Scheduling I-AA Opponents in the Modern BCS Era
by BirdGT on Sep 7, 2011 8:00 AM EDT
in Georgia Tech Football
Email
PrintI'm a huge fan of I-AA football. I've followed Georgia Southern and the Southern Conference, in particular, since 2003. The two upsets of I-A squads by I-AA squads got me thinking about the scheduling of I-AA opponents by BCS squads as of late.
First off, I-AA formed a playoff system in 1978. It was originally a four team playoff and it has ballooned to 20 teams. The I-AA Champion will have played 15 games by the end of the season and it's all completely wrapped up before bowls really start. Sounds pretty good already, eh?
The first thing I noticed about scheduling of I-AA's is that BCS teams have started to feign away from two conferences: the Southern and the Colonial Athletic Association. I broke down total games played against these two conferences into 6 years chunks by BCS teams since 1978:
I think that scheduling for wins didn't really become a priority until the BCS became the leviathan that it is today alongside longer schedules. Teams needed punching bags to beat up on not challenges in their home openers that would affect their BCS rankings. Prior to the BCS, teams were allocated bowls based upon their conference affiliation. The beauty contest was there but it wasn't nearly as over-the-top-toddlers-in-tiaras as it is now. Check out the winning percentage of the SoCon and Colonial teams as BCS teams not only dumped their powerhouses but also started scheduling their patsies at a higher clip:
The ACC, for example, has consistently scheduled 8 to 9 I-AA opponents per year since 1978. The winning percentage in I-AA games was 88.5% from 1978-2000. From 2001-2011, it has increased to 95.2% and we've dropped our scheduling of modern SoCon and CAA teams from 81.5% of total I-AA opponents to 63.8%. Woohoo for the BCS and making the schedules easier!
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Double Edged Sword
Having a weak out of conference schedule cost Auburn a shot at the title back in 2004 (That’s what they get for not playing us in the GA Dome!). While playing a softer schedule increases your odds of going undefeated – it’ll also be the differentiator (to the computers at least) if more then two teams run the table and could leave you out in the cold.
Indeed the sword has two edges
Throughout its history Alabama has gone through periods of scheduling complete patsies around its conference games. They got away with not having let downs against stronger opponents by apparently having coaches that did let that happen. As a result by the time they played someone worth playing they were almost always undefeated so the polling results of actually beating a good team were magnified.
In spite of what Frank Beamer said about the advantages of scheduling stronger teams early I bet you they have a better season this year than the previous years when they scheduled strong opponents early. Virginia Tech did itself a lot of good this year by not starting off with Boise State or someone like that.
On the other hand, you are right for several reasons. Not the least of which is that some teams never seem to understand the effort and focus that is required to play competitive football until they play a serious opponent. It certainly challenges many young players to realize that if they are going to play at this level they have to keep improving. And as you point out, polls pay attention to the level of play of a team as much as the do the record record.
by Atlanta's original team on Sep 7, 2011 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
The problem is that the BCS exists
and that there is any “title”. There is no NCAA championship. What we’ve got is the winner of the BCS, as defined by the schools in the BCS conferences.
Having any sort of title, even if it isn’t official, diminished the game, as far as I am concerned. Now there is one winner a bunch of losers.
It used to be enough to beat your rivals and win your conference (or even share that with another school). There weren’t so many bowl games, so getting to one actually meant something other than “we won half our games”.
Sure, the polls always named a national champion, but it wasn’t the same one, and it wasn’t such a big deal except to the teams who ended up at the top of the polls.
People bitched about not having any way to pick a national champion, but the people bitching were teams that ended up number two in the polls or sportswriters with nothing better to do with their time.
Besides, if the BCS had existed in 1990, we wouldn’t have won a piece of the national championship (neither would Colorado). We were undefeated by winning some very close games and barely tying UNC-CH. I do not believe we would have beaten Miami or Florida State.
Ditch is all. Go back to focusing on the individual games, with occasional arguments about which team is the best.
That won’t happen, of course, because there’s too much money in it this way, but I can dream.
We could have beaten anyone in 1990
Trust me. We were no fluke and we were that good.
by Atlanta's original team on Sep 7, 2011 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, it was no accident that when college coaches around the country were polled we were the team most often cited as the best in the land.
by Atlanta's original team on Sep 7, 2011 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Tech came out on top of the UPI poll
because they were undefeated. That was it.
The team was better than Colorado, but those weren’t the best two teams in the country.
Let me back up and say that Tech could have beaten FSU or Miami, but it would have been an upset. They were better teams. Tech was very good, but Tech was also very lucky.
We will have to agree to disagree then
I watched almost every game that year and I have never felt so confident about any team in any sport at any level as I did that year. It was not that they could not be beaten; it was that anyone beating them would not be able to count on Tech making a mistake nor could they count on Tech having a lackluster day on the field. That team fired on all cylinders in every game and they could beat you in so many different phases of the game.
by Atlanta's original team on Sep 8, 2011 8:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't get worked up over the BCS rankings.
It seems pretty clear to me how to get to the BCS Championship game: establish a history of consistently winning, establish a history of beating good (i.e. ranked) teams, and then go undefeated. Teams in the SEC have a history (or at least the reputation) for winning consistently and winning against good teams. Teams like Boise struggle to get invited because while they have the history of winning, they can’t easily establish a history of beating good teams because they don’t play enough of them (win once or maybe even twice can be written off as a fluke, particularly if the other team subsequently struggles).
By being in the ACC and playing uga each year, GT has ample opportunity to prove that it can beat good teams. The problem is that GT struggles to consistently win.
The first step for GT is to start winning the ACC Championship on a regular basis. This will establish a history of consistently winning and provide some history of beating good teams. The next step is to starting winning the Orange Bowl and beating uga. This furthers the history of winning and fully establishes the history of beating good teams. Then the last step is to go undefeated. This is where scheduling the FCS schools primarily comes into play. The wins added to GT’s record by beating the FCS teams don’t mean much if GT can’t beat the good (ranked) teams on the schedule.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Sep 8, 2011 11:08 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE
