As there have been numerous threads discussing the possibilities of a “mid-major” school reaching the National Championship (NC) game or not, let’s take a look at certain “criteria” that would allow such a team to get such an invitation.  I’ll exclude non-tangible elements such as confidence, faith, coaching, and adequate player depth & talent.  I also throw out divine intervention (“miracle”), since that is not a guarantee (even though certain readers would say that this could be applicable to certain schools…) – I want to keep it “scientific”.  I want to focus on the numbers, a bit, but I may not get to the depth of certain posters that are more statistically adept.  I would invite them to chime in.  I’ll also point out the pitfalls of each key, thus emphasizing that a “mid-major” team may essentially NEVER have a chance at the National Championship game, statistically speaking, under the current BCS structure.

 

Obviously, in order to get invited to the “BCS” championship game, you must be ranked either #1 or #2 in the final BCS poll once the regular season has been completed.  Several factors are listed below that I feel are key in getting to the NC game:

 

1.        OOC scheduling.  Since no other “mid-major” has ever won the NC besides BYU, it is obvious to point out that the NC winner has nearly always been from a “BCS conference”.  These schools, and those who vote in the polls, consider that such BCS teams play a “strong enough” conference schedule; therefore, they do NOT have to schedule a very tough Out-of-Conference (OOC) schedule.  Examples of teams with such “week” OOC schedules include Rutgers from the Big East, and Florida from the SEC.  Apparently, that their OOC schedule can be “ignored” by the polls.

 

Conversely, a team from a “mid-major” conference is deemed to have a poor conference schedule.  While the bottom half can be truly poor, the top half of these conferences can and SHOULD compete with anyone they schedule.  (Perhaps a way to fix to this “mindset” is for the lower-tier “mid-major” teams to schedule lower-tier teams from “BCS conferences” and WIN).  The upper-tier “mid-major” teams need to start winning their OOC schedule, as well.  Winning is a must.  In other words, those “mid-major” teams that want to contend for a NC, need to schedule appropriate OOC games to not only boost their schedule strength (still a factor in the BCS computer polls), but also appear to the media and pollsters that they are just as good as any of the BCS-type teams.  In order to do that, the top “mid-major” schools need to WIN their OOC schedule – hands down.

 

The problem here is that the “BCS schools” have an edge at the beginning of the season:  They generally schedule weak OOC games at the beginning of the season to a) guarantee a win, b) get the their team prepped for tougher teams down the road, and, c) give their 2^nd and 3^rd team players game-time experience up front.  Therefore, these BCS schools with weak OOC schedules are NOT LIKELY to lose.  Because of these OOC schedules for BCS schools, it is very UNLIKELY for any one BCS team to lose in the first 3-4 weeks of the season.  Even more importantly, it is practically nonexistent for the Top 25 teams to lose in those first 3-4 weeks of the season.  This comes into play as I discuss the effects of polls.

 

If a “BCS school” happens to schedule a reasonably tough OOC game from another “BCS conference”, then it is a “win-win” for that team.  First off, it enhances their strength of schedule (even if it is, in fact, inflated) – thus factoring in later in the year for the computers.  Second, if they win, at the very least, they get a bump (albeit, possibly slight) in the polls, depending on how teams ahead of them do (again, this is discussed more in the “Polls” section).  The best-case scenario for this team would be that they could get a “Quality Win” boost in the BCS polls.

 

A “mid-major”, on the other hand, MUST schedule a tough OOC game to start the year off.  This is because of the perceived low Strength of Schedule (SOS) factor based on the perceived weakness of the conference they play in.  This early scheduling is difficult, because it is the first of the year where inconsistent play is more often seen.  In addition, tougher teams scheduled at the beginning of the season tend to lead to more injuries up front.  Even if this “mid-major” team should win, their boost PLUS their preseason poll position is not enough to leap-frog too many teams, let alone any at all.  However, if the “mid-major” team loses, the perception persists that the “mid-major” obviously cannot compete, thus not only WIPING OUT any chance of a NC shot (let alone a BCS bowl game) for the current season, but negatively impacts them in the NEXT season’s preseason polls.

 

2.        Polls.  (I use http://preseason.stassen.com/ for a preseason average consensus in the below data).

a.        Preseason.  As much of a joke these are viewed as, these polls are CRITICAL in the chances of getting into the NC game.  If you want a shot at playing for the NC game, you’ve GOT to start out the preseason VERY high.  As mentioned before, if you falter against “BCS” schools, the next season’s rankings will reflect that.  Even with doing well over the years, “mid-major” schools DO NOT do well in the preseason polls (see below).  The media, coaches, and pollsters know the importance of a preseason ranking, because it all starts here.  The Top 25 of preseason polls is nearly ALWAYS filled with “named” programs that have won multiple NCs or have contended recently in one.

 

Since 1998, the average STARTING position in the preseason polls for a “BCS” team to be in the National Championship game is FIVE.  That means for those teams that have played in the NC game since the BCS was formally created averaged a starting ranking of 5^th place in the Preseason polls.

 

Conversely, since the BCS started in 1998, the highest ranked “mid-major” school in the pre-season “consensus polls” was 18^th in 2005 for Fresno St.  The highest BCS-poll standing for a “mid-major” is 6^th when Utah did this in 2004 at the end of the regular season.  As a note, they started 20^th in the preseason polls and were pretty much STUCK at around 6-8 for the whole time the BCS polls were running.  This is because the teams ahead of them were static in their poll positions – they were not losing.

 

As ESPN writer, Mark Schlabach, pointed out in his article, “Past national champs among most overrated” (see, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/preview07/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=2980407 ), preseason polls are a big factor.

 

“More than ever before, a school's position in the preseason rankings has a bearing on its chances of playing for the national championship at the end of the season. So even the preseason polls, which come out weeks before a game is even played, figure heavily in determining which teams will be ranked Nos. 1 and 2 in early December.

 

Evidence A: Since 1991, college football's national championship has come from outside the top 10 of the preseason Associated Press top 25 poll only four times -- Michigan was 14th in 1997, Oklahoma was 19th in 2000, Ohio State was 13th in 2002 and LSU was 14th in 2003.

 

Evidence B: During the last 20 seasons, 13 teams have lost a game and still managed to finish the regular season ranked in the top two in the BCS standings or either poll of record. But only one of those teams -- LSU in 2003 -- was ranked lower than eighth in the preseason poll.

 

So if your favorite team is beginning the 2007 season outside the top 10 in the AP or ESPN/USA Today coaches' polls, you'd better hope for an undefeated season. Otherwise, your team has a very small chance of winning the national championship.”

 

b.        Regular season polls including the BCS poll.

Much like the preseason polls, humans and biased computer programmers fill the regular season polls with teams with “name recognition”.  Of course, these are all based on these preseason polls. 

 

A couple of challenges face a “mid-major” in attempting to be ranked high enough in the BCS final poll to be ranked #1 or #2:

 

(1)                 Leap-frog.  This has been a well-documented phenomenon.  A “mid-major” could have a nice win over a 2^nd or 3^rd-tier “BCS” team (or completely dominate any other opponent) and still get ‘leap-frogged’ by a lower-ranked “BCS” team, just because it was a “match-up of two ‘BCS’ schools”.  It is frustrating to say the least.  This phenomenon not only is created by the bias of the media and pollsters, but prevents any significant upward mobility.  Conversely, when a “BCS” school loses, they are penalized less, even when they are ranked just above a “mid-major” school – the poll numbers just don’t change that much in downward movement.

 

(2)                 Static at the top.  Both Utah and BSU faced this when they got closer to the top in the weekly BCS polls.  The top teams didn’t lose that much, and when they did they didn’t drop that much.  There is a very hard ceiling for “mid-major” schools in getting high enough in the polls.

 

 

(3)                 Strength of schedule.  This is still factored into the computer polls, and will hurt a “mid-major” more often than not, because of their conference affiliation.  This was evidenced in BSU’s “peak” last year in the BCS polls and in Utah’s run in 2004.  The problem here is that the top 20 “BCS” schools have OPPONENTS that pad their schedules with gimme wins.  This allows for the “Top 20” schools to beat these inflated opponents.  For example – let’s look at West Virginia’s (a potential title contender – ranked # 3 in preseason polls, with a SOS of #21) top opponents: Louisville, Rutgers, and South Florida.  Those schools’ schedules include the following OOC schedule of gimmies:

 

                                                               i.      Louisville – Murray State, M. Tenn St.

                                                             ii.      Rutgers – Buffalo, Navy, Norfolk State, Army

                                                           iii.      South Florida – Elon, Fla. Atlantic, Central Florida

 

With all of these easy wins, these opponents of West Virginia make themselves look tougher than they really are.   And, in turn, make West Virginia look like they are playing an “extremely” tough schedule.  (Even their own OOC schedule includes the likes of W. Michigan, Marshall, and East Carolina).  Note that this doesn’t include their other patsy conference foes of Uconn & Syracuse, to name a few.

 

(4)                 Quality win.  Here’s the kicker.  Because of the relatively new factor in “Quality wins”, BCS teams are rewarded for in a win-win scenario for playing a top-10 team:  1) If the “challenger” wins, they get the extra BCS bump.  2) If they lose, it won’t hurt them in the polls that much, since they are comparable in team quality and obviously are playing a good team.

 

However, two items need to be addressed:  a) flaws have already been pointed out regarding preseason polls.  This just carries over to the regular season polls.  b) Top-10 teams (even top-25 teams) are difficult to schedule.  Not only do these teams tend to schedule “cupcakes” for their OOC games, but it is a “lose-lose” scenario to schedule top-tier “non-BCS” schools: if they win, it really doesn’t help them in their rankings, and if they lose, they will suffer.  The likelihood is high for a loss, particularly for a “home-and-home” series.  To offset this, these “big-time” schools will schedule a “2-for”, a “home-only”, or just simply buy out the team when it is their turn to go on the road.

 

3.        Consistent Perfection.  Many optimists have brought up the concept of ‘repeated duplication of near perfection’ will get them into the “promised land” of a National Championship.  Let’s look at two teams (BSU & TCU) that have been consistent in the last 5-8 years, in their quest for “perfection” and how they do the next year in the pre-season polls:

 

BSU:

a.                    Finished 1999 season 10-3 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2000 preseason UNR.

b.                   Finished 2000 season 10-2 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2001 preseason UNR.

c.                    Finished 2001 season 8-4 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2002 preseason UNR.

d.                   Finished 2002 season 12-1 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2003 preseason UNR.

e.                    Finished 2003 season 13-1 (#17 in BCS polls); started 2004 preseason tied for 42^nd.

f.                     Finished 2004 season 11-1 (#9 in BCS polls); started 2005 preseason 20^th.

g.                   Finished 2005 season 9-4 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2006 preseason 30^th.

h.                   Finished 2006 season 13-0 (#8 in BCS polls); started 2007 preseason 25^th.

 

TCU:

a.                    Finished 1999 season 8-4 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2000 preseason 19^th.

b.                   Finished 2000 season 10-2 (#14 in BCS polls); started 2001 preseason 41^st.

c.                    Finished 2001 season 6-6 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2002 preseason UNR.

d.                   Finished 2002 season 10-2 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2003 preseason 28^th.

e.                    Finished 2003 season 11-2 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2004 preseason tied for 34^th.

f.                     Finished 2004 season 5-6 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2005 preseason UNR.

g.                   Finished 2005 season 11-1 (#14 in BCS polls); started 2006 preseason 24^th.

h.                   Finished 2006 season 11-2 (UNR in BCS polls); started 2007 preseason 20^th.

 

As you can see, not only is it difficult to go undefeated for ANY team (including “BCS teams”), but it is next to impossible to repeat it the next year.  In fact, a little-known website http://www.burntorangenation.com/story/2006/7/6/131751/8016 shows how hard it is for a national champion to repeat the next year.

 

Some may say, couldn’t we duplicate the win streak of ’83-’84?  Sure, we could, but that doesn’t guarantee a favorable preseason poll.  After BYU went 11-1 and started a 10-game win-streak in 1983, BYU started the 1984 season unranked – see http://www.burntorangenation.com/storyonly/2006/7/21/103548/173 .

 

Again, the highest-ranked “non-BCS” school in the preseason was 18^th in 2005.  The pollsters and media know how important these preseason polls are, and as been indicated, the eventual national champion STARTS the preseason averaging a poll position of 5^th.  As has been indicated by the positions of  BSU & TCU, although they currently get the love for BCS-busting, they are just not ranked high enough in the preseason polls, despite a perfect or near-perfect 5-8 year span.

 

I know this was long, but I feel that this topic needed to be addressed in a more “realistic” fashion.  Yes, barring a miracle, I would say that it is statistically impossible in the CURRENT BCS formula for a “mid-major” to start the season HIGH ENOUGH in the preseason polls, and then expect to move into the final BCS poll ranked #1 or #2.  The system is just too rigged for such a team to accomplish this.