[NU Sports] Big Ten image ...

Mon Oct 17 08:17:28 CDT 2011

I know everyone (especially SJT) LOVES to hate on the BCS, but you have to
give it a break, particularly at this point in the season.

What you're seeing right now is a symptom of:
- Wisconsin's weak non-conference schedule (it doesn't help that Oregon
State picked this year to be horrendously bad).  Their scheduling will pick
up with 3 ranked opponents (MSU, Illinois, PSU) along with OSU to close out.
- Big Ten starting conference play after the rest of the conferences
(notably the SEC and Big XII) and hence leaving all of the weaker
non-conference opponents at the front of the schedule.  Things will even out
down the stretch as Wisconsin picks up Big Ten opponents (note that 1 of
their 2 games already in the bag was against hapless Indiana).
- Wisconsin has played 5 of its first 6 games at home and the other was a
neutral site game.  The computers ARE allowed to take home field advantage
into account, and Wisconsin will make up for it with 4 of 6 games on the
road to close the year.

PLUS: note that 2 teams in front of them in the rankings must pick up a loss
along the way (Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. play as do LSU and Alabama) and if
they win out they will most certainly end up on top of them.  Also, Boise
State will likely fall behind as their strength of schedule plummets and
Wisconsin's picks up.  Wisconsin is already #4 in the polls and as long as
they keep winning they will get stronger there, and remember the polls
account for 2/3 of the current formula.

Now, what is clear is that Wisconsin will have to hope for either the
Oklahoma/OK St or LSU/Alabama winner to pick up a loss along the way because
they'll likely be stuck behind both of those winners if they remain
undefeated.  I do not have a huge issue with this because 3 of those teams
(everyone minus Oklahoma St) have shown to be great all-around teams with
world-class defenses - and all 3 have played more than 1 good opponent so
far (and on at least 1 good opponent on the road, too: LSU @ WVU, Oklahoma @
FSU, Alabama @ PSU).

There is a LONG way to go, particularly in college football where crazy
things can and often do happen; just look at the 2007 season.

I'd argue you, SJT, are falling directly in the BCS's publicity machine by
coming to these wild conclusions the first week that the rankings are
released.  Remember that polls started in the first place to fill up
newspaper space and provide something for reporters to expound upon.  While
the BCS may not be popular, it's definitely giving plenty of people
something to talk about.  The best way to win the war against the BCS would
be for it to fade off into the sunset without any attention but that sure
isn't going to happen.

Finally, a note on the computer rankings:

Anyone who trashes the computers for somehow being biased isn't paying
attention (see notes above).  All the computers do is provide an unbiased
look at who the teams have beaten.  Now, are they the most optimal computer
ranking systems?  Probably not.  But, they don't insert some reduction in
points in the formula based on what conference a team hails from, unlike
some/many pollsters.  The one thing you can say about them is that they are
handcuffed and not allowed to use margin of victory in the formula
(something put in place in the early 2000s to prevent "unsportsmanlike"
running-up the score, which teams do anyway to impress the pollsters).

Overall, the BCS formula has generally done what it was intended to do: put
the #1 & #2 teams in the title game.  Based on JUST 6 GAMES (in some cases
7), it seems to have done a fair job of that.  But, there are another 5-6
games (& title games) to go.  Let's revisit at that point.

Finally, don't blame the BCS system (vs. playoff) on its ranking system -
they are 2 separate arguments.  If the premise was that there are enough
good/great teams this season to field a 4/8 team playoff, I would say that
is a valid argument.  Blaming the lack of a playoff on a ranking system
isn't really accomplishing anything.

Jonathan

--
Jonathan Hodges
Contributor, HailToPurple
Web: http://www.hailtopurple.com/jhodges/
Twitter: @hailtopurple
Email: j-hodges at alumni.northwestern.edu

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 9:12 PM, SjT (Stephen J. Truog)
<sjtruog at yahoo.com>wrote:

> As we've seen for years (at least since Bobby's Noles were last relevant),
> the "B" in B(C)S stands for Big XII.
>
> I'll say it again - the Big Ten needs to stop trying to sell the lame
> division names and go on an SEC-style image campaign nationally to counter
> all this Big XII hype.
>
> Oklahoma #3 and Okie State #4??? Really???
>
> Wisconsin's thrashing of Nebraska is arguably the biggest win of any top 10
> team so far this year (maybe LSU over Oregon) ... Oklahoma's big wins have
> come against teams who were clearly overrated (FSU, Texas) and Okie State
> has the Texas A&M comeback, which was nice but not UW/UNL level.
>
> At least the B(C)S has Penn State in the top 25 -- the AP still has the 6-1
> Lions unranked, yet a 1-loss Arkansas team (who like PSU lost to Bama, but
> by more) is in the top 10?? Do the polls give extra points for beating Texas
> A&M or something???
>
> The Big Ten has six top 25 teams in the B(C)S ... the SEC and Big XII each
> have five ... seems like Wisconsin should be getting a little more love from
> the computers for being the top team in the league with the most teams.
> They're #4 in both human polls, but dreadful in the computers (which have
> Okie State #1 in four of the six?!?!?! and #1 overall ... with Wisconsin
> #11?!?!?!?)
>
> And THIS is what we use to determine a champion??? Give me a break.
>
> Why does this matter to NU and the Big Ten? Money. Wisconsin will be
> fighting it out with the Big XII and Pac 12 (if it's Stanford) champ to play
> sacrificial lamb to the SEC in New Orleans. So part is prestige. But the Big
> Ten will also be battling those leagues for an at-large berth and that means
> more money and more bowl spots open (should NU get to six wins). It's the
> SEC, then the Big Ten and then everyone else ... no matter how much ESPN
> hype or computer digits try and make the Big XII or Pac 12 better, they're
> just not as deep or solid.
>
> And above all, it's just further proof that the B(C)S sucks. This is the
> worst possible system to determine a champion of the nation's most exciting
> sport. It's so bad that you simply can't say it enough - the B(C)S sucks.
>
> The Huskers should have stayed in the Big XII if they want to play for a
> national title down the line - heck, they'd probably be ranked #2 in the
> computers had they stayed! :)
>
> Yes folks, it's that time of year again ... just when you thought the B(C)S
> could not get worse - their computers come out with a ranking that has
> Wisconsin #11 and Oklahoma State #1. How can anyone seriously defend this
> joke!
>
> GO CATS!!!
> -SjT
>
> PS - I'm about the last person who wants to see the Smug Smirk play for a
> national title (though the thought of having him get there and then get
> smacked around by LSU and its home crowd does make me smile a bit) ... but
> they just are not the #11 team in the country. No way.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> STEPHEN J. TRUOG
> sjtruog at yahoo.com
> GO CATS!!! GEAUX SAINTS!!!
> Super Bowl XLIV Champions!
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>
>