Week Four BlogPoll Ballot Submitted; Torches and Pitchforks Purchased by Fans
by T Kyle King
on Sep 22, 2008 11:30 AM EDT
in Football
When compiling last week’s BlogPoll ballot, I started with a blank piece of paper. This week, for a variety of reasons ranging from the lateness of Saturday night’s Georgia game to the fact that four of my top 20 teams (and three of my top eleven) had open dates this weekend, I started with last week’s ballot, purposely avoided reviewing any other person’s or entity’s rankings beforehand, and adjusted my earlier top 25 according to results, achieving this thoroughly unsatisfactory set of rankings:
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Southern Cal | -- |
| 2 | Georgia |  1 |
| 3 | LSU | 3 |
| 4 | Florida | 1 |
| 5 | Oklahoma |  3 |
| 6 | Missouri | 2 |
| 7 | Texas | -- |
| 8 | Brigham Young | 1 |
| 9 | Alabama | 3 |
| 10 | Penn State | 4 |
| 11 | Utah | 2 |
| 12 | South Florida | 2 |
| 13 | Wisconsin | 2 |
| 14 | Ohio State | 2 |
| 15 | Wake Forest | 4 |
| 16 | Kansas | 1 |
| 17 | Nebraska | 3 |
| 18 | East Carolina | 10 |
| 19 | Virginia Tech | 7 |
| 20 | Boise State | 6 |
| 21 | Oregon | 6 |
| 22 | Vanderbilt | -- |
| 23 | Clemson | 2 |
| 24 | Colorado | 2 |
| 25 | Auburn | 1 |
Because Arizona State and West Virginia each sustained the team’s second loss of the young season, the Sun Devils and the Mountaineers dropped out of the poll, along with tenuous No. 23 North Carolina after a loss to new No. 19 Virginia Tech. The Hokies check in just behind East Carolina, which plummeted ten spots after a loss to N.C. State.
I probably was too harsh to the Pirates, but their victory over W.V.U. has lost much of its luster and, even though the Wolfpack took E.C.U. in overtime, I have serious doubts about the squad from Raleigh in light of the ugliness of the team’s loss to South Carolina.
At the top of the charts remains Southern Cal. The Trojans have been taking a lot of time off lately, but they appeared utterly dominant over Virginia and Ohio State, so the Men of Troy stay put at No. 1. The Bulldogs, however, inched back up into the top two after their win in the desert.
The same held true for Louisiana State and Florida after their respective road victories over Auburn and Tennessee. The Bayou Bengals got the nod over the Gators because every appearance indicates that the Plainsmen remain a better team than the Volunteers. Given the closeness of the contest in Jordan-Hare Stadium, I allowed the other S.E.C. West Tigers to hang onto the last spot in the top 25.
This weekend’s impressive performances on the road by the three S.E.C. frontrunners were bad news for the Big 12 contenders, as Oklahoma slipped three spots while idle, Missouri dropped two spots after holding only a six-point lead over Buffalo at halftime, and Texas stayed put at No. 7 after a bye week dispatching Rice.
Brigham Young leapt up a notch by dropping a 44-0 dismantling on Wyoming. I know it was only Wyoming, but the Cougars are putting up big numbers on offense and goose eggs on defense in the toughest of the so-called "mid-major" conferences, the Mountain West. This also accounts for Utah’s rise to No. 11 after a road win over Air Force.
The ninth spot in the countdown went to Alabama after the Crimson Tide managed not only to avoid the pre-Georgia look-ahead loss that blindsided both the Gamecocks and the Sun Devils, but also to throttle Arkansas in the Red Elephants’ first true road game. The Clemson pelt continues to have value, even though the Tigers only beat South Carolina State this weekend. Mostly through attrition, Tommy Bowden’s club crept up to No. 23.
I rounded out my top ten with Penn State. I’m not proud of that decision, because the Nittany Lions are putting up big numbers against bad teams, but somebody has to be ranked No. 10 and I couldn’t find a team I liked any better for this poll position.
An uninspired 17-9 win over Florida International cost South Florida its place in the top ten, as the Bulls fell to No. 12. An uninspired 12-3 win over self-destructing Florida State in an A.C.C. field goal fest allowed Wake Forest to rise to No. 15. I am equally dissatisfied with both of these results. Wisconsin dropped two spots while idle because I still don’t have the faintest clue where to put the Badgers. I didn’t like the fact that the Buckeyes inched up from 16th to 14th after holding only a 14-10 lead over Troy at the break, but, once again, the pickings were pretty slim.
How slim were they? So slim that Kansas moved up after a 38-14 win over Sam Houston State. I won’t even attempt to justify that with any other explanation except the carnage around the Jayhawks. Likewise, I still don’t know what basis I have for believing in Nebraska, apart from the Cornhuskers’ having won nine or more games in each of the first 33 full football seasons of my lifetime, but, while U.S.C. stood pat on an off week and O.U. was dinged by a "you snooze, you lose" mentality while the Sooners were on a coffee break, the Big Red Machine actually managed to move from 20th to 17th during a bye week. Once again, I’m as troubled by this ballot as you are, except insofar as the ordering appears to me to make sense when you ignore the up and down arrows and focus on the names.
The last slot in the top 20 went to Boise State after the Broncos, previously winners over Bowling Green, claimed their first road victory over a B.C.S. conference opponent. Due to the outcome of that same game, Oregon fell from No. 15 to No. 21.
I gave serious thought to moving Vanderbilt as high as 19th after the Commodores defeated Ole Miss in Oxford to improve to 4-0 overall and 2-0 in S.E.C. play, but I just couldn’t quite bring myself to vote the Commies ahead of the Hokies or the Ducks. This very well may be indicative of a character defect on my part and I apologize in advance to any ‘Dores fans who rightly take issue with my position. In any case, Vandy held firm at No. 22.
Upon the basis of the Buffaloes’ overtime victory over West Virginia---one of the few national games I predicted correctly, incidentally---I awarded the 24th position on my BlogPoll ballot to Colorado. Dan Hawkins’s squad beat out Texas Christian and Texas Tech for the final vacancy in the top 25 on the strength of the win over the Mountaineers, which I deemed of higher quality than the Horned Frogs’ triumphs over New Mexico and Stanford or the Red Raiders’ victories over Nevada and Southern Methodist.
U.N.L.V., which has conquered both Arizona State and Iowa State but lost at Utah, also got a look and I’ll be keeping an eye on the Runnin’ Rebels. Arizona, Ball State, Connecticut, Georgia Tech, and Michigan State all received consideration, but only for as long as it took me to look at their respective schedules and chuckle.
My attention over the course of the week was devoted to the clashes between Kansas State and Louisville on Wednesday night, Colorado and West Virginia on Thursday night, and Baylor and Connecticut on Friday night before I spent much of my Saturday watching bits and pieces of the East Carolina-N.C. State game, almost all of the Florida-Tennessee game, and every solitary second of the Georgia-Arizona State game.
I feel like we’ll have a better handle on where most of the teams stand a week from now, given what this week has to offer (Alabama at Georgia, Colorado at Florida State, Illinois at Penn State, Minnesota at Ohio State, Southern California at Oregon State, Tennessee at Auburn, Texas Christian at Oklahoma, Virginia Tech at Nebraska, and Wisconsin at Michigan). In the meantime, please feel free to rip the foregoing to shreds. I still have time to make changes to my ballot before the Wednesday morning deadline, and I would welcome your input, because, frankly, I’m not at all happy with that top 25.
Go ‘Dawgs!
0 recs |
6
comments
|
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
Kyle.
Colorado does not have a better resume than Texas Tech, and I am not cheerleading for Tech in saying that. I simply cannot look over their schedules and find any basis for placing the Buffs over the Red Raiders. Bullet point:
1) Texas Tech has more wins than the Buffs. You are free to scoff at any of our victories, but there is no refuting that 4>3.
2) It is very rare at this point in the season for two teams to have any comparison through common opponents given the disparate nature of everyone’s OOC schedule. This happens to not be the case as relates to Colorado and Texas Tech, as both teams have played Eastern Washington. Colorado was losing against Eastern Washington with 4 minutes left in the game 24-17. They were tied with Eastern Washington with 2 minutes left in the game. They won in virtue of an interception returned for a touchdown with 1:44 seconds remaining. Final outcome was they beat EWU in total production by 1 yard and 7 points, hardly a convincing win. Texas Tech outgained EWU by over 250 yards and 25 points. At no point in the game did Tech trail. Four minutes into the game Texas Tech took a double digit lead and did not relinquish that for the remainder of the game. This is not bragging about a victory over EWU, it is all simply to say that there can be no reasonable dispute over who played better against this common opponent: Tech bested Colorado in that regard.
3) If you have some compelling reason why West Virginia has a better resume than either SMU or Nevada (or the two combined) please explain. Texas Tech beat a 1-3 SMU and a 1-2 Nevada. Colorado beat a 1-2 West Virginia team that can only count a victory over Villanova. Is Grambling State that much worse than Villanova, at all? Is Texas State, who SMU beat? I’m not asking flippantly, I just wonder why you think beating up on West Virginia is impressive, or at all more impressive than beating up on Nevada or SMU (and UMASS)?
4) Colorado State hasn’t had a winning season since 2003.
5) In any event, it’s Colorado with victories over 1-2 Eastern Washington, 2-1 Colorado State, and 1-2 West Virginia. Texas Tech has more impressive win over shared opponent Eastern Washington, victory over 1-2 Nevada, over 1-3 SMU, and 2-2 UMASS. If it really is just their vicotry over the Mountaineers, reasonable people might request why you think West Virginia is such a good team.
That’s just Colorado. I have no idea what Auburn has done to warrant participation on this list. There are plenty of teams remaining that haven’t lost (and have likewise beaten no one of consequence), among them Texas Tech. LA Monroe is 1-3. Southern Miss is 2-2. Mississippi State is 1-3, and Auburn beat them 3-2. You’re obviously placing an enormous emphasis on losing to LSU by just 6 points… I ask why?
East Carolina? A loss to a 2-2 NCState team that only beat William and Mary elsewhere is enough to keep them in the top 20? How much worse can their alleged quality victory over W. Virginia look before we begin to recognize that as a game most teams should win?
Kansas? We know you aren’t impressed with their victory over Sam Houston State, but are apparently compelled by victory over winless Florida International and Louisiana Tech. Again, are those victories compelling enough to look over the biggest distinction between Tech and Kansas, notably, that one has lost a game and one has not?
And what can justify Ohio State above Texas Tech? Wins over winless Ohio (and not convincingly either) Youngstown State and Troy are enough to look over getting decimated by USC? If you’re going to put undefeated teams below defeated teams, it makes sense to explain why Ohio State’s victories over no one of consequence are more compelling than Tech’s.
Suffice to say I disagree with your non-ranking of Texas Tech. What I love about it, though, and what the two of us agree upon, is that Texas Tech should not be rewarded for scheduling cupcakes (in this instance that’s not fair to Tech, since we had to pick up an additional D2 team for reasons that are not our fault). My concern, then, is that you’ve put Tech below teams it clearly has a better resume than only to punish them for having two D2 teams on the schedule. That’s fine, but it should be stated. If you are trying to rank the teams based on resume to date, then there’s no justification for Texas Tech being below some of these teams that have lost.
by Skin Patrol on Sep 22, 2008 7:39 PM EDT 0 recs
As always, you state your case well, Skin Patrol
I begin with a few caveats, which are offered as explanations rather than as advocacy:
- As I said from the outset, I’m not pleased with this ballot, so I appreciate receiving reasonable constructive criticism of it. While I try to think it through and offer rational explanations, this was one of my poorer efforts. If you found what appeared to be inconsistencies, you’re probably right. I don’t think this necessarily is true as a general rule, but it is true here.
- This is not, strictly speaking, a resume-based ballot. Because resume ranking produces the best results later in the year but truly screwy results early in the year (when Alabama, U.C.L.A., and East Carolina would have been ranked in the top five after the opening weekend), I am trying to phase in resume ranking gradually. There is still a lot of preseason perception coloring this ballot; I freely admit that this is giving teams like Ohio State and West Virginia credit they appear increasingly not to deserve. In my opinion, any early season poll ballot is going to be skewed by preseason perceptions that turn out to be wrong; it’s just a question of whether those perceptions will be of the teams being ranked or of the teams which were beaten by the teams being ranked.
- In my opinion, no serious Division I-A team should ever schedule a Division I-AA team, period. I understand Texas Tech’s situation—-Georgia was placed in exactly the same situation when Tulane canceled on us at the last minute, necessitating that Northwestern State be added to the Bulldogs’ 2002 slate—-but that doesn’t excuse the fact that the Red Raiders had one Division I-AA opponent scheduled already. I take the view that a win over a Division I-AA team can lose you points, but it can’t win you points. You’re right that Colorado deserves to be dinged for playing a Division I-AA team close, but, in my mind, Texas Tech deserves exactly zero credit for beating lower-division competition.
- Regarding the Auburn question, I definitely believe there is such a thing as a “quality loss.” If a team plays a superior team closer than expected, they get at least some credit for that. Taking somebody to the wire is significantly more impressive in my mind than kicking nobody to the curb.
That said, I’d like to explore your argument further, not in an effort to challenge your position, but in an attempt to understand it more fully. Is your position that Texas Tech deserves inclusion and that every team below the spot at which the Red Raiders are ranked should move down one notch, or is it your position that the omission of Texas Tech is but one of many instances of error on my part?
If your position is the former, where would you have me rank Texas Tech? If your position is the latter, what teams (other than the Red Raiders) do you believe deserve inclusion but have been omitted?
As always, the final judgment on the contents of my ballot is mine and this is in no sense a collaborative effort. Nevertheless, I do not pretend to be perfect and I solicited feedback in this instance specifically because I was not happy with the results of my work. I am not saying I have been persuaded, but I am listening. Let me know what you think, Skin Patrol.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on
Sep 22, 2008 8:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re:
Re 2: I did not know this was not a pure resume ballot. Given that, I acknowledge some of the things I said won’t sway you either way (for instance, you obviously have no interest in moving Ohio State down). However, everything I said still applies to Colorado. If it is truly a ballot that takes into account preseason expectations but eases in resume, I can only wonder what Colorado has done to move in front of Texas Tech. Our preseason expectation, per you, was that we were a ranked team and that Colorado wasn’t. The resumes are close enough (I’d argue that Tech has the better one) where I wonder how they swapped places.
Re 3: While I agree that no serious D1 team should schedule a FCS team, Tech didn’t schedule one of our FCS people on purpose. We’d have happily played Tulsa, they didn’t want to have anything to do with us. But what Appalachian State should tell us is that there are some FCS teams that are at least legitimate challenges to some D1 teams, and I’d take that further to suggest that there are MANY FCS teams that are better than SOME D1 teams. Last year Eastern Washington was 9-4 and would have won the FCS championship game except they lost to App. State 38-35. U. Mass was 10-3, the feather in their cap being a 10 point loss to Boston College, who ultimately finished the season ranked 10th. Here’s U. Mass coach Don Brown comparing Texas Tech and Boston College:
"I’ve been coaching in New England my whole coaching career and we’ve played a number of 1A games. [Texas Tech is] the best 1A team I’ve ever been around or ever competed against. They’re extremely talented and obviously Graham Harrell is unbelievable. He throws the ball on time and you can’t trick him. Michael Crabtree is excellent. I was really worried about Eric Morris and he really hurt us. We just looked bad. We were in it today and they’re a very, very good football team. We’re in our third week on the road and this was not an ideal opponent for the third week…
On if this was the best 1A team they have played against
“Absolutely. Boston College was a good team last year they were up there in the rankings but this is a different breed down here and we knew that coming into the game. We expected that.”
Is that self serving? Sure, probably, but he said it. U. Mass and Eastern Washington were ranked 8th and 6th preseason among all FCS teams.
None of which “excuses” Tech from scheduling either, but just as we shouldn’t compare victories over Iowa State with victories over Oklahoma (I’m a Big 12 guy) victories over U. Mass and Eastern Washington are, at least per the preseason polls, more impressive than victory over Georgia Southern.
I agree with you that beating up on cupcakes should award a team no points, but a) not all cupcakes are alike and b) not all cupcakes are FCS teams. I don’t want to call distinguishing FCS from D1 teams as arbitrary, but that kind of bright line rule, that D1 teams never deserve credit for beating FCS teams, simply ignores a huge body of evidence that FCS team A has a good chance of being substantially better or worse than FCS team B.
Regarding Auburn and LSU, I think you’ve got LSU way too high. They beat a good FCS team, a winless Sunbelt team, and Auburn. In essence your rankings for LSU and Auburn only make sense if they are pared together; LSU cannot be the 3rd best team in teh nation in virtue of beating Auburn except if Auburn is ranked, which it can only be in virtue of playing close against a #3 LSU. If either LSU or Auburn move down at all on these lists, then the other one’s ranking becomes irrational likewise. Does LSU have a quarterback? Why did Auburn struggle so mightily against a horrid looking Miss. State? These are questions that the alleged 3rd or 24th best team in the country should be able to answer, and I can’t answer that for them. I think either is ranked too high and, thus, that both are ranked too high.
I would move Texas Tech ahead of virtually every team that has lost, since there are only a few that have sufficiently redeeming wins (or closeness of loss against a high quality opponent) to overcome the biggest knock a team can have this early in the season when there are still so many undefeateds. My position to you is that I don’t think Colorado can justifiably be ranked ahead of Texas Tech. I actually feel the same way about Kansas, but think further that, based upon your own ranking theory, that Tech should also be ahead of Kansas. If you thought that Tech was better preseason than Kansas or Colorado, I tend to think nothing has happened on football fields to change that opinion, based exclusively on resume. If your system is the easing in of resume, then teams below Tech will have to have proven a sufficient resume advantage to have “eased” ahead. I know that Colorado hasn’t done that, and I doubt that Kansas has done that with a loss against USF and wins over no one of consequence.
I don’t think your ballot is dramatically worse than anone else’s ballot. The main thing I take issue with is Colorado over Texas Tech, which I don’t think can be justified. I’d move LSU down, OSU down, East Carolina down, etc. I’m far more bullish on teams that are undefeated than you are. I could argue why those various teams should be punished, but the explanation wouldn’t be consistent except from a purely resume based approach. Now… if your theory is to squeeze in resume, East Carolina should suffer much more from their loss given that preseason expectations were considerably lower, and that fraudulent success was a much more real concern for their team than some of the others. Maybe Ohio State and Clemson and Auburn deserve a free pass for failing to win, but East Carolina certainly doesn’t. To articulate my position better: I think E. Carolina can only be on this list if one places an undue emphasis on resume and Ohio State (or Clemson) can be on this list only if you place an undue emphasis on preseason hype. But the’re both on there, which tells me that there’s at least a possibility teams aren’t being ranked consistently.
I’d take Texas Tech at 25th and move Colorado off, or put Texas Tech at 24th and move Colorado off, or Auburn off. Really my main criticism is with the Colorado>Tech thing, and nothing more. I obviously disagree with some other rankings, but nothing else jumps out at me as being anything besides “reasonable minds disagree”. I do not think reasonable minds can disagree on Colorado’s ranking, though.
I enjoy this site.
by Skin Patrol on
Sep 22, 2008 9:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
All right, you've convinced me
As Henry II, King of England, said to Philip Capet, King of France, in James Goldman’s The Lion in Winter, “That’s clear, consise and well presented. My position is—- Well, frankly, Philip, it’s a tangle.”
You’re right; this ballot is a hodgepodge, which I suppose is an inevitable consequence of shifting gradually from one system of ranking to another. The trade-off for avoiding the wild early-season swings of straight resume ranking from the get-go is to have a couple of weeks in late September in which the top 25 is neither fish nor fowl.
Next week, I’ll be starting from scratch—-clean white piece of paper time—-and going straight resume; five weeks in, we ought to have enough information to begin drawing reasonable inferences.
For now, here is my revised ballot (my apologies if the table is all fouled up due to the comment formatting):
RankTeamDelta1
Southern Cal
—
2 Georgia 1 3 LSU 3 4 Florida 1 5 Oklahoma 3 6 Missouri 2 7 Texas — 8 Brigham Young 1 9 Alabama 3 10 Penn State 4 11 Utah 2 12 South Florida 2 13 Wisconsin 2 14 Ohio State 2 15 Wake Forest 4 16 Kansas 1 17 Nebraska 3 18 East Carolina 10 19 Virginia Tech 7 20 Boise State 6 21 Oregon 6 22 Vanderbilt — 23 Clemson 2 24 Texas Tech 2 25 Auburn 1 Dropped Out: West Virginia (#18), Arizona State (#21), North Carolina (#23).
Well done, Skin Patrol. It’s been a pleasure hashing this out with you.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on
Sep 22, 2008 9:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Holla!
I don’t know if I articulated my position very well in the last post as I got a bit excited over the subject matter, but I’m happy to see Texas Tech on this ballot. And since we don’t play this week, there’s nothing Tech can do to make you regret the decision, though understandably that will make it difficult for the Red Raiders to keep their spot.
In any event, I enjoyed it.
by Skin Patrol on
Sep 22, 2008 9:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
Stories From Around 
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
