Sizing Up the SEC: Part III

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:21:52 -0800

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.

Record QOF vs Winner vs Loser
(2007) 10-4 2-2 6-4 4-0 (0)
(2006) 9-4 2-4 4-4 5-0 (0)
(2005) 5-6 1-4 2-5 3-1 (0)
(2004) 10-3 1-2 4-2 6-1 (0)
(2003) 10-3 2-2 4-3 6-0 (0)
(2002) 8-5 1-4 2-5 6-0 (0)
(2001) 11-2 4-1 7-2 4-0 (0)
(2000) 8-4 0-2 2-4 6-0 (0)
(1999) 9-3 1-2 3-3 6-0 (0)
(1998) 13-0 4-0 8-0 5-0 (0)

TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS
93-34 18-23 42-32 51-2

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:

5 - 5
4 - 6
2 - 4
2 - 3
5 - 2
7 - 3
2 - 0
9 - 1
4 - 0
10. 10 - 1
11. 9 - 1

SEC Totals vs Top 6 vs Bottom 5
59 - 26 25 - 23 34 - 3

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
Arkansas: 1-3
Stanford: 1-3
Pittsburgh: 2-3

Versus Winning Programs (7+ Wins):
Arkansas: 3-5
Stanford: 2-4
Pittsburgh: 2-6

Versus Losing Programs (.500 or less):
Arkansas: 5-0
Stanford: 2-4
Pittsburgh: 3-1

Overall Record:
Arkansas: 8-5
Stanford: 4-8
Pittsburgh: 5-7

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.

2 - 4
4 - 6
4 - 2
5 - 5
6 - 4
7 - 3
7 - 3
3 - 0
9 - 1
10. 5 - 3
11. 2 - 0

SEC Totals vs Top 6 vs Bottom 5
54 - 31 28 - 24 26 - 7

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).

Record QOF vs Winner vs Loser
(2007) 12-2 5-0 7-2 5-0 (0)
(2006) 11-2 3-2 4-2 7-0 (0)
(2005) 11-2 4-1 5-1 6-1 (1)
(2004) 9-3 0-3 3-3 6-0 (0)
(2003) 13-1 5-0 6-1 7-0 (1)
(2002) 8-5 0-5 6-1 7-0 (1)
(2001) 10-3 2-2 6-3 4-0 (1)
(2000) 8-4 1-2 4-3 4-1 (1)
(1999) 3-8 0-3 1-6 2-2 (0)
(1998) 4-7 1-4 2-7 2-0 (0)

TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS
89 - 37 21 - 22 42 - 33 47 - 4

In the final analysis, the fact that LSU fans continue to discredit a USC program, who in their mind competes in the Pathetic-10 or a West Virginia program who competes in the Big-Easy, while boasting of their own BCS accomplishments, the fact remains that the three best teams over the course of the last four seasons have yet to meet each other on the field. The fact that LSU had an open date (they recently added Appalachian State) and could have easily scheduled West Virginia or USC this coming season (or in any of the past 5 seasons) speaks volumes to the dismay of college football in general and the BCS in particular, and is once again a glaring example of the BCS largess that the SEC holds over all of the other conferences.

Still disagree with this assessment?

Consider the following. USC not only has a superior overall record as compared to LSU since the year 2002 (70 - 8 versus 64-15), but a better bowl record (5-1 versus 4-2). USC not only has a superior QOF-Rating (22-5 versus 17-11), but has beaten more BCS non-conference opponents (19) than LSU has played (12), and even more significant to the argument, has beaten more winning programs with 7 plus wins a seasons (37) than LSU has even played as well (36).

Of the 12 BCS teams that LSU has played since 2002, 8 had elite 9 (plus) win seasons. Of the 21 BCS teams that USC has played since 2002, 15 had elite 9 (plus) win seasons. Once again, USC has beaten more elite BCS opponents than LSU has even played (12). Based on these numbers alone, how can anyone discredit USC and the fact that they have essentially been barred on many occasions from competing for the national championship when the numbers scream of the injustice. Both USC and LSU were 8 points from a perfect season, why the discrepancy in the polls?

Team Comparison
Top Teams in the BCS Since 2002
LSU USC WVU

12-2 (07) 11-2 (07) 11-2 (07)
11-2 (06) 11-2 (06) 11-2 (06)
11-2 (05) 12-1 (05) 11-1 (05)
9-3 (04) 13-0 (04) 8-4 (04)
13-1 (03) 12-1 (03) 8-5 (03)
8-5 (02) 11-2 (02) 9-4 (02)

Overall Record
64 - 15 Overall Record
70 - 8 Overall Record
58 - 18
QOF Rating
17 - 11 QOF Rating
22 - 5 QOF Rating
11 - 12
vs Winning Team
23 - 13 vs Winning Team
37 - 7 vs Winning Team
21 - 16
vs Losing Team
35 - 0 vs Losing Team
33 - 1 vs Losing Team
37 - 2

vs BCS Teams
9 - 3 vs BCS Teams
19 - 2 vs BCS Teams
9 - 9
Bowl Record
4 - 2 Bowl Record
5 - 1 Bowl Record
3 - 3

When LSU fans jumped for joy early in the fourth quarter in their game with Florida this past season, it was as if they knew that USC would not be upon the schedule along their pre-destined journey to the trumped up BCS promise land.

The significance of this you ask?

LSU would not only miss the Trojans, but Georgia, West Virginia and even Oklahoma, arguably the Top-four teams at the end of the 07 regular season campaign. Not because any of these teams are inferior to the Tigers mind you, but because the SEC and the television industry can make their own rules and constantly move the line in favor of their own agenda.

Not surprisingly, LSU did have the best record against opponents with losing records compared to both USC and West Virginia, which defines the true wisdom of the SEC.

Let’’s trump up the strength of our own conference, avoid other prominent programs of significance and schedule the bottom feeders of the MAC, C-USA and the Sun-Belt so by seasons end, people cannot comprehend that a program like Arkansas is really akin to Stanford and Pittsburgh. I think Missouri proved that in the 2007 Cotton Bowl. West Virginia gave up 13 points to Pittsburgh and USC gave up 24 to Stanford. Both teams lost due to significant hand injuries to their starting quarterbacks, while LSU, with a healthy starting quarterback, gave up 50 to the Razorbacks.

Where is the strength or superiority in that?

The fact that LSU lost to, both Arkansas and Kentucky, does not show the strength of the SEC, but rather its fallacy. Not to fear SEC fans, the Georgia Bulldogs are next on the 2008 BCS horizon.

*** Next up in the series is Arkansas and Mississippi.

Sizing Up The SEC: Part II

Fri, 8 Feb 2008 21:29:53 -0800

This article is sure to draw the ire of certain Georgia blogs, of which I visit often and have great admiration and respect for, but as I often do in life, I will speak my mind when the occasion calls for it.

Kyle King over at Dawg Sports has taken a certain mainstream writer to task on several occasions, as well as calling out any person who calls in question the legitimacy of the Georgia Bulldogs as a, “so called,” National Power.

While I agree that Georgia is certainly a national power, I equate their national power rating due to circumstances that have occurred outside the boundaries of the field, more than the results that have occurred upon it. I will do my best to explain this rationale without offending Dawg Nation, for Head Coach Mark Richt is one of my favorite coaches that I enjoy watching, and I have tried to emulate his demeanor as much as possible when performing my own coaching duty assignments.

So without further ado, here are the main reasons why I think people across the country, specifically those outside the Southeast corridor, think of Florida, LSU and Tennessee (and even Auburn) as THE POWER schools inside the mighty SEC Conference, and why the average fan outside the SEC might overlook a very deserving Bulldog program.

The Georgia Bulldogs

If you google the Georgia Bulldogs football history, one of the first links that will jump to your attention is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

According to Wikipedia, Georgia has an all-time record of 713-381-34, for an all-time winning percentage of (.647). If you look at the grey side bar to the right of this very article, you will also notice that Georgia has a 97-30 record, which is tops in the SEC, throughout the BCS era.

So why is it when people around the country (outside of the SEC) think of the juggernaut of all conferences, they immediately think of Florida, LSU or Tennessee, and not necessarily (much to the chagrin of Dawg Nation) the mighty Bulldogs?

Their all-time record is certainly worthy, as is their two consensus national championships, as well as the 12 SEC Conference championship trophies located comfortably at home in the Athens Hall of Champions

When you analyze the Quality Opponent Factor rating scale that I have developed, once again, the Dawgs jump to the head of the Pack.

However, an overall record of 19-20 (.487 winning percentage) isn’t exactly lighting up the college football Christmas tree of power now is it, for this is one reason why the Florida, LSU and Tennessee bulbs on the tree standout a little clearer among the many lights which make up the tree.

Suddenly we begin to see some chinks in Georgia’s armor, as well as the ubiquitous sugar daddy flavor of the SEC. Before you jump to conclusions, give me a little latitude for I am just getting started.

What is quite shocking for the entire conference is that there is not one team, among, what is regarded annually as the best conference in the world, THE SEC, that has a winning record during the BCS era when running up against programs who go on to win 9 games, essentially attaining that parochial ELITE standard.

Most people who have a very limited knowledge of college football would simply conclude that a team who is 97-30 within the last decade, and 8-2 in bowl games for that matter, certainly must be elite.

From a limited viewpoint, I would certainly agree, the record is flabbergastingly OUTSTANDING...until you recognize how they got that pretty record and how they have performed against other programs who are on equal footing within their own scale of excellence and abundance.

The venue, Sanford Stadium, is certainly top-shelf with a game day capacity of 92,746 loud and lavishly passionate die-hard Dawg Fans, who EXPECT to win every game on the schedule. The simple fact of the matter is that Georgia hasn’t won the games on their schedule that truly matter in the eyes of many. This may sound outlandish, but consider the following. This past season (2007) was a prime example, losing to an average Tennessee team, and what turned out to be a woeful South Carolina club.

If you look a little farther down the grey column on the right side of this article, you will find that Georgia is 49-27 (Tops in the SEC within the BCS era) when matched against programs with winning records (any team with 7 plus wins in a season), which would kind of contradict my own statements above, wouldn’t you agree?

But then again, would you agree that there is a major difference between Clemson, Fresno State, Oklahoma State and Arkansas this past season, compared to West Virginia, USC, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, or even Oregon?

The definition for teams with winning records as I have defined would be seven or eight win programs (which define Fresno, Clemson and Arkansas), which differs from the elite nine, ten, eleven or more win teams (which define Oregon, Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio State or USC), and Georgia is certainly holding their own against this tier of competition (7 - to - eight win programs), and even more so against programs who have gone on to end their season with a losing record, as Georgia is 48-3, equating to a (.941) sterling winning percentage.

However, this lofty record against non-winning programs still trails Florida, Auburn and Tennessee. But, as I alluded to earlier, in the thunderous games that truly matter in the eyes of the nation, Georgia is a bit under the radar.

Record QOF vs Winner vs Loser
(2007) 11-2 3-1 8-1 3-1 (1)
(2006) 9-4 3-2 4-3 5-1 (1)
(2005) 10-3 2-3 4-3 6-0 (0)
(2004) 10-2 2-2 5-2 5-0 (1)
(2003) 11-3 3-2 5-3 6-0 (0)
(2002) 13-1 4-0 10-1 3-0 (1)
(2001) 8-4 1-2 4-4 4-0 (0)
(2000) 8-4 0-3 2-4 6-0 (1)
(1999) 8-4 0-2 2-3 6-1 (0)
(1998) 9-3 1-3 4-3 5-0 (0)
TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS
97-30 19-20 49-27 48-3

Perhaps the easiest way to grasp to gravity of what I am trying to say is simply looking at Georgia’s record against the programs in the SEC, and more to the point, one in particular - The Florida Gators!

Florida is the only team in the SEC, throughout the decade known as the BCS, that actually has a winning record against the Bulldogs, but it pretty much sums up the scenario for the average fan who resides outside this region as most of the fans across the country DO NOT equate Georgia’s excellence in this era to be equal to Florida’s.

Simply put, the Gators have DOMINATED the Dawgs, winning 8 out of the last ten “Cocktail Parties,” and have essentially stolen the Dawgs thunder. A word to the wise here! Dawg Nation had better quit licking their chops in anticipation of that much awaited national championship season they are expecting in 2008, because the Florida Gators will be able to match their depth and experience this coming season, and if history is any indicator, my money is on Gator Nation, especially considering the outlandish acts of the Georgia team during last years outdoor social.

Sizing Up The SEC: Part I

Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:11:48 -0800

If you want to run a report on the SEC Conference, a likely starting place is Tuscaloosa, considering their rich history and tradition. But, life inside the BCS era hasn’t been good to the Crimson Tide.

A once proud program under the direction of legendary coach Bear Bryant, the boys from Bama-ville have won 12 national titles, 25 conference championships and 21 SEC championships. The program holds NCAA records with 55 post-season bowl appearances, winning 31 bowl games, and has recorded (28) ten win seasons. The Tide leads the SEC West Division with 5 appearances in the SEC Championship game.

The State of Alabama Football
Alabama Crimson Tide

However, since the 1999 season when Alabama (10-3) went on to win their last of the five SEC Championships, with a 34-7 victory over the Florida Gators, things have been awfully quiet for its legion of fans.

The icon of the program is their fierce rivalry with Auburn, one of the greatest rivalries in all of sports, but they haven’t beaten the Tigers since 2001, although nearly every game during this time span has been decided by a touchdown or less. Since the BCS era began in 1998, the Crimson Tide have only appeared in and won one SEC title and have only appeared in one BCS bowl game.

This creates a major contrast between history and tradition, and the actual performance that is taking place in modern day. The numbers tell us why. This is a program that can play with any of the giants in the great college game, but due to the simplicity of their offense and their inability to score of late, the once mighty program can also play down to the level of many non-BCS and tradition starved programs as well.

In the last ten years, all inside the BCS era, the Tide is 4-9 versus BCS opponents (outside of the SEC) and 22-6 versus non-BCS opponents. With a 70-54 overall record during the era, if you take this 22-6 record versus many of the lower-tier programs (like Middle Tennessee, Southern Miss, Utah State or North Texas) out of the equation, this program has a losing record (48-48).

Here is the statistical breakdown for the Crimson Tide:

Record QOF vs Winner vs Loser
(2007) 7-6 1-3 3-5 4-1 (1)
(2006) 6-7 1-5 1-6 5-1 (0)
(2005) 10-2 2-2 4-2 6-0 (0)
(2004) 6-6 0-3 1-5 5-1 (1)
(2003) 4-9 1-8 2-9 2-0 (0)
(2002) 10-3 2-3 7-3 3-0 (0)
(2001) 7-5 0-3 4-5 3-0 (0)
(2000) 3-8 0-1 2-6 1-2 (0)
(1999) 10-3 4-2 7-3 3-0 (0)
(1998) 7-5 1-4 4-5 3-0 (0)
TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS
70-54 12-34 35-49 35-5

This past season was a microcosm for their decade of ineptitude as they defeated Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi, yet played down in the opinion of many, losing to Louisiana-Monroe. If you look at their scores, like many throughout the BCS era, the Tide is but a whisker away from a ten (plus) win season, but at the same time, is but a whisker away from a four-to-six win season as well.

A bit of advice might be to stay off the roller-coaster, a common coaching theme which rewards consistent performance rather than playing up and down to opponents.

For example, the Tide beat Houston by seven, yet lost to Louisiana-Monroe by seven. The Tide beat Mississippi by three, yet lost to Georgia by three. The Tide beat Arkansas and Vanderbilt by a total of 17 points, yet lost to Florida State and Louisiana State by a total of 14 points.

The common denominator determining the success of the Tide was the winning tendency of the opponent. In 2007, when matched-up against programs with winning records (7 plus wins) the Tide was 3-5. When matched up against teams with losing records (less than 7 wins) the Tide rolled to a 4-1 record, even though one of the wins was against Division I-AA Western Carolina.

This has been a consistent pattern throughout the BCS era. As a matter of fact, in the three seasons where the Tide has had a winning record against programs with seven plus wins, they went on to record 10 win seasons. Three out of ten may be a great average in baseball, but in college football it spells mediocrity.

Now for the juicy part. Alabama has, not only a porous record versus BCS opponents (4 - 9), but a sub-par Bowl record to boot, and to make matters worse, they are barely above the .500 mark inside the SEC Conference in the last decade as well:

Alabama versus the SEC inside the BCS era.

0 - 3
3 - 2
3 - 7
3 - 7
3 - 7
5 - 5
8 - 2
2 - 2
6 - 4
10. 2 - 0
11. 7 - 0

SEC Totals vs Top 6 vs Bottom 5
42 - 39 17 - 31 25 - 8

Here’s the kicker. If you take Vanderbilt and Mississippi out of the equation (the two teams who have struggled the most throughout the era of the BCS), the Tide has garnered a meager 27 - 37 record, compounded by the fact that their record against the top-four teams in the conference within the era of the BCS (Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and LSU) is an atrocious 9 - 19. Add Arkansas and Auburn to the mix, which equals the top-six performing teams from the SEC inside the BCS era and the record plummets even further, 17-31.

The conclusion all competent college football fans should come to grips with is that Alabama is going to beat the bottom five teams in the conference (South Carolina, Kentucky, Mississippi State and Mississippi) and three non-conference opponents from the MAC, Sun-Belt or C-USA (likely Southern Miss, Middle Tennessee or North Texas) to complete their 8 win season. How in the world can this be considered elite?

If Alabama isn’t beating the top-tier BCS non-conference opponents, and they are not beating the top-tier opponents inside the SEC, someone please remind me again how Alabama’s performance provides the SEC with that air of superiority? The answer: It doesn’t! It is marketing hyperbole which plays right into the entire BCS philosophy of determining BCS and upper-tier bowl berths.

At a school where 85,000 people show up for the spring game, I would expect a better performance against quality opponents. Equally concerning is the fact that they have only played 13 BCS Conference opponents during the BCS era, which is unacceptable for such a big time program. In comparison, Florida State has played 35, USC has played 27, Michigan has played 25 and Oklahoma has played 19.

For a program that ranks sixth in the all-time NCAA win-loss records (783 wins) and fifth in the all-time Final AP Poll appearances, it is time to quit living in the past for history and tradition does not define the current state of the Crimson Tide Football Program.

BCS Busters Grade for the BCS Decade: D

(35-49 versus winning programs, 35-5 versus losing programs, 4-9 versus BCS opponents and 3-4 in bowl games pretty much says it all).

Auburn Tigers

It has been a tale of reciprocity in the State of Alabama. At almost the exact moment that one program falters, the other begins to rise. Therefore, this is an ample characterization when describing the two programs. Both are steeped in tradition, but neither have been dominant at the national level during the same season.

The history and tradition of both programs is ultra impressive, on their own merits alone, but sometimes the numbers do not give us the complete story, especially since the national media is focused on their glorified past.

The Tigers have had 77 winning seasons, 34 bowl appearances, (24) nine-plus win seasons, eleven undefeated seasons and 10 conference championships. They have won 6 SEC Conference titles and three trips to the SEC Championship game itself.

The 2004 season still draws the ire of the SEC as Auburn was left out of the BCS Championship equation when USC and Oklahoma, who were also undefeated (like the Tigers at 12-0), played for the title.

When breaking down the numbers we can begin to see why the Tigers were so agitated. According to the BCS Busters Quality Opponent Factor Rankings, where we rank how the teams performed against 9 (plus) win opponents, winning opponents (greater than 7 wins) and losing opponents (.500 or less) it should have been USC and Auburn in the BCS tile tilt.

Team QOF vs Winner vs Loser
Auburn 5-0 5-0 8-0 (1)
USC 4-0 4-0 8-0 (0)
Oklahoma 2-1 6-1 6-0 (0)

Both USC and Auburn played at least four teams who won at least nine games that season, and although both the Trojans and Tigers played 8 opponents who had losing records, the Sooners only played three opponents all season who had, elite, 9 win seasons and a similar six opponents who were under the five-hundred mark in winning percentage.

I give the nod to Auburn, especially telling since the Sooners were blasted 55-19 by USC in the BCS title game that season. But that was the benchmark year for the program, because throughout the BCS era, the Tigers have been under .500 when competing against the elite, or even those programs with winning records. They have been impressive, 49-1, against the programs on their slate who had losing records so that impressive overall winning percentage is a bit misleading.

Unlike Alabama, they have stayed off the roller-coaster and have dominated their instate rivals, winning six straight since 2001, by an average margin of just 7.8 points, emphasizing the competitiveness of the rivalry.

Record QOF vs Winner vs Loser
(2007) 9-4 2-3 4-4 5-0 (1)
(2006) 11-2 3-2 3-2 8-0 (0)
(2005) 9-3 2-2 3-3 6-0 (1)
(2004) 13-0 5-0 5-0 8-0 (1)
(2003) 8-5 2-4 3-5 5-0 (1)
(2002) 9-4 2-3 4-4 5-0 (1)
(2001) 7-5 1-2 4-5 3-0 (0)
(2000) 9-4 0-3 4-4 5-0 (1)
(1999) 5-6 0-4 2-6 3-0 (1)
(1998) 3-8 1-5 2-7 1-1 (0)

TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS
83-41 18-28 34-40 49-1

This is where the numbers begin to turn against the Tigers. What looks impressive on paper (83-41) becomes less impressive in reality when you consider that the Tigers have a losing record during the BCS era when playing programs with winning records (34-40). If you take the 24-0 record versus non-BCS teams out of the equation, Auburn is 59-41, which puts this elite program into the mediocre category.

Auburn has played 18 BCS opponents outside of the SEC, but they still fall below the .500 level (8-10). But like Alabama above, when compared to the other notable BCS teams from other conferences, West Virginia has played 27 BCS opponents, Virginia Tech has played 22, Texas has played 21 and with one less opportunity to schedule a BCS opponent, in each of the last three years alone, Oregon has played 18 BCS opponents, wining 10, ultimately outperforming Auburn in the same time span.

Only Auburn’s bowl record falls above the .500 mark (5-4) inside the BCS era, when considering elite performance. If you, or I for that matter, immediately thought of Auburn and Oregon, how many of us would rank Oregon above Auburn when those two names first come to mind?

The average SEC fan would say that Auburn has beaten Clemson, Virginia Tech, Penn State and Wisconsin. Oregon can counter with Michigan (twice), Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Texas. Who has the edge? You be the judge!

The most telling statistic is the Quality Opponent Factor Rating. Auburn has only finished with a winning record on two occasions when matched up against the elite 9 win programs; 2006 when they finished 11-2 (3-2 QOF Record) and 2004 when they finished 13-0 (5-0 QOF Record) and should have played for the national title. This is the glaring stat to consider: The Tigers have a losing record versus the elite in eight out of the ten seasons since the inception of the BCS, and yet the national media is convinced that the SEC is clearly the best conference in the country. This is classic “media frenzied” hyperbole.

This theory (especially considering the QOF-Factor) becomes even more conclusive when you analyze how the Tigers have performed inside the mighty SEC against its elite counterparts.

5 - 5
3 - 5
3 - 2
5 - 5
5 - 5
7 - 3
8 - 2
2 - 0
6 - 4
10. 2 - 0
11. 5 - 0

SEC Totals vs Top 6 vs Bottom 5
51 - 31 28 - 25 23 - 6

When you dive inside the numbers Auburn’s record against the Top-four (Georgia, Florida, LSU and Tennessee) is 16 - 17. When adding Arkansas and Alabama to the mix, the record jumps to 28 - 25. When adding the bottom five to the mix, the record mushrooms to 23-6.

Therefore, the reality of the SEC is that there are four elite programs (Georgia, Florida, LSU and Tennessee) and two average programs in Arkansas and Alabama, and then five meager programs that have not established a winning tradition inside the SEC, outside the SEC or within the bowl tradition (South Carolina, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Kentucky and Vanderbilt)

I have made a big point in emphasizing that the strength of the SEC is a bit overblown, but these numbers actually blew me away. I was expecting the numbers to be a little better than they actually are. The power of television, which has created such a branding identity, in many cases, is greater than the actual on field performance, which is the root cause of this phenomenon and most certainly sways pollsters who control the destiny behind the BCS.

On the bright side, Auburn has lost only one time to a team with a losing record (4-7 LSU in 1998) within the era of the BCS. That, is extremely impressive, along with the fact that among their 10 BCS non-conference losses, only three have come to programs with less than nine wins:

(8-5) UNC in 2001
(7-6) Georgia Tech in 2003
(7-5) Georgia Tech in 2005

BCS Busters Grade for the BCS Decade: B

If Auburn expects to dominate the polls and the SEC Conference, they need to step up to the plate and start scheduling more BCS non-conference opponents instead of scheduling Division I-AA, the Sun-Belt and Conference USA.

In Part II of this Six-Part Series, I will breakdown the only two programs in the SEC who have truly been elite throughout the BCS era: Georgia and Florida. LSU and Tennessee have been above average, but I wouldn’t classify their performance as elite throughout the entire era of the BCS.

Even though LSU has won two BCS titles inside the era, and Tennessee has won one, you will soon find out that the hype surrounding the SEC is a bit overblown, but that doesn’t necessarily make this a poor conference. Just not as elite as many would lead us to believe.

Look for major fireworks in week#1

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:02:46 -0800

Last season, I wrote an interesting piece sensationalizing the bumbling, stumbling and fumbling opening weekend of the college football season, where there were only about a half a dozen interesting intersectional match-ups that actually wetted our appetite, especially considering we were coming off of 8 months of football hibernation.

2008 will start with a bang as the opening weekend has a plethora of outstanding competitions, and the good part is, the second weekend looks even better. As a matter of fact, the whole month of September has some outstanding match-ups, and it is now only 7 months away!

8/28/08

VS

8/30/08

VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS

The Final Analysis: The quality opponent (QOF-factor) rankings!

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:17:03 -0800

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

#1: LSU (5-0)
Season Record: 12-2

Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 48 - 7
Florida (9 - 4) 28 - 24
Auburn (9 - 4) 30 - 24
Tennessee (10 - 4) 21 - 14
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.

#2: Georgia (3-1)
Season Record: 11-2

Tennessee (10 - 4) 14 - 35
Florida (9 - 4) 42 - 30
Auburn (9 - 4) 45 - 20
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

CONFERENCE BOWL PAYOUT BOWL RECORD VS BCS
SEC $51,700,000 7 - 2 12 - 9
Big-10 $46,850,000 3 - 5 11 - 10
Big-12 $46,050,000 5 - 3 10 - 9
ACC $25,750,000 2 - 6 13 - 14
PAC-10 $23,600,000 4 - 2 9 - 6
Big-East $20,700,000 3 - 2 8 - 9
WAC $18,500,000 1 - 3 3 - 16
C-USA $4,375,000 1 - 4 2 - 25
Mountain West $3,750,000 4 - 1 9 - 10
MAC $2,250,000 0 - 2 5 - 37
SUN Belt $375,000 1 - 0 3 - 21

#3: West Virginia (3 - 1)
Season Record: 11-2

South Florida (9 - 4) 13 - 21
Cincinnati (10 - 3) 28 - 23
UConn (9 - 4) 66 - 21
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.

#4: Oregon (5 - 1)
Season Record: 9-4

Michigan (9 - 4) 39 - 7
Fresno State (9 - 4) 52 - 21
USC (11 - 2) 24 - 17
Arizona State (10 - 3) 35 - 23
Oregon State (9 - 4) 38 - 31
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.

#5: Cincinnati (3 - 1)
Season Record: 10-3

Oregon State 9 - 4) 34 - 3
South Florida (9 - 4) 38 - 33
UConn (9 - 4) 27 - 3
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.

#6: Oklahoma (4 - 2)
Season Record: 11-3

Tulsa (10 - 4) 62 - 21
Texas (10 - 3) 28 - 21
Missouri (12 - 2) 41 - 31
Texas Tech (9 - 4) 27 - 34
Missouri (12 - 2) 38 - 17
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?

#7: USC (3-1)
Season Record: 11-2

Oregon (9 - 4) 17 - 24
Oregon State (9 - 4) 24 - 3
Arizona State (10 - 3) 44 - 24
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:

WAC 3 - 16
C-USA 2 - 25
MAC 5 - 37
Sun Belt 3 - 21
Total Record 13 - 99

Now, here is how the numbers breakdown for the BCS Conferences including the Mountain West against, not only Division I-AA opponents and the other members of the BCS, but against the four (worst) non-BCS Conferences listed above. I didn’t include the Mountain West into the list of non-BCS Conferences because it is my belief, and it has been my belief for a long time, that this conference should be a BCS Conference and the following numbers will demonstrate my point!

Conference vs D1-AA vs Worst of the Non-BCS vs BCS
SEC 10 - 0 35 - 1 (36) 12 - 9
Big-12 7 - 1 29 - 5 (34) 10 - 9
Big-10 6 - 2 24 - 5 (29) 11 - 10
ACC 7 - 0 22 - 4 (26) 13 - 14
Big-East 6 - 0 24 - 1 (25) 8 - 9
Mountain West 4 - 0 14 - 7 (21) 9 - 10
PAC-10 2 - 0 10 - 1 (11) 9 - 6

Your are absolutely right, Bill, facts are facts, just not the phony facts your are trying to sell us on. The SEC was 45-1 this year against the non-BCS (and DI-AA teams), yet were a marginal 12-9 versus the BCS, and even more importantly were (3-5) against teams ranked in the Top-35 of the national polls. This statistic gets worse when including the BCS Busters QOF-Rating as the SEC only has four teams ranked in the Top-20 of the QOF-Rating analysis.

The reason the PAC-10 has the worst non-conference record is because we don’t schedule wimpy-patsy wins out on the west coast. We played the majority of our non-conference games against the Mountain West, who more than held their own against the BCS Conferences (9-10) and had the second best bowl record this season (4-1).

The PAC-10 and Mountain West Conferences played less Division I-AA and the worst of the non-BCS opponents (WAC, MAC, SUN & C-USA) combined (38 games) than the SEC did by itself (46 games).

Ranking the PAC-10 dead last has more to do with the rift between the unionized alliances of the College Football Association and those who supported the NCAA than the actual on-field performance itself, and the rankings are, yet another, in a long line of examples regarding this political game of hard ball being played out in the national media.

I’ve got another theory regarding the media being in cahoots with this CFA alliance and I will be coming out with it shortly.

In the final analysis, due to the fact that the PAC-10 doesn’t schedule easy prey and they play every member of their conference, while scheduling the tougher non-BCS Conferences as well, the main reason why the West Coast schools do not have the shiny records needed to impress the pollsters by the end of the season is because they don’t schedule many games with the MAC, C-USA or the Sun-Belt. To be rebuked and absolutely abused by the national media, who is most certainly on board with the CFA alliance, is a gross error of lazy journalism and an absolute atrocity.

The ability to stay healthy throughout the course of the season by scheduling ridiculously easy opponents is THE main reason why the Big-12, SEC and Big-10 were able to profit from this fraud-based BCS system in 2007.

Everyone rebukes USC for losing to Stanford, but Stanford didn’t play Louisiana-Monroe, Youngstown State, Wofford or 17 other MAC schools, or even C-USA, who combined with the MAC to record a (7-62) spot against the BCS. In case you missed it, Bill, the SEC, Big-12 and Big-10 went a combined 39-4 against these two non-BCS Conferences, while the PAC-10 went 1-0.

If Stanford had utilized “Pillow Scheduling” like the mighty SEC, Big-12 or Big-10 Conferences had, they would have likely been bowl eligible, along with the other members of the ENTIRE PAC-10 conference, since they defeated both USC and California and were leading Oregon by 10 at the half. No disrespect to those non-BCS teams, but like Bill Trocchi said: “Facts are Facts!”

And no disrespect to SEC or Big-12 programs, but Stanford vs USC is an in-state rivalry, every bit as much as South Carolina vs Clemson, Alabama vs Auburn, or Texas and Texas A&M. Why is it that Texas is not harmed for not only losing to Texas A&M and Kansas State (two teams that Fresno State arguably should have swept), but playing grossly under their own potential, while South Carolina is not rebuked for losing to Clemson, when they flopped at the end of the season much like California did out west?

I’m not even going to mention Alabama, since they lost to Auburn for the 6th straight season (Hint: for it to be considered a rivalry game, you actually have to win once in awhile), and were beaten by Louisiana-Monroe, not to mention the fact that they didn’t play Kentucky or Florida this season. They barely beat an Arkansas team that skipped Georgia and Florida on their road-kill docket, which included five wins over Mississippi, Troy, North Texas, Florida International and Tennessee-Chattanooga. Without these stay-puff Marsh-mellow wins, explain to me the difference between Arkansas, Alabama, Texas A&M, Kansas State and Stanford this season?

Finally, since 85 percent of the voting coaches and Harris Poll members have direct ties to the CFA organization, which has now evolved into the BCS, I think you can begin to understand why these political smear campaigns come out of the woodwork, and why programs like Michigan, Virginia Tech, Texas and Georgia begin their meteoric climbs in the last 3 weeks of the season, just like I predicted as fall turned to November and early winter.

The PAC-10 smear campaign, as well as the Rose Bowl connection to the playoff roadblock is easily connected to the feuding alliances and issues between the CFA and the NCAA.

In case you missed it, its called added pressure on Tom Hansen to open the Rose Bowl up for the greedy appetite of the CFA alliance, who can’t wait to get their hands on a dozen roses and squeeze the PAC-10 further into oblivion.

LSU and USC were both 8 points from a perfect season. Why the discrepancy in the polls? It is spelled C-F-A!

#8: Boston College (3 - 1)
Season Record: 11-3

Wake Forest (9 - 4) 35 - 28
Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 14 - 10
Clemson (9 - 4) 20 - 17
Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 16 - 30

Lost to (6-7) Maryland (35-42), (7-6) Florida State (17-27), and (11-3) Virginia Tech (16-30).

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

The SEC hype machine isn’t centered specifically on the great American Bowl and Poll shuffle either. Only in the SEC, can a quarterback who lost four games on the schedule earn the Heisman over a player who will likely play 10 years longer in the NFL than Tim Tebow will ever dream of playing.

I don’t see too many Spread Quarterbacks excelling in the NFL (HINT: the linebackers and defensive ends are faster than the QB’s). Tim Tebow couldn’t hold Vince Young, Dennis Dixon or Matt Ryan’s jock. Just another example of being a part of the CFA as compared to a small market team with zero Chuck Neinas influence or connection. Boston College was 31 points from a perfect season. Compare their strength of schedule with Florida. Boston College finishes 6-2 against teams with winning records and more importantly, 3-1 against the elite, while Florida finishes 1-4 against the elite and 6-4 against teams with winning records.

#9: Missouri (3-2)
Season Record: 12-2

Illinois (9 - 4) 40 - 34
Oklahoma (11 - 3) 31 - 41
Texas Tech (9 - 4) 41 - 10
Kansas (12 - 1) 36 - 28
Oklahoma (11 - 3) 17 - 38

Lost to (11 - 3) Oklahoma twice by a combined score of 79 - 48.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 5 - 2 .

Missouri’s only crime this past season was losing to a very good Oklahoma team on two separate occasions. However, turnovers were the culprit in the first game, since Missouri’s performance was certainly better than Boston College’s victory in game number one against Virginia Tech. If BCS Buster Bracketology had been in place, Missouri would have likely played Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl after defeating Texas, Tulsa and Illinois, while losing to Oklahoma in the Big-12 Championship game to finish 3-1 in the BCS Bracket.

Here are a couple of stats to consider:

ACC was 2-6 in bowl games and 13-14 versus the BCS, while the Big-12 was 5-3 in bowl games and 10-9 versus the BCS. Why would Virginia Tech be ranked ahead of Missouri given that scenario, and would you agree it is suspicious that Missouri was not a part of the CFA, while Virginia Tech was?

On the field they earn a BCS berth, off the field, within the current BCS arrangement, they better get on the Chuck Neinas trail in a hurry, for a little administrative schmoozing is needed with the television networks, bowl administrators and Harris Poll voters.

#10: Texas (3 - 1)
Season Record: 10-3

Central Florida (10 - 4) 35 - 32
Oklahoma (11 - 3) 21 - 28
Texas Tech (9 - 4) 59 - 43
Arizona State (10 - 3) 52 - 34

Lost to (5-7) Kansas State (21-41), (11-3) Oklahoma (21-28), and (7-6) Texas A&M (38-30).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4-2 .

Texas is one of those founding father programs that have major connections to Chuck Neinas and the CFA, since Dee Loss Dodds worked closely with Neinas on CFA led issues back in the day, and Mack Brown and Neinas vacation together at least once a year . They are heavily protected in the poll system as evidenced this past season when they lost to second tier programs Kansas State and Texas A&M and didn’t hardly budge in the Polls. Compare this with Michigan’s drop after losing to Oregon and Appalachian State, two teams that would likely kick the holy crap out of both Texas A&M and Kansas State this past season.

The fact that Texas can under achieve most of the year and not only lose ugly, but win ugly as well, playing far below capability, while Oregon, Cincinnati and Central Florida are largely held below their market value in the Polls is, yet, another in a long line of examples related to CFA Royalty.

Not to mention the fact that fellow conference coaches have raised yet another question regarding the protection Texas receives from Big-12 officiating crews when aligned with in-state rivals, and the calls that go against Oklahoma when playing in the State of Texas. There is more here to this story and the Big-12 will never get this out in the open.

#11: BYU (3 - 1)
Season Record: 10-2

Tulsa (10 - 4) 47 - 55
Air Force (9 - 4) 31 - 6
New Mexico (9 - 4) 31 - 24
Utah (9 - 4) 17 - 10

Lost to (6-7) UCLA (17-27) and (10-4) Tulsa (47-55).

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

Head Coach Bronco Mendenhall is a close friend of mine as we attended Oregon State University together back in the late 1980’s, since we shared the same Major and many classes together.

One memory sums up the tenacity in which Bronco goes about his business. We shared a Motor Learning class with an infamously tough Australian Professor, who was adequately nick-named “Rose Monster.”

She was not only the brightest mind in our department, she was an incredibly tough minded teacher. If you were 5 seconds late, you missed class as she would not tolerate any disruptions. The class was a discussion oriented class, not a lecture. You had to be actively involved and you had to know your business or she would absolutely abuse you in class in front of your peers. You had to be ahead of her itinerary.

Well, to make a long story longer, one day, Bronco was about 5 minutes late to class, as he stayed after the bell to get some extra help on some anatomy issues from his previous 8 AM class.

While we were scrambling to keep up with Dr. “Rose Monster,” Bronco was climbing up the railing to the balcony as our classroom had an old balcony located at the east end of the room. I was sitting with my future wife, right in front of the doors to the balcony. In blundered Bronco, touching off one of the most hilarious shouting matches I have ever witnessed.

Dr. “Rose Monster” was all of about 5 foot two, barely over 100 pounds...she was in phenomenal shape, but was borderline anorexic. She was right under Bronco’s chin giving him the business, but Bronco never backed down, claiming that her inflexibility was not going to prevent him from a proper education, and if he needed help he was most certainly entitled to stay after class to achieve it, and the next professor should respect his dedication to get proper instruction and much needed assistance.

Finally, after about 5 minutes, he challenged “if you would like to discuss this with Dr. Wood (the Dean of the department) he would lead the discussion.”

From that day forward I knew Bronco would be a good coach, he is tough enough, yet flexible enough to get the very best from his players. UCLA missed a great opportunity to get a coach who isn’t out to make a big splash like “Slick Rick,” and the PAC-10 continues to miss an opportunity to add Utah and BYU to the conference.

The Cougars not only deserve the BCS name tag, but they should be members of the PAC-10 Conferences since they have a greater tradition than half the schools in the PAC-10 and have only suffered from the recruiting stigma of being outside the BCS, since the BCS inception itself, in 1998. Here is a link to La Vell Edwards speech before the House Judiciary in 2003 to give you some background into this issue.

#12: Kansas (1 - 1)
Season Record: 12-1

Missouri (12 - 2) 28 - 36
Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 24 - 21

Lost to (12 - 2) Missouri (28-36), 8 points from a perfect season.

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

It is hard to give Kansas too much credit this season since they only played 5 teams with winning records in 2007 and they were a marginal 1-1 against the elite as well, and the lone victory was over a Virginia Tech team that was vastly over-rated and over-ranked, but since the CFA alliances of the Coaches and Harris Poll (which is, again, two-thirds of the BCS equation) had to rank the Maroon and Orange high enough to get LSU to New Orleans, you can begin to see the tree’s through the forest. More on this later.

The bottom line for me is Kansas was dad-gum good in 2007, irregardless of what the SEC fan base or the blog-poll says.

#13: Ohio State (3 - 2)
Season Record: 11-2

Penn State (9 - 4) 37 - 17
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 38 - 17
Illinois (9 - 4) 21 - 28
Michigan (9 - 4) 14 - 3
LSU (12 - 2) 24 - 38

Lost to (9 - 4) Illinois (28-21) and (12-2) LSU (24 - 38).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 5 - 2 .

Two seasons ago, when everyone was slobbering over Ohio State and Michigan’s impending “Game of the Century,” I cautioned that things really may not be what they seem.

Like Tennessee, Texas and Alabama, the boys from Ann Arbor and Columbus, who together make a Big-2 out of the Big-Televin, define what CFA Royalty truly embodies.

Several weeks prior to their season ending rivalry game, in which legendary coach Bo Schembeggler would pass on the eve of, some interesting things occurred.

College football has never gotten the cross-pollination that is needed to get an elite crop of bowl games. If you remember, 2004 was the first season in history that Michigan and Texas had ever bothered to arrange a football game between the two. How sad is that?

In the three weeks prior to the bus trip to Columbus, the Maize and Blue struggled to beat Northwestern (17-3), Ball State (34-26) and Iowa (20-6). Their non-conference slate that season did include (4-8) Vanderbilt (24-7) and a vastly over-rated (10-3) Notre Dame (47-21) team who still hasn’t won a bowl game in over a decade.

Ohio State on the other hand didn’t exactly impress in the non-conference as well, defeating (7-6) Northern Illinois 35-12, (10-3) Texas 24-7, (8-5) Cincinnati 37-7, (4-8) Bowling Green 35-7 before defeating (11-0) Michigan 42-39.

My point is how do we know how strong these teams truly are when they don’t play anyone of substance. Texas and Notre Dame are powers in the name brand world, but other than the national title in 2005 won by Burnt Orange Nation, haven’t these two programs failed to meet the overzealous expectations of their fan base?

The sad fact of the matter is that Ohio State may have their best team in a decade next season, but will the voters really want the Buffalo Bills -Part Three in the BCS Championship in 2009?

I thought Florida vs Louisville in 2007, and LSU and either USC, West Virginia or Georgia would have been a more appropriate title game in 2008.

But hey, royalty is royalty in college football.

#14: Virginia Tech (3 - 3)
Season Record: 11-3

LSU (12 - 2) 7 - 48
Clemson (9 - 4) 41 - 23
Boston College (11 - 3) 10 - 14
Virginia (9 - 4) 33 - 21
Boston College (11 - 3) 30 - 16
Kansas (12 - 1) 21 - 24

Lost to (12-2) LSU (7-48), (11-3) Boston College (10-14), and (12-1) Kansas (21-24).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6 - 3 .

For reasons I have yet to figure out, ESPN has a major (Man Crush) love connection with Virginia Tech. Game Day is a two-to-three visit per season regular in Blacksburg and no one seems to mind that the Hokies are on the Stay-Puff Marsh-mellow scheduling circuit every season, as they feast on Division I-AA and the weaker sisters of the non-BCS, not to mention Duke, UNC and NC-State to the tune of, at least, 8-guaranteed victories every season.

Three seasons ago, in 2005, when USC, Texas and Virginia Tech were all undefeated late in the year, I bought into the hype “hook-line-and-sinker.”

Not so fast anymore my friends! Play someone and actually beat someone of significance on a regular basis for the ACC is vastly over-rated, even in spite of Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College defecting the Big-East for CFA led handshakes and an easier bowl navigation (manipulation is a better word) process.

8 Bowl eligible teams is a travesty when you go 2-6 in the process, while Fresno State, BYU and Central Florida are left outside of the BCS looking in!

#15: Michigan (3 - 4)

Oregon (9 - 4) 7 - 39
Penn State (9 - 4) 14 - 9
Illinois (9 - 4) 27 - 17
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 21 - 37
Florida (9 - 4) 41 - 35
Ohio State (11 - 2) 3 - 14
Appalachian St. (9 - 4) 32 - 34

Lost to (9-4) Oregon (7-39), (9-4) Wisconsin (21-37), (11-2) Ohio State (3-14), and Division I-AA National Champion Appalachian State (32-34).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 5 - 4.

How jaded is our current system, in which everyone claims the regular season is so critically important? Both Oregon and Wisconsin defeated Michigan handily, by a combined total of 76-28, and yet Michigan is ranked 5 and 6 spots ahead of both the Ducks and Badgers.

Penn State, another Big-10 team who had the same record as Michigan and a team the Wolverines barely beat (14-9) is unranked, which in reality is where Michigan should stand at the end of the season!

This is a gross atrocity and essentially sums up the whole system we have in place, which favors the schools who formed and supported the CFA. When you hear the word Royalty in college football, this is what the term embodies.

#16: Auburn (2 - 3)

South Florida (9 - 4) 23 - 26
Florida (9 - 4) 20 - 17
LSU (12 - 2) 24 - 30
Georgia (11 - 2) 20 - 45
Clemson (9 - 4) 23 - 20

Lost to (8-5) Mississippi State (14-19), (9-4) South Florida (23-26), (12-2) LSU (24-30), (11-2) Georgia (20-45) and were outscored 118 - 110.

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

College football is all about name brand tradition. Considering that Auburn, Illinois, Florida and Tennessee are a combined 21-15 against the programs that finished over .500 in 2007, and a combined 9-12 against the teams that earned the nine-win benchmark, I think Bill Trocchi is a bit off-target don’t you think?

#17: Illinois (3 - 3)

Missouri (12 - 2) 34 - 40
Penn State (9 - 4) 27 - 20
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 31 - 26
Michigan (9 - 4) 17 - 27
Ohio State (11 - 2) 28 - 21
USC (11 - 2) 17 - 49

Lost to (12-2) Missouri (34-40), (6-6) Iowa (6-10), (9-4) Michigan (17-27), and (11-2) USC (17-49).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 5 - 3.

#18: Florida (1 - 4)

Tennessee (10 - 4) 59 - 20
Auburn (9 - 4) 17 - 20
LSU (12 - 2) 24 - 28
Georgia (11 - 2) 30 - 42
Michigan (9 - 4) 35 - 41

Lost to (9-4) Auburn (17-20), (12-2) LSU (24-28), (11-2) Georgia (30-42) and (9-4) Michigan (35-41).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6-4 .

#19: Tennessee (2 - 2)

Florida (9 - 4) 20 - 59
Georgia (11 - 2) 35 - 14
LSU (12 - 2) 14 - 21
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 21 - 17

Lost to (7-6) California (31-45), (9-4) Florida (20-59), (7-6)Alabama (17-41) and (12-2) LSU (14-21).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6-4 .

#20: Arizona State (1 - 3)
Season Record: 10-3

Oregon State 9 - 4) 44 - 32
Oregon (9 - 4) 23 - 35
USC (11 - 2) 24 - 44
Texas (10 - 3) 34 - 52

Lost to (9-4) Oregon (23-35), (11-2) USC (24-44), (10-3) Texas (34-52), and were outscored 131 - 81 in the process.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 2-3 .

#21: South Florida (3-3)
Season Record: 9-4

Auburn (9 - 4) 26 - 23
West Virginia (11 - 2) 21 - 13
C. Florida (10 - 3) 64 - 12
UConn (9 - 4) 15 - 22
Cincinnati (10-3) 33 - 38
Oregon (9-4) 21 - 56

Lost to two (9-4) programs: UConn (15-22) and Oregon (21-56), (10-3) Cincinnati (33-38) and (8-5) Rutgers 27-30; a mere 15 points from a one loss season and BCS berth.

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

#22: Oregon State (2 - 3)
Season Record: 9-4

Utah (9 - 4) 24 - 7
Cincinnati (10 - 3) 3 - 34
Arizona State (10 - 3) 32 - 44
USC (11- 2) 3 - 24
Oregon (9 - 4) 38 - 31

Lost to (6 - 7) UCLA (14-40), (10 - 3) Cincinnati (3-34), (10-3) Arizona State (32-44) and (11-2) USC (3-24).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3 - 3 .

#23: Penn State (1-3)
Season Record: 9-4

Michigan (9 - 4) 9 - 14
Illinois (9 - 4) 20 - 27
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 38 - 7
Ohio State (11 - 2) 17 - 38
Virginia Tech (11-3) 48 - 7

Lost to two (9-4) programs: Illinois (20-27) and Michigan (9-14), (11-2) Ohio State (17-37) and (7-6) Michigan State (31-35).

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

#24: LSU (1-4)
Season Record: 9-4

Illinois (9 - 4) 26 - 31
Penn State (9 - 4) 7 - 38
Ohio State (11 - 2) 17 - 38
Michigan (9 - 4) 37 - 21
Tennessee (10-4) 17 - 21

Lost to two (9-4) programs: Illinois (26-31) and Penn State(7-38), (11-2) Ohio State (17-38) and SEC Runner up (10-4) Tennessee (17-21).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3-4.

#25: Texas Tech (2-2)
Season Record: 9-4

Missouri (12 - 2) 10 - 41
Texas (10 - 3) 43 - 59
Oklahoma (11 - 3) 34 - 27
Virginia (9 - 4) 31 - 28

Lost to (6-7) Colorado (26-31), (7-6) Oklahoma State (45-49), (10-3) Texas (43-59) and (12-2) Missouri (10-41).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3-3.

#26: Mississippi State (2-3)
Season Record: 8-5

LSU (12 - 2) 0 - 45
Auburn (9 - 4) 19 - 14
Tennessee (10 - 4) 21 - 33
West Virginia (11 - 2) 13 - 38
C. Florida (10-3) 10 - 3

Lost to (6-6) S. Carolina (21-38), (8-5) Arkansas (31-45), (10-4) Tennessee (21-33), (11-2) West Virginia (13-38) and (12-2) LSU (0-45).

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

#27: C. Florida (UCF) (2-2)
Season Record: 10-3

Texas (10 - 3) 32 - 35
S. Florida (9 - 4) 12 - 64
Tulsa (10 - 4) 44 - 23
Tulsa (10 - 4) 44 - 25

Lost to (8-5) E. Carolina (38-52), (9-4) South Florida (12-64) and (10-3) Texas (32-35).

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

#28: Kentucky (1-3)
Season Record: 8-5

Louisiana State (12 - 2) 43 - 37
Florida (9 - 4) 37 - 45
Georgia (11 - 2) 13 - 24
Tennessee (10 - 4) 50 - 52

Lost to (6-6) S. Carolina (23-38), (8-5) Mississippi State (14-31) as well.

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

#29: Clemson (1-3)
Season Record: 9-4

Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 23 - 41
Wake Forest (9 - 4) 44 - 10
Boston College (11 - 3) 17 - 20
Auburn (9 - 4) 20 - 23

Lost to (7-6) Georgia Tech (3-13) as well, finishing 34 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3-4.

#30: Virginia (2-2)
Season Record: 9-4

UConn (9 - 4) 17 - 16
Wake Forest (9 - 4) 17 - 16
Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 23 - 31
Texas Tech (9 - 4) 28 - 31

Lost to (5-7) Wyoming (3-23) and (5-7) NC State (24-29) as well.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3-2.

#30: Hawaii (2 - 1)

Fresno State (9 - 4) 37 - 30
Boise State (10 - 3) 39 - 27
Georgia (11 - 2) 10 - 41

Lost to (11-2) Georgia (41-10).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 2 - 1.

But here is the final thing to consider. While I agree that this year, considering the WAC Conference won three games all year against the BCS Conference confederacy, why is it that Ohio State can get blasted 41-14 last year against Florida, with a slew of first round draft picks and the Heisman Trophy winner and no one has a problem with their blowout, and yet Hawaii gets blasted in the court of public opinion that they do not belong in the BCS society after being blown out by four points more than Ohio State in their BCS Bowl venue this year?

I DO NOT think that Hawaii deserved one of the elite bowl venues this season, although I do believe that Utah, Louisville and Boise State did deserve such a game in the past, but to say they don’t belong on the same field with Georgia when the Bulldogs were blown out by Tennessee (a team that California beat, which is a team that Hawaii likely could beat as well, and when considering this same Volunteer team was blown out by Alabama, a team who lost to Louisiana-Monroe?) doesn’t hold a lot of water for me.

If no one has a problem with Tennessee playing in the SEC Championship game after being blown out by Florida (59-20), Alabama (41-17) and California (45-31), then we shouldn’t have a problem with Hawaii playing in the Sugar Bowl, especially considering that this same Georgia team was blown out by Tennessee. Do you see the double standard here? If you can’t, you need to look a little harder because college football is full of them!

Until next year, when another BCS Controversy comes racing towards your city!