Last summer, with a new college football season on the horizon as we headed into late July, the very week before fall camp opened, I wrote an article summing up the two most over-rated programs inside the BCS era.

Michigan certainly qualified, as Wolverine Nation quickly tired of a Lloyd Carr era fittingly described as the under-achieving all-stars.  Tennessee was the other team that earned the dubious and dreaded under-achieving tab, and if the restlessness and ill contempt on display inside Vol Nation is any indicator, I was certainly justified with my opinion.

EDSBS has repeatedly placed coach Phillip Fulmer’s under-achieving all stars in the Top-10 for their criminal disposition and dishonorable sensibilities, and combined with their offensive history of ineptitude without Offensive Coordinator David Cutcliff (the new coach at Duke) at the helm of the ship, things could get a bit dicey this season.  Coach Fulmer had better win the SEC outright, or at least drop another couple million on a campus library project if he expects to stay in the good graces of Vol Nation.

Despite what every pundit around the country says regarding the SEC (it is the juggernaut of all juggernauts of a conference), the numbers DO NOT back up the hype surrounding this conference.  But then again, the administrative heads who were connected to the College Football Association figured out long ago that logical indicators like statistical analysis can be over-looked and performance tress-passes can be forgiven in the eyes of the media, which influences the national pollsters.

Tennessee is 93-34 inside the BCS era, specifically within Fulmers watch, but what stands out in my mind is that Tennessee is always given the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of the pollsters and the national media, especially considering their record against programs who have accomplished elite status (9 wins or more in a given season) has been a complete failure given Tennessee’s lofty projections year in and year out.

Their Quality Opponent Factor Rating is 18-23, five games below .500 and when considering all the teams they have competed against who have gone on to win at least seven games or more, they are 10 games over .500 (42-32).

Not exactly elite is it?  Yet when you talk to even the most competent football fans around the country, they will quickly tell you that Tennessee is certainly elite, especially given the fact that they have won over 10 games a season, five times during the BCS decade, have won at least 9 games twice, have had two 8 win seasons as well, with only have one losing season (5-6 in 2005) out of the last ten on the docket.

So I must be out of my mind when tagging Volunteer Nation as over-rated, right?  Not so fast my friends!  The Volunteer’s are 51-2 when playing the Tier-4 programs who have gone on to record losing seasons, with most of the carnage coming from C-USA and the Sun-Belt.  If you take that sterling 51-2 record out of the overall record of 93-34, the football Goliath from the Smokey Mountains becomes mortal in a hurry (42-34), a mere 8 games above the marginal .500 mark.

In Tennessee’s defense, I recognize that they are the only school in the SEC who has not jumped on the Division I-AA scheduling bandwagon in the last 10 years as they have not scheduled a single program from this division during the BCS era.  But their BCS record against opponents outside of the mighty (over-rated as well) SEC Conference is a mere 11-9, which doesn’t exactly project the superiority that SEC headquarters, who works together with the national media, tries to cultivate.

Throw in the fact that they are a combined 25-23 against the Top-6 teams in the SEC during the same BCS era (1998 - 2008), along with the fact that they only have two seasons out of ten where their record against the elite and winning programs has been respectable, and you get a completely different portrait describing a program that is sliding quickly out of the elite and into mediocrity.

2001

11-2 Overall Record.

4-1 QOF-Factor Rating.

7-2 versus teams with winning records.

4-0 versus teams with losing records.

1998 (BCS National Championship Season)

13-0 Overall Record.

4-0 QOF-Factor Rating.

8-0 versus teams with winning records.

5-0 versus teams with losing records.

Still not convinced that not only Tennessee but the entire SEC benefits from the system a little more than they should?  Consider that Tennessee does not have a winning record (13-18) against any of the Top-4 programs inside the BCS era within the SEC (Georgia, Florida, LSU and Auburn), and only when including mediocre programs like Arkansas and Alabama does it rise above the .500 mark.  There are essentially two programs in the ENTIRE SEC that are elite...Florida and LSU given the records and accomplishments throughout the BCS era, as most of the hype surrounding this conference derives from the rich history and tradition these programs obtained back inside the early days of the CFA era.

Tennessee versus the SEC during the BCS era:

1. 1. 

   

     5 - 5
   
2. 2. 

   

     4 - 6
   
3. 3. 

   

     2 - 4
   
4. 4. 

   

     2 - 3
   
5. 5. 

   

     5 - 2
   
6. 6. 

   

     7 - 3
   
7. 7. 

   

     2 - 0
   
8. 8. 

   

     9 - 1
   
9. 9. 

   

     4 - 0
   

The SEC Conference doesn’t limit their marketing prowess with the networks specifically to the sport of football as well.  On numerous occasions, found both in the blogsphere and in the mainstream media, you will quickly hear in voice or witness in print the mantra “The Best Conference in the Country,” when describing the SEC Baseball teams.

As a former All-PAC-10 baseball player at Oregon State University, and one who also coaches at Willamette University (Division III) in Salem (Ore), I have many close friends, colleagues and associates in Division I sports on the west coast who would sing a similar tune.  The SEC is all about the self-fulfilling hype as they will earn as many as nine regional baseball bids per season, and yet where are these teams when Omaha rolls around?  Within the era of the BCS, the SEC (other than LSU’s four year run) has been a no show in the finals of the College World Series, but when the SEC tournament rolls around in Hoover (Ala) this spring, you can bet you will see this hyperbole statement in bright bold print, either inside the dugout or on the outfield walls:  “The SEC - The Greatest Conference in the Land.” 

As you will soon see, the greatest conference in the land, who will likely get at least 9 regional baseball bids this spring, will get the bulk of their victories outside of the conference against the likes of Wright State, Siena, Duquesne, Troy, Davidson, East Tennessee State or Furman, while the teams along the west coast will cannibalize each other (San Diego, San Diego State, Fresno State, Cal-Poly, Santa Clara, Loyola Marymount, UC-Irvine, Cal-Fullerton, Santa Barbara, Long Beach State and the entire PAC-10 Conference), just like during the PAC-10 football campaign.

Thus far this season, here are the results between the SEC programs and the Top programs on the west coast in terms of strength of schedule and results:

SEC Conference  vs West Coast Baseball Comparison:

Tennessee:  (7-4)

Morehead State (2-1)

Furman (1-0)

Texas (1-0)

Texas Tech (0-1)

Oklahoma (0-1)

James Madison (0-1)

Eastern Michigan (3-0)

Oregon State:  (6-5)

Vanderbilt (0-1)

Miami (OH) (1-0)

ASU (0-1)

Georgia (2-1)

Portland (1-0)

Loyola-Marymount (0-1)

San Diego (0-1)

Santa Clara (1-0)

SDSU (1-0)

Alabama: (7-4)

Cal-Poly (1-2)

Tex-Arlington (0-2)

Nevada (1-0)

Dallas Baptist (1-0)

Troy (1-1)

Youngstown State (3-0)

Stanford:  (9-4)

Nebraska (2-1)

St. Mary’s (0-1)

Nevada (1-0)

Cal-State-Fullerton (3-0)

CAL (0-1)

Texas (2-1)

Auburn: (10-4)

East Tennessee State (4-0)

Florida State (0-4)

Davidson (2-0)

VMI (4-0)

USC:  (9-4)

Florida-Int (3-0)

SDSU (0-1)

UC-Irvine (0-1)

Bethune Cookman (1-0)

Southern (1-0)

UCLA (0-1)

Pepperdine (1-1)

Winthrop (3-0)

Arkansas:  (11-1)

Wright State (3-0)

Kansas (1-0)

LA-Tech (1-0)

Texas A&M (0-1)

Ohio State (1-0)

South Dakota State (2-0)

Siena (3-0)

Washington State:  (10-2)

Creighton (2-1)

UNLV (2-0)

Wright State (3-0)

Kent State (3-1)

Kentucky:  (13-0)

Xavier (1-0)

Fairfield (1-0)

South Alabama (1-0)

Oakland (2-0)

Butler (4-0)

Evansville (1-0)

Purdue (3-0)

California: (9-1-1)

K-State (1-0)

Utah Valley St (1-0-1)

Fresno State (1-0)

Missouri (0-1)

SDSU (1-0)

San Diego (1-0)

Stanford (1-0)

Northern Iowa (1-0)

Minnesota (1-0)

New Mexico (1-0)

UCLA:  (7-4)

Oklahoma (1-1)

UC Santa Barbara (1-0)

Southern (1-0)

Bethune Cookman (1-0)

USC (1-0)

Cal-State-Fullerton (0-2)

St. Mary’s (2-1)

LSU:  (11-2)

Indiana (2-1)

Southern (1-0)

Miss Valley St (1-0)

Duquesne (3-0)

Michigan State (2-0)

Stetson (2-1)

ASU: (12-0)

Miami (OH) (1-0)

Vanderbilt (1-0)

Oregon State (1-0)

Michigan (2-0)

Hawaii (1-0)

Portland (1-0)

New Mexico (2-0)

UMASS (3-0)

Mississippi:  (10-3)

Minnesota (3-0)

Northwestern State (2-0)

Indiana State (3-0)

Southern Miss (1-0)

Arkansas State (0-1)

TCU (1-2)

San Diego State:  (7-7)

San Diego (3-1)

USC (1-0)

Cal-Poly (1-0)

Missouri (0-1)

CAL (0-1)

Fresno State (0-1)

UC-Riverside (1-0)

Santa Clara (0-1)

Loyola-Marymount (0-1)

Oklahoma State (1-0)

Oregon State (0-1)

Mississippi State:  (5-7)

North Florida (1-2)

UAB (1-0)

Air Force (2-1)

Ark-Little Rock (1-1)

Baylor (0-3)

Long Beach State:  (9-2)

Rice (2-1)

San Diego (0-1)

Wichita State (3-0)

Loyola-Marymount (1-0)

Hawai’i (3-0)

Vanderbilt:  (8-3)

Oregon State (1-0)

ASU (0-1)

Miami (OH) (1-0)

Evansville (1-0)

Kansas (1-0)

Iowa (0-1)

Xavier (1-0)

Louisville (1-0)

Illinois-Chicago (2-1)

Georgia:  (5-6)

Arizona (1-2)

Oregon State (1-2)

Jacksonville State (1-0)

Memphis (2-1)

Washington:  (5-6)

UC-Riverside (2-2)

Lewis & Clark State (0-1)

Pacific (2-1)

Cal-Poly (1-2)

Florida:  (10-3)

Siena (3-0)

Eastern Michigan (2-0)

Miami (Fla) (1-2)

Campbell (2-0)

Brown (2-1)

Cal-State-Fullerton: (8-4)

TCU (2-1)

Loyola-Marymount (1-0)

Stanford (0-3)

UCLA (2-0)

Southern Miss (3-0)

South Carolina:  (9-2)

East Carolina (2-1)

UNC-Asheville (1-0)

Clemson (2-0)

UNC-Charlotte (0-1)

Dequesne (3-0)

Presbyterian (1-0)

Arizona:  (10-1)

Georgia (2-1)

Sac-State (3-0)

UNLV (2-0)

South Alabama (1-0)

Tex A&M Corpus-Christi (1-0)

Notre Dame (1-0)

Looks like the SEC Baseball circuit picks right up where the SEC Football gravy train scheduling leaves off.  But of course, the SEC will still get its 10 regional bids while Fresno State, UC-Irvine, Cal-Poly, Loyola-Marymount and Santa Clara will hit the road, still likely to wind up in a super-regional or even Omaha with as much regularity as the highly over-rated boys from the SEC.

SEC versus BCS Teams in Baseball:

21-20.

PAC-10 Teams versus BCS Teams in Baseball:

15-7.

Non-BCS West Coast Teams versus BCS Teams:

4-6.

LSU Tigers:

When Oregon State University Kicking specialist Alex Serna missed the third of three extra points in 2004, leading to LSU’s 22-21 victory over the Beavers, I had mixed emotions.  For starters, only the Beavers, with their overall history of ineptitude, could pull off missing three extra points in losing to one of the all-time elite juggernauts.  Secondly, what began as a hunch at the start of 2004 would later begin to shape the reality of the cold-hearted fact that maybe certain teams hold unfair advantages over others in terms of the national rankings. 

When Texas overcame California later that same season, which ignited much of the BCS fire we are witnessing today, many of my hunches regarding the BCS began to come to fruition.  LSU has certainly been outstanding since the year 2000, unless of course you consider an overall record of 74-18 a bit on the average side.  I certainly do not, especially considering that the Tigers are 11-4 against their BCS Conference Opponents and have participated within the SEC Championship game four times since 2000 and have won six bowl games in the same time span.

Within the BCS era, the Tigers are the only team to win two BCS national championships and although SEC country likes to utilize this wild card when supporting their own self-fulfilling enterprises, the dubious honor does come with heavy baggage.  Weighing down the front-running mind set is the fact that they haven’t truly played the best teams on the way to the title.

When Oklahoma lined up against the Tigers in the 2004 BCS National Championship Sugar Bowl, they did so coming off of a 35-7 thumping by the Kansas State Wildcats.  The fact that the Sooners lost by 28 points to a three loss K-State team, puts a serious dent in the theory that this was the true national championship event, especially since it came on the heels of the 2003 national championship contest where Nebraska gained the favoritism extended via the BCS after losing their final regular season game to rival Colorado, 62-36. 

To compound the equation, USC was in the midst of winning 31 of 32 games and was arguably the best team in the country during this time period, much to the chagrin of SEC and Tiger Nation.

The Huskers not only didn’t earn the trip to the Big-12 Championship game that season, but they also didn’t even win the Big-12 North, yet found their way to Pasadena to play the mighty Hurricanes.  So I guess you may understand why I take exception to ESPN claiming that “by sheer accident, nothing more, Ohio State and LSU will play for the national championship.”  That was no accident, as I predicted in early November last year that it would be either Oklahoma, Ohio State or LSU competing against each other in the final.

In yet another ESPN article on the subject, Ivan Maisel chimed in with this: 

Ohio State joins Florida State (1998-2000) and Oklahoma (2000, 2003-04) as the only three-time participants in the BCS Championship Game. The Buckeyes lost last season, 41-14, to Florida.

That loss has been an anchor around Ohio State's neck for 11 months, but it didn't prevent the team from being ranked high in the preseason polls. Slive said the goal of the BCS standings is to judge teams only on their play in the current season. However, he added, the primacy of preseason rankings is "a concern that we have not been able to resolve. … They are not a result of this year."

The only problem with this theory is that Pittsburgh, Stanford and Arkansas, the three teams who beat West Virginia, USC and LSU respectively, were (and still are) teams of similar ilk.  The media based exception here, of course, is Arkansas, due to their unbridled connection to the elite end of the CFA stratosphere, which has now evolved into the BCS, of which, the SEC was (and still is) a front row participant.

I have made this Arkansas, Stanford and Pittsburgh analysis many times already, but of course, SEC nation scoffs at the absurdity of placing Arkansas in the same sentence with Stanford and Pittsburgh. 

However, when analyzing the big picture, facts do not often distort the picture.  I find in many circumstances that they crystalize the picture in HD quality.  In a prior article, I stated that if you take Troy, North Texas, Tennessee-Chattanooga, Mississippi and Florida-International out of the equation, what is the difference between Arkansas, Stanford and Pittsburgh this past season? 

The answer?  Not a lot!

All three have almost identical QOF-Rating stats (which measure how a team has performed in a given season against other programs who have won 9 or more games that season).  Stanford and Arkansas have almost identical records against teams with winning records (7 + wins), while Pittsburgh was slightly less favorable, which demonstrates they played significantly tougher opponents in their non-conference slate (Navy, Virginia and UConn, compared to Tennessee-Chattanooga, North Texas or Florida-International, of which, is the major difference in the record at the end of the season).

Perhaps the most telling tale of the tape when analyzing the three teams came within the first six games of the season.  Arkansas played Troy, North Texas and Tennessee-Chattanooga in the non-conference, while playing SEC foes Alabama, Kentucky and Auburn as well.

All three SEC foes are teams of name brand significance, but  had less than stellar seasons.  Alabama looked promising in their victory over Tennessee, but were later beaten by Louisiana-Monroe.  Kentucky looked like a national title contender in their victory over LSU, but later lost to Florida, Mississippi State, Georgia and Tennessee, not to mention the fact that they barely beat Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Louisville and Florida State. 

Arkansas on the other hand, lost to all three teams (Alabama, Kentucky and Auburn) and were beaten handily by Missouri at the end of the season.  Auburn, who had the SEC’s best defense in 2007, couldn’t overcome the predictability of their offense as they fired Offensive Coordinator Al Borges at the end of the season as a resut, and Arkansas sent their head coach (Houston Nutt) packing by new years end as well.  Now if all of this twisted shrapnel, which occurred inside of one single SEC season lends itself to superiority status, then I’m a statistical magician when it comes to pen and ink analysis.

Stanford, over on the left coast, started their season by playing UCLA, SJSU, Oregon, Arizona State, USC and TCU.  Five of the six teams were bowl participants at the end of the season and three of the six (Oregon, USC and ASU) were ranked within the top-six through week number ten of the 07’ campaign.

Pittsburgh, over on the right coast, started their season by playing E. Michigan, Grambling State, Michigan State, UConn, Virginia and Navy.  Once again, four of the six were bowl teams by the end of the season.  The difference between Arkansas, Stanford and Pittsburgh is the fact that Arkansas played 5 significantly weak opponents, while Stanford played two and Pittsburgh played three.

Quality Opponent Factor Ratings:  QOF-Rating

Versus  Winning Programs (7+ Wins):

Versus Losing Programs (.500 or less):

Overall Record:

When Commissioner Slive remarks that the “Primacy of the preseason rankings is a concern that we have not been able to resolve,” you might as well write WILL NOT RESOLVE.  THEY LIKE THE SYSTEM JUST THE WAY IT IS FOR IT PROVIDES THE SEC WITH AN ANNUAL ADVANTAGE BEFORE A SINGLE GAME IS PLAYED, AND THIS ADVANTAGE CONTINUES THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE SEASON BECAUSE THE CONFERENCE IS CONSTANTLY HYPED AS COLLEGE FOOTBALL’S BEST.

Actually, Mike, it is very easy to solve this quagmire. Eliminate the polls all together and come up with a method to face off on the field for the national championship, such as the one I have put together here! But then again, the SEC would never go for this because they would actually have to play someone of significance other than themselves.

One other thought Mike.  If the goal of the BCS Standings is to judge teams only on their play in the current season, (ONE) why do we even have pre-season polls in the first place, because although they are not a part of the BCS equation, they certainly influence pollsters who DO NOT WATCH AND EVALUATE ALL OF THE GAMES ANYWAY, and (TWO) how does LSU climb from 7th to 2nd in the final season poll without even a hint of controversy, especially considering the SNAFU that Oklahoma and Nebraska brought to the BCS equation in 2003 and 2004?

Considering LSU’s record against the top-six teams within the SEC during the BCS era (28-24) against the fact that they haven’t exactly played the top tier programs throughout the country within the BCS bowl largess, unless you consider a Notre Dame program that hasn’t won a bowl game in over a decade, or a Miami program who is on a downward spiral since the 2002 BCS Rose Bowl game to be among the best teams in the country, as well as the fact that Oklahoma, with largely the same team that competed against LSU was completely shellacked by the USC Trojans in the BCS Orange Bowl National Championship a year later, that “only program to win two BCS National Championships mystique” comes with quite the stigma now doesn’t it!

The BCS, as always, still fails to get it right, but it does consistently match-up the programs who supported the College Football Association movement against a mountain of evidence which destroys that air of superiority smell that shrouds college football with each passing season. 

Is the true mission of the BCS to define a national champion, or is it simply to match-up the elite in the most prominent New Year Bowl venues?

Commissioner Slive might as well tell us that the true mission of the BCS is to align the programs, who have been branded elite by the television medium, in the premier bowl venues, in an effort to drive up corporate advertising, and the reason he will not move to fix the pre-season poll factor is the fact that these traditionally branded elite teams are always at the head of the line.  What do these traditionally branded elite programs have in common?  They all supported the CFA, of which, the SEC along with Notre Dame, spearheaded the movement.

Significant to the argument is the fact that LSU is (once again a common theme inside the SEC) below .500 when comparing their QOF-Rating results throughout the BCS era (21-22) and a meager 9 games over .500 when comparing their results against 7 (plus) win programs per season.  But (once again), what the SEC truly hangs their hat of superiority on is the fact that LSU is 47-4 against the bottom dwellers of college football, mainly tier-four programs from the Sun-Belt, C-USA or the MAC.

LSU record versus the SEC during the BCS era.

1. 1. 

   

     2 - 4
   
2. 2. 

   

     4 - 6
   
3. 3. 

   

     4 - 2
   
4. 4. 

   

     5 - 5
   
5. 5. 

   

     6 - 4
   
6. 6. 

   

     7 - 3
   
7. 7. 

   

     7 - 3
   
8. 8. 

   

     3 - 0
   
9. 9. 

   

     9 - 1
   

LSU only has three seasons out of ten where they have performed exemplary against the elite!  2007 (5-0), 2005 (4-1) and 2003 (5-0).