Why Cincinnati Should Play Alabama For The BCS Championship

Why Cincy Should Play Alabama In The BCS Championship Game

12/8/09 in NCAAF   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

The purpose of this article is to prove why Cincinnati deserves to play Alabama in the National Title Game. First, I need to explain an important item. I went to Grad School at Alabama, as well as South Carolina. However, I am not using any SEC bias in my conclusions.  Also, I am glad to be back, and I plan on writing a series of articles in the next few weeks.  In fact, I'll give you a sneak preview of one, How to Fix the BCS - A Method That Has Never Been Mentioned.

For those that do not realize the purpose of the BCS, then its job is place the #1 and #2 teams in the country at the end of the season against each other for the right to play for the BCS National Championship. I plan on using 2 variables, strength of schedule, and the strength of conference. Also, I hope we can all agree that Alabama deserves to be one of those teams with the following resume, 8-0 in the SEC, they haven beaten 5 ranked teams (ranked at the time they played them) in #7 Vtech, #20 Ole Miss, #22 South Carolina, #9 LSU, and #1 Florida. Furthermore, Alabama played 3 teams ranked in the #10 compared to 0 from Texas. Well, someone might say that they are a result of conference games, but VTech is from the ACC, which is something Texas failed to do, schedule a team from a BCS Conference. Heck, schedule Washington St. or Duke, at least they are from a BCS Conference. The point of this was to compare the strength of schedule from the 2 teams that are in the National Title Game, and then compare it to Cincinnati. First, I want to give a 5 year historic overview of the 2 conferences, followed by an analysis of this year.

Before I begin the next section, I need to explain one of my philosophies. I hate comparing stats between different conferences due to the different types of styles played in each conference. For example, most teams in the Big 12 run some variation of the Spread, which leads to higher offensive stats, but lower defensive stats; whereas most teams in the SEC (Auburn and Arkansas are moving to the Spread, and Florida does not run a true Spread because of Tebow, but the latter discussion is for a different article). As a result, the SEC has great defensive stats, but their offensive stats will be much lower when compared to conferences that run the spread such as the Big 12 or Pac 10. Therefore, I prefer to compare OOCS and success in BCS Bowl Games.

The Big 12 is 3-2 in BCS Games the last five years with 2 different teams winning, West Virginia and Louisville along with a total of 5 different teams representing the Big East (Pitt and Cincy lost), compared to 3-3 from the Big 12 with only Texas winning those games (Only 2 different Big 12 Schools appeared during the time span, Texas and Oklahoma).

Now lets compare this year's Cincinnati's schedule to Texas. First, let's take a look at the success of the Big 12's Schedule compared to the Big East. Does it really matter that “cupcakes” are involved? No, because maybe 1 team schedules a quality opponent once a year ( Yes, some teams schedule more, but please for the sake of the argument). Anyone, for those that do believe in the “cupcakes”, then in 2009 the Big 12 was 36-12 vs 30-9 from the Big East (The Big East plays 5 non conference games (8 teams in their conference), in other words The Big 12 won 66% of their OOCG vs. 75% from the Big East. Now let's examine each team's schedule. Texas played UTEP, TCU, Louisiana-Monroe, and at Wyoming compared to Frenso St., Illinois, at Oregon St., and SE Missouri St. Quite frankly, Texas played 0 teams from a BCS Conference, but Cincinnati played 2 teams from BCS conference (and for those that know College Football, Frenso St. is no joke).

Now lets compare this year's Cincinnati's schedule to Texas. Cincinnati played 3 ranked teams during the season at #21 South Florida, #25 West Virginia, and #15 Pitt. Texas played 3 ranked teams, #16 Oklahoma, #14 Oklahoma St., and #22 Nebraska. On face it appears fairly even. On a closer look The Bearcats outscored these teams 103-79, but Oklahoma beat their ranked teams 93-81.

I will leave you with this to think about. Six of the eight teams in the Big East are above .500, aka 7-5, which is 75% of the league. On the other hand, 6 of 12 teams from the Big 12 are at least .500 or below, which is .500. Also, please do not use the argument that this is because the league is smaller. I wont by that for a second when the Big 12 have had recent success such as Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas ., Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, Texas A&M. Furthermore, Cincinnati played 8 games with teams above .500, while Texas played 4 teams above .500.

I have provided my evidence as to why Cincinnati should play Alabama based on the facts ago. Some people tend to stretch the truth to make their point, but I have not twisted them in any way. One can go to any sports website, and look them up. Again, my point is that Cincinnati deserves to play Alabama over Texas.

In the upcoming days, I plan on writing why TCU does NOT deserve to play Alabama, and how to greatly improve the BCS Formula and still keep the major BCS Conferences in it, while allowing 1 or 2 non BCS Schools. Followed by why a Playoff would ruin College Football.

Also please try to logical argue why Texas should play Alabama. Honestly, I have yet to heard one. All I hear is that they should play because they were in the Top 2 or 3 all year. Please don't argue that Texas should be their because they got ripped off last year, folks that was last season, not this season. Finally, besides the topic in the paragraph above, are there any others you would like me to discuss in the upcomping weeks (please try to stick to College Football until this season is over).

For those that remember me, I have been gone for about a year and half due to a major medical problem, and this is my 1st article since coming back on Fan IQ. If some people could provide some constructive criticism, then it would be much appreciated. Also, for those that can feedback would be very helpful so I can begin to remember what topics people want to read.  Finally, I encourage people to critics this idea as well.  However, if you choose to, then please provide a logical argument.

Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

12/13/09   |   aos035   |   68 respect

(Edited by aos035)

We'll see. But right now.....

Sorry, but my ******** computer won't let me post the picture.

 

12/9/09   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

aos035 wrote:
We held them to 12 they held us to 13. Wouldn't that make out defence better? But, anyway, I wasn't talking so much about Nebraska as I was Florida and Alabama.

Considering the fact that Nebraska held a supposedly great offense to 13 points, and Texas held a pretty bad offense to 12, I'd say that the Nebraska D looked more impressive.

And since you said Texas has "arguably the best D in the country", you included every team in there, not just Florida and Alabama.

And honestly, I don't think you can really say that Texas' D is THAT great. How can you compare them to an SEC, Pac-10 or Big Ten team, when they haven't played any of them?

12/9/09   |   BigTone2475   |   326 respect

aos035 wrote:
We held them to 12 they held us to 13. Wouldn't that make out defence better? But, anyway, I wasn't talking so much about Nebraska as I was Florida and Alabama.

First of all you held a Nebraska team to 12 that has at best an average Offense and that might be giving them a little. As far as Florida and Bama well you are about to find out. Defense will be the difference but I can assure you it wont be Texas's D they will be talking about after the game.

12/9/09   |   aos035   |   68 respect

Pat wrote:
How can you say things like that after the Nebraska game? There's no way you can argue that Texas' D was better than Nebraska, and Texas beat the #22 team by a half-second.

We held them to 12 they held us to 13. Wouldn't that make out defence better? But, anyway, I wasn't talking so much about Nebraska as I was Florida and Alabama.

12/9/09   |   Pat   |   5138 respect

aos035 wrote:
Texas has arguably the best D in the country, so 56th won't cut it either. Neither will beating the 15th team in the country because of a bad extra-point attempt.

How can you say things like that after the Nebraska game? There's no way you can argue that Texas' D was better than Nebraska, and Texas beat the #22 team by a half-second.

12/9/09   |   aos035   |   68 respect

phillydeac4life wrote:
How is Cincy overrated at #4, the #6 passing, #6 total offense, and #6 scoring offense.  I will admit that there defense needs some work, #48 Total D, 56# rushing D, but #24 Scoring D ( I love the bend but don't break philosophy)but other than Bama, I have not seen a complete team, including Special Teams, (Bama has there moments) expect for maybe Boise St., and that is hard to judge because of who they play.  Also, don't forget Pitt is no joke, and the winner was playing for a BCS Title.  However, I will ask this question, " How many other current QB's (sorry but Tebow is not a QB) could have come 21 points behind against the #23 scoring defense on the road? 

To followup on Cincy being overrated because they lost to a great team, ranked #9 last week in Pitt when the winner went to a BCS Game.  No offense, that is one game were all that matters is who wins.  Furthermore, Cincy allowed 12.75 PPG, not sure where you got 35ish PPG ( http://web1.ncaa.org/football/exec/rankingSummary?year=2009&org=140) , and possible the 2nd best conference in the country behind the SEC and possibly the Pac 10. Seriously are the better than the ACC, Big 10, or Big 12.  Finally, the played quality Non-Conference teams with Fresno St., Illinois, and at Oregon St..

TCU played at Clemson, which is no joke, and could easily be mistaken for an SEC Stadium, and UVA.  In conference BYU, Utah, and Air Force are good teams, but they need National expose so others, such as myself can understand what they are about.  I watched them once this year, at Clemson.  Sorry, its just hard to meet the eye test when the team is never in front of the eye.

Finally, Boise St. was smart and showed 8 of their games on National TV.  The problem, after Oregon, their best two opponents were at Tulsa, who had a down year, and Nevada.  Boise St.  needs to somehow move to the Mountain West.  Imagaine, Boise St., Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, very very 5 solid teams.

Texas has arguably the best D in the country, so 56th won't cut it either. Neither will beating the 15th team in the country because of a bad extra-point attempt.

12/9/09   |   aos035   |   68 respect

Thing is, the actual computers who factor what you have just said put Texas above Cincinatti, and considering the computers do not make human errors, I would believe them over you.

12/8/09   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

elevenbravo138again wrote:
My website plans, as we did last year to name all the undefeated teams as co-champions and anyone who thinks for one game Boise State or Cincinnati couldn't contend with the other top teams are either not watching these teams enough or have short memories, ask Oklahoma and Alabama about Utah and Boise State.  The MWC is a conference that is loaded with great coaches:  Gary Patterson, Kyle Whittingham, Bronco Mendenhall, are all top 10-20 coaches, Troy Calhoun wins 7-9 games with the type of talent that would cause most coaches struggle to go .500, Dave Christensen at Wyoming is highly thought of in coaching circles, I even think that Steve Fairchild is gradually righting the ship at CSU,  the WAC is a notch below the MWC but Boise is a machine they can play with anyone, I wish they had to beat Utah or BYU in the Mountain Regional to get to the Final 4.  

The problem is giving Boise St and TCU a crown for going undefeated should not be based on previous years.  Past performance does not predict future performance.  On a brighter note, as I have mentioned before, MW is the best conference in 2009 behind the SEC and Pac10 (bottom of MW kills me with New Mexico and this year's CSU)  As for the WAC, Im sorry, but the WAC would be nothing without Boise St.  (Hawaii had no business in a BCS Game), and as a result I can never deciede who was worse among CUSA, Sun Belt, WAC, MAC.  Out of the latter, personally, I think CUSA is better than all 3 of them, but that is debatable. 

Personally, I think CUSA could become very powerful if UAB, Memphis, Tulane, and Rice were removed, and replaced with BYU, Utah, TCU, and Air Force.  Could you imagine the East of ECU, UCF, Southern MIss, Marshall, TCU and Air Force and the West of Houston, SMU, Tulsa, BYU, Utah, and UTEP.

The above is just a dream, but I doubt anyone could call it a mid major after that realignment. 

12/8/09   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

I notice people discussing that TCU is the best team in the country.  Why?  Have you watched them at least 5 or 6 times (that is just my personal measuring stick to see what a team truly is).  One of the original points I made for Cincy over TCU is that I know what I am getting with Cincy.  TCU is a complete wild card as to wether they are in the elite, very very good, or solid.  Honestly, TCU and the MW needs to get rid of Vs. and join one of the ESPN channels ABC, ESPN, ESPN2.  There is no excuse as to why that 1 MW game a week can not be played.

12/8/09   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

wrote:
My constructive criticism is that Cincinnati does not belong in the NC game.....they are overrated to be at #4...They came close to losing their last 4 games....including 36.5 points per game....#4 team's don't have crap defenses like Cincinnati does...48th overall total defense in the country....they are a joke.

How is Cincy overrated at #4, the #6 passing, #6 total offense, and #6 scoring offense.  I will admit that there defense needs some work, #48 Total D, 56# rushing D, but #24 Scoring D ( I love the bend but don't break philosophy)but other than Bama, I have not seen a complete team, including Special Teams, (Bama has there moments) expect for maybe Boise St., and that is hard to judge because of who they play.  Also, don't forget Pitt is no joke, and the winner was playing for a BCS Title.  However, I will ask this question, " How many other current QB's (sorry but Tebow is not a QB) could have come 21 points behind against the #23 scoring defense on the road? 

To followup on Cincy being overrated because they lost to a great team, ranked #9 last week in Pitt when the winner went to a BCS Game.  No offense, that is one game were all that matters is who wins.  Furthermore, Cincy allowed 12.75 PPG, not sure where you got 35ish PPG ( http://web1.ncaa.org/football/exec/rankingSummary?year=2009&org=140) , and possible the 2nd best conference in the country behind the SEC and possibly the Pac 10. Seriously are the better than the ACC, Big 10, or Big 12.  Finally, the played quality Non-Conference teams with Fresno St., Illinois, and at Oregon St..

TCU played at Clemson, which is no joke, and could easily be mistaken for an SEC Stadium, and UVA.  In conference BYU, Utah, and Air Force are good teams, but they need National expose so others, such as myself can understand what they are about.  I watched them once this year, at Clemson.  Sorry, its just hard to meet the eye test when the team is never in front of the eye.

Finally, Boise St. was smart and showed 8 of their games on National TV.  The problem, after Oregon, their best two opponents were at Tulsa, who had a down year, and Nevada.  Boise St.  needs to somehow move to the Mountain West.  Imagaine, Boise St., Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, very very 5 solid teams.

12/8/09   |   elevenbravo138again   |   1155 respect

gobigblue1960 wrote:
The problem with the BCS is that it excludes teams all across the country, teams like Boise State, TCU, Utah. BYU, teams like Cincinnati, teams from the MAC, teams from outside this fortress that is the BCS.
There are so many things wrong with the BCS, but the one that gets to me each and every time, it's the ridiculous un-written law that any undefeated, or 1 loss SEC team will be in the championship game every year. Until that is changed, and the National Championship is opened up to teams from every Division 1, or FBS, or whatever it's called now, then there will never be a true champion.
It's very clear that teams in the BCS are afraid to play teams like Boise, TCU, Utah, heck, teams from the SEC are afraid to leave the south. Teams like USC have come east and beaten Nebraska, Va. Tech, and Auburn. The Trojans also go to Notre Dame every other year. Michigan has traveled to UCLA, Washington, and Oregon, and those teams have come to Ann Arbor in return. Once upon a time college football had great inter-sectional games like USC-Alabama, 'Bama-Penn State, Miami-Notre Dame, USC-Oklahoma, Michigan-South Carolina, Michigan-Syracuse. Ohio State has played Texas, USC, Notre Dame.

One more thing. Teams strength of schedule should be based on the final records of those teams, and not based on their ranking when the teams played. Also, teams should be penalized for losing to teams who are un ranked, and they should be penalized for failure to play outside their beloved Swamp, or their Death Valley. 
Florida has not left the south to play a regular season game in over 20 years, and they have no plans to do so. Florida State used to play Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and to their credit,  they just completed a home and home series with BYU.
You say Cincinnati should be playing Alabama. I say the National Championship game should be the Fiesta Bowl, between Boise State and TCU. Both those teams, along with the Bearcats, have every right to claim themselves National Champions when they end their seasons undefeated, just like last years true National Champions, the Utah Utes, who slammed SEC Alabama into the Sugar Bowl turf last January.

My website plans, as we did last year to name all the undefeated teams as co-champions and anyone who thinks for one game Boise State or Cincinnati couldn't contend with the other top teams are either not watching these teams enough or have short memories, ask Oklahoma and Alabama about Utah and Boise State.  The MWC is a conference that is loaded with great coaches:  Gary Patterson, Kyle Whittingham, Bronco Mendenhall, are all top 10-20 coaches, Troy Calhoun wins 7-9 games with the type of talent that would cause most coaches struggle to go .500, Dave Christensen at Wyoming is highly thought of in coaching circles, I even think that Steve Fairchild is gradually righting the ship at CSU,  the WAC is a notch below the MWC but Boise is a machine they can play with anyone, I wish they had to beat Utah or BYU in the Mountain Regional to get to the Final 4.  

12/8/09   |   gobigblue1960   |   4802 respect

The problem with the BCS is that it excludes teams all across the country, teams like Boise State, TCU, Utah. BYU, teams like Cincinnati, teams from the MAC, teams from outside this fortress that is the BCS.
There are so many things wrong with the BCS, but the one that gets to me each and every time, it's the ridiculous un-written law that any undefeated, or 1 loss SEC team will be in the championship game every year. Until that is changed, and the National Championship is opened up to teams from every Division 1, or FBS, or whatever it's called now, then there will never be a true champion.
It's very clear that teams in the BCS are afraid to play teams like Boise, TCU, Utah, heck, teams from the SEC are afraid to leave the south. Teams like USC have come east and beaten Nebraska, Va. Tech, and Auburn. The Trojans also go to Notre Dame every other year. Michigan has traveled to UCLA, Washington, and Oregon, and those teams have come to Ann Arbor in return. Once upon a time college football had great inter-sectional games like USC-Alabama, 'Bama-Penn State, Miami-Notre Dame, USC-Oklahoma, Michigan-South Carolina, Michigan-Syracuse. Ohio State has played Texas, USC, Notre Dame.

One more thing. Teams strength of schedule should be based on the final records of those teams, and not based on their ranking when the teams played. Also, teams should be penalized for losing to teams who are un ranked, and they should be penalized for failure to play outside their beloved Swamp, or their Death Valley. 
Florida has not left the south to play a regular season game in over 20 years, and they have no plans to do so. Florida State used to play Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and to their credit,  they just completed a home and home series with BYU.
You say Cincinnati should be playing Alabama. I say the National Championship game should be the Fiesta Bowl, between Boise State and TCU. Both those teams, along with the Bearcats, have every right to claim themselves National Champions when they end their seasons undefeated, just like last years true National Champions, the Utah Utes, who slammed SEC Alabama into the Sugar Bowl turf last January.

12/8/09   |   Bearcat_Kevin   |   1 respect

I thought this was a great article. I am a little partial because I am a Bearcat fan. I am glad to see them finally get a good bowl game this year. You don't always have to be from a bcs conference to be the best team in college football. I usually root a lot for the underdogs even if my favs are the ones playing. It doesn't really matter who is ranked what. Any team can beat anybody on any given day. I know records can probably disprove that, but I'm sure one of these days there is going to a top seed team play a "cupcake" team and get squashed.

12/8/09   |   celticfc411   |   51 respect

I'd argue that Cincy shouldn't be in there based on the refereeing in the Big East title game. The refs handed Cincy 14 points.

12/8/09   |   zzj000   |   388 respect

(Edited by zzj000)

With all do respect... the title game should be between the 2 BEST teams in the country and Im sorry but the 2 BEST teams in the country does not include Alabama nor Cincinatti. Use whatever stats and stregnth of schedule and argument you like.... the 2 BEST teams in the country are TCU and TEXAS. Cincinatti (IMO) could NOT beat anyone else in the current Top 10 including Oregon, Ohio St, PennSt and Iowa....little lone Boise, TCU or Fla and Alabama. TCU is the team nobody has seen and they are the CLASS of this years season. They will hammer BoiseSt and then sit back and watch as they get shafted for the National Title.

Dont get me wrong... I have NO PROBLEM with Alabama in the Championship game if they were chosen over Texas .... BUT the NC game should include TCU without question. 

12/8/09   |   CowboyFan1   |   74 respect

We can all disagree on who should play whom and in what bowl game if any...shoulda woulda coulda...it matters not and zero to those who are in the power to say who is 1---whatever. 
I for example do not know why Fl with a loss it ranked above teams with no loss,but hey...not going to get a migraine over it.

And all the whiners on why this team went and that one didn't....stop whining will ya. It matters not.  You are just like the powers that be...you like THIS team but NOT that one....too funny.

There is always next year....and more to whine over...there always is and will be. Not everyone will be happy no matter who is ranked where.

12/8/09   |   Alpha_Dawg   |   1258 respect

I keep hearing that more people would watch texas vs alabama for the national title than cincinnati v. alabama.  I thought this was suppose to be the two best teams playing, not the two with the most fans. Let them decide it on the field. bring on a playoff system!!!! 

12/8/09   |   ProfessorPlum   |   15 respect

To add to your argument, Cincinnati actually played a ranked Oregon St. in week 3 in a convincing 28-18 win.

12/8/09   |   ipunki   |   91 respect

The only reason I see Texas in the BCS Championship game is because more people would actually watch Texas than Cincinnati. Unfortunately, a lot of America doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to college football, other than the schools they went to, or lived by, but Texas is a name that sticks out more than Cincinnati as far a colllege football goes. Good article!

12/8/09   |   The_Real_Stoney   |   24042 respect

Nice argument, but Texas is a team that can give Bama a challenge, and Cincy I don't think could.. Although, I would love to see Mark Ingram put up 400 yards rushing in the national championship game against the Bearcats..
I'm gonna go stare at the snow and think about how awesome the first round of the D-1 football playoffs would be this weekend

12/8/09   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

(Edited by phillydeac4life)

By the way, I apologize now, I have been known for long posts.  I have been away for a few months.

12/8/09   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

(Edited by phillydeac4life)

I do agree that having Boise St. vs. TCU is horrible, and you right.  Could you imagaine if both of those teams beat other BCS Schools.  That would mean BCS Schools would go to 4-1 in BCS Games with 3 different teams.  I plan on writing an article that says the Mountain West is better than either the ACC or Big 10. 

I hate to bring it up, but those who followed Bama in 2008  will understand what I am talking about.  Andre Smith, arugably the best OT in CFB the last two years was suspended for the Sugar Bowl.  As a result, we moved the RT over to LT, who never played LT the entire season and who knows the last time he actually did.  In the middle of the 3rd Qtr, he was out for the game, and we had a freshman at RT for the rest of the game, not to mention shuffling our line all around.  The end result was Utah blitzing the S&*? out of us, and we could not pick it up.  However, Alabama'a O Line did not have a problem on defense all year until Utah (Fla caused problems, but they did not attack right at us, they used their speed). threw all types of blitzes at left side of an unexperienced line.  As a result, most drives were 3 and out, 1 or 2 1st downs if lucky.  Finally, our "Bread and Butter" was the LT driving everyone (I wont mention its football name)  near the pile to the right to create a running lane for Coffee.

Again, that the 2008 team was not built to come from behind, 14-18 at the most, and that is a stretch.  Now, I know someone is thinking Utah blew up Bama'a defense.  Well what do you expect, you get no rest between series, thus no time to try to figure out their tendencies, not to mention slowly wearing down.  When an offensive falls apart, it just does not hurt the offense both the defense too.

I apologize for the latter, it is not your fault, but some people on here believe Utah would be Bama with Smith on a neutural field, and all I am saying is that you could be right, but dont act like it is a given.  Not to mention the National Media (I am not saying yall listen to them) help the situation. 

Finally, you said, " I am also against the  "B**S Buster Bowl" as well.".  Are you for or against a Playoff?  If so, then go back and reread my article if you have time.  I am against a Playoff, but I admit the BCS far from perfect, but better than 1966 when Alabama won the NC in 1964 and 1965, went undefeated, started the season #3 and finished #3.  However, I believe a Playoff would cause a LOT of damage to College Football..  The problem this year is too many undefeated teams, but 2 of them are from NonBCS Conferences, even though TCU could run the table in the ACC or Big 10, but Boise St. would not.  Personally, I think there would be BCS Chaos if 4 or 5 teams from BCS Conferences are undefeated. 

12/8/09   |   WhoDat12   |   2252 respect

Makes a lot of sense. They went undefeated and they beat more quality teams than Texas. The Big 12 has sucked this year, so I'm not sure you can really count any of those wins as "quality".  I am also against the  "B**S Buster Bowl" as well. I think the B**S officials were scared that a brand name team would get their ass handed to them again by a non-B**S conference team (Oklahoma, Alabama).

12/8/09   |   BLKWOLF   |   89 respect

THIS IS RIGHT ON!!!!!!  I LOOK FORWARD TO READING MORE FROM YOU.....