Blog Pollin': Week Fourteen Ballot
| 1. | Missouri (11-1) |
| 2. | West Virginia (10-1) |
| 3. | Ohio State (11-1) |
| 4. | LSU (10-2) |
| 5. | Georgia (10-2) |
| 6. | Oklahoma (10-2) |
| 7. | Kansas (11-1) |
| 8. | Boston College (10-2) |
| 9. | Virginia Tech (10-2) |
| 10. | Southern Cal (9-2) |
| 11. | Illinois (9-3) |
| 12. | Florida (9-3) |
| 13. | Tennessee (9-3) |
| 14. | Oregon (8-3) |
| 15. | Arizona State (9-2) |
| 16. | South Florida (9-3) |
| 17. | Clemson (9-3) |
| 18. | Wisconsin (9-3) |
| 19. | Virginia (9-3) |
| 20. | Cincinnati (9-3) |
| 21. | Texas (9-3) |
| 22. | Hawaii (11-0) |
| 23. | BYU (10-2) |
| 24. | Auburn (8-4) |
| 25. | Connecticut (9-3) |
- - -
Another heartache - another failed romance.
On and on!
Does anybody know what we are living for?
I guess i'm learning
I must be warmer now...
I'll soon be turning round the corner now.
Outside the dawn is breaking,
But inside in the dark I'm aching to be free!
The Show must go on!
The Show must go on! Yeah!
- - -
Before these notes came up, an argument broke out in the comments based on the poll alone, begun by commenter usckb and backed by LSU partisan crepusucular, who take their cues from fearless leader (or pope; he has the hat - ed.) Les Miles in arguing that, rather than suffer for its second defeat, the Tigers should remain at the top of the polls – in reality, they argue, "LSU has tied twice," and its collection of wins marks it as "still the best team in the nation."
I’d like to politely second the comment deeming this argument "revisionist horse shit." With apologies to the New Pornographers, the rules have changed. There is an overtime system that’s been in place since today’s seniors were in elementary school; if you lose via this system you are, in fact, a loser on that specific occasion. The closeness of the score does not mitigate defeat, though it should be taken into account in assessing the value (in the case of losses, the demerits) of any game. This is why LSU is still in front of Georgia, which has a comparable or perhaps slightly better set of wins but was obliterated at Tennessee.
Margin of victory also explains West Virginia’s status ahead of Ohio State, fresh off the Mountaineers’ 45-point smackdown of the second place team in its conference in the de facto Big East Championship. I would like to stress, though, that WVU and OSU are really "2" and "2a," because if I don’t, I’m going to find myself in a lot of trouble next week.
| Missouri | West Virginia | Ohio State |
| Kansas | ||
| Illinois | Wisconsin | |
| Connecticut | Michigan | |
| Cincinnati | Penn State | |
| Texas Tech | Rutgers | Michigan State |
| Texas A&M | Miss. State | Purdue |
| Colorado | Maryland | Northwestern |
| Nebraska | Louisville | |
| Kansas State | East Carolina | |
| Iowa State | Washington | |
| Ole Miss | Syracuse | |
| Western Mich. | Western Mich. | |
| Minnesota | ||
| Akron | ||
| Marshall | Kent State | |
| Illinois State | Y'town State | |
| Oklahoma | ||
| South Florida | Illinois |
I think Missouri is clearly out front, as clearly as it could be in the current morass, but the Buckeyes and Mountaineers are in a dead heat. I think of the rankings as an "average" of all games, and on that front, West Virginia is ahead this week because it’s played one less worthless game than OSU, basically accounting to the Buckeyes’ opener against Youngstown State. This is academic in real world terms, because the Mountaineers are in if they crush Pittsburgh as expected in the Brawl Saturday, but that game might hurt WVU’s "average" for the year incrementally enough to push Ohio State in front; the more I look at the games, the more I think Ohio State, with the best win on either schedule (Wisconsin) could be ahead right now. Then again, the Mountaineers just beat the saliva out of UConn in the biggest game of their season... It’s an absolutely arbitrary call, and I reserve the right to change my mind - er, whatever that is, exactly – based on what happens with West Virginia against Pitt.
Boston College is ahead of Virginia Tech because the Eagles beat Virginia Tech, albeit in somewhat dubious circumstances; obviously, this will be settled Saturday. Oregon is what it is, and is still sitting on a lot of decent-to-good wins like Arizona State and Michigan, plus (more importantly) doesn’t have a really terrible opponent anywhere to drag its strength of schedule into the gutter. The worst teams the Ducks have played are conference games against Stanford and Washington, and compared to the losing mid-major and I-AA teams bringing up the rear for literally all the Ducks’ competition, that’s strong. It would be stronger if Arizona State hadn’t, uh, laid an egg on Thanksgiving, putting a big black mark on Oregon’s best win, but I’m not going to disregard UO’s early success in post-Dixon pessimism. Again, academic: both Oregon and Arizona State are sliding and probably out of the BCS picture (though ASU is still clinging to an at-large spot, or an improbable USC loss to UCLA), especially if their in-state rivals have any say this weekend.
Hawaii: Florida State made me do it. If only the Seminoles had pulled an upset, maybe I could have found a way to keep FSU in the poll and the Warriors out. I wanted to, really I did. Out of principle, out of consistency, out of reaction to unthinking hype like this. But the Warriors did wreck ten-win Boise State’s six-year WAC championship streak, and – though BSU’s best win is Fresno State, and the Warriors’ entire schedule features exactly one win against a BCS school (Fresno over Kansas State Saturday) and virtually no other I-A wins outside of one another in pillow fight WAC play – Hawaii sneaks in by default. They’re joined by BYU, which won its 16th straight Mountain West game and second straight conference title by ending Utah’s seven-game win streak Saturday. Bronco Mendenhall was an obscure, bizarrely-named, eyebrow-raising hire, and he’s done a fantastic job with the Cougars after a few really lean years under Gary Crowton.
As always, everything will be completely different next week.
0 recs |
35
comments
Comments
Terrible.....
LSU has tied twice. The NCAA is the one who came up w/ the ridiculous overtime scheme.
by USCKB on Nov 28, 2007 9:46 AM EST 0 recs
"soundly beaten"?
by osuvandy on
Nov 28, 2007 10:03 AM EST
up
0 recs
no ties in football
These are the rules kids- there are no ties in college football. LSU lost two extremely close games. But you can't just decide that they were ties, or even something "less than a loss", because you feel like it.
And for comparison sake, remember that those LOSSES came against inferior competition as compared to the teams ranked above them. And it happened TWICE.
by Tim J on
Nov 28, 2007 11:43 AM EST
up
0 recs
Inferior competition?
I think most would agree (Vegas included) that Mizzou lost to a superior Oklahoma team, but I don't hear anyone saying that OU belongs in the MNC game.
I'd just like to meet the sucker who would take WVU or Mizzou in the NC game. Even if it weren't in New Orleans, I don't see any of those teams taking them down on a neutral field.
A case could be made for Ohio St., however; it's sad to think they'll win the MNC with their best win of the year being Michigan, and WVU will be on the other side with their best win being.... um, Rutgers?
Someone, please, lay out the rational argument for WVU over LSU.
by USCKB on
Nov 28, 2007 11:50 AM EST
up
0 recs
I'll bite
I think a healthy LSU is the best all-around team in the country (with a healthy Oregon a real close second). But it is what it is. AT THIS MOMENT, LSU is not the best team in the country and maybe not even one of the top 10 teams in the land. I'm not saying they should be ranked lower or anything like that, but I think West Virginia matches up extremely well against them and Mizzou's passing game would cause them fits.
by DoubleB on
Nov 28, 2007 12:22 PM EST
up
0 recs
Can't argue with that
As for Tim J's comment upthread, I don't think you can really make a strong argument that Illinois and S. Florida are better than Kentucky and Arkansas. Without getting into specifics, all of those teams are just below the cream of the crop in each of their conferences. I've said before that Mizzou deserves to be ranked where they are so I don't count their loss to Oklahoma in this argument.
by crepuscular on
Nov 28, 2007 1:03 PM EST
up
0 recs
Agreed
Even a Murray-less Oklahoma might have to enter the conversation although considring schedule and health one might argue they've underperformed as much or perhaps even more then LSU.
by marcillac on
Nov 28, 2007 1:50 PM EST
up
0 recs
inferior competition
In other words- Illinois, South Florida, and Oklahoma are all > Kentucky and Arkansas.
What is the rational argument for LSU? They have lost twice. Twice, against unranked teams. Nobody short of a fanboy or a powerpoller can really confuse this.
by Tim J on
Nov 28, 2007 12:58 PM EST
up
0 recs
There's a rational argument for LSU
How is Illinois better than Kentucky or Arkansas? What is that based on? I'll give you Oklahoma and I think South Florida is certainly in the neighborhood of those two teams, but the Big Ten is just terrible this year. Can anyone name the Big Ten's best out of conference win? Your choice of Washington State, Washington, or Pitt. And oh god, the losses: Appalachian State, Western Michigan, Iowa State, Duke. And that doesn't include Minnesota's losses who were a borderline I-AA team this year. The Big Ten has stunk for the past 5 years and this the worst of the five.
by DoubleB on
Nov 28, 2007 1:43 PM EST
up
0 recs
Big Ten over the past five years
by osuvandy on
Nov 28, 2007 3:33 PM EST
up
0 recs
Big Ten -- Last 5 Years
"The Big Ten has stunk for the past 5 years and this the worst of the five."
I certainly question the strength of the Big Ten along with you. But your five-year comment is a bit out of whack.
The Big Ten's record in bowls over the last five years is 16-18, which isn't that good. Oddly enough, though, they have an 8-6 record versus SEC teams during that time.
Last year, when everyone remembers the OSU-Florida debacle, the Big Ten was actually 2-1 versus the SEC, with Wisconsin beating Arkansas and Penn State beating Tennessee.
Here are the scores in Big Ten bowl matchups with the SEC in the last five years:
2002
Minnesota-Arkansas (29-14)
Michigan-Florida (38-30)
Auburn-Penn State (13-9)
2003
Auburn-Wisconsin (28-14)
Iowa-Florida (37-17)
Georgia-Purdue (34-27)
2004
Minnesota-Alabama (20-16)
Georgia-Wisconsin (24-21)
Iowa-LSU (30-25)
2005
Florida-Iowa (31-24)
Wisconsin-Auburn (24-10)
2006
Penn State-Tennessee (20-10)
Wisconsin-Arkansas (17-14)
Florida-OSU (41-14)
The Big Ten had a losing record versus the SEC in only one of those years. They tied in 2005 and had a winning record in the other three years.
Also, if you just consider OSU's record in the bowls, they went 4-1 in those five years. If you consider just the BCS bowls, they've played in 5 of them in the history of the BCS and won 4. OSU and USC are the only two teams with 4-1 records in the BCS. Those are the two best BCS records in college football.
You can certainly question the strength of the Big Ten this year, as do I. But the conference is stronger over these last years than they're often made out to be.
by TallBill on
Nov 28, 2007 3:38 PM EST
up
0 recs
The last 5 years . .
Now let's look at 2003-2006 with regards to bowls:
The Big Ten bowl record is 11-17.
The Big 12 is 14-17.
The Pac-10 is 13-9.
The SEC is 17-11.
The ACC is 17-11.
The Big East is 7-8.
The poster above you mentioned Sagarin rankings. These are the averaged Sagarin rankings from 2003-2007 in order.
SEC 78.27
Pac 10 77.97
ACC 77.74
Big 10 76.93
Big 12 76.67
Big East 75.36
If you take out 2005, the Big 10 would be last in those rankings, which is the only time they've ranked higher than 3rd in this decade.
by DoubleB on
Nov 28, 2007 8:18 PM EST
up
0 recs
I have an idea...
Point is, your original comment is still wrong.
by osuvandy on
Nov 28, 2007 11:40 PM EST
up
0 recs
Great facts in that post
by DoubleB on
Nov 29, 2007 12:54 PM EST
up
0 recs
Thanks...
by osuvandy on
Nov 29, 2007 1:58 PM EST
up
0 recs
five-year record
Also, as the bowl records I posted vs. the SEC show, the Big Ten has a winning record against the SEC last year, and in two of the last three years, with the other year being a tie. You have to go back to 2003 to find a year when the SEC posted a winning bowl record versus the Big Ten.
Like you, I'm not sure the 2007 Buckeyes are legit national title contenders. But this wasn't supposed to be our year. It was clearly a rebuilding year, given our losses to the NFL. In that context, you have to decide whether to be impressed by OSU or not. On the one hand, I think the OSU D is for real. They are young, but very good. On the other hand, the passing part of the offense collapsed in the last couple games of the season. Do they have a diverse offense, at this point? Boeckman may not have matured enough in his first year as a starter to use the weopons at his disposal.
My personal perspective on all that is that the program has risen to a perennial contender in college football. They reload with excellent local and national talent every year, they have good coaching, and they play an elite out-of-conference game almost every year to put themselves to the test. The last two years it was Texas, home-and-home (including the Vince Young national title team), and the next two years it is USC. This is the odd year where our key OOC game is a mediocre opponent.
What do you call a team that plays an elite OOC opponent most years, and plays in BCS games almost every year, winning 4 out of 5 of them? A team that has earned respect in college football.
by TallBill on
Nov 29, 2007 11:03 AM EST
up
0 recs
Huh?
Your rant is about Ohio State, not the Big Ten which was the comment in the original post. Ohio State is clearly the preeminent program in the Big Ten right now and has been for this decade. But that doesn't change the fact that the Big Ten hasn't been very good for much of this decade and actually seems to be declining in play.
by DoubleB on
Nov 29, 2007 1:16 PM EST
up
0 recs
2 ties = 1 loss?
by GUF on Nov 28, 2007 11:26 AM EST 0 recs
Best wins....
Mizzou - Illinois (Kansas is a joke - they also have no wins over relevant competition).
WVU - Rutgers? Maryland?
Ohio St. - Michigan (really? that's the best they can claim?)
UGA - couldn't win division
Kansas - couldn't win division (no relevant wins)
VT - lost by 41 to LSU
Looking at the total body of work, there's not a real strong argument against the team that has beaten Florida and VT, which are the two best wins out of all the teams listed.
by USCKB on Nov 28, 2007 11:53 AM EST 0 recs
yup
by crepuscular on
Nov 28, 2007 12:03 PM EST
up
0 recs
Mizzou over Kansas
by osuvandy on
Nov 28, 2007 2:11 PM EST
up
0 recs
you can't just judge by best wins
by enzo on Nov 28, 2007 12:09 PM EST 0 recs
I agree
For another approach to ranking teams at this point, I'd recommend envisioning the number of losses you would expect WVU and OSU to have if they played LSU's schedule and vice versa. Does anyone believe either of those teams escapes that with fewer than 2 losses?
I would concede that LSU doesn't have a strong argument to be ranked above WVU and OSU. But I don't feel they have a strong argument to be ranked above LSU either.
by crepuscular on
Nov 28, 2007 12:21 PM EST
up
0 recs
I think you're picking-and-choosing arguments here
Look: it sucks. LSU plays in a minefield of a schedule and, generally speaking, they played awesome throughout it. I don't doubt that they're the best team in the country. The fact that the BCS ranks a 2-loss VT (who lost by 41 to LSU) over them is, from an outsider's perspective, hilarious; from an insider's perspective, I imagine it's pretty infuriating.
So argue on the basis of the impossible schedule. Argue on the basis on WVU's lack of a resume. But the two-ties-equals-one-loss thing is silly. Say what you want about Kansas, but at very least, they are a top 12-to-15 team, and a Missouri win over them should be considered a good win.
And say what you want about all the great teams LSU played, but they bottom line is that they lost to two teams who are, sadly, unranked.
by derekcnelson on Nov 28, 2007 12:45 PM EST 0 recs
The two ties=1 loss tie idea is absurd
While the narrow wins contained an abundance of some seriously sloppy play LSU's ability to win in the end showed that they had not only the talent but the heart of a champion. Against Ar-Kansas that heart was obviously missing. Yes the defense is a physical rack, McFadden is Humanity Advanced and Bo Pellini's brain is 3/4 in Lincoln but a true champion makes enough plays to win that game.
by marcillac on
Nov 28, 2007 2:04 PM EST
up
0 recs
Voting
An aside to SMQ. Kudos for this preview- we kicked it around at the time. It is dead right. Again. We are designed to win three, four games no matter what happens:
by FrankMc01 on Nov 28, 2007 1:09 PM EST 0 recs
Bad, bad logic
Even if you accept that the SEC is the best league (I'm far less sure of that than I was a few weeks ago), that doesn't mean the best team in it is the best team in the nation. If you swapped LSU and Georgia for two random Sun Belt teams, the SEC would still be a better league than the Sun Belt, but the Sun Belt would have two teams better than any in the SEC.
by SpartanDan on
Nov 28, 2007 7:02 PM EST
up
0 recs
Mizzou worthy if they beat OU
Now West Virginia? Still not sure about them. Can somebody give an argument for them?
by BigMOman on Nov 28, 2007 1:19 PM EST 0 recs
WVU Resume
Nothing too special on the out of conference resume although, other than LSU, they were the only team to blow out Mississippi State (were up 28-0 after one quarter in that game).
In conference they've handled everyone they've played, except South Florida. Louisville and Cincinnati got close at the end due to some turnovers as much as anything else. With regards to the USF loss, they outgained them by 150 yards but turned it over 6 times and played with their backup QB on the road (this was an SMQ "inside the box score"). They MIGHT be the only team in the country to be able to say that they've outplayed everyone on their schedule (Mizzou might be able to as well).
by DoubleB on
Nov 28, 2007 1:58 PM EST
up
0 recs
A thought...
When you look at a whole body of work (in this case an entire football season) you have a better idea of who really is the best, and can choose a national champion (or at least a NC game) accordingly.
Can someone please point out what I'm missing? (as if I have to ask...)
by BigMOman on Nov 28, 2007 2:01 PM EST 0 recs
Deserve? Credibility?
No-one doubts that LSU is a good team - I've enjoyed watching them to no end - but you have to win out or have not more than one loss to seriously claim that you are in contention. I like to think that USC is shaping up well at the end of the season but they shouldn't be anywhere near an MNC discussion because they LOST TWICE, starting with Stanford, for heaven's sake.
This phenomenon is symptomatic of trying to have a defensible national championship bolted on top of an anachronistic conference structure that makes if difficult to assess how comparable teams really are - the sample sizes are small and not comparable. So we argue by analogy and metrics based on numbers being assigned to make it look rigorous.
I recognize that there are arguments against moving away from the old conference / bowl setup on the grounds of tradition, and I understand that: I'm always happy to see USC playing in the Rose Bowl. But if you want an actual champion, as opposed to an ice-dancing champion, then a playoff is the way to go. Just take the winners of each conference and let them have at it. Or take the top 2 teams from each conference and seed 1s against 2s, and have at it, if you want more games. How would you identify the top teams? By their record.
Again, it all depends on what you want. If you like the existing structure and arguing about piffle like how losing in overtime doesn't count, that's great. But find one real sport - aside from maybe boxing - that runs a championship this way. Utter and arrant nonsense.
Not that I have any feeling on the subject.
by DC Trojan on Nov 28, 2007 2:27 PM EST 0 recs
If any two of LSU and USC
This year there is no best team and any playoff winner would simply the team that won the playoff.
True if the winner happened to be USC I would acknowledge them as valid champions (and at this moment they would certainly have to be considered the favorites in a playoff with Georgia on their heels - Rose Bowl anyone? {if Missou looses and tOSU plays WFVU} - LSU would need several weeks to get healthy and enter into this discussion).
by marcillac on
Nov 28, 2007 2:47 PM EST
up
0 recs
Come on, SMQ
by crepuscular on Nov 28, 2007 2:43 PM EST 0 recs
And..
by crepuscular on
Nov 28, 2007 2:46 PM EST
up
0 recs
Ohio State > West Virginia
I would suggest West Virginia is probably better than Ohio State, and if they played ten times on a neutral field WVU would probably win six, maybe seven times. If Ohio State thought the Illinois spread was frustrating, wait until they see Slaton, White and Devine run by them on a regular basis. And while OSU's D is solid, WVU's is very, very good as well.
But if the idea is to compare resumes, it is critical to look at the body of work for both teams. I usually break it down simply - when two teams from different conferences with the same record are compared head-to-head, you need to look at common opponents first.
If there are none, then you need to look at the three best wins on each team's schedule. Because really, after you get past the top three wins, it becomes a muddle - most of the next tier of victories for a 11-1 team would be over middling teams that would be hard to separate. But usually, there's some legitimate separation between the best wins for one time vs. another. (Which is why Missouri - especially if they beat Oklahoma - would be the clear #1 - wins over Oklahoma, Kansas, and Illinois are better than anything WVU or OSU could muster this season.)
So what are the top-three wins for each team:
West Virginia: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Rutgers
Ohio State: Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn State
The "best win" is relatively close - Cincinnati is probably comparable with Wisconsin, and in fact was two maddening losses against lesser foes from being an 11-1 potential BCS team.
But then the spread widens some, as it would be hard to argue that UConn is better than Michigan or even Penn State, perhaps in the most kind assessments you could argue that MAYBE the Huskies are the relative equal of Penn State. And Rutgers is likely a small notch below Penn State.
It just gets hard to look objectively at WVU's schedule and believe that it was better, week and week out, to OSU's - even though I think the Big Ten is significantly down this year.
by sodakboy93 on Nov 28, 2007 11:38 PM EST 0 recs






