College Football -- Better Than Ever

[Imran Siddiqui]

But it counts more in the SuperBowl

[MRT144]

Because MoV is only a part of what I use to determine my rankings. Why don't you also take into account: talent levels, future expectations, strength of opposition - before making a proper extrapolation between where I'd rate Florida and South Florida (which, btw, I actually do think is a decent squad).

It sounds like our disagree is about order in which we factor in those things;

Here's my order roughly:

Win-Loss
Future Expectations
Head to Head
Win-Loss Common Opponents
MoV Head to Head
MoV Common Opponents
Win-Loss circumstances
SoS based on Opponent Conference Rank based on above factors.

[MRT144]

Despite the fact that the Patriots beat the Giants head-to-head in the regular season?

This is exactly why I think the Patriots were better.

[Drake Tungsten]

This is exactly why I think the Patriots were better.

This doesn't make any sense. The Patriots won one head-to-head matchup and the Giants won the other. There's no way to differentiate between the teams unless you look at evidence other than the head-to-head matchups.

[Guynemer]

I also contend that the 2007/08 New England Patriots were the best team that year in the NFL regardless of their one loss in the SuperBowl against the Giants

Obviously. Are there any morons out there who really don't believe this?

Doubtful. The problem with playoffs in pro sports in that entirely too many teams make it in. There are too many divisions; there should be, at most, four divisions total in each pro league, and there should be no "wild cards" or non-division winners making it to the playoffs.

[Drake Tungsten]

Doubtful. The problem with playoffs in pro sports in that entirely too many teams make it in.

No, the problem with playoffs is that, because of chance, the best team doesn't always win. If people can live with that in the NFL, why can't they accept it in college football?

[Guynemer]

NBA: 16/30 teams
NHL: 16/30 teams
NFL: 12/32 teams
MLB: 8/30 teams

Even in the most exclusive league, just over 25% of the teams make the postseason. The college football equivalent would be about 30 teams!

[Drake Tungsten]

Also note that the fact that the best team didn't win in the Giant-Patriots Super Bowl is what made the game so memorable. Would football be as interesting if the best team always won and all we needed to determine the identity of the best team was an analysis of head-to-head matchups?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And everyone knows that in the playoffs sometimes the best team loses, as statements in baseball: "Anything can happen in a 5 game series" or football: "Any given Sunday" show.

[Guynemer]

Well of course. Again: that is why the games are played. If the "best team" always won, again, why play the games? If the results are meaningless (ie, Washington beats USC), why play the games?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are undermining your argument then .

[Drake Tungsten]

No one's saying the results should be meaningless. We're just saying that they aren't necessarily conclusive, in and of themselves.

[Guynemer]

Hypothetical:

Washington 11-1 (9-0)
USC 11-1 (8-1)

You're arguing that USC should be ranked higher (potentially #1 or 2 depending on other factors), despite a) finishing second in the Pac-10, and b) losing to Washington.

That renders the Washington-USC game meaningless, ie there was nothing Washington could do to pass USC.

[Drake Tungsten]

I might still rank Washington higher in that situation. Depends on SOS and MOV over the course of both team's seasons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who was?

I think all either of us ever said in that hypothetical is that it depends on how each team did in the rest of the games. What if LSU lost 6 games and OSU went 11-1; and what if USC won by an average of 30 points and UW won by an average of 2 points?