# Nebraska deserves to be in the Rose Bowl



## Guest (Dec 12, 2001)

The title says it all. They were ranked #1 for most of the season. Colorado sucker punched them and the Huskers had one bad quarter in their last game. You really think if Nebraska had a chance to get back at them like Colorado did after Texas wiped them all over the field the results would be the same. Not hardly. Colorado lost two games. They don't deserve a thing. Next year they can play the whole season, and then they might deserve to be National Champions. And Oregon's coach needs to get a clue. If he thinks not getting in the Rose Bowl is the same as finding out someone you love has cancer, he leads a pretty shallow life.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2001)

One side of me is hoping Nebraska gets completely embarassed in the Rose Bowl proving that the BCS really doesn't match the NCAA's two most competitive teams. 

The other side of me hopes that Nebraska wins handily so the winner of the Fiesta bowl can possibly be crowned National Champ or even Co-Champion surrounded by loads of controversy.

The way I see it, no matter which of these scenarios occur, the BCS is ready for some review.


Concerning number of wins in a season, there is no doubt in my mind that Colorado is playing great ball these days. I fully expect them to go in and show up against Oregon. But, winning their conference should also count for something. In no other league are teams sitting higher in the standings seeded lower than those finishing after them. College football shouldn't be any different.

In addition, it's not always the teams with the fewest number of losses that are proven to be the best in any league. There are way too many examples of this to even get into in the NFL alone -- that is teams who go 13-3, for instance, only to get beat in the early rounds of the playoffs.

Nebraska's strength of schedule was ranked quite a bit lower than Colorado's, yet Colorado takes a bigger hit for having the second loss? That makes no sense at all. If Colorado had only beat Nebraska and then was punished in the BIG 12 Championship game, I would probably buy it. But not after them beating the #2 team in the nation followed by them beating the #3 team in the nation a week later.

All teams in ANY sport want to peak just before the playoffs begin -- those are the teams that go on to win Championships. Nebraska hit the skids at the wrong time in their season and should be paying for it by going to the Sugar bowl, Furniture.com bowl, or whatever -- but NOT, the Rose Bowl


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2001)

So your biggest problem with Nebraska being in the Rose Bowl is that they lost a game at the wrong point in the season? Remember, Colorado lost a game by an even wider margin early in the season, but then had a chance to redeem themselves and at least make it into the second best bowl. Your point is that its ok to lose games, just lose them early enough in the season so that they are forgotten, or at least remembered less vividly, by the end of the season. The BCS commissioner pointed out that it was an attribute of "the system" that the newly instituted "quality win" points enabled them to come out as well as they did. But he also stated that winning games counted for a lot as well. "Hey guys, don't worry about losing to Troy State, that wouldn't be a "quality win" anyway. Save it all for Nebraska and the "big game." Evidently Colorado can't work up much energy when they play Fresno State, they need to be inspired by having their noses rubbed in it numerous times by the Huskers, and have their backsides whipped by Texas. Perhaps next year the Buffs will realize * every* game in the season is important. I guess the coach didn't explain that to them at the beginning of this season. They had those extra games to loaf along in while the Huskers were playing all out all season, so when they got to the last game the defense was so banged up it took a quarter to get fired up enough so that the pain didn't get through anymore. But they'll be healed up by Rose Bowl time, and I don't think your going to see the Huskers embarrassed again.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2001)

Really I am saying only two things: 

1. The BCS needs another look
2. Nebraska is not the 100% right choice for the Rose Bowl

And yes, I do think when a team wins is nearly as important as how many wins they have. Plently of teams run the table early in the season only to get shocked out of their late season complacency and out of the championship equation altogether. This is a historically documented fact in college football as well as every other sport ever played.

The whole problem with the BCS minus an associated playoff structure is that teams who play well early on but suffer a great deal of injury and/or complacency near the end of the season get rewarded anyway and go limping into bowl games that they don't deserve an invitation to.

I'm not saying that I am absolutely against the Nebraska situation, but what I am saying is that they played a game in Boulder last month that was the deciding factor of whether or not they would make a trip to Dallas and play for a Big 12 Championship. They knew this going in and yet they lost the game anyway. You've heard this before: teams that can't deliver in a playoff atmoshpere don't deserve to win championships. And Nebraska didn't deliver -- If they were really looking past Colorado AND the Big 12 title to the National picture that fateful day in Boulder, then I have even less respect for the Cornhuskers.

To add to that, this strength of schedule calculation kills me. You can have the 2nd most difficult schedule in the entire NCAA div 1 (Colorado) and a loss against one of those opponents counts one whole point against you. A school with the 14th hardest schedule strength (Nebraska) also loses a single point for a loss on an easier schedule. And that one point is regardless of whether you lose to a top ten team or Poduck University. The difference in strength of schedule rankings separates the two by only 0.48 of a point. How is that? One loss on an easy schedule versus two losses on a much harder schedule?

In other words, Nebraska could have lost their one game to the High School for the Blind (i.e., Baylor or Troy State). Meanwhile, Colorado could have had their only two losses to the number 1 and 2 teams in the nation. Yet, Nebraska would still hold a net lead of .52 points in the standings based on their single loss record (exactly like they do today). Complete B.S.! 

What needs to happen is that points awarded for losses need to be tied to how the oppposing team is ranked on a sliding scale. Meaning: add a fraction of a point for losing to a team that's "supposed" to beat you. Add ten points for getting beat by a team that should be playing in a recreational league.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2001)

I keep hearing this "Nebraska had a much easier schedule, #14 as opposed to #2." I'm wondering just how much difference there is between #2 and #14? This argument really blows Oregon completely out of the picture, because if my memory is correct their "strength of schedule" rank was #37. According to your rules, you not only want schools to know four or five years in advance who is going to be strong, to buck up their strenth of schedule ranking, but they also have to schedule the strong teams early in the season so if they lose they can beat up on some easier teams late in the season and make themselves look good. Of course Colorado didn't even do that. They lost to a weak team right at the beginning of the season, but thats ok, because games early in the season shouldn't count. Particularly in the NCAA, football is the only sport left where the regular season still means something. In fact, for all the fans out there raising a stink that football needs a playoff system, how about NCAA basketball. How important is it there to 
"win your conference" in order to get into the playoffs? And how about "putting the human element back in the decision?" As if computers did all the deciding. How many people are aware of just how the BCS system works? Not very many obviously, from what I've been readying. And I am not going to claim I totally understand it either. But the computer element (outside of crunching all the numbers from all the elements) is only a quarter of the process. 8 computers programmed by 8 humans give 8 sets of numbers/rankings. The high and low are thrown out, leaving 6. The coaches and sportswriters polls are factered in, and then theres another element I can't remember at the moment. All of that gets rolled in together, and the rankings are made. So only one quarter of the process leaves emotions and prejudices out of the ranking, those "human" emotions are still there, they just don't influence the entire process.
Next year some other "undeserving team" will get a shot and it will be a whole new fight. Unless we have only two undefeated teams with exactly the same schedules.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2001)

Strength of schedule rank:
Colorado was #2
Nebraska was #14
Oregon was #31
Illinois was #37

And no, it has nothing to do with knowing who you play ahead of time. 

What I'm getting at is that if your team is ranked higher than any other team, they should beat them anytime and anyplace. Otherwise, what's the point of ranking such teams in the first place??? Why would any team that didn't beat a team ranked below them be ranked above them? I will fail to ever see that logic.


I do understand the BCS with two exceptions: how they extract the strength of schedule factor from a team's schedule, and that whole quality wins thing. The way I look at it, if someone is trouncing another team and the coach decides to let the freshman get some playing time late in the game, they will lose "Quality Win" points for letting the other team narrow the margin of victory? That's wrong.

Here's how it works:
The Coaches poll and AP poll rankings are averaged
Nebraska 4 and 4 = 4.0
Colorado 3 and 3 = 3.0

Eight sportswriters and/or newspaper staffs rankings are added in -- the highest and lowest rankings are thrown out and then the other 6 are averaged:
Nebraska 2,2,2,3,2,3,2,2 (throw out a 2 and 3) divided by 6 = 2.17
Colorado 4,5,4,4,5,5,5,3 (throw out a 3 and 5) divided by 6 = 4.50

Strength of schedule is calculated based on team rankings after the 8th week of Collegiate play.
Nebraska #14 = 0.56
Colorado #2 = 0.08 
Again, I have no clue how they come up with the factor

A point for each loss is added
Nebraska = 1
Colorado = 2

A Quality wins factor is added - who knows exactly how this is figured but it is based on margin of victory with no regard to schedule strength
Nebraska = 0.5
Colorado = 2.3

All numbers are added together and the lowest number wins
Nebraska 4.0 + 2.17 + 0.56 + 1 + 0.5 = 7.23
Colorado 3.0 + 4.5 + 0.08 + 2 + 2.3 = 7.28



I want to reiterate, I'm not whining about Colorado NOT being in the Rose Bowl. I just think they need to re-evaluate a thing or two in the BCS formula. I'm very happy to see Colorado finish where they did (though, a higher ranking would have been twice as nice).


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2001)

> And no, it has nothing to do with knowing who you play ahead of time.
> 
> What I'm getting at is that if your team is ranked higher than any other team, they should beat them anytime and anyplace. Otherwise, what's the point of ranking such teams in the first place??? Why would any team that didn't beat a team ranked below them be ranked above them? I will fail to ever see that logic.


If * I* understand "strength of schedule" correctly, it is not a ranking of how good * your* team is, but how good the teams that you * play* are. This means that playing Nebraska has more value than playing Missouri. Even if you lose both games, you would get more credit from losing to Nebraska. And of course you would get a lot more credit for beating Nebraska than beating Missouri (which most Jr. High teams should be able to handle). So it does make a difference how the teams you play are, if they are, ranked. And when these schedules are made up it is anybody's guess what kind of season they will be having.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2001)

All things being equal, let's suppose that Colorado and Nebraska had both lost, say 3 games each.

In this scenario, Colorado lost to Texas, Nebraska, and Fresno State -- all teams that were ranked significantly higher than Colorado when they played against them this year. Colorado adds 3 points to it's score.

Nebraska loses to Troy State, Missouri, and Baylor. All teams that should be dropped to a lower division of play after this past season of play and came *nowhere near* being in consideration for ranking. Nebraska adds 3 points to it's score.

When the strength of schedules are added in (CU = 3.08 and Neb = 3.56), only 0.48 points separates Colorado from Nebraska when taking into account opponents played. That's it!

So, for losing to lame teams, Nebraska for all intents and purposes sits directly behind Colorado in the BCS if the human factor believes that Nebraska just had 3 "off days" and ranks the teams relatively equal.

It would not have mattered if CU had been ranked #4 and lost to only the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place teams while meanwhile kicking everyone else in the NCAA's butt. If the sportwriters have a hard on for Nebraska, Nebraska gets the nod with no help from the strength of schedule score and regardless of who they lost to.

You could do pull the same scenario for any number of losses -- the point is, the BCS strength of schedule and loss calculation doesn't care who you lose to, it only cares if you lost.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2001)

And the point is, Colorado lost twice. And the loss to Texas was big, bigger than the loss by Nebraska to Colorado. Losses do count. The only aspect of your scenario that really would be interesting is if a team with three losses could even be considered as a playoff prospect. I wouls love to see teams so balanced that teams would actually lose some games and still be considered contenders. In what other sport are teams expected to to undefeated before they can be considered to be champions. If NFL teams had to go undefeated to be able to go to the Superbowl, it wouldn't have been held for what, 25 or 30 years. Even the Rams, currently considered by many sports commentators to be the best professional football team around, lost two games this season. Does that mean they are unworthy? Shouldn't be allowed in the playoffs? Of course not. No NFL team has been able to go undefeated in decades. Yet, this is what is expected of college teams. Perfection, total domination, week after week. No, the Huskers lost one game this season, just one, and on January 3 they will prove they are the Champions.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2001)

My scenario was designed to work with any number of losses to both teams. For example, if Colorado lost to #1 and Nebraska lost to #25, but both teams beat every other team they played. The human factor could still propel Nebraska above Colorado in the standings.

As to your point about dominating the entire season, that's exactly why I think a college playoff is necessary. Let take some of these lame bowl games that happen before Christmas and make them the early rounds. Could you imagine how much money that would inject into the New Orleans Bowl (being played tonight) and others like it that would normally not pull much of an audience? It makes perfect sense.

And if the college football schedule were ever stretched to 16 games, I'm guessing that teams with 2 or 3 losses would be easily be vying for the National Championship.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2002)

By the way, after Colorado's embarassing loss the other day to Oregon, I've decided to root for the Hurricanes. Sorry dude, but you've got to believe that I would rather be rooting for Nebraska after a Colorado upset at the Fiesta bowl.

Go Miami!!!!!


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2002)

Fairweather fan. What was very inspiring was the reaction of the Nebraska fans to the disaster. Fans who had spent thousands to attend the game still felt it had been worth it. Cheering fans greeted the teams return to Nebraska. The fans here are preparing for next year. The overwhelming theme is, "this is great, because the last time we suffered this kind of a debacle, we came back and had some of our best winning streaks." Hope springs eternal in the hearts of Nebraska fans.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2002)

Me? A fairweather fan? Not when it comes to rooting against Nebraska. As for that game in Pasadena, I only wanted what was best for Colorado's chances in the polls.

Funny, I like how you painted Nebraska fans as the kind, caring, compassionate types. Are these are the same fans who rolled into Boulder a few years ago with the bumper sticker "Sal is Dead, Go Big Red!" on the back of their mobile residences?


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2002)

Jeff, I am sure you are aware of what good hosts Colorado folk are. Like the grocery story owner who has all cars with Nebraska plates towed from his parking lot while the owners are inside picking up a few snacks.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2002)

...and that's not even during football season!

No, I wouldn't dare compare our fans against Nebraska fans -- that wouldn't be fair!  

All Nebraska jokes aside, neither you nor I could compare any two schools and not find some dirty laundry for each side. Be it unruly fans, egomaniacal coaches, or a small community applying a "boys will be boys" stance to their player's actions off the field because "if this team doesn't win then what else have we got to root for?" attitude, there is always something to point to regarding almost every NCAA school.

I just gave me a tickle seeing Husker fans portrayed as the "shucky-darn, I hope we get 'em next time" type. My impression of the Husker alumni or fans I am acquainted with who have transplanted here to Denver is that they don't take losing very easily. None of them seem all too impressed with a 7th or 8th place finish on the season.


----------

