CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ELA on August 03, 2017, 01:06:27 PM
-
http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/2/week/1/year/2017/seasontype/2
Who gave MSU a vote?
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
6. Penn State
9. Michigan
10. Wisconsin
ORV
35. Northwestern
36. Nebraska
t50. Minnesota
52. Iowa
t56. Maryland
t56. Michigan State
No votes for Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers
-
Does Dantonio get to vote?
-
Does his buddy Narduzzi?
-
The board for the 2017 season: Major Applewhite, Houston; David Bailiff, Rice; David Beaty, Kansas; Bret Bielema, Arkansas; Craig Bohl, Wyoming; John Bonamego, Central Michigan; Terry Bowden, Akron; Jeff Brohm, Purdue; Matt Campbell, Iowa State; Rod Carey, Northern Illinois; Mark Dantonio, Michigan State; Butch Davis, Florida International; Dave Doeren, North Carolina State; DJ Durkin, Maryland; Shawn Elliott, Georgia State; Larry Fedora, North Carolina; Luke Fickell, Cincinnati; Jimbo Fisher, Florida State; P.J. Fleck, Minnesota; James Franklin, Penn State; Willie Fritz, Tulane; Justin Fuente, Virginia Tech; Bryan Harsin, Boise State; Clay Helton, Southern California; Tom Herman, Texas; Doc Holliday, Marshall; Mark Hudspeth, Louisiana-Lafayette; Paul Johnson, Georgia Tech; Joey Jones, South Alabama; Mike Leach, Washington State; Lance Leipold, Buffalo; Tim Lester, Western Michigan; Seth Littrell, North Texas; Rocky Long, San Diego State; Mike MacIntyre, Colorado; Gus Malzahn, Auburn; Derek Mason, Vanderbilt; Urban Meyer, Ohio State; Jeff Monken, Army; Philip Montgomery, Tulsa; Scottie Montgomery, East Carolina; Jim Mora, UCLA; Dan Mullen, Mississippi State; Pat Narduzzi, Pittsburgh; Ken Niumatalolo, Navy; Barry Odom, Missouri; Gary Patterson, TCU; Mike Riley, Nebraska; Rich Rodriguez, Arizona; Nick Rolovich, Hawaii; Nick Saban, Alabama; Tony Sanchez, UNLV; Mike Sanford Jr., Western Kentucky; Scott Satterfield, Appalachian State; Bill Snyder, Kansas State; Frank Solich, Ohio; Rick Stockstill, Middle Tennessee; Mark Stoops, Kentucky; Tyson Summers, Georgia Southern; Dabo Swinney, Clemson; Matt Wells, Utah State; Mark Whipple, Massachusetts; Kyle Whittingham, Utah; Bobby Wilder, Old Dominion; Everett Withers, Texas State.
-
Don't the coaches reveal their ballots? Or is that just the final one?
-
nothing against osu, or that they're undeserving of #2 (or #1 for that matter), but i was really hoping for fsu/bama to be 1/2.
-
http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/2/week/1/year/2017/seasontype/2 (http://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/2/week/1/year/2017/seasontype/2)
Who gave MSU a vote?
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
6. Penn State
9. Michigan
10. Wisconsin
ORV
35. Northwestern
36. Nebraska
t50. Minnesota
52. Iowa
t56. Maryland
t56. Michigan State
No votes for Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers
That gap between B1G #4 Wisconsin and B1G #5 Northwestern is humongous. Per these rankings we have:
- A playoff team (Ohio State)
- Three more near-playoff teams (PSU, M, UW)
- A HUMONGOUS gap
- 10 not very good teams
-
Aside from hiring the head coach of the fourth place team in the American West Division, what exactly has Texas done over the off season in order to catapult themselves from a 5-win team to the Top 25?
-
Aside from hiring the head coach of the fourth place team in the American West Division, what exactly has Texas done over the off season in order to catapult themselves from a 5-win team to the Top 25?
There are other inconsistencies beyond that one.
Refer to the helmet thread for explanation. At least Notre Dame isn't listed..
-
The board for the 2017 season: Major Applewhite, Houston; David Bailiff, Rice; David Beaty, Kansas; Bret Bielema, Arkansas; Craig Bohl, Wyoming; John Bonamego, Central Michigan; Terry Bowden, Akron; Jeff Brohm, Purdue; Matt Campbell, Iowa State; Rod Carey, Northern Illinois; Mark Dantonio, Michigan State; Butch Davis, Florida International; Dave Doeren, North Carolina State; DJ Durkin, Maryland; Shawn Elliott, Georgia State; Larry Fedora, North Carolina; Luke Fickell, Cincinnati; Jimbo Fisher, Florida State; P.J. Fleck, Minnesota; James Franklin, Penn State; Willie Fritz, Tulane; Justin Fuente, Virginia Tech; Bryan Harsin, Boise State; Clay Helton, Southern California; Tom Herman, Texas; Doc Holliday, Marshall; Mark Hudspeth, Louisiana-Lafayette; Paul Johnson, Georgia Tech; Joey Jones, South Alabama; Mike Leach, Washington State; Lance Leipold, Buffalo; Tim Lester, Western Michigan; Seth Littrell, North Texas; Rocky Long, San Diego State; Mike MacIntyre, Colorado; Gus Malzahn, Auburn; Derek Mason, Vanderbilt; Urban Meyer, Ohio State; Jeff Monken, Army; Philip Montgomery, Tulsa; Scottie Montgomery, East Carolina; Jim Mora, UCLA; Dan Mullen, Mississippi State; Pat Narduzzi, Pittsburgh; Ken Niumatalolo, Navy; Barry Odom, Missouri; Gary Patterson, TCU; Mike Riley, Nebraska; Rich Rodriguez, Arizona; Nick Rolovich, Hawaii; Nick Saban, Alabama; Tony Sanchez, UNLV; Mike Sanford Jr., Western Kentucky; Scott Satterfield, Appalachian State; Bill Snyder, Kansas State; Frank Solich, Ohio; Rick Stockstill, Middle Tennessee; Mark Stoops, Kentucky; Tyson Summers, Georgia Southern; Dabo Swinney, Clemson; Matt Wells, Utah State; Mark Whipple, Massachusetts; Kyle Whittingham, Utah; Bobby Wilder, Old Dominion; Everett Withers, Texas State.
Could have been Stoops or even Fickell.
-
That gap between B1G #4 Wisconsin and B1G #5 Northwestern is humongous. Per these rankings we have:
- A playoff team (Ohio State)
- Three more near-playoff teams (PSU, M, UW)
- A HUMONGOUS gap
- 10 not very good teams
Yeah I saw an article saying with 4 in the top 10, the Big Ten was the most overrated conference. But are they highly rated? They have 4 in the top 10. But they also have only 4 in the top 35.
-
Aside from hiring the head coach of the fourth place team in the American West Division, what exactly has Texas done over the off season in order to catapult themselves from a 5-win team to the Top 25?
Hmmm, I sort of doubt this is a serious question, but I'll answer it in a serous way because I'm bored.
Reasons
- Texas played well below the way a team with it's numbers tends to. So it had a bad record because it lost close games. Those tend to even out, so a bump up is likely. Herman's first team played above where its numbers said it should, his second was about where they said it should be, give or take weird inconsistency.
- Texas returns a high-potential QB off a good first season. They return their top 3 receivers, a mess of offensive linemen of a team with solid rushing numbers. They return almost everyone on a defense that was super young last year and solid to good in some spots.
- While their head coach had a fourth-place team (tied-third in most parlances) last year, they also got a new coach with an winning percentage of 84 and as many top-10 finishes as either Chryst or Franklin (selective statting is silly BTW).
Their schedule is not easy, though they get new coaches at Baylor and Oklahoma. The roster should have a pretty good blue chip ratio, though 247 doesn't have that updated. Those bottom three spots often end with name teams with 4 or even five losses, so it's not some great signifier.
These are all solid enough reasons. But the most important reason is polls are generally without meaning, the format is designed to lean to bland consensus and all reasons are fine because college football is deeply bonkers and often doesn't follow a script. Teams don't do anything to move up or down because no one even agrees on how they're trying to rank the teams.
-
Texas has a huge helmet
"all hat and no cattle" is the saying, but the roster is full of 4 and 5 star talent, so they have the cattle
a weaker conference and therefore schedule? to be determined......
-
The good news is that such polls no longer have any impact on anything beyond discussion.
We all know the coaches who vote spend perhaps 2 minutes on this exercise.
I bet if we here had an internal poll of 15 or so of us, it would mostly look about the same (aside from a possible B1G weighting).
It would differ past 15 or so.
Helmetosity is worth a lot in preseason polls.
It's easier usually to talk about over rated teams than find under rated teams.
I'm getting a bit encouraged about the Dawgs having a decent OL and thus a pretty good year.
-
Yeah I saw an article saying with 4 in the top 10, the Big Ten was the most overrated conference. But are they highly rated? They have 4 in the top 10. But they also have only 4 in the top 35.
You made this point in your rankings thread and it is a good point. Overrated? Who knows. Maybe we really will have four really good teams and basically nobody else worth talking about.
Compared to other conferences, we look great top-10 but fall off beyond that.
Top ten by conference:
- 4 B1G (#2 tOSU, #6 PSU, #9 M, #10 UW)
- 2 ACC (#3 FSU, #5 Clemson)
- 2 PAC (#4 USC, #7 UW)
- 1 SEC (#1 Bama)
- 1 B12 (#8 OU)
Top 25 by conference:
- 6 SEC (#1 Bama, #12 LSU, #13 Auburn, #15 UGA, #16 UF, #24 TN)
- 5 ACC (#3 FSU, #5 Clemson, #17 Louisville, #18 Miami, #22 VaTech)
- 5 B12 (#8 OU, #11 OkSU, #19 KSU, #20 WVU, #23 TX)
- 4 B1G (#2 tOSU, #6 PSU, #9 M, #10 UW)
- 4 PAC (#4 USC, #7 UW, #14 Stan, #25 Utah)
- 1 AAC (#21 USF)
Judging by top-10 teams the B1G is far-and-away the best conference with four but judging by top-25 teams we are a pretty pedestrian tied for fourth/fifth with the PAC behind the SEC, ACC, and B12. Additionally, the PAC, B12, and ACC all have teams higher in "ORV" than we do so if you judge by top-35 we are DFL among the P5 with only four teams. This just illustrates that yawing gap between the B1G's "BIG-4" and the "other 10".
-
I think UM, UW and PSU are all too high. They should be in the 12-20 range in my opinion.
-
I think UM, UW and PSU are all too high. They should be in the 12-20 range in my opinion.
Yes, exactly. I think any of the 3 can end up there, but they're not there right now.
Of course, rankings are relative so maybe there's not that many great teams out there right now.
-
Great teams? Probably 3-4 of those. FSU, OSU, Bama, Clemson. Maybe Washington and/or USC?
Tough to say right now.
-
I think UM, UW and PSU are all too high. They should be in the 12-20 range in my opinion.
Nationally that is obviously important but within the conference I'm not even sure that it matters. With #5 and 6 being way down at #35/36 this essentially projects that the B1G title is between Wisconsin and the winner of the B1G-E round-robin between tOSU, M, and PSU.
Of the "Big three" in the East, only Michigan plays Wisconsin. Even if the Badgers lose that and even if they really should be ranked #20, they should still pretty easily win the division at no worse than 7-2.
Basically the only games to watch are:
- Oct 21: Michigan at Penn State
- Oct 28: Penn State at Ohio State
- Nov 18: Michigan at Wisconsin
- Nov 25: Ohio State at Michigan
If the "Big Four" win the home games among themselves and beat everyone else then the B1GCG will be Ohio State vs Wisconsin. I'm not saying that will happen, but I think it is the starting point for projections.
-
I suspect that at least one of those four teams will lose a game that they shouldn't.
I also suspect that at least one of the overlooked teams will be barking with the big dogs by season's end.
-
UW has to go to Nebraska and Minnie. Neither of those are gimmes. Minnie is bound to win the AXE, I'd think, since it's been over 5000 days since they've touched it.
Iowa and NU are in Madison, but those games are never easy on UW. @BYU will also be tricky. I wonder how they will prepare for the altitude out there. It's higher than Denver.
-
this essentially projects that the B1G title is between Wisconsin and the winner of the B1G-E round-robin between tOSU, M, and PSU.
Isn't this always the case? No offense to UNL or whoever, but as an outsider, your quote is my preseason take on the B10 every year.
-
Ttun and Penn St were outside of the pre season discussions for a while, while Michigan State had a pretty good run.
Wisconsin is generally a pretty safe bet for the West.
-
Well, there's only been a "West" for 3 years, but UW has won 2 of them. We'll see.
-
I think UM, UW and PSU are all too high. They should be in the 12-20 range in my opinion.
Two ways I'm looking at this:
1) on one hand, yes, Michigan and Wisconsin are very beatable by the teams ranked 12-20
but,
2) on the other hand they're deserving of top ten rankings if it's expected, based on favorable schedules ('specially UW's) that as the season moves along, UM and UW will amass more wins than those teams ranked 12-20.
A 10-0 Wisconsin will be ranked top 3.
-
Probably would be.
But if FSU were ranked #4 I'd pick them to beat #3. Many times a team's record as better than the team actually is, due to strength of schedule.
HOWEVER
I do think Iowa, Nebraska, NU and Minnie are better than they are getting credit for. We'll see at the end.
-
Probably would be.
But if FSU were ranked #4 I'd pick them to beat #3. Many times a team's record as better than the team actually is, due to strength of schedule.
HOWEVER
I do think Iowa, Nebraska, NU and Minnie are better than they are getting credit for. We'll see at the end.
This is usually ELA's pet peeve but I'll be the one to express it this time. Teams should never get credited or docked for perceived ability to accumulate wins due to weakness or strength of schedule.
IMHO, if a team plays the best 10 teams in the country and loses all ten games by a TD or less they should probably be ranked not too far outside the top-10. Conversely, if a team plays the worst 10 teams in the country and wins all ten games by a TD or less they shouldn't even be considered for a ranking. Unfortunately, the reality is that the 10-0 team will be ranked and the 0-10 team will not.
-
This is usually ELA's pet peeve but I'll be the one to express it this time. Teams should never get credited or docked for perceived ability to accumulate wins due to weakness or strength of schedule.
IMHO, if a team plays the best 10 teams in the country and loses all ten games by a TD or less they should probably be ranked not too far outside the top-10. Conversely, if a team plays the worst 10 teams in the country and wins all ten games by a TD or less they shouldn't even be considered for a ranking. Unfortunately, the reality is that the 10-0 team will be ranked and the 0-10 team will not.
those aren't real scenarios, though. teams don't play the other 10 best. or worst.
there's disparity in sos, but not as much as is generally believed, imo. especially among p5 teams.
-
I suspect that at least one of those four teams will lose a game that they shouldn't.
I also suspect that at least one of the overlooked teams will be barking with the big dogs by season's end.
well, last season, PSU lost to Pitt, Michigan lost to Iowa, Ohio St. lost to PSU,
-
HOWEVER
I do think Iowa, Nebraska, NU and Minnie are better than they are getting credit for. We'll see at the end.
one of the 4 will assert themselves
-
One way to rank teams is to use artificial lines from Vegas. (I realize the actual lines have another influence in them.)
Who would beat who. A "power poll" in effect, which might well have a 9-3 team favored over a 12-0 team.
You still have the issue with syllogism of course.
It's still great that these polls don't impact anything real, they are just for discussion.
Let's imagine FSU and Bama play a very even game decided in OT by a missed PAT. How far should the loser drop? If Bama lost, I might drop them to 3 or 4, at most, but they would really drop to 8 or lower, same with FSU.
You could even have a situation where the winner benefited from a 5-0 TO ratio and was handily outplayed by snuck out with a win. You might drop the winner and keep the loser where it was.
But, that doesn't happen of course. And it doesn't matter.
-
it happens in Vegas
but that doesn't matter either
games decided on the field, by young men with an oblong ball
-
Individual games are decided on the field, but the winner is not always the better team.
-
very true, but they are the winner
and the bookie has to pay up!
-
the concept of pre-season polls is rejected by my over-active sense of fairness.
this seasons seems more realistic than others, but it is an exception in that regard. I get that Bama is Bama, and they are always an embarrassment of wealth, but #1? I find that suspect. Same with Clemson rounding the top 5. USCw is a team I don't know enough about either this season or last. I DO know they've amassed a nice roster of stars, so... gotta give them a 'pass-and-see'.
there always (this season not withstanding) seems to be a wild card at the top. This season, I'm targeting FSU as that poser, but i don't feel as strongly about that as i have at times in the past while reviewing the pre-season polls. If i were to wager, i'd wager the season opening showcase game of FSU and Bama is cause for FSU's ranking at that placement as much as any other reason. that's because, in addition to having an over-active sense of fairness, i also harbor an over-active mechanism of cynicism.
but... anyway..
the entire premise of polling and ranking a team requires what?
this may be fodder for another thread....
I suggest that 'consistency' is a requirement for a team to be 'top five' as opposed to 'just' top ten/fifteen... I mean, we pretend these teams perform in a linear world, when they don't. the team you see one day may be comprised of the same players playing the same play call tendencies, but appearing to play like a different team... they lack consistency. We'll see possibly 'great ofensive' teams demonstrate flashes of astounding 'perfection in execution', and nod toward their greatness- but that's based on the resistance they encounter in their opponents defenses- which isn't linear in production either... so the flashing team breaks off a series of 20 yard hard fought yardage plays, and this impacts the pollsters interpretation- but... the defense they faced could have possibly rotated at the wrong time placing the wrong sets on the field, or the captain of the D was taking a breather and couldn't check back in, or the 'flashing O' found a component where they mismatched that puzzled the DC for more than that series lasted, and they capitalized... in such a case/condition, impressions are made and cemented in observers minds when it just isn't exactly what it appeared to be without consistency- and that consistency is rare in the dynamic environment of 'adjustments'.
All that said, this pre-season poll seems close to me with the exception of USCw and possibly FSU. I think FSU is a top ten to be sure, but I just don't know about top five. I don't know enough about USCw, but the impression that remains from last season (which i can't explain further than that) is they are a top15, but not a top 5 team. Other than that- it seems legit.
-
One way to rank teams is to use artificial lines from Vegas. (I realize the actual lines have another influence in them.)
Who would beat who. A "power poll" in effect, which might well have a 9-3 team favored over a 12-0 team.
You still have the issue with syllogism of course.
It's still great that these polls don't impact anything real, they are just for discussion.
Let's imagine FSU and Bama play a very even game decided in OT by a missed PAT. How far should the loser drop? If Bama lost, I might drop them to 3 or 4, at most, but they would really drop to 8 or lower, same with FSU.
You could even have a situation where the winner benefited from a 5-0 TO ratio and was handily outplayed by snuck out with a win. You might drop the winner and keep the loser where it was.
But, that doesn't happen of course. And it doesn't matter.
Why would you dismiss a 5-0 turnover ratio?
Sure, the losing team would probably win if you take away all of the winning teams big plays. That's Football.
If you take away Georgia Tech's 222 points against Cumberland, then the biggest blowout in the history of CFB would have been a scoreless tie. So what?
-
Why would you dismiss a 5-0 turnover ratio?
Sure, the losing team would probably win if you take away all of the winning teams big plays. That's Football.
If you take away Georgia Tech's 222 points against Cumberland, then the biggest blowout in the history of CFB would have been a scoreless tie. So what?
The short answer is that it's a relative rarity. Basically, it took something unusual for one team to win a very close game. You wouldn't 100 percent dismiss it, but you would take it as part of a larger context.
The longer answer is that turnovers are quite hard to control. Fumble recoveries are mostly crap shoots. Interceptions are mildly more in a defense's control, but a lot are still tipped balls that rely on the magic of physics to be catchable. Returns off turnovers are likewise mildly random and of course can have big impacts. So a defense will try to do the things that lead to turnovers, go after the ball, hit QBs, cover well, but some days that'll lead to more takeaways than others. If you needed all five to hold on, or needed great placement for some, your fans will likely leave more relieved than confident.
Basically, football games are often weird scrambles of so many things. Taking only the final outcome of win/loss is fine, but it often leaves behind indicators of quality. Those indicators won't predict everything, as the game is beautifully random, but they can often shed light onto what's going on.
-
those aren't real scenarios, though. teams don't play the other 10 best. or worst.
there's disparity in sos, but not as much as is generally believed, imo. especially among p5 teams.
The thing is, there's doesn't need to be a ton of disparity because it's such a low-margin sport. We're only talking about 12-15 game schedules. Even if there's three games that are top-15 teams instead of teams in the 50-70 range, that could turn a 9-3 team to a 6-6 team.
There's actually kind of an interesting example of this. A friend of mine lived in Indiana and pointed it out. They have computer ratings and often there's a few 4-5 loss teams in the state's top-20. It seems weird, but the reason comes down to two things: a league of Indianapolis schools with massive enrollments and parochials. Both groups crush teams outside themselves, but they also play each other a lot. So their records get driven down.
-
Turn overs are often random events. A team that loses because they had 5 TOs to none could well have been the better team overall but the ball bounced against them. The other team could have had 5 fumbles also that they managed to recover.
Other near random events are kicks for points that bounce off the goal post. Yeah, a better kicker doesn't miss like that, but it can bounce through or to the side or back, a matter of inches. Then there is where the ball is spotted on a key play where an inch makes a difference. The spot is random within that inch. Then there are holding calls made or not made.
In some games, all these things combine against you and the other team is just good enough to take advantage and beat you. That is when major upsets happen. The outcome doesn't necessarily mean the winning team is better, or even better that day. That team with 5 fumbles lost may have very few fumbles in the rest of their games, but on one day, the "odds" fell against them.
Most major upsets, by which I mean where the losing team was favored by say 14 points or more, are due to turnovers, key penalties, an opposing QB who happens to get hot or has tipped passes that fall into the right hands, etc.
The losing team may go up and down the field and end up with 3 points due to some penalties or a missed FG or TO. I've seen teams fumble at the goal line and the other team picks it up and runs 99 yards for a 14 point swing. It's more random than anything.
The better team does not win every time out. Most of the time, but not every time.
-
Ed Zachery
so, even with a 4-team playoff, the best team doesn't always win the big trophy
-
eh, football is a game of inches.
If one team doesn't take care of the ball while the other team does, then the outcome is predictable.
I don't generally punish winning teams for making more big plays than the other team.
Now if the refs butcher a bunch of calls, you might have a more sound argument. But that's less likely now that we have replay.
-
yes, all those "inches" are part of the game - part of winning or losing
coaches talk about making plays - making more plays than the opponent
I've heard the team that makes the fewest mistakes wins
many measures and metrics can be used to determine the "better" team, but we've decided to measure number of points on the scoreboard to determine the "winner" and better team that particular day
-
This page and the quotes found herein could be a panel script for BTN with DiNardo and Co.
-
The short answer is that it's a relative rarity. Basically, it took something unusual for one team to win a very close game. You wouldn't 100 percent dismiss it, but you would take it as part of a larger context.
The longer answer is that turnovers are quite hard to control. Fumble recoveries are mostly crap shoots. Interceptions are mildly more in a defense's control, but a lot are still tipped balls that rely on the magic of physics to be catchable. Returns off turnovers are likewise mildly random and of course can have big impacts. So a defense will try to do the things that lead to turnovers, go after the ball, hit QBs, cover well, but some days that'll lead to more takeaways than others. If you needed all five to hold on, or needed great placement for some, your fans will likely leave more relieved than confident.
Basically, football games are often weird scrambles of so many things. Taking only the final outcome of win/loss is fine, but it often leaves behind indicators of quality. Those indicators won't predict everything, as the game is beautifully random, but they can often shed light onto what's going on.
well lock the thread that pretty well sums it up
-
This page and the quotes found herein could be a panel script for BTN with DiNardo and Co.
If DiNardo said anything remotely close we'd know he was reading from a script.I do like him how ever
-
DiNardless brings that XFL flava.
(https://jsportsblogger.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/jay-barker-and-gerry-dinardo.jpg)
-
there's disparity in sos, but not as much as is generally believed, imo. especially among p5 teams.
I think the opposite. SOS is largely ignored by the voters/committee. They look at schedules and base them more on reputation than actual quality. A 10-0 team is going to be ranked above a 9-1 team a vast majority of the time. In the cases when it's not, the 9-1 team is a helmet school, or more of a helmet than the 10-0 team, largely irrelevant of the actual quality of those teams or their SOS in that season.
Basically, you have a population of voters/committee, and nearly any group of people become a herd with a safety-in-numbers herd mentality.
-
That clearly is not true for non-P5 teams who are undefeated. And I think a 7-0 team with a soft schedule and close wins will usually be ranked behind a 6-1 team with good wins and a close loss even at that point in the season.
-
Right.....but he specified P5 teams....so.......
-
eh, football is a game of inches.
If one team doesn't take care of the ball while the other team does, then the outcome is predictable.
I don't generally punish winning teams for making more big plays than the other team.
Now if the refs butcher a bunch of calls, you might have a more sound argument. But that's less likely now that we have replay.
It is a game of inches, but kind of a lot of them. If a ball gets batted down vs. up at the line, is this an inch you control. Likewise, every play has 10-plus interactions. Sometime you win more, but the play doesn't go your way. It's a sport with a lot of noise, that make it great.
But that also means because something happens doesn't mean it's the direct result of some kind of individual win. Sometimes things happen just because they happen.
-
Polls late in the season will usually reflect losses for P5 teams, with the occasional flip because of apparent SOS.
I think we see this after the CGs when for example #4 beats #8 in a tough game so #8 is now 10-3, but doesn't drop below a team that is 10-2. Obviously it takes a lot to overcome the extra loss when comparing an 11-2 team with a 10-3 team, but it happens. It's just not that common because clear differences in SOS are not that common.
-
I think UM, UW and PSU are all too high. They should be in the 12-20 range in my opinion.
I think Michigan is the most over-rated and Penn State a little as well but your Badgers are deserving of a #10.
-
those aren't real scenarios, though. teams don't play the other 10 best. or worst.
there's disparity in sos, but not as much as is generally believed, imo. especially among p5 teams.
I agree but I was exaggerating for illustrative purposes. On our Power Rankings we have a poster who always treats ALL wins as being better than ALL losses and I strongly disagree.
Perhaps the first week of the season is a better example:
- In week #1 Nebraska and Minnesota have probably the easiest games of any B1G schools. The Cornhuskers host Arkansas State while the Gophers host Buffalo.
- In week #1 Michigan and Rutgers have probably the toughest games of any B1G schools. The Wolverines face Florida in Texas while the Scarlet Knights host Washington.
If the B1G teams barely win the two easy games (Nebraska over Ark St and Minnesota over Buffalo) and barely lose the two tough games (Florida over Michigan and Washington over Rutgers) I will consider that to reflect well on RU/M and poorly on UNL/MN. Thus, UNL and MN should not move up for barely beating bad teams and RU/M should not move down for barely losing to good teams.
-
Ed Zachery
so, even with a 4-team playoff, the best team doesn't always win the big trophy
The only solution to that would be something like the 7-game series playoff that the NBA uses. In CBB we have a 68 team playoff and still the best team doesn't always win because one bad game in the six that it takes to win the championship knocks you out.
-
eh, football is a game of inches.
If one team doesn't take care of the ball while the other team does, then the outcome is predictable.
I don't generally punish winning teams for making more big plays than the other team.
Now if the refs butcher a bunch of calls, you might have a more sound argument. But that's less likely now that we have replay.
I think it matters whether you are ranking who is "more deserving" or who you think is "better". In the "more deserving" category a win is a win and really, nothing else matters. If you are ranking who you think is "better" then you have to look more closely.
On this argument in general I believe that all teams play within a range. They have good days and bad days. If team-X beats team-Y it definitely means, at a minimum, that team-X's best day is better than team-Y's worst day. It could mean:
- That team-X's best day is barely better than team-Y's worst day,
- That team-X's worst day is better than team-Y's best day, or
- Anything in between
-
I think "more deserving" can also apply to the team "A" that takes on a very strong schedule compared to the team "B" that schedules very weak opponents
heck, team "A" might not have a strong argument for being the "better" team, but they are more deserving because of their relative schedule
-
I agree but I was exaggerating for illustrative purposes. On our Power Rankings we have a poster who always treats ALL wins as being better than ALL losses and I strongly disagree.
Perhaps the first week of the season is a better example:
- In week #1 Nebraska and Minnesota have probably the easiest games of any B1G schools. The Cornhuskers host Arkansas State while the Gophers host Buffalo.
- In week #1 Michigan and Rutgers have probably the toughest games of any B1G schools. The Wolverines face Florida in Texas while the Scarlet Knights host Washington.
If the B1G teams barely win the two easy games (Nebraska over Ark St and Minnesota over Buffalo) and barely lose the two tough games (Florida over Michigan and Washington over Rutgers) I will consider that to reflect well on RU/M and poorly on UNL/MN. Thus, UNL and MN should not move up for barely beating bad teams and RU/M should not move down for barely losing to good teams.
perhaps i didn't express it very well, but my take was on a season as a whole. on a game by game analysis, i agree with you.
but over a season as a whole, the sos are usually close enough to warrant a win is better than a loss. we usually break down a comparison of teams to who did you beat and who did you lose to.
basically, over the course of a season, if two teams have similar records, they've played enough similar opps that a single game comparison isn't likely to give you a good picture of who is better.
it's folly and we're running a fools errand.
-
perhaps i didn't express it very well, but my take was on a season as a whole. on a game by game analysis, i agree with you.
but over a season as a whole, the sos are usually close enough to warrant a win is better than a loss. we usually break down a comparison of teams to who did you beat and who did you lose to.
basically, over the course of a season, if two teams have similar records, they've played enough similar opps that a single game comparison isn't likely to give you a good picture of who is better.
it's folly and we're running a fools errand.
I agree with the caveat that the "usually" that I emphasized in your comment does NOT mean always. Our examples tend to be hypothetical because it is hypothetically possible for one team in the SEC-E or the B1G-E to play the three or four worst teams in the (SEC/B1G)-W while another plays the three or four best teams in the (SEC/B1G)-W but in practice it may never actually happen.
In practice, SoS can still make a very significant difference for two reasons:
- We are only talking about a 12-13 game schedule to begin with so one or two games makes up a substantial chunk of it, and
- Realistically for NC contenders that 12-13 game schedule is paired down to a lot fewer "plausibly losable games".
Assuming that Alabama is an NC contender they are not going to lose to Fresno, ColoSt, Vandy, etc. Similarly, assuming that Ohio State is an NC contender, they are not going to lose to IU, Army, UNLV, etc. Thus, within their first four games the Buckeyes and Tide each have one game that even a contender could lose and three games that should not be competitive at all. FSU and Oklahoma are equivalent enough for this discussion. If Bama replaced FSU with UCF or if Ohio State replaced Oklahoma with Tulsa that would be a HUGE change. It is only one game but it would represent a 100% decrease in realistic tests in the first third of the season.
-
For a contender, a season is usually 4-5 games counting the CG. The other 8 games are against mediocre teams they will nearly always beat, like over 95% of the time. And they will be favored in those 4-5 games with very few exceptions.
Alabama realistically has Auburn, LSU, FSU, and the CG (and perhaps that won't be close of course). Ohio State has a tougher slate, based on what we know today anyway, with three top ten teams (ranked preseason) plus Nebraska and then a CG with perhaps Wisconsin who can beat them.
-
For a contender, a season is usually 4-5 games counting the CG. The other 8 games are against mediocre teams they will nearly always beat, like over 95% of the time. And they will be favored in those 4-5 games with very few exceptions.
Alabama realistically has Auburn, LSU, FSU, and the CG (and perhaps that won't be close of course). Ohio State has a tougher slate, based on what we know today anyway, with three top ten teams (ranked preseason) plus Nebraska and then a CG with perhaps Wisconsin who can beat them.
Ohio State's looks tougher right now but we'll see. In terms of legitimate challenges for a legitimate NC Contender Ohio State has:
- vs #6 PSU
- vs #8 OU
- @ #9 M
- CCG possibly against #10 UW
Bama has:
- vs #3 FSU
- vs #12 LSU
- @ #13 Aub
- vs #24 TN
- CCG possibly against #16 UF
-
i wouldn't say it's clearly tougher.
bama has toughest opp (fsu) but not significantly tougher than osu's toughest (psu) according to coaches rankings. likewise, osu has next 2 toughest opps (ou and mich), but not appreciably better (rankings wise) from lsu and au. and tenn is better and at minimum comparable to to neb, per rankings, so that's at least a wash.
biggest advantage osu has would be potential ccg matchups based o these rankings (wisky for osu, uga or uf for bama) and even those are only seperated by 5/6 spots right now.
these don't count surprises for either (ole miss, arky, aTm or msu, iowa).
looks pretty even to me. even the home/away is really close, with slight advantage to bama for playing fsu neutral v ou at home for osu.
mich schedule, on the other hand, is pretty tough based on rankings today. uf, wisky, osu, psu. 3 top 10's, plus the best opp, plus uf ooc, plus a ccg vs top10 wisky again (as per these rankings).
but, again, as we all know, these rankings won't hold for squat. and some teams that look daunting turn out to be also rans, while someone else is hiding in wait to pounce on cfb playoff.