Using the 4 BCS computers that provide a conference comparison it is possible to generate a composite ranking of the conferences. A poll like ranking loses much of the information available. Here the raw data is converted to a z-sore for each computer ranking using only the conferences listed. For each conference the values below represent the average z-score of the four programs.
Oh no! More brain explosion!
Ben -- which computers are you using and which set of rankings? Season end? Final poll in Dec? Are all the teams accounted for, or only the BCS ranked teams? Are you using the BCS 25 or the BCS 50? Can you give us a link, cuz I iz confused.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
End of Season, after Bowls, conference rankings published by:
Each one has its own metric for ranking. Sagarin uses a central weighted average of his team rankings. The Colley Matrix runs all NCAA games as if each team from each conference is the same.
The results from the Colley Matrix would indicate that team does in fact matter.
For the Z-Score I only used the FBS conferences.
Porcine
· 1 year ago
I was right, MWC is closer to Conference USA.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Sure, it would narrow the gap as it stands today. It would still take more than a few years to really catch up though.
jonsey
· 1 year ago
PAC 10 should be at the middle-bottom part of the list
Oaktown
· 1 year ago
and what Jonsey, other than a bias, do you base your conclusion about the Pac 10? If any conference is over rated it is the Big East.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Sagarin Ratings, MWAC adjustment compairison:
2007: Big 10: 74.63 MWAC: 71.12 MWC: 70.95
2006: Big 12: 74.34 MWAC: 69.71 MWC: 68.34
2005: Big East: 72.12 MWAC: 70.11 MWC: 69.51
2004: SEC: 74.13 MWAC: 72.43 MWC: 72.08 ( No TCU this year or earlier ) Big East: 71.98
2003: Big East: 74.45 ( Last year with Miami VT and Boston College ) MWAC: 72.53 MWC: 71.85
Expansion alone is not enough to warrant a BCS bid for the MWC. The MWC had a legitimate BCS claim in 2004 and maybe after 2005. Since then they have fallen back a step.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
After thought:
The Big 10 struggled hard last year and Michigan is likely to be struggling early during OOC play. While I expect them to turn things around near the start of serious conference play this could hurt the Big 10's standings this year.
Does the big 10 have a team that can pick up the OOC slack? If Ohio State loses to USC the conference will have a double whammy on its hands.
This adds emphasis to the Utah Michigan game.
Could the MWC end up ranked higher than the Big 10 this year?
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Were's coondawg ? We need him, because any comparison between Fla and Hawaii is just funny. Yall remember coondawg, he could speak on this issue. Help me understand this z-factor because any system that's trying to compare conferences based upon mathematical data is flawed because each inividual team plays different opponents. There is really no way do determine strength of conference based upon mathematical formulas. because they all faced different opponents with different volumes of strength. C-USA already has 12 teams and a championship game, so perhaps they should be considered. Pac-10, Big East and Big 11 should be non-BCS conferences until they meet the same required of The Big-12, ACC and SEC the conferences with 12 teams and a championship game. Look Ben we know it aint fair and if MWC is to be considered, why not C-USA ? BTW Utah 04 beat A&M well so did Baylor
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The Z-score is from statistics.
By taking a collection of data one can find the mean, M, and standard deviation, SD, of the data.
The Z-score for a particular value is (X-M)/SD. This takes the data set centers it at zero and makes the measure from zero consistent. As the computers have a wide variety of means and ranges this step simply makes them all comparable.
As for weighing all the other factors, well I punt and let Sagarin, Massey, Anderson&Hester and Billingsley worry about that. Massey is almost comical to look at, but I decided to use the BCS programs and like to stick to my benchmarks once I form them.
Oh: nothing said this had to be about MWC. In fact I offered data that supports C-USA to open this discussion.
Indeed any discussion about the rank of the conferences could fit here.
In Who's Who style we could attempt to crown the valedictorian. Is the SEC really better than the PAC 10 and Big 12?
Gatorboy41
· 1 year ago
1Tomcat, I don't particular agree that you can't compare strength of schedule, or strength of conference. For one, if any given team beats 4-5 opponents that are always goodyear in, and year out, and they ranked in the top 20 at the end of the season. Then it is safe to say that they played some pretty good competition. When Fl won the NC, Noone argued that they had the toughest schedule in the nation. They play 8-9 that were ranked at one time, or another during the season. 5 of those teams finished in the 20. Preseason rankings means nothing, however rankings at the end of the season, are based on wins and loses, for the most part.
So then if what you are saying is true, do you think that the MEAC Conference could play on the same level as the Big Ten, SEC, or the PAC 10. If what you saying is true, then they should be able to compete,
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
What the h is the "h policy"?
OU_Ron
· 1 year ago
I reserve the right to use the " h " whenever I feel the urge...
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
h
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
So what you're saying is, "h" is a response intended to mean nothing, and is used when you think that whatever someone says in the comment you're responding to means nothing?
In addition to being insufferably annoying?
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
"For this thread the h policy will be temporarily suspended. This immunity shall be revoked for anyone questioning the h policy in any manner what-so-ever."
How about explaining it prior to invoking it?
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
I think WEA is the best qualified to explain the "h" policy. He was definitely part of the mob that implemented it in the last year.
Generally speaking, the "h" is given in recognition of comments that are utterly ridiculous or otherwise unworthy of any response, let alone a dignified one. Comments that receive the "h" (or threads that are "h" worthy for that matter) make all of us dumber just by appearing on the page. In that regard, it is both a dismissal of the asinine as well as a public service announcement to the community at large.
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
Thank-you, Kevin. That also explains your response to MWC-fan on the "Should the MWC expand?" thread on 8/16 to me.
I understand now. Please resume our regularly scheduled programming.
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
The first rule of the "h" policy is you do not discuss the "h" policy.
The second rule is, you DO NOT DISCUSS THE "h" POLICY!
:-)
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
Sir, yes SIR!!
:-)
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
His name is Robert Paulson...
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
This may be a relic of the old commenting system, as it was harder to distinguish who was drive by posting. Now a commenter without a logo is a sign to read at your own risk.
WEA could clarify more. Its main point it to warn others to read at their own peril.
It is mostly an inside joke, and I set the bait for someone to bite.
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
Thanks Ben. ;-)
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
I can't really speak about it's origin. I can say that h doesn't work unless 2 or more people use it...
h works best on trolls. Use, rinse, and repeat as often as necessary...
If you're in the top 20 of the Disqus commentators, you have immunity from h.
Okay, I just added that last one, but it's a good rule...
P.S. I tried to get into MT to correct the spelling on the title of this thread, but was barred entry. My intentions were good, though...
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
My recollection is the "h" policy started quite by accident in the pre-Disqus days, when someone posted a complete non sequitur and the next poster apparently typed the letter "h" and then submitted the comment without entering anything additional. The next comment was from someone praising the "h" poster for his eloquence, brevity, and candor.
Since then, the "h" has stuck as a natural response to non sequitur - and especially, drive-by - posts.
OU_Ron
· 1 year ago
RG, then really got popular when the coondawg showed up...
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
Too true! Whatever happened to coondawg?
I realize now I'm violating the first and second rules of the "h" policy. I better be careful or Tyler Durden will come and get my (foot)balls.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
You couldn't login to author login? Email or chat me.
I think now it is rather obsolete, as trolls can be identified by the gray digitized smily face that is the Disqus default.
Cougar_Fan
· 1 year ago
Conference USA plays a higher caliber OOC schedule than every conference except the SEC
Hpolicy
· 1 year ago
The SEC plays a high caliber OOC schedule? I must have been living under a rock the past 10 years.
JB
· 1 year ago
The SEC doesnt need OOC games for SOS.....they play each other...and i think it has been established that the SEC, if not the best, is way up there in terms of football teams..(the whole NC thing)
Michael
· 1 year ago
"Conference USA plays a higher caliber OOC schedule than every conference except the SEC"?
Historically the SEC plays the weakest OOC of any of the BCS conferences. You know, because all 12 teams in the SEC are SUPER AWESOME and even Vanderbilt or Ole Miss would win any other conference in the country so of course they have to play weak teams OOC. I guess the inverse is then true of C-USA, they play so many crappy teams in-conference they have to try to schedule better teams OOC to appear legit.
for OOC schedule: 1) SEC ( Actually a surpise for me. I guess 9-3 FCS games count? ) 2) Big 12 3) Sun Belt 4) C-USA 5) ACC 6) MAC 7) Independents 8) MWC 9) Big East 10) WAC 11) PAC 10 12) Big 10
grcunning
· 1 year ago
Higher caliber OOC schedules in and of themselves shouldn't be used to rank conferences. Most big-time programs schedule at least one lower tier in-state program to help "Share the wealth" For example, OSU plays Youngstown St. (partially because Tressel coached there), and Ga plays Georgia Southern. Based only on this one game, Youngstown St clearly has a higher caliber OOC schedule than OSU...Does this mean that the Missouri Valley Football Conference should be ranked above the Big10? IMHO, head to head matchups should be the determining factor, and even those can be problematic.
um...no
· 1 year ago
actually... the sec teams are known to have some of the weakest out of conference schedules in the ncaa, and their excuse is that they deserve this since they're also in the hardest conference in the ncaa. i agree and disagree... if they had to play everyone in their conference in a round robin, then the argument would work since they have such a hard conference and everyone has to play each other. but this isn't even the case. the pac-10 keeps a 10 team conference because they have to play each other once a season, which i think is a good thing. conferences should be standardized in the number of teams allowed so that this could be allowed. only then can you really have a conference championship where every team had an "equal" chance to get there. that and the pac 10's out of conference schedules tend to be the hardest since they feel that they have to prove themselves more than other conferences do. mind you, tennessee agreed to the back to back with cal around 10 years ago when cal was horrible, they wouldn't have agreed to it had it been after tedford arrived. that said, arizona state was definitely overrated last year and this year they are feeding off a season where they didn't have an away game for the first 7 games i think it was. it sucks being a cal fan for all the choking and failure we have to endure but GO CAL!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
That is the mantra that is repeated over and over. Until now I had bought into it.
Explain why the SEC's OCC is 104-63 (0.623) and the PAC-10's OOC is 66-62 (0.516)?
If the SEC plays worse teams, why do the teams they play have more wins?
Brian
· 1 year ago
Are you using last season's OOC and last season's schedule?
Last year was easily the worst schedule the Pac-10's had OOC in recent memory. USC got stuck playing Idaho, a game they scheduled as a favor to a former coach who had been hired as the Idaho HC (and was gone before the game even took place)...but the big reason that I'd say the OOC schedule being vastly down last year is that Notre Dame plays 3 or 4 Pac-10 teams per year, and their completing their worst season ever counted 3 times against the Pac-10 last year. (Stanford, UCLA, USC) So right there, the OOC schedule is 9-27. Take Notre Dame out of the equation and they're 57-35. Throw in bad years for Nebraska and Colorado, Michigan, etc. and that helps.
Also, another reason is that the Pac-10 plays the best of the non-BCS schools; Fresno St and Boise St and BYU and Utah are all teams that are at least mid-BCS-school talented, and Pac-10 teams play them. Meanwhile, the SEC gets to beat up on the Sun Belt, listed as the worst conference in your own rankings.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Notre Dame brings you to 0.559. At least that brings you to near ACC levels.
Lets face this fact. Notre Dame, Nebraska, Colorado. These teams have a SOLID history but have been lacking the last half decade. Michigan almost qualifies. FSU and Miami (FL) could be thrown in as well.
And yes that would have been using last years, the most recent and applicable, data.
Zac
· 1 year ago
"To BCS, or not to BCS?" That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler for one's team to suffer the slings and arrows of loosing season after loosing season, or to take arms against a sea of lesser opponents in a lesser conference in a lesser division, and by playing said opposition end all strife by way of success more easily bought, however less glamorous, less elite? To be unsung: to be unspoken of; no more; and by this choice to say we end the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that one's team is heir to, 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wish'd. To be unsung, to be unspoken of; yet, perchance to be reminded of more glorious days: ay, there's the rub; for in that national silence, akin unto death itself, what insults may come when we have shuffled off quietly into the night, must give us paws, or claws, or beak, or winged flap, or fang, or hoof, or horn, or quill, or tooth & nail, or spike, or arrow, or axe, or sword, or lance, or hammer, or projectile from cannon or muzzle loader, or moving wave, or...ahem...fruit (citric acid?), or entire herds of beasts; for I say let them come; let them come and let the media not speak of us, let us be otherwise unsung, for if success is best bought at a lesser level, tis not the level nor the opponent, but the chance to play which makes this question as great as it is...ridiculous.
To BCS or not to BCS, ay, there's the rub...
grcunning
· 1 year ago
(( head exploding ))
- computer engineers get blurry eyed from reading such things
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
ROFL!! VERY WELL DONE, SIR!!!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Wow. unexpectedly delightful.
A+ in creative writing.
But then this from one who can''t spell.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
The BCS itself uses a five-year window to review eligibility. I know we've discussed this before on Fanblogs, but... here goes.
The existing BCS conferences have an athematical formula to determine which 5-7 conferences will have automatic BCS eligibility starting with the 2010 season.
The formula will use results from the previous four regular seasons, based upon institutions that are members of the conferences during the previous season. So... for 2008, it would be the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 data based upon 2007 memberships.
From each conference, you take (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.
The only question after that is... five berths? six? seven? (And you thought this was the last thread we would have to have on this?!)
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
This topic falls squarely in this thread.
Thank you for this information. I have visited that page often, but never read to the bottom of it. My bad.
You left off at a very important part.
"The standards will not prohibit the champion of any conference that has contracted with a bowl from playing in one of the participating BCS bowls. For example, the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions will, by contract, play in the Rose Bowl every year unless one or both qualifies for the National Championship Game."
So the PAC 10, BIG 10, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are in due to contract. To get in or stay in it is implied you must perform at the level of the least of these conferences, based on the three criterion listed above.
How do the conferences compare with these criterion?
#2 is beyond my ability to measure. Sagarin results are the best approximation I am aware of for this.
Conference -- Average top team -- average # of top 25teams SEC -- 3.75 -- 5.00 ACC -- 6.75 -- 4.00 Big 12 -- 4.75-- 3.75 Big 10 -- 2.75 -- 3.25 PAC 10 -- 3.50 -- 3.00 Big East -- 10.50 -- 3.00 ( MWAC -- 11.50 -- 1.50 ) MWC -- 14.50 -- 1.00
No other conference has placed a team in the top 25 all four year. The WAC averages 1 per year and would have an average of 14.25 if a rank of 26 is ascribed to the missing year. C-USA is the only other conference to get into the top 25 once at 24. Notre Dame accounts for the other three top 25 appearances.
If trends matter then the WAC is gaining on the MWC, but factor #2 would likely mitigate that significantly.
A MWC expansion could help them gain enough teams that can get into the top 25 to improve significantly here. Three top 25 teams per year appears to be standard. More teams in the top 25 will increase the average rank of the highest team.
This data would support the idea that the Big East is in more danger of losing BCS status than any conference would have of joining the BCS.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
That's not correct. The ACC does not have a contract with any of the BCS bowls. Big XII, Pac 10, Big 10, Big East and SEC have contracts (which I believe is the nature of the five minimum).
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
From the site you linked to above:
Unless they qualify to play in the NCG, the champions of selected conferences are contractually committed to host selected games:
Atlantic Coast Conference-Orange Bowl Big Ten Conference-Rose Bowl Big 12 Conference-Fiesta Bowl Pac-10 Conference-Rose Bowl Southeastern Conference-Sugar Bowl
Near as I can tell the ACC, not the Big East has the contract with a BCS Bowl.
grcunning
· 1 year ago
Unfortunately, there is another factor in BCS decisions that is always in play, but not often talked about. Money. Big money.
Should the MWC be a BCS conference? I don't know, but consider this.
Which school will travel the most fans, and pump millions upon millions of dollars into the economy of BCS cities? Ohio State, Georgia, Notre Dame... or Utah?(with apologies to Ben)
We can use benchmark after benchmark, but the bottom line is that the current BCS conferences are the ones with the big money and big fan bases.
Am I imagining this? Maybe. According to Kevin, there is a mathematical formula to determine BCS eligibility. If this has always been the case, then maybe it's just a big coincidence.
And what about traditional bowl alliances? The Rose Bowl has always been Pac 10 - Big 10(at least for the last 50 years). If for some crazy reason the Big 10 and Pac 10 lose their BCS status, and instead it's the MAC and WAC, what then?
How many Bowling Green - La Tech matchups do you think it would take for the Rose Bowl to tell the BCS alliance to kiss off? The bottom line is that the BCS has a HUGE incentive to include the big money conferences, and the ones with the most deep-pocketed fans.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I agree it is about money and fan base.
Utah and BYU are expanding these rapidly. BYU has a stadium that seats 60,000+ fans and sells out regularly. Both have sold out their tickets for bowl games, including the Fiesta bowl where Utah even sold tickets Pittsburgh couldn't. Boise State travels crazy well for as small as the city is.
I already stated above that conferences with contracts with BCS bowls can't lose their status.
grcunning
· 1 year ago
"I already stated above that conferences with contracts with BCS bowls can't lose their status." Sorry, I missed that.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
That could have been worded better as "I just posted above." This was to avoid repetition for people reading this after the fact.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I have described a benchmark that ranks conferences by a process similar to a GPA, so why not give it a test run!
Using a consensus rankings teams can be separated into grades by using the largest gaps in the average rankings of the teams. Further, grades can be subdivided using the largest gaps in their range. This is a moving target,as th source site is kept up to date.
Here are the Pre-season grades as of 6:00 pm ET 8/20 (kinda like the teachers expectations from the first day of class, while no assignments have yet been given): A(4.0): Ohio State, USC, Oklahoma, Georgia, West Virginia, Missouri, Florida, LSU A-(3.7): Kansas
B+(3.3): Virginia Tech, Clemson, Texas, Oregon, Auburn, BYU, South Florida, Arizona State, Tennessee, Texas Tech, Wisconsin, Penn State B(3.0):Cincinnati B-(2.7): Wake Forest, Boston College, Michigan, Oregon State, Utah, Illinois, Ben Prather in Thermodynamics
C+(2.3): California, Rutgers, South Carolina, FSU, Alabama, Boise State, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Kentucky, TCU, Connecticut, UCLA, Arizona, Michigan State, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Fresno State, Texas A&M, Virginia, Louisville, Hawaii, Mississippi State, Purdue, Tulsa C(2.0): Colorado, UCF, East Carolina, Nebraska, Troy, New Mexico, Washington, Air Force, Iowa, Kansas State, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Washington State, Florida Atlantic, Indiana, Notre Dame, Houston, Central Michigan, Miami FL, Ball State, Navy, Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt C-(1.7): Mississippi, Southern Mississippi, Wyoming, Bowling Green, Nevada, NC State, Western Michigan, UL Monroe
D+(1.3): Iowa State, Miami OH, CSU, Memphis, Marshall, Minnesota, Buffalo, Ohio, Middle TN State, San Jose State, SDSU, Toledo, Baylor, UTEP, Syracuse, Duke, Temple, Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, Western Kentucky, UNLV, Eastern Michigan, Akron, Tulane, Rice Northern Illinois, D(1.0): Kent, UL Lafayette D-(0.7): New Mexico State, Utah State, SMU, UAB, Army
E: North Texas, Idaho, Florida Atlantic
W: FCS
Conference GPA: SEC: 2.817 Big 12: 2.625 PAC 10: 2.620 Big East: 2.600 Big 10: 2.536 ACC: 2.325 MWC: 1.989 C-USA: 1.492 MAC: 1.446 WAC: 1.400 Sun Belt: 1.113
Not a bad pre season ranking of the conferences for as ad hoc as it is. The ACC is low thanks to Duke, NC State and Miami (FL). Three large gaps appear in the ranking, before and after the MWC and before the Sun Belt.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Again the case is made that the BCS currently contains the correct conferences.
Even the expanded MWAC would only improve to 2.042, still in the middle of the gap they are in.
All Comments
Oh no! More brain explosion!
Ben -- which computers are you using and which set of rankings? Season end? Final poll in Dec? Are all the teams accounted for, or only the BCS ranked teams? Are you using the BCS 25 or the BCS 50? Can you give us a link, cuz I iz confused.
Jeff Sagarin
Anderson and Hester
Richard Billingsley
Colley Matrix
Each one has its own metric for ranking. Sagarin uses a central weighted average of his team rankings. The Colley Matrix runs all NCAA games as if each team from each conference is the same.
The results from the Colley Matrix would indicate that team does in fact matter.
For the Z-Score I only used the FBS conferences.
2007:
Big 10: 74.63
MWAC: 71.12
MWC: 70.95
2006:
Big 12: 74.34
MWAC: 69.71
MWC: 68.34
2005:
Big East: 72.12
MWAC: 70.11
MWC: 69.51
2004:
SEC: 74.13
MWAC: 72.43
MWC: 72.08 ( No TCU this year or earlier )
Big East: 71.98
2003:
Big East: 74.45 ( Last year with Miami VT and Boston College )
MWAC: 72.53
MWC: 71.85
Expansion alone is not enough to warrant a BCS bid for the MWC. The MWC had a legitimate BCS claim in 2004 and maybe after 2005. Since then they have fallen back a step.
The Big 10 struggled hard last year and Michigan is likely to be struggling early during OOC play. While I expect them to turn things around near the start of serious conference play this could hurt the Big 10's standings this year.
Does the big 10 have a team that can pick up the OOC slack? If Ohio State loses to USC the conference will have a double whammy on its hands.
This adds emphasis to the Utah Michigan game.
Could the MWC end up ranked higher than the Big 10 this year?
Yall remember coondawg, he could speak on this issue.
Help me understand this z-factor because any system that's trying to compare conferences based upon mathematical data is flawed because each inividual team plays different opponents.
There is really no way do determine strength of conference based upon mathematical formulas. because they all faced different opponents with different volumes of strength.
C-USA already has 12 teams and a championship game, so perhaps they should be considered.
Pac-10, Big East and Big 11 should be non-BCS conferences until they meet the same required of
The Big-12, ACC and SEC the conferences with 12 teams and a championship game.
Look Ben we know it aint fair and if MWC is to be considered, why not C-USA ?
BTW Utah 04 beat A&M well so did Baylor
By taking a collection of data one can find the mean, M, and standard deviation, SD, of the data.
The Z-score for a particular value is (X-M)/SD. This takes the data set centers it at zero and makes the measure from zero consistent. As the computers have a wide variety of means and ranges this step simply makes them all comparable.
As for weighing all the other factors, well I punt and let Sagarin, Massey, Anderson&Hester and Billingsley worry about that. Massey is almost comical to look at, but I decided to use the BCS programs and like to stick to my benchmarks once I form them.
Oh: nothing said this had to be about MWC. In fact I offered data that supports C-USA to open this discussion.
Indeed any discussion about the rank of the conferences could fit here.
In Who's Who style we could attempt to crown the valedictorian. Is the SEC really better than the PAC 10 and Big 12?
So then if what you are saying is true, do you think that the MEAC Conference could play on the same level as the Big Ten, SEC, or the PAC 10. If what you saying is true, then they should be able to compete,
In addition to being insufferably annoying?
How about explaining it prior to invoking it?
Generally speaking, the "h" is given in recognition of comments that are utterly ridiculous or otherwise unworthy of any response, let alone a dignified one. Comments that receive the "h" (or threads that are "h" worthy for that matter) make all of us dumber just by appearing on the page. In that regard, it is both a dismissal of the asinine as well as a public service announcement to the community at large.
I understand now. Please resume our regularly scheduled programming.
The second rule is, you DO NOT DISCUSS THE "h" POLICY!
:-)
:-)
WEA could clarify more. Its main point it to warn others to read at their own peril.
It is mostly an inside joke, and I set the bait for someone to bite.
h works best on trolls. Use, rinse, and repeat as often as necessary...
If you're in the top 20 of the Disqus commentators, you have immunity from h.
Okay, I just added that last one, but it's a good rule...
P.S. I tried to get into MT to correct the spelling on the title of this thread, but was barred entry. My intentions were good, though...
Since then, the "h" has stuck as a natural response to non sequitur - and especially, drive-by - posts.
I realize now I'm violating the first and second rules of the "h" policy. I better be careful or Tyler Durden will come and get my (foot)balls.
Post 40
I think now it is rather obsolete, as trolls can be identified by the gray digitized smily face that is the Disqus default.
Historically the SEC plays the weakest OOC of any of the BCS conferences. You know, because all 12 teams in the SEC are SUPER AWESOME and even Vanderbilt or Ole Miss would win any other conference in the country so of course they have to play weak teams OOC. I guess the inverse is then true of C-USA, they play so many crappy teams in-conference they have to try to schedule better teams OOC to appear legit.
Conf-- Rcd OOC vs BCS--Points--Opps Rec (-HtH)
1. Big Ten (9-4-0)0.69231 -- (28.4-17.3) -- (51-96-0)-0.347
2. Pac-10 (6-5-0)0.54545 -- (27.6-22.3) -- (66-62-0)-0.516
3. SEC (7-7-0)0.50000 -- (27.6-23.9) -- (104-63-0)-0.623
3. ACC (11-11-0)0.50000 -- (19.8-24.8) -- (146-110-0)-0.570
5. MWC (8-9-0)0.47059 -- (25.0-25.8) -- (104-93-0)-0.528
6. Big East (7-8-0)0.46667 -- (24.9-23.8) -- (92-84-0)-0.523
7. Big 12 (5-6-0)0.45455 -- (23.5-26.5) -- (79-49-0)-0.617
8. Independent (6-14-0)0.30000 -- (18.1-32.9) -- (129-108-0)-0.544
9. MAC (5-35-0)0.12500 -- (16.6-36.9) -- (257-212-0)-0.548
10. WAC (2-15-0)0.11765 -- (17.5-41.2) -- (102-97-0)-0.513
11. Sun Belt (3-23-0)0.11538 -- (18.2-44.5) -- (191-121-0)-0.612
12. CUSA (2-23-0)0.08000 -- (18.6-40.7) -- (180-118-0)-0.604
for OOC schedule:
1) SEC ( Actually a surpise for me. I guess 9-3 FCS games count? )
2) Big 12
3) Sun Belt
4) C-USA
5) ACC
6) MAC
7) Independents
8) MWC
9) Big East
10) WAC
11) PAC 10
12) Big 10
For example, OSU plays Youngstown St. (partially because Tressel coached there), and Ga plays Georgia Southern.
Based only on this one game, Youngstown St clearly has a higher caliber OOC schedule than OSU...Does this mean that the Missouri Valley Football Conference should be ranked above the Big10?
IMHO, head to head matchups should be the determining factor, and even those can be problematic.
Explain why the SEC's OCC is 104-63 (0.623) and the PAC-10's OOC is 66-62 (0.516)?
If the SEC plays worse teams, why do the teams they play have more wins?
Last year was easily the worst schedule the Pac-10's had OOC in recent memory. USC got stuck playing Idaho, a game they scheduled as a favor to a former coach who had been hired as the Idaho HC (and was gone before the game even took place)...but the big reason that I'd say the OOC schedule being vastly down last year is that Notre Dame plays 3 or 4 Pac-10 teams per year, and their completing their worst season ever counted 3 times against the Pac-10 last year. (Stanford, UCLA, USC) So right there, the OOC schedule is 9-27. Take Notre Dame out of the equation and they're 57-35. Throw in bad years for Nebraska and Colorado, Michigan, etc. and that helps.
Also, another reason is that the Pac-10 plays the best of the non-BCS schools; Fresno St and Boise St and BYU and Utah are all teams that are at least mid-BCS-school talented, and Pac-10 teams play them. Meanwhile, the SEC gets to beat up on the Sun Belt, listed as the worst conference in your own rankings.
Lets face this fact. Notre Dame, Nebraska, Colorado. These teams have a SOLID history but have been lacking the last half decade. Michigan almost qualifies. FSU and Miami (FL) could be thrown in as well.
And yes that would have been using last years, the most recent and applicable, data.
To BCS or not to BCS, ay, there's the rub...
- computer engineers get blurry eyed from reading such things
A+ in creative writing.
But then this from one who can''t spell.
The existing BCS conferences have an athematical formula to determine which 5-7 conferences will have automatic BCS eligibility starting with the 2010 season.
The formula will use results from the previous four regular seasons, based upon institutions that are members of the conferences during the previous season. So... for 2008, it would be the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 data based upon 2007 memberships.
From each conference, you take (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.
That will determine the BCS pecking order.
More details are at the bottom of this page.
The only question after that is... five berths? six? seven? (And you thought this was the last thread we would have to have on this?!)
Thank you for this information. I have visited that page often, but never read to the bottom of it. My bad.
You left off at a very important part.
"The standards will not prohibit the champion of any conference that has contracted with a bowl from playing in one of the participating BCS bowls. For example, the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions will, by contract, play in the Rose Bowl every year unless one or both qualifies for the National Championship Game."
So the PAC 10, BIG 10, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are in due to contract. To get in or stay in it is implied you must perform at the level of the least of these conferences, based on the three criterion listed above.
How do the conferences compare with these criterion?
#2 is beyond my ability to measure. Sagarin results are the best approximation I am aware of for this.
Conference -- Average top team -- average # of top 25teams
SEC -- 3.75 -- 5.00
ACC -- 6.75 -- 4.00
Big 12 -- 4.75-- 3.75
Big 10 -- 2.75 -- 3.25
PAC 10 -- 3.50 -- 3.00
Big East -- 10.50 -- 3.00
( MWAC -- 11.50 -- 1.50 )
MWC -- 14.50 -- 1.00
No other conference has placed a team in the top 25 all four year. The WAC averages 1 per year and would have an average of 14.25 if a rank of 26 is ascribed to the missing year. C-USA is the only other conference to get into the top 25 once at 24. Notre Dame accounts for the other three top 25 appearances.
If trends matter then the WAC is gaining on the MWC, but factor #2 would likely mitigate that significantly.
A MWC expansion could help them gain enough teams that can get into the top 25 to improve significantly here. Three top 25 teams per year appears to be standard. More teams in the top 25 will increase the average rank of the highest team.
This data would support the idea that the Big East is in more danger of losing BCS status than any conference would have of joining the BCS.
Unless they qualify to play in the NCG, the champions of selected conferences are contractually committed to host selected games:
Atlantic Coast Conference-Orange Bowl
Big Ten Conference-Rose Bowl
Big 12 Conference-Fiesta Bowl
Pac-10 Conference-Rose Bowl
Southeastern Conference-Sugar Bowl
Near as I can tell the ACC, not the Big East has the contract with a BCS Bowl.
Should the MWC be a BCS conference? I don't know, but consider this.
Which school will travel the most fans, and pump millions upon millions of dollars into the economy of BCS cities? Ohio State, Georgia, Notre Dame... or Utah?(with apologies to Ben)
We can use benchmark after benchmark, but the bottom line is that the current BCS conferences are the ones with the big money and big fan bases.
Am I imagining this? Maybe. According to Kevin, there is a mathematical formula to determine BCS eligibility. If this has always been the case, then maybe it's just a big coincidence.
And what about traditional bowl alliances? The Rose Bowl has always been Pac 10 - Big 10(at least for the last 50 years). If for some crazy reason the Big 10 and Pac 10 lose their BCS status, and instead it's the MAC and WAC, what then?
How many Bowling Green - La Tech matchups do you think it would take for the Rose Bowl to tell the BCS alliance to kiss off? The bottom line is that the BCS has a HUGE incentive to include the big money conferences, and the ones with the most deep-pocketed fans.
Utah and BYU are expanding these rapidly. BYU has a stadium that seats 60,000+ fans and sells out regularly. Both have sold out their tickets for bowl games, including the Fiesta bowl where Utah even sold tickets Pittsburgh couldn't. Boise State travels crazy well for as small as the city is.
I already stated above that conferences with contracts with BCS bowls can't lose their status.
Sorry, I missed that.
Using a consensus rankings teams can be separated into grades by using the largest gaps in the average rankings of the teams. Further, grades can be subdivided using the largest gaps in their range.
This is a moving target,as th source site is kept up to date.
Here are the Pre-season grades as of 6:00 pm ET 8/20 (kinda like the teachers expectations from the first day of class, while no assignments have yet been given):
A(4.0): Ohio State, USC, Oklahoma, Georgia, West Virginia, Missouri, Florida, LSU
A-(3.7): Kansas
B+(3.3): Virginia Tech, Clemson, Texas, Oregon, Auburn, BYU, South Florida, Arizona State, Tennessee, Texas Tech, Wisconsin, Penn State
B(3.0):Cincinnati
B-(2.7): Wake Forest, Boston College, Michigan, Oregon State, Utah, Illinois, Ben Prather in Thermodynamics
C+(2.3): California, Rutgers, South Carolina, FSU, Alabama, Boise State, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Kentucky, TCU, Connecticut, UCLA, Arizona, Michigan State, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Fresno State, Texas A&M, Virginia, Louisville, Hawaii, Mississippi State, Purdue, Tulsa
C(2.0): Colorado, UCF, East Carolina, Nebraska, Troy, New Mexico, Washington, Air Force, Iowa, Kansas State, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Washington State, Florida Atlantic, Indiana, Notre Dame, Houston, Central Michigan, Miami FL, Ball State, Navy, Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt
C-(1.7): Mississippi, Southern Mississippi, Wyoming, Bowling Green, Nevada, NC State, Western Michigan, UL Monroe
D+(1.3): Iowa State, Miami OH, CSU, Memphis, Marshall, Minnesota, Buffalo, Ohio, Middle TN State, San Jose State, SDSU, Toledo, Baylor, UTEP, Syracuse, Duke, Temple, Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, Western Kentucky, UNLV, Eastern Michigan, Akron, Tulane, Rice Northern Illinois,
D(1.0): Kent, UL Lafayette
D-(0.7): New Mexico State, Utah State, SMU, UAB, Army
E: North Texas, Idaho, Florida Atlantic
W: FCS
Conference GPA:
SEC: 2.817
Big 12: 2.625
PAC 10: 2.620
Big East: 2.600
Big 10: 2.536
ACC: 2.325
MWC: 1.989
C-USA: 1.492
MAC: 1.446
WAC: 1.400
Sun Belt: 1.113
Not a bad pre season ranking of the conferences for as ad hoc as it is. The ACC is low thanks to Duke, NC State and Miami (FL). Three large gaps appear in the ranking, before and after the MWC and before the Sun Belt.
Even the expanded MWAC would only improve to 2.042, still in the middle of the gap they are in.