^^^ they're great if they beat OSU, but overrated and medicore if they lose to the Buckeyes...isn't that the way it usually goes ?

enigmaax;517242 wrote:They haven't, actually. Boise still has Nevada, Hawaii, and Fresno with solid OOC records that will help them and TCU still has Utah and Air Force. I don't think it'll be enough to keep/move either ahead of OSU by the end of the season, but there are still some money games for them when it comes to the computers. At first glance, it seems as though Boise is in better shape than TCU as the WAC is right around .500 OOC, which is better than they typically are. The MWC is down, even for second tier standards. A couple things are going to work against OSU - the three non-Miami games are going to balance Boise's terrible bottom conference games and if Michigan State continues to beat teams on OSU's schedule that'll hurt OSU's overall schedule strength.

Good points here.

enigmaax;517242 wrote:They haven't, actually. Boise still has Nevada, Hawaii, and Fresno with solid OOC records that will help them and TCU still has Utah and Air Force. I don't think it'll be enough to keep/move either ahead of OSU by the end of the season, but there are still some money games for them when it comes to the computers. At first glance, it seems as though Boise is in better shape than TCU as the WAC is right around .500 OOC, which is better than they typically are. The MWC is down, even for second tier standards. A couple things are going to work against OSU - the three non-Miami games are going to balance Boise's terrible bottom conference games and if Michigan State continues to beat teams on OSU's schedule that'll hurt OSU's overall schedule strength.

Very good post!

Interesting perspective on Michigan State. What would really be interesting is if both Michigan State and Ohio State go undefeated. One could argue that Michigan State has the tougher schedule which would put them above Ohio State. And in this case when comparing two teams from the same conference, it will be decided on style points. Michigan State will never pass Ohio State, but it would be highly interesting if they both win out.

enigmaax;517242 wrote:They haven't, actually. Boise still has Nevada, Hawaii, and Fresno with solid OOC records that will help them and TCU still has Utah and Air Force. I don't think it'll be enough to keep/move either ahead of OSU by the end of the season, but there are still some money games for them when it comes to the computers. At first glance, it seems as though Boise is in better shape than TCU as the WAC is right around .500 OOC, which is better than they typically are. The MWC is down, even for second tier standards. A couple things are going to work against OSU - the three non-Miami games are going to balance Boise's terrible bottom conference games and if Michigan State continues to beat teams on OSU's schedule that'll hurt OSU's overall schedule strength.

My point is that at the end of the year, with all 3 teams undefeated, OSU is going to have a lot of better wins than either of those teams. Wisconsin, Iowa, and possibly Miami and Michigan are going to be ranked higher than any of the teams Boise State or TCU plays. I think Oregon State loses at least 2 more games, and I think that Nevada drops at least one before playing Boise. Utah is a good team but they have some losable games left on their schedule.

There are a lot of things that can still happen by the end of the year. But you'd be crazy to think that if Ohio State were to win out that they wouldn't be not only playing in the national championship game, but #1 in the BCS as well.

Y-Town Steelhound;517354 wrote:My point is that at the end of the year, with all 3 teams undefeated, OSU is going to have a lot of better wins than either of those teams. Wisconsin, Iowa, and possibly Miami and Michigan are going to be ranked higher than any of the teams Boise State or TCU plays. I think Oregon State loses at least 2 more games, and I think that Nevada drops at least one before playing Boise. Utah is a good team but they have some losable games left on their schedule.

There are a lot of things that can still happen by the end of the year. But you'd be crazy to think that if Ohio State were to win out that they wouldn't be not only playing in the national championship game, but #1 in the BCS as well.

Well, you would think that on the surface. Here's my point. If Boise's SOS factor has them #1 in the computers right now and if it's true that OSU is that far behind while already being #1 in both polls, OSU's remaining schedule may not make up that entire difference. Boise's remaining opponents are 21-20 right now. OSU's are 21-13 at the moment. OSU has one less game to play and the remaining schedules then come down to, Boise plays one more crappy team and the rest of the schedules are essentially equal overall.

Boise's computer rating isn't going to plummet as we might normally expect because the overall look of their schedule (including their remaining schedule) isn't as bad as it would normally be by the time they hit conference play. If Boise is already way out in front in the computers, they may not give that spot up to OSU even after the upcoming games (a lot still depends on how the already-beaten teams end up faring). The thing about the computers is that OSU doesn't just have to compare to Boise, they have to worry about other teams putting space between them and Boise. For example, if OSU and Boise/Oregon/Nebraska/Oklahoma/LSU finish 1-2 in the human polls with a relatively small gap, but then OSU finishes behind say, LSU, Boise, Alabama/Auburn/whoever, Oregon, and Nebraska/Oklahoma in the computers, there could be too many points lost in the computers for OSU to finish ahead of any one of those teams.

Personally, I find it a complete joke that Boise could be that high in the computers but they are going to continue to be treated well because their opponents overall record isn't going to be that bad. And at this point, OSU's total schedule (including upcoming games) is barely above .500.

thedynasty1998;517352 wrote:Very good post!

Interesting perspective on Michigan State. What would really be interesting is if both Michigan State and Ohio State go undefeated. One could argue that Michigan State has the tougher schedule which would put them above Ohio State. And in this case when comparing two teams from the same conference, it will be decided on style points. Michigan State will never pass Ohio State, but it would be highly interesting if they both win out.

The tougher schedule argument would come down to how Wisconsin and Northwestern end up. OSU and Michigan State obviously miss out on each other and their schedules are otherwise the same outside of Wisky/NW. The other big variable/comparison is how Miami and Notre Dame finish.

centralbucksfan;517278 wrote:Wow, feeling a bit defensive? But since you replied, then please tell me WHO said Iowa was some "juggernaut"? Are they great? Not a this point. But again, they returned A LOT from last years team, who ended up being pretty darn good.

I don't think anyone said "juggernaut", but many have mentioned Iowa and how good they are. I just am not sure how good yet, that's all. They have great defensive stats...against ok/bad teams. Not a real great offense. They got beat by Arizona, who got beat by Oregon State.

I just don't think a good team that OSU can point to when NC talk comes up, loses to a team like Arizona.

And, you basically said the same thing I'm saying with...

centralbucksfan;517278 wrote:Are they great? Not a this point. But again, they returned A LOT from last years team, who ended up being pretty darn good.

enigmaax;517398 wrote: Personally, I find it a complete joke that Boise could be that high in the computers but they are going to continue to be treated well because their opponents overall record isn't going to be that bad. And at this point, OSU's total schedule (including upcoming games) is barely above .500.

Why is it a joke then? Do you think the computers are flawed?

So, I just refigured my rankings using the current Anderson & Hester rankings (again, the Wolfe Rankings are first released if first week of the BCS, so only 5 of the 6 BCS rankings could be used. For an explanation of the BCS system and how I figured my rankings look for my earlier post with my first mock rankings. Here are the computer rankings and the averages figured by dropping the lowest ranking, the highest ranking, and then an average of the two.



Now here are my mock BCS rankings. The first ranking uses the computer average with the lowest ranking dropped, the middle one is figured with the computer rankings with the highest ranking dropped, and the final rankings are the average computer rankings.



Now I don't know what method Brad Edwards used to figure up his mock rankings because he only published the order and the averages, but he never published the components that made up his mock rankings of described his process. I suppose that it's possible that he somehow got hold of what the Wolfe rankings would look like and that made the difference. Since he didn't give any description of his mock rankings I don't know why they're so far off from what I figured out, but I still think he's wacky.

WebFire;517427 wrote:Why is it a joke then? Do you think the computers are flawed?

Because there's no difference between beating a 6-6 WAC team or a 6-6 Big Ten team. Or beating a 9-3 WAC team vs. a 9-3 SEC team. I don't know whether the formulas in past years carried some kind of different weight system, but I find it hard to believe that Boise can go undefeated in years past and be nowhere near the top of the computers and now they've beaten two good teams and all of a sudden they are #1? While I understand the overall record of the WAC has improved a bit, I can't believe its enough for that enormous of a jump. Maybe it is too early, maybe it will all shake out. I just have a feeling that the formulas were altered between last season and this season and as a result, Boise isn't going to be treated appropriately for its crappy schedule. It is just my opinion, obviously.

The way I figured mine is exactly as the BCS says, drop the lowest and highest computer ranking and average the remaining 4 (3 right now), and I came up with the same exact results they got.

Cleveland Buck;516205 wrote:

This is the way they figured theirs.

enigmaax;517398 wrote:Well, you would think that on the surface. Here's my point. If Boise's SOS factor has them #1 in the computers right now and if it's true that OSU is that far behind while already being #1 in both polls, OSU's remaining schedule may not make up that entire difference. Boise's remaining opponents are 21-20 right now. OSU's are 21-13 at the moment. OSU has one less game to play and the remaining schedules then come down to, Boise plays one more crappy team and the rest of the schedules are essentially equal overall.

Boise's computer rating isn't going to plummet as we might normally expect because the overall look of their schedule (including their remaining schedule) isn't as bad as it would normally be by the time they hit conference play. If Boise is already way out in front in the computers, they may not give that spot up to OSU even after the upcoming games (a lot still depends on how the already-beaten teams end up faring). The thing about the computers is that OSU doesn't just have to compare to Boise, they have to worry about other teams putting space between them and Boise. For example, if OSU and Boise/Oregon/Nebraska/Oklahoma/LSU finish 1-2 in the human polls with a relatively small gap, but then OSU finishes behind say, LSU, Boise, Alabama/Auburn/whoever, Oregon, and Nebraska/Oklahoma in the computers, there could be too many points lost in the computers for OSU to finish ahead of any one of those teams.

Personally, I find it a complete joke that Boise could be that high in the computers but they are going to continue to be treated well because their opponents overall record isn't going to be that bad. And at this point, OSU's total schedule (including upcoming games) is barely above .500.

Again, I'm not worried about it. But if Ohio State did finish undefeated and #1 in both human polls but out of the BCS top 2, then there would be serious uproar that would cause a MAJOR change in the landscape of the BCS system.

enigmaax;517484 wrote:Because there's no difference between beating a 6-6 WAC team or a 6-6 Big Ten team. Or beating a 9-3 WAC team vs. a 9-3 SEC team. I don't know whether the formulas in past years carried some kind of different weight system, but I find it hard to believe that Boise can go undefeated in years past and be nowhere near the top of the computers and now they've beaten two good teams and all of a sudden they are #1? While I understand the overall record of the WAC has improved a bit, I can't believe its enough for that enormous of a jump. Maybe it is too early, maybe it will all shake out. I just have a feeling that the formulas were altered between last season and this season and as a result, Boise isn't going to be treated appropriately for its crappy schedule. It is just my opinion, obviously.

While it wouldn't surprise me if they tweaked their formulas to help the mid major teams, as far as I know, most of the computers don't just use a straight opponent's record for their SOS. Many of them use their own rankings to determine SOS, others factor in the opponent's opponents' winning percentage, so there is usually a difference between a 9-3 SEC team and a 9-3 WAC team. That is, unless, they stopped all of that to help Boise this year.

Cleveland Buck;517502 wrote:While it wouldn't surprise me if they tweaked their formulas to help the mid major teams, as far as I know, most of the computers don't just use a straight opponent's record for their SOS. Many of them use their own rankings to determine SOS, others factor in the opponent's opponents' winning percentage, so there is usually a difference between a 9-3 SEC team and a 9-3 WAC team. That is, unless, they stopped all of that to help Boise this year.

Yeah, I'm kind of saying the same thing. It has been obvious in years past that there was some difference between the power conferences and the non-AQ conferences. The WAC generally doesn't have as many wins overall because they lose more non-conference games to AQ/BCS schools, so that had to account for part of it. Still, it seemed like undefeated Boise States were too far down the computer rankings for there to be equal weight given to all wins (based just on record).

It looks like there isn't as much of a difference at this point. I can't prove it...I'm not saying it is fact, I just don't have much of an explanation how all of a sudden Boise's computer ranking is so high when there isn't a huge difference in who they've played/beaten in years past. Given the fact that their computer rank is higher already, I can't see how playing a remaining schedule that has an overall winning record is going to "punish" them.

There is no way that the point system was altered to benefit the non BCS conferences. The last thing the BCS wants is Boise in the championship game.

Well, if it comes down to computers and OSU can't move into the top 2 because of it, I could definitely see the Harris poll dropping OSU down to save the BCS. The AP championship will be in play, but that doesn't really mean anything.

thedynasty1998;517600 wrote:There is no way that the point system was altered to benefit the non BCS conferences. The last thing the BCS wants is Boise in the championship game.

georgemc80;517635 wrote:Well, if it comes down to computers and OSU can't move into the top 2 because of it, I could definitely see the Harris poll dropping OSU down to save the BCS. The AP championship will be in play, but that doesn't really mean anything.

Why do people keep talking about the BCS like it's some big conspiracy? People talk about it like it's some committee, or like the guys who developed the computer ranking systems or the Harris and Coaches poll voters answer to some big head man who makes all the decisions to maintain the status quo. I that really what you people think? If so then you're all delusional! The BCS is not the mafia, it's not run by some good ole boys group or manipulated with backroom dealings. It's college football!

And George, you're right, the AP title doesn't mean anything, it's only the oldest National Championship trophy in college football and one of four recognized by the NCAA.

krambman;517920 wrote:Why do people keep talking about the BCS like it's some big conspiracy? People talk about it like it's some committee, or like the guys who developed the computer ranking systems or the Harris and Coaches poll voters answer to some big head man who makes all the decisions to maintain the status quo. I that really what you people think? If so then you're all delusional! The BCS is not the mafia, it's not run by some good ole boys group or manipulated with backroom dealings. It's college football!

And George, you're right, the AP title doesn't mean anything, it's only the oldest National Championship trophy in college football and one of four recognized by the NCAA.

And this is ok?

krambman;517920 wrote:Why do people keep talking about the BCS like it's some big conspiracy? People talk about it like it's some committee, or like the guys who developed the computer ranking systems or the Harris and Coaches poll voters answer to some big head man who makes all the decisions to maintain the status quo. I that really what you people think? If so then you're all delusional! The BCS is not the mafia, it's not run by some good ole boys group or manipulated with backroom dealings. It's college football!

And George, you're right, the AP title doesn't mean anything, it's only the oldest National Championship trophy in college football and one of four recognized by the NCAA.

Maybe not exactly, but I'm not naive enough to think with that much money involved there's not some sort of "interest" by parties with nothing more than keeping the status quo.

Ty Webb;516194 wrote:You Ohio State fans need to realize that the BCS and NCAA are gringing to get Boise and TCU in the National Championship together and if this ranking is true and all teams above them win out.....Ohio State WILL NOT play for the National Championship

I don't think the BCS wants two non-BCS conference schools in the title game. The BCS is all about money and these 2 will bring the least amount of money.

KnightRyder;516889 wrote:didnt that hellaciously overrated Oregon State team beat arizona? and didnt arizona beat big ten juggernaut Iowa?

And?

Once OSU gets to the meat of their schedule, they'll be fine. If 1 team on OSU's schedule beats MSU (which I think Iowa will do), OSU gains big.

I know what the BCS is, and I was responding to the statements about the computer formula's being changed this year to benefit Boise. I was saying that the formula would not have been changed because the BCS wouldn't want Boise in the championship game.

thedynasty1998;518086 wrote:I know what the BCS is, and I was responding to the statements about the computer formula's being changed this year to benefit Boise. I was saying that the formula would not have been changed because the BCS wouldn't want Boise in the championship game.

I get that, but what or who do you mean when you say "the BCS wouldn't want Boise in the championship game?"

krambman;518110 wrote:I get that, but what or who do you mean when you say "the BCS wouldn't want Boise in the championship game?"

The commissioners of the big conferences, who run the BCS and set it up to maximize their profits.

thedynasty1998;518118 wrote:The commissioners of the big conferences, who run the BCS and set it up to maximize their profits.

Okay, let's dispel a little myth right here then. Yes, there are six conferences plus Notre Dame that have it set up for automatic qualification into the BCS. However, it wasn't just these six conferences and Notre Dame that formed the BCS and forced everyone else to live with it. Every conference in college football, even the non-AQ conferences have agreed to the BCS. Just look at the header on the BCS website (http://www.bcsfootball.org/) and you'll see every conference in college football listed. Not only is every conference part of the BCS, but every conference gets money from the BCS every year. Even the lowly MAC gets over $1 million each year from the BCS just for agreeing to participate in it.

You're right that those in power when it comes to making decisions about the BCS formula wouldn't want to see it changed to benefit a school like Boise, however, they did change some things a few years ago to make it easier for schools like Boise from non-AQ conferences to qualify for BCS bowls. They added an additional BCS bowl which opened up spots for two more at-large teams, and even changed the rules to make it easier for a school from a non-AQ conference to automatically qualify for a BCS spot (instead of having to be chosen by a bowl as an at large)

In fact, this off season they changed some of the rules around to make it easier still for non-AQ schools to get into the BCS than before. It used to be that the Rose Bowl essentially refused to take a team like Boise and would always opt for the second place Big Ten or Pac-10 team if they lost the conference champion to the title game. This is why Illinois played in the 2008 Rose Bowl. Now, they changed the rule about how teams are selected, so if Ohio State makes the title game this year and Boise meets the criteria to gain an automatic BCS birth, but doesn't make the title game, it's almost guaranteed that they will end up in Pasadena. So actually, "the BCS" has done a lot in recent years to help out non-AQ schools like Boise.