After GW’s loss at Auburn Nov. 22, I wrote a game analysis piece that focused on how the loss extended a dubious 14-game losing streak to BCS opponents outside D.C. It’s something of which many GW fans are aware, as it was one of the reasons the Colonials’ mid-decade stretch of success and national rankings never really broke through to the next level.
Of course, there is another side to that streak, one that Coach Hobbs brought up in a post-practice discussion with me last night. Quite simply: those teams are pretty good. I had a quote from Hobbs saying such in the article and I name-dropped a few of the schools that readers may recognize, but more attention could have been given to just how good some of those BCS teams were during the streak.
Included among those losses were #2 Wake Forest (2004), #1 Duke (2006) and #4 UCLA (2007), the last of which had been atop one poll just weeks before. They also lost at #14 UConn (2002), #18 Texas (2003), #24 Georgia Tech (2005) (EDIT: this was a neutral-site NCAA tourney game), and #19 NC State (2005). That means half of those losses came in visits to Top 25 teams, games non-BCS teams by and large lose anyway. It should be noted that this list does not include a loss at then-unranked West Virginia in the 2004-2005 season; the Mountaineers ended up reaching the Elite 8 that March.
By focusing on games outside the District, I was essentially excluding the BB&T Classic, the closest GW comes to hosting these power conference schools. Since Hobbs took over in 2001, GW is 5-5 in the BB&T against BCS schools, which includes a 3-3 mark when the opponent is also nationally ranked. Two of those wins were against Maryland, the Colonials’ opponents this Sunday, with the other coming against Michigan State.
Hobbs also pointed out that while GW has struggled in road games against BCS teams, they have enjoyed immense success in home games against non-BCS teams to the tune of a 35-1 record. Those familiar with typical GW home opponents will not find this particularly surprising, but he is right in pointing out that the Colonials take care of the business they’re supposed to.
So what does this all mean? Well, as always, there is more than one side to a story. In this case, there are more than even two. There are a variety of reasons all of this didn’t end up in the original article. Not only are there space constraints, but the last part – GW’s success against mid- and low-majors at home – does not necessarily fit into a story about a loss at Auburn.
The high caliber of many of the BCS schools that befell GW could have been more clearly noted. On the other hand, some of the other teams were not particularly strong relative to their conference, and some of those games – namely the losses at Auburn and USC – were GW’s for the taking. There are a number of ways to slice it, but I thought it would be best to take Hobbs’s suggestion and lay the wider array of facts out there to be considered.