Bloody Weekend for top ranked teams...

[mweb]

BTW, concerning the bowl comment you made, am I supposed to be that impressed with a 2 loss WVU team having to comeback to beat a 4 loss GT team by 3 points in a bowl game? WVU has won their last 2 bowl games, each by a score of 38-35, the Georgia win being much more impressive, however, they did lose the 3 bowl games before that, all to ACC schools.

I would say a big reason for the Big East's success in bowl games last year, is they got matched up with schools who were lower level schools. WVU against GT, Rutgers against KState, Cincy against Western Michigan, Louisville against Wake, South Florida against East Carolina.

I'll grant you that it's quite impressive that they won all of those games, but it's not like the level of competition was that good. I guess that's because the Big East doesn't get much respect with their bowl ties since the ACC raided them.

Going back a year further, 1-3 in 2005 in bowl games by my count.

[mweb]

Heh, sorry if it's annoying like I said, I readily admit to a tiny bit of homerism and occasionaly a smidgen of hyperbole. With the conference on the brink of destruction after the evil Swofford attacked for the conference to be where it's at today makes BEast fans proud. Maybe even a bit too proud of the conference.

It is quite a story that they've recovered from that they way they have, and I get why you'd be excited over that. I'll stand by my other comments though.

[geschinger]

BTW, concerning the bowl comment you made, am I supposed to be that impressed with a 2 loss WVU team having to comeback to beat a 4 loss GT team by 3 points in a bowl game? WVU has won their last 2 bowl games, each by a score of 38-35, the Georgia win being much more impressive, however, they did lose the 3 bowl games before that, all to ACC schools.

I would say a big reason for the Big East's success in bowl games last year, is they got matched up with schools who were lower level schools. WVU against GT, Rutgers against KState, Cincy against Western Michigan, Louisville against Wake, South Florida against East Carolina.

I'll grant you that it's quite impressive that they won all of those games, but it's not like the level of competition was that good. I guess that's because the Big East doesn't get much respect with their bowl ties since the ACC raided them.

However they got there, having 38% of the conference finish among the top 12 teams in the country last year is extremly impressive by any standard. While they won't be quite as good this year with a little luck and teams taking care of business the conference could end up w/2 BCS teams and two teams in the top 10 to end the year which would equate to another highly successful season for the conference.

[mweb]

However they got there, having 38% of the conference finish among the top 12 teams in the country last year is extremly impressive by any standard. While they won't be quite as good this year with a little luck and teams taking care of business the conference could end up w/2 BCS teams and two teams in the top 10 to end the year which would equate to another highly successful season for the conference.

I'm not disputing any of that, but I think I've made some pretty good points here, would be interested in seeing you respond to the bowl comments and the WVU schedule comment. And if those teams played top 12 teams in the bowl games last year, I doubt all 3 would have ended up in the top 12.

[geschinger]

I'm not disputing any of that, but I think I've made some pretty good points here, would be interested in seeing you respond to the bowl comments and the WVU schedule comment. And if those teams played top 12 teams in the bowl games last year, I doubt all 3 would have ended up in the top 12.

WVU's schedule has been less than I'd like it to have been but its no worse than OSU's schedule or BCs schedule so it doesn't bother me too much. A lot of it is that it takes two to tango and not many teams have been willing to do home/home games with them. Although that is improving as teams like Auburn have stepped up to the challenge in future years.

And yes, WVU dug themselves into a hole against GT last year. They had no answers for Calvin Johnson in the first half but after solving that huge issue they settled in and ran the ball all over GT as expected. As for the other teams, maybe if they had tougher matchups they might not have ended up ranked as highly but I do think Louisville would of had a good chance to beat whomever they played and the same goes for Rutgers. In other words, I think their rankings were legit.

[Birds of B'more]

Interesting no one is talking about Arizona State. They do have a tough schedule remaining (Cal and USC at home, Oregon in Eugene).......but if they can run the table against that group, that should bring them enough love from both the human and computer voters to be playing in New Orleans. At this point, I would think the Sun Devils have been more impressive than BC.

[ixcuincle]

Interesting no one is talking about Arizona State. They do have a tough schedule remaining (Cal and USC at home' date=' Oregon in Eugene).......but if they can run the table against that group, that should bring them enough love from both the human and computer voters to be playing in New Orleans. At this point, I would think the Sun Devils have been more impressive than BC.[/quote']

Yes. I was listening to the BC Radio Network last Saturday and they were talking about their "win by double-digits streak". Well , of course you're going to win by double digits if you don't play anyone good...and keep in mind 2 of those games (UMASS comes to mind) weren't exactly blowouts. The thing is , they're in the ACC , and the ACC has been notorious for being a weak conference (see records of last 3 ACC teams in BCS Bowls , lost against SEC , Big 10 , Big East). So naturally I would give the PAC-10 the advantage too when deciding which undefeated team would be ranked higher.

[Birds of B'more]

Yes. I was listening to the BC Radio Network last Saturday and they were talking about their "win by double-digits streak". Well , of course you're going to win by double digits if you don't play anyone good...and keep in mind 2 of those games (UMASS comes to mind) weren't exactly blowouts. The thing is , they're in the ACC , and the ACC has been notorious for being a weak conference (see records of last 3 ACC teams in BCS Bowls , lost against SEC , Big 10 , Big East). So naturally I would give the PAC-10 the advantage too when deciding which undefeated team would be ranked higher.

Just for further proof that BC's ranking might be overinflated, in this week's Sagarin Ratings their strength of schedule is ranked #80. ASU's ranking is #54.......not exactly impressive, but a tougher schedule thus far nonetheless.

Other rankings of note: Washington is rated #1 in strength of schedule this week. The Terps are #29.

[Birds of B'more]

It is great during the regular season. I still hate that championships are decided in large part by SIDs and whomever else coaches get to fill out their polls each week.

You know, the more I think about this the less I take issue with the head coaches not filling out ballots. With the mountain of responsibilites that is heaped on major college coaches during the season (games, studying opponents, preparing the team, in-season recruiting, TV/radio shows) can we really expect them to have greater knowledge of who the best teams are nationwide any better than the media that follow the sport closely, or even your average college football junkie who watches games all day on Saturdays? I'm sure that Ralph Friedgen, for example, is very knowledgeable on how the rest of the ACC stacks up........but can we really expect him to follow the other conferences closely enough to know whether 6-0 Kansas is a better team in the Big 12 than 6-1 Texas Tech? Chances are once the coaches finally get some down time they would choose to spend it with their families rather than watch recorded games of other teams, or even ESPN highlights, just so they can feel more confident about their rankings.

What needs to happen is that the "coaches" poll should be renamed to more accurately to reflect who is doing the voting. If the represented universities want to designate someone other than the football coach to submit their ballot, then that's fine.......as long as it is done so with the understanding that the individual doing the voting should be very knowledgeable about college football and should closely follow the results and events of all teams in Div 1A.

[bernie132000]

Just for further proof that BC's ranking might be overinflated' date=' in this week's Sagarin Ratings their strength of schedule is ranked #80. ASU's ranking is #54.......not exactly impressive, but a tougher schedule thus far nonetheless.

Other rankings of note: Washington is rated #1 in strength of schedule this week. The Terps are #29.

Question about strength of schedules. Shouldn't the worst teams have the hardest strength of schedules because the teams they play get a win and have a higher rank? Looking at the ACC, UNC has the 3rd hardest schedule in the country, and is 2-5, Duke is 1-6 with the 9th hardest, and NC State is 1-5 with the 20th hardest.

[Birds of B'more]

Question about strength of schedules. Shouldn't the worst teams have the hardest strength of schedules because the teams they play get a win and have a higher rank? Looking at the ACC, UNC has the 3rd hardest schedule in the country, and is 2-5, Duke is 1-6 with the 9th hardest, and NC State is 1-5 with the 20th hardest.

I'm not sure exactly how Sagarin's measured. I'm sure different services could factor SoS in different ways. But when you look at Washington (#1 SoS in Sagarin) and who they've played, I think you could argue that they could be better than their current 2-4 record might indicate. 5 of the 6 teams they've played so far were ranked in the Top 25 at some point this season (Boise St, UCLA, Ohio St, USC, Arizona St). And they will probably stay #1 since they play 10th ranked Oregon this weekend.

I think UNC's schedule thus far is legit too. They've played S Florida (6-0), VaTech (6-1), and S Carolina (6-1). Of course, they've also played Virginia (6-1) and James Madison (6-1) whose records look better than they are because they've played infereior competition. I'm not sure if SoS rankings take into account that JMU plays in Div 1-AA.

Ultimately though, strength of schedule is usually a better measuring stick at the end of the season when everything has played out rather than at the beginning or middle. Take Duke, for instance. If you base their strength of schedule strictly off the records of their opponents, it looks like a tough schedule. But consider that two of their games were against Connecticut and Virginia, who have a combined 9-2 record right now......and that's subtracting the win they each got against Duke. But both of them have more difficult opponents coming up and their winning percentages are likely to drop.......and so will Duke's SoS ranking along with it.

[Birds of B'more]

#2 USF 27

Rutgers 30

Another one bites the dust.

[geschinger]

#2 USF 27

Rutgers 30

Another one bites the dust.

It'll be fun to see where they land. I'm sure the coaches/SIDs will be harsh but I suspect the computers will continue to love USF. Might be a reverse USC situation.

[mweb]

If I was voting, I'd drop USF quite a bit, they didn't look like that good of a team tonight. A elite team should easily beat Rutgers, especially when they get a 3 to advantage. Rutgers isn't even that good.

[geschinger]

If I was voting, I'd drop USF quite a bit, they didn't look like that good of a team tonight. A elite team should easily beat Rutgers, especially when they get a 3 to advantage. Rutgers isn't even that good.

Rutgers is a decent team, USF losing @ Rutgers is a lot more respectable than say USC losing to Stanford and we saw how meaningless that loss was for the coaches/SIDs. Much like w/USC, I predict the computers will go a long way towards balancing out the coaches/SID bias.