"Well, I don't know enough about the Xs and Os of college football," said the school's leader, shockingly. "I do know, having been both a Southeastern Conference president and a Big Ten president, that it's like murderer's row every week for these schools. We do not play the Little Sisters of the Poor. We play very fine schools on any given day. So I think until a university runs through that gauntlet that there's some reason to believe that they may not be the best teams to [be] in the big ballgame." Sure, Gee has enough background in two fat-cat conferences to merit some attention. But anyone with a sniff of objectivity can see the bias behind his words. He's pandering to the BCS brass on behalf of his conference, and more specifically his beloved Buckeyes.
As far as I'm concerned, he disqualified himself in his first-sentence admission that he doesn't know football. Really, Gordie? We had no idea. There's enough evidence in that place called reality to debunk the old man's nonsensical drivel: first, the "murderer's row every week" comment, Gee's insinuation that the undefeated teams from non-BCS qualifying conferences--Boise State in particular--don't play the high level of competition that the Big 10 and SEC face every week; and second, his "Little Sisters of the Poor" reference, a suggestion that Boise has weaker opponents on its schedule than those teams from the "murderous" Big 10 and SEC.
To test Gee's theories, let's consult the best known source for measuring a team's relative strength, Jeff Sagarin's NCAA Football Ratings. The Sagarin Ratings (also known as the Sagarin Power Ratings) weigh a number of factors and collectively rank all college football teams based not on the biased opinions of writers and coaches with a stake in the poll results, but on the strength of the teams themselves.
According to the most recent Sagarin scale, which covers games played through 11/20/2010, Ohio State is eighth while Boise State is #4 (one spot ahead of Auburn). Against the top 30 teams in the nation, the Broncos are 2-0 and the Buckeyes are 2-1. Should Boise take care of #19 Nevada on Friday night, they'll bump their record to 3-0.
Breaking it down further, if we compare Boise State's top games with that of Gee's Buckeyes we get the following (the opponent's Sagarin rating is in parentheses):
BSU = @ Virginia Tech (18), vs Oregon State (22), vs Hawaii (32)
tOSU = @ Wisconsin (14), @ Iowa (21), vs Miami-Florida (30)
Remember that this doesn't include Boise's upcoming game at Nevada (whose Sagarin rating is 24). Now if we look at the other end of the Sagarin scale we also see that Ohio State and Boise State will have each played four "gimmie" games (against teams with rankings above 100):
BSU = @ Wyoming (107), vs Utah St (115), @ San Jose St (157), @ New Mexico St (164).
OSU = @ Minnesota (104), vs Indiana (105), vs Marshall (109), vs Eastern Mich (167).
So Dr. Gee, would you care to retort? This looks pretty even to me. Based on this objective analysis, how can you conclude that Ohio State plays "fine schools every week" while Boise State plays the "Little Sisters of the Poor"? How is one schedule considered a "gauntlet" and "Murderer's Row" while the other is not? Could it be that you've been stuck in that isolation chamber called Columbus, Ohio for a bit too long?
Three more things need to be considered:
First, a team has to play its conference schedule. If Gee wants to criticize Boise State for playing WAC opponents (as if they have a choice), then he must criticize his own school for not playing two of the strongest teams in the Big Ten: 10-1 Michigan State (Sagarin rating of 20) and 7-4 Northwestern (Sagarin rating: 64). So either Boise padded its league schedule with cupcakes, or Ohio ducked the Sparties and Wildcats. Can't have it both ways, Poindexter.
Second, the teams' choice of out-of-conference (OOC) competition. Free to select any school in the nation, Ohio State boldly chose Eastern Michigan University, at #167 the weakest opponent on either team's schedule. And the Eagles still hung 20 points on the Bucks (see pic). They also added Marshall (Sagarin rating: 109) and Ohio U. (Sagarin rating: 75) along with their only worthy opponent, Miami-Florida (Sagarin rating: 30)--all home games of course. In contrast, Boise State chose to play Oregon State (Sagarin: 22) and gave up a home game to take on Virginia Tech (Sagarin: 18) 2,500 miles away in Landover, Maryland. And third, given all of the above points, Gee's Buckeyes have lost a game, while BSU's record is spotless.
The bottom line is this: BCS schools like Ohio State pad their OOC schedule for easy wins and added home-game revenue, while schools from non-AQ (automatic qualifying) conferences like Boise State book the best competition they can find to boost their credibility. BSU president Bob Kustra put it this way in his sharply worded response to Gee's comments: "I don't mind somebody stating that they don't think we ought to be in the national championship, but to do it with such erroneous information as Gordon Gee has used, gets under the skin of all of us who thought university presidents were supposed to be standing for fairness, equity and truth in how we portray our universities."
Truth be told, Boise State has tried desperately to schedule top-shelf opponents but keeps getting shut down. "It's easy for the presidents to talk, but ask the ADs when's the last time that they seriously entertained taking requests or inviting Boise State to (play them)," Kustra said. "If you're Boise State or TCU, they're going to want to steer way clear of you." Asked to respond to Gee's assertion that Ohio State doesn't play the "Little Sisters of the Poor" that certain undefeated non-BCS teams face, Kustra glanced at the Buckeye's past two schedules and added, "If they're not playing the Little Sisters of the Poor, they're playing the Little Brothers."
TCU athletic director Chris Del Conte preferred a more succinct rebuttal. "We only worry about our house and what we do at TCU. I'll put our record up against anybody." In the past two seasons combined, TCU and Boise State have each lost just once--to each other. The Horned Frogs downed the Broncos in the 2008 Humanitarian Bowl, and BSU returned the favor this past January in the BCS's Tostito's Fiesta Bowl.
After being beaten each of the last two seasons--in Boise and in Eugene--top-ranked Oregon is anything but eager to face the Broncos. But IF Auburn loses, and IF BSU passes TCU in the rankings (as most feel they'll do should they beat Nevada) and IF the old boys network doesn't take over as it has in the past (for example, coaches agreeing to vote 11-0 Boise State as low as fifth to manipulate the system), that's exactly what the Ducks will get.
You think your school might want to schedule the Broncos, Dr. Gee? You know, a home-and-home series, one game at the Horseshoe and one game on the blue turf? Or maybe a two-game series against the Horned Frogs, with a game in Dallas-Fort Worth (they've got big stadiums out there too)? I didn't think so. Kustra said it best in his description of major conference scheduling: "The formula these days for BCS teams is get seven or eight home games, play one non-conference game against a team from another BCS league, schedule three or four patsies and try not to leave the state if you can help it." So it's ironic justice when a conference like the Big Ten goes so far as to drop conference match-ups from their schedules in favor of yet another $50-per-ticket home game against the Mid-American Conference. Had Ohio State and Michigan State actually played each other this year, the winner might still be in contention for a spot in the BCS title game.
Rather than tearing down other schools for winning every game they play, Dr. Gee, why don't you focus on your own school instead? And while you're at it, how bout dropping the procession of fine MAC schools that parade through the 'Shoe each September in favor of a Boise or TCU matchup--you know, something to gear you up for that "Murderer's Row" of Purdue, Indiana and Minnesota.
Till then, we'll go back to assuming you don't know an X from an O. Even though you did a fine job of removing all doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment