JohnStOnge

In defense of I-AA, I do not think McNeese has a playoff caliber team at this time.  Yes, the score was close for three quarters, but it wasn't because USF wasn't able to move the ball at will as long as it didn't stop itself with mistakes.  That was the worst performance, in terms of moving the ball and stopping the opponent, that McNeese has had against a BCS league opponent to date.  And the Cowboys did play Miami's 2000 national championship contender as well as Kansas State's 2003 Big 12 champion. Below is something I posted on the McNeese board.  As a McNeese fan, I was trying to get some indication out of last night's game as to where McNeese might stack up within its own division.  I hope you will not be offended by my assumption that USF is in the average range of BCS league teams.  That's what most people appear to think and what the power ratings say. "Just to kind of put things into the context of what one should expect from a I-AA team playing a BCS, I looked at all the games this past weekend between I-AAs and BCS squads in terms of how I-AAs did in terms of gaining yards and limiting yards gained by BCS teams. I counted 17 such games.  BCS teams rushed for an average of 188.7 yards against I-AAs.  South Florida rushed for 306 yards against McNeese. BCS teams gained an average of 389.5 total yards against I-AAs.  South Florida had 512 total yards against McNeese.  I-AA teams gained an average of 224.4 yards against BCS opponents.  McNeese got 159 total yards against South Florida. The average "yardage differential" (I-AA total yards minus BCS team total yards) for the games is -165.1.  McNeese's yardage differential vs. South Florida -353. Nobody could be certain of anything based on such comparisons.  But, look, South Florida is probably about an average BCS league team.  13 of the 17 I-AAs that played BCS squads this past weekend gave up less yardage, 14 of 17 gave up less rushing yardage, and 12 of 17 produced more offensive yards against their BCS league opponents than McNeese did.  I do not, given the assumption that USF is in the average range for BCS league teams, interpret what happened last night as an indication that McNeese is a playoff caliber team right now. "

Not out of line and not unreasonable. Naturally, we are hoping that the Cowboys are significantly better on both offense and defense than they were last year. What we'll be looking for is some indication that McNeese is getting back to where it was before the past two disappointing years. If they have, they should have a good shot to be at least reasonably competetive with a I-A team of about the caliber of that expected of South Florida this season. I say that because of history. Since the BCS stared in 1998, I-AA playoff teams are 5 - 18 against BCS league opponents that have finished at 0.500 or below. That doesn't look good, but it's one in every 4.6 games...so it shouldn't be an absolute shock to see a I-AA win such a matchup. The average margin has BCS team by 13.4...so the "typical" outcome has been reasonably competetive. If you look at teams right at 0.500 like USF was last season, only three games have been played against I-AA playoff teams since 1998 and the "medicore" BCS league teams have won all three by an average margin of 21 (Virginia 34-6 over Richmond in 2000, Nebraska 38-14 over McNeese in 2002, and North Carolina 49 - 38 over William & Mary in 2004). Worse, but not the 60 - 0 type blowouts some college football fans would expect. If you want to get a little larger sample size by looking at all games involving BCS league teams that won 5 to 7 games and I-AA playoff teams, it's still a shutout for the BCS league teams at 15 - 0. But the average margin, at 19.7, again suggest that the "typical" outcome isn't a huge blowout. And 40 percent (6 of 15) have been decided by 14 or less...so seeing something in that realm wouldn't be a big surprise IF we knew we were looking at a I-AA playoff team and kind of a middle of the road BCS league team. Finally, McNeese lost 38-24 to 8 - 4 Texas A&M in 2001 then 38-14 to 7-7 Nebraska in 2002. But those were McNeese playoff teams. This one? We don't know. We're hoping. A blowout doesn't mean McNeese does not have a playoff caliber team...even if USF turns out about as most appear to expect. There have been plenty of cases in which teams that are middle of the road to bad by BCS league standards have really blown out teams that went on to make the I-AA playoffs. But McNeese hanging in reasonably well would be a good sign.

I don't think it's as much USF being underrated as Texas Tech having been good in the past few years. The Raiders finished as a top 25 team by almost any measure one might want to look up in the past two years while South Florida's been pretty much in the 40s or 50s. You can see that for last year at http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare2005.htm . Plus, frankly (as someone else mentions), Texas Tech does run it up when it gets the chance. You could even see that in it's bowl game against Navy in 2004. Their coach has zero class in that regard.

That's the biggest concern. If a game like this was pre season of a year prior to when McNeese went into a tailspin I'd be very optimistic about the Cowboys having a shot to make it a game and I wouldn't even put the odds of them winning out of the realm of reasonable possibility. But McNeese just missed the playoffs for two consecutive years for the first time since 1989 - 1990. I'm hoping for an indication that it was an abberation and things are back on track but it's just that...hope.

That year (2003), McNeese beat Nicholls State on the road by a score of 63 - 28. It was McNeese's last playoff caliber team to date.

With respect to the substance, I think Texas Tech would be about a 17 point favorite to beat the Bulls on a neutral field. I say that because Sagarin's ratings would have the Raiders as a 16.61 point favorite and those ratings are usually pretty close to the line. Not always...but usually. To put it into perspective: Sagarin would make USF a 13.57 point favorite over McNeese on a neutral field. Right now, by Sagarin, Texas would be a 42.63 point favorite to beat Sam Houston State on a neutral field while Texas Tech would be a 36.82 point favorite to beat Southeastern Louisiana on a neutral field. It's not, when stripped down, really that remarkable an assertion. Right now, most people expect Texas and Texas Tech to be top 25 caliber I-A teams and do not expect that from South Florida. You can see that here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex Rightly or wrongly, if I'm reading right, USF got no votes in either major top 25 poll. And that belief is consistent with computer ratings. It could be that by the time the season is over opinions might change. But right now, the opinion that McNeese, in playing South Florida, is not playing teams as tough as Southeastern Louisiana is playing in Texas Tech and Sam Houston is playing in Texas isn't off the wall.

No need to look up the 1980 Soviet Hockey team. Just ask Stanford's 2005 football team.

In 2001, Texas A&M's defense finished 10th in total defense and 13th in scoring defense among I-As. Having said that, McNeese scored two defensive TDs during the game while Texas A&M scored one. So the Texas A&M offense outscored the McNeese offense 31 - 10. McNeese's offense produced 15 first downs and 241 yards. One thing is that, then, McNeese had a strong defense among I-AAs. That was usually the case during 1991 - 2003. During 2004 and 2005, McNeese had an uncharacteristically weak I-AA defense. In fact, in 2004 it set a school record for points allowed and wasn't much better by that measure in 2005.

For some reason my "paste" function isn't working right now but what you need to do is go to the site you linked and click "Last Week." That will give you the final 2005 ratings. And they show USF's "consensus" rating at 49 while Southern Miss' is 58. But...just an interesting little trivia bit: The team rated one spot above USF in those final 2005 ratings, Stanford, lost to a I-AA team last year (UC Davis).

If McNeese is a playoff caliber I-AA team, 20 or so points might not be a bad spread to choose. Since the BCS started in 1998, the average outcome for games between BCS league schools and schools that have gone on to make the I-AA playoffs is BCS league team winning by 22.8 points. In all games between BCS leagues and I-AAs over the period, the average outcome has been BCS league team by 28.7. Another consideration is the fact that the Big East is now a "tweener" league. It doesn't represent the kind of overall caliber of play as all six of the BCS leagues did prior to 2004. McNeese has usually been a playoff caliber team since 1991, but was obviously not in 2004 and 2005. In previous games against BCS league squads, McNeese played fairly respectably at Texas A&M (24-38) in 2001 and Nebraska (38-14) in 2003 but was knocked out of games early by Miami (14-61) in 2000 and Kansas State (14-55) in 2003. Of course, 2000 was the year there was controversy over Florida State being in the BCS title game over Miami and Kansas State won the Big 8 Championship by beating previously undefeated Oklahoma 35 - 7 in 2003. Against Texas A&M, McNeese led 24 - 10 in the third quarter and was tied 24 - 24 at the end of the third quarter. The game was in doubt until Texas A&M returned an interception for a TD to bring the score to 38 - 24 with 4:42 to go. If McNeese has a playoff caliber team, I think the Cowboys have a decent chance to make this a competetive game. I don't think USF is of the caliber of Miami in 2000 or Kansas State in 2003. But whether or not McNeese is back to being a playoff caliber team is open to question.

The final line represents kind of a "consensus" of people who bet and it represents about as good a predictor over a large number of games as you're going to find. If you're interested in that sort of thing, here's a web site that tracks how well various systems do in predicting outcomes: http://tbeck.freeshell.org/ At "Results" you can click on each year and see how different systems did for that year. For 2005, for instance, the updated line had a bias of 0.02 and a mean error of 11.9. You may already know...but just in case...bias is the average of all the observed outcomes minus the predicted outcomes. For example, if you have a spread of 10 in one game and the favorite wins by 7 then you have a spread of 7 in the next game and the favorite loses by one, you'd have a bias for those two games of [(7 - 3) + (-1 - 7)]/2 = (4 +(-8))/2 = -2. The goal is a bias of 0. The mean error is the average of the absolute values of how far the predictions are off. So in the example with two scores above the mean error for those two scores would be (4 + 8_/2 = 6. Having a mean error of 11.9 is very good. If you doubt that, try it sometime. Take out the paper the morning before the Saturday games, look at 20 games or so, and try picking who is going to win and by how much. Next morning, see if your bias is as close to zero as the line's is or if your mean error is as small.