You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

In college football, going undefeated, particularly in a BCS conference, is a special achievement and creates a presumption that such a team should play for the National title. However, that presumption may be overcome by teams with 1-Loss. I thought about what factors weigh in:

1) Strength of Schedule required to be better. The one loss team in question must have had a harder schedule to be considered, IMO. This brings up two interesting questions:

a) What do you look at to determine who had the harder schedule?
Each individual game? Computer ranked schedule difficulty?

b) How much of a harder schedule does it have to be? This refers
particularly to computer rankings. If the 0-Loss team had the 30th
and the 1-loss team had the 29th that seems almost irrelevant,
however if the 1-loss team had the toughest schedule in the nation,
would that be enough? Where do you draw that line?

2) Who the 1-loss team lost to? Does it matter if they lost to an undefeated
team (ala Texas) rather than a below average team (ala USC)? How much?

3) What if the 1-loss team would be in a rematch with an undefeated team that
had already beaten them? To what extent should the 1-loss team be viewed as
having already lost their chance because they played that team?

4) What about common opponents of both the 0-loss and 1-loss team?

How do you view these issues? Do you add other considerations (aside from fandom of course)?

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) Who the 1-loss team lost to? Does it matter if they lost to an undefeated
team (ala Texas) rather than a below average team (ala USC)? How much?



[/ QUOTE ]

USC lost to Oregon St. Oregon State is #22 in the Colley rankings, #17 in Sagarin's ELO-Chess and #24 in Sagarin's Predictor. I wouldn't call that "below average".

And to answer your question, the BCS was set up with 6 specific conferences in mind. If you are undefeated in one of those 6 conferences you deserve to be in the NC game. The only reason they shouldn't be in the title game is if there are 2 other undefeateds.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

Sorry Cal-guy, didn't realize OSU was that good, but the general question still remains. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

So, if you were a voter, and an undefeated BCS school who had a 100th ranked schedule was one choice and a 1-loss BCS school who had the toughest schedule was the other, you'd go with the undefeated team?

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

caretaker,

good post, but if someone calls Oregon State (6-3, BCS #24) a below average team again i'm gonna go on a shooting spree.

I think you touched on most of the major factors to consider. Things i'd argue with:

-Common opponents i think is a bad way to compare teams... Buffalo (#151 Sagarin) did a hell of a lot better against Ball State than Michigan did, but it doesn't mean much. Analyze each team's performance in each game and there's no need for this.

-Margin of Victory HAS to be a consideration. If you look only at who has beaten who, Rutgers is the #3 team in the country (Sagarin ELO_CHESS). However if you account for MoV, Sagarin drops them to #10 (#21 in Predictor). Clearly dominating wins and losses should mean more than winning/losing close.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

So if you were voting, what would you look at to make the choice and how much better would the 1-loss team have to be on those factors to put them over top?

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

It depends. Right now, I'd take Texas, Cal, and probably Florida over Rutgers.

Last week, I would've taken Louisville.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

Why Tex., Cal., or Flo. over Rutgers? Why not USC?

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

Well, maybe USC. I just don't think USC is as good as Cal, Texas or Florida because of three iffy wins against Washington, Washington State, and Arizona State.

Meh, we'll definitely learn more about USC in the next 4 weeks.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Cal-guy, didn't realize OSU was that good, but the general question still remains. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

So, if you were a voter, and an undefeated BCS school who had a 100th ranked schedule was one choice and a 1-loss BCS school who had the toughest schedule was the other, you'd go with the undefeated team?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's practically impossible for a BCS school to have the 100th ranked schedule. E.g., Wake Forest has 103rd ranked schedule now (according to Colley, 89 according to Sagarin), but they play 3 top 25 teams in the next 4 weeks.

But more to your point: I'd have undefeated Rutgers ahead of any one-loss BCS team, including Michigan/OSU loser.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
It depends. Right now, I'd take Texas, Cal, and probably Florida over Rutgers.

Last week, I would've taken Louisville.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will I ever be able to get you to realize Texas is overrated? Yes, they're good, but not the best 1 loss team ...

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It depends. Right now, I'd take Texas, Cal, and probably Florida over Rutgers.

Last week, I would've taken Louisville.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will I ever be able to get you to realize Texas is overrated? Yes, they're good, but not the best 1 loss team ...

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Not to mention can people drop the USC is overrated talk? The crushed one of the top SEC teams. I don't need to hear another PAC10<<<<<<<<<<<& lt;<<<<<<<<SEC

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

If you go undefeated in a BCS conference and there is only one onther undefeated team, then the 2 undefeateds should play for the national title. Otherwise the system is just a popularity contest.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

I would take the undefeated team every single time no matter what. If you're not going to, then you need to cut down on the number of D1 teams and put these teams with no chance at winning the title into DII.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

In other words, if somehow both OSU and Michigan lost this year, then I'd make it Rutgers vs Boise St in the National Title game. If you're not going to honor the undefeateds then why even have them in Division 1?

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

I'm amazed considering their popularity and previous #2 ranking that Notre Dame still isn't getting any talk when people are talking about 1-loss contenders. If USC and Notre Dame win out and Notre Dame wins, along with Michigan defeating Ohio State, it seems like Notre Dame would have a case. Their only loss would be to the other team playing for the National Title, similar to the argument that Texas has now.

Michigan/Notre Dame and Ohio State/Texas would both be interesting stories, rematches where the favorite dealt the underdog it's only loss, on their home field. Of course, the issue with both Notre Dame and Texas, is they have played very few contenders, but I don't see why people view Notre Dame below Texas, and can't see how it would be justified if Notre Dame knocks out 1-loss USC at the end of the season.

Also, if USC somehow beats Oregon, 1-loss Cal, and then 1-loss Notre Dame, it would be crazy if they weren't playing for the National Championship over 1-loss Texas or 1-loss Florida or whoever thinks they deserve it.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, if somehow both OSU and Michigan lost this year, then I'd make it Rutgers vs Boise St in the National Title game. If you're not going to honor the undefeateds then why even have them in Division 1?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because hell freezes over and there's a huge upset you want to put two teams that aren't amongst the top ten teams in college football in the title game? Jopke.

Hell, I'd prefer a Wisconsin/Arkansas title game. lol

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, if somehow both OSU and Michigan lost this year, then I'd make it Rutgers vs Boise St in the National Title game. If you're not going to honor the undefeateds then why even have them in Division 1?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because hell freezes over and there's a huge upset you want to put two teams that aren't amongst the top ten teams in college football in the title game? Jopke.

Hell, I'd prefer a Wisconsin/Arkansas title game. lol

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't among the top 10 only because they started the season so far back in the preseason polls...that is what is a jopke.

If you're going to rank certain teams so low in the preseason that they have no shot at the National Title even if they go undefeated, then just put them in Division II because theres no point in having them in a division that they can't win no matter what.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
They aren't among the top 10 only because they started the season so far back in the preseason polls...that is what is a jopke.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not saying you're totally wrong, but why does Sagarin (an unbiased computer ranking) have both West Virginia and Louisiville ranked ahead of Rutgers?

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

Probably because Sagarin takes strength of schedule into account- something that the teams CAN'T CONTROL AT ALL! I don't think SOS should even be considered because they're all playing DI teams. Thats my entire point. If we're really going to view some wins as 'non-quality' becuase the opponents were bad, then those opponents shouldn't even be in DI.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Probably because Sagarin takes strength of schedule into account- something that the teams CAN'T CONTROL AT ALL! I don't think SOS should even be considered because they're all playing DI teams. Thats my entire point. If we're really going to view some wins as 'non-quality' becuase the opponents were bad, then those opponents shouldn't even be in DI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Louisville's SoS (#24) is higher (because they've played both of their big games), but W.Viriginia and Rutgers are very similar so far (#55 vs #69). So again, why does a computer rank Rutgers over W.Virginia?

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Probably because Sagarin takes strength of schedule into account- something that the teams CAN'T CONTROL AT ALL! I don't think SOS should even be considered because they're all playing DI teams. Thats my entire point. If we're really going to view some wins as 'non-quality' becuase the opponents were bad, then those opponents shouldn't even be in DI.

[/ QUOTE ]

SOS absolutely matters, and it matters more so than MOV

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Probably because Sagarin takes strength of schedule into account- something that the teams CAN'T CONTROL AT ALL! I don't think SOS should even be considered because they're all playing DI teams. Thats my entire point. If we're really going to view some wins as 'non-quality' becuase the opponents were bad, then those opponents shouldn't even be in DI.

[/ QUOTE ]

not everyone plays D1 either.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

for example, Rutgers played Howard IIRC

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

And Penn State played Temple today. What? Temple is D1-a??

My point? 12 game schedule = scheduling of cupcakes for every program in the nation. 12 game schedule was the worst decision for the NCAA for the players, but great for the schools cause of money.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

Penn St also played at Notre Dame in the non-conf

Rutgers played North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, Navy, and Howard...they have no one to blame but themselves if they run the table and are left out.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
they have no one to blame but themselves if they run the table and are left out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what your saying and you are 100% correct. But, I just want ot point out that when they made that schedule, they were at best a bad/mediocre team and they just wanted some wins to possibly make a bowl game. I don't think they really thought that they would win all those games? And was UNC supposed to be that bad this year? And I really though Illinois was going to be better, I know you did too, they looked like a good program last year in that opening game.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

nah...Illinois has been crappy for awhile. I've been amazed by how well they've played this year. Last year, they were almost as bad as Temple is this year.
UNC hasn't been good since Brown left IIRC

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

Damnit at USC. Missed extra point is going to kill them unless they can mount a nice drive here with 3:03 left. Hey Rutgers did it.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They aren't among the top 10 only because they started the season so far back in the preseason polls...that is what is a jopke.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not saying you're totally wrong, but why does Sagarin (an unbiased computer ranking) have both West Virginia and Louisiville ranked ahead of Rutgers?

[/ QUOTE ]

That ranking is irrelevant. BCS uses ELO-Chess. Rutgers is #3 there. We now know that at least two of the computers will have Rutgers at #3.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

Don't forget that Rutgers SOS will also go up if Pitt wins this game against UCONN, and then beats either WVU or Louisville. Or am I wrong there?

Edit: Big East is in the heart of its conference schedule, which has been noted earlier.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that Rutgers SOS will also go up if Pitt wins this game against UCONN, and then beats either WVU or Louisville. Or am I wrong there?

Edit: Big East is in the heart of its conference schedule, which has been noted earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rutgers has played both pitt and uconn, so I wouldn't think this game would effect their sos.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

image, though, as they need to rack up wins verse top 25. Pitt had a chance of squeezing upto that status. Uconn did not.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

Boise State down headed into the 3rd quarter. On ESPNGameplan and locally in the Bay Area on channel 7.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rutgers played North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, Navy, and Howard...they have no one to blame but themselves if they run the table and are left out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Michigan has ND, Vandy, Central Michigan, and Ball State. Only one of those is worth a damn.

tOSU has Northern Illinois, Texas, Cincinnati, and Bowling Green. Again, only one good team.

Not saying that the schedules are even, but it's not like the other schools were out there scheduling a ton of big names. A single game that's more difficult should not put a one loss team ahead of an undefeated team.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rutgers has played both pitt and uconn, so I wouldn't think this game would effect their sos.

[/ QUOTE ]

it will with the voters, and that's who Rutgers need to impress (computers are going to love them if they beat W.Virginia).

Gus - the point im alluding to is this: several times this week i've heard people complaining that Rutgers had no chance to make the NC game no matter what they did all season. This just isn't true. They have a (relatively) weak schedule, but so do Louisville and W.Virginia, and they both would have made it if they ran the table.

here's the difference: Rutgers hasn't been playing championship caliber football. Especially with a weak conference, you can't beat N.Carolina by 6, Ohio by 17, S.Florida by 2, UConn by 11. Louisivlle and W.Virginia just don't have these tight games against weak teams (Louisville over Cincy by 6 is the only exception).

If Rutgers wants to be the #2 team in the country, they need to play like it. With an easy schedule just winning isn't enough. It isn't their preseason ranking that's killing them, it's all these competitive games with sub-par teams.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not saying that the schedules are even, but it's not like the other schools were out there scheduling a ton of big names. A single game that's more difficult should not put a one loss team ahead of an undefeated team.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again we are back to USC.

Out of conference schedule
Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. All of which have a chance at going to a BCS game.

If USC and Rutgers both win out, I would put USC ahead of Rutgers.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

ridonk,

I don't think I would argue with that. They definitely made the schedule to earn a birth. However, I really wish their one loss would've been to a better team than Oregon St.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

Dont worry, I don't think USC will win out anyway.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

well, hopefully they lose to Cal and beat ND, otherwise we'll have to put up with an obviously not-great one-loss ND team in the NC game instead of an obviously not-great but undefeated Rutgers team.

Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
 

It is my goal for the rest of the season to make people realize that Texas is not the best of the 1 loss teams, because Texas should be 8-2.

WHY DOES EVERYONE FORGET ABOUT THE NEBRASKA GAME!

Texas was DONE, GAME OVER, DRIVE HOME SAFELY.

With just under 2 minutes left, Nebraska a 1 point lead and Texas no timeouts left, here's what happened since so many people seem to forget :

3rd and 3 at NEB 36
Zac Taylor pass complete to Terrence Nunn for 9 yards, fumbled at the Neb 45, forced by Aaron Ross, recovered by Marcus Griffin at the Neb 45, tackled by Aaron Ross.

Had this [censored] Nunn not fumbled the ball, the game was over. The game was under 2 minutes left, Nebraska got a first down on the above play, and Texas didn't have a timeout left.

WHY IS TEXAS ONE OF THE BEST 1 LOSS TEAMS?!?!?!?!?! You got to be freakin kidding me.