I believe that was 2004. Boise St. didn't make a BCS bowl. But Utah did, they played the mighty Pitt Panthers.
1936 Minnesota 1937 Pittsburgh 1938 Texas Christian 1939 Texas A & M 1940 Minnesota 1941 Minnesota 1942 Ohio State 1943 Notre Dame 1944 Army 1945 Army 1946 Notre Dame 1947 Notre Dame 1948 Michigan 1949 Notre Dame 1950 Oklahoma 1951 Tennessee 1952 Mich. State 1953 Maryland 1954 Ohio State and UCLA 1955 Oklahoma 1956 Oklahoma 1957 Auburn and Ohio State 1958 Louisiana State 1959 Syracuse 1960 Minnesota 1961 Alabama 1962 So. Calif. 1963 Texas 1964 Alabama 1965 Alabama and Mich. State 1966 Notre Dame 1967 So. Calif. 1968 Ohio State 1969 Texas 1970 Texas and Nebraska 1971 Nebraska 1972 So. Calif. 1973 Notre Dame and U. of Ala. 1974 Oklahoma and So. Calif. 1975 Oklahoma 1976 Pittsburgh 1977 Notre Dame 1978 Alabama and So. Calif. 1979 Alabama 1980 Georgia 1981 Clemson 1982 Penn State 1983 Miami (Fla.) 1984 Brigham Young 1985 Oklahoma 1986 Penn State 1987 Miami (Fla.) 1988 Notre Dame 1989 Miami (Fla.) 1990 Colorado and Georgia Tech 1991 Miami (Fla.) and Washington 1992 Alabama 1993 Florida State 1994 Nebraska 1995 Nebraska 1996 Univ. of Florida 1997 Michigan and Nebraska 1998 Tennessee 1999 Florida State 2000 Oklahoma 2001 Miami (Fla.) 2002 Ohio State 2003 Louisiana State and So. Calif.1 2004 So. Calif. 2005 Texas
If I recall correctly, aren't the SOS numbers tallied up by opponents rankings from 1-117? Surely it can't be based just on opponents' win-loss records. There was discussion in the past over some of the wonky SOS rankings and I think this may be the reason: The computer average doesn't see any difference between playing #5 and #95 versus playing #49 and #51. In other words, if you have some sub #80 teams they will really drag down your SOS whereas even easy win #50 can actually be a boost. The REALLY bad bottom feeders hurt you as much as the REALLY good teams help you. In my opinion, when looking at opponents below #50 (I'm plucking this number out of the air as this is where the <.500 records begin)... what does it matter? A cupcake is a cupcake... and while some can be more challenging than others, the merit of your season should not be based upon how bad your weakest opponents are. Instead, I say seasons should be judged upon the quality meat of the schedule. Instead of 'who did you steamroll' it should be 'which big names did you play'? Games, and more to the point, victories, over top 25 teams should be the crux of the SOS. Top 10 teams even more so. If a team knocks off #2, #7, #9, and #13 or some such, their strength of schedule should be through the roof. Yet time and time again, we end up with the supposedly strongest computer ranked teams only being able to claim, say one top-25 victory. I feel like this came up in 2003, and it was the reason USC was even close to us in numbers in the first place (our weakest teams were dragging down our otherwise very solid resume). Oh well that's just my 2 cents
I see where you are coming from, so I will hopefully try to shed some light on how the computer rankings actually are computed: You say that playing #5 vs #95 is pretty much irrelevant. Very much to the contrary. Almost all computer polls honor top 10 wins and/or top 25 wins in figuring where you end up in their polls. Regarding SOS, a team could play a lower ranked team (e.g, #58) who has a very good record (e.g., 6-3) which would actually help boost your computer rankings due to the boost in SOS. In many instances, SOS is computed as follows: 2/3 of your opponents records + 1/3 of your opponents' opponents records. So in other words, your SOS is not simply based on who you play, but who your opponents have played all year long as well. So, if for example, Toledo has an 8-2 record, but its mostly in part to the fact that almost every team they played had a lousy record and are basically horrible teams, then you won't get as much a boost to your SOS as it looks like on the surface. With Rutgers, it's simply the fact that they are undefeated and almost every one else has 1 loss. I do admit I am somewhat shocked they are ahead of Ohio State. That I can't quite get a grasp of, especially since their SOS is pretty much the same. I think the Texas loss this weekend caused Ohio State to take a substantial hit, since now they have no top 10 wins to their credit. Rutgers does have Louisville as a top 10 to their credit. Hopefully that clarifies it just a bit.
I found a great example to the issue of your opponent's opponents records having a huge impact on your overall SOS. Rich Tellshow, who has his own BCS website, does a projection of SOS based on projecting wins/losses from now until the end of the season. He has LSU's opponents finishing at 70-57. He has Oklahoma State's opponents at 67-55. Almost the same winning percentage, yet LSU is projected to finish 19th, Oklahoma St 32nd. It can have a dramatic effect.
I agree with this. But my argument is against people who say the BCS is a fair system because the computers don't lie. To me it's just something for the money makers to fall back on so they can claim this system is fair. To say that the computer rankings have no human influence is wrong. If there was no human influence we wouldn't need multiple computer polls("formulas") to help us decide who #1 and #2 are. The computer polls are unbiased by humans, but they are still influenced.
