BCS Formula Question

by RMHorn on Nov 21, 2009 1:10 PM CST

Fortunately, Texas looks to be in a strong enough position this season that the BCS formula shouldn't impact them like last season. Win and let everything take care of itself.

But, last season the difference between NC teams was minuscule and the Longhorns ended up on the short end of the BCS formula. At the time I made the assertion that because both OU and UF scheduled lower division teams that don't count in the formula (Tenn-Chatt & Citadel respectively) they had an advantage over Texas. I believe this to be true in that UT's win over UTEP (the worst non-con opponent) ends up being a net negative for their strength of schedule, while OU and UF wins over non-division opponents were a net neutral.

This week we get to see two very closely ranked teams in the same conference play it out during the same weekend and I'll be curious to see how it works out. Alabama plays FCS Tenn-Chatt while Florida plays FBS FIU. Florida's rout of FIU should hurt their S-o-S, while Alabama's destruction of Tenn-Chatt should have no impact on their S-o-S. Yes, sure, there are other factors that may make it hard to tell, like how the teams they've already played did today. And, both Bama and the Gators will now share FIU as a common opponent, as well as Florida already laid waste to their FCS opponent to start their season.

But, I will be curious nonetheless about how much playing a terrible FBS team hurts the overall BCS formula rating, while playing any FCS team doesn't do anything. And I'll always wonder if last season could have turned out better for us if we had played a FCS team instead of UTEP. As long as the BCS formula has this quirk it may make sense to schedule one FCS team a season instead of the obligatory doormat FBS team.

Whad'ya think?

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Texas Longhorns, Florida Gators

Comments

I did not know that about the computers

If that is true, it is on par with the SEC replay officials not having hd tv

by longhorn_dan on Nov 21, 2009 1:38 PM CST reply actions

Oh GOD no

Please, no. I would rather us play mid level BCS teams like Clemson, Wake, Arizona, UCLA, etc. Even if they happen to suck the year we play them, it’s still a BCS team.

by GoHorns on Nov 21, 2009 1:59 PM CST reply actions

Just Sayin'

I’d like the better matchups, too. I’d rather have the BCS formula count every single FCS opponent as equal to or worse than the lowest FBS opponent in S-o-S. But right now they count it neutral; the game doesn’t happen.

If SEC powers Florida and Alabama have figured out that by putting one FCS dog on the schedule in the place a FBS dog would normally go they get an edge, however minuscule, we saw last season it can matter. They should change the rule, but since they haven’t why not maximize every BCS point you can get by scheduling for the advantage?

Can and should still put more mid-level BCS teams in the other three non-con games. But everyone puts a dog or two in their pre-season, and the prep value difference between playing a Sun Belt team and a FCS team is negligible; only difference is that beating a terrible SB/MAC/CUSA/WAC/MW team hurts you, beating a FCS team doesn’t.

by RMHorn on Nov 21, 2009 3:38 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed.

I’ll buy a max of two per year from the CUSA, Mtn. West, Sun Belt crowd. Wish we could held it to one. Can’t recall the last WAC opponent we played (N. Mexico St., maybe), and we never play MAC teams.

I understand the schedulers’ desire to get 6 homes games every year (7 in years when OU is the ‘host’ team for the RRS and we get 4 home Big 12 games) . . . it’s not simple to get BCS teams to visit if they don’t get a return match.

But I think Deloss’ expedience scheduling (we’ll give you a home game, Wyoming and UCF, but you gotta visit us twice) and Mack’s “don’t schedule us against anybody that might actually be a threat” are a pile. Fans get cheated, players get cheated, we leave ourselves open to criticism (needlessly), and we don’t develop our team as well.

by edsp on Nov 21, 2009 2:24 PM CST reply actions

Post-Weekend Update

Well, with the new BCS rankings some numbers are now in:

11/22 11/15
Gators – .97 .98 Beat FBS FIU (3-8)
Bama – .96 .95 Beat FCS Chatt
Texas – .93 .93 Beat FBS KU (5-6)

Compare 2008 Big 12 South Tiebreaker BCS 11/30 Rankings:

OU – .9351 Softest non-con opponent: Beat FCS Chatt
Texas – .9223 Softest non-con opponent: Beat FBS UTEP (5-7)

So, while some other factors went into the overall weekend results the fact that UF dropped by .01 and Bama increased by .01, with the single largest change from the two weeks was their opponents, UA playing FCS and rankings neutral opponent, UF playing a FBS dog and rankings harmful opponent the gap between both teams closed by .020.

And UT’s deficit to OU in 2008’s Big 12 South Division tiebreaker was only .013, there’s a strong enough correlation to suggest that had UT’s softest non-con opponent been a FCS team they would have gained enough to overtake OU in the tiebreaking BCS ranking.

Like I said, there are enough other factors that need to be investigated to confirm or dismiss the implication that the narrowing between UF and UA after this weekend was largely due to the FCS/FBS opponent treatment. How did their other opponents do overall with respect to each other being the other BCS formula data.

But, if this scenario is true to the extent that it appears, would you rather have seen UT play a dog FBS opponent or a FCS opponent in August 2008, knowing that that scheduling difference would have made the difference between UT being in the 2008 NC game or not?

by RMHorn on Nov 22, 2009 8:17 PM CST reply actions