Everyone is talking about Rutgers, and they certainly deserve a ton of credit for a great season, but this week’s BCS standings are a joke. If you look at the computer rankings, somehow Rutgers is ranked #2 by the computers:
Perhaps the biggest surprise of the week belongs to the new No. 6 — Rutgers. The unbeaten Scarlet Knights shocked many observers with a 28-25 comeback win over former-No. 3 Louisville. Rutgers was down 25-7 at one point in the second quarter before rallying with 21 unanswered points.
The computer rankings seem to love the Knights. The computers have Rutgers second behind Michigan and ahead of Ohio State.
Who are the morons who created these computers? Rutgers ranked over Ohio State? Are you kidding me? Ohio State would probably crush Rutgers by 20-30 points.
Fortunately, the computers only count for 1/3 of the BCS rankings.
Please, give us a playoff system.
Follow the Scores Report editors on Twitter @clevelandteams and @bullzeyedotcom.
Ohio State and Michigan would make Rutgers so one-demensional on offense it’s not even funny. I like the story, but Mike Teel can’t even complete an out pattern.
-AS-
I don’t think you can say with 100% certainty that any Top 15 team would be any other Top 15 team on any given day, which is exactly why we need a playoff system.
That’s why they play the games. A four-, six- or eight-game playoff would provide a nice balance between keeping the importance of regular season games while also making the national championship more exciting and inclusive. If you go undefeated throughout the Big East season and nobody beats you in non-conference play, shouldn’t you have a chance to play for the title?
“If you go undefeated throughout the Big East season and nobody beats you in non-conference play, shouldn’t you have a chance to play for the title?”
In the current system? No. Not if your schedule looks like this, anyway:
North Carolina
Illinois
Ohio
Howard
South Florida
Navy
Pittsburgh
Connecticut
Louisville
Come on. If Rutgers made it to the title game after battling their way through a playoff system, then absolutely, they deserve to be there. But just because you go undefeated against Illinois, Howard, South Florida and UConn doesn’t mean you deserve a shot at the title. Whoever loses the OSU/UM game this weekend has a better argument to be in the National Championship game than Rutgers.
John – I totally agree – that’s why I ended the post pleading for a playoff system. In such a system Rutgers would and should get a chance to win it on the field. As an Ohio State fan who had to listen to all the experts say Miami was unbeatable back in 2002, I certainly understand that it should be decided on the field.
That said, we have the current system, and even a playoff system has to decide how to pick the teams. My point is that any set of computers that would rank Rutgers over Ohio State at this point in the season is a complete joke. Ohio State handily beat Texas on the road. Rutgers just beat their first ranked team since 1988.
“Ohio State handily beat Texas on the road. Rutgers just beat their first ranked team since 1988.”
Exactly. Well said, G.
You forgot a few teams on that list, JEC. If Rutgers is to go undefeated, then they will have to win at #8 West Virginia as well.
Honestly, I don’t know what 1988 has to do with this year’s Rutgers team. So the school doesn’t have a great tradition, that doesn’t mean this year’s team is any less deserving.
4 of the 6 computer rankings picked the Rutgers schedule over the OSU schedule, so there must be something there. Looking at the OSU schedule, they have three wins over Top 25 opponents, but two (Iowa and Penn St.) have since dropped out and Texas has dropped to #11. Rutgers’ only quality win is against #12 (then #3) Louisville. The two teams share one common opponent – Illinois. OSU beat them on the road, 17-10, while Rutgers won at home, 33-0. Maybe the margin of victory in those games has something to do with it.
Do I think that Rutgers is better than Ohio State? No. Do I think they are better than Michigan? No. But the loser of the UM/OSU game will have had their chance – Rutgers hasn’t, and no one has been able to beat them…yet. If they run the table, including a win at West Virigina, it’s hard to argue against them playing in the title game.
That said, they’ll probably lose to Cincy this weekend.
I listed everyone Rutgers has played so far.
“The two teams share one common opponent – Illinois. OSU beat them on the road, 17-10, while Rutgers won at home, 33-0. Maybe the margin of victory in those games has something to do with it.”
So the fact that OSU played one tight game against Illinois overshadows the fact that they’ve beaten everyone else on their schedule by an average of 27 points, with the slimmest margin of victory coming on the road against then-#2 Texas, 24-7?
When you quoted me, I was talking about going “undefeated throughout the Big East season” so I was describing a resume that included an undefeated record and a win at WVU.
“So the fact that OSU played one tight game against Illinois overshadows the fact that they’ve beaten everyone else on their schedule by an average of 27 points, with the slimmest margin of victory coming on the road against then-#2 Texas, 24-7? ”
I don’t know what goes into the computer rankings, but at this point the two teams only share one common foe (Illinios) and Rutgers beat them by a much wider margin. If I had to point to one thing, that would be it. The Rutgers game against Cincy will give them two common foes.
Computer rankings are just that, computer rankings. They don’t have the same insight and nuance as the human rankings nor do they have the same preconceptions about teams and programs. I think a little bit of unbiased statistical analysis is good for the system.
This will all change on Saturday.
One problem with the computers is that margin of victory cannot be a factor due to the controversy from several years ago.
I agree that some statistical analysis is good, and thankfully it’s only 1/3 of the formula. But one way to judge such an “unbiased” system is to look at the results and simply ask yourself if they make sense. Here, they don’t. The fact is that there is no such thing as “unbiased” statistical analysis. Everything depends on how you weigh specific factors. Not permitting any use of margin of victory seems to be a big problem.
This highlights our mutual belief that we need a playoff. But as long as we stay with a BCS system, we need to have a computer system that makes some sense.
I don’t know that the computer rankings don’t make sense. The Big Ten has a non-conference record of 32-11, while the BIg East is 32-8 vs. non conference foes. The two conferences have split their six games against each another (OSU beat Cincy, Rutgers beat Illinois, Syracuse beat Illinois but lost to Iowa, UConn beat Indiana and Pitt lost to MSU). Right now, OSU has a single win versus a current Top 25 team (Texas), as does Rutgers (Louisville). They have one common foe (Illiniois) I mentioned before, which Rutgers beat more handily. Four of the six computer rankings say that Rutgers is the better team, while two of the six say that OSU is the better squad. From a purely statistical standpoint, that makes good sense.
The human element is 2/3 of the entire BCS equation, which is plenty.
But back to my prior point, Ohio State dominated Texas on the road. Rutgers barely won a game a home only after Louisville jumped off sides on a field goal attempt. Your suggestion that these two games should be treated equally demonstrates the limitations of statistics.
Your reference to the margin of victory in the Illinois games is not a factor, because the computers are not perimitted to take margin of victory into account. If they would do that Ohio State would be the clear #1 team even in the computer rankings. They average over 35 points per game and give up less than 9 points per game. Therefore, the rankings do not reflect a pure statistical standpoint, because a very important stat is not permitted to be considered.
The margin of victory was eliminated so that teams wouldn’t run up the score, right? I don’t particularly like that, but I also don’t like it when teams run up the score to help their BCS ranking. Margin of victory should be considered up to 30 points (or some other reasonable, arbitrary number) so that a team like OSU can get credit for their dominance during the season. At the same time, Rutgers should get credit for the “better” win they had against Illniois. Either way, the non-conference records and the interconference records indicate that the Big Ten is not that much stronger than the Big East this season.
In my estimation, a win is a win. Teams have bad days, but the important thing is that they get out with a victory. I do believe that margin of victory should play a part, but it shouldn’t be a big part. It would be interesting to dive into the six computer rankings and figure out what makes them tick. Why are there six? Can’t the BCS come to a consensus on which one is best? My guess is that they use the six to generate the “computer score” to limit the weaknesses of any one system.
The BCS should definitely consider utilizing a capped margin of victory statistic.