Sunday, October 14, 2007

Boston College=#3 in the BCS

Wow. I've basically been floating on air all day ever since the rankings came out. #2 in the coaches poll, #3 in AP, and #3 in the BCS rankings. I can't believe it.

This pretty much is the epitome of unbelievable. We're one of just two private schools in the top 25 and by FAR the smallest school with an enrollment of 9,000 and just a 46,000 seat stadium. We have the 3rd highest graduation success rate (93%) in all of D-1 behind Navy and Northwestern - both of whom suck at football. We also haven't been top 10 since 1984. We have a long way to go, but to be in the national title mix at this point is simply unbelievable.

Since I like you guys and gals, I'll allow you to jump on the BC bandwagon without accusing you of being fair-weather. Climb aboard!!!! 11 days until the biggest game in BC history: BC @ Virginia Tech, Thursday, October 25, at 7:30 PM.

On an unrelated note, Eric Gagne should never pitch for the Red Sox ever again.

Go D-backs tonight!


Wooden U. Lykteneau said...

Indeed. With wins over one (1) ranked team, one I-AA team, one .500 team, a 1-5 team, a 1-6 team, a service academy, and perennial powerhouse Wake Forest, BC is easily the most impressive 7-0 team in the nation. Not.

Enjoy it while it lasts!

Joe Grav said...

Fuck off. Wake Forest won the ACC championship last year and just dismantled the flavor of the week in Florida State. Starting the season with 3 ACC games is ridiculous, because in ACC play anyone can beat anyone.

And we're definitely the 2nd most impressive undefeated team after Ohio State. Which is why that's where the polls have us.

Last year: BC 22 VT 0, when BC had Coach Clownshoes in charge. More pain is upcoming for the Chokies.

Joe Grav said...

Further proof of the stupidity of that comment: there are exactly 4 7-0 teams in ALL of college football.

Ohio State.
Arizona State.

Saying that BC isn't the most impressive 7-0 team in the country isn't exactly going out on a limb. Beyond that, understating what this team has done is ludicrous.

These haven't been sexy wins, but ask LSU, USC, Cal, Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, or the 9,000 other one loss teams if they care about style points.

The rankings aren't supposed to rank who has the most talent, they're supposed to rank who's had the best season so far.

Anonymous said...

Have to agree with Wooden.
Even following a win over VT's Hokies, it seems the BC ranking has nowhere to go but down.

Joe Grav said...

You are very close to being right. It has just two places to go upward, while having 22 places to go downward.


A BC win over VT is highly in doubt, but if we DO beat Va Tech...... sky's the limit

Olivier Lepine said...

Seeing as how Navy has at least eight wins in each season since 2003, I'm not sure I'd say they "suck" at football...

Wooden U. Lykteneau said...

The rankings aren't supposed to rank who has the most talent, they're supposed to rank who's had the best season so far.

Indeed, which was my point: BC has won, but not as impressively as the #3 team in the nation should have. Witness the number of times it has held an opponent to less than 10 points (zero) and the number of times it has scored 50 or more points (once).

Furthermore, while UMass may be a national title contender in its division, it still has fewer scholarships and a much, much smaller budget. And BC struggled to beat them at home. Top 5 teams are supposed to walk all over I-AA teams, not let them pull within a FG midway through the 3rd quarter.

Joe Grav said...

Were you actually at any of these games?

Wooden U. Lykteneau said...

No more than any of the pollsters were... but it's not like there are statistics and box scores to look at, right? They don't do that, do they?

Grant Salzano said...

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, wooden

Joe Grav said...

Because I'm sure that you can glean more from viewing a box score than, say, division I football coaches.

Dope (TM)

Anonymous said...

Ohio State's opponents

Youngstown State
Kent State

By the way, they won't play anyone period all year, because the Big 10 sucks

South Florida has played the Big Least & Other Directional Florida

BC deserves their ranking as much as if not more than these two teams. You might not like the system, but that's just how it works.

BC's got weaknesses but the run defense is probably one of the top 5 in the country and the quarterback is a Heisman candidate... I like our chances the rest of the way.

Wooden U. Lykteneau said...

Sarcasm, kids, sarcasm. Only one of the polls is done exclusively by coaches. The rest are either done by statistical analysis or... wait for it... sportswriters ("pollsters"), who don't, won't and can't watch any more football in a weekend than either you or I do because they have to file multiple stories a day on their respective home team(s).

How do I know this? Well, maybe because I was once a sportswriter for a few years in the 1990s?!

You can save your cheap shots about how good I was or wasn't... unless you, too, have been a paid (poorly, I might add, which gives you a hint as to why I don't do it anymore) professional sportswriter and have been published writing about sports (academic master's thesis, 140 pages - you can get a copy via Interlibrary Loan).

Joe Grav said...

Regardless of how good you were or were not at your job, you are off base in this instance. You're either ignorant about the teams in question, or ignorant about the way these rankings work. Period.

Anonymous said...

Someone else said it better than I could:
"It irritates me incredibly how people are saying that BC has played an easy schedule and doesn't deserve to be ranked where we are ...
Ohio State hasn't played anyone, and no one is questioning them.

The fact of the matter is that people just can't come to grips with the fact that BOSTON COLLEGE is the #2/3 team in the nation. They just can't comprehend it.

Do we have as much raw talent as USC, Florida, LSU, Texas, etc? Probably not. But the rankings are not about how much talent you have. The rankings are about how you utilize what you have and what your results are.

Boston College has beaten every single team that we are supposed to beat - in convincing fashion. USC cannot make that claim, nor can Texas, LSU, Michigan, Florida, Cal, etc.

USC crapped the bed and lost to Stanford. Cal had a startling loss to Oregon State. BC has played many teams this season that are either on par with or (much) better than the likes of Stanford or Oregon State ... and we have beaten them all.

It seems to me that many of the talking heads think the rankings should be based on which teams should be performing well, rather than which teams are actually performing well.
Until BC loses a game, we have every right to be the Number 2 team in the country, and we should be proud of it. It is not a result of luck, it is a result of our guys flat-out getting the job done."

Wooden U. Lykteneau said...

Joe, to put it as mildly as I can, your Manichaean reasoning is rather amusing. Let's just leave it that you disagree with my contention that BC is overrated and show some maturity by attacking the idea first.

Grant Salzano said...

That's exactly what he's doing...and until you can back up your argument by actually COMPARING our wins to the other 7-0 teams' wins, then you will continue be looked upon as one of those people with the [incorrect] opinion that BC is not 'supposed' be this high simply because they aren't a big name.

Joe Grav said...

I did attack the idea. What you are attacking is the system. You obviously are of the belief that the rankings should reward what teams have the most talent, not which teams have performed the best thus far. But based on the system that is in place, BC is clearly either #2 or #3.

Joe Grav said...

Methinks that since Wooden looks at the box scores to make his decisions, he would be more impressed if BC ran up the score. Since I was at every home game this year and watched both away games on TV, I can assure you that BC could have easily won by more but didn't have to. Say what you will about BC's competition, but with the exception of one flurry by UMass, BC hasn't had to sweat in any of its games this year, which is more than you can say for most teams.

Whenever an opponent has come close, BC has responded with a quick, clinical drive to stick in the dagger.

Wooden U. Lykteneau said...

And you'd be right -- I would be more impressed if BC had run up the score against what I perceive to be weaker opponents. The problem with rankings is that voters (and that includes coaches) don't see every team play in person or on TV for the length of the game -- especially teams that play in the Pacific or Mountain time zones. (Perhaps you've heard the lament from Pac-10 teams about an "East Coast Bias?")

I'm not pretending to be an expert on college football, I'm just saying I think BC is rated too high. And it may get your panties in a bunch, but I'm not alone in that opinion.

Go Sox!

Anonymous said...

Being a homer sure can cloud one's judgement eh?.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I would categorize the win over Umass as "convincing", given their respective "jumping off points". I like, and agree with, this quote:
Unless the Eagles can finish unbeaten, they'll have a tough time reaching the BCS title game. The ACC isn't strong enough to compensate for a nonconference schedule that included Division I-AA UMass and three Division I-A teams with nonwinning records. The Eagles beat defending ACC champion Wake Forest 38-28 in their opener and won 24-10 at Georgia Tech. The heart of the schedule is still to come: at No. 11 Virginia Tech on Oct. 25 and against Florida State on Nov. 3, then road games at Maryland and Clemson. Boston College's home finale is against Miami on Nov. 24.
Predicted finish: 11-1
Odds of reaching BCS Championship Game: 8-1


Anonymous said...

Interesting Story in the paper today about Fraser Field.
It wasn't in this article but Nick DONATED the playground to a school in Peabody.
Anon #1