I continue to find it fascinating when various commentators care more about what they wish had happened during this particular football season than actually analyzing the actual season that was actually played.
To recap:
1. The Pac-10 has had a rough season. Only two teams have fewer than five losses. The third team in the conference is 6-6. Only four teams have winning records. Fully half the conference isn't bowl eligible - counting sanctioned USC among the bowl-eligible. Even in the Big East, three quarters of the conference is bowl-eligible. The WAC and MWC both have half their teams bowl-eligible (9 of the 18 total teams in the two leagues). And obviously, the Pac-10 thinks enough of Utah (and Colorado, for that matter) to beg them to join.
2. The Big Ten, similarly, is Aces and spaces. Only three teams have fewer than five losses. Heck, only three teams have winning records in conference play. Unlike the Pac-10, at least there are three quality programs instead of two and the bulk of the league is headed to a bowl game. But similarly to the Pac-10, those top teams played very few games against quality opponents.
3. Name the best team Stanford has beaten all year. Five loss Notre Dame? Or perhaps you prefer the five loss USC team that lost to Notre Dame? Or five loss Arizona? Similarly,
4. Name the best team Ohio State has beaten all year? The five loss Iowa team that lost to the above-mentioned five loss Arizona team? The five loss Miami team that, in addition to losing to Big East South Florida, lost to fellow ACC teams Florida State and Virginia Tech, teams which were themselves beaten by Oklahoma and Boise State? In contrast,
5. Michigan State, Nevada, and Boise State are one-loss teams that have much better wins than Stanford and Ohio State. Is it even relevant that Michigan State beat Wisconsin, who beat Ohio State?
6. And then there are the two-loss teams. Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU are all teams with more impressive wins than Stanford and Ohio State. Arkansas gets into the BCS because the Sugar Bowl won't pick a slate without an SEC team, and Oklahoma gets to the Fiesta Bowl as Big 12 champs. LSU can't get in because the BCS only allows two teams per conference. This leaves two other slots. No way should Stanford and Ohio State be ranked above all three of the other one loss teams plus the two available two-loss teams. So,
7. Voila. We'll be subjected to another month of hearing about 'big name programs' and 'talent' and 'matchups' and basically anything to distract from those inconvenient 2010 Ws and Ls.
8. Bowl records don't prove anything. The point is who deserves to get there; most any team has a shot at beating most any other team in one game. However, this could be a particularly clear year about the over-ratedness of Ohio State and Stanford and the supremacy of the Big 12. The Big 12 in its finale as a twelve team league stands a very good chance of only losing one or two bowl games.
9. Nebraska hasn't been helping the Big 12. I'll organize some thoughts at some point about the transition of the Big 12. But the short story is that losing to Nebraska hurts those other Big 12 teams a lot, while Nebraska's wins hasn't helped them get ranked highly or helped those teams that beat Nebraska jump up the standings. It's no coincidence that both the Pac-10 and Big Ten are sending at-large teams, while the Big 12, with four ten win teams, gets none. Oregon is getting into the national championship over TCU.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Oklahoma
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. LSU
10. Oklahoma State
11. Nevada
12. Boise State
13. Ohio State
14. Stanford
15. Virginia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Nebraska
18. Alabama
19. Utah
20. Florida State
21. South Carolina
22. West Virginia
23. Mississippi State
24. Hawaii
25. San Diego State
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
12/07/2010
11/30/2010
no wonder the pac-10 needs utah
I've decided on a new way of looking at the Pac-10 this year. They're not a weak major conference. They're a good mid-major conference. It looks very much like the Mountain West and WAC, from the disparity between top and bottom right down to recruiting Utah to join the Pac-10. Fully half of the conference will finish the season with a losing record - unless, of course, Arizona picks up its fifth loss and Oregon its first. Stanford and Oregon have only beaten three teams each with a winning record all season. They each face just four bowl-eligible teams - including sanctioned USC.
This perspective helps address what to do with the fact that there are four one loss teams which I just don't think have had as good a season as most of the two loss teams. Specifically: Stanford, Nevada, Boise State, and Ohio State. Of those four, Nevada and Boise State have the best wins, not Stanford and Ohio State.
It's also the problem with the BCS. Not the rankings themselves so much as how the bowls choose their participants. If Stanford is good enough for a bowl, then so is Nevada and Boise. On the other hand, if the Sugar Bowl gets to pick Arkansas because they're in the SEC, that shows the problem with not having a BCS bowl in the Big 12. Over the long term, the easiest solution is adding the Cotton Bowl or creating some bowl with a particular tie-in to the Big 12 that's actually in the Big 12. In the short-term, my solution this year is to have the Sugar Bowl be Arkansas and Missouri.
As for the rest, here's a take a little different than most, but mostly in line now that Auburn is clearly at the top, TCU better than Boise, and Alabama now having the 5th best season in the SEC:
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Nebraska
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. Oklahoma
10. LSU
11. Oklahoma State
12. Ohio State
13. Nevada
14. Boise State
15. Stanford
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Alabama
20. Florida State
21. Utah
22. Mississippi State
23. Arizona
24. West Virginia
25. San Diego State
This perspective helps address what to do with the fact that there are four one loss teams which I just don't think have had as good a season as most of the two loss teams. Specifically: Stanford, Nevada, Boise State, and Ohio State. Of those four, Nevada and Boise State have the best wins, not Stanford and Ohio State.
It's also the problem with the BCS. Not the rankings themselves so much as how the bowls choose their participants. If Stanford is good enough for a bowl, then so is Nevada and Boise. On the other hand, if the Sugar Bowl gets to pick Arkansas because they're in the SEC, that shows the problem with not having a BCS bowl in the Big 12. Over the long term, the easiest solution is adding the Cotton Bowl or creating some bowl with a particular tie-in to the Big 12 that's actually in the Big 12. In the short-term, my solution this year is to have the Sugar Bowl be Arkansas and Missouri.
As for the rest, here's a take a little different than most, but mostly in line now that Auburn is clearly at the top, TCU better than Boise, and Alabama now having the 5th best season in the SEC:
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Nebraska
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. Oklahoma
10. LSU
11. Oklahoma State
12. Ohio State
13. Nevada
14. Boise State
15. Stanford
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Alabama
20. Florida State
21. Utah
22. Mississippi State
23. Arizona
24. West Virginia
25. San Diego State
11/22/2010
finale for the ages
Whatever else there is to say about the season, the Big 12 is going out in style. When you look at the combination of top teams, bowl eligible teams, and race for the champion, no other conference is close. The SEC is having a down year; that happens from time to time. Their conference championship game has already been decided; Auburn and South Carolina can both lose and they'll still face each other. It's really the Pac 10 and Big Ten I would pick on. The Pac 10 is awful. Fully half of the conference has a losing record. Assuming Oregon doesn't embarrass itself at Arizona, the Pac 10 only has two teams with fewer than four losses! Outside of their game against each other, Oregon and Stanford won't have played a single top 20 team all season. That's unbelievable when you think about it.
Meanwhile, in the Big Ten, there are three good teams. Everybody else has at least four losses there, too. And the one that won the head-to-head matchup isn't the one getting the respect. However, because Michigan State and Ohio State didn't play each other this year, that means they also, like Oregon and Stanford, had no other game in the entire season against a top 20 team.
At least the SEC, like the Big 12, has had its top teams playing good competition for more than one game. And the ACC and Big East are having competitive races; their shortfall is a lack of victories by their top teams out of conference.
In contrast, in the Big 12, every top team has played multiple games against other top teams. If Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M had only played one top 20 team, all five of them would have zero or one losses. Think about that. Every top team took care of non-conference games. Even bottom teams, like Colorado and Kansas, have wins against non-conference opponents like Hawaii, Georgia, and Georgia Tech. The championship game won't be determined until the very end of the season. There's a legitimate shot of having either ten bowl eligible teams or four different teams with at least ten wins each.
It seems fitting that part of the story comes down to Big 12 quitters Colorado and Nebraska. Does CU end its Big 12 run with an embarrassing season, or do they send NU packing with a gut-wrenching loss?
Meanwhile, in the Big Ten, there are three good teams. Everybody else has at least four losses there, too. And the one that won the head-to-head matchup isn't the one getting the respect. However, because Michigan State and Ohio State didn't play each other this year, that means they also, like Oregon and Stanford, had no other game in the entire season against a top 20 team.
At least the SEC, like the Big 12, has had its top teams playing good competition for more than one game. And the ACC and Big East are having competitive races; their shortfall is a lack of victories by their top teams out of conference.
In contrast, in the Big 12, every top team has played multiple games against other top teams. If Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M had only played one top 20 team, all five of them would have zero or one losses. Think about that. Every top team took care of non-conference games. Even bottom teams, like Colorado and Kansas, have wins against non-conference opponents like Hawaii, Georgia, and Georgia Tech. The championship game won't be determined until the very end of the season. There's a legitimate shot of having either ten bowl eligible teams or four different teams with at least ten wins each.
It seems fitting that part of the story comes down to Big 12 quitters Colorado and Nebraska. Does CU end its Big 12 run with an embarrassing season, or do they send NU packing with a gut-wrenching loss?
11/15/2010
i am spartacus
The title of this post takes as inspiration the hilarious police-state saga of Robin Hood airport in England. A frustrated airline passenger made a joke. On Twitter. And authorities, naturally, took it in stride.
By fining him for threatening to blow up the airport.
In response, thousands of people started using the hashtag iamspartacus.
Perhaps the Michigan State Spartans need a similar flurry of activity. The human voters seem to think they're not, like, in first place in the Big Ten. You know, having beaten Wisconsin. Like, on the field. During the season. The same Wisconsin team that turned around and beat Ohio State. On the field. During the season.
LSU, Missouri, and Oklahoma State are of course still underrated by the humans, as well, and Boise State remains overrated. This is the week I bump Oregon over TCU, too; a little bit sad, but it looks like Oregon really should be there. Utah, San Diego State, and Baylor are good wins, but the Stanford win for Oregon just seems to outweigh that now.
There is some good news, though. Alabama bias is officially over. And it looks very likely that the national championship will have Auburn, Oregon, and/or TCU. So come on humans, you are making progress. We're almost there.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Boise State
5. LSU
6. Nebraska
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arkansas
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Mississippi State
20. Iowa
21. Arizona
22. NC State
23. Florida State
24. Utah
25. Nevada
By fining him for threatening to blow up the airport.
In response, thousands of people started using the hashtag iamspartacus.
Perhaps the Michigan State Spartans need a similar flurry of activity. The human voters seem to think they're not, like, in first place in the Big Ten. You know, having beaten Wisconsin. Like, on the field. During the season. The same Wisconsin team that turned around and beat Ohio State. On the field. During the season.
LSU, Missouri, and Oklahoma State are of course still underrated by the humans, as well, and Boise State remains overrated. This is the week I bump Oregon over TCU, too; a little bit sad, but it looks like Oregon really should be there. Utah, San Diego State, and Baylor are good wins, but the Stanford win for Oregon just seems to outweigh that now.
There is some good news, though. Alabama bias is officially over. And it looks very likely that the national championship will have Auburn, Oregon, and/or TCU. So come on humans, you are making progress. We're almost there.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Boise State
5. LSU
6. Nebraska
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arkansas
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Mississippi State
20. Iowa
21. Arizona
22. NC State
23. Florida State
24. Utah
25. Nevada
11/08/2010
week 11 rankings
This is why they play the games. Alabama is still the third best team in the SEC.
And Michigan State still leads the Big Ten.
And horror of horrors, Nebraska is the best team in the Big 12 the year they are leaving. At least Colorado sucks; that helps, slightly.
The humans have acknowledged their SEC errors, and they now have TCU ahead of Boise State, but they still show silliness up north. Therefore, another ranking is necessary to correct these deficiencies.
1. Auburn
2. TCU
3. Oregon
4. Boise State
5. Nebraska
6. LSU
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arizona
16. Iowa
17. Arkansas
18. Mississippi State
19. Utah
20. Virginia Tech
21. Baylor
22. Kansas State
23. Texas A&M
24. Florida State
25. Florida
Subject to change with the actual games played next week, of course.
And Michigan State still leads the Big Ten.
And horror of horrors, Nebraska is the best team in the Big 12 the year they are leaving. At least Colorado sucks; that helps, slightly.
The humans have acknowledged their SEC errors, and they now have TCU ahead of Boise State, but they still show silliness up north. Therefore, another ranking is necessary to correct these deficiencies.
1. Auburn
2. TCU
3. Oregon
4. Boise State
5. Nebraska
6. LSU
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arizona
16. Iowa
17. Arkansas
18. Mississippi State
19. Utah
20. Virginia Tech
21. Baylor
22. Kansas State
23. Texas A&M
24. Florida State
25. Florida
Subject to change with the actual games played next week, of course.
11/05/2010
fed rally sports trifecta
I'm actually home enough now to a put a few thoughts down! The past couple weeks have been fantastically busy.
DC was absolutely gorgeous this past weekend. Warm for Halloween, brilliantly clear skies, perfect backdrop against the Capitol. We overwhelmed the city; literally. There were people waiting so long for the subway in the morning that they didn't make it to the mall by the time the rally was over. It took Doug over half an hour just to buy a ticket at 9 in the morning. Oh, and Jon, there are bees in DC in October. One was buzzing around our section of the crowd for about half the rally.
The Federal Reserve is even more anxious and insecure than I imagined. They're so afraid now that they openly view the public as the enemy, personified beautifully by how they handle their flagship building, the Eccles building. One of the great structures to come out of the Great Depression, it's built in dignified stone and marble on Constitution Ave overlooking the northwest end of the mall. We just don't build like that anymore. Unlike many other government buildings in the area, this structure is built back from the road, allowing a simple public plaza area between the steps and the street. Fountains and stone benches flank the sides, while stone pathways and open grassy areas comprise the middle.
Bernanke has instructed his security guards to chase off American citizens having the audacity to use this public plaza, far away from the actual entrance to the building. On a Sunday afternoon. With the Marine Corps Marathon running along Constitution Ave. I never knew how powerful a scrawny white dude was to confront our failed and fraudulent financial crooks until I was literally chased away from their HQ. I can't think of anything that would better symbolize what is going on in our country right now.
Except maybe college football voters. Just totally bizarre. Nebraska is ranked 6th by the computers, 10.5 by the humans. LSU tied Nebraska for 6th in the computers, but has an 11.5 by the humans. The machines have Michigan State at 10; it's 15.5 for the humans. Missouri is number 4 in the computers, 14.5 in the human polls. Of course, Alabama and Ohio State work the other way: 15 and 16 in the computer rankings, 5 and 8 in the human polls.
This is getting to the point where it's hysterically funny. Michigan State is number 1 in the Big Ten right now, except the humans think they're number 3. Missouri and LSU both lost to much better teams than Alabama, so of course the humans think Alabama is having a much better season. Forget playoffs. We should just select the BCS participants from the preseason prognostications. Playing the games seems to be an irrelevant waste of time. I can't wait to see how this weekend turns out. And I do wonder if Nebraska is going to get the Missouri treatment. What if Missouri wins out, Nebraska loses in the Big 12 Championship, and then the BCS selects Missouri over Nebraska the way Kansas was chosen over Missouri a couple years ago?
DC was absolutely gorgeous this past weekend. Warm for Halloween, brilliantly clear skies, perfect backdrop against the Capitol. We overwhelmed the city; literally. There were people waiting so long for the subway in the morning that they didn't make it to the mall by the time the rally was over. It took Doug over half an hour just to buy a ticket at 9 in the morning. Oh, and Jon, there are bees in DC in October. One was buzzing around our section of the crowd for about half the rally.
The Federal Reserve is even more anxious and insecure than I imagined. They're so afraid now that they openly view the public as the enemy, personified beautifully by how they handle their flagship building, the Eccles building. One of the great structures to come out of the Great Depression, it's built in dignified stone and marble on Constitution Ave overlooking the northwest end of the mall. We just don't build like that anymore. Unlike many other government buildings in the area, this structure is built back from the road, allowing a simple public plaza area between the steps and the street. Fountains and stone benches flank the sides, while stone pathways and open grassy areas comprise the middle.
Bernanke has instructed his security guards to chase off American citizens having the audacity to use this public plaza, far away from the actual entrance to the building. On a Sunday afternoon. With the Marine Corps Marathon running along Constitution Ave. I never knew how powerful a scrawny white dude was to confront our failed and fraudulent financial crooks until I was literally chased away from their HQ. I can't think of anything that would better symbolize what is going on in our country right now.
Except maybe college football voters. Just totally bizarre. Nebraska is ranked 6th by the computers, 10.5 by the humans. LSU tied Nebraska for 6th in the computers, but has an 11.5 by the humans. The machines have Michigan State at 10; it's 15.5 for the humans. Missouri is number 4 in the computers, 14.5 in the human polls. Of course, Alabama and Ohio State work the other way: 15 and 16 in the computer rankings, 5 and 8 in the human polls.
This is getting to the point where it's hysterically funny. Michigan State is number 1 in the Big Ten right now, except the humans think they're number 3. Missouri and LSU both lost to much better teams than Alabama, so of course the humans think Alabama is having a much better season. Forget playoffs. We should just select the BCS participants from the preseason prognostications. Playing the games seems to be an irrelevant waste of time. I can't wait to see how this weekend turns out. And I do wonder if Nebraska is going to get the Missouri treatment. What if Missouri wins out, Nebraska loses in the Big 12 Championship, and then the BCS selects Missouri over Nebraska the way Kansas was chosen over Missouri a couple years ago?
10/27/2010
(non-election) polls and margins of victory
Earlier this week was a detailed post. Today a specific example of one problem with lazy poll voters in college football: the margin of victory. Quite simply, margin of victory in itself is a relatively useless bit of information. Every game is unique.
Using margin of victory creates hilariously ridiculous constructs.
For example, margin of victory is one of the few things that people who rank a team like Boise State over a team like Missouri or Auburn can point to as evidence for why Boise State is a 'better' team. Well, here's a little fun comparison. Colorado is either the second to worst or worst team in the Big 12 (that will be decided when CU plays KU). This Colorado team beat Hawaii 31-13, an 18 point spread.
That's the same Hawaii that's tied for first in the WAC, Boise State's conference.
Now, Hawaii and Boise State have both played Louisiana Tech, another WAC team. Hawaii won by 20 points, and Boise State by 29. Using margin of victory, that makes Boise State look a little more impressive than Hawaii. How much more impressive does that make them look than Colorado? Then, if you learn that Missouri beat Colorado by 26 points, how would you compare Boise State and Missouri? This sort of exercise wouldn't suggest that Missouri and Boise State are roughly equal teams. It would suggest that Colorado and Boise State are roughly equal teams, with Missouri being notably better.
Now, I don't think Missouri is significantly superior to Boise State; I think they're pretty evenly matched teams, actually. But if you're going to apply concepts other than wins/losses and strength of schedule, then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes, the additional factors can make things even more bizarre. If you subtract Colorado's 18 point spread from Boise State's points, that makes their margins of victory look a lot less impressive.
Expecting schools like Michigan State, Missouri, or Auburn to post point spreads remotely close to Boise State (or Oregon, for that matter, whose only game against a team with a winning record so far is Stanford) is comical.
Fortunately, the season is long enough that if the Spartans, Tigers, and Tigers continue winning, they will jump Oregon and Boise State. But particularly with Boise State, the question is, why wouldn't they already have jumped them? They've got the same record. They've beaten better opponents. And margin of victory looks pretty similar when the games in question are actually analyzed. All three of the Big 12/SEC/Big Ten undefeateds have shown they can win by over 20 points. They just can't do that regularly against top opponents.
After all, just look at the score from the Boise State - Virginia Tech game. Boise State won by a whopping three points, less than Michigan State's ten point victory over Wisconsin, less than Missouri's nine point victory over Oklahoma, and less than Auburn's seven point victory over LSU. Both the human pollsters and the computers agree that Virginia Tech is not as good as Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and LSU.
I think it's highly unlikely that all three of these teams remain undefeated. But at least one of them might, and it will be really interesting at that juncture to hear why people place Oregon, Boise State, and/or some one-loss team (say, Alabama) ahead of them.
Using margin of victory creates hilariously ridiculous constructs.
For example, margin of victory is one of the few things that people who rank a team like Boise State over a team like Missouri or Auburn can point to as evidence for why Boise State is a 'better' team. Well, here's a little fun comparison. Colorado is either the second to worst or worst team in the Big 12 (that will be decided when CU plays KU). This Colorado team beat Hawaii 31-13, an 18 point spread.
That's the same Hawaii that's tied for first in the WAC, Boise State's conference.
Now, Hawaii and Boise State have both played Louisiana Tech, another WAC team. Hawaii won by 20 points, and Boise State by 29. Using margin of victory, that makes Boise State look a little more impressive than Hawaii. How much more impressive does that make them look than Colorado? Then, if you learn that Missouri beat Colorado by 26 points, how would you compare Boise State and Missouri? This sort of exercise wouldn't suggest that Missouri and Boise State are roughly equal teams. It would suggest that Colorado and Boise State are roughly equal teams, with Missouri being notably better.
Now, I don't think Missouri is significantly superior to Boise State; I think they're pretty evenly matched teams, actually. But if you're going to apply concepts other than wins/losses and strength of schedule, then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes, the additional factors can make things even more bizarre. If you subtract Colorado's 18 point spread from Boise State's points, that makes their margins of victory look a lot less impressive.
Expecting schools like Michigan State, Missouri, or Auburn to post point spreads remotely close to Boise State (or Oregon, for that matter, whose only game against a team with a winning record so far is Stanford) is comical.
Fortunately, the season is long enough that if the Spartans, Tigers, and Tigers continue winning, they will jump Oregon and Boise State. But particularly with Boise State, the question is, why wouldn't they already have jumped them? They've got the same record. They've beaten better opponents. And margin of victory looks pretty similar when the games in question are actually analyzed. All three of the Big 12/SEC/Big Ten undefeateds have shown they can win by over 20 points. They just can't do that regularly against top opponents.
After all, just look at the score from the Boise State - Virginia Tech game. Boise State won by a whopping three points, less than Michigan State's ten point victory over Wisconsin, less than Missouri's nine point victory over Oklahoma, and less than Auburn's seven point victory over LSU. Both the human pollsters and the computers agree that Virginia Tech is not as good as Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and LSU.
I think it's highly unlikely that all three of these teams remain undefeated. But at least one of them might, and it will be really interesting at that juncture to hear why people place Oregon, Boise State, and/or some one-loss team (say, Alabama) ahead of them.
10/26/2010
machines smarter than humans, again
I was prepared for this to be a slow, sad sports season, really. The Chiefs and Rams are coming off of horrific stretches. The Big 12 is saying farewell to Nebraska, heading east, and Colorado, looking west. And there are More Important Things, from the economy and midterm elections to new phases for family and friends. Not to mention that I'm behind on computer games.
But dang nabbit, something is in the water this fall. After a hot summer, this fall has been fantastic. Missouri's NFL franchises are 7-6. That's a winning record; better seasons for both teams have already been assured and we're less than half way through this season!
The Missouri Tigers have also won 7 games. Without losing any. To top it off, the Spartans are undefeated as well, while the media darlings of Alabama and Ohio State have both lost a game already.
And that's where this all comes to a head. The silly season of incoherent poll voters is in full swing. For all the incessant yacking and yammering about how awful the BCS is, the main problem is that the human polls account for twice as much weighting as the computers. (human) Pollsters that do things like looking at prior years instead of the current year. Or assign present values based upon what they believe will happen in the future instead of what has already happened up to this point. Or apply different criteria to different teams. It's truly bizarre, and this season demonstrates the madness in several ways, particularly looking at the most basic things in sports: the win-loss record and strength of competition.
In years when there is lots of chaos caused by few or no teams with unblemished records, the challenge becomes how do you rank teams that have lost games. But the first half of this season is comprised of something rather straightforward: There's an undefeated team in the Big 12, the SEC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10, the Mountain West (which has two), and the WAC. It's pretty simple. This is the absence of chaos; it's called order. These are the teams you talk about first, before looking at the bigger picture. And when you start actually looking at 2010's undefeated teams, I'd argue it becomes pretty clear that there are four teams that have distanced themselves from the pack. None of them, by the way, have the names of Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, or Boise State. Nope, the top tier of teams for the first half of the 2010 season are, in alphabetical order, Auburn, Michigan State, Missouri, and TCU.
In order to rank a team above those four, some other consideration has to come into play. And in order for that to be legitimate, that consideration has to be applied to all teams. That's the key point: consistency. The computers bring it in spades. The polls, well, sometimes I'm not sure what they're smokin'.
Here's how the BCS computers rank the top four teams:
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
Here's the Harris and USA Today polls:
1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Auburn
4. TCU
To demonstrate the overwhelming stranglehold of the humans over the BCS - even though all you'll hear in the media is pundits decrying the horrible choices of the computers - is to look at the combined rankings. Oregon and Boise State remain in the top 4.
And this leads us to the natural question: what consideration is being applied equally to reach this kind of disparity by teh humanz? The computers think the SEC leader should play the Big 12 leader for the national championship, with the Big Ten and Mountain West leaders being the runners up. The human polls don't put either Auburn or Missouri in the top 2, and they don't include Missouri or Michigan State in the top 4 at all!
Poll voters aren't just not biased against Boise State and Oregon. They're rabidly biased in favor of them, to the point of crowding out the real story lines of the first half of the season. In fact, there's such a drop-off after my top four teams, that the computers handle this in an interesting way. They put one-loss Oklahoma at number 5. And one-loss LSU ties Boise State for sixth, then Oregon at number 8.
Then there's the matter of one-loss teams. There's no way around the human stupidity of ranking Alabama so highly. None. When Missouri loses to Nebraska, then you can rank Alabama higher - but that loss hasn't happened yet! It's not just Missouri that's slighted by Alabama bias, though. Every one loss team suffers. You see, not only is Alabama not on some semi-pro uberwonderseason, but they haven't even put together the best first half of the season among one loss teams. Their loss at South Carolina is worse than Oklahoma's loss at Missouri, or Wisconsin's at Michigan State, or Ohio State's at Wisconsin, or Stanford's at Oregon, or Florida State's at Oklahoma, or LSU's at Auburn, or Oklahoma State's loss to Nebraska. In fact, what's remarkable about Alabama's loss compared to other top one-loss teams is how badly they got beat by a lesser team than the victors of all those other one-loss teams.
Oh, but it's the quality wins you say, not the losses? Ah, interesting. What teams have Oregon and Boise State beat again (this year) to warrant placing them ahead of Auburn, Missouri, Michigan State, and TCU? Uh-huh. And then when we look specifically at Alabama, they haven't beaten anybody with fewer than two losses. Wisconsin has beaten Ohio State. Nebraska has beaten Oklahoma State. Oklahoma has beaten Florida State. Heck, even Stanford's win over USC is as high a quality as any victory on Alabama's schedule so far.
The computers recognize this, too, and rank Alabama accordingly: at number 12. Alabama is a great team, one of the best in the country. They just don't belong in the Top Ten until they beat Auburn and LSU - which, as of now, they haven't done - and until Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wisconsin, and Ohio State lose more games - which, as of now, hasn't happened, either.
So if it's not being undefeated, and it's not the quality of wins, and it's not the quality of losses, how are pollsters making decisions? Is it the conference?
Well, TCU is in the only conference with two unbeaten teams, and other schools like Air Force and San Diego State are playing competitively, too. That's all the more reason to rank them ahead of Boise State. The Big 12, meanwhile, is putting on a conference finale for the ages. Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State are all quality programs. In the Embarrassment of the Season Bowl, Colorado beat Georgia. Heck, Baylor is bowl eligible, Texas is simply middle of the pack, and Kansas managed to beat Georgia Tech. In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look very solid. Oh yeah, Michigan has a guy who can make headlines. It's also interesting that Iowa is ranked so much more highly by humans than machines; why wouldn't the Big Ten love be going to Michigan State, first and foremost? And Illinois beat the same Penn State team Alabama did. In a bizarre twist, the SEC luster isn't rubbing off on the conference's undefeated team, or even the team it beat. Rather, it's the third best SEC performance of the first half, Alabama, hogging all the (human) headlines.
After all, we can't have preseason prognosticators bothered by how the season actually turns out. I mean, imagine if the World Series wasn't the Yanks and Phillies? How could Texas and San Francisco even be worth talking about?
Unfortunately, this post has to be this long, because it's absolutely necessary to point out the inherent contradiction which the humans can't shake: it simply can't be that Boise State and Oregon are having great years while it is also true that Alabama is having a great year. The second half of the season could very well play out differently, particularly with possible losses for Missouri at Nebraska, Michigan State at Iowa, Auburn at Alabama, and TCU/Utah. But as we mark the roughly halfway point through the season, it needs reminding in all the biased pundit hype that so far in the 2010 season, the computers are smarter than the pollsters. The problem with using coaches to rank these things is that coaches have a far more important demand on their time - coaching. There's no evil conspiracy here, just an unfortunate problem with relying so heavily on the human polls. Fortunately, there's a simple solution. Have the computer rankings account for half the score, rather than 1/3.
So, here's where I place things. I will re-arrange accordingly after my higher ranked teams actually lose and the lower ranked teams actually win. And remember, the computers will adjust, too. They have no pre-season prediction egos to feed. That's probably why the media blathers on about how horrible the machines are. Change is scary.
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
5. Oregon
6. Boise State
7. Utah
8. Oklahoma
9. Wisconsin
10. Ohio State
11. LSU
12. Alabama
13. Nebraska
14. Florida State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Stanford
17. Arizona
18. Mississippi State
19. Iowa
20. Baylor
21. South Carolina
22. Arkansas
23. Virginia Tech
24. Miami
25. San Diego State
But dang nabbit, something is in the water this fall. After a hot summer, this fall has been fantastic. Missouri's NFL franchises are 7-6. That's a winning record; better seasons for both teams have already been assured and we're less than half way through this season!
The Missouri Tigers have also won 7 games. Without losing any. To top it off, the Spartans are undefeated as well, while the media darlings of Alabama and Ohio State have both lost a game already.
And that's where this all comes to a head. The silly season of incoherent poll voters is in full swing. For all the incessant yacking and yammering about how awful the BCS is, the main problem is that the human polls account for twice as much weighting as the computers. (human) Pollsters that do things like looking at prior years instead of the current year. Or assign present values based upon what they believe will happen in the future instead of what has already happened up to this point. Or apply different criteria to different teams. It's truly bizarre, and this season demonstrates the madness in several ways, particularly looking at the most basic things in sports: the win-loss record and strength of competition.
In years when there is lots of chaos caused by few or no teams with unblemished records, the challenge becomes how do you rank teams that have lost games. But the first half of this season is comprised of something rather straightforward: There's an undefeated team in the Big 12, the SEC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10, the Mountain West (which has two), and the WAC. It's pretty simple. This is the absence of chaos; it's called order. These are the teams you talk about first, before looking at the bigger picture. And when you start actually looking at 2010's undefeated teams, I'd argue it becomes pretty clear that there are four teams that have distanced themselves from the pack. None of them, by the way, have the names of Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, or Boise State. Nope, the top tier of teams for the first half of the 2010 season are, in alphabetical order, Auburn, Michigan State, Missouri, and TCU.
In order to rank a team above those four, some other consideration has to come into play. And in order for that to be legitimate, that consideration has to be applied to all teams. That's the key point: consistency. The computers bring it in spades. The polls, well, sometimes I'm not sure what they're smokin'.
Here's how the BCS computers rank the top four teams:
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
Here's the Harris and USA Today polls:
1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Auburn
4. TCU
To demonstrate the overwhelming stranglehold of the humans over the BCS - even though all you'll hear in the media is pundits decrying the horrible choices of the computers - is to look at the combined rankings. Oregon and Boise State remain in the top 4.
And this leads us to the natural question: what consideration is being applied equally to reach this kind of disparity by teh humanz? The computers think the SEC leader should play the Big 12 leader for the national championship, with the Big Ten and Mountain West leaders being the runners up. The human polls don't put either Auburn or Missouri in the top 2, and they don't include Missouri or Michigan State in the top 4 at all!
Poll voters aren't just not biased against Boise State and Oregon. They're rabidly biased in favor of them, to the point of crowding out the real story lines of the first half of the season. In fact, there's such a drop-off after my top four teams, that the computers handle this in an interesting way. They put one-loss Oklahoma at number 5. And one-loss LSU ties Boise State for sixth, then Oregon at number 8.
Then there's the matter of one-loss teams. There's no way around the human stupidity of ranking Alabama so highly. None. When Missouri loses to Nebraska, then you can rank Alabama higher - but that loss hasn't happened yet! It's not just Missouri that's slighted by Alabama bias, though. Every one loss team suffers. You see, not only is Alabama not on some semi-pro uberwonderseason, but they haven't even put together the best first half of the season among one loss teams. Their loss at South Carolina is worse than Oklahoma's loss at Missouri, or Wisconsin's at Michigan State, or Ohio State's at Wisconsin, or Stanford's at Oregon, or Florida State's at Oklahoma, or LSU's at Auburn, or Oklahoma State's loss to Nebraska. In fact, what's remarkable about Alabama's loss compared to other top one-loss teams is how badly they got beat by a lesser team than the victors of all those other one-loss teams.
Oh, but it's the quality wins you say, not the losses? Ah, interesting. What teams have Oregon and Boise State beat again (this year) to warrant placing them ahead of Auburn, Missouri, Michigan State, and TCU? Uh-huh. And then when we look specifically at Alabama, they haven't beaten anybody with fewer than two losses. Wisconsin has beaten Ohio State. Nebraska has beaten Oklahoma State. Oklahoma has beaten Florida State. Heck, even Stanford's win over USC is as high a quality as any victory on Alabama's schedule so far.
The computers recognize this, too, and rank Alabama accordingly: at number 12. Alabama is a great team, one of the best in the country. They just don't belong in the Top Ten until they beat Auburn and LSU - which, as of now, they haven't done - and until Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wisconsin, and Ohio State lose more games - which, as of now, hasn't happened, either.
So if it's not being undefeated, and it's not the quality of wins, and it's not the quality of losses, how are pollsters making decisions? Is it the conference?
Well, TCU is in the only conference with two unbeaten teams, and other schools like Air Force and San Diego State are playing competitively, too. That's all the more reason to rank them ahead of Boise State. The Big 12, meanwhile, is putting on a conference finale for the ages. Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State are all quality programs. In the Embarrassment of the Season Bowl, Colorado beat Georgia. Heck, Baylor is bowl eligible, Texas is simply middle of the pack, and Kansas managed to beat Georgia Tech. In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look very solid. Oh yeah, Michigan has a guy who can make headlines. It's also interesting that Iowa is ranked so much more highly by humans than machines; why wouldn't the Big Ten love be going to Michigan State, first and foremost? And Illinois beat the same Penn State team Alabama did. In a bizarre twist, the SEC luster isn't rubbing off on the conference's undefeated team, or even the team it beat. Rather, it's the third best SEC performance of the first half, Alabama, hogging all the (human) headlines.
After all, we can't have preseason prognosticators bothered by how the season actually turns out. I mean, imagine if the World Series wasn't the Yanks and Phillies? How could Texas and San Francisco even be worth talking about?
Unfortunately, this post has to be this long, because it's absolutely necessary to point out the inherent contradiction which the humans can't shake: it simply can't be that Boise State and Oregon are having great years while it is also true that Alabama is having a great year. The second half of the season could very well play out differently, particularly with possible losses for Missouri at Nebraska, Michigan State at Iowa, Auburn at Alabama, and TCU/Utah. But as we mark the roughly halfway point through the season, it needs reminding in all the biased pundit hype that so far in the 2010 season, the computers are smarter than the pollsters. The problem with using coaches to rank these things is that coaches have a far more important demand on their time - coaching. There's no evil conspiracy here, just an unfortunate problem with relying so heavily on the human polls. Fortunately, there's a simple solution. Have the computer rankings account for half the score, rather than 1/3.
So, here's where I place things. I will re-arrange accordingly after my higher ranked teams actually lose and the lower ranked teams actually win. And remember, the computers will adjust, too. They have no pre-season prediction egos to feed. That's probably why the media blathers on about how horrible the machines are. Change is scary.
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
5. Oregon
6. Boise State
7. Utah
8. Oklahoma
9. Wisconsin
10. Ohio State
11. LSU
12. Alabama
13. Nebraska
14. Florida State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Stanford
17. Arizona
18. Mississippi State
19. Iowa
20. Baylor
21. South Carolina
22. Arkansas
23. Virginia Tech
24. Miami
25. San Diego State
10/22/2010
it's here
And I don't mean ESPN College GameDay.
Nope, just talking about my car.
Wait for it.
And then it's gone.
Nope, just talking about my car.
Wait for it.
And then it's gone.
10/11/2010
the chiefs are in the playoffs
A couple weeks ago, I said the Chargers' early road sloppiness meant they had to win the games in this stretch against Arizona, Oakland, and St. Louis, while the Chiefs didn't need to beat Indy or Houston.
Well, two games in, the Chargers have already lost.
There are all sorts of things that can go wrong over the course of the season - from horrific injuries to brutal mental collapses - but it is truly amazing how early in the season it appears that such a bad team as the 2009 Chiefs were are now poised in 2010 to win the division. There are 12 games left to play for the Chiefs, and no team appears more in control of their division race than Kansas City. Now, it's quite possible actually San Diego could win a wildcard spot. They get games against New England, Tennessee, Indianapolis, and Houston, which if they win could all be potential tie breakers for a wildcard spot. Of course, those are all potential losses for the Chargers, too, which is part of their problem looking ahead at their schedule.
But at any rate, from the perspective of the AFC West and the Chiefs, wow. They're ahead in the loss column, the division record, and remaining opponents. Either the defense frustrated the dominant offense in the AFC South, or the Colts are in decline similar to the Chargers and the AFC South teams will all be giving each other losses, making it quite possible that the West picks up a wildcard team at the expense of the South. The offense had one of the most impressive strings of failures you can see, and the team was in the game on the road until the final few minutes. Scary. I have now firmly transitioned from being excited for a winning record to wanting to see a division title this year with this team.
Well, two games in, the Chargers have already lost.
There are all sorts of things that can go wrong over the course of the season - from horrific injuries to brutal mental collapses - but it is truly amazing how early in the season it appears that such a bad team as the 2009 Chiefs were are now poised in 2010 to win the division. There are 12 games left to play for the Chiefs, and no team appears more in control of their division race than Kansas City. Now, it's quite possible actually San Diego could win a wildcard spot. They get games against New England, Tennessee, Indianapolis, and Houston, which if they win could all be potential tie breakers for a wildcard spot. Of course, those are all potential losses for the Chargers, too, which is part of their problem looking ahead at their schedule.
But at any rate, from the perspective of the AFC West and the Chiefs, wow. They're ahead in the loss column, the division record, and remaining opponents. Either the defense frustrated the dominant offense in the AFC South, or the Colts are in decline similar to the Chargers and the AFC South teams will all be giving each other losses, making it quite possible that the West picks up a wildcard team at the expense of the South. The offense had one of the most impressive strings of failures you can see, and the team was in the game on the road until the final few minutes. Scary. I have now firmly transitioned from being excited for a winning record to wanting to see a division title this year with this team.
9/30/2010
stars continue to align
At a superficial level, one would expect the Chiefs to be a below average but not rock bottom team this year. They've got some untested players and coaches, and they are coming off a three year reign of terror, so to speak, wherein they've won all of about 10 games. Out of 48. (Although, interestingly, they only finished last in the division in two of those three seasons). Looking forward, it appears the Chiefs have troughed, and the question is how far to the upswing they might progress this season. And the big question mark about the Chargers is how fast their dominance will fade over the next couple seasons. In fact, San Diego's four consecutive division titles is the longest AFC West streak since the Raiders of the 1970s won five in a row.
So with that context we entered 2010. From the perspective of the Chiefs, it has the potential to be a particularly noteworthy affair, more than just a small improvement over 2009. After some seasons where it seemed like the schedulers were out to get us (one of those fun fan complaints), 2010 is set up nicely for things to potentially get very interesting. Our home/away matchups mimic the Chargers, which gives us a good guidepost (assuming San Diego is still the team to beat this year). With the renovations to Arrowhead complete, there is some additional excitement on that front.
But I say potential, because the stars do have to align for this to be a magical season. Which, of course, is why seasons like this one could be are described as magical.
Consider the stretch before the bye week. In the early part of the Chiefs' schedule, the pressure was on Kansas City to perform. Right out of the gate, we hosted a division rival on Monday night at home. If you're going to be competitive, you have to win divisional home games. Then, the second game of the season is one of the winnable road games, and the third game back at home. Again, these are the kinds of games that need to be won to be competitive. It doesn't have to be pretty; just be ahead when the clock hits zero.
Well, the Chiefs actually performed. It took two ugly wins and better adaption to weather, but this season is already materially different than the previous three. That means the pressure is now on the Chargers. Next up for us is a bye week and two road games we don't need to win. San Diego, though, has to win three times in the next three weeks. Now, it's possible that San Diego still has another year of dominance left, their early difficulties losing two flukey road games don't mean anything, and they finish the season about 13-3 and win the division handily. In that case, the Chiefs improve from last year, celebrate that, and go into 2011 aiming for division champ.
But it's also possible that the Chargers are losing close games on the road because they're not that much better than the rest of the league. In that case, let's go back to the schedule. Due to losing at Arrowhead, the Chargers absolutely have to beat the Chiefs at home later this year. If KC pulls off a victory at either Indianapolis or Houston over the next two weeks, that means San Diego absolutely must do the same thing. With the Chiefs' victory against their AFC North opponent, and upcoming AFC East opponent being the Buffalo Bills, the Chargers are under the gun to beat both the Patriots and Bengals. In short, by coming out of the first six weeks at least 3-2 (which is already done, after week 3), KC, for the whole rest of the season, puts the pressure on San Diego, a team that won three times as many games as the Chiefs last year.
It only takes one more mistake by San Diego, losing a sloppy road game or getting surprised at home, and the Chiefs might have a hard time not looking phenomenal. Of course, the Chiefs could also finish the season about 3-10 after their 3-0 start, too.
If you'd asked me a month ago, I would have been excited for a winning season. Now, I think there is legitimate talk about the Chiefs vying for the division title, this year, based on what has happened so far and then looking out at the scheduling yet to come. It's your move, San Diego. Are you going 12-1 the rest of the season, or not? Were the Seattle and KC losses more September flukes, or are you also going to lose at Indy, Houston, Cincinnati, Denver, and Oakland? Are New England and Tennessee going to come in and beat you at home? Are you even, perhaps, worried about Sam Bradford and the newly resurgent 1-15 St. Louis Rams? Time will tell. I can't wait to see how the universe aligns.
It's been a few years since MO NFL fans were actually excited about seeing how the season unfolds. This is the combined record of the Chiefs and Rams over the past three seasons: 16-80. Ouch.
So with that context we entered 2010. From the perspective of the Chiefs, it has the potential to be a particularly noteworthy affair, more than just a small improvement over 2009. After some seasons where it seemed like the schedulers were out to get us (one of those fun fan complaints), 2010 is set up nicely for things to potentially get very interesting. Our home/away matchups mimic the Chargers, which gives us a good guidepost (assuming San Diego is still the team to beat this year). With the renovations to Arrowhead complete, there is some additional excitement on that front.
But I say potential, because the stars do have to align for this to be a magical season. Which, of course, is why seasons like this one could be are described as magical.
Consider the stretch before the bye week. In the early part of the Chiefs' schedule, the pressure was on Kansas City to perform. Right out of the gate, we hosted a division rival on Monday night at home. If you're going to be competitive, you have to win divisional home games. Then, the second game of the season is one of the winnable road games, and the third game back at home. Again, these are the kinds of games that need to be won to be competitive. It doesn't have to be pretty; just be ahead when the clock hits zero.
Well, the Chiefs actually performed. It took two ugly wins and better adaption to weather, but this season is already materially different than the previous three. That means the pressure is now on the Chargers. Next up for us is a bye week and two road games we don't need to win. San Diego, though, has to win three times in the next three weeks. Now, it's possible that San Diego still has another year of dominance left, their early difficulties losing two flukey road games don't mean anything, and they finish the season about 13-3 and win the division handily. In that case, the Chiefs improve from last year, celebrate that, and go into 2011 aiming for division champ.
But it's also possible that the Chargers are losing close games on the road because they're not that much better than the rest of the league. In that case, let's go back to the schedule. Due to losing at Arrowhead, the Chargers absolutely have to beat the Chiefs at home later this year. If KC pulls off a victory at either Indianapolis or Houston over the next two weeks, that means San Diego absolutely must do the same thing. With the Chiefs' victory against their AFC North opponent, and upcoming AFC East opponent being the Buffalo Bills, the Chargers are under the gun to beat both the Patriots and Bengals. In short, by coming out of the first six weeks at least 3-2 (which is already done, after week 3), KC, for the whole rest of the season, puts the pressure on San Diego, a team that won three times as many games as the Chiefs last year.
It only takes one more mistake by San Diego, losing a sloppy road game or getting surprised at home, and the Chiefs might have a hard time not looking phenomenal. Of course, the Chiefs could also finish the season about 3-10 after their 3-0 start, too.
If you'd asked me a month ago, I would have been excited for a winning season. Now, I think there is legitimate talk about the Chiefs vying for the division title, this year, based on what has happened so far and then looking out at the scheduling yet to come. It's your move, San Diego. Are you going 12-1 the rest of the season, or not? Were the Seattle and KC losses more September flukes, or are you also going to lose at Indy, Houston, Cincinnati, Denver, and Oakland? Are New England and Tennessee going to come in and beat you at home? Are you even, perhaps, worried about Sam Bradford and the newly resurgent 1-15 St. Louis Rams? Time will tell. I can't wait to see how the universe aligns.
It's been a few years since MO NFL fans were actually excited about seeing how the season unfolds. This is the combined record of the Chiefs and Rams over the past three seasons: 16-80. Ouch.
9/27/2010
have a seat, stay for awhile
For the non sports fans, the Rams have had some problems recently. They didn't even win a home game last year.
But this year, the Rams have played competitive games against the Raiders and the Cardinals. Sam Bradford, the rookie from Oklahoma, is making by far the most impact in the NFL this season. By comparison, Florida's Tim Tebow isn't even the Broncos starter.
And here we are playing Washington tough. The Rams take the best Washington can throw at them, regain the lead, and...make the lead even bigger! And what do St. Louis fans do?
That's right. They start leaving.
This is a party. The first home win in four years. The Rams are only a game out of first place in the NFC West. They're not even in last place in the division. Savor this. Either this is the start of something incredible, or a rarity to be relished.
Stick around for awhile. At least, be there when the clock hits zero.
But this year, the Rams have played competitive games against the Raiders and the Cardinals. Sam Bradford, the rookie from Oklahoma, is making by far the most impact in the NFL this season. By comparison, Florida's Tim Tebow isn't even the Broncos starter.
And here we are playing Washington tough. The Rams take the best Washington can throw at them, regain the lead, and...make the lead even bigger! And what do St. Louis fans do?
That's right. They start leaving.
This is a party. The first home win in four years. The Rams are only a game out of first place in the NFC West. They're not even in last place in the division. Savor this. Either this is the start of something incredible, or a rarity to be relished.
Stick around for awhile. At least, be there when the clock hits zero.
11/15/2009
raider week pulls it out
It's been a long season, and we're barely more than half way through.
But the Chiefs sweatshirt was not for naught this evening! Time to go shopping for dinner now. Broccoli and Tacos.
And whatever unhealthy government subsidized sugar product captures our eye. I'm thinking glazed donut holes. But I get those a lot. Perhaps I'll branch out into ice cream sandwiches. That sounds good too.
But the Chiefs sweatshirt was not for naught this evening! Time to go shopping for dinner now. Broccoli and Tacos.
And whatever unhealthy government subsidized sugar product captures our eye. I'm thinking glazed donut holes. But I get those a lot. Perhaps I'll branch out into ice cream sandwiches. That sounds good too.
12/24/2008
polls and computers
With the holidays approaching, it means it's time for some final pre-BCS bowl rankings.
I suppose the place to start the discussion is at the top. In my rankings, my number 1 team didn't play. My number two team lost. My number 3 team won. Voila, a straightforward 1 vs 2 matchup for the national championship. Conveniently, the BCS computers agree with me here. Texas and Oklahoma are the two best teams in the country. The BCS system is set up to play the top two teams against each other.
Except, oh wait, we have to make room for the SEC. The Harris and USA Today polls decided Florida has had a better season than Texas. Makes you wonder what criteria they use (other than, an SEC team has to make it). Let's take a gander:
Texas has a win against a top team. Florida has a win against a top team. The team Texas beat is better than the team Florida beat.
Texas' loss was on the road. Florida lost at home. The team Texas lost to is better than the team Florida lost to.
Texas played four games against teams that won at least nine games. Florida played two.
Texas won its bowl game last season. Florida lost.
This is the problem with not having criteria for how to determine success in college football. The answer doesn't have to be a playoff; a playoff is merely one option in the larger approach of having predictable and clearly defined criteria. But I'm not going to spend too much time on this, because unlike last year, when things were debatable, this year, the Big 12 is clearly superior to the SEC. The FL/AL matchup in the SEC championship was notable largely because the teams didn't play each other in the regular season. In fact, Texas played more 10 win teams than Alabama and Florida combined. For that matter, USC, Penn State, and Texas Tech also played more 10 win teams during the regular season, but of course none of them received any serious discussion about displacing Florida.
Farther down, I run into the problem of what to do with the teams that finished 12-0. I'm putting them between the one loss and two loss teams. The problem is they're really not top teams; neither of them played anything approaching a challenging schedule. There are lots of teams from the major conferences that could have gone undefeated with the schedules of Utah and Boise State. But at the same time, they did win all their games. It's also worth noting that there were four 12-0 teams before conference championships. Both teams that played a 13th game lost (Alabama and Ball State). Makes you wonder what Utah and Boise State will do in their 13th game.
So here's how I'd match up the BCS if it were up to me.
Oklahoma/Texas - national championship
Virginia Tech/Florida
USC/Penn State
Alabama/Cincinnati
Utah/Boise State (or Texas Tech, if three Big 12 teams were allowed)
However, if OU/FL is going to be the title, it would be nice for TX and AL to play each other, and it would be good to give the two undefeated teams a chance to play each other. Instead, TX and AL are faced with games they're expected to win, only making news if they lose. Really, if Alabama beats Utah, what does that signify? And if Ohio State gets in as a second Big Ten team over an undefeated team, why not a second ACC team like Georgia Tech or Boston College instead of Utah? Texas, after all, beat several Big 12 teams that themselves beat a Mountain West opponent, yet that's not quality enough to get Texas into the title game.
1 B-12 Texas 11 - 1
2 B-12 Oklahoma 12 - 1
3 SEC Florida 12 - 1
4 B-12 Texas Tech 11 - 1
5 B-Ten Penn State 11 - 1
6 P-10 USC 11 - 1
7 SEC Alabama 12 - 1
8 MW Utah 12 - 0
9 WAC Boise State 12 - 0
10 B-Ten Ohio State 10 - 2
11 B-E Cincinnati 10 - 2
12 B-12 Oklahoma State 9 - 3
13 B-12 Missouri 9 - 4
14 SEC Georgia 9 - 3
15 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 3
16 B-E Pittsburgh 9 - 3
17 B-Ten Northwestern 9 - 3
18 ACC Virginia Tech 9 - 4
19 ACC Boston College 9 - 4
20 ACC Georgia Tech 9 - 3
21 P-10 Oregon 9 - 3
22 ACC Florida State 8 - 4
23 B-Ten Iowa 8 - 4
24 MW TCU 10 - 2
25 MAC Ball State 12 - 1
As for bowl predictions, here's what I think.
Big 12: 5-2
Big East: 4-2
SEC: 5-3
MWC: 3-1
Pac 10: 3-2
ACC: 5-5
Big Ten: 3-4
I suppose the place to start the discussion is at the top. In my rankings, my number 1 team didn't play. My number two team lost. My number 3 team won. Voila, a straightforward 1 vs 2 matchup for the national championship. Conveniently, the BCS computers agree with me here. Texas and Oklahoma are the two best teams in the country. The BCS system is set up to play the top two teams against each other.
Except, oh wait, we have to make room for the SEC. The Harris and USA Today polls decided Florida has had a better season than Texas. Makes you wonder what criteria they use (other than, an SEC team has to make it). Let's take a gander:
Texas has a win against a top team. Florida has a win against a top team. The team Texas beat is better than the team Florida beat.
Texas' loss was on the road. Florida lost at home. The team Texas lost to is better than the team Florida lost to.
Texas played four games against teams that won at least nine games. Florida played two.
Texas won its bowl game last season. Florida lost.
This is the problem with not having criteria for how to determine success in college football. The answer doesn't have to be a playoff; a playoff is merely one option in the larger approach of having predictable and clearly defined criteria. But I'm not going to spend too much time on this, because unlike last year, when things were debatable, this year, the Big 12 is clearly superior to the SEC. The FL/AL matchup in the SEC championship was notable largely because the teams didn't play each other in the regular season. In fact, Texas played more 10 win teams than Alabama and Florida combined. For that matter, USC, Penn State, and Texas Tech also played more 10 win teams during the regular season, but of course none of them received any serious discussion about displacing Florida.
Farther down, I run into the problem of what to do with the teams that finished 12-0. I'm putting them between the one loss and two loss teams. The problem is they're really not top teams; neither of them played anything approaching a challenging schedule. There are lots of teams from the major conferences that could have gone undefeated with the schedules of Utah and Boise State. But at the same time, they did win all their games. It's also worth noting that there were four 12-0 teams before conference championships. Both teams that played a 13th game lost (Alabama and Ball State). Makes you wonder what Utah and Boise State will do in their 13th game.
So here's how I'd match up the BCS if it were up to me.
Oklahoma/Texas - national championship
Virginia Tech/Florida
USC/Penn State
Alabama/Cincinnati
Utah/Boise State (or Texas Tech, if three Big 12 teams were allowed)
However, if OU/FL is going to be the title, it would be nice for TX and AL to play each other, and it would be good to give the two undefeated teams a chance to play each other. Instead, TX and AL are faced with games they're expected to win, only making news if they lose. Really, if Alabama beats Utah, what does that signify? And if Ohio State gets in as a second Big Ten team over an undefeated team, why not a second ACC team like Georgia Tech or Boston College instead of Utah? Texas, after all, beat several Big 12 teams that themselves beat a Mountain West opponent, yet that's not quality enough to get Texas into the title game.
1 B-12 Texas 11 - 1
2 B-12 Oklahoma 12 - 1
3 SEC Florida 12 - 1
4 B-12 Texas Tech 11 - 1
5 B-Ten Penn State 11 - 1
6 P-10 USC 11 - 1
7 SEC Alabama 12 - 1
8 MW Utah 12 - 0
9 WAC Boise State 12 - 0
10 B-Ten Ohio State 10 - 2
11 B-E Cincinnati 10 - 2
12 B-12 Oklahoma State 9 - 3
13 B-12 Missouri 9 - 4
14 SEC Georgia 9 - 3
15 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 3
16 B-E Pittsburgh 9 - 3
17 B-Ten Northwestern 9 - 3
18 ACC Virginia Tech 9 - 4
19 ACC Boston College 9 - 4
20 ACC Georgia Tech 9 - 3
21 P-10 Oregon 9 - 3
22 ACC Florida State 8 - 4
23 B-Ten Iowa 8 - 4
24 MW TCU 10 - 2
25 MAC Ball State 12 - 1
As for bowl predictions, here's what I think.
Big 12: 5-2
Big East: 4-2
SEC: 5-3
MWC: 3-1
Pac 10: 3-2
ACC: 5-5
Big Ten: 3-4
11/28/2008
getting close
mmm, Happy post Turkey day.
Seeing as how it's almost Saturday again, I better get these posted quick.
The trouble I'm having at the top is the Boise State, Utah, Ball State conundrum. Either they should be ranked 2, 3 and 4, or I really don't think they deserve to be in the top ten at all.
What I just can't bring myself to do is put them in between, what I think is really a cop out by a lot of voters. If the 1-loss teams are having a better season than the undefeated mid-majors, then the two-loss teams are, also. Note that several of these teams can still lose, with the potential to elevate the undefeateds. For my rankings, that third loss is the only way they're moving down.
At the other end, there's a logjam as the ACC and Pac-10 figures out who are its top teams, so as that gets sorted out, I've got Mississippi, TCU, BYU, South Carolina, Nebraska, and a few others waiting to replace the losers. And note my satisfaction that long-since dropped teams from my listing are finally getting nationally dropped, like LSU and Auburn. I think Iowa is most deservedly moving into my rankings, the least-discussed 8 win team in the land.
1 B-12 Texas 10 - 1
2 SEC Alabama 11 - 0
3 B-12 Oklahoma 10 - 1
4 SEC Florida 10 - 1
5 B-12 Texas Tech 10 - 1
6 B-Ten Penn State 11 - 1
7 P-10 USC 9 - 1
8 B-12 Oklahoma State 9 - 2
9 B-12 Missouri 9 - 2
10 SEC Georgia 9 - 2
11 B-Ten Ohio State 10 - 2
12 B-E Cincinnati 9 - 2
13 WAC Boise State 11 - 0
14 MW Utah 12 - 0
15 MAC Ball State 12 - 0
16 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 3
17 B-E Pittsburgh 7 - 3
18 B-Ten Northwestern 9 - 3
19 ACC Boston College 8 - 3
20 ACC Florida State 8 - 3
21 ACC Georgia Tech 8 - 3
22 ACC Virginia Tech 7 - 4
23 P-10 Oregon State 8 - 3
24 P-10 Oregon 8 - 3
25 B-Ten Iowa 8 - 4
Seeing as how it's almost Saturday again, I better get these posted quick.
The trouble I'm having at the top is the Boise State, Utah, Ball State conundrum. Either they should be ranked 2, 3 and 4, or I really don't think they deserve to be in the top ten at all.
What I just can't bring myself to do is put them in between, what I think is really a cop out by a lot of voters. If the 1-loss teams are having a better season than the undefeated mid-majors, then the two-loss teams are, also. Note that several of these teams can still lose, with the potential to elevate the undefeateds. For my rankings, that third loss is the only way they're moving down.
At the other end, there's a logjam as the ACC and Pac-10 figures out who are its top teams, so as that gets sorted out, I've got Mississippi, TCU, BYU, South Carolina, Nebraska, and a few others waiting to replace the losers. And note my satisfaction that long-since dropped teams from my listing are finally getting nationally dropped, like LSU and Auburn. I think Iowa is most deservedly moving into my rankings, the least-discussed 8 win team in the land.
1 B-12 Texas 10 - 1
2 SEC Alabama 11 - 0
3 B-12 Oklahoma 10 - 1
4 SEC Florida 10 - 1
5 B-12 Texas Tech 10 - 1
6 B-Ten Penn State 11 - 1
7 P-10 USC 9 - 1
8 B-12 Oklahoma State 9 - 2
9 B-12 Missouri 9 - 2
10 SEC Georgia 9 - 2
11 B-Ten Ohio State 10 - 2
12 B-E Cincinnati 9 - 2
13 WAC Boise State 11 - 0
14 MW Utah 12 - 0
15 MAC Ball State 12 - 0
16 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 3
17 B-E Pittsburgh 7 - 3
18 B-Ten Northwestern 9 - 3
19 ACC Boston College 8 - 3
20 ACC Florida State 8 - 3
21 ACC Georgia Tech 8 - 3
22 ACC Virginia Tech 7 - 4
23 P-10 Oregon State 8 - 3
24 P-10 Oregon 8 - 3
25 B-Ten Iowa 8 - 4
11/09/2008
week 11 rankings
We are nearing the end of the 2008 season. All in all, the last couple weeks have shaped up nicely. As I said after the first part of the season, the Big East was underrated and the SEC overrated. The Big East now has five bowl eligible teams, as many as the ten team Pac-10, and with a sixth team with a winning record, actually has more teams with a winning record at the moment. The SEC, meanwhile, is already settled. That's right. With two more weeks of football, we already know Alabama and Florida will meet in the SEC championship. While I'd still rank the SEC #2 overall, the race for a champion is becoming downright boring. The ACC and Big Ten have much more exciting things going on these last two weeks.
And of course, the freak that is the Big 12 this year has five teams with legitimate shots at winning 11+ games and becoming the conference champ. Last year, the Big 12 had three 11+ win teams (more than the SEC and Big Ten combined!), and none of them were sent to the national championship game, not even the #1 ranked team in the BCS, Missouri. Is it possible the Big 12 could have four 11+ win teams this year, and none of them will be sent to the national championship?
This week I've decided to start including Boise State and Ball State. Neither have even played a ranked team, but since the Big 12 can't fill four at large spots, somebody has to get into the BCS. While I think teams like Michigan State, Ohio State, Georgia, and Florida State/Virginia Tech are better than them, I'm willing to go along if the B-States go undefeated.
1 B-12 Texas Tech 10 - 0
2 SEC Alabama 10 - 0
3 B-12 Texas 9 - 1
4 B-12 Oklahoma 9 - 1
5 SEC Florida 8 - 1
6 P-10 USC 8 - 1
7 B-Ten Penn State 9 - 1
8 B-12 Oklahoma State 8 - 2
9 B-12 Missouri 8 - 2
10 B-Ten Ohio State 8 - 2
11 SEC Georgia 8 - 2
12 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 2
13 MW Utah 10 - 0
14 ACC Florida State 7 - 2
15 ACC North Carolina 7 - 2
16 B-E Cincinnati 7 - 2
17 MAC Ball State 9 - 0
18 WAC Boise State 9 - 0
19 B-E Pittsburgh 7 - 2
20 ACC Georgia Tech 7 - 3
21 B-Ten Northwestern 7 - 3
22 B-Ten Minnesota 7 - 3
23 MW TCU 9 - 2
24 MW BYU 9 - 1
25 ACC Virginia Tech 6 - 3
And of course, the freak that is the Big 12 this year has five teams with legitimate shots at winning 11+ games and becoming the conference champ. Last year, the Big 12 had three 11+ win teams (more than the SEC and Big Ten combined!), and none of them were sent to the national championship game, not even the #1 ranked team in the BCS, Missouri. Is it possible the Big 12 could have four 11+ win teams this year, and none of them will be sent to the national championship?
This week I've decided to start including Boise State and Ball State. Neither have even played a ranked team, but since the Big 12 can't fill four at large spots, somebody has to get into the BCS. While I think teams like Michigan State, Ohio State, Georgia, and Florida State/Virginia Tech are better than them, I'm willing to go along if the B-States go undefeated.
1 B-12 Texas Tech 10 - 0
2 SEC Alabama 10 - 0
3 B-12 Texas 9 - 1
4 B-12 Oklahoma 9 - 1
5 SEC Florida 8 - 1
6 P-10 USC 8 - 1
7 B-Ten Penn State 9 - 1
8 B-12 Oklahoma State 8 - 2
9 B-12 Missouri 8 - 2
10 B-Ten Ohio State 8 - 2
11 SEC Georgia 8 - 2
12 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 2
13 MW Utah 10 - 0
14 ACC Florida State 7 - 2
15 ACC North Carolina 7 - 2
16 B-E Cincinnati 7 - 2
17 MAC Ball State 9 - 0
18 WAC Boise State 9 - 0
19 B-E Pittsburgh 7 - 2
20 ACC Georgia Tech 7 - 3
21 B-Ten Northwestern 7 - 3
22 B-Ten Minnesota 7 - 3
23 MW TCU 9 - 2
24 MW BYU 9 - 1
25 ACC Virginia Tech 6 - 3
11/05/2008
week 10 rankings
1 B-12 Texas Tech
2 SEC Alabama
3 B-12 Texas
4 B-Ten Penn State
5 B-12 Oklahoma
6 B-12 Oklahoma State
7 SEC Florida
8 P-10 USC
9 B-12 Missouri
10 B-Ten Ohio State
11 SEC Georgia
12 ACC Georgia Tech
13 MW Utah
14 B-Ten Michigan State
15 ACC Florida State
16 B-Ten Northwestern
17 SEC LSU
18 ACC North Carolina
19 ACC Maryland
20 P-10 California
21 B-E Cincinnati
22 B-E West Virginia
23 B-E South Florida
24 B-Ten Minnesota
25 B-12 Kansas
2 SEC Alabama
3 B-12 Texas
4 B-Ten Penn State
5 B-12 Oklahoma
6 B-12 Oklahoma State
7 SEC Florida
8 P-10 USC
9 B-12 Missouri
10 B-Ten Ohio State
11 SEC Georgia
12 ACC Georgia Tech
13 MW Utah
14 B-Ten Michigan State
15 ACC Florida State
16 B-Ten Northwestern
17 SEC LSU
18 ACC North Carolina
19 ACC Maryland
20 P-10 California
21 B-E Cincinnati
22 B-E West Virginia
23 B-E South Florida
24 B-Ten Minnesota
25 B-12 Kansas
10/12/2008
week 7 rankings
Well, Missouri won't have a perfect season.
Of course, the good news is that's apparent after game 6 instead of game 1. They had a game to lose; it just would have been wiser to save that for Texas next week. The real irony is that by losing, Missouri actually makes the Big 12 conference by far the best conference in the country. In essence, the Tigers created another top team. It's just unfortunate that MU had to lose in order for Oklahoma State to get some recognition.
I've got some teams this week that are kind of just waiting for them to play each other. I think Oklahoma and USC, for example, are better than Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. But I'm not ranking them higher until Oklahoma State and Texas Tech actually lose a game (which I think will happen in two weeks for both of them). I think Georgia is notably better than Vanderbilt, but they both come in 5-1. If Georgia wins, I'll move them up a fair amount. But I think for a week at least, they don't belong in the top ten. Kansas and Vanderbilt are probably more wishful thinking than great teams, and will likely each pick up their second losses next week. But it's not next week yet. Another place where I seem to differ from the national pundits is with the Big East. It's not great this year, but there are four one-loss teams, and West Virginia's got to be one of the best two loss teams out there. That Auburn-West Virginia game should be pretty interesting.
I continue to think BYU and Utah are overrated. They'd be .500 ball clubs in the Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Big Ten, and more empirically, they just don't have any quality wins. Michigan and UCLA are both losing programs. But the schedules are better than Ball State, so I'm willing to keep ranking them as long as they stay undefeated. In a sense, I look at LSU the same way; without a strong schedule so far, getting that first loss drops them significantly in my book.
1 B-12 Texas
2 B-Ten Penn State
3 SEC Alabama
4 B-12 Oklahoma State
5 B-12 Texas Tech
6 B-12 Oklahoma
7 B-12 Missouri
8 ACC Virginia Tech
9 SEC Florida
10 P-10 USC
11 B-Ten Ohio State
12 B-E South Florida
13 B-12 Kansas
14 ACC Wake Forest
15 SEC Vanderbilt
16 SEC Georgia
17 ACC Florida State
18 MW Utah
19 MW BYU
20 SEC LSU
21 ACC North Carolina
22 P-10 California
23 B-Ten Michigan State
24 B-E Connecticut
25 B-E Pittsburgh
Of course, the good news is that's apparent after game 6 instead of game 1. They had a game to lose; it just would have been wiser to save that for Texas next week. The real irony is that by losing, Missouri actually makes the Big 12 conference by far the best conference in the country. In essence, the Tigers created another top team. It's just unfortunate that MU had to lose in order for Oklahoma State to get some recognition.
I've got some teams this week that are kind of just waiting for them to play each other. I think Oklahoma and USC, for example, are better than Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. But I'm not ranking them higher until Oklahoma State and Texas Tech actually lose a game (which I think will happen in two weeks for both of them). I think Georgia is notably better than Vanderbilt, but they both come in 5-1. If Georgia wins, I'll move them up a fair amount. But I think for a week at least, they don't belong in the top ten. Kansas and Vanderbilt are probably more wishful thinking than great teams, and will likely each pick up their second losses next week. But it's not next week yet. Another place where I seem to differ from the national pundits is with the Big East. It's not great this year, but there are four one-loss teams, and West Virginia's got to be one of the best two loss teams out there. That Auburn-West Virginia game should be pretty interesting.
I continue to think BYU and Utah are overrated. They'd be .500 ball clubs in the Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Big Ten, and more empirically, they just don't have any quality wins. Michigan and UCLA are both losing programs. But the schedules are better than Ball State, so I'm willing to keep ranking them as long as they stay undefeated. In a sense, I look at LSU the same way; without a strong schedule so far, getting that first loss drops them significantly in my book.
1 B-12 Texas
2 B-Ten Penn State
3 SEC Alabama
4 B-12 Oklahoma State
5 B-12 Texas Tech
6 B-12 Oklahoma
7 B-12 Missouri
8 ACC Virginia Tech
9 SEC Florida
10 P-10 USC
11 B-Ten Ohio State
12 B-E South Florida
13 B-12 Kansas
14 ACC Wake Forest
15 SEC Vanderbilt
16 SEC Georgia
17 ACC Florida State
18 MW Utah
19 MW BYU
20 SEC LSU
21 ACC North Carolina
22 P-10 California
23 B-Ten Michigan State
24 B-E Connecticut
25 B-E Pittsburgh
10/06/2008
week 6 rankings
In my mind, this was a much more stable week. The biggest problem I'm having is with the Big East. USF lost to Pitt, but I'm not ready to rank Pitt yet after that first game loss. The biggest risk I'm taking is probably putting Virginia Tech back in the top ten.
Just like I had Alabama ranked higher than some others earlier on, I'm now apparently on the low end. I don't think you can jump LSU and Missouri until they lose. I also bumped BYU and Utah farther down the list after a more careful scrutiny of the Mountain West. It just looks to me like middle of the pack teams from the other conferences would run through the MWC pretty easily, too.
So I've got my 7 undefeated teams that I think are among the best in the country and the 7 one-loss teams among the best. Then I've got 5 more undefeated teams which I think will lose soon or who have pretty weak schedules. Then I've got 6 one-loss teams that are about equally likely to move up or drop out.
1 B-12 Oklahoma
2 SEC LSU
3 B-12 Missouri
4 SEC Alabama
5 B-12 Texas
6 B-Ten Penn State
7 B-12 Texas Tech
8 ACC Virginia Tech
9 P-10 USC
10 SEC Florida
11 SEC Georgia
12 B-Ten Ohio State
13 B-E South Florida
14 B-12 Kansas
15 SEC Vanderbilt
16 B-12 Oklahoma State
17 B-Ten Northwestern
18 MW Utah
19 MW BYU
20 ACC Wake Forest
21 ACC Florida State
22 ACC North Carolina
23 B-E Connecticut
24 P-10 California
25 B-Ten Michigan State
Just like I had Alabama ranked higher than some others earlier on, I'm now apparently on the low end. I don't think you can jump LSU and Missouri until they lose. I also bumped BYU and Utah farther down the list after a more careful scrutiny of the Mountain West. It just looks to me like middle of the pack teams from the other conferences would run through the MWC pretty easily, too.
So I've got my 7 undefeated teams that I think are among the best in the country and the 7 one-loss teams among the best. Then I've got 5 more undefeated teams which I think will lose soon or who have pretty weak schedules. Then I've got 6 one-loss teams that are about equally likely to move up or drop out.
1 B-12 Oklahoma
2 SEC LSU
3 B-12 Missouri
4 SEC Alabama
5 B-12 Texas
6 B-Ten Penn State
7 B-12 Texas Tech
8 ACC Virginia Tech
9 P-10 USC
10 SEC Florida
11 SEC Georgia
12 B-Ten Ohio State
13 B-E South Florida
14 B-12 Kansas
15 SEC Vanderbilt
16 B-12 Oklahoma State
17 B-Ten Northwestern
18 MW Utah
19 MW BYU
20 ACC Wake Forest
21 ACC Florida State
22 ACC North Carolina
23 B-E Connecticut
24 P-10 California
25 B-Ten Michigan State
9/28/2008
week 5 rankings
Well, a ranker this week of college football gets to do pretty much whatever they want after this past week.
So here's what I did. I've got 11 undefeated teams that I think have legitimate shots at their conference championships. Then I put 9 teams that are all good, but have already lost a game. Then I've got 5 teams I'm not sure what to do with. They're a combined 20-1, but when you look into the conference schedules, it's hard to see them maintaining that pace.
However, if they do, I'm certainly willing to jump them up the rankings. And for the ones that lose, I'm thinking teams like Boise State, Fresno State, and Florida State are primed to take their place.
1 B-12 Oklahoma
2 SEC LSU
3 B-12 Missouri
4 SEC Alabama
5 B-12 Texas
6 B-Ten Penn State
7 B-E South Florida
8 B-12 Texas Tech
9 MW BYU
10 MW Utah
11 B-E Connecticut
12 SEC Florida
13 SEC Georgia
14 ACC Virginia Tech
15 B-Ten Wisconsin
16 B-12 Kansas
17 P-10 USC
18 B-Ten Ohio State
19 ACC Wake Forest
20 P-10 Oregon
21 B-12 Oklahoma State
22 B-Ten Northwestern
23 SEC Kentucky
24 SEC Vanderbilt
25 SEC Auburn
And on a different note, is it possible that the Royals aren't even the worst pro team in Kansas City, let alone the AL Central? The Royals finally seemed to have decided they don't like being in the bottom third of the league, and they've now won more games than the season before for three consecutive years. Hmm, they tease us...
So here's what I did. I've got 11 undefeated teams that I think have legitimate shots at their conference championships. Then I put 9 teams that are all good, but have already lost a game. Then I've got 5 teams I'm not sure what to do with. They're a combined 20-1, but when you look into the conference schedules, it's hard to see them maintaining that pace.
However, if they do, I'm certainly willing to jump them up the rankings. And for the ones that lose, I'm thinking teams like Boise State, Fresno State, and Florida State are primed to take their place.
1 B-12 Oklahoma
2 SEC LSU
3 B-12 Missouri
4 SEC Alabama
5 B-12 Texas
6 B-Ten Penn State
7 B-E South Florida
8 B-12 Texas Tech
9 MW BYU
10 MW Utah
11 B-E Connecticut
12 SEC Florida
13 SEC Georgia
14 ACC Virginia Tech
15 B-Ten Wisconsin
16 B-12 Kansas
17 P-10 USC
18 B-Ten Ohio State
19 ACC Wake Forest
20 P-10 Oregon
21 B-12 Oklahoma State
22 B-Ten Northwestern
23 SEC Kentucky
24 SEC Vanderbilt
25 SEC Auburn
And on a different note, is it possible that the Royals aren't even the worst pro team in Kansas City, let alone the AL Central? The Royals finally seemed to have decided they don't like being in the bottom third of the league, and they've now won more games than the season before for three consecutive years. Hmm, they tease us...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)