BCS Rankings 2011: What Do the Rankings Mean and What's Wrong with the BCS?

The first BCS standings of the 2011 college football season came as a surprise to some. None were as surprised as the Wisconsin Badgers. 

Let me just be clear that I am not a fan of Wisconsin in any way. I actually hate the cold, cheese, and Aaron Rodgers. But I do feel like something needs to be said about what took place tonight as the first BCS rankings of the season were released. 

The Badgers, who some "experts" say are one of the best teams in the nation, were dealt a poor hand in their quest to win a BCS national championship. 

Wisconsin was slotted at number six in the first BCS standings. LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Boise State, were all ranked higher than the Badgers. 

While Wisconsin will have every opportunity to prove it belongs on the biggest stage in college athletics, just winning the remaining games on their schedule might not be enough. 

The BCS standings take into account a number of things. After following college football for a number of years I still don't fully understand the formula, so I will spare you the unnecessary details. Basically all you need to know is that two thirds of the formula come from human polls. The other third of the equation is from the computers. 

A lot of what separates one team from another is not what your record is, but rather WHO you have played. If you have followed college football prior to this year, this is the reason the winner of the SEC usually has the best shot of getting to the BCS national championship. 

I'm not defending the SEC, or going to say that they have the best teams, talent or play the best football, but the perception is that they are the best. It would be hard to think otherwise given the success they have had the last decade.

The reason that is important is that the teams in the SEC typically have more ranked teams than any other conference. When a team like LSU or Alabama beats a team like Arkansas or Auburn, who is ranked in the top 25, that only helps their standing in the BCS rankings.

I, like most analysts of college football, believe the SEC is the best conference. Contrary to the majority, I don't believe that a team like Ole Miss, or Vanderbilt(who has typically struggled in the SEC) would fair any better in say the Big-12, Big-10, or Pac-12. 

The reason I bring this up is that a team like Wisconsin, who could and might be every bit as good as Oklahoma or Alabama(who are we to know!) is at a complete disadvantage for the rest of the season because of the PERCEPTION of who they play, not who they ACTUALLY play. 

Given a weak non-conference schedule, again according to these experts, and the lack of ranked teams they have played, Wisconsin will have a hard time climbing to the top two in the BCS by years end. 

I do think that Wisconsin's schedule has been really soft up to this point in the season, but what in the heck is weak? When you play multiple FCS teams in one season like several SEC teams do, that is weak.

LSU and Alabama will eventually play each other, with the winner most likely going to the BCS Championship Game. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will play each other as well. So that is two teams right there that the Badgers can jump if they win out. 

But it's unfortunate that a team's strength of schedule is what determines how good they are or whether or not they will have a chance to play for a national championship. 

This is the problem I have with the BCS. That we can justify who plays for a National Championship in this fashion. The SEC has always had the reputation of not playing anyone good in non-conference play. With the exception of LSU who played Oregon this year, what SEC team has played anyone good and actually won. Don't get me started on the Alabama-Penn State game. If Penn State is ranked at seasons end I will be SHOCKED. Do you really think Alabama is going to schedule a game where they no that winning is in doubt? Of course they won't. 

Look at Georgia for example. They played Boise State the first week of the season. This isn't even the best Boise team in recent memory. But the Broncos are none the less a legitimate top-five team. What happened? Oh that's right! The Bronco's walked all over the Bulldogs of the SEC. No, not the WAC, the S-E- FREAKING-C. 

At this point in the season, the Bulldogs are ranked in the top 25. Did anyone actually watch that game? They didn't even look like they deserved to be on the same field with the Broncos. 

Their other loss was against South Carolina, who is a good team, but are they great? With the current system, what is there to make us say anything else?

It's not like we have a play-off system where we can actually see these teams battle it out. I'm sure the SEC would do well, but do they really have SIX teams that are in the top 25 teams in the country?! 

While Alabama and LSU look every bit the part of a national championship contender, is the competition they are facing really that good? I don't think so. And that is the problem.

This "perception", is slanting the strength of schedule in a positive way for teams from the SEC, but for teams from the Big-10, Pac-12, or Big-12 it hurts them immensely. It seems the winner of those three conferences are going to battle it out for the opportunity to play the SEC champ in the BCS title game each and every year. They won't be battling it out on the field, but rather in the minds of those voters who determine who deserves to be there. 

Is it just me, or is that just wrong?!

What do these "experts" know? If they truly were experts, there should never be a game they incorrectly predict. They should know who is going to win and should just crown a national champion before the year even starts to spare us the pain and anguish as our teams fail to live up to the hype and expectations.

 What I mean by this is this. Take for example Wisconsin or a team like Stanford. These teams are good, but they haven't really played anyone good, according to Kirk Herbstreit, Mark May or any of the other idiots on TV. These experts say that Wisconsin or Stanford hasn't really played anyone good unlike Alabama or LSU, or even a team like Oklahoma. 

Seriously?

You are going to tell me that Kent State, North Texas, Vanderbilt, Northwestern State and Ole Miss are that much better than any team Wisconsin or Stanford has played?

I do think LSU and Alabama have played better teams than Wisconsin and Stanford, but how much better? 

According to pollsters, experts, and coaches it is significantly better. 

Because of this perception that the SEC is so much better than any other conference, the teams in the SEC don't really need to play any one outside of their conference in the non-conference portion of their schedule. They don't need to push themselves or leave the south to venture across the country to play a team like Oregon in Autzen Stadium, or Washington in Husky Stadium. Those are two notoriously loud venues on the west coast. I'm not an expert by any means but I'm going to go out on a limb and say not many teams from the SEC have travelled to play in those venues anytime in the recent past. 

Heck, I'd be happy if they just crossed the Mississippi! They are fine to coast through their non-conference schedule with teams like Alaska Christian, or the Louisiana School of the Blind. Then they can beat their chest when they play the tough teams like Tennessee (who hasn't been decent since Peyton Manning left) or a Mississippi State. 

Like others have said before me, I wish the NCAA would wait to release standings or rankings of any kind until about the fifth or sixth week in the season. It's way too hard for anyone to know how good a team will be or what a team will look like until they have been battle tested and measured up against other teams. 

If they did this, it would at least force teams to earn their place in the top-25 and not just coast through their whole season on the back of their preseason rank. Thus after seeing teams play, SEC teams strength of schedule might decrease after seeing that a team ranked in the preseason top 25 really isn't that good.

So, Wisconsin, will have to impress the rest of the season and win out, as well as hope that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State can slip up and both end up with a loss or two. The winner of the SEC might be able to slip up and STILL get into the National Championship because their schedule was so "tough".

I'm expecting Wisconsin to jump Boise if it wins out because lets face it, the Mountain West's perception nationally isn't anywhere close to the Big-10. But besides that, not much else is guaranteed. 

They will have to do all of this because their schedule, which includes Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan State, Penn State and Illinois "isn't close" to that of an LSU or Alabama. 

Isn't that thought process just ridiculous? It makes me sick to just think how stupid that thinking is.

It might as well be Kirk Herbstreit or any other "expert" standing right next to Auburn tree-killer Harvey Updyke saying "If if it ain't the SEC, it ain't s**t". That's pretty much what they are saying already so they might as well just quit beating around the bush. 

Obviously this problem would go away if we could just get a stinking play-off. But the SEC or any conference in the drivers seat would be an absolute moron to ditch the BCS for a system where you actually had to earn your reputation as the best conference in the country. 

In the meantime, they are more than happy to just coast by and let others tell them how good they are.