Blog Pollin'
by SMQ
on Dec 6, 2006 12:05 PM EST
in News
SMQ went to great lenghts before the mythical championship announcement Sunday to objectively justify why he grudgingly endorsed Florida ahead of Michigan on game-by-game, resume-based merits that have nothing whatsoever to do with conference affiliation, championships thereof, desire to avoid/facilitate a system-crashing mythical championship rematch or projected competitiveness with Ohio State. But, judging from the justification of actual coaches' poll voter Steve Spurrier, maybe he shouldn't have bothered:
Such logicians, those coaches.
Now, in the face of what seems to him to be overwhelming general sentiment of the "Michigan Wuz Screwed" variety, SMQ is going to put up the same comparison he used to endorse the Gators Sunday, partly because he didn't get any feedback on its validity, and partly because the more he looks at it, the more he likes it:
If you're voting based on an abstract conception of a team's inherent value, and believe Michigan as currently constituted has proven itself eternally "better" than Florida, then, admittedly, raising the Gators after the Arkansas win doesn't jibe with those notions. But SMQ has voted all season solely on to-date resume, and the addition of ten-win Arkansas to Florida's slate pushed UF slightly ahead on strength of schedule-based merit.
The main point: Michigan and Florida are virtually identical. Good arguments exist for both. But there is an objective case for the Gators beyond "Michigan had its chance."
Final Regular Season BlogPoll Ballot
This is not a power poll...
1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Michigan
4. Southern Cal
5. Louisville
6. LSU
7. Oklahoma
8. Wisconsin
9. Boise State
10. Auburn
11. West Virginia
12. Notre Dame
13. Rutgers
14. Arkansas
15. Tennessee
16. Virginia Tech
17. Wake Forest
18. California
19. Texas
20. Boston College
21. Texas A&M
22. BYU
23. Oregon State
24. Nebraska
25. TCU
Waiting: Georgia, Georgia Tech, Hawaii, Maryland, Clemson, Penn State, South Florida
Non-mythical championship controversy justification:
? USC's complete domination of the non-conference slate from hell keeps it just ahead of Louisville, though the Cardinals are probably only a field goal from the number two spot their own selves. Oregon State's eventual success aided the Trojan cause.
? Finally, Boise State and Wisconsin fall next to one another, where SMQ has suspected they've really belonged for the last month.
? Absolutely not sold on Wake Forest. Besides having an entirely gimmick-based running game, the Deacons still rank in the bottom 10 in the country in passing offense and are outgained overall. Jim Grobe would probably get SMQ's Coach of the Year vote for winning 11 games and a conference championship under those circumstances (plus the backfield injuries), but Frank Beamer over the last month has pulled Virginia Tech together into the best team in the ACC, including an easy defeat of Wake. SMQ sees no way to put the Deacs ahead of V-Tech.
? Reconsideration: only one, Cal raised above Texas, using the same method of reasoning that put Florida a hair ahead of Michigan.
| Tier | Michigan | Florida | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | at Notre Dame (47-21) | +14 Michigan | |
| 13 | Wisconsin (27-13) | LSU (23-10) | +1 Michigan |
| 12 | vs. Arkansas (38-28) | +12 Florida | |
| 11 | at Tennessee (21-20) | +11 Florida | |
| 10 | at Penn State (17-10) | vs. Georgia (21-14) | Push |
| 9 | at Minnesota (28-14) | Alabama (28-13) | Push |
| 8 | Iowa (20-6) | at Florida State (21-14) | +1 Michigan |
| 7 | Kentucky (26-7) | +7 Florida | |
| 6 | Indiana (34-3) | South Carolina (17-16) | +1 Florida |
| 5 | Michigan State (31-13) | +5 Michigan | |
| 4 | Central Mich. (41-17) | Southern Miss (34-7) | Push |
| 3 | Vanderbilt (27-7) | Central Florida (42-0) | Push |
| 2 | Northwestern (17-3) | +2 Michigan | |
| 1 | Ball State (34-26) | at Vanderbilt (25-19) | +1 Florida |
| LOSS | at Ohio State (39-42) | at Auburn (17-27) | +5 Michigan |
| TOTAL | +4 Florida |
0 recs |
12
comments
Email
PrintComments
I agree on UF vs. UM...
by Halleck T on Dec 6, 2006 2:10 PM EST 0 recs
Scrutiny
- That wasn't really Arkansas that Florida beat. IMHO the QB's shattered confidence combined with Nutt's relative nuttiness was a recipe for disaster. Factor in the McFadden injury which reduced his burst power from 1000 to like 11 and you've got some serious winning problems.
- If beating Georgia is worth 10 and beating LSU is worth 13, then I would schedule the dawgs about 4 times a year. And I'd rather play Shula's dawgs any time, any place then wander into Happy Valley for a nighttime throwdown.
- I know it's completely irrational and doesn't make for lists but the most overlooked factor in the glorious CFB is QB Proficiency. Say what you will about Big Ten tradition versus SEC speed. SOS versus computers. Blah blah blah. When the superpowers collide a lot more depends on the guys behind center than anyone wants to admit.
Therefore, when I surmise what should have come of Gators and Wolverines (and I'm an unabashed GoBlue backer), the Michigan edge is clear. Chad Henne is far more suited and equipped for the mental demands of a showdown in Glendale.
When Chris Leak shows up and starts putting it right in Lauranitis's big animal belly it's gonna be wild. Put that in your chart and smoke it.
by MonL on Dec 6, 2006 2:19 PM EST 0 recs
You may be right about Leak, MonL, but...
I've spent all year explaining why I think all ranking decisions should come from resume "evidence" and not hypothetical abstraction like "Chad Henne would play better vs. OSU than Chris Leak will," and I don't have the time to regurgitate them.
But I will warn against using words like "clear" or "obviously," when you simply disagree. It's enough to disagree and present an argument without the hyperbole. Clearly "the Michigan edge" is NOT "clear" and obviously the flaw factor of comparing wins is NOT "obvious." Gary Danielson's crappy chart should have been smoked for many reasons, but it doesn't invalidate everything that looks something like it. The idea wasn't bad. Just his idiotic version of it. And I came up with a more nuanced example before he put it up on CBS, anyway. So there.
Anyway, I think if you can't put it on a chart in a side-by-side comparison, it's out there floating in the ephemeral haze of complete subjectivity and therefore inadmissable. I don't know the individual stats comparatively, but theoretically you could produce indisputable numbers that show Chad Henne has been a better QB than Chris Leak this season (notice "has been," cumulatively, not "is," inherently), but ultimately that play is only in service of making his team better. And I don't see how you can produce in good faith anything comprehensive and objective that shows Michigan coming out ahead (even, maybe, but not ahead) in that regard, unless you were to take Brian's UFRs for Michigan and apply the same standards to evaluating Florida, and compare the grades play-by-play over the entire season. But that would be open some pretty heavy interpretation in terms of opponent strength, etc., too. So I think this works relatively well for two teams so narrowly separated on merit as to be virtual siamese twins.
by SMQ on
Dec 6, 2006 3:49 PM EST
up
0 recs
Uh oh.
You argue against the 'ephemeral haze' of subjectivity and deem it 'inadmissable'. But what arcane magic did you employ to come up with the assignments on your chart? Scientific fact, or your 'subjective' impressions of the teams?
For example, forgetting my previous objection that beating LSU registers a 13 on the Richter scale while besting Georgia is almost as seismic at 10, Notre Dame sits way up there in a lofty perch called 'tier 14'.
Anytime I see Notre Dame topping a list that isn't 'Most Overrated' or 'Appearances on National TV', my subjective alarms go off. Tier 14 seems to be an odd slot for an Irish team that has been crushed three times in 2006 when put on the field with a worthy opponent. Subjective doubts abound about their ability to win on a field of real football players instead of army cadets. Given that the Irish are currently looking up at LSU in the polls, how did you decide to slot them as the most important win in this equation?
This chart grinds and chews and spits and tells me that Florida is +4. Yipppeeee!!! As I ponder and contemplate, I can't help but think that if only Northwestern was Kentucky we'd be in a much different place.....
Your right. This works reasonably well in proving that a subjective slotting of teams and arbitrary assignment of values can be fudged to show that two teams that won a total of 23 games in a year are closely matched. I don't dispute the chart or it's apparent awesomeness.
I just think that sometimes Herbie is right - you gotta trust your eyes. A team that struggles with South Carolina and wins by a fingertip can't cloak itself in the SEC Juggernaut cloth that helped so many in the past. Aw fuck. I got subjective again.
by MonL on Dec 6, 2006 4:43 PM EST 0 recs
Never trust your eyes.
If Northwestern was Kentucky you would be in a different place. That is true. But it's not and you aren't. This statement is what I mean by hypotheticals I believe are "inadmissable."
A team that struggles with Ball State can't cloak itself in blah blah, etc. I thought I appropriately punished a win over 7-5 USC by equating its value with Michigan's larger win over 5-7 Indiana. But that was the shakiest comparison, because at least the others had comparable records to go by.
On that note, those are good points about the subjectivity chart. It is wide open for debate and disagreement. I'm surprised you tried to bash Notre Dame, Michigan's biggest advantage (though this may be a result of your thinking the Irish have dropped three games, rather than the two they've actually lost), but I put that win up there because of the huge margin. Neither Michigan nor Florida won another game against a quality opponent so decisively (how "quality" is up for debate, but I think ND's performances against Penn State, Georgia Tech and, in retrospect, UCLA, put it in the range of Wisconsin and LSU, which were much more competitive victories).
The chart=imperfection. Absolutely! All rankings are somewhat subjective. I'm glad it's getting some criticism, because I was starting to worry about how much faith I was putting in the exercise of that logic. But this, at least, does present an objective standard more stringent than "trust your eyes." It gives me a way to construct an informed opinion on what has happened, not what "would have happened" or what I think "would happen if..." I could say "I don't know," which is pretty much how I feel. The computers, with everything they have to crunch (which is not enough, anyway), pretty much said 'I don't know." But I had to cast a ballot. I had to put one team or the other at No. 2. I had to determine a way to do this. I had to make a distinction. I believe this is the most fair and objective way, within my resources, to best inform the opinion to make that distinction.
As constituted, compared to the many other versions I toyed with, this comparison is just about the most advantageous to Michigan without fudging it. I was VERY generous with the Ohio State advantage over Auburn. Like I said, the MOST objective analysis would be to study and chart every play by both teams all season and compare grades at the end. Short of that, game-by-game results are the most fair comparison. Under that standard, there is no way Michigan comes out ahead. If the distinction has to be made - and to come up with a number two, it does - Florida played a tougher schedule.
Now, my guess is, based on the extremely limited information available to my eyes, against Florida's schedule, Michigan would do just as well as the Gators. I think my eyes are ignorant liars and my guess is meaningless (it didn't help when I pickeD Michigan to beat Ohio State, for example). You seem to think that guess is the appropriate standard. Do you disagree?
by SMQ on
Dec 6, 2006 5:37 PM EST
up
0 recs
Coach Fatty Fat
Unfortunately, I was also quite unclear about the chart and it's merits.... I personally think the Florida's +4 edge should be WAY BIGGER. Subjectively, I would put beating LSU Tennessee, and the highly volatile victory over a tragically (because I cried when Fish fumbled that kick) hapless Arkansas above a win over Notre Dame. I kind of equate trashing Notre Dame to beating Bama or Georgia. Not a big deal if you look past the tradition of the name.
As for my reference to ND's three losses, I'm talking calendar year. To me, bowl season isn't necessarily a conclusion. It's also a jumping off point. Poll position means everything, and the early days of January are huge to staking your claim to next year's greatness. For example, I'm wagering LARGE BILLS that Bobby Petrino will make a scorching scoreboard statement in hopes of burning a Cardinal in the mental retinas of every voter in the free world. Much easier to climb to the lofty heights if you get a head start. Therefore, I consider Notre Dame's 2006 Wool Over The Eyes Job to include their Fiesta misery at the hands of Ohio State. They can beat on the academies all they want, when they line up against 'real' teams they get THRASHED.
I feel obliged to vent about the Ball State game. Clearly, and I'm not using 'clearly' lightly here, Lloyd C would have been a little more scoreboard wary if he had known how much anti-blue blog fodder this game would provide. I was on AOL Fanhouse choking back the bile as some Florida jagoff recounted how Ball State had 'forced a safety!' and this somehow related to what the Gators chances were against the Buckeyes. You know - Ohio State sucks cuz Michigan ain't all that cuz Ball State really really sucks and they forced a safety at Michigan!!! That's when someone gets tackled in the endzone and shit!!!!! Those who saw the game know the safety wasn't a safety. Mike Hart fumbled out of the end zone. No single Ball State player had anything to say or do with it. Moments later, Chad gifted them another 7 with a horrendous throw. I don't count those 9 when I look at the score.
Long story short, it was not Michigan's best day. They were overlooking an opponent and it was the last home game which means plenty of second teamers hit the field far too early for far too long. But every artist has his blue period, it's a measure of a quality team that it is short and quickly forgotten.
Using my eyes (a theme I'm working hard to develop), I saw Florida struggle with South Carolina. Ball Coach had that one won. But crazy fingetip shit happens. Adding that one to the Auburn loss and to the Tennessee game and what I consider to be a not so inspiring win over FSU and I just can't help but bitch and moan and bleat like a stuck cow that Michigan is and was the better team. If the showdown in Columbus happened 12/02 then it's a whole different BCS.
I respect the ideals of throwing the subjective garbage out the window, and lining things up in an objective manner to make an informed choice. I would fudge this one to be far more lopsided in the Gators favor. But somewhere along the line, I think objective reasoning needs to be tempered with a real dose of instinctive intuition. I know Lou Holtz is an idiot, and I don't need to keep stats on how many times he's wrong to prove it. I know the Big Ten is soft as a baby pig's belly, but it shouldn't be ammo to choose Florida instead.
For the record, I don't want the rematch. I wanted LSU. We had our shot. But the argument will never be over.....
Michigan with Florida's schedule? I wouldn't dare claim a 12-1. The SEC is like the ocean, a harsh mistress that can crush you without a moment's notice. But I feel like the Michigan squad is better suited top to bottom and to be more consistent to more capable of crushing the likes of South Carolina. They just didn't have enough chances to prove it. Like the say in the movie biz, your hero is only as good as your villian and our rogue's gallery was shameful.
by MonL on
Dec 6, 2006 6:33 PM EST
up
0 recs
Common Ground
I think it's fine to talk about intutition and the "eyeball test" and Petrino burning Cardinals into voters' retinas in general. These are pretty much my sentiments, too. I only revert to the resume stuff when it comes to rankings and "official" business like selecting a champion. There has to be some standard of comparison.
Otherwise, in general, I think our eyes are seeing pretty much the same thing. Wish they'd be seeing a playoff in the next couple weeks, but you know...
by SMQ on
Dec 6, 2006 8:21 PM EST
up
0 recs
Respect given....
My last word about the resume approach would be one of caution. The resume look is wicked fresh for compiling lists of `contenders' or shining the beacon of hope on the merits of underappreciated squad. But my humble opinion seems to think that it's use may be limited to individual discussion and not comparisons.
SOS is basically a measure of how many chances a team had to prove themselves. But what do we do when teams didn't get as many chances? I think a major disparity renders the side by side comparisons not as useful as Gary Danielson thinks.
Too bad the dudes at Footballoutsiders couldn't DVOA up the whole country. That would be pretty cool.
by MonL on
Dec 7, 2006 12:44 AM EST
up
0 recs
I tend to agree
I get the feeling that by the time Florida and Ohio State take the field people will think Florida and Ohio State are the two best teams, without question, and I won't be shocked if Florida is favored come gameday. Has anyone taken a serious look at the rest of the bowl schedule?
Oklahoma St. vs Alabama in Shreveport
Clemson vs Kentucky in Nashville
Houston vs South Carolina in Memphis
Texas Tech vs Minnesota in Phoenix
Purdue vs Maryland in Orlando
Texas vs Iowa in San Antonio
Georgia vs Virginia Tech in Atlanta
Tennessee vs Penn State in Tampa
Auburn vs Nebraska in Dallas
Arkansas vs Wisconsin in Orlando
USC vs Michigan in Pasadena
LSU vs Notre Dame in New Orleans
That isn't a good draw for Big Ten fans, but it is a hell of a draw for the SEC. It is entirely within the realm of possibility the Big 10 could have no wins and the SEC have 8 wins before Ohio State and Florida play. Nothing personal to the Big Ten, but this might not be the best bowl season to campaign in now that the bowls are out, because things can get ugly quick this bowl season.
The Big 10 conference is hanging its dominance on only 4 big top 25 type wins this season. #1 Ohio State vs Michigan, #2 Ohio State over Texas, #3 Michigan over Wisconsin, and #4 Michigan over Notre Dame.
I wonder how good that Texas win looks if Iowa wins? Guess we are hoping the Big 10 loses that one, for the Big 10s sake huh.
What about Notre Dame, will Notre Dame score over or under 14 points against LSU? The smart bet is to take the under.
Wisconsin vs Arkansas is going to be interesting, Arkansas who has played 5 teams that were ranked in the top 5 at some point this season, against Wisconsin with only 1 game against a top 25 opponent all season, which they lost.
For Michigan to even have a complaint about Florida, shouldn't Michigan beat USC first? USC hasn't lost 2 games in a row in years. That is a great matchup, but the Rose Bowl is going to feel like a road game, and it is a game Michigan could easily lose.
Florida can hang it's hat on 4 quality wins and 1 quality loss against 5 big time opponents. Michigan is hanging its hat on 2 quality wins and 1 quality loss against 3 big time opponents, and if untested Wisconsin doesn't play well against Arkansas, Michigan's resume should be retroactively adjusted.
The only reason I am glad Florida was picked over Michigan is because Michigan's schedule, and the Big 10 in general, is soft. Ohio State and Michigan are the only teams that went out and beat someone outside their conference. I think Wisconsin, with its weak non conference schedule, hurt the Big 10, and yes hurts Michigan. No one else stepped up for a big out of conference win, so it left little debate in my opinion.
I find it a bit hard to take serious the idea that two teams from the same weak conference that have already played against each other should play a rematch for the National Championship game when there is another team out there qualified.
If some combination of Penn State, Iowa State, Iowa, Michigan State, or Purdue had been good, there would be an argument to be made. But with all of those teams down, and Wisconsin with no resume to speak of, Big 10 fans are beginning to sound like the cocky fool.
Teams that play tough schedules should be rewarded, and teams that don't, well they can play in a BCS bowl too, just not the last one.
by Raymond on Dec 6, 2006 5:25 PM EST 0 recs
Not Me
Top to bottom, this was a horrible year for the Big Ten. Without really looking into it, I would guess the SEC, Pac-10 and Big East were all better by significant margins. It's reasonable to suggest that Michigan, OSU and Wisconsin's lofty D ratings were due to the suckitude of the rest of the gang.
by MonL on
Dec 6, 2006 6:47 PM EST
up
0 recs
No not you sir
They were everywhere the year Auburn ran the table a few years back, only to see Auburn crushed in the Sugar Bowl.
I agree LSU vs Michigan would have been one of the best games of the year, although to be honest, I was hoping for Arkansas to beat Florida so there would of been a Michigan vs Ohio State rematch, because I think Arkansas would have declined the Sugar bowl to get a USC vs Arkansas rematch in the Rose Bowl.
by Raymond on
Dec 7, 2006 8:59 AM EST
up
0 recs
A Big Ten whiner
On some level, I agree with this. If you schedule a non-conference schedule full of cupcakes, you should be punished.
But how much do you want to punish Michigan - a team that plays Notre Dame every year and usually some underrated PAC-10 monster in the preseason - for the fact that the BIG-10 was soft this year? Michigan played the games on its schedule and, with the exception of a couple of quarters of 2nd and 3rd string play against Ball State, was impressive all year.
I'm starting to get a little bit annoyed at the level of deference most accord to the notion that the SEC is - far and away - the strongest conference in college football. Over the last two years, the SEC is by my count 6-6 in bowl games. Their only impressive SEC nonconference win this year was Tennessee's over Cal.
"For Michigan to even have a complaint about Florida, shouldn't Michigan beat USC first? USC hasn't lost 2 games in a row in years. That is a great matchup, but the Rose Bowl is going to feel like a road game, and it is a game Michigan could easily lose."
The quick answer is: No. Honestly, I've only met a handful of Michigan fans that aren't willing to concede that Florida is a great team - maybe better than Michigan, certainly more "deserving" (if "deserving" is a function of strength of schedule).
The issue here is one of process. Michigan was dropped not because voters felt that Florida was better, but for a host of other reasons which either (1) are wholly irrelevant to the question of who is the better team or (2) should have factored into their analysis much earlier in the season.
by Tenaciousgrizz on
Dec 7, 2006 9:09 AM EST
up
0 recs
New FanPost