Poll Results: The voters can suck it

We will have to wait another day to find out if Penn State will actually drop from the top-10, but I wanted to throw out the question: Would the voters be justified in doing so? The reaction was clear and definitely opposed to the idea. More than 81 percent of the votes went to either "PSU is still a top 10 team" or "The voters are just punishing PSU for being in the Big Ten." The latter gained one percent more.

More below the fold...

With Utah's upset of Alabama, bias will become even more obvious

You know what "they" will say...

"Utah is undefeated... Alabama played a tough overall schedule... It was really just one quarter that made a difference..."

All excuses, excuses for why it was ok for Alabama to lose the Sugar Bowl to Utah. No, I correct myself... why it was ok for Alabama to get crushed in the Sugar Bowl. This wasn't a case of superior talent or a superior coaching job. Utah jumped on Bama, and blew them away from the start. This wasn't like Penn State hanging tough for the first part of the game, then suffering one bad quarter in the middle, only to come back strong at the end. Alabama didn't even show up for kickoff.

Bowl Stat: First quarter scores - PSU 7, USC 7; Utah 21, Bama 0.

But none of that matters. "They" still believe that it's just fine, even good for college football that Utah beat Bama. You see, that's called a hypocrisy, my friends. And not only does this fully define that word, it proves my point (and a few other somewhat-respected sports writers') that Alabama could have lost to Utah by 30, but it's ok. It's ok that Texas Tech was embarrassed by Ole Miss. But it's definitely not ok that Penn State lost to USC.

Penn State will most likely be dropped from the top 10, when the final polls come out. Alabama will probably stay in the top 10, along with the winner of the Mythical National Championship, regardless of the margin of defeat. That's right, I'll call it right now. If Florida beats Oklahoma by 50, or vice versa, the loser will stay in the top-10, just because of the fact that "perception is reality" this season in college football. Unfortunately, that perception is that Penn State was just another weak Big Ten team trying to "play with the big boys," while the MNC loser merely "lost to the best team in the nation."

Bowl Stat: Total offense - PSU, 410; Bama, 208

And that leads me to my next point, and another hypocrisy. Following the Rose Bowl, we heard hours and hours of analysis, calling USC a team that "should have been in the BCS Championship Game," and "should be in the running for the AP title." If USC is supposed to be the best team in the nation, or at least the No. 1-A with the BCSCG winner, is Penn State truly worthy of the royal media beat down it's receiving?

I won't get into why the Rose Bowl was tougher for USC than the final score appeared (like, say, the "greatest all-time defense" of USC giving up 24 points, and almost blowing it in the fourth quarter), but "they" can't seriously, with a straight face, tell us that Alabama and Texas Tech belong ranked ahead of Penn State, after losing to supposedly "inferior" opponents, Utah and Ole Miss.

Bowl Stat: Offensive points - PSU, 24; Bama, 10

"They" bash the BCS, pretty much on a daily basis, yet don't seem to realize the true problem with college football, the human polls. In a system like we have now, it's not the computers which are at fault for the kooky rankings or the bowl pairings. But we're led to believe that it's the CPU-controlled votes which are the culprit of these faulty championships each season. Who tells us that the computers are wrong? The human pollsters. Yeah, I see a slight conflict of interest, too.

You cannot have a true polling system, yet lock everyone into the winner of one game. If this were the days before the BCS, and even before the old Bowl Alliance, a team like Utah would have a real chance at the national title, even if it is a mythical one. USC would be a serious contender after dismantling Penn State. Texas would get a shot, granted the Longhorns whip the Buckeyes. But because of the BCS, none of that matters.

Bowl Stat: Yards per rush, PSU, 4.7; Bama, 0.9

That's where the Alabama loss comes back in, along with the Penn State loss. If Penn State and Alabama knew their games could have given them part or all of a national title, would the outcomes have been different? Probably not, but because of this system, where these games have no affect on the championship whatsoever, "they" have to attach some sort of meaning or significance to them. You can bet that there were a few more folks watching the Rose Bowl, just to see "if the Big Ten can hack it this year." Note, I didn't say "if Penn State would beat USC." That's because this year's Rose Bowl wasn't Penn State vs. USC. It was The Big Ten vs. USC.

Bowl Stat: Distance traveled - PSU, 2,568 mi.; Bama, 293 mi.

Penn State will fall below Alabama, not because they're a lesser team. But rather because it won't be Penn State at all that's voted lower than the Crimson Tide. The Big Ten Conference will be what's voted below Alabama... and Texas Tech... and the loser of a blowout BCSCG.

Why? I don't think we'll ever really know. But we'll get a whole lot of excuses, and a whole lot of ass-covering from "them," and ranking Alabama ahead of Penn State will be just a part of it.

But what if Ohio State comes close against Texas, finishing above Penn State in the polls? Well... we'll deal with that when the time comes, and I assure you, we will deal with it thoroughly. And what if Penn State does finish (oddly enough) above Alabama?

Then there's some hope, after all.

Final Bowl Stat: Margin of defeat - PSU, 14; Bama, 14.

More below the fold...

The BCS: A crystal football full of lies

I'm sure someone, somewhere has written or talked about this, but I haven't seen or heard it yet. Have you noticed that the garbage coming from BCS Coordinator John Swofford, has done nothing to prove that the BCS is here to help college football?

"Well, people are talking about it all the time, and that's all the justification we need to keep this system in tact for the next 10,000 years."

No, that's not a real quote from him, but it's really freaking close. The BCS has been assailed by a new wave of "what about us" gangs, mainly from the Big XII (because the Big Ten and Pac-10 aren't a bunch of whiners). Now, I have nothing personally against them, as I'm sure Penn State fans would be kicking and screaming if in Texas' position. But this isn't about them, it's about "the system."

Was there ever an intent by the BCS creators to create the most fair method to select the college football national champion? It seems less likely every day. We all know that college football is more corrupt, full of more kickbacks, favors and lobbying than the Bush Administration. It's always been like that, and always will be. I don't mind, just don't tell me it's "better" now than it was then. To who? You? Because it sure as hell isn't better for us, the fans.

I do love the quote from Swofford, after Barack Obama said he wants to see some sort of college football playoff. Swofford must go by the "Dick Cheney Majority" formula in this one: Majority = <1% of the population.

"For now, our constituencies... have settled on the current BCS system, which the majority believe is the best system yet to determine a national champion while also maintaining the college football regular season as the best and most meaningful in sports."

Of course, that formula only works if the BCS's "constituencies" are actually the fans. (They're not, but I'll get back to that in a minute)

Now, I'm not going to compare the BCS or Swofford to the Nazis or Hitler. That might be going too far. After all, the Third Reich didn't play American college football.

You know, I really wouldn't mind this system so much, if the people who run the damn thing would just admit that they are in it for the money, and have no intention of improving college football's method of naming a national champion.

Swofford better stop this bullshit of portraying us, the college football fans, as his constituencies. We're not; we never were. Those constituencies are the bowl games, presidents and corporate sponsors burning a hole in your wallet. So the BCS should stop pretending to care what we want, because it doesn't. If it or Swofford did care, we'd be saying "buh-bye BCS."

More below the fold...

Penn State, 12-0 baby! Oh, wait...

This one was just too good to let go. Apparently, the Harris "Eh, good enough for jazz" Poll has only the best voters. After all, these are the guys who make up ONE THIRD of the BCS formula. Damn the computers? Let's see.

A reporter for NewsOK.com, asked Harris "Eh, good enough for jazz" Poll voter, and former Oklahoma State SID Pat Quinn how he'd vote, should Oklahoma beat OSU (which they did, 61-41 just a few hours later). Quinn responded with, “Oh, I don’t know,” Quinn said. “Doesn’t really matter.” The reporter asked why... wait for it...

“I think Alabama and Penn State will probably play for the national championship,” Quinn said.

You do?

“They’re the only undefeated teams, aren’t they,” Quinn said.

That is what you get when you kick out the AP poll, just because its voters didn't go along with the system in 2003, and replace it with another, seemingly pulled from the BCS head honchos' collective asses, full of unknowledgeable, half senile voters. Basically, the BCS said, "Eh, good enough for jazz."

No, it's not.

More below the fold...

Penn State in the Polls: Moving to nowhere

Here you go, the latest (most legit) college football rankings.

**UPDATED 12/1/08**

BCS Poll - PSU No. 8 (NC)

USA Today/Coaches Poll - PSU No. 6 (NC)

Associated Press (via ESPN) - PSU No. 6 (NC)

The Sporting News - PSU No. 6 (NC)

CBS Sportsline - PSU No. 7 (NC)

College Football Poll - PSU No. 8 (NC)

Jeff Sagarin's Rankings - PSU No. 7 (NC)/No. 10 (-2)-"ELO Chess," used in BCS formula

College Football News -

7. Penn State (11-1) Last Week: 9
Didn't Play Last Week
next game: BOWL GAME
The Ranking Should Be Higher Because … if it had just come up with one late defensive stop against Iowa, and had Daryll Clark not thrown the ill-fate interception, then Penn State would be making plans for Miami and the national title instead of Pasadena.
The Ranking Should Be Lower Because ... it can't be. This defense is the real deal, and with six weeks to rest up an rejuvenate, it'll be interesting to see how it comes out against USC. That might be the best bowl game of the season.

*Ed.-Oh yeah, and vote in the new poll down below!

More below the fold...

Penn State in the Polls; The waiting game begins

Most rankings are out. Penn State's regular season is finished, following the destruction of Michigan State. Now, all the Nittany Lions can do, is sit back and watch every other team hopefully lose. Check back throughout the day for the latest poll releases!

BCS Poll - PSU No. 8 (NC)

USA Today/Coaches Poll - PSU No. 6 (+2)

Associated Press (via ESPN) - PSU No. 6 (+1)

The Sporting News - PSU No. 6 (+1)

CBS Sportsline - PSU No. 7 (NC)

College Football Poll - Coming (LW: 9)

Jeff Sagarin's Rankings - PSU No. 7 (NC)/No. 8 (+2)-"ELO Chess," used in BCS formula

College Football News -

9. Penn State (11-1) Last Week: 8
W, Michigan State 49-18
next game: BOWL GAME

The Ranking Should Be Higher Because...Penn State showed off the defense, the offensive athleticism, and the toughness that should make it a nasty bowl team. Penn State blew away Oregon State and beat Ohio State in Columbus, while USC lost to Oregon State and beat Ohio State at home. Why do the Trojans deserve to be higher?

The Ranking Should Be Lower Because... while the loss to Iowa might not be all that bad, the struggles early against Indiana and Michigan are concerning. The question still hasn't been answered, can Daryll Clark throw a key pass and come through late in a tight game? Could this offense really work against USC? We might not find out, and instead, we'll get a rematch against Oregon State.

*Ed.-Oh yeah, and vote in the new poll down below!

More below the fold...

Penn State in the Polls; Holding pattern

Everyone's rankings are out. Penn State is hovering at the 8/8/7 (BCS/C/AP) slot. Penn State just has to worry about the Spartans right now.

BCS Poll - PSU No. 8 (NC)

USA Today/Coaches Poll - PSU No. 8 (NC)

Associated Press (via ESPN) - PSU No. 7 (NC)

The Sporting News - PSU No. 7 (NC)

CBS Sportsline - PSU No. 7 (NC)

College Football Poll - PSU No. 9 (-1)

Jeff Sagarin's Rankings - PSU No. 7 (NC)/No. 10 (+1)-"ELO Chess," used in BCS formula

College Football News -

9. Penn State (10-1) Last Week: 8
W, Indiana 34-7
next game: Michigan State

The Ranking Should Be Higher Because … fine, so maybe the Nittany Lions shouldn't have dropped after a dreary performance (at least in the first half) against Indiana, and maybe the defense really could slow down Missouri. It would be nice to see a dominant win over Michigan State to show that this team really does have a chance against USC (assuming things go to form in the bowl picture).

The Ranking Should Be Lower Because ... that was hardly the big answer to the Iowa loss that everyone was looking for. The defense was stifling against Indiana, but the offense hardly pounded away like it should've.

*Ed.-Oh yeah, and vote in the new poll down below!

More below the fold...

In case you needed a headache

Just wanted to get everyone up to speed on how the Big Ten championship thing is done.

Method to Determine Big Ten Conference Automatic Representative to Bowl Championship Series:

Effective for bowl games following the 2006-09 regular football seasons, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) will consist of five (5) bowl games: BCS National Championship Game, Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl. Participation by a Big Ten Conference member institution will be determined as follows:

a. BCS National Championship Game. In the event the conference has one or two football teams ranked No. 1 and/or No. 2 in the final BCS poll, these conference team(s) shall participate in the BCS National Championship Game.

b. Rose Bowl. Unless ranked No. 1 or No. 2 in the final BCS poll, the conference champion shall participate in the Rose Bowl. The championship shall be determined on the percentage basis of conference games (tie games counts ½ win and ½ loss). If there is a tie for the championship, the Rose Bowl representative will be determined as follows:

-1. An ineligible team shall not be considered in the standings for determination of the conference representative.
-2. If there is a tie for the championship, the winner of the game between these two teams shall represent the conference.
-3. If there is still a tie for the championship, or if the tied teams did not play each other, the team that played more games against Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams shall be eliminated.
-4. If there is still a tie, or if the tied teams did not play each other, or if both teams played the same number of games against an FCS team(s), the representative shall be determined on the percentage basis of all games played.
-5. If there is still a tie, the most recent team earning BCS automatic selection shall be eliminated.
-6. If more than two teams tie for the championship, the same selection procedures shall be followed with the following exceptions:
--a. If three teams are tied, and if one team defeated both of the other teams, then that team shall be the representative.
--b. If three teams are still tied, and if two of the three teams defeated the third team, the third team is eliminated, and the remaining two teams shall revert to the two- team tie procedure.
--c. If three teams are still tied, and there is a tie game between two of the three teams, or if two or all three of the teams did not play each other, the representative shall be determined on a percentage basis of all games played except, if one or two of the tied teams played more games against an FCS opponent than the other tied teams, then said team or teams shall be eliminated, and the remaining two teams, if applicable, shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
--d. If three teams are still tied, and one of the three teams is eliminated through the percentage basis of all games played, the remaining two teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
--e. If three teams are still tied, and all three teams have the same winning percentage of all games played, the most recent team representing the conference shall be eliminated, and the two remaining teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
-7. If four or more teams tie for the championship, the following selection procedure shall be followed:
--a. If one team defeated each of the other three teams, then that team shall be the representative.
--b. If two of the four teams defeated each of the other two teams, the latter two teams shall be eliminated, and the two remaining teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
--c. If three of the four teams defeated the fourth team, the fourth team is eliminated, and the remaining three teams shall revert to the three-team tie procedure.
--d. If there is a tie game between two of the four teams, or if two of the four teams did not play each other, the representative shall be determined on a percentage of all games played, except, if one or more of the tied teams played more games against an FCS opponent than the other tied teams, then said teams shall be eliminated, and the remaining teams, if applicable, shall revert to the two- or three-team tie procedure.
--e. If one of the four teams is eliminated through the percentage of all games played, the remaining three teams shall revert to the three-team tie procedure.
--f. If all four teams are still tied and have the same winning percentage of all games played, the most recent team representing the conference shall be eliminated and the three remaining teams shall revert to the three-team tie procedure.

More below the fold...

Big Ten Bloggers Roundtable :: Home Stretch

Brad over at Maize n Blue Nation was good enough to put this together.

1. With two weeks left in the season, it's safe to say that most schools have reached the point where the year has been a success or a disappointment. How has your school fared this year in your opinion? Or, is the jury still out?

ZN: The jury is still most definitely out on Penn State. If PSU had beaten Iowa, rolled over Indiana (which is still expected), and lost to Michigan State, it would have still been very successful. But now with the loss in Iowa City, Penn State could very well lose everything, if the Lions lose to Michigan State. This season has come down to one game. I know we're supposed to look at this "one game at a time," but screw that. If Penn State loses to Indiana, we should just drop football altogether. It's now about MSU, and MSU only.

2. Is your school heading to a bowl? If so, which one? And if not, WTF?

ZN: Yeah, Penn State's going bowling, but it still comes down to one game. Did I mention this already? Yeah, I did... MICHIGAN STATE. Penn State could go to the Rose Bowl, or, dare I say it, sneak into the BCS title game, if it wins on Nov. 22. But if PSU loses, it's off to the Capital One bowl, or the Outback Bowl, if MSU or OSU doesn't get an at-large bid.

3. The Big Ten has recently had a hard time getting respect among the national media as a top conference. Has the Big Ten taken a step forward or a step backward in this debate this season?

ZN: Well, I was about to say it's not as bad as they say, but then Michigan loses to Toledo, and Illinois loses to Western Michigan. Those were the ultimate WTF games. So, until the Big Ten starts beating these glorified high school teams, yeah, the Big Ten sucks ass.

4. Would the Big Ten benefit from adding another school to create two divisions like the SEC, Big 12, ACC and MAC? And if so, which school should be added? Or, should we drop one school?

ZN: How many times to we have to go through this? Notre Dame should (but won't, EVER) join the Big Ten, and split the league into two divisions. (I'm going to do my own BCS conferences realignment following the season) But since the Irish won't do that, the Big Ten should kick Penn State out. Let us go join the ACC or the Big East. Nothing makes worse sense than having the "Beast of the East" play in a Midwest conference.

5. Do you agree with President-elect Obama that college football should have an 8 school post-season playoff?

ZN: Yes, and no. There should be eight teams, all going to the traditional "Big Four" BCS bowls. Then, the following week, release one more BCS Poll. The top two teams in that poll goes to play in the BCS title game. But then again, if the conferences just get off their asses and all go to 12 teams, playing a conference title game, most of these issues would be worked out anyway. No, I don't like them either, but it would go a lot farther to solving these problems.

6a. Who is your favorite network television play-by-play announcer/color commentator/sideline reporter?

ZN: I wish they'd pair Brad Nessler with Kirk Herbstreit or Todd Blackledge. Keep Paul Maguire for some drunken fun. And because it's nearly required to say this, add Erin Andrews to the sidelines. That's a broadcast team for ya!

6b. If you listed Erin Andrews, please provide a photo/video to back
up your pick.

ZN: Fine.

More below the fold...

Penn State in the Polls :: Regrouping

Everyone's rankings are out. Penn State fell to No. 7/8/8, and deservedly so. There's still a lot to play for, though.

BCS Poll - PSU No. 8 (-5)

USA Today/Coaches Poll - PSU No. 8 (-6)

Associated Press (via ESPN) - PSU No. 7 (-4)

The Sporting News - PSU No. 7 (-5)

CBS Sportsline - PSU No. 7 (-4)

College Football Poll - PSU No. 8 (-7)

Jeff Sagarin's Rankings - PSU No. 7 (-6)/No. 11 (-7)-"ELO Chess," used in BCS formula

College Football News -

8. Penn State (9-1) Last Week: 4
L, at Iowa 24-23
next game: Indiana
The Ranking Should Be Higher Because … it can't be. At this point in the year, any team worth of the top five doesn't lose at Iowa with everything on the line. Even in the tough loss, the positives still hold true. The defense is still strong, the offensive line is among the best in America, and the receiving corps is experienced and talented. However ...
The Ranking Should Be Lower Because ... the one big question mark has been QB Daryll Clark in the fourth quarter. He didn't win the Ohio State game; Pat Devlin did. When the team needed a smooth and steady leader in the fourth quarter, Clark threw the interception that changed the season. The Nittany Lions need to look impressive again and they need to obliterate a bad Indiana team.

*Ed-Oh yeah, and vote in the new poll down below!

More below the fold...

Penn State in the Polls :: Searching for No. 1

Everyone's rankings are out. Texas Tech is siphoning way some of the votes from Penn State. A big win at Iowa, and a loss by Texas Tech, would go a long way in resolving that matter.

BCS Poll - PSU No. 3 (NC)

USA Today/Coaches Poll - PSU No. 2 [No. 1 votes: 14/61(+11)] (+1)

Associated Press (via ESPN) - PSU No. 3 [No. 1 votes: 6/65(+6)] (NC)

The Sporting News - PSU No. 2 (+1)

CBS Sportsline - PSU No. 3 (NC)

College Football Poll - PSU No. 1 (NC)

Jeff Sagarin's Rankings - PSU No. 1 (+1)/No. 4 (-1)-"ELO Chess," used in BCS formula

College Football News -

4. Penn State (9-0) (Last Week: 5)
Didn't Play This Week
next game: at Iowa
The Ranking Should Be Higher Because … the defense, in a one game shot, is good enough to beat anyone in the country. If the Texas offensive line could blast away late on Texas Tech, and the Alabama offensive line had problems with a few defensive fronts like Mississippi's and Kentucky's, then Penn State's lines could certainly show up and produce.
The Ranking Should Be Lower Because ... could the offense keep up with any of the top Big 12 attacks, and could it do much against the Alabama and Florida defenses? The Ohio State game didn't exactly inspire confidence, even in the win.

More below the fold...

Penn State jumped by Texas Tech in AP Poll

Well, it happened. We all had a feeling it would. The newest No. 2 team in the AP poll, Texas Tech, jumped over idle Penn State today. With the fall of previously-No. 1 Texas, Penn State now received six first-place votes in the AP. No. 1 Alabama got 46, No. 2 Texas Tech got 12, and now-No. 4 Florida got one.

On the sane, rational, BCS-relevant side of the polls, the USA Today Coaches Poll saw through the sensationalist fog, and voted Penn State No. 2, bumping Texas Tech up to No. 3. Alabama got 40 first-place votes, followed by Penn State's 14, then Texas Tech's six, and Oklahoma took the No. 4 slot, and one first-place vote.

Why don't I agree with this? This is why.

I'll have the complete weekly "Penn State in the Polls" post up later today, with all the rankings and where Penn State landed.

More below the fold...

Why Penn State should now be No. 2

As No. 1 Texas lost tonight in Lubbock, coupled with No. 8 Florida's demolition of No. 6 Georgia, I immediately started the inevitable argument: Who should be No. 2 now? I came up with a few reasons why Penn State shouldn't get jumped by any other team this week, specifically Texas Tech or Florida.

1. Texas Tech's win wasn't as impressive as Penn State's in Columbus. Tech won a night game, at home, against a Texas team that was a bit overrated overall, and very overrated on defense. State won a night game, away, in a stadium where the home team only lost three games since 2001, against an Ohio State team that wasn't overrated overall, but definitely underrated on defense coming into the game. Texas Tech also made several costly mistakes, like turnovers, penalties and gave up many big plays for scores. Penn State played a very clean game, away remember, without turnovers, no penalties and never gave up even a touchdown.

2. Florida already lost a game, at home, to a very mediocre Mississippi squad. In college football, you must win your games first, then argue for a spot in the National Championship game. Until there aren't any undefeated BCS-conference teams (Alabama, Penn State and Texas Tech are the only three left), you have no place in the title picture. Should Bama, PSU or Tech fall, then Florida can reenter the race.* And if the final polls come down to which team's loss was "better" or "worse," then the check list goes: 1. Home loss, or away loss? 2. How good or bad was the other team? 3. Was the game result close, and was the entire game close?

3. Penn State's schedule is tougher than the doubters suggest. Have you noticed that every time anyone (ahem, Mark May, Desmond Howard & Co.) runs down Penn State's "soft" non-conference schedule, they always leave out that pesky team from Corvallis? Yeah, Penn State embarrassed that same Oregon State team which beat Southern California. Throw in Ohio State, Wisconsin (yes, still a tough place to play) and Illinois, and you've got a decent schedule. Florida lost to Ole Miss, and beat very clearly overrated LSU and Georgia teams, neither of which were true road wins. I'm not saying Florida's schedule was easier than Penn States, just not hard enough to jump an undefeated Penn State in the rankings.

So there you go. Argue all you want. That's what college football is about, "every week is a playoff," right?

*This situation should actually remedy itself. Should Bama go undefeated, and Florida wins out, they'll meet in the SEC title game, eliminating one of them from NC consideration. Plus, Texas Tech will have to run the table, which would be very impressive, earning the Red Raiders their spot in the NC game above any one-loss team.

**On Alabama: while I do believe Penn State could beat Alabama, the Crimson Tide gets my nod for No 1 right now. That's not due to the lack-luster win over Arkansas State (which Penn State bumped from its 2008 schedule in favor of Oregon State, just saying), but because they have a slightly better resume, right now, than the Nittany Lions.

More below the fold...

Penn State in the Polls; Shedding Monkeys

Everyone's rankings are out. While many still peg Penn State as the No. 3 team in college football, the gap is closing between Penn State and Alabama for the No. 2 spot in the BCS–a mere 0.024 points separates the Lions and the Tide.

BCS Poll - PSU No. 3 (NC)

USA Today/Coaches Poll - PSU No. 3 (No. 1 votes: 3/61) (NC)

Associated Press (via ESPN) - PSU No. 3 (No. 1 votes: 0/65) (NC)

The Sporting News - PSU No. 3 (NC)

CBS Sportsline - PSU No. 3 (NC)

College Football Poll - PSU No. 2 (NC)

Jeff Sagarin's Rankings - PSU No. 2 (+1)/No. 3 (+5)-"ELO Chess," used in BCS formula

College Football News -

5. Penn State (9-0) (Last Week: 3)
W, at Ohio State 13-6
next game: at Iowa (Nov. 8)
The Ranking Should Be Higher Because … the team came up with its best win of the year and falls down two spots?! No matter how it happened, beating Ohio State in Columbus is impressive. The defense was way too quick for the extremely athletic Buckeyes, however ...
The Ranking Should Be Lower Because ... the offense struggled way too much, and we still don't know if Daryll Clark can play late in tight games. In a one game shot, could the Nittany Lions beat anyone in America? Absolutely. However, the offense needs to prove it can blow up against a good defense.

More below the fold...

Penn State in the Polls; Game of the Year

Everyone's rankings are out. Not much has changed going into the Ohio State game. Penn State debuted at No. 3 in the BCS Poll, which shouldn't surprise anyone at this point. The season comes down to one game for Penn State football.

BCS Poll - PSU No. 3

USA Today/Coaches Poll - PSU No. 3 (NC)

Associated Press (via ESPN) - PSU No. 3 (NC)

The Sporting News - PSU No. 3 (NC)

CBS Sportsline - PSU No. 3 (NC)

College Football Poll - PSU No. 2 (NC)

Jeff Sagarin's Rankings - PSU No. 3 (NC)/No. 8 (-2), ELO Chess, used in BCS formula

College Football News -

3. Penn State (8-0)
W, Michigan 46-17
next game: at Ohio State
The Ranking Should Be Higher Because … when it wanted to, it turned things up a few notches to blow away Michigan. The offense has speed, power, and experience, while the defense is playing out of this world, especially up front. However ...
The Ranking Should Be Lower Because ... that first half against the Wolverines was a bit too scary. If a miserable Michigan team can do that, then would could Alabama do? What about Florida? What's Ohio State going to do? This will be the big test.

More below the fold...

The Computers Love Penn State

When the AP and Coaches polls came out this week, Penn State hovered around No. 16 overall. But when we look at the leading computer rankings--Jeff Sagarin's and College Football Poll--there's a huge difference between the human and computer rankings.

You will notice that in the current CFP, Penn State gets a hefty dose of confidence and a No. 8 ranking. Those looking to discredit the computers will say, "yeah, but the computers didn't 'see' the games." Sorry, that doesn't work. CFP has been one of the most accurate predictors of college football since the early 1990's.

One of my favorite aspects of computer rankings--a lack of bias--comes to the forefront this season, as CFP (Sept. 14 rankings, right) ranks the good SEC teams higher because they're good, not just because they play in the SEC. Also, good teams like UConn and USF are ranked generally higher, because the computer doesn't care that their conference is named the Big East.

What’s even more interesting is that the Sagarin rankings (Sept. 14 rankings, below) put Penn State even higher, at No. 7. But other teams, like USF (Sagarin No. 26), Missouri (No. 18) and Georgia (No. 5) are ranked much lower than conventional wisdom would suggest. But teams like LSU (No. 4), Cal (No. 16) and Virginia Tech (No. 11!) are very highly ranked.


As a Penn State fan, I can’t complain, but as a college football fan, this just doesn’t seem right. I know it’s very early in the season, and things will work out. But right now, the rankings are very flawed. A growing number of fans want the polls to release later in the season, say week four. That won’t happen, as it’s the media’s job to generate hype, controversies and promote college football’s leading conversation—the polls. In fact, the BCS has done one thing right over the years, moving its release date to mid-season. But this is why we love college football more than the NFL. It will never end… fantastic!

More below the fold...

One Loss And We're Not Out

I came across this picture today, showing Penn State's offense lined up against a Dan Marino-led Pittsburgh team in 1982, and it made me think. Everyone's so worried about losing to Ohio State--nothing suggests we will win--in Columbus, which would effectively end our National Championship hopes. Wrong. During the '82 regular season, Penn State was clobbered by Alabama 42-21 in Tuscaloosa. A few months later, the Nittany Lions were National Champions. I'm not saying PSU will definitely win the MNC this year, but don't freak out if the only loss is to Ohio State in the 'Shoe. In fact, Ohio State could beat USC, then as No. 1 or 2 beat PSU, then lose to another Big Ten team in November--ehem, Illinois. If the only PSU loss was to an undefeated top-ranked OSU team in October, it would not hurt the Lions' ranking as much as a late-season letdown for Ohio State. And as we all saw last season, cards fall in tricky places, and PSU could very well end up in the NC with only one loss. Just thought I'd mention that.

Dammit, I just spilled Kool-Aid all over the desk!

More below the fold...

The Definition of Rediculous

As we actually begin to think the United States government can't get much worse, they go ahead and waste our tax money on this. Oh, wait, they probably used the borrowed money from China to fund it.

Full story below:

WASHINGTON -- Forget government corruption or corporate fraud. Three members of Congress want the Justice Department to investigate whether college football's Bowl Championship Series is an illegal enterprise.

Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) are introducing a resolution rejecting the oft-criticized bowl system as an illegal restriction on trade because only the largest universities compete in most of the major bowl games. The resolution would require Justice's antitrust division to investigate whether the system violates federal law.

The measure would also put Congress on record as supporting a college football playoff.

"Who elected these NCAA people? Who are they to decide who competes for the championship?" Abercrombie said at a press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill, gripping a souvenir Hawaii football.

Abercrombie said the matter is worthy of federal review because college football is big business with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.

"It's money. That's what this is all about," he said.

But it's no coincidence that all three lawmakers have home-state schools with recent beefs against the bowl system.

Hawaii and Boise State University in Idaho each had an undefeated season in recent years but were denied a shot at the championship. And Westmoreland said he is still smarting about his Georgia Bulldogs being passed over for the national championship game last year.

Georgia instead was matched up against undefeated Hawaii in the Allstate Sugar Bowl, winning 41-10.

Westmoreland and Abercrombie said they started talking about the resolution after that game, as Abercrombie was paying off a bet with chocolate-covered macadamia nuts.

The lawmakers say the bowl system is rigid and blocks all but the largest universities from competing in postseason bowls, denying dozens of others not just the opportunity to compete but also a shot at the big payoffs and national exposure that come with bowl appearances.

Abercrombie maintained that television markets are one factor in selecting which teams go to high-profile bowls.

"We shouldn't have to argue about who the champion is," Westmoreland said, citing the excitement and unpredictability of the NCAA college basketball tournament. "That should be decided on the field."

The BCS was created in 1998 by the six most powerful conferences. It relies on polls and computer ratings to determine which teams qualify for the top bowls.

Congress held a hearing on the BCS in 2005, but no legislation came of it.

In a statement, ACC commissioner and current BCS administrator John Swofford said the BCS allows all qualified teams to participate and is beneficial for student-athletes, universities and fans.

"This issue has been looked at before," Swofford said. "We're confident that it complies with the law."

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press

More below the fold...

BCS Conference Strength

What better way to pass the time than dissecting other bloggers' dissection of college football? As we are only ankle-deep in the 2008 football season, there's not much to talk about other than roster changes, a few sprinkles of info from Spring practices, and maybe a "Our conference is better than yours" argument or two. And that's where we have it. Even though it's not really defending or attacking a particular conference, Bears Necessity made quite a splash with its Which Conference Proved They Were the Strongest? post this week.

"The Big 10 did not defeat a single team above .500 from the big conferences. Not one. Not any. No no no."

I realize that this post was about OOC schedules. Fine. But the entire argument is null and void if you don't include bowl games to the OOC opponent list. Michigan beat Florida and Penn State beat Texas A&M, both teams coming in with .500+ records. I know, teams don't plan who they'll play in the bowl, but don't those games count towards which conference is better? OK though, I'll go along with the regular-season OOC games only. But what about other conferences, like the Pac-10?

"...both USC and Arizona St. had two weak schedules this year, but at least the Trojans had to go on the road for two of them (and the Nebraska game did seem like a toughie to begin with)."

Oh, so it's OK for USC to not completely blow the doors off (not right away, at least) of Nebraska because the Huskers were supposed to be better? Naha. If you want to play that card, then you have to give Penn State credit for playing a Notre Dame team coming off of two straight BCS appearances, 10-win seasons and was supposed to finish somewhere around 6-6. Or what about Ohio State's win over Washington in Seattle? The Huskies were 2-0, just off upsetting Boise State. At that point, they were supposed to be a decent team, possibly in bowl contention. If you're going to make an argument, first be careful how much ammo the other side has.

"After LSU beating Virginia Tech, no other team defeated a Division I opponent with more than eight wins. Again, the SEC’s accomplishments were internal (beating up on each other) rather than external (11-1 against the Sun Belt! POWER LEVEL RISING!)"

Finally! Someone outside of the Big Ten calling out the SEC for playing glorified high school teams OOC. I don't care what the SEC schedules are like in 2008 (many more teams are traveling a good distance for OOC BCS games), the SEC has still been the absolute worst conference when it comes to playing OOC games away from the Confederate States of America.

"Florida State had to go to Boulder (and won), play the Tide (and won) along with getting beaten by the Gators. Thanks to their glorious past, the Seminoles will not be having any light schedules anytime soon."

Colorado lost to Iowa State, Alabama and let Nebraska torch them for 51. (Even though CU won 65-51) Alabama lost to Louisiana-Monroe... 'nuff said there

"Cal beating Tennessee was mighty impressive, but it’s always tougher to go into SEC country and win it. South Florida took advantage of Tiger mistakes and blasted their way to victory. Cincinnati obliterating Oregon State was a close 2nd."

This was part of the Big East analysis, but of course a Cal win over an underachieving Tennessee team was "mighty impressive" according to this Cal homer. But for South Florida, the win at Auburn was one of the most underrated games in 2007. At first, everyone was shrugging it off as a fluke. Then USF got to No. 2, and lost to Rutgers. Out came the "Ah ha! I knew they were fake!" arguments. No, and no again. The Big East will never gain respect for what its done the last few years. I can't really explain it. It's just one of those oddities in college football that will never be solved. But now for the topper:

"...the Big 10 looks like a total embarrassment in terms of the opponents they face. It’s almost hard to believe why they’ve performed so badly during BCS season–they never look totally prepared for what’s coming to them."

Fared so badly, indeed. The Big Ten has sent seven different teams to the BCS: Ohio State (4-2), Michigan (1-3), Illinois (0-2), Wisconsin (2-0), Penn State (1-0), Iowa (0-1), Purdue (0-1). The SEC has had only six different teams represent the conference in the BCS: LSU (4-0), Florida (3-1), Georgia (2-1), Tennessee (1-1), Alabama (0-1), Auburn (1-0). The Big Ten is 8-9, while the SEC is 11-4. But if the SEC is so wonderful--not saying that the author of Bears Necessity is saying the SEC is better; it's just the most common conference comparison in football, BT vs. SEC--then why hasn't it sent more teams to the BCS on a regular basis? With 12 teams, you'd think there would be a different pairing every year, like the Big Ten had in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (OK, I know, Illinois shouldn't have been there, but they were, so shut up about it already) And if you want to throw a little dirt in their Johnny Reb eyes, just bring up the whole Georgia beating Hawaii thing from last season.

No conference is better than the other. You can't gauge something like that in college football, when teams rarely play common opponents, never mind playing teams from Division I-A. But it sure is fun to argue, isn't it?

- - - -

Just a side note, RUTS just brought it to my attention that Penn State has released its official Spring 2008 roster. I'll take a look at it and give some thoughts.

More below the fold...

Okay, new plan...

I'll have Part 2 of "Schedule..." up today this week, but slightly different. Rather than go over what I think were the top five worst schedules of all the BCS teams since 2000--I really don't feel like going through all 70+ teams--I'm going to narrow down the criteria to the teams that actually made it to the BCS games, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange since 2003--the last five years. I'm also going to go over the BCS Championship Game participants from 2006 and 2007. That should be real fun (that is, not that anyone reading this blog should be having fun), especially once the SEC folk finally wake up from their moonshine haze. See you all then.

More below the fold...