Three of the eight games that determine the BCS bowl lineup are played on Thursday and Friday, and before the weekend we'll know who is in half of the Rose Bowl and who the Big East champion is. But if Kent State beats Northern Illinois, the Big East champ may be headed to the Sugar Bowl instead of the Orange Bowl, which the Golden Flashes want to claim for themselves.
Thursday Night
#25 Louisville (9-2) vs. #24 Rutgers (9-2)
Line/spread/odds: Rutgers by 3
Strength power rating prediction: Rutgers 20-18
Yardage analysis prediction: Louisville 20-14
Analysis: Both of these teams are unranked in the BCS standings, the result of both teams being upset last weeks, and this is why Kent State now has a shot at a BCS game. But the winner here is guaranteed a BCS bowl, which will be the Sugar Bowl if Kent State gets in, or the Orange bowl if they don't. Both teams have achieved what they have this season due to easy schedules. Louisville was the media darling in the pre-season, while we placed them #53 in the nation and they haven't done anything to alter our initial estimate. Rutgers on the other hand has played as well on defense as we predicted but their offense has been dismal, so despite their record they haven't matched our #30 estimate. Still, with the game at Rutgers, they have a small advantage and should win the game based on defensive play. They can stop Louisville on the ground pretty easily but they'll need to slow down the Cardinals' passing game to do so, and Louisville QB Teddy Bridgewater is injured but playing. It also may turn out that Rutgers' beatdown loss to Pitt was actually less harmful than Louisville's triple-overtime loss to UConn.
Final prediction: Rutgers 17, Louisville 14
Friday Night
#10 Stanford (10-2) vs. #21 UCLA (9-3)
Line/spread/odds: Stanford by 8
Strength power rating prediction: Stanford 27-20
Yardage Analysis prediction: Stanford 27-21
Analysis: How often, in the history of college football, have teams faced each other in two straight weeks? Has it ever happened? Teams playing twice in one year is an anomaly—it occurs a couple of times, due to conference championship games or bowl rematches—but in back-to-back weeks it's unheard of. Sometimes when teams play again after several months go by, the results are very different: in 2001, Texas beat Colorado 41-7 on October 20 but lost 39-37 in the Big 12 championship on December 1st. More recently, Nebraska pummeled Washington 56-21 in September but lost in a bowl game in late December 19-7. Stanford beat UCLA 35-17 last week in Los Angeles, and now they're playing at home, so don't expect a radically different outcome. But factors such as motivation can work against the Cardinal, so I wouldn't expect them to expand upon their margin of victory from last weekend. Unless Jim Mora was having his team sandbag it last week to avoid facing Oregon in the title game, it should more of the same, with both teams a little more sluggish.
Final Prediction: Stanford 24, UCLA 13
#15 Kent State (11-1) vs. #16 Northern Illinois (11-1) in Detroit, Michigan
Line/spread/odds: Northern Illinois by 6 1/2
Strength power rating prediction: Northern Illinois 35-25
Yardage analysis prediction: Northern Illinois 38-24
Analysis: This year's BCS bowl lineup was looking pretty straightforward until Kent State landed at #17 in last week's rankings. A few things have to happen for Kent State to make a BCS bowl. UCLA, who is #16 in the BCS, needs to lose to open up a spot. And Texas at #18 has to lose to make sure the Longhorns don't pass the Golden Flashes. Both of those are expected, and should be enough. Oh, and Kent State has to beat Northern Illinois, too. Both teams are 11-1 but Kent State generally ranks higher since they have the most impressive win, a 35-23 victory over Rutgers on the road. The Flashes also have the worst loss, a 47-14 beatdown at 2-10 Kentucky; meanwhile Northern Illinois lost by a point to Iowa in Chicago. As far as power ratings are concerned NIU has a huge edge, ranking almost in the top 30 while Kent State is in the 60s nationally, and that's why they're favored. However, it looks like Kent State is peaking at the right time, gaining more confidence every week, and they're capable of pulling off the upset. Hopefully the BCS bowl talk hasn't thrown them off, and Northern Illinois could be a bit peaved that they have no real chance at making the top 16 despite also going undefeated in the MAC so far. But Kent State is surging and could pull off the upset, and in the process make finalizing the BCS bowl lineup as chaotic as usual.
Final Prediction: Kent State 41, Northern Illinois 34
Kent State in the BCS? Don't blame the computers
Well, some would argue because they beat all the rest of their opponents, including Rutgers on the road, and will finish 12-1 if they win on Friday night. Others would agree that their MAC schedule isn't tough enough for a valid BCS team. But undeniably, by the rules of the BCS, they might actually qualify.
Feng blames the computers, then narrows the problem to a specific computer ranking:
Sounds like a valid complaint; this lack of game-by-game cognizance is one of the (many) things that makes the RPI so frustrating for its use as a March Madness tool. But Colley is only one of six computers used in the BCS. Shouldn't there be some diversity of method among the six? They're already fairly highly correlated due to the lack of use of margin of victory—another of his complaints, which also has validity but can't really be held against the computer algorithm creators. Why enforce more rules that make them even more similar?
Still, apparently it's the ugly loss to Kentucky that should ban Kent State:
That's a good point, but tell me why a team should be ranked higher after it dispenses with its best win by far? Sure, dropping the Kentucky loss should help Kent State's ranking in any reasonable system. But dumping the win over Rutgers should hurt Kent State's ranking in any reasonable system. Who is to say what the balance of those two is?
Oh, common sense. I see.
He confirms that, in the game-switching scenario, Kent State drops a spot in Colley's method. Or rather, Rutgers moves ahead of them, thereby pushing Kent State down a spot.
So basically, trading the loss of their best win for dropping their worst loss results in a wash. But Rutgers is now ahead of Kent State which changes things drastically—Kent State is no longer up for a BCS bowl as things stand.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The problem of Rutgers being behind Kent State—which may cause Kent State to go to a BCS bowl—could have been rectified easily if Rutgers hadn't lost to Kent State. The Flashes would be 10-2, with no potential to be in the top 16.
Bottom line is, if you don't want Kent State in a BCS bowl because they're ahead of Rutgers, either a) don't make a rule that Kent State will be in a BCS bowl if it's ahead of Rutgers, or b) make sure Rutgers beats Kent State in their head-to-head matchup.
Don't blame one computer program, ignoring the other five computer programs. Colley ranks Kent State 15th, just like Billingsley and Peter Wolfe. For each team, the top (and bottom) computer ranking are discarded. So it wouldn't matter if Colley ranked Kent State 50th, the composite score would be the same.
And attacking the computer programs as a whole? Still not valid. Kent State's computer composite (18th) is very close to their poll rankings (18th and 19th). The computers would have to downgrade Kent State well below where the pollsters are putting them to make a real difference in their BCS bowl aspirations come Sunday. In other words, he's blaming the computers for not acting as gatekeepers for what the human pollsters want to do—which is, rank Kent State near the top 16.
Instead, it looks as thought the computers are going to rubber stamp a "bad" decision by the humans, which he says would "cost" the Big 12 millions of dollars by pushing Oklahoma out of the BCS.
And that gets to the real issue. Both the pollsters and computers rank Oklahoma higher than Kent State. So it's not even the pollsters' fault, let alone computers' fault, that Kent State could get to a BCS bowl.
Blame the BCS rules, or blame the Big East for sucking so bad, or more specifically blame Rutgers for not taking care of the "problem" when they could have.
Reblog (0) |