I don't want to start a major broo-ha-ha here, especially with LSU and SEC folks, and I appreciate all the constructive suggestions for altering the BCS formula for improving the rankings, especially with regard to margin of victory, and somehow fixing the irony of losing points for potentially beating UGA twice, and seeing UGA drop out of the top ten, etc. etc. etc. These are all valid concerns....

BUT, and it is a big BUT. I have watched Saban for years. This guy is a great and brilliant coach, both in recruiting and strategically, and believe me, we in BigTen land regretted it when he left MSU for LSU (although there was a HUGE character issue at the time--but we won't go into that; he is also always flirting with NFL-type folks, which is another problem for the schools employing him, but we won't go into that either).

AND HERE IS MY POINT (sorry it took so long). Saban has a heritage, both at MSU and now at LSU, for always influencing his ADs to schedule patsies for many of the initial games. He believes in motivating his players by giving them a bit of an easy road early on, so they gain in confidence.

USC does not use this approach. Now as we approach the end of the season, schools are being rewarded for strength of schedule in the BCS rankings. If USC stays no.2, I for one will think it justified, and a clear warning to all the coaches to not use the Saban philosophy. It gets you in trouble in a pinch.

I am curious to know whether anyone is mathematically adept enough to figure out whether UGA, if it would have beaten LSU early on, would now be ranked ahead of USC. I suspect so, but don't know, and I don't have the time to check relative schedules. I do know the whole heritage of Saban's scheduling philosophy, and there is some poetic justice to his current problem... What goes round comes round...

:(

No confirmation of actual contact, but rumor mills around the Atlanta Falcons favor Mr. Saban to replace Dan Reeves next year. Given the pool of candidates, he seems among the most credible for that position. Will let you know if anything surfaces.

- - - - -

As for your BCS quandry, I feel certain that had UGA beaten LSU, then the schools would merely have switched places in the BCS rankings. Looking at the BCS calculations, UGA would have only one loss and one more quality win factored in, essentially the same figures LSU has now. So, if UGA were to have beaten LSU and currently held all the poll and computer poll positions LSU has now, they would have a BCS score of 7.27, still .37 points behind USC. A Florida victory this past Saturday may have been enough to make up the difference.

Now, UGA does have a better strength of schedule rating, and may have done enough to sway more pollsters or computer points to garner better scores there than LSU is recieving now. In that case UGA would likely sit at #2, but would still face the same prospect of losing quality win points by facing LSU again in the SEC title game. (ie, beating them again would knock them out of the BCS top ten and remove them from the realm of BCS-quality wins) In which case, UGA would be even more screwed than LSU is now by virtue of having to play the SEC title game.

I hate the BCS, but in order to keep consistent with its purpose, the BCS needs that beating-a-team-twice rule. What do we have the BCS instead of? A PLAYOFF. What is the SEC Championship game? A PLAYOFF. Therefore, the BCS must not reward any playoff-ing anymore than it has to. It's a cheap shot within its own rules, and I hate it, but I understand it.


Arizona was #5 in the country when LSU scheduled them. We scheduled VaTech for two games, and they backed out of the Baton Rouge game to be played next year (to be played in '07). Marshall backed out of a game two months before the beginning of the season. Bowling Green also agreed to a game in BR but backed out. I don't see your "patsy" argument.

:([/quote]

Au contraire--Had UGA beaten LSU earlier in the year, LSU would currently have a 6-2 conf record to Ole Miss's 7-1. The SECCG would be UGA and Ole Miss--UGA would likely be playing in New Orleans after spanking the Runts.

I heard from a local sports talk show host about Matrshall backing out on LSU, so they have an excuse. However, the concept is still valid. KS St has been accused of this for some time. What is worse, is that Memphis is rumored to be canceling home and home games with UTN because they want to copy the TCU (KS St/Saban) model! While I have no problem with UTN playing an opponant with more national prestige, I am disturbed by the idea of every division IB school playing a cupcake schedule and then demanding a BCS bowl because they are undefeated!

My idea of letting teams with 2 or less losses have a second bowl game if they are NOT in a conference championship game would only partially offset this idea. Can someone tell me (us) how to stop this without the IB's complaining all them time? I do NOT accept any suggestion that STARTS with a playoff. This problem needs to be settled BEFORE you set up a playoff. Otherwise, every near-do-well program will want to join the Sunbelt! ;) ;)

FBfan

You are quite correct sir, and thank you for pointing out my oversight. So, it stands to reason then that if UGA had beaten LSU, and then beat Ole Miss, they would have stood a good chance at leapfrogging USC.

Excellent point that isn't made often enough. But isn't the C-USA sched weak enough as it is? Here's my solution: ask yourself, what's this fascination with an 8-game conf schedule? The SEC had a 6-game rotation in the 70's and 80's, and it did just fine. If you have a 6-game rotation (which, which it comes to C-USA, more than satisfies the few traditional rivalries in the conf), teams have more opportunities to schedule tough opponents in order to gain BCS ground.

But they won't do it because they'd rather complain all season and threaten to sue just to blow it all in Honolulu (can you say BYU?).

I think the whole discussion about strength of schedule is very funny. It seems that the SOS rule can be applied only when it is most convenient for a particular argument. I think that any BCS teams schedule is twice as hard as any non-BCS team schedule. If K State or LSU or anyone can run the tables non-conference and then "win" their BCS league, they are worthy of national championship acclaim. The BCS is a imperfect system to sort out who the top 2 should be.
Football uses the regular season to sift out the best teams. Access is granted by winning. If a team can win the SEC football title and has 3-4 other "easy" wins, it means little in the end. We can argue over the computer system and SOS, but it is not much different than the many football national co-champions and undefeated no champions of the football past. No schedule can be made without weakness. I feel the best matchup will be made through the BCS and if there is controversy, that's just college football in January! Without it, what would we rail on about on these boards? 8-)

The 8 game schedule strengthens the ties in the conference and allows you to crown a true champion. And in the case of the non-BCS teams, gives you sufficient home games. That is one of the biggest factors driving the MWC expansion. Reality is the BCS teams don't like to play road games at non-BCS schools. And if they do, its a 1 road for 2 or 3 home games. So the non-BCS need the 8 game schedule to get sufficient home games.

I didn't like the old SEC schedule. The top teams didn't play each other enough. I think LSU sometimes played a 5 game schedule. It was also unbalanced. Kentucky usually played 7 games, most schools played 6 and some would play 5.

[list][*]Houston[/*:m] [*]Rice[/*:m] [*]SMU[/*:m] [*]TCU[/*:m] [*]Tulane[/*:m] [*]Tulsa[/list:u:[/*:m]]

[list][*]Central Florida[/*:m] [*]East Carolina[/*:m] [*]Marshall[/*:m] [*]Memphis[/*:m] [*]Southern Mississippi[/*:m] [*]UAB[/list:u:[/*:m]]

This will likely be the C-USA lineup in a couple of years. If they play a round-robin division schedule with a championship game, balance is achieved. Of course cross-division games will be played--Tulane will want to play USM and Memphis. If that desire is catered to, it looks like there will be an 8-game schedule and my argument is crap to C-USA.

You're right about the lack of balance in the old SEC. The further back you go, the more often you will see multiple undefeated, untied teams at the top of the list. Alabama and Tulane did it once, and Tennessee shared the top, undefeated, three times with Georgia/GT (TU/UT/GT were all undefeated in 1939). The biggest reason for this was geography and finances. Usually SEC teams would play the closest teams (tough for TU/LSU/UF/UK) with maybe one big long trip per year. As for Tennessee and the Georgia teams, they're really close to each other, but it's a harsh patch of mountains that separates them--that's why to this point UT has only played UGA just over 30 times.

Ah, yes...
The infamous Bear Bryant schedule...
This was the Bears way to assure that Alabama would always be in the hunt. In the old SEC this worked because you didn't want to beat up on each other. Fortunately SOS and the addition of Arkansas and SoCar. have forced the SEC to do the right thing and schedule each other.

It does, however, take a lot of hubris for lesser conferences to not play the big boys and then demand a seat at the championship table. SOS shows who has played whom, and the relative strength of who you've played in conference and of course beaten.
LSU will ultimately gain or fail based on who they played out of conference, and who they played in conference.
My bet is they finish behind SC, and SC goes to Sugar Bowl. If you don't want that to happen, schedule tougher teams out of conference.
8-)

LSU did just that. Except Troy State and Marshall had different plans and backed out at the last minute, forcing LSU to schedule Western Illinois and LA-Monroe. I have no link, but I saw where someone did the math, and had those two sleepers not backed out, LSU would be #2 right now. The SEC should have a blacklist of teams like this, because this shouldn't happen.

As far as the Bear Bryant schedule, great point, but it's a different world with the lesser confs. The SEC had a sparce schedule so they wouldn't beat up on each other, but if C-USA or some other mid-major conf does it, it allows them to schedule a few Goliaths.

Schools dropping late from the schedule is definitely a problem.
I have a question regarding this though...
Why didn't LSU play South Florida?
One of these teams would've had to say no to this arrangement or they didn't try hard enough.
So.Fla was in the same boat and lost two 1A games.
The same weekend LSU played W.Ill, So.Fla had a bye. Seems to me this would've solved the problem. Either somebody in the athletic office is not working hard enough, or somebody didn't want to play somebody.
It could be So.Fla's fault, but they ended up playing only 11 games and two were 1AA. They couldn't be that stupid could they? May have cost them a bowl bid.
Would LSU have played them?

My only point here is that somebody has to do the work here to make the schedule fit. LSU dropped the ball if they allowed themselves to come up short by scheduling a 1AA opponent. They may pay the price. It's unfortunate because they did play a tough SEC schedule this year. (missed Kentucky and Vandy!)

You are definitely right on the mark that non-BCS schools should not be allowed to "make noise" when they don't schedule quality opponents OOC.
8-)

Excellent point that I'd not thought of. Western Illinois--1AA, not in-state, horrible choice (though at the time they were #1 in 1AA). South Florida may have been a tv game, and I don't know that USF would have demanded a return game. Sounds like a sweet deal.

Of course I can't speak for the situation, however. They may have been contacted, and they may have said no. Remember, we were trying to replace a home game, not a home-and-home (which wouldn't completely exonerate anyone). My guess is that the athl. dept. scrambled quick to get just a home game and didn't even consider USF, who probably would demand a return game.

Another factor is that USF has just agreed to their second conference affiliation change in two years. Virginia Tech--same thing, in between conferences, and they backed out. Marshall--in between confreerences, backed out. Maybe LSU saw that as a factor and didn't want to run the risk.

LSU-toot,

I don't have any knowledge regarding this either. It's obviously just a hypothetical I'm throwing out there. My only point is is that there seems to have been solutions here. It's just that LSU actually ended up playing a tougher conference schedule than SC, but there OOC may cost them. I'm just not certain based on what actually occured that LSU athletic department worked hard enough here to find the "backout" solution, especially if it ends up costing them a shot at the title.

Of course, hindsight is 20-20...eh
8-)