Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:48 pm EST
In a perfect world, the Doc would be given carte blanche to publicly torch the Bowl Championship Series in effigy and institute the elaborate, double-elimination battle royale of his dreams. But we live in the world we live in, so each Sunday the Doc looks at what the new BCS numbers mean for the rest of the season. Rooting interest: chaos. Always chaos.
• Status quo. At the top, the story is the same: Florida and Alabama are now officially locked into the SEC title game, where the winner -- possibly even if the eventual winner manages to lose a game between now and Dec. 5 -- will head to Pasadena for a showdown with rolling Texas, barring a miracle upset by Baylor, Kansas, Texas A&M or the eventual Big 12 North champ over the final month; fat chance. The computers still don't like the Longhorns (see below) and still may not with UT's relatively lame schedule down the stretch, but there's no conceivable way an undefeated Texas doesn't wind up squaring off with an undefeated SEC champ.
• USC is ranked ahead of Oregon. I repeat: USC is ranked ahead of Oregon. In the human polls, anyway, and it's not even close: The Harris poll ranks USC (No. 10) four spots ahead of the Ducks (14), and the coaches have the Trojans a full six spots ahead, dropping the Ducks all the way to No. 16 following their loss at Stanford. This despite Oregon's a) Possessing an identical overall record (7-2) and a better Pac-10 record (5-1 to 4-2) than the Trojans, and still controlling their own destiny in the conference; b) Having not lost to a team with only two other wins on the season, as USC did in its still-inexplicable flop at Washington; and c) Having utterly humiliated the Trojans as no other team has in more than a decade just last week. Apparently voters were so impressed by USC's worst offensive output in more than five years in its narrow, 14-9 escape at Arizona State Saturday while remaining so utterly horrified at Oregon's lopsided loss to the Cardinal that everything preceding those results was discarded entirely. Maybe it has something to do with last week's time change.
The computers? They collectively rank the Ducks 10th and USC 11th, with five of the six (all except perpetually outlying and notably ridiculous algorithm constructed by Richard Billingsley) ranking Oregon higher -- and they don't even consider head-to-head in their formulas! The human polls' vote for USC is blind "slip 'n slide" voting at its worst and clearly illustrates either how little the pollsters are paying attention or how little they care about what they see.
• Frog up. The biggest mover this week is TCU, which hops Cincinnati into Iowa's vacated position at No. 4 thanks to a bump in the computers that moved the Horned Frogs ahead of Texas for beating ... uh, San Diego State. In fact, the Longhorns saw one of the two teams in front of them in the computer polls last week lose (Iowa), yet somehow still managed to drop two spots in the eyes of the machines, falling behind TCU and Cincinnati and losing ground on Alabama, with which the 'Horns shared the No. 3 ranking in the computer polls last week. Apparently, TCU's strength of schedule was boosted by Clemson's fourth straight win, and Texas' SOS took a beating at the hands of losses by two of it's most "valuable" victims, Oklahoma and Missouri. Hence the 'Horns drop behind computer favorite Alabama, despite carrying the human polls.
That move apparently puts TCU in the driver's seat if the unthinkable happens to derail the hard-charging Texas vs. Alabama/Florida championship blockbuster, but considering Cincinnati's route to 12-0 still runs through a pair of ranked teams, Pittsburgh and West Virginia, the Bearcats remain a better bet to move up in the long run if they keep winning. The computers are already with them.
The computers are also the saving grace of LSU and Iowa, which each fell hard in the human polls in favor of big winners Ohio State and Pittsburgh, which came in at No. 8 and No. 9, respectively, in both the Coaches and Harris polls while the Tigers and Hawkeyes were bounced from the top 10 altogether.
• Deep thoughts. The Big East has four teams in this week's top 25 (Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, South Florida and West Virginia), tying the Pac-10 and Big Ten for the most of any conference. The SEC has three teams (tying it with the Mountain West and ACC), but all three are in the top eight, even though Alabama and Florida's only victories over another top-20 team are over LSU, and LSU has no wins over another team in the top 25. The Big 12 has two teams, Texas and Oklahoma State.
• For chaos' sake. With all of the obvious regular season tests vanquished, it's getting less and less likely that Alabama/Florida or Texas will actually lose a game, and Oregon's fall in Palo Alto effectively eliminates Boise State from any serious discussion behind the "Big Three." With Iowa also knocked from the running, the best chance to throw the system into disarray remains an upset against Texas, which would give Cincy or TCU a chance to move up if either or both remains undefeated. Either would probably be voted in ahead of the one-loss Longhorns, but if it came down to, say, TCU vs. a one-loss SEC champion for the spot opposite undefeated Texas, there would be serious rending of garments over the TCU/SEC decision either way. Ditto a decision between Cincinnati and a one-loss SEC champ.
There is still one very, very long shot for drama and catastrophe even if all of the "Big Three" run the table, and it lies with the computers. As it stands, Cincinnati is ranked ahead of Texas in four of the six computer polls, and the Bearcats' slate only gets tougher down the stretch, while Texas' remains relatively light, even including the Big 12 Championship game; Cincy should only consolidate its lead over UT in that regard the rest of the way. It's conceivable -- not likely, but conceivable -- that Cincy's lead in the computers will be enough to jump the Bearcats over Texas in the final standings on Dec. 6 if they're sitting just behind the 'Horns at No. 3 in the human polls, which would lead to riots in the streets of Austin and in every sports column outside of the greater Cincinnati metro area. That probably requires a couple big, pundit-impressing wins by Cincinnati over West Virginia and Pitt, a loss by TCU to clear the way and a close call or two by Texas to even be mathematically possible. But it's there.
Dr. Saturday is a college football blog edited by Matt Hinton. Email him tips and feedback.

Posted Feb 3 2010
RivalsMinute: Bama wins the title
Posted Feb 3 2010
Posted Feb 3 2010
Edited by MJD
Edited by 'Duk
Edited by J.E. Skeets
Edited by Greg Wyshynski
Edited by Matt Hinton
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Steve Cofield
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Brooks Peck
Edited by Andy Behrens
62 Comments
1 - 24 of 62
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
The polls are supposed to be backward looking - rewarding good wins, punishing bad losses. They are supposed to rank the teams fairly, and a matchup of two teams would probably result in the higher team winning.
The stock market is forward looking. It rewards money made in the past only a little bit. It truly rewards potential winning. If the price of gold is expected to rise, a gold mining company's stock will increase, regardless of the rough quarter they just had.
Problem is, the college football polls are also FORWARD looking. Watch and see. If two teams are headed for a big game (SEC title, Big 12 title game, ACC title game), the rankings of the two teams will get closer and closer, to advertise a more even (and watchable) matchup. Just watch Clemson's ranking increase as the ACC championship game draws nearer. Watch the winner of the Big 12 North, after they've clinched. Their ranking will increase not just to reward them of good play, but to pimp the Big 12 championship game.
It's all about self-promotion - the AP poll is not designed to fairly RANK the teams. It's designed to increase revenue by getting people talking, arguing about ranking, and most importantly, watching games.
Report Abuse
Could you do an article plugging in the Cinci scenario to see if it would work? Both Cinci and UT run the table against their remaining schedule, with both of the human polls putting UT at 2 and Cinci at 3?
Report Abuse
"a) Possessing an identical overall record (7-2) and a better Pac-10 record (5-1 to 4-2) than the Trojans, and still controlling their own destiny in the conference"
Relying on the Pac-10 record is selective use of the data. USC's major non-conference wins were both on the road at Ohio State and at Notre Dame. Oregon's were at home against Utah and, uh, Purdue. Even given that the Irish look increasingly suspect, that's a huge difference.
"b) Having not lost to a team with only two other wins on the season, as USC did in its still-inexplicable flop at Washington"
According to Mr. Sagarin, Washington have played the hardest schedule in the country. Not that they're great, but going by W-L is misleading.
"c) Having utterly humiliated the Trojans as no other team has in more than a decade just last week"
The whole season matters, right? So what happened last week should be no more relevant that what happened in week 1, back when Oregon looked terrible and would likely have been crushed by USC, had they played then.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Why shouldn't LSU move up a spot for playing the second best team in the country and leading through three quarters? According to the previous rankings anyone but Florida and Texas should expect to lose if they played Alabama, especially on the road. Does that mean LSU must necessarily become a worse team by playing Alabama unless they pull of the upset?
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
They have lost to the only 2 teams they have played that have any sort of pulse, and have barely beat the likes of Miss. St and Georgia. Can someone please explain to me how that team deserves, not only the #9 ranking, but how they somehow DIDNT LOST ANY SPOTS after getting thumped by Alabama?
I F-ing HATE all this BS that the voters pull on a week to week basis. I really wish people would hold these writers more accountable for the @#%! they pull.
Report Abuse
You know what... I call shenanigans. There, I said it. SHENANIGANS! The BCS sucks and I think we need, no, DEMAND a playoff! I know the BCS is all about $$$, but this is a terrible system that honestly makes no sense sometimes.
Report Abuse
Also of note: The AP, Harris and Coaches put Ohio State above USC as well as Iowa. Iowa has only one loss to the Buckeyes' two, and losing to 6-4 Northwestern without your QB, top three tailbacks and a starter on the OL isn't nearly as humiliating as losing to 4-6 Purdue sans only Dan Herron.
Report Abuse
@5: Throw all that out. USC may finish 3rd in the Pac-10 and yet is sitting ahead of its champion who drubbed them and has the same record. It's blind polling. It really is.
Projections:
Alabama vs. Texas in the National Title Game
Ohio St vs. Oregon in the Rose Bowl
Florida vs. USC in the Sugar Bowl
Georgia Tech vs. Boise St in the Orange Bowl
TCU vs. Cincinnati in the Fiesta Bowl
Houston will be up there.....LSU takes a slot away.....and a whole lot of 2 loss teams.....that's why Boise gets in....cause of the 2 loss teams.
Report Abuse
-Teams getting way TOO MUCH LOVE on the Human Polls, compared to their computer ranking:
(with best win in parenthesis)
Ohio St (Penn St)
Pitt (Navy)
Houston ( Ok St)
Utah (Air Force)
Penn St (Temple)
Oklahoma St (Tex A&M/ UGA each is 5-4)
-The Human Polls don't really like the Pac 10. Each of the four teams in the top 25 is ranked considerably lower by the humans than the computers... in the case of Oregon St, TEN SPOTS LOWER
-The Top 7 are fairly consistent across the three components (the six undefeated then 1-loss Ga Tech).
After that, it gets murky, real murky.
The gap from 7th to 8th is .14- equivalent to about 4 ranking spots.
The gap from 8th to 13th is .08- equivalent to 2 ranking spots.
The pollsters and the computers can't figure out where to put these teams.
Report Abuse
Current BcS top 14 by conference:
3 SEC
2 Pac 10
2 ACC
2 Big East
1 Big 12
2 Big 10
2 non BCS
I posted the following on last week's "BCS Realpolitik" post on this blog (link is at the bottom)
***********
Ultimate CHAOS scenario:
SEC: 'Bama loses (to Auburn or LSU) or South Carolina beats Florida; one loss team wins SEC title game
Big 12: Texas loses
Big 10: Ohio St, Iowa and Penn St each lose once
Big East: Cinci and West Va lose once; Pitt loses twice
Pac 10: Oregon, Cal, USC win out; Stanford beats Notre Dame
ACC: Ga Tech cruises to Orange Bowl; Miami loses to South Fla
Boise wins out; Utah &, TCU finish 11-1; Houston goes 12-1
In the final BcS standings top 14:
3 SEC
3 Pac 10
1 ACC
1 Big East
1 Big 12
1 Big 10
4 non BCS
Only unbeaten is Boise St (Automatic Qualifier); the current rules would REQUIRE an "at-large' selection to be issued to TCU/Utah or Houston
DEATH TO THE BCS... we need a playoff
One can dream, right?
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/BCS-Realpolitik-Bring-on-the-great-Oregon-Boise?urn=ncaaf,199495
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Florida 44-38
Alabama 44-38
Texas 43-38
TCU 44-40
Cincinnati 36-44
Boise St 34-47
This is total crap. When there is this kind of difference when all three factions of the poll are placed side by side you are just asking for an investigation. All these teams are undefeated and that in it self is an acccomplishment.
I have seen one article that says the computers dont like Texas. Well why dont they like Texas. Didnt know they had the ability to like or dislike. The computers biggest flaw is that it can be manipulated without money being involved(for the computer anyway)..Lets add two teams at large to this mix, have a blind draw, and in 3 weeks we have a national champion. All but one of these teams could end up undefeated and now you have a major mess on your hands. BCS beware, you are screwing the pooch on this one
1 - 24 of 62