Data..for what it is worth

[billybud]

For the past two seasons...2009-2010 so far...

FBS vs non FBS .......FBS schools have played 184 games against non FBS schools and have won 93.5% of those games......a clear domination of the non FBS programs as you might have imagined.

BCS programs vs FBS non BCS........BCS schools have played 351 games against non BCS FBS schools and have won 86% of the games...a very clear domination.

The data suggests a divide between the BCS and non BCS programs that is not a lot different than the one between FBS and FCS.

We really do have two different "divisions" in FBS, we just don't formally recognize that. It creates a lot of angst for fans of non BCS programs because it is there, it is recognized by football fans and voters, yet is treated as the elephant in the ballroom (we aren't supposed to see him).

[Spence]

I don't think many people would argue that there is an obvious gap. There is also an obvious gap between the top and bottom half of BCS conferences - any conference for that matter. logic suggests that if 200 teams play each other some teams will be deemed good and ranked highly, most teams will be ranked mediocre and a small amount will be deemed bad and ranked near or at the bottom. That will be the case whether there are 50 teams, 120 teams, or 270 teams. That isn't the question. The question is how do you separate the good teams from the mediocre and bad? The way to do that, if you are going to do that, is have teams all play their peers from difference conferences during the ooc portion of their schedule. It is possible for the best team in CFB to play the worst schedule. It is possible for the best team to play the best schedule, but it is likely that the best team plays a middle of the road schedule. If you are truely trying to find the best team, you have to create a way to compare teams and conferences during the season. That is what individual teams do in conference.

[Eric]

That's a 7% difference though. I'd like to think that represents being a lot more competitive given the sample size. If you want to say that FCS teams are about on par with non-BCS teams, I think that's a stretch. I don't know where to sort the data, but my guess is that non-BCS schools beat the FCS teams roughly 75% of the time. I know the MAC has fared the worst in recent seasons with only somewhere in the ballpark of a high 60% total (I added that total a few years ago when we were having a similar discussion).

[billybud]

The FBS beats the FCS 93% of the time...

The BCS programs beat FBS non BCS programs 86% of the time...

Eric..there is a 7% difference but beating a group of teams 93% of the time and 86% of the time is certainly in the same ballpark. There is a clear data set that seems to say that the non BCS FBS programs are not competitive with the BCS programs that they play.

The MAC has lsot 90% of the games that it has played with BCS teams 2009-2010...(6-53).

Spence...you are exactly right. Any distribution will be on a Bell Curve...the non BCS FBS programs fall primarily on the back side of that Bell Curve. Boise and TCU are outliers. The problem with being an outlier in a non BCS conference is that your schedule is on the back side of the curve.

[Spence]

I agree with that. He is the rub, though, how often does the top two or three teams in a conference beat the bottom three teams in a conference. I'll bet more than 87%.

[billybud]

Sure they do...but they also play games that are closer to 50-50.

For example, Ohio State, over the last ten years, has beaten 55% of the BCS teams on their schedule that were year end ranked. That's where it gets tough. Play four teams that are end year ranked and you have to be very, very good not to have two losses. Arkansas has been very, very good.

Boise has the same winning percentage of 55%...it is real tough to go better. That's why a team only playing one, maybe two end year ranked teams has such an advantage.

[Eric]

The FBS beats the FCS 93% of the time...

The BCS programs beat FBS non BCS programs 86% of the time...

Eric..there is a 7% difference but beating a group of teams 93% of the time and 86% of the time is certainly in the same ballpark. There is a clear data set that seems to say that the non BCS FBS programs are not competitive with the BCS programs that they play.

The MAC has lsot 90% of the games that it has played with BCS teams 2009-2010...(6-53).

Spence...you are exactly right. Any distribution will be on a Bell Curve...the non BCS FBS programs fall primarily on the back side of that Bell Curve. Boise and TCU are outliers. The problem with being an outlier in a non BCS conference is that your schedule is on the back side of the curve.

There are also FCS outliers. New Hampshire is one such example, who has defeated Rutgers, Marshall, Ball State, Northwestern, and Army within the last 5 or 6 seasons. I think a better way of determining how competitive these teams are would be to, first off, compare the total non-BCS FBS win percentage versus FCS teams. Then look at the point margin. I'd bet the farm that the non-BCS schools are much more competitive in that respect.

As I've said in the past in a similar context, I just think it's fallacious to say that a team like Ohio is equal to a school like Western Illinois. Sure if they each faced Ohio State, they each do not pose a threat, but Ohio would probably put up a better fight. So when I'm saying "more competitive," all I'm suggesting is that the MAC team is probably better than your run of the mill FCS school, regardless of the win percentage.

Like I just got done saying too, the 93%/90% thing doesn't work. If you're stating the case that a given MAC school amounts to an FCS team, you have to make the case that the FCS would win 7% of their games against BCS competition. What that 93% includes is UC Davis beating San Jose State and Gardner-Webb beating Akron, while the MAC's 10% record doesn't include wins against other non-BCS schools, like Miami OH over Colorado State or Ohio over UL Lafayette. It's not quite apples and oranges, but it's granny smiths and red delicious'

[Spence]

Sure they do...but they also play games that are closer to 50-50.

For example, Ohio State, over the last ten years, has beaten 55% of the BCS teams on their schedule that were year end ranked. That's where it gets tough. Play four teams that are end year ranked and you have to be very, very good not to have two losses. Arkansas has been very, very good.

Boise has the same winning percentage of 55%...it is real tough to go better. That's why a team only playing one, maybe two end year ranked teams has such an advantage.

I don't doubt that, but Ohio State beaten over 80% of teams they have played lifetime. Michigan is right there too. That meands there are a lot teams in their own conference that they have beaten at about the same rate as the non BCS teams. I would suspect that is true for Florida State in the ACC and USC in the PAC-10. So lots of these BCS conference teams must be fodder too.

[billybud]

Eric...when you beat a conference 90% of the time, it doesn't matter that they gave you a "better game" than a IIA team that you beat 95% of the time.

It is end results that count for wins-losses, ranking, and national championships. No columns for moral victories by coming within 10 points.

The fact is that the MAC the last two seasons has been a "pencil it in at season's beginning" win for BCS teams. The last 11 years (2000-2010) the MAC has lost 85% of their games against BCS.

CUSA, 2009-10, has lost 83% of their games against BCS teams.

[ktffan]

Misc info from 2000-2010:

I-AA teams that go to the I-AA playoffs are 19-22 against mid-majors that finish with a losing conference record.

Mid-majors with a winning conference record are 99-142 against majors with a losing conference record.

Mid-majors with a .666 conference winning percentage or better are 41-34 against majors with a .333 or worse conference winning percentage.

[donovan]

Seems to me...this is what has happened that changes the whole scope of College Football and conferences. At one time, parity was important to a conference. Every year, or so, different teams would stand a chance to win. Teams were aligned on geographical basis, school size, library size, yes,library...similarities of sports..The PAC 10 has always made adjustments for spring sports because of weather....but parity was important. It nows mean zip. You have a conference where there is parity and they get eaten up in all of this ranking mumbo jumbo. You can quote all the statistics you want about past years and lifetimes...but they mean nothing because the rules have changed. And now we have shuffled the conference deck...unfortunately no one has counted the cards. The NCAA is not playing with a full deck.

[billybud]

Thanks Ktffan..

A pretty good illustration of the overlapping power curves..

The Bell Curves of each group (BCS, non BCS, IIA) when stacked in front of each other show that there is overlap between the top end of one curve and the bottom end of the other.

[ktffan]

Oh, another thing I dug up ealier this morning:

Since 2000 in games against majors and mid-majors that finished with the same record (minus the head-to-head game), the major team won 82-8 of those games. Majors and mid-majors with equal records usually aren't equal. If you subract a win from the major (ie comparing 9-2 majors to 10-1 mid-majors), major teams are 65-17 against mid-major counterparts minus 1 win. Subtract 2 wins and majors are 52-13. Subtract 3 and majors are still 26-17. Essentially, on average majors are equal to mid-majors with 3 wins better.

[Spence]

Oh, another thing I dug up ealier this morning:

Since 2000 in games against majors and mid-majors that finished with the same record (minus the head-to-head game), the major team won 82-8 of those games. Majors and mid-majors with equal records usually aren't equal. If you subract a win from the major (ie comparing 9-2 majors to 10-1 mid-majors), major teams are 65-17 against mid-major counterparts minus 1 win. Subtract 2 wins and majors are 52-13. Subtract 3 and majors are still 26-17. Essentially, on average majors are equal to mid-majors with 3 wins better.

What I would be interested to know - since Sagaran and others rank FCS and FBS is how close he comes to ranking correctly pre playoff compared to the final. That would be a way to test the competency of his rankings. There would still be a margin of error, but It would be an interesting comparison IMO.

[Eric]

Eric...when you beat a conference 90% of the time, it doesn't matter that they gave you a "better game" than a IIA team that you beat 95% of the time.

It is end results that count for wins-losses, ranking, and national championships. No columns for moral victories by coming within 10 points.

The fact is that the MAC the last two seasons has been a "pencil it in at season's beginning" win for BCS teams. The last 11 years (2000-2010) the MAC has lost 85% of their games against BCS.

CUSA, 2009-10, has lost 83% of their games against BCS teams.

Okay, but what exactly is it that you are postulating? That the FCS, on whole, is equivalent to the MAC? I don't think that's taking into account the context of the losses. And, you still haven't addressed the point that I raised. You can't use that 93% against the MAC, you have to compare how the FCS does against BCS conference schools, because that is where you pulled the 86% number from.