College Football -- Back in Action!

[Imran Siddiqui]

The question is should a no loss team that finished 44 places back in SOS be ranked ahead of the 1 loss team that finished those places ahead.

I say no. I'd rank Southern Cal ahead of Utah every time.


Just as I rank Florida ahead of Alabama. Though that is an interesting question... why not Utah ahead of Florida for you?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Guynemer
It may yet happen with USC as well, although the Beavers aren't looking too good against the Ducks so far tonight.

It still chaps my ass that, despite all objective data, USC is ahead of Utah.

Despite all objective data? Sir, what sort of alternate universe are you living in?

USC has outscored its opponents by 301 points this year.
Utah has outscored its opponents by 242.

Don't even try to pretend that the schedules are remotely comparable, either. USC has faced a tougher slate, and it's not even close.

[reismark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Regardless of how the Big 12 uses their tiebreakers, the BCS should not have non-conference champs playing for the big game. It is up to the conferences to decide who are their champs.

My point is that if the Big 12 used its tiebreakers properly, we'd be less likely to have a scenario where a team that didn't win the conference ends up in the BCS title game.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just as I rank Florida ahead of Alabama. Though that is an interesting question... why not Utah ahead of Florida for you?

Because we have no objective data between the two. No common opponents (at least none where there is a won/loss difference), not enough interconference data. (In fact, if I remember correctly, no SEC team played a MWC team this year.)

Thus, I have to go purely on feel, on a hunch. My hunch is that Florida is better.


Now, my hunch is that USC is better than Utah as well. However, the data says otherwise, and thus Utah deserves to be ranked ahead of the Trojans.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by reismark
My point is that if the Big 12 used its tiebreakers properly, we'd be less likely to have a scenario where a team that didn't win the conference ends up in the BCS title game.

True, but irrelevant. Personally, I'd back a rule saying that a team that didn't win its conference couldn't be in the BCS title game.

[Jaguar]

Does the data say that the Cleveland Browns are better than the New York Giants?

That's just a single-game beatpath, and it's already absurd. Two-game beatpaths are more or less completely meaningless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the data says otherwise

Yes, a few cherry picked data says otherwise. I find "common opponents" and "head to head" to be ridiculous measures of which is the better team over the season. One game a season does not, and should not, make.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oregon up 17-7

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Don't even try to pretend that the schedules are remotely comparable, either. USC has faced a tougher slate, and it's not even close.

Well, that all depends on how you define strength of schedule, doesn't it?

Against teams currently in the BCS Top 25, USC is 2-1. Utah is 3-0.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No one EVER counts SOS in that way!

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
One game a season does not, and should not, make.

But when choosing between two teams for one spot, what better measure than a common opponent? This isn't the Giants vs. the Browns, where a sub-.500 team got lucky.



Let me put it this way: What else does a team like Utah have to do? They went out and scheduled two out-of-conference teams that are usually good to very, very good: Michigan and Oregon State. Okay, the first one didn't work out the way they thought, but the Beavers have won 9+ games 5 years running (or something like that), and could very well end up the Pac-10 Champs. Then they went undefeated in their conference in a very, very good year for their conference. They have done absolutely everything they can, everything anyone could ask of them. They accomplished something USC did not do.

[Naked Gents Rut]

However, the data says otherwise

No, it doesn't. Look at the computer rankings.

They accomplished something USC did not do.

You can certainly argue that Utah is more deserving than USC. That has nothing to do with the objective data that shows USC to be the better team, however.

[Jaguar]

Utah has to have beat its opponents by reasonable margins, leaving no doubt that they could win the game easily if played again.

In half their contests, they simply haven't done that. They are a lucky team, not a good one. They won by two points against Michigan (3-9). They also cut it close with Air Force, Oregon State, New Mexico, and TCU.

[Guynemer]

Ignore the names of the schools for a second.

Team A, of Conference X, is 12-0.
Team B, of Conference Y, is 11-1.
Team C, also of Conference Y, is 8-4. (For the sake of argument.)


Team A beats Team C, 31-28.
Team C beats Team B, 27-21.

Conference X teams have a 6-1 record against Conference Y overall.


Why should Team B be ahead of Team A?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But when choosing between two teams for one spot, what better measure than a common opponent?

How about their performance during the entire season?

What else does a team like Utah have to do?

Probably play in a better conference.

Okay, the first one didn't work out the way they thought

And yet, they beat Michigan by only 2 points. So probably not something you want to trumpet.

In addition they beat New Mexico and TCU by 3 points each and Air Force by 7.

USC did lose to Oregon State, but their next closest game was a 7 point win against Arizona and after that a 14 point win against Cal. They've basically destroyed everyone else.