly the most boneheaded thing ND has ever done.

You see, I'm not afraid to point out and criticize anything I see ND do that I think is wrong, because I'm not wearing blue and gold glasses and trying to spin ND as perfect and infallible, as some fans of other teams seem to be compelled to do with their teams.

On the other hand, when I hear absolute BS like a 5-1 advantage in a series is "luck of the draw" or a schedule which has more top 25 teams than any other school in the top 10 is "luck of the draw", I'm going to point them out as the completely biased and inaccurate opinions that they are.

There's a reason the computer component of the BCS has Notre Dame at #1, and regardless of what you think of computer rankings, computers don't weigh "luck of the draw" very heavily. Or at all.

[GregC]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

I don't think so Greg. Let me quote myself from October 30. I'm pretty sure I was quoting the standings for that week, because look at what I said about Texas Texas A&M, and BYU. And my opinion stinks too, I was wrong about Alabama going undefeated.

OK, a couple of thoughts come to mind here. First, I missed Michigan--my mistake, it just didn't occur to me that they would be ranked. It is what it is, though.

Second, we still appear to be looking at this in different ways. I like to use the most recent BCS rankings, as I think they're the best measure of a team's overall quality (larger sample sizes and all). Thus, I would not count Michigan State in ND's tally, nor West Virginia for K State, nor Miss. State for Bama.

Here's how they stack up--I've included the top six for obvious reasons.

Kansas State: OK (12), T Tech (23), OK St (24). Still to come: Texas (15).

Oregon: USC (18). Still to come: Stanford (13), Oregon State (16), plus Pac 12 title game vs USC or UCLA (17).

Notre Dame: Michigan (21), Stanford (13), OK (12). Still to come: USC (18).

Bama: Michigan (21), LSU (7), Texas A&M (8). Still to come: SEC title game vs. Georgia (5).

Georgia: USCe (9), UF (6). Still to come: SEC title game vs. Bama (4).

Florida: Texas A&M (8), LSU (7), USCe (9), Georgia (5). Still to come: FSU (10).

Now all these ratings could change, of course. But at the moment, Bama's had the toughest schedule of the top five, followed by ND. But UF's is tougher than any of them.

[basstotheface]

Good points guys. The top guys in the SEC (aside from UF, but for understandable reasons) do try and make an effort to schedule a big OOC every couple years.

I spoke harshly, but I still think the SEC isn't as great as it's supporters would like you to believe this year. BCS bias sending some of these teams high in the rankings. Just my opinion.

[Tractorr]

Originally Posted by basstotheface

Good points guys. The top guys in the SEC (aside from UF, but for understandable reasons) do try and make an effort to schedule a big OOC every couple years.

I spoke harshly, but I still think the SEC isn't as great as it's supporters would like you to believe this year. BCS bias sending some of these teams high in the rankings. Just my opinion.

I am a Florida fan and I do tend to think that at this point in time the SEC has the most good teams top to bottom (this will change at some point as sports are cyclical).

There are teams across the country that are better than SEC teams and there are conferences with a lot of depth, but the difference is talent level across the board. For instance, in the current recruiting ranks 12 of the 14 SEC teams are in the top 30 of recruiting (according to rivals). The next closest conference is the ACC with 6 of the 12 in the top 30. These sorts of ratings have been happening for the last couple of years.

Now of course this does not translate into SEC teams being the best or we would have 12 SEC teams in the top 30. What it does translate into is having very dangerous teams that you play every week. If you let your guard down for a second the other teams will make you pay.

This level of competition is the reason I think that the SEC has won the last 6 championships. The top team has been tested more than other teams in the country.

It is much like playing music. When you play with better players you up your playing. Same thing with sports. Playing top level talent week in and week out makes for good teams.

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

There's a reason the computer component of the BCS has Notre Dame at #1, and regardless of what you think of computer rankings, computers don't weigh "luck of the draw" very heavily. Or at all.

The reason is that the algorithm developed by a bunch of guys who probably never played a game of Football in their whole life is highly flawed. That same algorithm has Florida State at #17. That's ludicrous. We talk about computer rankings because they are forced upon us by the BCS, not because they have any merit. ND wouldn't be favored to beat more than maybe one team in the top 10 on a neutral field. That has way more merit to me than a computer ranking.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by basstotheface

.....I spoke harshly, but I still think the SEC isn't as great as it's supporters would like you to believe this year.....

absolutely...can't argue with that.

but, for a down year, at this point, the SEC has 5 teams in the top ten BCS and 4 teams in the top ten AP.

pretty good showing for a "down" year...at least so far.

the SEC is a two edged sword...yeah, year in and year out, they are the best, BUT, being the best, they also beat up on each other a lot.

can anyone seriously argue that Oregon has faced the kind of stiff competition, week in and week out, that Alabama or LSU have faced?

[Smokin' Toaster]

Originally Posted by Eublet

The reason is that the algorithm developed by a bunch of guys who probably never played a game of Football in their whole life is highly flawed. That same algorithm has Florida State at #17. That's ludicrous. We talk about computer rankings because they are forced upon us by the BCS, not because they have any merit. ND wouldn't be favored to beat more than maybe one team in the top 10 on a neutral field. That has way more merit to me than a computer ranking.

Please provide supporting evidence for your claim about the developers of the BCS algorithm having no knowledge of football, or acknowledge that it is merely a brain fart. It's not perfect, but a bunch of people casting votes with their inherent biases is far from perfect too.

And I'll remind you that assured everyone that Alabama would beat A&M.
Could you possibly be wrong TWICE?!?!?!?!?

Dare I predict the response will contain reference to... nahhhh. I'll let him have his fun. Maybe we'll get another fun animation or something.

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

Please provide supporting evidence for your claim about the developers of the BCS algorithm having no knowledge of football, or acknowledge that it is merely a brain fart. It's not perfect, but a bunch of people with their inherent biases voting is far from perfect too.

I don't have to. Do your own research. The computer rankings have been lamented by many for years now. Every year there are a handful of head-scratchers in there. ND at #1 and FSU at #17 are the two biggest this year thus far. Anyone who knows football and watches it can see that's ridiculous as has been discussed ad naseum in the media. It's not just my opinion.

And I'll remind you that assured everyone that Alabama would beat A&M.
Could you possibly be wrong TWICE?!?!?!?!?

I'm wrong quite often, so not sure what your point is other than to divert. Just saying the computer rankings mean squat and no one is going to take you seriously if you use them to make your argument.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

Someone is not reading schedules correctly, because Notre Dame played more top 25 teams this year than anyone else in the top 5. Hardly the easiest road.

Not so much...

Notre Dame - 3 (Michigan, Oklahoma, Stanford)
Kansas State - 3 (Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State)
Alabama - 3 (Michigan, LSU, Texas A&M)
Oregon - 2 (Washington, USC)
Georgia - 2 (Florida, South Carolina)

[Smokin' Toaster]

Originally Posted by Eublet

I'm wrong quite often, so not sure what your point is other than to divert. Just saying the computer rankings mean squat and no one is going to take you seriously if you use them to make your argument.

I'm not arguing that the computer rankings are the last word, but they are one component that weighs factors that are valid, but do not get considered by other methods. I didn't notice you railing about the inaccuracy of the computers when they had Alabama at #1. I'll bet you thought those babies were spot-on and wearing houndstooth hats, tide boxes, and toilet paper. But, hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day, right?

The AP poll is a bunch of humans giving their opinion. Not without bias, unless you happen to be a fan happy with their opinion.

Originally Posted by Eublet

ND wouldn't be favored to beat more than maybe one team in the top 10 on a neutral field.

This is what my comment about your being wrong was aimed at, your recent predictive skills, and that prediction involved only two teams. Now you are predicting what would happen with 11 teams. Also, that last statement kinda flies in the face of ND beating Oklahoma in Norman. Oh shoot, that wasn't a neutral field. Oh shoot, and they weren't favored. Being favored means a lot, as we saw this past weekend. Having home field advantage too, very important.

We'll get to see in the near future. But shucks, that will only be one game.

Your ND hate is showing, "and no one is going to take you seriously if you use" it " to make your argument."

[Eublet]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Toaster

I didn't notice you railing about the inaccuracy of the computers when they had Alabama at #1.

I've not railed about the computer rankings of any team until you mentioned there being a reason ND is #1. It's a whimsical argument. Even the computer rankings are given very little weight in the overall BCS standings. Human vote still carries the most weight.

The AP poll is a bunch of humans giving their opinion. Not without bias, unless you happen to be a fan happy with their opinion.

Agreed, but I also think the results are more accurate than the computer. See my previous post about ND being #1 and FSU being #17.

This is what my comment about your being wrong was aimed at, your recent predictive skills, and that prediction involved only two teams. now you are predicting what would happen with 11 teams.

I'm not predicting anything. I've heard what I just stated about ND not being favored in any top 10 game at a neutral site repeated many times on national radio and TV talk show hosts by folks who are far removed from the SEC.

Also, that last statement kinda flies in the face of ND beating Oklahoma in Norman.

No it doesn't. ND wasn't favored in that game either. I've not said they couldn't win any of those games. Obviously most anything can happen between any two teams on a given Saturday. You're confusing odds with predictions. The two aren't the same thing.

[Smokin' Toaster]

Originally Posted by aborgman

Not so much...

Notre Dame - 3 (Michigan, Oklahoma, Stanford)
Kansas State - 3 (Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State)
Alabama - 3 (Michigan, LSU, Texas A&M)
Oregon - 2 (Washington, USC)
Georgia - 2 (Florida, South Carolina)

I was using the rankings on the week of the game, so I included Michigan State. I did the same for all the teams I analyzed. Dispute the methodology if you like, but I was being fair and applying the same criteria to all concerned.

FWIW, 3 > 2, so I don't understand why you include Oregon and Georgia.