How Could I Possibly Have Ranked the Missouri Tigers Over the Oregon Ducks?
by T Kyle King on Jan 13, 2009 5:00 AM EST
in Football
Email
PrintThe final 2008 BlogPoll has been released and the Florida Gators are your consensus national champions, pulling down 46 of 62 first-place votes in the blogosphere. Second-ranked Utah occupied the top spot on 15 ballots and Southern California received the No. 1 ranking from the final BlogPollster.
Also of interest for us here in Bulldog Nation are the rankings awarded to No. 6 Alabama, No. 12 Georgia, No. 13 Mississippi, and No. 22 Georgia Tech. (That last poll position seems to me inexplicable, inasmuch as the Yellow Jackets finished 9-4 and beat fellow A.C.C. member Florida State, yet the Seminoles---who sport an identical 9-4 ledger---ended up ranked 21st. There simply is no way to justify this.)
Speaking of unjustifiable BlogPoll ballots, though, my ballot drew some constructive criticisms from fans who wondered how on earth I managed to put Missouri ahead of Oregon. Since my subsequent explanation evidently did not pass muster, I will endeavor to explain the discrepancy between my top 25 and the overall BlogPoll. (For the record, the blogosphere placed the Ducks tenth and the Tigers 19th.)
I freely admit that I was more sold on Mizzou than I should have been, which may have colored my thinking, but here is why I came down the way I did upon this question:
- Both teams won ten games, although Oregon did not play a Division I-AA opponent and Missouri did. Advantage: Oregon.
- The two teams had one common opponent, Oklahoma State. The Tigers lost to the Cowboys in a close contest at home and the Ducks defeated the Pokes in a close contest at a neutral site. (Yes, I’m calling the Holiday Bowl close; Oklahoma State led with ten and a half minutes to go and Oregon was up by only four until just over three minutes remained.) Advantage: Oregon.
- The Ducks’ best wins (over Oklahoma State and Oregon State) were superior to the Tigers’ best wins (over Nebraska and Northwestern). Advantage: Oregon.
- Missouri lost four games. Oregon lost only three. Advantage: Oregon.
How, then, did I opt for the Tigers over the Ducks? Here’s how:
- Discounting Division I-AA competition, Missouri faced eight teams that finished with winning records. The Tigers went 4-4 against those eight opponents. Oregon faced six teams that finished with winning records. The Ducks went 3-3 against those six opponents. Forget that it’s effectively 9-4 for Mizzou versus 10-3 for Oregon; against passably good teams, both were .500, but the Tigers played more semi-quality opponents than the Ducks. Advantage: Missouri
- In the loss column, Missouri lost two games outside Columbia, falling by 25 points to Texas and by 41 to Oklahoma. Oregon lost two games outside Eugene, falling by 34 points to Southern California and by ten points to California in a game in which the Ducks never led after the sixth minute of the first quarter. Neither was competitive against top five teams, but Oregon fell to the marginally rankable Golden Bears, whereas Mizzou won on the road against a Cornhusker squad that was only marginally worse than Cal. Advantage: Push.
- Missouri and Oregon each played four games that were decided by a touchdown or less. The Tigers went 2-2 in those games, beating Baylor (4-8) on the road and Northwestern (9-4) at a neutral site while falling to Kansas (8-5) at a neutral site and to Oklahoma State (9-4) at home. The Ducks went 3-1 in their quartet of nailbiters, getting by Purdue (4-8) on the road and defeating U.C.L.A. (4-8) and Stanford (5-7) at home but losing to Boise State (12-1) at home. Narrow escapes against bad teams don’t impress me much and Oregon has the lion’s share of them. Advantage: Missouri.
- Three of Mizzou’s victories were over teams that finished with either eight or nine wins. Three of Oregon’s victories were over teams that finished with either eight or nine wins. However, seven of the Tigers’ Division I-A victims were over .500 or were within one win of bowl-eligibility and only one of the Tigers’ wins was over a team with a record worse than 4-8. By contrast, half of the Ducks’ ten wins came against Purdue (4-8), U.C.L.A. (4-8), Utah State (3-9), Washington State (2-11), and Washington (0-12), while only three of their victories came against teams that won more than five games. There are a whole heck of a lot more empty calories in Oregon’s resume than there are in Missouri’s ledger, yet the two teams struggled as often (with four close calls apiece), they each went .500 against Division I-A opponents with winning records, and both squads beat a trio of eight- or nine-win teams and won ten games. When two teams compile essentially identical resumes and one faces a tougher slate, the team with the superior schedule gets the nod. Advantage: Missouri.
Obviously, reasonable people can and do disagree with that result, and we are talking about a difference of a mere two poll positions on my ballot, so I admit it’s a close call, but now you know why I reached the conclusion I did. As always, any further feedback is welcome in the comments below.
Go ‘Dawgs!
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A couple of things .....
1. We missed ya at Sammie’s. Hope you, Susan, and the kids are all doing great.
2. No mention of Tebow’s decision to stay. Georgia has been affected (hurt) by early leaving more than anyone else I can think of. I know, – don’t end a sentence in a preposition. It goes all the way back to Herschel (BTW, Donald Trump was the __________ behind that).
Joke -
Georgia girl on her first day at Harvard asks a group of girls, “Could you tell me where the library is at”?
Yankee girl: “Here at Harvard we don’t end sentences with a preposition”.
Georgia girl: “Could you tell me where the library is at, Bitch”?
3. How about some recruiting news. Do we have a shot at Greg Reed/Reid?
It's a gas, gas, gas.
1. Sorry we weren't able to make it . . .
. . . but we all had to be back at work/school on January 5.
2. The news of Tim Tebow’s decision to stay was broken in the FanPosts and I don’t know what else to add except, “Dang!”
3. I’ll defer to MaconDawg where recruiting is concerned.
Sorry for the (atypical) brevity, but I’m on my lunch break. We hope to see y’all soon.
Go 'Dawgs!
Good Question! ;)
In my mind, Missouri accomplished very little on the field this season. Their best win was most likely Nebraska, ranked 23rd in Sagarin ratings and 33rd in Blogpoll. Northwestern was 29th in Blogpoll and 44th in Sagarin. At some point, you have to win games. When those are your best wins, that says a lot.
I also have a major problem with how you rank beating “semi-quality” teams. The Pac-10 plays one more conference game than any other conference. So for teams like UCLA, Stanford, ASU, etc. they most likely got an extra loss due to this. If the Pac-10 only got 8 conference games, these teams could have gone the Missou and Big 12 route, and schedule cupcake competition, but did not. This applies to your last point as well. Win totals are not impressive when they are padded with cupcake competition, as was most of Missouri’s competition. This is why Oregon ended up with a Sagarin schedule ranking of 22, while Missouri got 45.
Oregon played a tougher schedule overall, was MUCH more impressive in its victories, beating two top 25 teams, in very impressive fashion. Oregon simply beat the heck out of Oklahoma State, a team that Missouri couldn’t beat at home (because Chase Daniels totally fell apart this season).
My overall problem with this reasoning is that it seems to be mostly based on the number of wins (2 of your 3 “advantage Missouri” points dealt solely with that point). And this is a terrible metric when determining teams.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
So I should credit . . .
. . . Stanford with really going 5-6, U.C.L.A. with really going 4-7, Washington State with really going 2-10, and Washington with really going 0-11?
I don’t think that helps Oregon’s case much.
Go 'Dawgs!
Let me also add . . .
. . . that the Pac-10’s extra conference game provides a boost to the conference teams’ resumes in years in which the Pac-10 is strong (as it usually is). However, just as the S.E.C. was down this year (despite a 6-2 record in bowl games), the Pac-10 was down this year, too. Half the Pac-10 (this season, not as a general rule) provided less heft to Oregon’s schedule than a decent mid-major or a middle-tier B.C.S. conference team would have provided.
Go 'Dawgs!
No
But I’m just saying that using number of wins and bowl eligibility is a terrible way to determine the strength of a schedule. If you look at straight wins and losses of opponents, Missouri’s were 81-62, and Oregon’s was 74-71. But is this really how strength of schedule should be determined? Of course not. The problem with looking at it this way, is it ignores the strength of your opponent’s opponents. If you look at the entire Pac-10 this year, they played the toughest non-conference schedule in the land, and they also all played an extra conference game. Because of that, the value of those wins is deflated if you judge the strength of the middle of the conference based on wins and losses. If you look at something like Sagarin’s strength of schedule, there is a massive disparity, due to these factors.
But, the problem here is that Missouri did not accomplish anything on the field this season. They did not beat one top 25 team, they lost at home to a team Oregon physically dominated on a neutral field. Had they even one quality win, I could take them somewhat seriously. But they don’t. Beyond the problems with just looking at the middle level teams, let’s look at the schedules…
Oregon got blown out by a top 5 team (something Missouri did twice), lost to a top 15 team at home (something Missouri also did), and Oregon lost to a top 25 cusp team, on the road, while Missouri lost to a team worse team, on a neutral field. If those results tell us anything, it’s that neither team can compete with the best, but that Oregon’s other losses are comparable or better than Missouri’s. Missouri should get no benefit for the extra top 5 loss, as they showed nothing in either game that should move them over Oregon. I don’t think that anything can be taken from the losses, as if you look at these results, they show similar teams.
Now let’s look at the wins..Oregon victory on the left, Missouri on the right, sagarin ranking in parenthesis.
@Oregon State(13) > @Nebraska(23)
Oklahoma State(20) > Northwestern(44)
Arizona(24) > @Baylor(66)
Stanford(50) > Illinois(68)
@Arizona State(59) = Nevada(71)
@Purdue(78) < Colorado(72)
UCLA < Buffalo(76)
Utah State(115) < Kansas State(74)
Washington(129)
@Washington State(138) > Southeast Missouri State
What do these tell you. Well, first, that Oregon can beat good teams. The top half of the wins favor Oregon greatly, the middle is about the same, and Missouri has a better lower slate. Oregon also struggled with some of the lower teams, while Missouri beat the teams it should fairly soundly.
So what is basically being said by ranking Missouri above Oregon is that simply beating up on a bunch of mediocre teams is more important that actually beating good teams. I disagree with this across the board, not just because Oregon is involved.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I respect that position . . .
. . . while respectfully disagreeing with it.
You’ve correctly identified the distinctions—-although I think it’s fair to say that I didn’t do anything remotely as crude and unthinking as saying “Missouri’s were 81-62, and Oregon’s was 74-71”—-but, with neither team having any really outstanding victories and Oregon having struggled with weaker teams, I give the nod (however slightly) to Mizzou. I also think you’ve overemphasized the Holiday Bowl; the Ducks pulled away at the end, but it was a very even game for more than three quarters. Oregon gets credit for the victory, but it was no manhandling.
One final point: I respect some strength of schedule rankings, but I don’t think anyone has taken Jeff “Revenge of the Nerds” Sagarin seriously for several years. There are better measures than Sagarin’s for drawing these comparisons.
Go 'Dawgs!
Fair enough..
Though I disagree on the strength of Oregon’s victories. As for the Holiday Bowl, I agree that it was close up to the end. What I was trying to say is that Oregon physically dominated much of the game, which allowed them to come away with the victory. It was most definitely not a manhandling.
Thanks for writing this article Kyle, and discussing this! I’m looking forward to a trip to Athens in 2016.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
You, too, jtlight
Hopefully, I’ll see you in Eugene when the ’Dawgs come to town.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jan 14, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
Conference
Last I checked, the PAC-10 was undefeated (5 and 0) in their bowl games, and the BIG-12 was stuck at 4 and 3. Clearly Oregon was playing in a tougher conference and managed to do extremely well. Congrats to Oregon on an outstanding season.
That doesn't necessarily follow
As Dave, the former proprietor of Addicted to Quack, often noted, Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen did a terrible job of negotiating television contracts and bowl tie-ins for his league. As a result, Pac-10 teams not appearing in the Rose Bowl tend to find themselves in bowl games below their ability level. Anyone who doubts this needs to ask an Oregon fan how he felt about the Ducks’ 2001 bowl berth.
Oregon, the Pac-10’s second-best team, faced the fourth-place team in the Big 12 South. By contrast, the great job done by Roy Kramer and Mike Slive in negotiating bowl tie-ins and T.V. deals for the S.E.C. put South Carolina, a 7-5 team, in a January 1 bowl game, where the Gamecocks were slaughtered by a Big Ten team that ranked higher in its conference pecking order.
Saying that the Pac-10 is superior to the Big 12 based on bowl records is like saying Jim Donnan was a better Georgia coach than Vince Dooley. That is not only wrong, it misses the point: Coach Donnan was 4-0 in bowl games because he consistently lost to Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia Tech, so his teams wound up in worse bowl games than their talent ought to have earned, whereas Coach Dooley was 8-10-2 in bowl games because his teams consistently beat Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia Tech to earn upper-tier bowl bids.
Go 'Dawgs!
I agree with this...
5-0 is great for the Pac-10, but the only real surprises were Oregon and Arizona, and Oregon was the 2nd place team facing the 4th place Big 12 team. It must be taken with a grain of salt.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Amen for pointing that out
I was thinking the same thing when the heads kept stating that the PAC 10’s bowl record proved they were underrated as a conference…..no it doesn’t – it only proves that they faced some weak opponents in some craptacular bowls.
I also contend that the SEC was not as off as everyone thinks. Three straight National Titles.
I think in the SEC Championship Game winner is 8-4 in BCS Bowls over the past 12 years, including 5 national titles. I think the reason for this streak is that we are all battle-tested after facing so many tough opponents throughout the season.
While three straight is impressive
I still believe the SEC was off this year. Even in the title game, Florida didn’t outclass Oklahoma like SEC teams did Ohio State in the past two title games (heck, if Oklahoma would have taken advantage of some absolute gifts in the first half this tune isn’t even being sung)…and Florida was heads and shoulders above everyone else in the SEC (besides Alabama, who I’d give just the heads part, but was pretty much outclassed by Utah in the Sugar Bowl). Florida, though, was not representative of the couple of steps backwards the SEC took this year…however, every other league seemed to have took steps backwards from previous seasons, too (besides arguably the Big XII and Mountain West). As a note,I don’t put too much into bowl records because there are way too many other factors for each specific team to deal with that drastically alters things.
by The ArchDawg on Jan 14, 2009 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe off, but not by much at all.
The reason we didn’t outclass Oklahoma like the last 2 title games, is because they were actually a worthy opponent and they are not Ohio State. I think if we would have played Penn State this season, it would have been a laugher.
You're right
Here’s where your point about conference reputation comes into play. Fairly or unfairly, the Big 12 and the S.E.C. have good reputations . . . the former, on the strength of this season; the latter, on the strength of past seasons. That, plus a conference championship game win (which, admittedly, is somewhat unfair to the Pac-10 champion after playing a true round-robin regular-season slate, but which is completely fair to the Big Ten), is going to give the Big 12 and the S.E.C. the benefit of the doubt over the Big Ten every time.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jan 14, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed - that is why
the Big 10 and Pac 10 should join the 21st century and add a conference championship!
That's definitely true for the Big Ten . . .
. . . although I’m willing to give the Pac-10 a pass because they play nine-game conference schedules, so there’s no chance of Big Ten-style “co-champions” who don’t play each other.
Still, the Pac-10 could solve a lot of problems for everyone by inviting Boise State and Utah to join and splitting the Pac-12 into two divisions with a title game.
Go 'Dawgs!
Boise's not getting into the PAC 10 in the appreciable future.
The PAC 10 and the Big 10 are very snobby academic conferences. That’s why Iowa State will never be in the Big 10 and why none of the Cal State schools (Fresno St., San Diego State, San Jose State, etc) or Boise State will be in the PAC 10 in the near future. Utah, Colorado, U of Nevada Reno (if they were good) and maybe BYU have a chance. Nobody else does. Actually, I think if the PAC 10 expands the most likely candidates (unless they can somehow peel texas away from the big 12, which they tried to do once before) are Colorado and Utah. Boise, for all of its football success, has horrible academics, a tiny stadium (even by MWC standards), no other sports to speak of, and a tiny TV market. Colorado is obviously capable on most of those fronts, if you include Denver as their TV market, and Utah is as well. The religion thing might keep BYU out, and the lack of academic research, but they have a shot because of their sports successes. Reno hasn’t had the sports years they need to even be considered, but their academics and other considerations are pretty good.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jan 14, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
What is actually a better scenario for destroying the remaining non-bcs conferences is this one:
Utah and BYU go to the PAC 10
the Big 12 drops baylor and adds TCU
the MWC takes Fresno, Boise, and Houston
the Big East takes Tulsa and maybe a couple of other nearby contenders (Ball State, NIU, whomever suits their fancy)
thus removing all of the contenders except Boise and giving Boise a much tougher run with Houston, Fresno, Air Force and CSU. That section of the MWC is better than any comparable section of the wac, even without TCU, BYU and Utah.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jan 14, 2009 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
That's a reasonable scenario and I would enjoy it immensely
I know you’re right about the Pac-10, but they need to get off their high horse. When they let a perennial top-ten party school like Arizona State into the fold, they forfeited their right to get all huffy about anybody’s academics.
Besides, these are sports leagues. It’s not like the Pac-10 central office is coordinating anybody’s curriculum.
Go 'Dawgs!
Oh, I agree. OSU, WSU and ASU are nowhere near the level of Utah or any of the PAC 10 CA schools.
And OSU and WSU have smaller stadiums than Utah or BYU, on a sports note. But, despite the obvious hypocrisy and double-think, the PAC 10 considers itself a very academic-oriented league, and the inclusion of Boise State is very unlikely (considering their academics are one of the things that kept them from getting a Mountain West invite in 2004, and our conference includes San Diego State and UNLV!
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jan 15, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
