A Tentative Stab at a Revised Draft of My Preseason BlogPoll Ballot

by T Kyle King on Aug 26, 2007 1:14 PM EDT in Football

The roundtable discussion is underway regarding the tentative preseason BlogPoll and already we are starting to see the results, as, evidently, I talked Mike into ranking Georgia lower on his second ballot. So, yeah, I'm feeling pretty good about that.

After giving this a lot of thought, I have decided to pay heed to some of the observations offered by my fellow bloggers. Ere I get to the colleagues who persuaded me, however, I should begin by explaining why some highly respected fellow BlogPollsters did not succeed in changing my mind, despite the reasonableness of their arguments.

For example, Peter Bean thought L.S.U. and Wisconsin were overrated while Arkansas and Texas A&M were underrated. I agree with him wholeheartedly regarding the Bayou Bengals, and for the same reason. Two words: Les Miles. If Louisiana State had Nick Saban back in Baton Rouge, the Fighting Tigers would be my No. 1 team. With Les Miles, they'll be traveling more miles to their postseason destination, because they won't be playing for the national title in New Orleans.

We part ways regarding the Badgers, the Hogs, and the Aggies, however. I have no faith in Dennis Franchione's capability to aid his team in living up to its potential and I believe the upheaval in Fayetteville will inhibit the Razorbacks' ability to post a second straight successful season. The Bulldogs showed something by closing 2006 with three straight wins over ranked opponents. What did Arkansas show when ending a 10-win campaign with three straight losses? With Mitch Mustain, Damian Williams, Gus Malzahn, and seven defensive starters gone, the Hogs will come crashing back to earth.

Think about how crazy this guy was before having the offseason that he had. Come Saturday, he's going to be running the Notre Dame box formation.

As for the team that dealt the Razorbacks their most recent setback---Wisconsin, which capped off a 12-win campaign with a Capital One Bowl win---Bret Bielema showed me nothing last year that would cause me to doubt his ability to continue winning with solid special teams (Taylor Mehlhaff, a Lou Groza Award semifinalist, and Ken DeBauche, who averaged 41.8 yards per punt, both return), rock-ribbed defense (seven starters, including Jack Ikegwuonu and Matt Shaughnessy, are back from a unit that gave up 12.1 points per game), and an offense that boasts four returning starters on the line blocking for P.J. Hill (who tallied 1,569 yards and scored 15 touchdowns as a redshirt freshman).

Likewise, I did not see eye to eye with Paragon SC's assessment that Nebraska was underrated and U.C.L.A. was overrated. I find it hard not to like the fact that there are 20 returning starters for the Bruins, including four on the offensive line, a 1,000-yard rusher and Ben Olson in the backfield, and 10 on a defense that was solid, especially in wins over Arizona State, Oregon State, and Southern California.

Yes, U.C.L.A. still has the West Coast Ray Goff for a coach, and, yes, the Bruins played badly in several outings, conceding 29 points at Washington, 30 at Oregon, 37 to Washington State, 38 at California, and 44 to Florida State. Nevertheless, a team with this much talent and experience, including a few key late-season wins to close out its 2006 slate, ought to contend strongly for the Pac-10 title alongside a crosstown rival against whom the Bruins are 9-7 in the last 16 seasons.

With regard to the Cornhuskers, I have a pretty good idea of Bill Callahan's limitations and, before I'm prepared to believe in the revival of the Big Red Machine, Nebraska is going to have to show me . . . which, perhaps ironically, the 'Huskers can do by winning at Missouri on October 6.

I have yet to be convinced that winning the Big 12 North entitles a team to a top 25 ranking.

This brings me to Sunday Morning Quarterback's expert explication of his own BlogPoll ballot, in which he offered the following compelling observations:

I'm leery about the quarterback issues at Oklahoma and Ohio State, but both of those teams are going to be vicious on defense, as usual, and will be able to pound 90 percent of their respective schedules into submission with a very quarterback-friendly running game. But Florida State? . . .

I'm enticed back into the demon grasp of Florida State in the top ten, though the additions of Colorado, Alabama and Virginia Tech are razor teeth on the schedule where Rice, Western Michigan and Virginia resided for half the 'Noles' wins last year, because I still believe in the talent (especially compared to the rest of the conference) and the fast-healing powers of Jimbo Fisher, Rick Trickett and Chuck Amato, whose departure for the NC State job (and Mark Richt's for Georgia) coincided with the precipitous decline of the Jeff Bowden era. On paper, this still looks like a team that can compete nationally. But I still half expect to be writing this exact apologia again the same time next year.

I'm also wondering a little what led me to bump Auburn into the mix, when I was just minutes from excoriating the vulnerability of its skin-of-the-teeth routine last year. A healthy Auburn is still a very good Auburn, but the Tigers' schedule is unforgiving for a team with so many legit questions on offense. Auburn may be looking at a significant slip in this poll, and I think we'd be right about that in the end. . . .

If you're going to bother ranking Hawaii and Boise State at all, it might as well be way up at the top, because a one-loss team with either's schedule may not crack the polls at all. By including them at all, you're conceding one or the other will probably be undefeated, and therefore they should go rocketing up close to the top five, where an undefeated team from the WAC will tend to finish.

At the same time, the Pac Ten is likely to have a second team in the top dozen, at least, by the end of the year. I find it difficult to distinguish between the merits of Oregon, UCLA and Cal, but to group them all between 16-21 reeks of indecisive hedges and decimal point thinking. Somebody's got to win those games, and somebody's got to lose; they can't split them. So one of that three - I think very high-octane Oregon or, maybe a safer pick given the last three-four years, Cal - is going to pull away to a relatively big year, and one is going to fade out. I don't think the Pac Ten will earn a second BCS bid, but no matter how cloes they look on paper, they won't all wind up bunched together.

SMQ is right on several fronts, even if I occasionally am led by his pointed statements of irrevocable fact to conclusions different from those he would have me draw. (It isn't the first time that's happened.)

As I learned in this building from these folks, there's a whole lot of fun to be had in the debate.

Ohio State and Oklahoma both have quarterback issues, which is why I'm inclined to drop them in the rankings. SMQ's concerns about the Seminoles mirror my own, so F.S.U. likely will plummet on my ballot.

I'm always grateful when someone whose opinion I respect gives me a good reason to think less highly of Auburn. (I hate Auburn.) Finally, since SMQ is right that the Pac-10 contenders outside of U.S.C. "won't all wind up bunched together," I rearranged their order somewhat and made it clearer which team I believe is the real challenger to the Trojans' West Coast hegemony.

SMQ's nod to the best teams from non-B.C.S. leagues ("If you're going to bother ranking Hawaii and Boise State at all, it might as well be way up at the top") echoed the sentiments expressed in BCSBusters's detailed exegesis of how so-called "mid-majors" came to be left on the outside looking in when rankings were being bestowed and bowl bids were being offered. (BCSBusters, by the way, is a gentleman and a scholar, and he writes thoughtfully and well about issues of major significance to the sport we all love. I hope I didn't come down too hard on him yesterday and I would encourage you to check out his site.)

Because I share Paul Westerdawg's doubts about Hawaii (and because Brian Cook has shamed me into regretting my MaxwellPundit vote for Colt Brennan), I'm not letting the Warriors anywhere near the top 25 until they beat someone. However, Boise State and Texas Christian are another story altogether.

In the last eight seasons, the Broncos have gone 86-16, posting double-digit win totals half a dozen times and losing one or fewer games in four of the last five years. Along the way, B.S.U. has suffered such embarrassments as setbacks at U.C.L.A. (38-7 in 1999), at South Carolina (32-13 in 2001), at Arkansas (41-14 in 2002), and at Georgia (48-13 in 2005), but my favorite team clad in orange and blue---admittedly not a club with a large membership, given that those are the colors worn by the Auburn Tigers, the Florida Gators, and the New York Mets---put itself on the map with wins over Oregon State (53-34 in 2004 and 42-14 in 2006) and, most notably, Oklahoma in last year's Fiesta Bowl thriller.

A little goodwill wouldn't be altogether out of line at this point, would it?

Likewise, T.C.U. has earned the benefit of the doubt. The former Southwest Conference squad has established itself under Gary Patterson, compiling a 48-13 ledger in the last five seasons. While winning 10 or more games in four of those five campaigns, the Horned Frogs have demonstrated a recent penchant for knocking off Big 12 opposition: Texas Christian won at Oklahoma and against Iowa State in the Houston Bowl in 2005 before beating Baylor and Texas Tech early last autumn. T.C.U., like Boise State, has earned a measure of deference.

I stand by my arguments in favor of Michigan and against Florida, but there was a lot of movement among the bottom 20 teams in my top 25. The ranking of the respective teams on my initial BlogPoll ballot is listed parenthetically. Here is my revised top 25:

Michigan (1)
Southern California (2)
Texas (3)
West Virginia (4)
Louisiana State (5)
Boise State (20)
Wisconsin (10)
Virginia Tech (8)
U.C.L.A. (9)
Louisville (7)
Oklahoma (6)
Auburn (11)
Texas Christian (23)
Georgia (14)
Florida (15)
Rutgers (19)
Oregon (25)
Ohio State (17)
California (16)
Penn State (13)
Oklahoma State (22)
Clemson (21)
Tennessee (18)
Florida State (12)
South Carolina (NR)

Yes, Brandon has convinced me that the Gamecocks will be good, proving once again that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Rutgers alumna Kristin Davis was pleased to see that the Scarlet Knights rose in the standings despite not having played a game.

Those are my revised rankings, with respect to which there is still time for you to change my mind before my final preseason ballot is cast. While I am awaiting your remarks in the comments below, I believe the best way for me to conclude this posting is with the wise words offered by Shan regarding this exercise:

Objectivity is hard, dammit

As Euripides said, "The best of seers is he who guesses well." And polls, especially pre-season polls, are just that - guesses. Educated, informed, guesses.

Your guess, quite literally, is as good as mine, but I'm looking forward to finding out whose misinformed guesses will turn out to be the least incorrect.

Is it football season yet?

Go 'Dawgs!

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Penn State

Am I to assume their seven point drop is retribution for my ballot?

by Mike @ Dawg Sports on Aug 26, 2007 4:31 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah, I felt badly about that . . .

. . . but there was nowhere else for me to put the Nittany Lions.

Although I didn't go into a great deal of detail, I felt like Ohio State's negatives (like the loss of Ted Ginn, Anthony Gonzalez, Antonio Pittman, and Troy Smith) were better offset by the Buckeyes' positives (like the return of a stout defense) than Penn State's negatives (like the loss of Jay Alford, Ed Johnson, and Paul Posluszny, the questions concerning the kicking game, and the return of Anthony Morelli) were offset by the Nittany Lions' positives (like a talented and experienced secondary).

I didn't mean for that to look like retribution. Sorry about that; with any luck, we'll both have occasion to elevate our respective teams after, you know, some games get played, or something.

by T Kyle King on Aug 26, 2007 5:04 PM EDT reply actions

New Insight Bodes well for Georgia!

Kyle,

I completed my article today and utilized a new ranking system to determine the elite programs. I call it the Quality Opponent Factor or QOF-Rating,
which ranks how a team has performed against opponents who went on to win 9 or more games during the same season the two teams were scheduled. You might consider it if you are unsure how to rank two seemingly equal teams...like say Georgia and Texas, or West Virginia and LSU.

Here is a little info from today's article.

The Bulldogs and Tigers share a common communion. Both have been equally outstanding during the last decade. I've read several articles criticizing head coach Mark Richt, but I can't imagine a better coach for any given institution. Coach Richt is an unbelievable coach of impeccable character and values. Through my research today, the Bulldogs have one of the best, if not the best ratings of any team in the conference for the last decade.

In the last seven years they have lost just two games outside of the SEC Conference (West Virginia 38-35 in the 2005 Sugar Bowl and Boston College in the 2001 Music City Bowl 20-16). Meanwhile, they have beaten Georgia Tech (six consecutive times), Virginia Tech, Boise State, Wisconsin, Clemson (twice), Florida State, Purdue, Houston and Marshall. Plus, they have a 57-25 mark in the mighty SEC. Their main nemesis is Florida (seven losses in the last 10 years) with Auburn (six losses) and Tennessee (five losses) nipping at their heels. That is impressive. I may have to make a revision in my pre-season BCSBusters Poll and alert the BlobPoll Community of my findings.

Yes, you will still find Western Kentucky, UAB, Louisiana-Monroe, Georgia Southern, Middle Tennessee State and New Mexico State in their historical Bio. But, they have also played Clemson, Boise State, Colorado and Georgia Tech as part of the regular season. The bottom line is the Bulldogs earn an A+ as far as scheduling and the results show as they have an 8-2 bowl record with victories over Wisconsin (twice), Virginia (twice), Purdue (twice), Florida State and Virginia Tech.

However, their QOF-Rating (.447) still falls below 50% as this has been a shocking analysis for me. I honestly was expecting better from the SEC - and this without a hint of sarcasm or criticism intended.

***

Minus a couple of seasons in the Ron Zook era, the Gators have been the head of the class in the SEC. With an overall conference record of 63-20, two SEC championships and two national championships in just over a decade (11 years), things couldn't be brighter in the sunshine state. However, the gators are just 5-5 in bowl games and have found their main nemesis outside of the SEC resides within their own state - Miami and Florida State.

(04) L to Miami 27-10 in the Peach Bowl.

(03) L to Miami 38-33 and Florida State 38-34 in non-conference games, while losing to Iowa 37-17 in the Outback Bowl.

(02) L to Miami 41-16 and Florida State in non-conference games, while losing to Michigan 38-30 in the Outback Bowl.

(00) L to Florida State 30-7 in a non-conference game and Miami 37-20 in the BCS Sugar Bowl.

(99) L to Florida State 30-23 in a non-conference game and Michigan State 37-34 in the Citrus Bowl.

(98) L to Florida State 23-12 in a non-conference game.

Yes, we can still find Southern Mississippi, Central Florida, Western Carolina, Louisiana Tech, Wyoming, Eastern Michigan and Middle Tennessee State on the last three schedules, but the Gators also have their yearly rivalry with Florida State (the teams have split the games evenly in the last decade at 5 wins apiece), and have managed to play Miami consistently in recent bowl games. They have the best QOF-Rating of any team in the SEC, but it still falls below 50% (.480).

A key aspect to consider in the QOF-Rating is that many of the opponents with 9 wins or more have come inside the conference, although there are many others that have come outside the conference as well. I will need to dive into this new found rating and perform this for all the conferences to get a good perspective of what these numbers actually define. So how good were the Gators last season? They were 6-1 versus teams who qualify with a QOF-Rating (9 wins or more). Thats a score of (.857) or a winning percentage of 85 percent. With their lone loss coming to Auburn, this bodes well for the SEC.

By comparison: (QOF-Ratings)

USC (4-1) - .800
Ohio State (3-1) - .750
Louisville (3-1) - .750
Oklahoma (2-2) - .500
Boise State (4-0) - 1.00

The drawback with this system is we have to wait until the end of the season to see if teams qualify for the nine win benchmark, but it could be a pivotal factor in defining a national champion if several one loss or undefeated teams qualify for the national championship picture.

"A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff - Truly Making Every Game A Playoff in College Football While Upholding The Tradition of the Bowls!"

by bcsbusters on Aug 27, 2007 12:39 AM EDT reply actions

Sorry to Spam you Kyle but I wanted U to see this!

In my previous article today I introduced a new concept called the Quality Opponent Factor (QOF) Rating which focuses on how teams have performed against other elite teams. I set the bar at a nine win minimum. The purpose of this was to come up with a rating variable to rank the top teams in the country as it becomes very difficult to effectively rate the difference between Penn State, Georgia, UCLA, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and Rutgers.

Since I utilized this rating scale to evaluate the SEC Conference in my previous article, I wanted to run this same criteria against the BCSBuster Pre-Season Top-25 to see if I ranked each team correctly. I chose the last three seasons as a common parameter and ran the results. It was a pretty shocking discovery!

BCSBusters QOF-Ratings Top-25

USC (12-2) - .857
Boston College (6-2) - .750
Auburn (10-4) - .714
Texas (6-3) - .666
Boise State (6-3) - .666
LSU (7-6) - .538
Florida (8-7) - .533

8T. Georgia (7-7) - .500

8T. Virginia Tech (6-6) - .500

8T. Louisville (4-4) - .500

8T. Ohio State (5-5) - .500

8T. Michigan (6-6) - .500

Notre Dame (6-7) - .461
West Virginia (5-6) - .454
Rutgers (4-5) - .444
Wisconsin (3-4) - .428
Oklahoma (5-7) - .416
Miami (4-6) - .400
Wake Forest (4-7) - .363

16T. Clemson (3-6) - .333

16T. California (3-6) - .333

Georgia Tech (4-9) - .307
Arizona (4-9) - .307
Florida State (3-7) - .300

20T. Tennessee (4-10) - .285

20T. Houston (2-5) - .285

Iowa (3-8) - .272
UCLA (2-6) - .250
So. Florida (2-6) - .250
Oregon State (3-10) - .230

25T. Texas Tech (2-7) - .222

25T. Oklahoma State (2-7) - .222

26T. Maryland (2-8) - .200

26T. Washington State (2-8) - .200

South Carolina (2-10) - .166
Kentucky (2-12) - .142
Arkansas (2-13) - .133

The three teams that look out of place are Boston College, Arizona and (gulp - gasp) Notre Dame. Other than that, this has become a pretty good tool for me because all the teams in the various rankings that are close together in terms of their Quality Opponent Factor are pretty darn close in terms of overall projection. I know it isn't proper to rank a team before a game is played based on previous seasons successes, but isn't this how we actually base our rankings? And shouldn't we be basing our rankings, especially a pre-season poll, on recent success, and not the typical 30-50 year traditional status in the game? Let me know what you think of this ranking tool and I will break down all of the BCS Conferences over the next couple of days.

Looks like summer is over for me - back to work in the morning trying to educate those elementary kids to adopt some fitness concepts for life. Even though I'm frosted that summer has ended, I know that football season is now only 4 days away - CAN'T WAIT!

"A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff - Truly Making Every Game A Playoff in College Football While Upholding The Tradition of the Bowls!"

by bcsbusters on Aug 27, 2007 2:43 AM EDT reply actions

As long as you're bringing up streaks...

Why not mention the 13 years where USC didn't manage to get a win over Notre Dame? Sure, it ended in 1996, but a streak's a streak.

[/sarcasm.]

Your point about ucla's slight lead in the cross-town rivalry game in the last 16 years is accurate, but also skips over the fact that whole win - loss counts for both teams comes in chunks - 8 straight wins for the bruins, 7 straight wins for USC, and 1 win for the bruins again. I'd suggest that looking at records longer than a generation of players don't really mean all that much, especially when the record is so evenly split - in other words, it doesn't reveal a long term divergence in results, just that the teams have been at slightly different points in their lifecycle of recruiting and wins.

As for the coming season, there's no arguing that ucla has a lot of veteran players back, and no arguing that they are capable of beating USC on a given day in December. However, this ucla team has not yet found a consistent season-to-season improvement since Karl Dorrell came to town, and has managed just that 1 win against USC - on the strength of a well designed and well executed defensive plan from DeWayne Walker. Whose defense then went and coughed up 44 points to Florida State.

I'll cheerfully agree that it's logical to think that ucla could be the challenger in the Pac-10 this year - they have the squad for it - but given the dreadful state of their coaching I wouldn't count on it. That's where I would hesitate in separating them out from Oregon and Cal.

by DC Trojan on Aug 27, 2007 11:25 AM EDT reply actions