By Kyle Soppe
We’ve got a change atop the weekly PS poll. The Tigers of LSU now reign supreme, as they split the first place votes with the Sooners. Clemson made a nice move forward, as did Baylor. A couple of 8 pm games highlight next week, as four of our top 15 take the field when Alabama heads down south to Florida, and Nebraska heads to cheesehead country to face Wisconsin. Thoughts on the current poll, or the future games that will affect it? Let your thoughts be heard.
| Team | Rank |
| LSU (5) | 131 |
| Oklahoma (3) | 121 |
| Alabama | 117 |
| Boise State | 108 |
| Wisconsin | 92 |
| Oklahoma State | 88 |
| Stanford | 86 |
| Nebraska | 65 |
| South Carolina | 59 |
| Florida | 40 |
| Oregon | 33 |
| Baylor | 31 |
| Clemson | 30 |
| Virgina Tech | 29 |
| South Florida | 21 |
Can’t wait for Wisconsin-Nebraska. Think Alabama will beat Florida.
How can one be an advocate against the BCS and rank Oregon higher than unbeaten teams? First rule for me is that all unbeaten teams deserve a higher ranking than anyone else with a loss. And I know some will say it matters who has played who. In a true playoff format, it’s all settled on the field anyway at one point or another.
Where is Herm? What’s that saying he always has?
You play to win the game!
Rey … I think Wisc will beat Nebraska comfortably, esp if it’s in Madison. And I agree with you … Bama will beat Florida.
Anyway, I think your schedule strength is definitely part of the conversation. I’m trying to evaluate the Top 15 based on who has the strongest resume, after 4 weeks in this case. A one-loss team can certainly be ahead of some undefeateds, IMO, esp if the undefeateds have played nothing but weak teams thus far. That will change though as conference play begins.
I didn’t realize when Casey said send us your picks by Monday at noon, he was referring to Japan time.
The poll is being updated as I receive new polls. Just thought people would want to check it out on Monday morning, so I posted what I had as of late last night
Thanks for the clarification re: timing. I had mine in early this week, but this preliminary look had me puzzled as to the deadline. This may sound like oversimplification, but I pick my top 15 based on who I think the 15 best teams are. Of course, it helps to beat everybody, and of course it helps to play a tough schedule, but it’s still a “sense” I will forever remember 1971, when Nebraska was #1, Oklahoma was #2 with 1 loss (to Nebraska) and Colorado was #3 with 2 losses (to Nebraska and Oklahoma). It was hard to argue those rankings, since the Big 8 teams crushed their bowl opponents. Unbeatens or 1 loss teams ranked behind Colorado had little claim to being a better team regardless of record or schedule.
I ranked a lot of unbeaten teams ahead of Oregon. I actually had Oregon at #16, so they got bumped from my rankings, so I guess it sounds like I mostly agree with Rey here.
The thing about Oregon is they can say, “yeah, but our loss is to the #1 team in the country,” but until they’ve beaten anybody that doesn’t mean as much to me. So far, their most impressive victory, according to RPI is against Nevada. Does that and losing by two touchdowns at LSU make them better than Clemson, who’ve beaten Auburn and Florida State, but barely squeaked by Wofford…at home? Can’t say for sure
I’m going to favor the team who’s beaten a couple of borderline top 25 teams over the team who’s beaten nobody, but lost to the #1 team. Right, Herm?
I agree Pete and Wally, but to me until everyone loses a game we can’t rank them based on schedule. That’s exactly why many were mad about Hawaii or Boise or TCU when they didn’t get their national title shot. If you’re unbeaten, you deserve a higher ranking than those once or twice beaten. Any other logic is BCS propaganda!
No BCS in 1971; just human polls. Your point just reiterates what I have said for years; stop using computer polls. They are worthless. I can’t remember the year, but Washington was ranked 5th, 6th or 7th by 6 of 7 computer polls. They were ranked #1 by one; the Seattle Times. Those people had weighted more heavily things that played into Washington’s favor. My point; computer polls take into account the wrong things and then the programmers weight according to their own needs anyway. If it was all up to human polls we would have sensible voting/ranking!
Oh boy, Pete…did you open up a serious can of worms. You should go check out the movie Moneyball. There’s a huge analogy there that comes close to explaining how I feel about what you just said.
I’m not an advocate of ranking teams based on a computer poll, but the guys at RPI have been at it for a long time, and looking at their strength of schedule numbers can certainly help decipher between teams of equal records.
Note that I said help.
I also don’t agree with Rey that all undefeated teams should be ranked ahead of all one-loss teams, especially right now, but as the season wears on, assuming the undefeated teams have all played a quality schedule, I might start to move in that direction. My question is: If one team is 3-1 against top 25 teams and the other team is 1-0, is it fair rank the latter ahead of the former?
Chas … I suppose just about anything is “fair” when it comes to opinion polls. But to answer your last question, every voter has their own internal tie-breaking system when it comes down picking one team higher than another. Is it the “eye test”? Is it “margin of victory”? Is it “what do i think the outcome would be if these two played eachother on a neutral field”? Could be something else or a combination of the above.
In your scenario, did the 3-1 team lose big or lose a close one? That would factor into how I would view it. Did the 1-0 team play a team in the Top 5 or merely #23 in the country?
One thing I like about the potential of moving into four or five “super conferences” is that it should greatly increase the chances of having a true playoff. I think that if you emerge as the conference champion from a conference that has 16-20 members, it’s very hard to argue that you don’t belong in the “Final Four”. That way, we can settle the issue of the national championship on the field instead of in the polls.
Wally, of course “fair” wasn’t a fantastic choice of words, and yes, there’s more to it than my last sentence could possibly describe.
But, let me rephrase and ask you (or anyone) the question: All else being relatively equal (in your mind), who would you rank higher, an 11-1 team who was 3-1 vs. teams who rank between 15 and 25, or a 12-0 team who beat the #20 team in the country and really no one else?
I’m just genuinely curious…not looking to debate this one any further.
Chas … With just those facts available, I’d rank the 12-0 team higher.
HOWEVER, if the discrepancy in strength of schedule was very large (e.g. 12-0 team had SOS of 70 and 11-1 team had SOS of 20), I’d probably move 11-1 ahead of 12-0. But I would first look to see how they may have fared against any common opponents.
What you’re describing of course is the scenario we’ve been faced with ever since Boise State and, more recently TCU, emerged as serious contenders and in the Top 5. This year, Boise State has a very good chance of being undefeated esp after winning that first game at Georgia. But in the end their SOS will not compare favorably with the SEC front-runner who may be 11-1 or 12-1 in December. Or maybe the Big 12 champ will have one loss and a higher SOS. I guess with any undefeated team from a non-BCS conference, ya gotta ask “have they even come close to losing?” “What did their game vs Georgia look like vs, say, Alabama’s game vs Georgia?”. Thus far, nobody has come close to competing with BSU and their lone remaining “tester” is probably vs TCU late in the season.
Chas and wally, you help make MY point. A computer would rank 12-0 over 11-1 or 1-0vs top 25 over 3-1 vs top 25 EVERY TIME! No eye test! No sense! Just figures. Long before Boise St. there was Penn State. Chas wasn’t it TWICE that PSU went undefeated but didn’t win the national title? With computers they would certainly have been #1. But voters used other criteria and computers had no say. That system is not perfect by any means, but I still feel better about results forged from thought rather than statistics. I am sure that at this moment PSU alum and fans are saying “Where were the computers when we needed them?” but I still think I felt better about those polls than I do about the computer rankings. Computer rankings almost make me believe that we are moving towards a “why play the game” mentality.
I wasn’t using that example to argue in favor of computers, Pete.
Good. I know how much you in particular can use stats to understand baseball better. I thought yiou were leaning in that direction on CFB as well. I just have been anti-computer rankings in CFB. For me, it’s human polls or a playoff system. No comparing apples to oranges computer-style. Actually, as I re-read I think we all have similar sentiments to a degree; bottom line, current BCS system stinks!
I feel about computer polls almost the same way I do about baseball statistics, pete. They both are valuable data to help inform evaluations and comparisons. But, when I use stats in baseball to compare players, I’m still a human making a decision as to what’s important.
Like I said earlier, I use RPI’s strength of schedule to make comparisons between teams, especially those with identical records.
An interesting spin on our discussions: https://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/09/27/top-25-great-american-novels/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a1