College Football -- Better Than Ever

[MRT144]

So do you not believe in "Any Given.."? Even though that's a major selling point for fans of American football (and especially college football, as since it doesn't have a playoff it is more unforgiving)?

One can easily view games within context of the broader season and the relative talent levels of the squads. For example, Sagarin's "Predictor" ranking, which he considers to be far more accurate in determining which team is going to win in the future is based on margin of victory/loss as well as strength of schedule, etc. This sort of analysis that computers do can also be undertaken by individuals in a subjective measure of which team is better (of course, which measures to upgrade or downgrade by computer rankings is also the result of subjective measures).



Not necessarily, IMO, but if you noticed, I have Ohio State ranked ahead of Southern Cal in my weekly poll (I think it's on the previous page).

I don't believe that "any given" should be used as an excuse to buoy the failure of one team on the field while it remains absent in other cases. If you're going to apply it consistently, then it will almost certainly lead to outcomes you will almost certainly disagree with.

[Guynemer]

And, just so we're clear:

My argument is not that in every single case a team that wins a head-to-head matchup should be ranked ahead of another team. Obviously, in the long run, that is simply not possible.

BUT, that is possible in the [b]short[b] run. Right now, there is no reason UW shouldn't be ahead of USC, no reason Houston shouldn't be ahead of OkSt. The problem is that where teams are ranked today will affect where they are ranked at the end of the season. Despite having the same record, essentially the same schedule, and winning the head-to-head matchup, UW is 10-12 spots in the hole to USC. That is simply indefensible.


Take Penn State and Wisconsin. They don't play each other this year. Same conference, same relative SOS. It is possible (certainly not likely, but possible) that both go undefeated. Penn State, due to completely subjective preseason rankings, is in the top ten. Wisconsin is nowhere near the top 25. How can Wisconsin hope to possibly pass Penn State? Even in Penn State were to lose a game (say this week against Iowa, or in a few weeks against Michigan or OSU), they'd still be ranked above Wisconsin after the loss. How could the Badgers pass them? (Hell, even if they lose this week, we all know for a fact the Nittany Lions will still be ranked above the Hawkeyes. How could the Hawkeyes hope to pass the Lions?)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like Guy said, they should have been ranked ahead of Michigan until they lost more games or won only games against Div-II teams. They shouldn't have been ranked though.

How exactly does the first sentence work with the second sentence?

[Guynemer]

I think he meant Michigan shouldn't have been ranked.

And I have no problem with FCS teams being ranked. The best FCS teams are unquestionably better than the majority of FBS teams, and the very best are undoubtedly Top 25 worthy.

Of course, I could use Drake/Imran's argument, and say that Michigan only lost because their star four-year starters at QB and RB got fluke injures, they only lost on a fluke blocked FG, fluke fluke fluke, yadda yadda yadda, but they ****ing lost. No excuses.

[MRT144]

How exactly does the first sentence work with the second sentence?

Sorry, I mean they should be thought of as better than Michigan and personally ranked higher, but they should not be an officially ranked top 25 team accord to the AP or BCS.

[MRT144]

And, just so we're clear:

My argument is not that in every single case a team that wins a head-to-head matchup should be ranked ahead of another team. Obviously, in the long run, that is simply not possible.

BUT, that is possible in the [b]short[b] run. Right now, there is no reason UW shouldn't be ahead of USC, no reason Houston shouldn't be ahead of OkSt. The problem is that where teams are ranked today will affect where they are ranked at the end of the season. Despite having the same record, essentially the same schedule, and winning the head-to-head matchup, UW is 10-12 spots in the hole to USC. That is simply indefensible.


Take Penn State and Wisconsin. They don't play each other this year. Same conference, same relative SOS. It is possible (certainly not likely, but possible) that both go undefeated. Penn State, due to completely subjective preseason rankings, is in the top ten. Wisconsin is nowhere near the top 25. How can Wisconsin hope to possibly pass Penn State? Even in Penn State were to lose a game (say this week against Iowa, or in a few weeks against Michigan or OSU), they'd still be ranked above Wisconsin after the loss. How could the Badgers pass them? (Hell, even if they lose this week, we all know for a fact the Nittany Lions will still be ranked above the Hawkeyes. How could the Hawkeyes hope to pass the Lions?)

The stickiness of ranking hurts teams that win head to head and this is wrong. It's like pollsters don't want to admit they were wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not exactly sure how that helps Wisconsin if in Week 4 both Wisconsin and Penn State are undefeated. Subjective rankings will ALWAYS occur, unless you want to turn it all over to the computers.

[MRT144]

I'm not exactly sure how that helps Wisconsin if in Week 4 both Wisconsin and Penn State are undefeated. Subjective rankings will ALWAYS occur, unless you want to turn it all over to the computers.

But they occur based on biases before the season even starts and are rarely shaken. This is part of the problem. It's not that subjectivity occurs but the factors that bias it in such a way that you have several SEC teams in the top 10 and USC not dropping more.

[Guynemer]

Exactly. Before the season has even started, even though everyone has the same 0-0 record, we have a pecking order. Florida is ahead of Texas, who is ahead of Oklahoma, who is ahead of USC, who is ahead of OSU, and so on and so forth.

Everyone starts at a built-in disadvantage except for the top two teams. It's ridiculous.

[SlowwHand]

I'll never believe that USC beating William and Mary by 40 points is better than Georgia losing to LSU by 3, as a for instance.

[MRT144]

Exactly. Before the season has even started, even though everyone has the same 0-0 record, we have a pecking order. Florida is ahead of Texas, who is ahead of Oklahoma, who is ahead of USC, who is ahead of OSU, and so on and so forth.

Everyone starts at a built-in disadvantage except for the top two teams. It's ridiculous.

Not only that, but in regards to the SEC ranking 4 teams so highly (and the absurd scheduling that means Florida could wind up facing the #2 ranked team in the nation for the SEC Championship. Such a scenario would guarantee an SEC in the NCG) will lead to absurd SoS outcomes.

Florida beats LSU, LSU beats Bama and Ole Miss, Bama beats Ole Miss: UF 12-0*, LSU 11-1*, Bama 11-1, Ole Miss 10-2
Florida Beats LSU, LSU beats Bama and loses to Ole Miss, Bama beats Ole Miss Miss: UF 12-0*, LSU 10-2, Bama 11-1*, Ole Miss 11-1* (Be interesting to see who goes)
Florida Beats LSU, LSU loses to both Bama and Ole Miss, Bama beats Ole Miss:
UF 12-0*, LSU 9-3, Bama 12-0*, Ole Miss 11-1

*=Plays for SEC championship.

The only reason these wins would seem that much more impressive is because of the rank given ahead of time based on the belief that the SEC is the best conference (even though their OOC schedules are the main thing that keep most the teams above .500)

[SlowwHand]

SEC is 2nd best.

[MRT144]

SEC is 2nd best.

The point isn't whether or not they are the best, it's that they have so many highly ranked teams that will have at least one loss at the end of the year, that it seems the rankings only are there to pad the SoS for the top 2 SEC teams.

[ColdWizard]

This is why I love that there's no playoffs or anything definitive about the BCS.
No matter what happens there are going to be millions of know-it-alls whining about it.

Fixed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly. Before the season has even started, even though everyone has the same 0-0 record, we have a pecking order. Florida is ahead of Texas, who is ahead of Oklahoma, who is ahead of USC, who is ahead of OSU, and so on and so forth.

Everyone starts at a built-in disadvantage except for the top two teams. It's ridiculous.

If this week was the first week for AP rankings or USA Today rankings do you seriously believe Washington would be ranked ahead of USC or BYU would be ranked ahead of Oklahoma? Do you?

Please, everyone has their own subjective rankings anyway. The Harris poll starting around Week 4 really doesn't result in much of a difference as some thought it would. For the most part, it is very similar to the AP poll that starts in preseason.