Texas Tech getting Screwed in BCS and Polls

by Pablo M on Sep 8, 2009 9:32 PM CDT Comment 21 comments

I took a look at something that is troubling. I looked at what people were saying about Texas Tech and why they are being kept down in the poll this year. Almost to the person, all point to SOS and who Tech is playing as a major issue. When you shoot that down then they go after other issues until that is shot down and thus you are left with nothing but stupid comments being made by people who are responsible for the BCS polling and bowl Selections.

So lets really take a look at that. I do not want to post for all D1 A teams so lets just take Florida and Texas.

According to the NCAA own current BCS SOS which is being used by ESPN, AP and Coaches Poll, which is also produced by the USA Today sports consultant and is part of the BCS calculation . http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt08.htm

Thus according to all the pollsters its SOS compared to rank which is completely random and meaning less. Basically according to AP and CBS polls they take SOS and average that against rank a team has. Ok lets actually do that and see what happens.

Flordia Opened with DI AA Charleston Southern. They have Troy, Florida International and Florida State then conference . Florida currently has a SOS of 1. Yet numbers of the teams they play are less than Texas.

Example: Charleston southern by definition ranks 121 according to rule which is just behind Western Kentucky which has the 120 spot because they are neither D1 A or D1 AA they are in limbo for the last 6 years as the NCAA has not addressed their actual placement.

Charleston Southern 121. Troy 78, Kentucky 38, Tennessee 42, LSU 11, Arkansas 81, Mississippi State 69, Georgia, 17, Vanderbilt 60, South Carolina 35 and Florida State 26 gives a schedule average of 48.2 and a final rating of .49

Texas has LA Monroe, Wyoming UTEP and UCF. The rest is Conference. Texas has a SOS of 4.

Thus: LA Monroe 116, Wyoming, 91, Texas Tech 30, UTEP 89, Colorado 77, Oklahoma 13, Missouri 47, OK State 7, UCF96, Baylor 53, Kansas 19, T A&M 70. Average Schedule 59 with a final rating of .62

Texas Tech: Has NorthDakota, Rice, Houston and New Mexico with the rest conference.

Thus: North Dakota 121, Rice 106, Texas 2, Houston 27, New Mexico 84, Kansas State 76, Nebraska 20, T A&M 70, Kansas 19, Oklahoma State 7, Oklahoma 13, Baylor 53. Average Schedule 50 Final Rating of .57

Because of the Strong SOS of Florida of 98.74 it places them very high. Thus they rate higher than both Texas and Texas Tech. But Texas ranks lower than Texas Tech

In this three team example, Polling based on the comments of the AP Sports morons, and other would have Florida ranked 1 with a score of .49, Texas Tech 2 with .57 and Texas 3 with .62.

What I wanted to point out is that the pollsters can not even make their own excuses and number work to justify the rankings that they give. What is sad is that the AP and Coaches Poll have to much input into the finalization of the BCS positioning by the end of the season.

Thus a Team like Tech can get screwed as they were last year when it came down to overall BCS ranking in the tie breaker. Imagine if Texas Tech has a better ranking that was calaculated properly according to what the pollsters actually claim! Tech could have won the Big 12 South Title last year.

I am not trying to push sour grapes or rehash last season. What pisses me off is that the pollsters do not even follow their own rules or calculations when doing the polling. It also shows how bad the state of affairs are in college sports in trying to decide which teams are better than others.

What is interesting is that SOS for the BCS changes as the season progresses. But for the first two weeks of the BCS this stands as the basis as BCS looks at three or more conference games before they adjust the bias.

What I do not get is why is Tech being knocked for playing a D1 AA and Florida is not for playing a similarly ranked Charleston Southern? Virginia for example got their but handed to them by a strong AA program that in all honesty Ranks 89th and is ranked higher than Texas A&M.

When I crunched the numbers, It just does not add up. Thus there is more than a little bias being played out. What I hate is hypocrites in the media and snubbing hypocrisy. If the AP or USA is going to Bash Texas Tech for playing a AA then the same should be applied to the media darling Florida. I for one, do not like the idea that teams should not play a AA school. There is no reason why a DI A can not play a AA no more than once. Especially when the AA is a quality program of a smaller school. Which is the real issue here. Its a form of bigotry because a school is smaller than the current establishment of what is a proper university.

Yet, Harvard, Yale, William and Mary, James Madison and other highly respected schools are D1 AA in football. Thus there is a type of issue here that is more akin to Racism than simple stupidity of the AP sportswriters and other pollsters.

What I have found is that Polls are more attached to TV ratings, Advertisement and pure greed than to the realities of what the kids do on the field.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting argument. Not sure I buy the bigotry argument in the least, but I think I get what you’re trying to convey.

Tech isn’t being screwed by the BCS simply because that ranking won’t come out for another month or so. Tech isn’t being screwed by the polls yet, either. The voters (coaches and writers) simply don’t think we’re quite as good as some other schools based on who we’re replacing (namely Harrell and Crabtree). We get another win or two and we’ll be right back in the top 25. We beat UT in Austin in a few weeks and we’ll be near the top 10. We’re only a couple of spots out of the two major rankings as it is now.

I don’t know the BCS formula in detail, and have no interest in trying to figure it out. But the human element is just that…human. And it’s awesome! It keeps it interesting. Is there an odd man out every year? Yep. And there’ll be an odd man out every year no matter what convoluted formula or system or playoff we are using. It makes it interesting and it’s why college football is the greatest sport out there. You won’t read arguments like the one you posted related to any other sport. The air of mystery can be a whip, but it’s also part of the charm.

All Tech needs to do is keep winning games and the rest will take care of itself. If we go undefeated and win the Big XII, the odds are exceedingly good that we’d play for the national title (historically, it’s a virtual guarantee for an undefeated BIG XII champ to be in the title game) . At the very least, we’d have a lock on a BCS bid.

One last thing…the schools that are consistently at the top of the polls, no matter what we think about their season prospects, are there because they’ve proven they can win on the biggest stage. They have recent conference titles, they have recent national titles, and they have gobs of talented players at every position. We are also fighting the battle of national perception against teams who really came on strong at the end of last year and return most of their players; had a close-to-breakout season and return their players, or have a super-strong unit on one side of the ball (OSU, Ole Miss, et al). We fell flat and lost our biggest offensive weapons. It’s not a bias against Tech, it’s just common sense to someone not closely tied to Tech. If you’re a beat writer in Des Moines, Iowa with a vote, does Texas Tech really jump out at you as a top 20 team right now? Probably not just yet. But winning cures that in hurry.

by Tech92 on Sep 8, 2009 10:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If we go undefeated and win the Big XII, the odds are exceedingly good that we’d play for the national title (historically, it’s a virtual guarantee for an undefeated BIG XII champ to be in the title game) .

True, but also highlights the issue. TTU MUST go undefeated to get a chance at a national title. One or two losses on their record condemn the season. Not true for the power house teams.

Just sayin’….

by natkcole on Sep 9, 2009 8:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree somewhat with Tech92 and Pablo

While we fans think Tech should be ranked higher, the pollsters will not do so because they do not perceive Tech as being a ‘traditional’ power. As a result, the pollsters will not have a very high opinion of Tech until Tech has several really good (I mean, REALLY GOOD!) seasons in a row or over a period of time. Then, when a Tech team is in a similar position as this year’s team somewhere down the road, after having said good seasons, the pollsters will be more willing to give Tech a higher starting position in the polls. Until Tech reaches that point, the pollsters are going to look down on the program. They do not get to see all of the variables any one team has concerning their strengths and weaknesses, but they often vote according to familiarity of a program, not necessarily where a team is at in reality. So, we must endure the prejudicial treatment and, as Tech92 said, keep winning.

TTpilk

by TTpilk645 on Sep 8, 2009 10:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

brand bias

see there I did it in two words

by mojavereject on Sep 8, 2009 11:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Perfect answer

Wish it was not true…

"56,000 screaming crazies in The Jones rockin' as it has never rocked before" - Terry Bowden

If you not having fun....then your not playing the game right.

by texastfan on Sep 9, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

More on the multiple perceptions among sports writers…it’s just too early for any of these rankings to mean anything. Aside from a handful of teams who played actual difficult opponents (OSU/Georgia, Baylor/Wake Forest, OU/BYU, Mizzou sort of/Illinois), it is impossible to tell how good anyone really is. All people have to go on is reputation and returning players.

Tech is an enigma for many people not familiar with the program. For instance, Tim Griffin has Tech as #8 in his power rankings while some guy in Colorado has Tech at #5 in his power rankings.

All we can do is forget about all this poll crap until stuff gets proven on the field.

by pcrawttu on Sep 8, 2009 11:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

In reality

What I could have said, is that you can make a simular poll every year based on Regional TV appeal more so than the actual matchups and results.

No one on God’s green earth other than Oklahoma fans and team think they are now ranked better than 40th. When they lost the two main weapons, their offense is all but dead for a top 25. Their RS Freshman QB is just way too green and looked like a dear in the headlights just before the bang of a semi truck smacks them.

Yet, Oklahoma is in icon team. Much like Norte Dame. Norte Dame is always ranked 10 times higher than they really are these days. They used to be very good back in the day when cheating of the power money schools was the norm. Now they are just simply average.

My whole point is that BCS is an average over the season. So when you start very low in the polls, it effects that average at the end of the season when the BCS decides certain things. Sometimes its a non factor sometimes its the difference between a National championship and a lower tier non BCS bowl. So in the grand Scheme of Things. It Matters!

by Pablo M on Sep 9, 2009 4:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I was just thinking

Oklahoma St. didn’t get any respect last year till they beat #3 Mizzou on primetime national TV and proved they’re for real. They were ranked after that.

They played easy teams before they went to Columbia. We’re also playing easy teams right now but if we actually beat the Horns in Austin on primetime national TV, we’ll be respected for sure.

I guess even a close loss would do.

by Red_Raider on Sep 9, 2009 9:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I-AA schools are not 1-AA because they're small

That certainly plays into it, but they are 1-AA because they don’t meet the requirements of 1-A (or choose not to try to move up). I’m not aware of any requirement that says a school has to be over a certain size to be 1-A. There are a lot of 1-AA schools that are bigger than schools like Rice. It’s just that these schools choose to play in a lower level league.

by Texas Wahoo on Sep 9, 2009 9:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I over simplified

Generally speaking. BY rule of the NCAA D1 A requirement deals with offerings of a certain number required scholarships. Those who accept the scholarship must then pass through the clearinghouse.

Basically when I said smaller school, it was more attached to budget for sports rather than number of students. There are also very few restrictions applied to players in AA or AAA schools. An example is a 26 to 35 year old Freshman player.

But you are right schools can choose to be a AA or move up to A status. But the realities is money that those schools are willing to shell out on the short haul to achieve the status before they reap the benefits. Granted that there is no proof of profit by being a D1 A school and having the full basic sports required for D1 A. Ask programs like Iowa State, Rice, Idaho State, Middle Tennessee and Tulsa just to name some that have massive shortages in their respective budgets. I remember the discussions about Texas Tech’s budget problems during the Moore era and that slump which ended with Spike who actually was the first Tech coach to see a profit. Most of that had to do with other programs doing well like National championship Lady Raiders and the Tech Baseball Team.

But the issue is one of schools who spend more and schools who spend less.

by Pablo M on Sep 9, 2009 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Figure Skating

Collage football is the Figure Skating of football because the final result of the season is a subjective result. All other forms of football come to an objective result due to having a playoff system. As long as the BCS uses polls it will remain a purely subjective system that is full of Russian Judges who will vote their biases every time. (If you’re not old enough to remember the Olympics during the Cold War, Russian Judges were known to skew the results to favor the Soviet block nations.) Keeping the system subjective makes it easy to keep the highest TV revenue producing schools in the title game. The NCAA and Networks are run by unimaginative narrow minded men who think no one on either coast would watch Tech vs. Utah in the BCS Championship game. Keeping it subjective means that even an undefeated Tech, Utah, TCU, or even BYU can still be kept out of the game; in favor of a big money school that lands its double flying salchow with out the great technique, but a prettier smile.

VIVA LA FIGA!

by bmaxw on Sep 9, 2009 2:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Virginia Tech and Florida State are great examples of non-traditional powers (going back to the 70s and 80s and before) that climbed the totem pole the old fashioned way. Now, they are considered top tier teams though they don’t have the cache that a UT or OU or USC has from a historical basis (meaning from the 60s to today). So it IS possible for Tech. We just have to keep putting up wins year after year. Then, at some point, we need to break through with a conference championship. Until that happens, all the national respect arguments are somewhat limited.

by Tech92 on Sep 9, 2009 4:22 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Bringing up VaTech and FSU

made my want to point out a personal observation. It has been my experience (being from Virginia) that outside of the Big XII Texas Tech as a school is more respected than we think we are. i think that in almost any “human poll” like ESPN and stuff we’re ranked higher than the “official polls” now… i know that this doesn’t matter directly to us as far as BCS and games… but just thought i’d point out a positive that when i say i go to Texas Tech, people know who we are and associate us to good football… and yes, even before the UT game last year.

Wreck 'Em Tech!

J.T.H.

by redraidersax on Sep 11, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tech92

I wanted to look at something which you pointed out.

Thus Tech has finished well in the last 5 years.
2004 18
2005 20
2006 27
2007 22
2008 12

Teams that always get high rankings and flop over the last 5 to 10 years
1. Tennesee
2. Norte Dame
3. North Carolina
4. Georgia Tech ( has had a couple of seasons which they have finised no better than 22)
5. Miami Fl
6. Florida State ( though they have finished well in the past 2003 and earlier)
7. Virgina only has one good finish in last decade 2004 Finished 23
8 Wisconsin
9. Iowa
10. Boston College.

These teams were well ranked in 9 of the last 10 but whose performace is significantly less than Texas Tech.

Texas Tech has had repeated appearanced in the top 25 since 2004. Only icon schools can say they have done better. We are talking USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Penn State, Ohio State, Alabama, West Virginis, TCU, Virginia Tech, LSU, Georgia, Nebraska, Boise State, California and Oregon.

That is a very short list!

Basically, Texas Tech other than the above teams have finished in the last Decade more than others. So the argument that Tech needs to win more to prove something falls a bit hollow to me.

Its a pure lack of respect and undo bias. I understand because simply the Big 12 South has 2 major icon teams. Oklahoma and Texas who is always in the top 25 and gets better press and a boost in rankings because of it.

But the truth is that Texas Tech is a top team that reloads as a team and rebuilds in positions.

by Pablo M on Sep 9, 2009 8:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In the end, it’s not where you start your season, but where you finish. I’d love to see us ranked in the top 25 every year preseason, but it doesn’t always work that way for some reason. Claiming a national bias almost implies collusion to keep us out. I don’t buy that. I do somewhat agree that we aren’t respected like some of the other schools (and I will explain why I feel they think that way below). Tech is just one of those teams that has to keep earning it year to year. So be it.

I don’t think Tech would (or should) be considered a “power team” until we at LEAST win our division a few times. We have a solid team, but to consider us anything more than that historically is inaccurate. It’s not like we’re consistently finishing 12th year in and out. We are a lower third of the top 25 team for the most part, which is nothing to sneeze at. But to lump us in with UT or OU or any team consistently ranked at the top of the charts is just not accurate, as much as we as Tech fans feel we compare favorably. (Try to look at this from the perspective of someone not close to the program and who covers the sport nationally. It’s unrealisitic to think they know the in’s and out’s of all 119 or 120 teams.)

Texas, USC and OU do indeed get the pre-season boost, but the fact remains that they have earned it. They’ve earned it by winning their division/conf/national title in the last few years. Seems fair to think they could do it again in the near future. It doesn’t hurt them to know they also have a stable full of 4- and 5-star recruits.

I’m not downplaying the accomplishments of Tech. We are light years ahead of where we started with Leach in 1999. We couldn’t have had this argument in 1998, so that’s great progress.

What has hurt us in the national media eyes is that we often lay a massive egg once the media starts paying attention. We pound on weak sisters, get a decent ranking, then get hammered. In years past Colorado, Mizzou, Texas and OU have all given us a beat down following a jump in ranking. The perception (and the reality) is that we’ve struggled when the media finally does stand up and pay attention. When we shake that perception, we will be more respected. It also kills us that we play a cream puff non-conf schedule every year. The pollsters just don’t take us seriously until the conference slate starts, in my opinion. Texas, OU and others get away with the weak non-conf scheduling because of their very recent history of championship seasons or BCS appearances.

So…all that to say I just don’t think it’s a bias, per se. It’s the pollsters perception of what we are and what our past results have demonstrated. Keep in mind that it’s not like we are not getting votes. We are just outside the Top 25 right now. Like I said earlier, it will all work itself out in a few weeks when we have good handle on this team. If we beat Houston and UT, we’ll be in the thick of the top 10. I think as a program we’re thisclose to being over the hump. Maybe not this year, but my expectations for 2010 are sky high.

by Tech92 on Sep 9, 2009 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I have to disagree

There is massive bias for the SEC mainly because of where the majority of the AP and Coaches voters are located. Its not collusion which I agree. But there is bias simply because of how the voters are positioned.

Its unfortunate but true that 65% of all AP voters are located basically in the SEC territory or what is Virginia south through old Dixie. Its not a care where the AP actually spreads it out evenly across the country as they do not. Thus there is a built in bias because of how they pick or select their voting group. The same is true for the Coaches. But unlike the AP, the issue there is that simply there is more universities east of the Mississippi river than west of it. So you get a heavy bias towards teams in the east. Yea USC is the abnormal but then that is where the majority of the newspapers in the west are located! In California! Never mind the issue that the PAC 10 does not play quality during the season as a whole. They play 10 of their games against conference. They then play only a total of 3 out of conference. Generally they play 1 good game against true quality at a bowl game.
Which is why there is mixed results and why in some years the PAC 10 stinks in bowls yet in others they win.

No I do not believe in collusion either. But there is a fundamental flaw in who is allowed to vote. I say make it more even across the country. It can be done and the polls would be better for it. Example: Each State of the 50 states can have 2 votes which can be rotated among top newspapers if possible. There are states where they have only two thus no problem. Where as States like Florida, Georgia, Alabama so forth have10 or more major newspapers. In Texas just for another example there is only 2 allowed AP votes. Florida and Alabama for example have 5 votes each. Thus you have a built in Bias of 10 to 2.

Thus there is a bias and that bias is one of the reasons why the polls suck and never every have gotten it right in any season. Pick any season over the last 40 years and there is always a problem in who is the top 5 teams and who is really number 1 or should have had a chance at being number 1.

The AP and Coaches were so bad in their polls that the BCS was born! That is why we have the BCS today! The problem which brought down the AP and Coaches polls before is causing the same stink and problems in the BCS. The BCS can have human polling. They just need to remove the bias for certain parts of the country because of locality of the voters.

Lou Holtz for an example is a voter. He always votes Norte Dame number 1 no matter how bad they really are! Thus this is what I am refering to. Thus the human polls needs to spread out the bias more evenly so that there is no regional picks like what is happening with the SEC that has been proven year in and year out not right. Yes they have a couple of top schools so do others. But its time that the bias be removed.

As I said before its not sour grapes that I am talking about this. Its just that I hate liars who say one thing and do another. Thus when you have pollsters give a formula, they should stick to it or not use it at all.

by Pablo M on Sep 10, 2009 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the AP keeps their voters for quite a while, but the coaches poll participants are rotated in/out each season.

I have no idea what the demographic makeup of the AP poll is and where the writers are situated, but it would be interesting to see a map…and see where they went to school or grew up. I am partial to southwest teams because of where I’m from and where I went to school. But when I lived in North Dakota (USAF), I actually started following the Big 10 just because there wasn’t much coverage of any other conference. This was before the hey day of the interwebs, though, and information wasn’t as readily available.

I am unaware of a voting formula, either. If the AP or the coaches have set formula they are supposed to follow when ranking a team, that would be interesting to see. As it is, I think the only rule they have is they can’t vote for a team with certain NCAA probation issues. And those are very few and far between as I understand it.

by Tech92 on Sep 11, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there might be something we're over-looking

no one has talked too much about the weight of recruiting… the pre-season polls and things do put a lot more weight into that as far as “potential” and a fact that you can NOT argue, is that these “icon” teams we’ve been talking about WILL get better recruits than us. We’re moving up yes… we’re getting beter… yes… we’re starting to compete… but we are NOT gonna have the same UT and Florida recruits…

for 2010 RIGHT NOW via ESPN:

The “icon” teams are just going to have advantages over us until we can take that status, and i’m sorry to inform you guys… it’s not gonna happen over night…. over a season… probably not over 5…. it’ll be a slow process… and we could hit some rough waters along the way… all we can do is hope for a better game tomorrow and go from there! and honestly… don’t you think it’s worth more to have worked for everything you have? WRECK EM!

Wreck 'Em Tech!

J.T.H.

by redraidersax on Sep 11, 2009 2:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think it does take time, but I am honestly stunned at how quickly Leach’s staff has been able to make inroads with highly recruited players – out of state, especially.

by Tech92 on Sep 11, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

honestly stunned

You’re not the only one!

Take a look at Rivals.com’s 2010 team recruitment ranking:
http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?SID=0

Texas Tech is currently ranked 18th in the nation in recruiting.

by Campeador on Sep 13, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hate to be a buzz-kill here, but based on the limited evidence we have from week 1, maybe the pollsters have it right with us. I fully expect to go into week 5 @ 2-2. We can speculate back and forth because there’s not much more to do at this point in the season, but we are not really going to know anything about our team until after we play Houston and UT. As much as I hate to say it, I don’t expect to beat Baylor this year. I love our program as much as the rest of you, but I’m also trying to look at us as objectively as possible. I think 8-4 is overly optimistic. I hate to sound like the Franchione era Aggies, but I really think the next year or 2 will be our years to win the Big XII and play on the national stage. But we’re not going to get any love from the pollsters, ever. We’re the red and black headed stepchild of the south and like RRsax said, we’ll have to earn our stripes every step of the way. Personally, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

by Techsan7 on Sep 12, 2009 12:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs