BCS Standings

[Michael_ Gee]

If Alabama loses to Auburn, it might not get to play in its conference title game -- again. And this time, I don't think that'd earn an invite. Nobody thinks Auburn is number one. Maybe they should (no, but maybe), but they don't.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

Not sure the SEC warrants that superiority mantle this year anyway.

When you look at the number of losses by the teams considered to be the cream of the crop--Georgia, Florida, LSU, T A&M--you could argue the Pac-12 and even the ACC are stronger in the elite teams.

And work your way down to the bottom feeders where Arkansas and Kentucky are just gawdawful, the notion of the SEC being the almighty this year deserves serious questioning.

 

[murphyc]

Oregon DC Nick Aliotti thinks the BCS standings are bull****. [/crossthread]

 

[LongTimeListener]

The over-consideration for the SEC doesn't bother me nearly as much as the over-consideration for the Big Ten.

Ohio State going undefeated would be roughly akin to what Boise did in the WAC and TCU did in the Mountain West.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

The over-consideration for the SEC doesn't bother me nearly as much as the over-consideration for the Big Ten.

Ohio State going undefeated would be roughly akin to what Boise did in the WAC and TCU did in the Mountain West.

The Big Ten is definitely down, but there are still a handful of Top 25 teams (Wisconsin, Northwestern (for awhile), Michigan...) at least with bigger conference schools there is actually the chance of being upset, that I'm not sure was as common in the WAC and MWC. But yeah, running the table in the Big Ten is not even close to being as impressive as it is in the ACC, SEC, Pac-12. You could easily say the same thing about the Big 12 and the Big East these days too...

 

[micropolitan guy]

Florida, Alabama and LSU are three schools that have been given the benefit of the doubt and been sent to the national title game despite having losses and they've rewarded those who gave them a chance by winning...

That's true, but Oregon would have destroyed ND by 50 points last year had a one-loss Pac-12 team been able to play in a title game. (Of course, I readily admit ND was the undeserving part of that equation, not Alabama).

The same could be said of the one-loss 2008 USC Trojans against Ohio State, had they been taken over one-loss Florida.

 

[Armchair_QB]

The over-consideration for the SEC doesn't bother me nearly as much as the over-consideration for the Big Ten.

Ohio State going undefeated would be roughly akin to what Boise did in the WAC and TCU did in the Mountain West.

The Big Ten is definitely down, but there are still a handful of Top 25 teams (Wisconsin, Northwestern (for awhile), Michigan...) at least with bigger conference schools there is actually the chance of being upset, that I'm not sure was as common in the WAC and MWC. But yeah, running the table in the Big Ten is not even close to being as impressive as it is in the ACC, SEC, Pac-12. You could easily say the same thing about the Big 12 and the Big East these days too...

Hey, Creighton has a hell of a football team.

 

[Mark2010]

There are two ways to spin the SEC stuff. On one hand, you can say well, Texas A&M, LSU and South Carolina all have two losses and South Carolina and Florida each have three.

On the other hand, with the exception of Florida losing at Miami (a top ten team), all those losses have come to other SEC teams. So one can argue "well, the middle-tier teams (Ole Miss, Tennessee, Auburn, Missouri) are better than in the past".

So is the league weaker or just more balanced?

 

[Football_Bat]

I've got nothing on this, other than FSU will fall back in SOS with its biggest game done with. Undefeated Bama/Mizzou SEC winner and undefeated Oregon are still the matchup right now. Still 8 undefeateds who count for a natty.

 

[Football_Bat]

Proof positive that talk of an 8-team playoff is silly.

For now, yes. Only when we ever have 5 worthies will 8 teams come into play.

Don't say it won't ever happen, especially as the 5 super-major conferences coalesce.

 

[Mark2010]

Are there people who really think Missouri, Baylor and/or Texas Tech could actually finish undefeated?

If Louisville couldn't do it in the AAC, I can't fathom any of those three doing it.

 

[Football_Bat]

Are there people who really think Missouri, Baylor and/or Texas Tech could actually finish undefeated?

If Louisville couldn't do it in the AAC, I can't fathom any of those three doing it.

Missouri can. The SEC East is pretty average by SEC standards this year. They go at Kentucky and at Ole Miss. They host SC, Tennessee and A&M. Then they'd draw Bama Dec. 7 in Atlanta, and flip a coin.

 

[Mark2010]

Flip a coin? What kind of coin is that? If this is the same Alabama team I saw highlights of shutting out Mississippi and Arkansas, the Tide will win by 30.

Does anyone really think Missouri is going to sweep South Carolina, Ole Miss and Texas A&M? It's Gary Pinkel, for crying out loud!

 

[StaggerLee]

You're right, Mizzou. But under the BCS setup, an undefeated team from one of the power conferences will always wind up ahead of a one-loss rival in the standings. Hell, if Notre Dame did last year, Ohio State will this year. Next year, of course, the selection committee will put all these controversies to bed, I'm sure.

The problem is that the SEC is so much better than any of the other conferences. I think the outrage will come if a team like Alabama stumbles once and we have a national title game between two non-SEC schools. If Alabama loses a game, there will still be a way for them to make the title game, but if Oregon stumbles once, I can't imagine them being able to stay in the mix unless something crazy happens.

When the SEC has dominated the way it has for the better part of the last decade, I think to an extent, that's understandable.

I know I'm in the minority among most of my colleagues, but I disagree that the SEC has dominated. Alabama, LSU and Florida have been dominant in the BCS title picture, but outside of Auburn that one season, the rest of the SEC has just fallen in line.

Like doctorquaint said, the SEC's dominance comes from winning however many BCS titles in a row now. That streak, though, is largely aided by the fact that the SEC starts the season with a 50% chance of winning the BCS. No other conference can say that. The SEC knows that even a 1-loss (or 2-loss) champion still has an above-average chance of playing for the BCS title.

Now, I'm not saying the SEC isn't the best conference out there. I think it is. I just don't think the margin between the SEC and the rest of college football is that great. And the bowls seem to prove that year in and year out (and I'm not talking about head-to-head records, I'm talking about how the games play out on the field in terms of being competitive).

 

[Versatile]

You're right, Mizzou. But under the BCS setup, an undefeated team from one of the power conferences will always wind up ahead of a one-loss rival in the standings. Hell, if Notre Dame did last year, Ohio State will this year. Next year, of course, the selection committee will put all these controversies to bed, I'm sure.

The problem is that the SEC is so much better than any of the other conferences. I think the outrage will come if a team like Alabama stumbles once and we have a national title game between two non-SEC schools. If Alabama loses a game, there will still be a way for them to make the title game, but if Oregon stumbles once, I can't imagine them being able to stay in the mix unless something crazy happens.

When the SEC has dominated the way it has for the better part of the last decade, I think to an extent, that's understandable.

I know I'm in the minority among most of my colleagues, but I disagree that the SEC has dominated. Alabama, LSU and Florida have been dominant in the BCS title picture, but outside of Auburn that one season, the rest of the SEC has just fallen in line.

Like doctorquaint said, the SEC's dominance comes from winning however many BCS titles in a row now. That streak, though, is largely aided by the fact that the SEC starts the season with a 50% chance of winning the BCS. No other conference can say that. The SEC knows that even a 1-loss (or 2-loss) champion still has an above-average chance of playing for the BCS title.

Now, I'm not saying the SEC isn't the best conference out there. I think it is. I just don't think the margin between the SEC and the rest of college football is that great. And the bowls seem to prove that year in and year out (and I'm not talking about head-to-head records, I'm talking about how the games play out on the field in terms of being competitive).

Look up bowl records and nonconference records from the past eight seasons, then return to this thread. Thanks.

So, does 13-0 Missouri jump 13-0 Oregon and/or 13-0 Florida State? Clearly 13-0 Ohio State would be behind 13-0 Missouri.

 

[Mark2010]

OK, if Missouri manages to beat Alabama, they get a spot in the national title game. By that time, I'll be a tenure-track professor at Harvard.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

If Missouri can run the table they're absolutely no worse than #2 at the end, and in the National Championship. Assuming Oregon is also undefeated, I would think that would be the matchup.

 

[Riptide]

If Missouri can run the table they're absolutely no worse than #2 at the end, and in the National Championship.

There's a line I don't recall ever reading during football season.

 

[Versatile]

Florida State fans are in the awkward position of really hoping Miami and Florida do well outside of their games against the Seminoles.

 

[Mark2010]

That's true for everybody. You want all of your opponents to kick butt and look good, so your games against them carry more weight. I'm sure the Alabama-LSU game lost some luster when LSU lost twice.