Crunching the Numbers:

This past August, when even Notre Dame, Alabama and Texas A&M were dreaming of BCS bowl itineraries, I stumbled upon a unique grading component which I believe gives us a pretty accurate analysis of the successfulness of the regular season, called the Quality Opponent Factor (QOF-Rating).  The only draw back is we have to wait until the end of the season, and by then, even before the final BCS bowl games commence, much of the nation has already turned their attention to the pre-season poll for 2008 and national signing day coming in February.

When calling the QOF-Rating elements into play, where we analyze how a given team has performed against the elite this past season (defining elite as those teams who have gone on to win at least 9 games in a given season), you can quickly begin to recognize the cream rising to the top, which often flies in the face of the much publicized AP and Coaches Poll or the conference superiority ratings which have been popularized over at Sports Illustrated (Bill Trocchii), CBS Sports (Clay Travis) or ESPN (Ivan Maisel and Pat Forde).

So without further ado, I give you the BCS Busters take on the national rankings and the elite oligarchy of college football.

2007 Final “Quality Opponent Rating” - TOP 25

1. *Note:  Record next to team name is against 9-win programs this past season.
   

Season Record:  12-2

1. ★

   Virginia Tech (11 - 3)

    

   48 - 7

   
   
2. ★

   Florida (9 - 4)

    

   28 - 24

   
   
3. ★

   Auburn (9 - 4)

    

   30 - 24

   
   
4. ★

   Tennessee (10 - 4)

    

   21 - 14

   
   
5. ★

   Ohio State (11-2)

    

   38 - 24

   
   

Lost to two (8-5) programs:  Arkansas (50-48) and Kentucky (43-37); 8 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation:  Record is 7-2.

Few people, including even the most competent college football analysts, would truly question the validity of placing LSU in the national title contest.  While I agree, on paper, the Tigers had one of the better seasons compared to many others, you cannot ignore the fact that they lost to two teams who didn’t crack the final Top-25, albeit, in overtime. 

Although I think the importance of their pre-season ranking, and their auspicious rise from number seven to number two in the final week of the regular season, as well as the importance of placing LSU Nation at home in the comfy confines of the financially distressed New Orleans community, looks grossly suspicious - I will grant you that LSU should have been one of the final participants in the BCS Championship game, given, not only the current parameters of the BCS criteria, but my final analysis within the QOF-Rating scale.

Even though I  don’t think the Tigers would have played their way into the BCS Championship game if they had to fight their way through Georgia, West Virginia and Oklahoma as I predicted within my BCSBusters Playoff Model, I will concede that they had the number one ranking in the country this year according to the QOF-Rating scale I have put together.

The only other team who counters their (5-0) QOF-Rating, as well as their 7-2 record against teams with winning records (Note: winning record equals above the .500 mark) is Oregon (5-1 QOF-Rating and 6-1 overall), who many people predicted would have played LSU in the title game if Dennis Dixon hadn’t gone down in Week #9.

Season Record:  11-2

1. ★

   Tennessee (10 - 4)

    

   14 - 35

   
   
2. ★

   Florida (9 - 4)   

    

   42 - 30

   
   
3. ★

   Auburn (9 - 4)

    

   45 - 20

   
   
4. ★

   Hawaii (12 - 1)

    

   41 - 10

   
   

Lost to (6-6) South Carolina (16-12) and (10-4) Tennessee (14-35); 25 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation:  Record is 8-1.

Although Georgia had the same QOF-Rating record (3-1) as West Virginia, BYU, USC, Boston College, Cincinnati and Texas, and yet - at the same time - had an inferior QOF-Rating record compared to  Oregon, you cannot ignore that Georgia had the best record (8-1) against teams with winning records above .500 than any team in America this past season.

I won’t argue that Georgia returns a wealth of talent next season as they will certainly be a team to contend for, not only the SEC conference crown, but possibly the mythical championship next season...but... if every game is supposedly so critical in determining the path to the championship, why are we placing Georgia at the head of the table next season, when Ohio State, Florida, USC, Missouri, Kansas, Cincinnati and West Virginia return the wealth of their star power as well?

If I am over-exaggerating the connection between the BCS and the former alliance called the College Football Association, especially in relation to the continual hype machine supporting the CFA communities of the Big-12 and SEC as the “trumped up” nations best, why is there such a rush to predict the Top-25 for next season, especially considering the 2007 BCS Championship game hadn’t even been played?

The BCS ship is largely steered before the ships (themselves) are even launched in the water, and since the national media cannot objectively evaluate the talent level on the field, because they are burdened with the task of satisfying the hungry mouths of corporate advertising and selling bogus newsprint, you can clearly see where these political smear campaigns, which target conference superiority, arise from... the almighty dollar!

The BCS is a race often determined by history and tradition (before a single game is played), which define and uphold the programs already in place, who largely formed and supported the College Football Association movement. 

If you question this hierarchy, which monopolizes the entire BCS platform, when talking to any knowledgeable and prudent SEC, Big-12 or ACC football fan, they will quickly tell you that you should stick to NFL Football, for you don’t understand anything about college football, which in their mind is defined by history and tradition itself.

This circular argument gives the schools of the CFA consortium a perpetual advantage because even if they lose on the playing field, how can you question the total resume, when it consists of many of the star-studded programs who developed their televised identity nearly 30 years ago.  The star-studded schools of the CFA will always have the advantage given this system and when you challenge this mindset, the fans of this region will simply tell you to either jump on board the tradition laced and bowl infested Yacht Club, or get the hell off and go to the NFL platform where nothing matters in their mind, especially the regular season.

In a decade full of ironies within the BCS era, I find it particularly ODD, that Georgia (a University in full cahoots with the College Football Association as former athletic director Vince Dooley and former CFA chief Chuck Neinas have worked together on many issues relative to money, power and prestige via trumped up assessments that only television can provide) is the next traditional power to be at the head of the line before a single game is played.

Why do I find that ODD?  Because I predicted three seasons ago to my fellow comrades, in both professional and college baseball who follow the sport with a passion equal to my own, that the natural progression would be Texas, Ohio State, LSU, Georgia and look for Virginia Tech to be at the head of the line in the coming seasons since the conference commissioner responsible for coordinating the BCS passes from Mike Slive and the SEC to John Swofford and the ACC.

In case you haven’t already noticed, the conference baton for commissioning the BCS has only been passed to the conferences who were behind the College Football Association movement.  

Gee, isn’t that ODD, given all the controversy of the BCS era and its interconnection to the primary issues that have raged for decades between the unionized alliances of the CFA (Big-12, ACC, SEC and Big-East) and the unionized alliances between Walter Byers and the NCAA (Big-10 and PAC-10)?

For those of you scoring at home, in 1984, during the same year that Chuck Neinas and Vince Dooley were tackling Walter Byers and the NCAA in the infamous Antitrust battle over television revenue, Swofford was named chairman of the NCAA Football Television Committee and was also a chairman of the NCAA Communications and NCAA Special Events/Post-Season Bowl Committees.

As you may already know, it was Swofford and Assistant ACC Conference Commissioner Tom Mickle, who formed the frame work for the Bowl Coalition platform back in 1992, which quickly evolved into the Bowl Alliance, Super Alliance, and now the BCS. 

The late Tom Mickle would later come to despise the BCS due to the gross unfairness which evolved via the unintended consequences of manipulation, slander and profiteering at the expense of the student-athlete, while Swofford continues to exploit, manipulate and profit from its very existence as this past year the ACC received a record 8 bowl bids, in spite of the fact that the conference went 2-6 during bowl season, and 13-14 against its equally greedy BCS brethren throughout the 07’ campaign.

The ACC was also (7-0) against Division I-AA opponents and (22-4) against the worst of the non-BCS conferences inflating their precious bowl and poll egos in the process.

The same group of administrative Godfathers have formed and controlled each platform (CFA and BCS), with some alarming regularities, for example, given below:

Conference Commissioners who Coordinated the BCS:

1998 - 1999:  SEC Conference (Roy Kramer)

2000 - 2001:  ACC Conference (John Swofford)

2002 - 2003:  Big East Conference (Mike Tranghese)

2004 - 2005:  Big-12 Conference (Kevin Wieberg)

2006 - 2007:  SEC Conference (Mike Slive)

2008 - 2009:  ACC Conference (John Swofford)

Do you think that it is an odd coincidence that the Big-10 and PAC-10 have never been granted an opportunity to coordinate the BCS given the 40 year feud between the two alliances?

Is it a far-fetched coincidence that Florida State edged (Big-East) Miami and (PAC-10) the northwest schools, Washington and Oregon State, for a spot in the national championship game in 2001, especially coming on the heels of the Florida State versus Virginia Tech final in 2000?  (Hint:  Look at which conference moderated the BCS in those years and which conference was next in line to moderate the BCS)

Is it a far-fetched coincidence that in 2002, Oregon and the PAC-10 was once again passed over for a Miami - Nebraska match-up, or that Miami and Ohio State played in the 2003 Championship?  Although the Big-10 and PAC-10 have always been on opposing sides of the CFA alliance, the Big-10 carries nearly 40% of the television market and some of the top advertising (automobile and iron products) partners around the country.

Is it a far-fetched coincidence that USC and the PAC-10 Conference, who have never seen eye-to-eye with the CFA agenda of grossly counter-balancing the commercial aspects of intercollegiate competition for their own benefit, had to win 31 out of 33 games with a controversial AP national championship in 2004 before even being granted an invitation to the BCS title game, especially considering that Washington was hosed in 2001, Oregon was hosed in 2002 and USC was considered to be the best team on the field in both 2003 and 2004, not to mention actually winning the BCS Championship in 2005?

The difference between USC and Oregon you ask?  Obviously history and tradition enters the fray, but USC supported many of the CFA issues during the critical civil war which brewed over the Georgia-Oklahoma Board of Regents Antitrust battle over television revenue between 1976 - 1984, plus the fact that they are large market program with a national following, while Oregon is a small market program, with a minimal presence or acceptance in the south.

Is it a far-fetched coincidence that the conference superiority ratings determined by the media have always mysteriously sided with the conference commissioner who is currently coordinating the BCS for the given seasons in question?

Especially considering it is a known fact that the primary role and objective for a conference commissioner is to place as many teams as possible into the higher paying bowl games, not to mention getting their teams into one of the two at-large BCS bowl venues?

The last four years have been a prime example of this as the Big-12 was touted as the absolute authority in college football from 2003 through 2005, while the SEC has suddenly taken over, incredibly, the very moment when Mike Slive began his term at the helm of the BCS ship.  But stay tuned, the ACC bandwagon will soon rev its over-rated engine!

Is there method to this madness via clever manipulation or is it a mere coincidence that ALWAYS seems to occur? 

In an article published on November 25, 1999 in the Kansas City Star, former Big-12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg verbalized that “daily personal contact with the bowl and television officials is the best way to sell conference teams into the big money bowl games.

Here is a snippet from the Knight Commission Report, 10 years later:

“With the money comes manipulation. Schools and conferences prostrate themselves to win and get on television. There is a rush now to approve cable and television requests for football and basketball games on weekday evenings, on Sundays, in the morning, and late at night. So much for classroom commitments. On the field, the essential rhythms of the games are sacrificed as play is routinely interrupted for television commercials, including those pushing the alcoholic beverages that contribute to the binge drinking that mars campus life.”

Furthermore:

“The winners are primarily those institutions that belong to the founding conferences in the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), namely, the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the Big East, the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Pacific-10, and the Southeastern Conference (SEC).”

“The BCS is a consortium originally designed and instituted in the early 1990s by conference commissioners to control Division I-A post-season football. The NCAA has no role in the BCS, and even presidents of BCS member institutions are marginalized: for negotiation of BCS television contracts, for example, only conference commissioners and representatives of the television network are at the table, with bowl representatives brought in for the revenue distribution discussions that follow.”

“A small group of conference commissioners controls distribution of all Division I-A post-season football revenues. Conference commissioners are rewarded for successfully generating post-season revenues and so have little incentive to consider other priorities. In allowing commercial interests to prevail over academic concerns and traditions, presidents have abdicated their responsibilities.”  -  here is the LINK for the entire Knight Report if you would like to dive deeper into this issue.

And low and behold, look at which conferences control the television and bowl revenue monopoly in college football - The same conferences and conference administrators who formed and framed the College Football Association movement - the same conferences who are constantly touted as the best in college football - the same people who support and profit from the most self-serving and controversial system in all of sports.

The University of Georgia is and always has been at the heart of this very issue and it was only a matter of time before they got their turn at the head of the line. 

Isn’t it ODD that President Adams has begun to howl at the unfairness of the BCS system, calling for the need of a playoff system, when Georgia arguably created this mess in the first place, albeit due to the unintended consequences resulting from the race for elite power and prestige, with the CFA /Board of Regents movement, which ultimately spawned the BCS?

Conference Bowl Pay-outs:  2007

Season Record:  11-2

1. ★

   South Florida (9 - 4)

    

   13 - 21

   
   
2. ★

   Cincinnati (10 - 3)   

    

   28 - 23

   
   
3. ★

   UConn (9 - 4)

    

   66 - 21

   
   
4. ★

   Oklahoma (11 - 3)

    

   48 - 28

   
   

Lost to (5 - 7) Pittsburgh (13-9) and (9-4) South Florida (21-13).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation:  Record is 6 - 1 .

In my pre-season report this year, I boldly predicted that USC and West Virginia would meet for the BCS National Championship in 2007.  LSU finished its season a mere 8 points from a perfect season.  USC finished its seasons 8 points away as well. Ohio State was 7 points, Oklahoma was 10 and West Virginia was 13 points from perfection.

Both USC and West Virginia played every team in their conference, tying for the conference crown, yet winning out-right via the head-to-head tie-breaker.  LSU and Oklahoma won their titles, yet both missed arguably two of the better teams, not only within their respective conferences, but the nation as well considering both Georgia and Kansas were missing from the schedule, and equally important and significant to the argument, Oregon and Cincinnati were ranked well ahead of the majority of the other members of the SEC and Big-12 Conferences within the BCSBusters QOF-Ratings scale.

Both LSU and Georgia benefit from not playing each other as did the triangulated relationship between Texas, Kansas and Missouri.  I find it ODD that Bill Trochii of Sports Illustrated, who ranked both the SEC and Big-12, one and two in respective order, in his season-ending conference breakdown report, failed to mention this to the rest of the nation.

Would you agree it is easy to identify who is onboard the BCS/CFA Yacht Club?

If the tables had been reversed and West Virginia had lost in week #11, while LSU had lost the SEC championship game to Tennessee in the final week (#12), do you think West Virginia would have earned the trip to the title game?  Do you think it would have been any different between Ohio State and West Virginia given the same criteria?

Both Oregon and West Virginia would not only have to be perfect, but commandingly perfect to get into the BCS title game, because as former SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer stated to the House Judiciary in 2003, when Nebraska overcame Oregon for the final championship slot to face Miami, “If you put them in the same conference as the PAC-10 or something like that they’re co-champions at worst. The fact that conference (Big-12) has a championship game, you’ve got to put it in perspective. If they were in the same identical situation in the PAC-10, Big Ten, ACC...they’d be at least co-champions.”

Of course Nebraska was beaten 62-36 by Colorado and Oregon ripped Colorado 38-16.  All things being equal, Kramer’s comments were grossly off-target then, but the same pattern of behavior continues to exert itself now.  Wieberg and the Big-12 were running the BCS then and the SEC was the next conference in charge on the horizon. 

Of course if you followed this blog all season, you would have already quickly recognized that I ranked both the Big-East and PAC-10 ahead of the Big-12 all season.  Look for an SEC/ACC BCS National championship coming soon to a home theatre near you.

Season Record:  9-4

1. ★

   Michigan (9 - 4)

    

   39 - 7

   
   
2. ★

   Fresno State (9 - 4)   

    

   52 - 21

   
   
3. ★

   USC (11 - 2)

    

   24 - 17

   
   
4. ★

   Arizona State (10 - 3)

    

   35 - 23

   
   
5. ★

   Oregon State (9 - 4)

    

   38 - 31

   
   
6. ★

   South Florida (9 - 4)

    

   56 - 21

   
   

Lost to (7-6) California (17-24), (5-7) Arizona (24-34), (6-7) UCLA (0-16), and (9-4) Oregon State (31-38).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation:  Record is  6 - 1.

If the AP Poll voters can “incredibly” rank (9-4) Michigan ahead of the (9-4) Ducks after Gang-Green beat the Wolverines and all their “royalty” by an overwhelming 32 points in September, I think it is only fair that we can rank the Ducks in the Top-5 based on their (5-1) record against the elite, in January.

It is true that Oregon went into a tailspin late in the year, but in spite of losing 4 games and finishing 38 points from a perfect season, they played 7 teams who finished above .500, winning 6 of those contests.

Not only that, but they played every team in their own conference, defeating both co-champions, and they played Fresno State (9-4), Houston (8-5) and Michigan (9-4) in their non-conference games, while LSU played Middle Tennessee State (5-7), Tulane (4-8)  and Louisiana Tech (5-7) and Georgia played Western Carolina (4-7) and Troy (8-4).

Yes, LSU did play Virginia Tech and Georgia did play both Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech.  However, Oregon blew out a Fresno team that beat the same Yellow-jacket team handily, and Troy blew out Oklahoma State, especially telling since Georgia struggled before pulling away late to beat Troy, Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech.  Not to mention the fact that I felt Virginia Tech (11-3), Georgia Tech (7-6) and Oklahoma State (7-6) were vastly over-rated throughout most of the season.

Was there an easy patsy victim on Oregon’s schedule in 2007?  I believe there were three on the LSU and Georgia schedules in 2007, which translates into staying healthy late in the season, while the Ducks fall apart, losing 13 of the original 22 starters by the end of the season, and finishing the season with their 5th string quarterback at the helm, who demolished a South Florida team who beat Auburn on the road. 

But then again, all we should really pay attention to when ranking the teams is history and tradition and the pretty records that go along with scheduling patsies at critical junctures of the season, and since we don’t know enough about college football we should just settle for the NFL. 

By the way, someone please tell me how the New York Giants season is cheapened when they went on the road and won a record 10 road games in a row this season, and beat Division leaders Dallas and Green Bay (in minus 23 degree weather by the way) to get to the Super Bowl, while LSU avoided division leaders USC, Oklahoma and West Virginia who are obviously superior to Ohio State and Virginia Tech this season, both on the field and when ranking resumes.

Maybe we should call the Manning family and inform them that Brett Farve and Green Bay are headed to Glendale in their place because their total resume ranking is superior and it cheapens the game to have the true and battle tested team (Giants) involved in the Super Bowl, when it should go to a team with a greater lineage in the game, like Dallas or Green Bay.

Season Record:  10-3

1. ★

   Oregon State 9 - 4)

    

   34 - 3

   
   
2. ★

   South Florida (9 - 4)   

    

   38 - 33

   
   
3. ★

   UConn (9 - 4)

    

   27 - 3

   
   
4. ★

   West Virginia (11 - 2)

    

   23 - 28

   
   

Lost to (6-6) Louisville (24-28), (5-7) PITT (17-24), and (11-2) West Virginia (23-28), a mere 16 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation:  Record is  5 - 1.

Do you think the boys from the CFA will ever recognize that both Oregon and Cincinnati should be ranked ahead of both Ohio State and Michigan, based on the results on the field, or will they simply ignore the results and continue to rank on the merits of history and tradition alone?  Someone please explain the rationale behind the “Coaches Poll” ranking Michigan ahead of both Cincinnati and Oregon.

Season Record:  11-3

1. ★

   Tulsa (10 - 4)

    

   62 - 21

   
   
2. ★

   Texas (10 - 3)   

    

   28 - 21

   
   
3. ★

   Missouri (12 - 2)

    

   41 - 31

   
   
4. ★

   Texas Tech (9 - 4)

    

   27 - 34

   
   
5. ★

   Missouri (12 - 2)

    

   38 - 17

   
   
6. ★

   West Virginia (11 - 2)

    

   28 - 48

   
   

Lost to (6 - 7) Colorado (24-27),  (9 - 4) Texas Tech (27-34),  and (11-2) West Virginia (28-48); Prior to their melt-down in Glendale, the Sooners were 10 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation:  Record is 6 - 2 .

It is hard to question the history and tradition of Oklahoma, not to mention the coaching of Bob Stoops and his heavy hitting defenses that truly define what aggressive defense should look like. 

But then again, someone tell that to Boise State and West Virginia, who have both shredded the Sooner “D” with over 1200 yards of total offense combined in the last two BCS Fiesta Bowls.

Defeating Missouri twice is the most impressive thing on the Sooner Resume in 2007.  Even Tulsa and Texas give Boomer credibility, but losing to a Texas Tech team who finished a mere three and three against teams with winning records on their resume and won four games over programs (Rice, SMU, UTEP and Iowa State) who went a combined 11-37 on the season, and earned an even cheaper win versus Division I-AA Northwestern State is totally unacceptable.

Why this loss to the Red Raiders fails to raise the same amount of eyebrows as the Trojan loss to the Cardinal is beyond me, but I’ve got more on this angle coming later in the show?

Equally suspicious is the fact that Texas Tech narrowly defeated a Virginia team (in a major and well paid New Years Day Bowl venue mind you) who was blown out by Wyoming (23-3) on opening weekend.

Why didn’t Craig James discuss the woeful loss to the Cowboys like he did in 2004 amid the CAL-Texas BCS debate when he rebuked the PAC-10 when UCLA narrowly lost to Wyoming on a last second field goal as time expired?   Why didn’t he mention that the PAC-10 was a blocked field goal away from going 5-1 during this years bowl campaign? 

Because the CFA/BCS alliances will only grant PAC-10 powers USC and UCLA any credit when they face the absolute reality of obvious hypocrisy and bias as well as mounting public criticism within their own BCS largess (kind of like USC winning 31 of 33 games before being granted access the the BCS Championship), and they will shred the integrity of the conference when given even the slightest opportunity.

Picking between Oklahoma and USC for the sixth and seven slots is like picking birds of a feather.  Nice birds with plenty of meat, tradition and medals on their wings, but (6-2) against programs with winning records trumps (4-1) in my book, although when you begin to realize how Oklahoma State and Texas Tech achieve their pretty records, it brings you back to square one. 

Even though I ranked Oklahoma ahead of USC, I would still pick the Trojans to win on the field in the head to head match-up, but is that due to clear and present superiority or my own personal bias and allegiance to the PAC-10?

Season Record:  11-2

1. ★

   Oregon (9 - 4)

    

   17 - 24

   
   
2. ★

   Oregon State (9 - 4)   

    

   24 - 3

   
   
3. ★

   Arizona State (10 - 3)

    

   44 - 24

   
   
4. ★

   Illinois (9 - 4)

    

   49 - 17

   
   

Lost to (4-8) Stanford (23 - 24) and (9-4) Oregon (17 - 24).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation:  Record is 4 - 1 .

I don’t think there is any team in American who had a more disappointing season and did less with more than the Trojans did in 2007.  Yet, how many of us would vote against USC actually winning on the field at the end of the 07 campaign?  Vegas surely wouldn’t! 

More importantly, although many of us feel that USC did less with more, how many other teams could have survived the rash of injuries that befell the Trojans, and yet, still produced a season where they were 8 points from perfection? 

Oregon certainly couldn’t!

I know James Carrville wouldn’t pick the Trojans over Georgia, but I’ve got my own theory, backed by plenty of facts that would lift the scales of balance in, not only the Trojans favor, but the PAC-10 Conference as well.

It is a well known secret that schools who dominate the high paying bowl venues schedule easy prey.  Bill Trocchi of Sports Illustrated, ran an article at the end of the regular season with a scathing evaluation of the PAC-10.  Here was his assessment:

I have warned my inbox to prepare for a mountain of West Coast emails. Facts are facts, however. The Pac-10 has the fewest Top 25 teams at season's end (demonstrating a lack of power teams) and the fewest percentage of bowl teams (demonstrating an abundance of sub-.500 teams).

The Pac-10 also has the worst non-conference winning percentage. Cal's landmark win over Tennessee seems like decades ago (Kind of like Last years Tennessee win in BCS Busters Mind - Do you see an irony here). Oregon and Cal had late-season collapses and Arizona State, the league's No. 2 team, beat one team with a winning record all season. It appeared the rest of the league had caught up to USC, but now that the season has played out, it is clear it is still "the Trojans and Everyone Else" ... and Everyone Else isn't very good.

I’m not sure where Bill spends his time during the day at SI’ headquarters, but it certainly isn’t devoted to evaluating college football.  He omitted a ton of eye-popping and reality based facts. 

Both the Big-12 and the SEC (the two conferences in total cahoots with Chuck Neinas’s CFA empire) played 18 games against Division I-AA foes (8 by the Big-12 and 10 by the SEC; they went 17-1 in those contests combined).  The PAC-10 played 2 all season (Oregon State vs Idaho State and Arizona vs N. Arizona) and, of course, went 2-0 in those contests.

But it doesn’t end here!  The picture will become crystal clear in a moment.

There were four non-BCS Conferences this year that were scathingly bad, and the Big-12 and SEC not only couldn’t get enough of their own Division I-AA fodder, but they feasted on the WAC, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt Conferences as well.

Here are the numbers against the BCS Conferences for the worst of the non-BCS Conferences last season: