BlogPoll Ballot Week 6
Super busy today, but here it is, with explanations to come later -
 | ||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | -- |
| 2 | Oklahoma |  1 |
| 3 | Vanderbilt | 3 |
| 4 | LSU |  2 |
| 5 | Missouri | 6 |
| 6 | Penn State | 4 |
| 7 | Texas | 8 |
| 8 | Texas Tech | 5 |
| 9 | Utah | 7 |
| 10 | Oklahoma State | 2 |
| 11 | Northwestern | 2 |
| 12 | Boise State | 8 |
| 13 | Brigham Young | 4 |
| 14 | Kentucky | 6 |
| 15 | Georgia | 3 |
| 16 | California | 10 |
| 17 | Ohio State | 9 |
| 18 | Michigan State | 8 |
| 19 | Notre Dame | 7 |
| 20 | Georgia Tech | 6 |
| 21 | South Florida | 16 |
| 22 | Ball State | 8 |
| 23 | Wake Forest | 3 |
| 24 | Virginia Tech | 2 |
| 25 | Southern Cal | 1 |
Dropped Out: Connecticut (#7), Auburn (#19), TCU (#20), Cincinnati (#21), Kansas (#22), Tulsa (#23), Duke (#24), Boston College (#25).
Mentioned in Austin Murphy's book 
8 comments:
Vanderbilt better than Missouri?
*shakes head* Naw, man.
Once again, it is irrelevant who is better. My poll has nothing to do with that whatsoever. And if deciding "who is better" is the goal of "normal" polls, they are terrible at it.
It is about who is more deserving. Right now, I rate Vandy's wins as more impressive than Mizzou's.
If we want to go to the "who is better" discussion, I would say Vandy's D is better than Missouri, and the other way around on offense. My guess is Missouri would win. So what?
After the insanity of last season, I find it hard to believe that any such power-polling can be defended anymore. Take the example of Missouri and OU. If the question is "Who would win on a neutral field?" then you had your anwser. It was OU. But no one ranked them that way. Why? Because Missouri's season was, overall, much better.
Based on this, and a plethora of other examples, I find the question of "Who would win on a neutral field" not only unanwserable, but almost totally irrelevent.
I apologize for highjacking the post like this, and if you disagree please say so.
By the way, Pitt might deserve some discussion now, at least relative to USF. Both have one good win [Kansas, and SF], but Pitt's 2nd win over Iowa trumps anything else USF has done. They do have the worse loss, so I could see why you would still leave them off.
dethwing -
Far from highjacking the post, you did an admirable job of summing up my position.
Pitt did get some consideration as one of the 22 1-loss teams. That loss to Bowling Green still stands out as ugly, though.
In looking at my poll again, maybe I forgot Cincy. They have lost only to Oklahoma. Any opinions?
So in the resume style, on comparing 1-loss teams. Let's say we have 3 teams; A, B and C. Team A and Team B are considered to be good (and have only one loss apiece), with Team A having beat Team B. However Team C (who isn't all that good) beat Team A. Do you really rank B far above A. It seems to me that even though A has a worse loss, they also have a much better win and should therefore be ranked ahead of B.
Amos - I tend to rank losses as more significant (and damaging) than wins, as I think the loss says far more about resume of the team.
In college football the ranking system has to substitue for the playoff system. Although it is a poor substitue at best, when you are talking about 119 teams, losses must be disqualifying to distinguish teams.
The classic example this year of loss importance is USC. Their marquee win against Ohio State really can't compare, in my opinion, to the disaaster of their loss to 2-3 Oregon State. I rank Ohio State higher than USC because, somewhat counter intutitively I admit, OSU lost to a higher quality team. To simply say USC is "better" than Ohio State because they beat them head-to-head ignores the complexities of college football - by that reckoning, you have to rank Oregon State ahead of USC, and so on.
I understand, and can actually agree with your logic and so accept your rankings (even if I wouldn't do it the same).
Though I disagree with your last point following the "by that reckoning", because I think you compare on a head-to-head level only when other parts seem equal, for instance their record.
However like I said, if you choose to rank losses as being more important, that is your prerogative and I understand. The important thing is to just keep it consistent.
I guess I weigh losses as more important because of the nature of college football's "post season" (if we can call it that). It is almost never the wins that make the difference in the end as to who goes to the big dance, it is the losses. Non-BCS teams are essentially eliminated by a single loss - BCS teams get a little more leeway, but losses count heavily. What was the difference between 2-loss LSU and 2-loss USC last year that allowed LSU to go to the BCS title game? Well, it was the weight of the bad loss to Stanford by USC.
By the end of the year, all serious contenders have good wins. You almost have to use losses to distinguish them.
Post a Comment