CGB Top 25 - Week 13

by ragnarok on Dec 1, 2009 12:00 PM PST in California Golden Bears Football

What we're facing here is the very real possibility that Division I-A football could finish its regular season with five undefeated teams. Five. To all those advocating for a 'plus-one' model, essentially a four-team playoff, well, I hope this season convinces you that any playoff consisting of fewer than eight teams is destined to fail. Personally, anything that breaks the BCS is a good thing, and I'm hoping for more chaos in the future.

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Alabama	2
2	TCU	1
3	Texas	1
4	Florida
5	Cincinnati

Not much change at the top. The move by Alabama to the top of our poll has nothing to do with last week's events (both Texas and 'Bama barely survived in rivalry games, while Florida beat down a clearly inferior Florida State and TCU proved nothing in blowing out New Mexico). Instead, an Alabama fan last week convinced me, on the basis of strength of schedule, to move the Tide ahead of Texas, and just such a tiny change was enough to move Alabama above both Texas and TCU.

6	Boise State
7	Oregon	1
8	Ohio State	2
9	Oregon State	2
10	Virginia Tech	4

With Pitt and Georgia Tech being upset last weekend, everyone else gets to move up. It's interesting that, beyond the six undefeated teams, there isn't a single one-loss team in division I-A, which is why two-loss Oregon and Ohio State follow close on Boise's heels.

11	Georgia Tech	4
12	Iowa
13	Miami (Florida)	3
14	Brigham Young	6
15	Southern Cal

At this point in the season, it's hard to drop Georgia Tech too far for being upset; after all, Iowa lost to Northwestern, Miami to North Carolina, BYU to Florida State, USC to Washington. It happens to just about everyone; it's important not to penalize GT too much for having the audacity to be upset during the last weekend in November.

16	Pittsburgh	7
17	Stanford	6
18	California
19	Penn State
20	LSU	4

Stanford probably gets too much credit for their win over Notre Dame, but perhaps they dropped too far last week. Their pair of wins over Oregon and USC are what are propping them up this high; other than that, it's a fairly ordinary résumé.

Last week's ballot
21	Houston
22	Nebraska
23	Arizona	1
24	West Virginia
25	Oklahoma State	12

Oklahoma State barely hangs on in our rankings after getting shut out by Oklahoma. The Sooners aren't that bad, but the Cowboys aren't that good, apparently, as is the rest of the Big XII.

Dropped Out: North Carolina (#17), Utah (#21), Clemson (#25).

And some lower-ranked teams lost, and dropped out. Whoo. Not a good week for the ACC, with Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State all losing and looking bad in doing so.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

F* the SEC and Big Televen

Cal #1

Go Bears Go

by Rocksanddirt on Dec 1, 2009 12:19 PM PST reply actions

Stanfurd ahead of Cal is pretty ridiculous. Yes they beat two teams Cal didn’t. Then again, cal beat Arizona, didn’t lose to Wake, and has one less loss. Oh and did Iention Cal beat Furd in their house? They should be close to one another, but Cal should be ahead.

It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.

by BeastMode on Dec 1, 2009 1:28 PM PST via mobile reply actions

Plus, it’s Stanford! I mean, come on!

by Missing Barry on Dec 1, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions

As a resume voter

Cal’s three losses look epically bad (losing 20-103, even to good teams, is not garnering much sympathy from me). At least the Furd put up a fight in their losses, with only OSU on the road being a blowout (and Cal lost by the same margin to OSU at home). All in all, the Furd with four losses have had a slightly more impressive season than Cal with 3. It’ll probably change if Cal beats UDub though and finishes with an overall better record.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Dec 1, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions

I hate you

Physical.

by Thoroughbred on Dec 1, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions

That’s it — turn in your gun and your badge.

by sycasey on Dec 1, 2009 4:11 PM PST up reply actions

They didn’t give me one! Twist is all about the taser.

Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Dec 1, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions

(.),(.)

………………………

get off me bandwagoners!
http://blog.cleancutmedia.com

by cleancutmedia on Dec 1, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions

5 undefeated teams helps preserve the BCS

You’ve got it backwards. If we’ve got 5 undefeated teams at the end of the season, we’ll see matchups like Florida v Texas (both undefeated), 1-loss Alabama v undefeated TCU, 1-loss Georgia Tech v undefeated Cincinnati, Boise St (undefeated) v someone. Those are a lot of great matchups and will do nothing to deter critics of the current system. Plus you’ve got BOTH TCU and Boise St in the BCS. Monopoly? What monopoly? What detractors of the BCS should hope for is a bunch of 1-loss teams and no undefeated teams.

by ginfizzbear on Dec 1, 2009 1:53 PM PST reply actions

The problem is...

…people lose their ding-damn minds whenever they see “-0” on a team’s resume. Not all undefeated records are created equal. I would like to bag on the SEC’s non-conf scheduling, but if it doesn’t matter who you’re playing so long as you’re undefeated, there is zero incentive to go out and schedule big-time games, and I wouldn’t blame our AD (if we had one) for lining Vandy up to play WWI Crippled Veterans Home, Girl Scout Troop 266, and the Poor Claire Sisters (Mother Agnes throws a wicked cut-block).

The problem with the BCS is it currently panders to the kind of people who get giddy for “and 0”: coaches (or their designated voters) and the sort of dilettantes that vote in the Harris poll. That’s 2/3 of the system right there. Things that take into account strength of schedule, compress runaway wins against subpar opponents – they get a brief hearing in the computer polls, which then get dismissed as “a bunch of machines”.

If there’s an 8-team playoff, the question is “how do we fill it?” Does the ACC deserve an automatic bid when their two division winners both lost to 6-5 SEC teams on the same weekend? Does the Big XII deserve an automatic bid when it currently consists of Texas and a bunch of substitute teachers? And who’s gonna get those last two spots, especially when whoever loses the SEC title game would probably beat the evangelical Baptist hell out of Boise State on a neutral field? (Memo: when you have SIX games on ESPN, you are no longer some darling Cinderella underdog. Also, a one-TD win over Oregon does not make you Transitive Pac-10 Champions.)

Personally, I would say that there should be NO automatic bid for winning your conference, and furthermore, only one bid for any conference with a championship game (because they’ve already had their playoff). But however you shake it out, something has to be done to disincentivize sandbagging your way into the playoffs, or you can forget ever seeing a meaningful interconference matchup ever again (aside from obvious stuff like FL-FLST, UGA-GT, etc) because to make your schedule any harder would be tantamount to AD Malpractice.

by VandyImport on Dec 1, 2009 2:31 PM PST reply actions

Good points – though in my playoff system, I’d give the 6 BCS conferences an automatic bid under the logic: if you can’t win your conference, you lost your shot at a bid. True, less deserving teams will get in, but that doesn’t bother me because every team had a shot to get in, and with such small sample of games between conferences it’s always tough to definitively say which conferences are better/worse in a given year….so win your conference, and you’re in. If you don’t win your conference, stop complaining. Two other lucky teams get in. Overall you’re right on that the voters mess everything up, though, and would likely find a way to mess a playoff system up, too. The 9th place team (who I don’t care about becasue they didn’t win their conference, something that was in their control) is going to complain until everyone cries that we need a 16 team playoff….then a 32 team playoff….

by Missing Barry on Dec 1, 2009 2:38 PM PST up reply actions

I think that ultimately...

…that’s where my objections to an 8-team playoff come in. In any given year, there is simply no way that there are eight teams with a legit claim to the title. Obviously it’s worse this year, when anyone not undefeated has at least two losses.

I think back to 2004 – who would have gotten the fourth berth with U$C, Chokelahoma and (spit) Auburn? Cal? Maybe. Texas? Possibly. Utah? Hell, I don’t know. But even if you rolled all three in there…were there two more teams that should have been in the picture? Probably not.

Main thing this year is…I want some legit matchups. Assuming Florida-Texas for the title (taking the chalk only), I want to see Alabama vs TCU and Cincy vs Boise State. I don’t want to see some lame crap where Oklahoma State sneaks in, Boise State beats them, and then goes around claiming ‘uncrowned national champions.’ (Okay, I know it sounds like I have venom for Boise State, but it’s kind a show that a one-point overtime win on a trick play vs. the chokingest team in recent BCS history has been spun into “the Broncos are the equivalent of the mid-90s Nebraska Cornhuskers”. Then again, that’s the magic of ESPN for you. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome cable channel?)

by VandyImport on Dec 1, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions

I agree that there aren’t 8 teams that earn a title shot the way the top 2-4 teams do, but that’s what I like about the conference tie ins. Since we don’t really know how good each conference is, give each conference one team to have a shot, maybe one from the non-BCS conferences guaranteed, and one more team like loser of Alabama/Florida that’s legit….and I think all those teams have legitimately earned a shot. Maybe this is just a year that it works out and there will be others when it doesn’t, but if you win your conference, that seems good enough to me to say you earned a playoff shot….

by Missing Barry on Dec 1, 2009 6:31 PM PST up reply actions

Agreed, every conference needs a shot. It keeps the conference races exciting in a playoff situation. Although what if there are 3 undefeated non-BCS teams?

by Kai on Dec 1, 2009 6:38 PM PST up reply actions

I’m ok with leaving one of the non-BCS conference teams out. Undefeated doesn’t mean much to me – it’s as much about playing an easy schedule as being good, and I have serious doubts all 3 would have an undeniable case that they deserve a shot….

by Missing Barry on Dec 1, 2009 6:54 PM PST up reply actions

Fair enough

by Kai on Dec 1, 2009 7:37 PM PST up reply actions

the only playoff that the NCAA would sanction

would be one the same as the FCS one. 16 team tourney, each conference gets an automatic qualifier, some kind of committee (similar to the basketball selection committee) pics the at larges and seeding.

this would work by making each conference decide it’s champion by the end of thanksgiving weekend. a week break, three weeks of tourney, a week break for christmas/new years, then the championship game after new years.

In this way you also keep the newyears bowls….only two teams will be out of the running, and that’s the way it is now.

Go Bears Go

by Rocksanddirt on Dec 1, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions

There are 11 conferences, so there would be 5 at larges.

this year the at larges would likely be….

loser of SEC title game
Loser of the Civil War
possiblly the loser of the ACC championship game
iowa or penn st.
Maybe Okie state?

Go Bears Go

by Rocksanddirt on Dec 1, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions

I doubt Oregon State would get an at-large berth after losing the Civil War — they’d be 8-4 and ranked too low. I think the at-larges would be:

1. Loser of SEC title game
2. Iowa
3. Penn State
4-5. 3 teams between Virginia Tech, LSU, BYU, and Pitt

(I’m assuming the committee would use criteria similar to those used for the BCS standings, and that pretty much covers the Top 15.)

And that could all be thrown out of whack if Texas or Georgia Tech gets upset in their conference championship games, Oregon loses to OSU, or Pitt beats Cincy. There’d certainly be a lot of disagreement over who got those last two slots this year (likely to be the 12 & 13 seeds).

by sycasey on Dec 1, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions

I don’t know if that’s what you’re implying, but the Big Ten can’t get three teams in the BCS.

"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.

It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0

by AERose on Dec 1, 2009 10:07 PM PST up reply actions

We’re talking about a hypothetical 16-team playoff, not the BCS.

Though it’s certainly possible they might put in a rule saying that no more than 2 teams from the same conference can make such a playoff.

by sycasey on Dec 2, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions

an 8-4 OSU would be ineligible for a BCS at-large bid. a team needs nine wins to gain an at-large bid.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Dec 1, 2009 11:02 PM PST up reply actions

Would anyone care if there were a playoff and the NCAA didn’t sanction it? God knows the BCS doesn’t give a shit.

"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.

It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0

by AERose on Dec 1, 2009 9:16 PM PST up reply actions

What!? Stanfurd above Cal!? This is MADNESS!

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Dec 1, 2009 3:33 PM PST reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Golden Bears Football Schedule

Fresno St.	Sat 09/03	W 36 - 21
@ Colorado The Ralphie Report	Sat 09/10	W 36 - 33
Presbyterian	Sat 09/17	W 63 - 12
@ Washington UW Dawg Pound	Sat 09/24	L 23 - 31
@ Oregon Addicted To Quack	Thu 10/06	L 15 - 43
USC Conquest Chronicles	Thu 10/13	L 9 - 30
Utah Block U	Sat 10/22	W 34 - 10
@ UCLA Bruins Nation	Sat 10/29	L 14 - 31
Washington St. CougCenter	Sat 11/05	W 30 - 7
Oregon St. Building The Dam	Sat 11/12	W 23 - 6
@ Stanford Rule Of Tree	Sat 11/19	L 28 - 31
@ Arizona St. House Of Sparky	Fri 11/25	W 47 - 38
@ Texas Burnt Orange Nation	Wed 12/28	L 10 - 21

Pacific-12 Conference Standings

(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)

North	Conf		Overall
	W	L	W	L
Oregon Ducks Addicted To Quack	8	1	12	2
Stanford Cardinal Rule Of Tree	8	1	11	2
Washington Huskies UW Dawg Pound	5	4	7	6
California Golden Bears California Golden Blogs	4	5	7	6
Oregon St. Beavers Building The Dam	3	6	3	9
Washington St. Cougars CougCenter	2	7	4	8

South	Conf		Overall
	W	L	W	L
USC Trojans Conquest Chronicles	7	2	10	2
UCLA Bruins Bruins Nation	5	4	6	8
Utah Utes Block U	4	5	8	5
Arizona St. Sun Devils House Of Sparky	4	5	6	7
Arizona Wildcats Arizona Desert Swarm	2	7	4	8
Colorado Buffaloes The Ralphie Report	2	7	3	10