Week Six BlogPoll Ballot Submitted for Review and Comment
by T Kyle King on Oct 11, 2010 10:45 PM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintIt’s BlogPoll ballot time, and, as you might imagine, there have been a few shakeups this week. I started with a clean white sheet of paper and compiled my top 25 based strictly upon resume ranking, so the arrows are incidental, while the logic follows after the jump. Here are the top 25 teams in the land, as best I am able to determine:
Dawg Sports Ballot - Week 7
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma Sooners |  2 |
| 2 | Oregon Ducks | -- |
| 3 | Ohio St. Buckeyes | 2 |
| 4 | Auburn Tigers | 4 |
| 5 | Boise St. Broncos | 1 |
| 6 | TCU Horned Frogs | 1 |
| 7 | Alabama Crimson Tide |  -6 |
| 8 | LSU Tigers | 6 |
| 9 | South Carolina Gamecocks | 6 |
| 10 | Michigan St. Spartans | -1 |
| 11 | Stanford Cardinal | 1 |
| 12 | Arizona Wildcats | -8 |
| 13 | Oklahoma St. Cowboys | -3 |
| 14 | Arkansas Razorbacks | 3 |
| 15 | Missouri Tigers | 8 |
| 16 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | 5 |
| 17 | Nevada Wolf Pack | 2 |
| 18 | Florida St. Seminoles | -- |
| 19 | Michigan Wolverines | -3 |
| 20 | N.C. State Wolfpack | -- |
| 21 | Iowa Hawkeyes | -8 |
| 22 | Utah Utes | -2 |
| 23 | Air Force Falcons | -- |
| 24 | Oregon St. Beavers | -- |
| 25 | Florida Gators | -14 |
| Dropouts: Miami Hurricanes, Northwestern Wildcats, Wisconsin Badgers | ||
SB Nation BlogPoll College Football Top 25 Rankings "
While I will be happy to explain any oddities in the foregoing ballot in greater detail, here are a few observations regarding my rankings:
- Even though Oklahoma claimed four of its five victories by eight or fewer points, the Sooners have the best resume among the unbeaten teams. Bob Stoops’s squad has beaten a pair of 5-1 outfits (Air Force and Florida State), beating the latter by a convincing margin, with a neutral site win over Texas tossed in for good measure. No other team has three wins of comparable worth.
- Oregon narrowly edged Ohio State, despite the fact that half of the Ducks’ six victories came against the likes of Division I-AA Portland State, winless New Mexico, and one-win Washington State. The Buckeyes, however, have beaten some weak sisters of their own, including Eastern Michigan (0-6) and Marshall (1-4), and Ohio State has no signature victory of which to speak; the Bucks have defeated a trio of 3-2 clubs (Illinois, Indiana, and Miami), but the best of those wins was cheapened when the Hurricanes were routed by the team that was blown out by the Sooners. Oregon’s triumph over Stanford eclipses anything Ohio State has achieved.
- The Broncos are behind the Ducks because, as wins over Pac-10 teams go, beating the Cardinal counts for more than beating the Beavers. The Broncos are behind the Buckeyes because, as wins over ACC teams go, beating the ‘Canes counts for more than beating the Hokies. The Broncos and the Horned Frogs are behind the Plainsmen because a win over South Carolina is more impressive than a win over Oregon State, and because Auburn’s weakest victim is better than New Mexico State (1-4) and Division I-AA Tennessee Tech, the worst teams beaten by Boise State and TCU, respectively. The Broncos are ahead of the Horned Frogs because Boise State has a better second-best victory (over Virginia Tech) than Texas Christian does (over Baylor).
- Alabama has the best resume of the one-loss teams, with victories over Arkansas, Florida, and Penn State that justified keeping the Tide ahead of the South Carolina squad that just beat ‘Bama in Columbia. While the Gamecocks are for real, and while they have a quality loss by eight points to undefeated Auburn on the road, the Palmetto State Poultry were dragged down slightly by their low-value wins over Division I-AA Furman and four-loss Georgia. The Bayou Bengals slipped in between Alabama and South Carolina by virtue of an unblemished ledger against Florida, West Virginia, and North Carolina, but the Tide’s better collection of victims (Florida gave LSU its best win by a narrow margin while providing Alabama its second-best win by a wide margin) and greater overall dominance (Alabama claimed one win by a touchdown or less, while Louisiana State has had to survive four nailbiters in six games) kept Nick Saban’s team ahead of Les Miles’s outfit.
- The Spartans benefited from convincing wins over Michigan and Wisconsin (both 5-1), while Stanford suffered slightly from the devaluation of its win over UCLA in the wake of the Bruins’ 35-7 loss at California on Saturday. As impressive as the Cardinal looked in the season’s first four weeks, Jim Harbaugh’s team landed outside the top ten as a result of a 21-point setback sustained in Eugene and a two-point escape at home against a Lane Kiffin-coached Trojan squad in decline.
- Quality wins over Iowa and Cal, coupled with a quality loss to Oregon State, kept Arizona ahead of Oklahoma State, which checked in one spot ahead of Arkansas because a 5-0 team whose best win was a close one over Texas A&M deserves to be slightly in front of a 4-1 team whose best win was a close one over Texas A&M. However, the Hogs’ quality loss to Alabama kept the Razorbacks ahead of an undefeated Missouri outfit without a signature win. Nevertheless, the Tigers’ 5-0 record counts for more than the Cornhuskers’ does, as Nebraska’s unblemished ledger contains victories over the likes of Division I-AA South Dakota State, winless Western Kentucky, and an overrated Kansas State squad that got to 4-0 against the likes of Central Florida and Missouri State.
- Nevada’s 6-0 record would have earned the Wolf Pack a higher ranking than No. 17, were it not for the fact that UNR’s victims include a Division I-AA opponent (Eastern Washington) and three 1-5 teams (Colorado State, San Jose State, and UNLV). A convincing win over the Golden Bears got Nevada into the top 20, though.
- Neither Florida State nor Michigan looked good in defeat against a team in my top ten, but the Seminoles got the nod over the Wolverines by virtue of having beaten convincingly five teams, one of which was Miami. The Maize and Blue, by contrast, barely got by Division I-AA Massachusetts and a .500 Notre Dame outfit, as well as having to win a nailbiter against their most accomplished victim, an Indiana unit sporting a 3-2 ledger.
- N.C. State edged Iowa for the last spot in the top 20 in spite of the Wolfpack’s loss to Virginia Tech because N.C. State beat Georgia Tech on the road, while the Hawkeyes have not beaten a Division I-A opponent with a winning record. Neither have the Utes, three of whose five victims were winless New Mexico and two 1-5 clubs, San Jose State and UNLV. Utah’s best win was over the Iowa State squad that gave Iowa its second-best triumph.
- I credit Air Force with a quality loss at Oklahoma, but the Falcons’ best win was an eight-point home victory over Navy. The rest of Air Force’s wins came against Division I-AA opposition or teams with two or fewer wins to their credit.
- Oregon State and Florida claimed spots in the top 25 due to the caliber of the opponents to whom they lost. The Beavers fell to my No. 5 and No. 6 teams while carding a quality win at No. 12 Arizona, while the Gators were beaten by my No. 7 and No. 8 teams. The Sunshine State Saurians lack a signature victory, but my only other alternatives were a Big East team and Wisconsin. I am open to the possibility that a persuasive case might be made on behalf of some Big East squad, but the Badgers have done nothing to deserve a top 25 ranking. Their loss at Michigan State was not close; four of their five wins were against Division I-AA Austin Peay and a trio of opponents with 1-5 records (Minnesota, San Jose State, and UNLV); their best win was a one-point home win over a .500 Arizona State outfit. Also, Bret Bielema is a horse’s hindquarters for going for two and then blaming it on the omniscient card, but that didn’t influence my decision not to rank his team; it just made me enjoy the fact that Wiscy’s resume is worthless.
As always, my draft ballot is subject to change before the deadline, and I am open to questions and constructive criticisms regarding my rankings. Feel free to express yourselves with boldness and civility in the comments below.
Go ‘Dawgs!
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nebraska
I was going to question Nebraska’s low ranking, but then I looked at their schedule. Horrible. They have Texas next.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
by Jman781 on Oct 11, 2010 11:16 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
General ranking question
asked only out of my own curiosity and in no way a reflection on this particular ballot, although applicable to it.
I’ve noticed over time, that a win whether expected or not, generally only moves a team up one, maybe two spots (unless more than 1 or 2 higher ranked-teams happen to lose the same week.) On the other hand, a loss almost always results in the team being dropped 5 to 8 rankings in any given poll. I’m not sure I understand why a team rises like a feather and drops like a rock?
Is there logic to this, or is it simply the way things are done?
I can bake like a demon.
Less how things are done....
And more just the way things are. Especially at this point in the season, the polls/rankings are mostly guesstimates based on previous wins/losses. When a team loses at this point, there are usually several other teams that haven’t to take its place. On the other hand, it takes a significant victory over another good/ranked team to markedly move above other teams with a similar W/L record.
Just my stab at the explanation anyway
This is a very good question. One that the dynamic dumb duo on ESPN couldnt hope to explain.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
I can't speak for anyone else, but, on my ballot (at least this week), the arrows are meaningless.
I didn’t look at last week’s ballot when compiling this week’s ballot.
For me, as a resume ranker, I give equal weight to every game a team has played. What a team did last Saturday is no more or less important than what a team did on the previous Saturdays. Where resume ranking differs from the tweak-my-previous-ballot method used by most mainstream pollsters is that it recognizes the changing value of a particular win or loss as the season progresses.
For instance, Georgia was ranked No. 22 (or thereabouts) when the Gamecocks beat the Bulldogs. At the time, South Carolina got credit for a win over a ranked opponent. When the ‘Dawgs proceeded to lose their next three games, the value of South Carolina’s win over Georgia was diminished considerably. That is why I have Alabama ranked ahead of South Carolina, despite the Gamecocks’ head-to-head win, since South Carolina has only one good win and Alabama has more than one.
Beyond that, at the top of the poll, a loss counts for more. Distinguishing between the resumes of several 6-0 or 5-0 teams is difficult, and many fine lines have to be drawn. There is no clearer demarcation between top teams than the distinction between a “1” and a “0” on the right-hand side of a team’s ledger. That “1” is a tough thing to overcome.
I apologize for using such a crude analogy, but it’s like having a dozen Sports Illustrated swimsuit models lined up side by side and being asked to pick which one is the prettiest. That would be tough to do, but, if one of the twelve had a lazy eye, that slight imperfection would appear more glaring in the midst of such an otherwise flawless collection. That minor blemish would cause her to be ranked twelfth, even if she would be the best-looking woman in most of the rooms she enters.
I hope that made some semblance of sense.
Go 'Dawgs!
LSU's ranking...
has been the first thing I look at in everyone’s poll, just because it seems one of the most variable and interesting. They haven’t looked good, but they have beaten 6 straight BCS opponents. While at first that UNC victory looked hollow, UNC has managed to win 3 games against decent competition, with its only other loss to Ga Tech.
Head to head actually works at this point in the season
I am a fan of resume ranking because ballot anomalies are taken care of over the course of a season; but at this point of the season there is no reason not to make head-to-head a determinative factor. In the later season any year, and in the early season many years, it is simply impossible to avoid a team being ranked higher than a team it lost to with the same record. This is not one of those years. This week it works.
Alabama is the first team on the ballot to have lost to a team below it. Move it down two spots and the problem is solved.
Then you don’t have the problem again until Arizona. But here it isn’t a problem because Oregon State has an additional loss. Then the problem skips the 5-0 teams that haven’t played anybody. Then you have the problem again at N.C. State. But again, the team that beat it has a worse overall record, so head-to-head can be ignored.
Swap South Carolina and Alabama and you have a ballot that uses resume ranking without creating head-to-head dissonance with one-loss teams.
I've never understood...
The "two teams have the same record but the team that just lost to the other team is still better than the team that won because I just “feel” that the loser is better than the winner" argument. People were doing that on NFL Power Rankings with the Falcons and Saints after the Falcons BEAT the Saints. Now Kyle is doing that with Alabama. How can a team that just lost to South Carolina be ranked ahead of South Carolina? Based on what logic? Because Bama’s other wins are more impressive or Bama has been better historically? It’s a head scratcher.
It can only be a gut feeling, for Bama certainly didn’t prove it on the field. At least wait until South Carolina loses again before ranking Alabama ahead of them. The good news, if South Carolina and Bama both run the table, then South Carolina will have to beat them again. This does not occur in the Big Ten. Ohio State does not even have to face Sparty. Boo.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
There's no "feeling" to it.
Head-to-head isn’t determinative, and shouldn’t be determinative, because resume ranking (as the name implies) is based upon a team’s entire body of work.
South Carolina beat Alabama head to head. Advantage: South Carolina.
South Carolina’s best win is over Alabama at home. Alabama’s best win is over Arkansas on the road. Advantage: South Carolina, but only barely.
South Carolina’s second-best win is over Southern Miss at home. Alabama’s second-best win is over Florida at home. Advantage: Alabama, by a large margin.
South Carolina’s third-best win is over Georgia at home. Alabama’s third-best win is over Penn State at home. Advantage: Alabama, again by a pretty good margin.
One of South Carolina’s four wins is over a Division I-AA opponent. None of Alabama’s five wins is over a Division I-AA opponent. Advantage: Alabama.
It’s a close call, and reasonable people may disagree, but no “gut instinct” or “feeling” came into play. On the whole, Alabama has accomplished more on the football field in the first half of the 2010 season than South Carolina has. I understand the irony of this, given the head-to-head result, but the beauty of Division I-A college football is that every game counts. My ballot reflects that.
Go 'Dawgs!
While I don't necessarily disagree with your ranking....
How is a win over Penn State that much better than a win over UGA? Penn State has lost to Iowa and Illinois, and only beaten Kent State, Youngstown State, and Temple. This isn’t to say either win is very good at this point, but they aren’t really that different either.
Fair enough.
I would argue that a 3-3 team whose best win was over Temple is better than a 2-4 team whose best win was over Tennessee, but, at that point, we’re probably splitting hairs.
Go 'Dawgs!
Also, . . .
. . . not that this was determinative, but no “‘two teams have the same record but the team that just lost to the other team is still better than the team that won because I just "feel" that the loser is better than the winner’ argument” applies here because the two teams don’t have the same record. Alabama is 5-1 and South Carolina is 4-1. That really didn’t have much of an impact on its own, but, since half of the Gamecocks’ victories came against Division I-AA Furman and 2-4 Georgia, there wasn’t a lot of heft to South Carolina’s resume once you got past the Palmetto State Poultry’s admittedly impressive win over Alabama. The Tide’s resume, by contrast, had enough buoyancy to prevent ’Bama from falling too far.
Go 'Dawgs!
Actually, I think head-to-head matters less as the season progresses.
Last Saturday’s result represents one-sixth of Alabama’s season and one-fifth of South Carolina’s. Had the two teams met in week two, after the Tide defeated San Jose State and the Gamecocks beat Southern Miss, a South Carolina victory would have represented one-half of both teams’ seasons, and clearly would have warranted elevating the Gamecocks over the Crimson Tide.
Think of what would have happened after that point, though. Had Alabama and South Carolina had exactly the seasons they have had, only with the Gamecocks’ victory over the Crimson Tide coming on the season’s second Saturday, is there any doubt Alabama would have overtaken South Carolina by now? Alabama’s subsequent wins over Arkansas (on the road) and Florida (by a wide margin), coupled with South Carolina’s subsequent wins over weak teams (Georgia, Furman) and loss to Auburn, surely would have allowed the Tide to inch up as the Gamecocks inched down.
Again, it’s a close call, and reasonable minds may differ, but, in my mind, any individual result matters less the deeper we get into the season, as each successive game represents a lower percentage of a team’s whole season, and, hence, a smaller portion of a team’s entire body of work. I go back and look at each game in each team’s season each week, adjusting its value in light of subsequent events. South Carolina’s win over Alabama counts as one game, no more and no less, without regard to when it occurred. It is one piece of evidence, but that one piece of evidence does less to tip the scales when there are more additional pieces of evidence to counterbalance it.
Go 'Dawgs!
Thanks for the explanation...
I wasn’t trying to attack you, so I want to clear that up. It’s just a difference of opinion. Like I said, the SEC will work itself out. The Big Ten, on the other hand, will not. We can expect a Big Ten Championship Game next season, right?
Also, I like your ballot. At most Alabama drops a couple of spots, but other than that, it looks rock solid to me.
Cheerio!
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
