Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features


» 2018 Free Agency Cost-Benefit Analysis

Is Kirk Cousins the best free-agent quarterback in recent memory? Should Trumaine Johnson or Malcolm Butler have gotten the larger contract? And what makes a free-agent contract good or bad, anyway?

06 Nov 2009

Varsity Numbers: Beatings and Moonbeams

by Bill Connelly

Lots of interesting stuff to talk about this week, from a historic beat-down, to the retirement of one of the game's best assistant coaches, to more playoff talk, to the unveiling of an Estimated S&P+ tool. Instead of some fancy introduction, let's just get started!

Box Score of the Week

Not to pile on after Fremeau explored this on Wednesday, but it is pretty clear whose was the most interesting VN box score from last week, simply for the sheer novelty.

Oregon 47, USC 20

As Brian Fremeau mentioned, USC's non-blowout streak was amazing Everybody gets blown out at one point or another, but Southern Cal seemed invincible for a while. Now, in USC's most blatant rebuilding/reloading year in the Pete Carroll era, even they couldn't avoid it.



Close % 74.8%
Field Position % 47.8% 66.3%
Leverage % 61.1% 70.0%
EqPts 19.2 39.7
Close Success Rate 41.2% 61.0%
Close PPP 0.34 0.55
Close S&P 0.751 1.161
EqPts 7.6 26.9
Close Success Rate 36.4% 62.9%
Close PPP 0.34 0.55
Close S&P 0.751 1.161
Line Yards/carry
3.29 4.58
EqPts 11.6 12.8
Close Success Rate 44.8% 58.3%
Close PPP 0.39 0.45
Close S&P 0.840 1.031
SD/PD Sack Rate
9.1% / 0.0% 0.0% / 0.0%
Success Rate 48.8% 60.7%
PPP 0.37 0.54
S&P 0.857 1.150
Success Rate 26.9% 45.8%
PPP 0.16 0.39
S&P 0.425 0.845
Number 1 1
Turnover Pts 5.2 3.7
Turnover Pts Margin
-1.5 +1.5
Q1 S&P 0.487 0.831
Q2 S&P 1.001 1.229
Q3 S&P 0.666 1.330
Q4 S&P 0.494 0.773
1st Down S&P 0.671 1.265
2nd Down S&P 0.706 0.707
3rd Down S&P 0.600 1.024
Projected Pt. Margin
-22.0 +22.0
Actual Pt. Margin
-27 +27

Most amazing stat: line yardage. You rarely see an average as high as 4.58 per carry. Think about what line yardage actually means -- it is an attempt to derive how much of a given rush was due to the offensive line. That means that, before LaMichael James or Jeremiah Masoli (or any of Oregon's other stout backs) had to do anything on their own, they had gained roughly five yards.

There have only been five games this season where a team gained as many as 4.58 line yards per carry against a BCS conference team:

  • California vs. Washington State (6.13 per carry)
  • N.C. State vs. Duke (5.02)
  • Florida vs. Kentucky (4.72)
  • Florida State vs. N.C. State (4.67)
  • Oregon vs. USC (4.58)

Washington State, Duke, Kentucky, N.C. State ... and USC.

One more note: Oregon's success rate on Passing Downs was just 3 percent lower than USC's success rate on Standard Downs. USC was decent on offense, but far from great. Matt Barkley seemed to handle the surroundings just fine, but Oregon's defense played extremely well, especially in the second half. They got a lead, and they teed off.

Most people are assuming that USC will now take out all of their frustrations on Arizona State, and that is a possibility. Butwhat we need to realize is that, while Oregon's offense was amazing Saturday, the current USC defense is not the typical "USC Defense" to which we have grown accustomed. They rank 33rd in Defensive S&P+ and 65th in Defensive Rushing S&P+. Sixty-fifth! USC's recovery requires growth, not simply the flip of a switch. They are young enough that, for all we know, they could be right back at the top of the rankings next season, but the extent to which they recover in 2009 is far from certain.

The Andrews Effect

With Florida State defensive coordinator Mickey Andrews' retirement this week, this seems like a good time to break out a tool we will be playing with quite a bit this offseason -- Estimated S&P+. In the absence of full play-by-play data, we will be setting up a hierarchy of data points to use for estimated S&P+. Yards and yards per play could be quite useful as far back as they can be gathered (which should be back into at least the late-1990s), but for now one resource is available all the way back to the turn of the century: points for and points against. Substituting points for S&P, we can set up the same type of formula to rank teams from all of last century.

Points are a relatively random measure when all is said and done. For example, if your defense returns an interception back for a touchdown, it counts for your offense. When gathered, yardage will be more useful. But for now, we've got points, and here's what points data (with the "+" adjustment) tells us about Florida State's defenses under Andrews.

In the three years preceding Andrews' arrival in Tallahassee, Florida State ranked 81st on defense in 1981, 36th in 1982, and 69th in 1983. To say the least, Andrews made them better, and it didn't take very long.

Florida State Defensive S&P+ Rankings (Est.)
During the Mickey Andrews Era
Season Def. S&P+ Rank 3-Yr.
Avg. Rk.
1984 98.1 53 --
1985 109.0 35 --
1986 130.8 17 35.0
1987 185.4 6 19.3
1988 146.0 11 11.3
1989 151.6 12 9.7
1990 122.6 24 15.7
1991 170.1 5 13.7
1992 168.5 3 10.7
1993 264.3* 1 3.0
1994 171.4 6 3.3
1995 120.9 26 11.0
1996 185.1* 4 12.0
1997 166.6 5 11.7
1998 217.3* 1 3.3
1999 171.6 4 3.3
2000 277.8 1 2.0
2001 124.0 24 9.7
2002 126.3 25 16.7
2003 160.2 7 18.7
2004 178.9 5 12.3
2005 100.9 46 19.3
2006 105.4 41 30.7
2007 113.5 28 38.3
2008 103.1 55 41.3
2009 97.1 72 51.7

In the 1990s (considered here to be 1991-2000), four FSU defenses ranked among the decade's Top 25. The 2000 defense ranked second; 1993, third; 1998, 12th; and 1996, 23rd. (The top 5: 1991 Miami, 2000 FSU, 1993 FSU, 1991 Washington, 1992 Arizona.) Perhaps even more impressive is the fact that nine of Florida State's 1990s defenses ranked among the decade's top 52 defenses. That's simply ridiculous. Consider this offseason project No. 2417: Figuring out if any defensive coordinator has had a more impressive decade than that.

The Seminoles' defense had seen their moving average falling for awhile now, and this might indeed have been a nice time for Andrews to step aside. But now that he is officially leaving, Florida State fans can begin to reminisce on just how impressive his 26 seasons in Tallahassee have been. There is still a flourishing "Will/should Bobby stay or leave?" debate, but Andrews' announced departure comes at a time where he can steal some deserved spotlight. He's earned it.

And while we're on the topic of Estimated S&P+, here are the Top 10 teams of the 1990s according to the measure, just for fun:

1. 1991 Miami (12-0, National Co-Champions)
2. 1993 Florida State (12-1, National Champions)
3. 2000 Florida State (11-2, No. 5 in final AP Poll)
4. 1991 Washington (12-0, National Co-Champions)
5. 1996 Ohio State (11-1, No. 2 in final AP Poll)
6. 1996 Nebraska (11-2, No. 6 in final AP Poll)
7. 1995 Nebraska (12-0, National Champions)
8. 2000 Oklahoma (13-0, National Champions)
9. 1997 Michigan (12-0, National Co-Champions)
10. 1998 Florida State (11-2, No. 3 in final AP Poll)

Revisiting the Perfect Playoff

We won't spend much time on this one (especially after the subject caught fire in the 7th Day Adventure comments section), but it's impossible to look at the current BCS situation and not reflect on our lovely playoff debate from the summer. With seven unbeaten teams and a couple of charging one-loss teams (namely Oregon and Georgia Tech), the field of teams seemingly deserving a shot at the national title has never been larger. Using the "perfect playoff" structure I laid out this summer, here is how a 16-team playoff would take shape. (Conference champions are simply determined by current standings; in case of ties without relevant tie-breakers, we went with S&P+ rankings; in the MAC, Temple was selected over Central Michigan just because it's Temple.)

16 Temple at 1 Florida
9 Georgia Tech at 8 Oregon
12 USC at 5 Cincinnati
13 Houston at 4 Iowa
11 LSU at 6 TCU
14 Pittsburgh at 3 Texas
10 Penn State at 7 Boise State
15 Troy at 2 Alabama

Oregon-GT (who would potentially combine for 700 rushing yards), Cincy-USC (the Vidal Hazelton Bowl), and Boise-Penn State (on the blue field!) in the first round, and potential Florida-Oregon, Iowa-Cincy, Texas-TCU, and Alabama-Boise matchups in the second. Wow. That would be some intriguing football. As would the battle for the final couple of spots in a Plus-1 system.

Of course, there is intrigue with the current system as well. Without upsets, it is pretty clear that we are looking at a BCS Championship Game of Texas versus the Alabama/Florida winner; but this is November. Upsets happen. If one of the favorites falls, then there are quite a few teams positioning themselves to benefit, from Iowa and Cincinnati, to mid-major heroes Boise State and TCU, to the aforementioned hot 1-loss teams.

Biggest S&P+ Movers of the Week

As with every week for the rest of the season, you can check out S&P+ rankings updated weekly on FO.

Offensive S&P+
Defensive S&P+

There was some major movement in the rankings, and not really because of any performance on the field. The preseason projections were finally completely phased out of the system, and we got a nice look at who the projections were propping up or holding down. For the rest of the season, the rises and falls should be quite minor compared to this.

Strongest Rises

Air Force (35 spots, from 67th to 32nd). The projections did not like them at all, but based on a pretty stout defense, the 5-4 Falcons might actually be a solid squad. Their losses have come at Minnesota, at Navy, at Utah, and at home to TCU, and it's safe to say that most teams ranked between 30th and 40th would do no better than about 1-3 in those games.

Mississippi State (30 spots, from 76th to 46th). They were supposed to be horrible, but the 4-5 Bulldogs have shown at least a little bit of bite, losing by 10 to Florida, four to LSU, 11 to Georgia Tech, and four to Houston. Those four teams have a combined 30-3 record. Once again, strength of schedule is clouding how decent Mississippi State may actually be.

Wake Forest (29 spots, from 74th to 45th). Wake is not amazing at anything in particular, but they probably weren't the 74th-best team in the country, so consider this a simple market adjustment.

Stanford (26 spots, from 91st to 65th). The Cardinal's offense actually hasn't quite lived up to expectations, but the defense has only been bad and not cataclysmic, as the numbers apparently projected.

Other notable rises: Baylor (79th to 55th), West Virginia (51st to 27th), North Carolina (83rd to 60th), Utah (46th to 23rd), Georgia Tech (43rd to 21st), Pittsburgh (61st to 39th), Temple (89th to 71st).

Largest Falls

San Diego State (44 spots, from 58th to 102nd). I cannot explain how in the world they made it to 58, but let's just say that 102 is probably a little more accurate.

Tulsa (35 spots, from 37th to 72nd) and Nevada (35 spots, from 21st to 56th). These two teams were both beneficiaries of what we will call aggressive projections, and while Nevada has begun to look a lot more like the rock solid team they were supposed to be from the beginning, they do not belong in the Top 25. Meanwhile, Tulsa has lost three in a row, and while nobody will beat you down for losing to Boise State (right, Oregon?), they needed to have much better showings against UTEP and SMU.

Virginia (30 spots, from 27th to 57th). We thought the numbers knew something nobody else knew when they projected a Virginia win over North Carolina, but ever since that game, the numbers have been significantly overestimating the Hoos.

Other notable falls: Washington (25th to 54th), Missouri (22nd to 48th), Wyoming (59th to 82nd), Michigan (36th to 59th), Oregon State (28th to 49th), Memphis (85th to 104th), Colorado (57th to 76th).

Random Golf Clap

To Brandon Spikes, who got caught doing something stupid (eye-gouging a Georgia player), probably didn't get suspended nearly long enough (Urban Meyer suspended him for a half), and decided to suspend himself further and sit out the entire game against Vanderbilt. Granted, it's just Vanderbilt (he might not have voluntarily sat out the Georgia or LSU game), and this was still perpetrated by a player who went out of his way to call another team dirty earlier this year, but it was at least a bit of a stand-up move for somebody caught doing something pretty dirty.

Another mini clap goes to ESPN, for making sure I have college football to watch virtually every night of the week now.

Random Mini-Rant

After a whopping three rants last week, we'll take it easy this week. It's tempting to take off on something the esteemed Senator Blutarsky at Get the Picture mentioned earlier this week and ask once again why the instant replay system was created in the most convoluted, least effective way possible, but no. It's all rainbows and moonbeams this week for Varsity Numbers.

Random Reasons to Love College Football

East Carolina's new 50-yard line.

Also: this book, about this game, which I just finished (and should have read five years ago when it came out).

Random Playlist

In further honor of the unprecedented beating Oregon put on USC last week:

"Born Killer" by Scarface
"Destroy & Rebuild" by NaS
"Destroyer" by The Kinks
"Killing Floor" by Howlin' Wolf
"The Killer, Starlight Mints
Search and Destroy, The Stooges
They Will Kill Us All (Without Mercy)" by The Bronx
"Whipping" by Pearl Jam
"Whipping Post" by Allman Brothers Band
"You're Nobody (Til Somebody Kills You)" by Notorious B.I.G.

Upset Watch

A fantastic 3-1 Week 9 brought us back to .500 at 10-10. Can we keep the momentum going?

Tulsa over Houston. Spread: Tulsa +2 | S&P+ Projection: Tulsa by 3.9.

Tulsa has played pretty poor football for most of the last month, but they have a pretty big home-road split (meaning, they generally play much, much better at home, last week's SMU game aside), and that gives them the edge over a Houston team that has certainly been good since their loss to UTEP, but not quite as good as they were at the beginning of the season.

Nebraska over Oklahoma. Spread: Oklahoma +5 | S&P+ Projection: Nebraska by 6.1.
Iowa State over Oklahoma State. Spread: Iowa State +7.5 | S&P+ Projection: Iowa State by 3.0.

A couple of interesting Big 12 projections, both made possible by the home-field adjustment. The projections still appear to be overdoing the Nebraska love (it hasn't gotten many NU games right recently), but the Huskers will at least have a chance against the Sooners in a night game at home, with their biggest strength (defensive line) matching up well against OU's biggest weakness (offensive line). OU has improved a bit on the offensive line, but it is still a thin unit, and it is still potentially the weakest unit on the team.

Meanwhile, Iowa State hopes to catch Oklahoma State in a funk after the Cowboys' blowout loss to Texas last week. They have a defense that ranks poorly but capitalizes on mistakes, and if OSU is not playing at a high level, this tricky trip to Ames could catch them off-guard.

San Jose State over Nevada. Spread: SJSU + 14 | S&P+ Projection: SJSU by 2.7.

Consider this an effect of Nevada's major drop in the preseason-projection free S&P+ rankings. San Jose State once again has a solid (for a WAC team) defense and nothing whatsoever on offense, but if Nevada experiences the turnover woes that killed them earlier in the season, the Spartans could strike.

Closing Thoughts

I've got to say, I almost hate talking about playoffs at this point (ironic, since I went out of my way to bring it up today), simply because the debate is so old at this point. InWar As They Knew It (a book a lot better than its Amazon reviews suggest -- methinks Ohio State fans took exception at the fact that the book was written by a Detroit Free Press writer; take it from a neutral observer -- this was a pretty solid book), Michael Rosenberg casually points out that football higher-ups were exploring the idea of a playoff in the 1970s before Michigan's athletic director, among others, shot the idea down. The playoff debate has been around for 30-plus years! If there were a way to spin the wheel of destiny and agree that all parties involved -- playoff supporters and detractors alike -- would stop complaining no matter which verdict the wheel settled upon, I would very much encourage it.

(That said, I'm sure I'll reopen the topic unprompted another time soon, simply because I cannot help myself.)

Posted by: Bill Connelly on 06 Nov 2009

21 comments, Last at 09 Nov 2009, 8:28am by Will Allen


by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 3:06pm

"but this is November. Upsets happen."

It's not "just" upsets that happen. The remaining games on the schedule have to happen, too. Right now most of those matchups seem intriguing, but a lot of those teams still have games left against each other which will separate the perceived opinions of the teams. Florida/Alabama, Cincinnati/Pittsburgh, LSU/Alabama - in addition lots of the pairs of teams still have common quality opponents they haven't played. OSU/PSU, OSU/Iowa, USC/Arizona, Oregon/Arizona (okay that might be a stretch, but we'll see).

Playoff matchups always look pretty interesting around the 3/4 point of the season. They don't usually look as exciting by the endpoint of the season. A lot of that is because the games like LSU/Alabama, Florida/Alabama are going to make it so you don't want to include, say, LSU (assuming LSU loses to Alabama), or even Alabama because rematches look boring, but the simple fact is that the alternatives to those teams are even weaker. Maybe not so much this year because of the high number of unbeaten teams, but we'll see.

I mean, seriously, Temple and Troy? The gap between #16/#15 and #14 there is just monumental.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 5:21pm

A 16 team playoff really detracts from what is, in my opinion, the best and oldest tradition of college football; the primacy of winning your conference. I'd really prefer kicking the season off on the last Saturday in August, and telling the conferences that they have until the first Saturday in December to identify their champion. Pick the top eight conference champs, have the first playoff off games at the home fields of seeds 1-4, or to mollify the Jim Delaneys of the world, the top-4-seeded BCS conference champs. Play two semi-finals on Jan. 1 at two rotating major bowls, and then the championship a week later at one of the major bowl sites that didn't get a semi-final.

The conferences, given the time span from the last Saturday in August, to the first Saturday in December, have plenty of time to identify a non-screwy champ. Heck, they could even reserve the last Saturday in November as open, in case they need extra conference playoff games. The top four BCS conference champs get an extra 7-figure gate in December. The television revenues for the first two Saturdays in December, to say nothing of January first and eighth, would be huge. Award the top 4 seeds to the BCS champ with the highest quality non-conference win, and you improve the regular season as well, along with returning to the tradition of winning a conference championship as an all-important goal.

by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 5:45pm

The conferences, given the time span from the last Saturday in August, to the first Saturday in December, have plenty of time to identify a non-screwy champ.

Are you really suggesting that they expand the college football season to ~15 games? I mean, that'd solve a lot of problems, but I'm not sure that most non-BCS conference teams could actually afford that.

Otherwise, if you're still suggesting only a 12-game season, I can't see how giving them extra time helps. It's the few number of games that makes deciding a champion frequently nearly arbitrary.

by CuseFanInSoCal :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 7:57pm

How does 11 conference champs + 5 at-large eliminate, or even hurt, the primacy of winning your conference. Heck, given that the BCS Championship game has twice featured a team that failed to win their conference (2001 Nebraska, 2003 Oklahoma), very nearly did a third time (2006 Michigan), and once featured a team that was a conference co-champ but would not have recieved its conference's automatic BCS bid (2002 Ohio State; Iowa was also undefeated in the Big Ten as they did not play Ohio State that year), you could make a decent case it would increase the primacy of winning your conference.

Besides, I'm not a fan of a strict conference champs only systems with anything larger than a 2-team playoff. Co-champs, indepenendents, and very good teams that happen to share a conference with other very good teams all make the argument for a few at-large bids. Besides, byes in football playoffs are teh suck, unless you really want to give a huge advantage to the team that gets the combination of a week off and home field.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 11:02pm

If you don't have to win a conference to win a national championship, then winning a conference no longer has primacy. I am aware that this has been the case in the past. I didn't like it.

by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Sat, 11/07/2009 - 12:38am

Hence the reason why your "oldest tradition in football" comment makes no sense. It might be the best tradition in your eyes, but the oldest tradition has to be the bowls. The Rose Bowl didn't select conference champions in its earliest days.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Sat, 11/07/2009 - 2:13am

Actually, there were conference champions before there were bowl games.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 6:10pm

I dunno, Pat, why not ask the non BCS conference teams what they would prefer/can afford? I'm just guessing that these are the people best suited to answering your concern.

In any case, telling the conferences that they can start their season on the last Saturday in August, and must identify their champ by the first Saturday in December, does not require a fifteen game schedule.

by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 6:31pm

Yeah, and some of them have been saying they are worried they won't be able to afford a 12-game season in coming years. So it's fair to say a 15 game one would be a "no."

In any case, telling the conferences that they can start their season on the last Saturday in August, and must identify their champ by the first Saturday in December, does not require a fifteen game schedule.

That's my question. It's 15 weeks - is it still a 12-game regular season? If so I don't see how giving them extra time helps. They'd need more games, not more time. I don't understand the "reserving a week" thing, either. Is the idea that an additional game would be played if necessary? Has a game ever been arranged on the fly in college football before? The conference championship games are all at a fixed location, it's just the participants that aren't known.

by peachy (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 7:11pm

I don't see that the conferences even need extra games - the Big 10's the only one that can end up with a true split title, everyone else already either plays a complete round-robin or a championship game. The problem is connectivity *between* conferences... extra games could help there if they were required to be against more-or-less equivalent opponents, but that would likely mean greater NCAA involvement in scheduling (and frankly, I can't see schools agreeing to go beyond 12 games in the regular season, especially if there's a playoff afterward.)

by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 8:33pm

I don't see that the conferences even need extra games - the Big 10's the only one that can end up with a true split title, everyone else already either plays a complete round-robin or a championship game.

See the Big 12 last year. If winning a conference is the only way into a championship that's supposed to pit top teams against each other, small numbers of games is a guaranteed way to generate controversy. Now, if your main dislike of college football is that some teams would be unable to get into a championship even if they went undefeated, yes, this is better. I don't believe that getting rid of that problem would make most fans happy.

The problem is connectivity *between* conferences

Well, no, it's connectivity between top teams. Be a bit careful here - if you redistributed the teams in Division IA between all conferences to balance them out, and then increased the conference connectivity significantly, you would likely still end up with a more disconnected Top 25 because the top teams, instead of being primarily in the BCS conferences, would now be spread out between all conferences.

That should make it fairly obvious that the problem, connectivity-wise, is the fact that half of Division IA is basically "filler." If you split Division IA in two, and then made it so only Division IA1 wins counted towards bowl eligibility, connectivity and ability to distinguish top teams would improve dramatically. Of course, you probably would have just bankrupted most athletic departments, too.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 10:52pm

Pat, if people vote with their eyeballs, yes, they would likely prefer my suggestion,.

by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Sat, 11/07/2009 - 12:36am

I... don't get your logic. The vast majority of college football fans are fans of a team that in any playoff system would have a chance. The fact that mid-majors like Boise State, etc. have pathetic TV ratings and attendance implies that most fans do not care about Boise State.

Pithy one-liner, though.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Sat, 11/07/2009 - 1:55am

Pat, you assume what gets pathetic ratings under this status quo would continue to do so in another status quo. There is no basis for such an assumption.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 11:00pm

No, Pat, it isn't safe to say, because they would not be required to play 15 games, and playoff and t.v. revenues would help quite a bit.

by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Sat, 11/07/2009 - 12:33am

I really, really have no idea what you're trying to say. If you're not going to increase the number of games, why the extra time? What benefit is there?

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Sat, 11/07/2009 - 2:00am

I really, really, don't wish to take the time explain things to someone who won't pay attention. Feel free to ignore my posts regarding this topic.

by Muldrake (not verified) :: Sun, 11/08/2009 - 2:06am

I confess that I'm a little lost on the 15 week 12 game thing as well. Are you suggesting that conferences can require, say, 11 conference games but aren't required to? I would tend to agree that money making BCS schools might like that but the FIUs of the world aren't going to care for that much. FIU already cut funding to the band and cheerleading squad to pay for football this year...how can they cut more? Of all the division 1 schools out there, only a handful of athletic departments actually make money and expanding the schedule isn't going to help them that much because I don't think that a playoff would generate that much more money than the BCS deal for individual schools. While a playoff might generate more money in gross terms, you're also spreading it out to more schools than in the BCS. I also don't understand where the 7 figure gate would come from for the top 4 BCS school unless you're suggesting that the games are not neutral site...in which case how are you determining seeding?

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 11/09/2009 - 8:28am

I wrote....

" Pick the top eight conference champs, have the first playoff off games at the home fields of seeds 1-4, or to mollify the Jim Delaneys of the world, the top-4-seeded BCS conference champs".

....and (too quickly, therefore omitting the plural) ......

"Award the top 4 seeds to the BCS champ(s) with the highest quality non-conference win(s), and you improve the regular season as well....."

I didn't write that anyone would be required to play games that they thought would be non-economic. I merely wrote that the time frame proposed would allow for extra games, if they were so desired. I believe that you are in error regarding how much t.v. money would be available to spread around, if not on the first t.v. contract, then almost certainly by the second.

by ZMan (not verified) :: Fri, 11/06/2009 - 6:14pm

For what it's worth, the low Amazon ratings for Rosenberg's book are actually from Michigan fans. Rosenberg was the lead author in the Detroit Free Press article that alleged NCAA violations in Ann Arbor just before the season started. UMich fans were "encouraged" by some blogs to savage the book.

by captain anonymous (not verified) :: Sun, 11/08/2009 - 11:17am

Speaking from experience, every system that uses strength of schedule has been less accurate than other methods you can use to approximate when a team has had things to easy. Margin of victory is the most important predictor of success. However, grading teams according to their schedule is counterproductive to your overall goal.