Blog Poll Draft: Week 9
by Horn Brain on Nov 2, 2009 10:03 AM CST
in Football
192 comments
 |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Florida | |
| 2 | Texas | |
| 3 | Alabama | |
| 4 | TCU | |
| 5 | Cincinnati | |
| 6 | Iowa | |
| 7 | Oregon |  3 |
| 8 | Boise State |  1 |
| 9 | Georgia Tech | 2 |
| 10 | Penn State | 5 |
| 11 | LSU | 2 |
| 12 | Pittsburgh | |
| 13 | Houston | |
| 14 | Oklahoma State | |
| 15 | Miami (Florida) | 2 |
| 16 | Southern Cal | 8 |
| 17 | Ohio State | 3 |
| 18 | Arizona | 4 |
| 19 | Notre Dame | |
| 20 | Oklahoma | 3 |
| 21 | Utah | 3 |
| 22 | California | |
| 23 | South Florida | |
| 24 | Wisconsin | |
| 25 | Virginia Tech | 9 |
| Last week's ballot | ||
Like Lucy, I got some 'splaining to do.
- Florida - Will to win, people.
- Texas - Will to kill Colt McCoy's chance to regain ground in the Heisman race by never letting him play.
- Alabama - Thank God there was no mediocre SEC team to bludgeon with field goals this week.
- TCU/Cincy/Iowa - Everyone gets a ribbon
- See above
- See above
- Oregon - Whole new team
- Boise State - Couldn't beat Oregon now, doesn't have the same resume.
- Georgia Tech - Just moving up over USC and I've rethought my position on LSU.
- Penn State - Come to think of it, Lions don't look that bad.
- LSU - I just don't love you anymore.
- Pitt - Has won some games.
- Houston - Has a couple of pretty good wins and a pretty bad loss.
- Okie State - Best offense we've faced all year. If they can win out, the BCS is not impossible.
- Miami - Is a team that plays football. Has not lost as much as many other teams.
- Southern Cal - Won't win the PAC-10 this year. But hey, they beat Notre Dame!
- Ohio State - Tressel shows that he can still be a dick to teams that won't beat him anyway.
- Arizona - One of the few teams ranked in the lower part of my rankings not to lose last week.
- Notre Dame - The Irish will continue to climb until Jimmy Clausen's last pass comes down.
- Oklahoma - Did something no Texas team has accomplished for 6 years: Beat Kansas State.
0 recs |
192 comments
| Add comment
Email
Print
Comments
C'mon now....
you can’t put Oregon above Boise St with the “if they played now” theme because…..well, they’ve already played. wrong, wrong, wrong.
by silky51 on Nov 2, 2009 10:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely True. However, if this is the logic then Texas A&M should be a top 25 team because we are playing so good lately but how come this analogy applies only to the Big X and Pac 10 Teams and as Iron pointed out, to Texas in the Big XII
by YUMC on Nov 2, 2009 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Boise State > Oregon
Just like Texas > OU last year.
Games matter and losses have consequences.
You didn’t favor OU last year, did you?
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 10:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Head to head isn't everything
To my mind, in either a power poll, or a resume poll, Oregon is ahead.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 2, 2009 10:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Check out the box-score...
Of the Boise/Oregon game and get back with me.
Boise more than DOUBLED Oregon in yards, First Downs, & Time of possession.
DOMINATED. Imagine if we had beaten OU 28-10 when OU didn’t get a first down til the 3rd quarter. It’s not like Boise is looking like crap every week. They keep rolling too.
Boise over Oregon and the rest I agree with.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 10:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with that logic
is that it will eventually lead to inconsistencies. At what point would you put Oregon over Boise State? If Boise State loses its next three games, it still will not change this one box score, which we can point to for eternity. But I’d wager you’d put a 3-loss BSU over a 1-loss Oregon, which suggest head-to-head isn’t everything.
Once that concession is made, and we accept that other factors are necessary for proper evaluation, then we can start to look at it from the two prevalent schools of thought. If you power poll this list, I think Vegas would have Oregon as a substantial favorite, were the teams playing again this weekend. And as far as resume polling goes, Oregon has many more impressive wins (and I would argue a better overall body of work) than Boise.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 2, 2009 10:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Record matters...
Since Boise is unblemished, that’s why I’d have them ahead.
If Boise loses, then you have the kind of dilemmas and inconsistencies we saw last year with Texas/OU/Tech. You have to go to different set of tiebreakers at that point.
But here you don’t. Boise is perfect and Oregon lost to them. Oregon should NOT be ahead imho.
And certainly no-one thinks Washington should be ahead of USC right now. Losses matter. When you have the SAME record, head-to-head is paramount to distinguish teams.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a good argument.....
if Boise had a loss. But they don’t. Iron is right. They are undefeated and won head-to-head. You can’t put Oregon ahead of them until they lose….
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
by SwimTexas on Nov 2, 2009 9:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't get me wrong
With the way Oregon is playing now, they’d clearly destroy Boise in a hypothetical rematch.
But head to head results matter. Boise won.
Until Boise loses, they deserve to be ranked ahead of Oregon.
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Iowa has played a much tougher schedule than Boise.
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
by HornChamps on Nov 2, 2009 7:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And Iowa's SOS is relevant to whether Boise should be ranked ahead of Oregon because . . .
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 7:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If every post on this ....
…… board requires relevency, then you can toss 60% of the board.
The point is Iowa deserves the #4 spot a whole lot more than either of those teams.
Easy enough?
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
by HornChamps on Nov 2, 2009 9:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't seem to grasp the basic message board concept of relevant replies to relevant posts
Start a new thread at the bottom if you want to discuss Iowa independently of BSU or Oregon. Easy enough?
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 9:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope the Phillies can hold on here in the 9th
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think that Russia is re-emerging as a major power
Or still declining, albeit more slowly than the Yeltsin years?
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
dogs bark at doors sometimes...
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs -- ask yourself what makes you come alive, and then go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
-- Harold Thurman
by thanos on Nov 2, 2009 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
60%
Aren’t you generous. Has to be at least 75%.
by Wells on Nov 2, 2009 10:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ahhhh, the shadow has arrived.
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
by HornChamps on Nov 3, 2009 9:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And....???
I don’t remember saying anything to the contrary. Only that he seems to shadow my posts on a pretty regular basis.
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
by HornChamps on Nov 4, 2009 12:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But...
Boise State not only beat Oregon, they also are undefeated. I could completely understand your logic if they had the same record, but they don’t. Even in the WAC, that’s still something. They absolutely deserve to be ahead of Oregon at this point.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 2, 2009 7:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hypothetical
Texas loses to Florida Atlantic last year, but beats Tech, completing the toughest four game schedule in history. Florida Atlantic goes undefeated and wins the Sun Belt. Should an undefeated FLA be ranked against a 11-1 UT?
by Wells on Nov 2, 2009 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's basically the same situation as this year
Good team from a weak conference not only goes undefeated but also proves it on the field against an excellent OOC foe which otherwise also doesn’t lose a game. Who knows where FAU should be ranked relative to Florida, but they should be ahead of Texas.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 10:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And OU and the rest of Big 12?
Is your argument that defeating a team which later becomes the conference champion one week out of the year is equivalent to besting the entire conference in all events?
I’m not being sarcastic, I’m genuinely curious.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 2, 2009 10:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, this thread has become convoluted!
It took me 90 seconds to rediscover your post to respond after scrolling away.
Let me rephrase the question. Please let me know if I am reinterpreting your question incorrectly.
If I am advocating ranking Boise ahead of Oregon based on Boise being undefeated and defeating Oregon, and Oregon is in turn the best team (and therefore the highest ranked team) in the Pac 10, do I have a problem with the consequence of Boise necessarily being ranked ahead of every team in a power conference?
If that’s a fair interpretation of the question, then, no, I do not have a problem with Boise being ranked ahead of every team in the Pac 10 even though I have my doubts as to how well Boise would do if it played a complete Pac 10 schedule this season.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 11:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That was my question, and that was the answer I expected. Gracias
The overt focus on head to head is so foreign to my mind that I genuinely don’t understand the attraction or the ramifications adherents envision. For whatever the virtues (apparently rewarding a team for four quarters against quality competition) it seems to forgive the remainder of the season – provided of course the lesser team stays undefeated.
If you want to envision the end of the BCS, picture an undefeated Tulane giving LSU its only loss of the season in a nail biter (perhaps because Les Miles went for it on every forth down during the game to see if he could). LSU then handing Florida its only loss of the season in the SEC CG. Proceed to have the entire SEC being ranked behind the undefeated CUSA Champion because of the importance of head to head.
Now imagine how they try to clean Verne’s suit after Gary Danielson’s head explodes on national television.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 2, 2009 11:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ending the BCS AND casuing Danielson's head to explode with one action? Sign me up!
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 11:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not?
Tulane would have a win chain (presumably) to every single team in the SEC and none of them would have one to Tulane. If we’re going by on-field results and not some abstract notion of who “should” be better, I don’t see how one could infer anything different.
by SpartanDan on Nov 3, 2009 12:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's throw in a caveat
If Tulane beat LSU, and LSU beat an 11-1 Florida team that came out of the same division as a 11-1 Georgia and a 11-1 Tennessee after a controversial tiebraker, I wouldn’t necessarily have Tulane automatically ahead of Georgia or Tennessee on a A>B>C loop. But I would have Tulane ahead of LSU and LSU ahead of Florida.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 3, 2009 12:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is an old article, but the point remains
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/statitudes/news/2000/11/27/rematches_collegefootball/index.html
Though I’m certain things have changed somewhat in the last 9 years, teams which win the first game are hardly dominant in a second game. What this suggests is the transitive property run amok – to the point of eliminating a conference based on a single four quarters. There is so much emphasis on what happens “on the field” that we begin to infer multiple games that did not happen “on the field”.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 3, 2009 6:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The real question is whether UT should jump FAU...
…but that’s not your question. The answer to your question is yes.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 3, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, did not really proof read that one.
Replace against with above. What do you think?
by Wells on Nov 3, 2009 9:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Boise looked like absolute crap in all phases of that game
I don’t really count it amongst the reasons to increase their ranking…
by GGoffense on Nov 2, 2009 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Head to head can be trumped – but not when the winner of that head-to-head matchup hasn’t lost. So far, Boise has done everything they possibly could within their control to demonstrate that they are the better team, including beating Oregon head-to-head. If you put Oregon ahead, you are essentially saying that the results of that game didn’t matter at all. If BSU had a loss, then you could say “Yes, you beat them, but you also lost to Random Awful Team and they’ve beaten a bunch of good teams, so we have ample evidence to call that a fluke.” But they don’t.
If I were a BSU fan and saw this, I would be asking why we even bothered to play the game if we beat them soundly, beat everyone else we’ve played and they’re still ahead.
Would Oregon destroy them if they played again? Probably. But Oregon had their chance to prove it. Now they have to wait until someone else takes BSU out.
by SpartanDan on Nov 2, 2009 10:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
<blockquoteHead to head can be trumped – but not when the winner of that head-to-head matchup hasn’t lost.>
That’s what I’ve been trying to articulate, but you’ve done so much better than I.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly….this was my whole argument the whole time.
by MJY6087 on Nov 2, 2009 10:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I'd put Boise State over Oregon right now
But it is absolutely not the same as Texas and OU last year. Last season, Texas and Oklahoma had very comparable bodies of work throughout the season, which is why the head-to-head matchup was such a big deal. While you can argue that it is not Boise State’s fault, their body of work in a very, very weak WAC is not quite the same as Oregon navigating through the overrated, but still superior, Pac-10. I think this USC team is the weakest Pete Carrol has had since when he first started, but they are certainly tons better than what Boise State has been facing.
Since BSU is still undefeated, I’m inclined to give them the edge. But I don’t think it’s a good comparison with Texas-OU last year.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 2, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I will say this
Despite people saying Boise “dominated” Oregon, I think it was more of a game of two teams playing really ugly and one team playing worse. Go watch the game again. Oregon had a lot of chances to get back in the game, due to Boise State’s gifts, and they muffed them.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 2, 2009 11:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
very true
that is still the ugliest game of the season
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Iowa
Not to beat a dead horse, but Iowa is frustrating. You probably have them ranked appropriately due to technically being undefeated, but they just aren’t that good. BUT, they are still winning… for now.
I can’t argue with much else. Thanks for TCU still being #4.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 10:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Anybody think
Iowa/Cincy/TCU could beat Oregon?
by edsp on Nov 2, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think TCU definitely could.
I think Cincy could as well, though I wouldn’t wager much $ on it.
I think Oregon would kill Iowa.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
TCU maybe.
But in the realm of resume-ranking, who would beat who hypothetically doesn’t matter.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. nt
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
by SwimTexas on Nov 2, 2009 9:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OU-Lite is grossly...
….. over-rated! Who is the best team they’ve beaten? A 5-3 Aggie team? They lost to the 2 good teams they have played.
I would love to watch Houston play TCU.
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
by HornChamps on Nov 2, 2009 10:18 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Right and they won’t beat the Aggies now. They were only successful because they played us earlier in the year when our defense and offence were both adjusting to the new system.
by YUMC on Nov 2, 2009 11:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Does it mean this time they can play in Stillwater and not in Kyle Field?
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 2, 2009 11:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you mean Horns then you are probably right. I am not sure what you mean though??
by YUMC on Nov 2, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Boise over Oregon
I agree with silky and Iron. Boise has to be ahead of Oregon. Boise dominated Oregon, as orangechipper points out as I type this.
I’d also drop Iowa to the bottom of the Boise/Oregon/TCU/Cincy/Iowa 4-8 mess. Iowa easily has the two least impressive, question-raising wins of the entire bunch.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 10:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Two thoughts
1) I know Alabama had a tough game against Tennessee, but it seems a lot of people are acting as though they have struggled all season, which really isn’t the case. That Tennesse game was the only game in which they have struggled, and [in their own style] they’ve absolutely dominated everyone else they’ve played. Florida, on the other hand, has looked mediocre in at least three games.
2) Your rationale for placing OU #20 is exactly why I want no part of KSU in Dallas next month. On the one hand, they seem to have our number, but on the other, K St. is so unpredictable and crazy, you never know what you’re going to get. Its like asking whom would you rather fight, the skilled boxer over in this corner, or that maniac gnawing on his own arm in the other corner? That’s right, you know who you’d rather fight.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 2, 2009 10:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
+1
Very easy to get caught up in that Tenn game. FL has not dominated as much as Bama has this year.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What if...
Mere speculation of course, and we’ll see, but what if Bama loses to LSU and FL loses to Bama in their CCG (maybe LSU plays FL?), TCU continues to dominate and the other undefeateds lose one. And of course, the Horns win out. Is it possible for us to play TCU in the MNC? Or would they still give a one-loss FL the nod?
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 10:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think it's more of an issue now
I think, a month ago, the consensus was that a one-loss SEC champ would still play for the championship over an undefeated team from anywhere else other than Texas.
But the close calls Bama and Florida have had over the last month have raised questions about just how strong they really are. If LSU beats Bama this week, and the SEC West champ beats Florida in Alabama, i think an undefeated Iowa at the very least would have the computer strength necessary to pass the SEC champ in the BCS. I don’t think Cincy or TCU would, but it would be close.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Having Florida and Bama
both with one loss, no matter how it happens would lead to chaos in the BCS. Remember if LSU pulls the win at Bama this weekend….then LSU would have to lose somewhere else in order for Bama to get back in the SEC title game.
by silky51 on Nov 2, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Straight resume-ranking...I'd put Oregon over Boise.
Think about it this way people. You’re not ranking who would beat who on a neutral field. You’re ranking who has had the best season based on accomplishments on the field. So instead of thinking of Boise as having beat Oregon, think of Boise as having beat a team that is exactly as good as Oregon but not Oregon. Then put their resumes up next to each other and compare. It’s fairly close and debatable, but I think Oregon’s resume is better. Head to head just doesn’t matter much in resume-ranking because you’re ranking a whole season, not just a game.
And no, I did not think OU should have been ahead of Texas last year, but that was because of the resume as a whole, not solely because Texas beat OU. That was the serious flaw with the “45-35” chanting. I never liked that aspect of our campaign.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 10:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't get it
Boise beat Oregon. Not a team that is exactly as good. Maybe I’m slow, but I don’t understand that logic.
Until Boise loses, you have to go with head to head results. The season matters, games matter.
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
EVERY game matters, not just ONE.
You can’t rank two teams relative to each other based on the results of ONE game when each of them has played EIGHT games. Look at the entirety of their resumes and rank them accordingly.
Resume ranking isn’t about trying to figure out who would beat who, it’s about trying to figure out who’s had the best season.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
While i agree...
That one game shouldn’t trump the entire seasons resume…
You just can’t ignore the utter domination Boise had over Oregon…
Quoting from ESPN recap of the game, "if not for two missed field goals, a botched field-goal snap and three turnovers, it very well might have been a high-scoring rout for the Broncos."
Oregon had 152 yards total offense compared to 361 for Boise.
The total yards were the fewest for Oregon in nearly 15 years.
Boise with 22 first downs. Only 6 for Oregon.
TOP – 42 minutes for Boise. 18 for Oregon.
Oregon had 31 yards rushing on the day.
Its not like it was a one score game decided late in the fourth Qtr. Sure this is debatable. I certainly don’t like how Sagarin has undefeated 1AA richmond ahead of Texas Tech. Yes schedule HAS to be part of the equation somehow. But such a clear-cut dominant victory cannot be ignored, imho.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
BSU did not dominate Oregon. I'm sorry, they didn't.
I watched every minute of that game. I don’t care what the AP recap says. And you can’t play the “if only this had happened, we totally would have dominated” card. Because it didn’t happen. BSU played terribly. Oregon somehow played even worse, so BSU won by default. It’s a win, certainly, and it counts, but it comes with caveats.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
?
Now you’re revising history to fulfill your point.
If holding a team to 6 first downs, outgaining them 361-152, and having the ball for 42 minutes isn’t dominating, then I’m afraid I don’t know what is anymore.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Oregon had one of the worst team performances in that game on offense………and it had everything to do with what Boise State was doing from a defensive scheme and flat out controlling the line of scrimmage.
by silky51 on Nov 2, 2009 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
meant to say
Oregon had one of the worst performances of any team this season from an offensive standpoint.
by silky51 on Nov 2, 2009 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't know what it is anymore, apparently.
Stats don’t tell the whole story about anything. They aid in understanding the whole story. You act as though yards are the ultimate test of domination of a team. How about BSU’s 3 turnovers? Do they not count? How about the fact that BSU averages 4 yards per play and Oregon averaged 3? Does that look dominant? How about the fat that BSU outscored Oregon by a grand total of 11 points? Domination? 11 points?
I don’t know if you watched the game or not. But I did. And what I saw was both teams playing terribly on offense, at least in part due to the opposing defenses. BSU moved the ball better than Oregon did, but also turned it over 3 times as often. No one dominated anyone. It was an ugly game and Boise State was less bad than Oregon.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
game
Oregon had one drive that exceeded 5 plays – a 9-play touchdown drive that started near midfield.
In fact, Oregon had 14 drives in the game. Only 2 of them exceeded 20 yards. How much more dominating of a defensive performance do you want? Two of their final four drives started inside the Boise 40-yard-line and neither resulted in points.
Boise took the opening kick of the second half and made the score 19-0. It was over at that point.
Boise did lose the turnover battle 3-2. So what?
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You act like turnovers aren't part of the game or something.
The point of the game of football is to score points. Yards help you score points, turnovers prevent your from scoring points. Thus, while Nebraska out-gained ISU by 130 last week, they lose the game because they turned the ball over 8 times and couldn’t score any points as a result.
I did misread a box score and thought that Oregon only had 1 turnover, but the point remains. If Boise State was so dominating (and they weren’t; trust me when I say that they looked bad), they would have won by more than 11. They had 3 turnovers and missed a bunch of field goals. All of those things make up a team’s performance and has to be taken into account. You can’t just ignore what doesn’t help your argument.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
boise
You act like a -1 turnover margin in a game means everything. And you act like a dominating defensive performance means very little.
And the point of the game of football is to score more points than your opponent…not just to score points.
That game was never in any doubt in the second half.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was more differentiating the offense from the defense there.
I did not make that clear. The BSU defense gave up very little to the Oregon offense, I agree. From watching that game, it was pretty clear that much (though certainly not all) had to do with Oregon playing terribly. And, as you can tell from how the rest of the season has gone (i.e. Oregon scoring 47 points on USC and BSU giving up 34 to Fresno State), some part of it had to be Oregon just playing terribly. But yes, BSU’s defense did, on that day for whatever reason, hold Oregon down.
But my point in the above (that I did not make entirely clear) is that the BSU offense was not good at all. In fact, they would have looked plain awful if it hadn’t been in direct comparison to the Oregon offense. Turnovers, not finishing drives with touchdowns, not making field goals, etc. It was all not very good. So if the point of the offense is to score points, then the BSU offense didn’t do a particularly good job of it.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
game
Well, we can argue the merits of the game all we want. It doesn’t really matter, though.
My main problem with resume ranking is that in cases like this, it substitutes subjective analysis for objective results. It would be like arguing that the team that lost Game 7 of the World Series really won the title because it won its three games by 10 runs each, but lost four 1-run games due to bad calls.
Sure, you could argue that they might be a better team, but sports is a results-oriented endeavor played on the field. Ignoring a head-to-head result between similarly ranked teams is a travesty. Regardless of how the game appeared or how well a team is playing now.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its ALL subjective
even results can be interpreted in different ways. The same way that people group statistics to benefit one side of an argument (for instance, Texas’ record against OU this decade vs the past 20 years, vs the past 30 years, etc.). In a given game, if each team is scoring on every possession, and one team has one more possession and wins by 3 points, what does that result really mean? What if the home team won, or the team that won the coin toss, does that make them better? I don’t think it means anything until you look at the other 11 results and can give a more nuanced opinion of which team is better.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 2, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What are we trying to discern here?
I would roughly characterize my primary point of concern as “which team plays football better?” From that point of view, games are not be-all end-all deciders, simply opportunities for each team to make its case. Sometimes a team can make a better case and still lose the game. That doesn’t mean I award it the victory on that day, but down the line, perhaps it means I would rank it higher.
Your directive, it would seem, is better characterized by “which team got the result.” Which is fine on one occasion, but does little in determining anything over the long haul. Any time you begin to consider an accumulation of goodness, particularly in a sport that doesn’t include a true round-robin, factors beyond results will have to come into play if you want to determine who you think the best team is, which is why I say it is all subjective, and why I believe a better mode of operation is to decide which team “plays football best.”
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 2, 2009 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's called the Leinart approach
AKA, “I still think we have the better team, they just made the plays at the end”
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think we were better than A&M in 2006?
I sure do. I think we should have been ranked higher and so, apparently did the pollsters. And we lost to them.
OMG your worldview is CRUSHED!
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 2:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, I say we were better than A&M
They just made the plays at the end.
It’s called the Leinart defense, and is perfectly legitimate.
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong analogy
A&M lost some games (though I completely forgot how weird a team that was — three losses, all at home, by a total of six points) elsewhere, so that’s not completely analogous to the present situation, in which a one-loss team’s only loss was to an undefeated team.
How about this one instead:
The 2002 Miami Hurricanes clearly had the best resume of any team that season, taking the entirety of the season under consideration. Yes, they lost to Ohio State, and Ohio State didn’t lose to anyone else, but clearly Miami’s victories were better than the rest of Ohio State’s. I mean, Ohio State barely beat a bad Cincinnati team and needed a fluky play to beat Purdue. So, despite Ohio State’s head-to-head victory, the voters of the AP should have considered the whole season and awarded the championship to the Hurricanes.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I mean, sort of.
The issue with that is that there was a BCS championship game, which the rules say crowns the BCS champion and Ohio State won. I know the AP could have done whatever they wanted, but it’s not like Ohio State didn’t play anyone that year. They just didn’t blow anyone out that year.
How about 1996 when FSU beat Florida in the regular season and then they played again in the #1 vs. #2 Bowl Alliance “championship game that isn’t actually a championship game” and Florida blew out FSU? They each have one win against each other and no other losses. Florida was given the national championship because their win came in the bowl game, but on the season as a whole, each had an argument.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 4:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And...
Didn’t that sort of happen for Texas in 1970? We were awarded the NC, but then lost in the Cotton Bowl (to Notre Dame??). I wasn’t around then, but I’ll bet that Texas team was pretty great, and I’ll bet few around here would want to give that trophy to the Irish.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 2, 2009 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1970
That was the first year the AP had a post-bowl poll, and the last year the UPI didn’t. We won the UPI championship because the UPI couldn’t take our loss to ND into consideration.
And since you’ve brought it up, I’ve always felt a bit odd about claiming that championship. I’m not saying it’s not legit — a lot of other schools claim championships in past years on much less solid footing. But given the modern standard which places so much importance on the bowls, it’s hard to grasp the concept of claiming a championship in a year when we lost the bowl.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 6:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That World Series analogy doesn't work.
The situation that does work with your World Series analogy is if a team lost the BCS national championship game and then claimed that they should still be ranked higher because they had a better season. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with arguing that you had a better season (or a better World Series or whatever), but it doesn’t matter because there were defined rules for how you crown a champion and the winner according to those rules is the champion.
There are no rules about how to rank teams in the polls. Different people weigh facts differently. The only thing you can do is say, “Here are the facts. Rank the teams based on this set of facts and nothing else.” Different people will come to different conclusions because we are human beings with different value systems. You seem to want to reduce rankings to a set of rules (e.g. “If two teams have identical records but one has beaten the other, then the head-to-head winner will be ranked ahead of the loser no matter who else the teams have played and no matter how well they have played in those games.”). But you can’t reduce polling to rules because there are too many possibilities and the transitive property doesn’t work in football and there are 3-way round robin ties and there aren’t enough rules in the world to make that work.
Subjective analysis that is derived solely from objective facts is the only plausible way to do a human poll.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As an unbiased member, I have to agree with Jason. Boise St dominated oregon, you can’t even argue that. They held Legarette to -6 rushing yards. A team known for its high octane offense. Looking at a box score and all the stats. 90% of the stats point towards Broncos maiming the ducks
by MJY6087 on Nov 2, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
First of all, I CAN argue that and I have been doing so.
Second, we all criticize pollsters and coaches for filling out their ballots without ever watching the games. They just glance at the final score or the box score and pretend that counts. And yet, when you do the exact same thing, it’s somehow okay? Find a torrent of the game and watch it and then get back to me.
I saw that entire game and I saw BSU play terribly on offense. Terribly. Oregon played even worse. BSU’s defense was good. Oregon’s offense made them look great. Masoli couldn’t hit a barn in that game if he was three feet away and had nothing in front of him. My opinion is by no means fact, and I invite anyone else who actually watched the game to chime in, but you can’t JUST look at stats and claim to understand how a game was played. They’re an aid to understanding what you saw, not a replacement for seeing it in the first place.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t need to watch a replay, because I watched all 4 quarters of the game on ESPN, but Im glad you took it upon yourself to assume something. What i saw was what most others saw: Boise St dominating every aspect.
You say “Oregon’s offense made them look great.” That proves my point that yes, even though Boise St might not have had an amazing offense, it was DOMINANT compared to Oregon’s.
You keep on talking about offense, but you fail to mention that BSU was DOMINATING on defense.
by MJY6087 on Nov 2, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry for assuming.
It was because you mentioned nothing about the game other than the stats.
I have said in above posts that BSU’s defense played very well against Oregon. I don’t seem to think they played nearly as well as you did (the stats for sure say that Oregon’s offense did nothing, but they fail to say why—I personally think it had a lot to do with Oregon’s ineptitude—which I suppose is where this slight disagreement comes from). But I fail to see how you can characterize a team’s performance as dominating when half of the team didn’t play particularly well and they only won by 11.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, yes it was
Oregon had their chances, even in the second half. Boise outplayed Oregon, but to say the game was in the bag with Boise playing as poorly as they were is going a bit overboard.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 2, 2009 7:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
game
Very similar to when Texas had no chance in the Cotton Bowl in 2004. That game was never in doubt, despite the low score.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 7:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we differ greatly in when a game is in doubt or not
I watched the 2004 game, and we had our chances then too. The game was in doubt for the majority of the contest. It’s not like OU jumped out to a 35-0 lead and held off a late Texas charge. It was a 12-0 game and Texas had several scoring opportunities.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 3, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But . . .
think of Boise as having beat a team that is exactly as good as Oregon but not Oregon
It’s possible to think that Boise is better than “exactly as good as Oregon” since they proved it on the field. And it wasn’t even close.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what we're trying to rank here.
We’re looking at resumes.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 11:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
resumes
does this include # of losses then? Should Iowa be ahead of Oregon?
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Resume is everything that has actually happened on the field so far this year and nothing else.
So of course number of losses matters. Iowa’s play on the field has been fairly mediocre but they have played a good schedule and have won every single one of their games, which cannot be said of Oregon. I would most definitely put Iowa ahead of Oregon.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
right...
Me too. You have to. And I actually agree with most of your OR vs BSU points. This is becoming a bit convoluted now, but I’m not convinced in looking at the Big 10 schedule this year, that Iowa didn’t beat a bunch of good teams, nor with much ease (margins aren’t everything, but there is a place for some subjectivity). Better than Boise’s schedule yes, but with this in consideration:
It’s fairly close and debatable, but I think Oregon’s resume is better. Head to head just doesn’t matter much in resume-ranking because you’re ranking a whole season, not just a game.
… I too think Oregon’s resume is better, and I also think it is better than Iowa’s, despite having lost a game.
But, yes, the point stands, you have to have them ahead with zero losses at this point. And I do expect Ohio State to beat the poo out of Iowa, so this will change.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
should say
not convinced that Iowa has beat a bunch of good teams
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 11:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It never ends.
I find it hard to believe that we’re still talking about basic principles of resume ranking. I thought we had moved on.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
kind of funny now
but I fear some BSU lovers may end up voting them over TCU in whatever game that is.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that doesn't mean your right in your assessment here
by silky51 on Nov 2, 2009 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No it does not.
Two separate arguments: (1) fundamental one about the fact that we’re resume-ranking, not power-polling, and (2) subsumed within #1, that Oregon should be ahead of BSU.
Never said they were the same, but thanks anyway.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, let's look at resumes
What the hell else could Boise have done this season? Yes, they play in the WAC. BSU can’t control that part of the schedule.
They went out and scheduled a team that now looks like one of the top 5 or so in the country. And killed them. And that win is better than any win Oregon has.
I look at their results and see only a couple of games in which they didn’t dominate. They slept-walked in the first half against UC-Davis before winning easily. I’m not going to penalize a team for sleepwalking once against an inferior foe (cough Colorado cough). And at least BSU didn’t have to rely on two blocked field goals in the last seven seconds to beat a 1-AA foe.
The game at Tulsa was also pretty close. Though I don’t think that’s too much more of a flaw on their resume than only defeating a bad Purdue team, at home, by two points.
They’ve pretty much crushed everyone else they’ve played.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care what else they could have done. I care about wht they have done.
They beat Oregon, but they in absolutely no way killed them. I watched that entire game. Oregon played worse than you can possibly imagine, but Boise also played pretty terribly. It was a win against a very good team at home. And Oregon has a loss against a very good team on the road. And that’s one game out of 8 for each of those teams.
Oregon has gone on to beat Utah (by 7), Cal (by 39) and Southern California (by 27), while Boise State has gone on to beat teams with a combined 16-32 record (plus a 1-AA team that is 4-4 and just gave up 4 points to Southern Utah (for the record: BSU scored 34). Oh also, one of those wins was by just 7 points over Tulsa, they of the 4-4 record and loss this past weekend to the SMU college football juggernaut. Both games were at Tulsa.
Color me unimpressed with Boise State’s resume. They have one a very good win, one pretty decent win (Fresno State), blowouts over some of the worst teams in college football (Miami of Ohio, which is 1-8; San Jose St., which is 1-6; and Hawaii, which is 2-6), wins over two very-bad-but-not-the-worst-in-all-of-college-football teams (Bowling Green and Tulsa), and a closer than it should have been win over a bad 1-AA team.
How is this resume better than Oregon’s?
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's all subjective
Boise’s resume is better than Oregon’s because they beat a team that is as exactly good as Oregon, and Oregon hasn’t.
Then again, Oregon practices against itself every day…
Resume rankings make my head hurt.
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oregon was also outplayed by...
Purdue. Yes that 3-6 Purdue. Purdue had more yards and First-downs but lost in the 4th qtr.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That absolutely matters to this discussion.
It’s an opinion of yours, but whatever. If you’re resume-ranking, play on the field matters. Of course, Purdue also beat Ohio State, so they’re not complete scrubs, and you have to take that into account as well.
But this matters, and you can take it into account in deciding who should be ranked higher. But that’s also one game. Oregon has pretty much dominated the 6 others they have played, against some very good teams, while Boise has dominated some terrible teams, and won exactly ONE game against a team with a winning record since Oregon (they beat 5-3 Fresno St.).
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No disagreement here...
But adding…
How good is Cal? they keep losing. How good is USC? They keep losing and looks like the worst USC team in a decade. Fresno lost by more to Boise than they did to Wisconsin and unbeaten Cincy COMBINED.
I guess i’d be more careful with this resume ranking because just last week USC was saying that THEY should be ahead of UT. Change around a few names and its like they are reading your mail. Saying that USC should be ahead of TX. They had more road wins against ranked teams, etc. They had a higher SOS, etc. OUR RECORD HAS TO MATTER. Unbeaten is important.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
As long as we’re both looking at the same data for resume-ranking purposes (and all of the data), we can disagree about how to weigh that data. I don’t claim to have a monopoly on reason.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 12:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you nailed why we disagree..
Its how you weigh the data.
Record deserves some weight.
SOS deserves some weight
Road wins get some weight.
Head to head gets some weight.
How you look during those games gets some weight. (the iowa factor)
If you value one of those over the other, you see real fast why theres so much disagreement.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
BTW...
If oregon WINS out and and doesn’t lose in their next 4 games… I think you put them ahead of Boise. But for now with things not being all that far off between them. The head-to-head gives sway.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
BZ is correct...
Washington State is the only game on Oregon’s slate that is potentially close to any game on Boise State’s slate after the Oregon game. Boise State hasn’t even played anyone the caliber of Purdue much less Utah, Cal, UCLA, Washington, or USC. I can’t believe some people buy into this ‘all games are equal’ mentality. Oregon was breaking in a new coaching staff and it was their first game as a unit. They looked pretty bad against weak Purdue and then beat Utah in a close one and have proceeded to look increasingly impressive in all the rest of their games. This isn’t Iowa who seems to find a new way to look horrible and still win. Oregon is a completely different team now and they have done this in a consistent fashion.
Who you play matters even if you can’t control it completely and Boise State has only the one victory of note and the rest just don’t warrant giving BSU a pass while other teams are duking it out against better competition.
by Rickyspub on Nov 2, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
BZ is correct...
Washington State is the only game on Oregon’s slate that is potentially close to any game on Boise State’s slate after the Oregon game. Boise State hasn’t even played anyone the caliber of Purdue much less Utah, Cal, UCLA, Washington, or USC. I can’t believe some people buy into this ‘all games are equal’ mentality. Oregon was breaking in a new coaching staff and it was their first game as a unit. They looked pretty bad against weak Purdue and then beat Utah in a close one and have proceeded to look increasingly impressive in all the rest of their games. This isn’t Iowa who seems to find a new way to look horrible and still win. Oregon is a completely different team now and they have done this in a consistent fashion.
Who you play matters even if you can’t control it completely and Boise State has only the one victory of note and the rest just don’t warrant giving BSU a pass while other teams are duking it out against better competition.
by Rickyspub on Nov 2, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ok... so Boise St. played a team...
exactly as good as Oregon…
Oregon also played a team exactly as good as Boise State… and they lost. By double digits. But somehow BSU shouldn’t receive full credit because they played really ugly and only beat an Oregon team that managed to be even uglier… okay… then Oregon lost, and not even to a team that played well, but to a team that played really ugly.
At some point, resume ranking has to incorporate not only the wins, but the losses as well… And complaining that someone is only undefeated because they played weak teams kind of rings a little hollow if you’re one of those teams they beat.
I doubt Oregon would lose to Boise State if they played again. Then again, I doubt that last year’s Tech team would have beat us again either… But at that point, you’re really talking about how good you think a team is, not what their results are for the year.
That’s one of the weaknesses of the doctrinally pure resume approach – you can say “who cares?” to the notion that the team just played who they had on their schedule. But the truth of the matter is that not everyone is not on the same footing when it comes to making the schedule. And teams like TCU and Boise State, good enough to beat you, but not big enough names to make that risk worthwhile, are going to find it increasingly difficult to schedule teams with realistic MNC aspirations in this BCS environment. Short of a meaningful playoff, there’s not really a way around that problem, but I think at the very least we could be less dismissive of it.
by Pflash on Nov 2, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
just want to add
that I’m not trying to put down resume ranking… It’s pretty woeful as a technique to determine a national champion for sure… but it’s still miles better than any other methodology currently being used. And it does have the saving grace of at least being intellectually coherent. If you’re doing a pure power poll and pretty much disregarding the on-field results, that’s at least also consistent. My main gripe with the human element of the BCS is that it’s neither, just a weird amalgamation of both with a dash of pure unadulterated uninformed opinion…
by Pflash on Nov 2, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose...
the reason I disagree with you is that I value a system of standards that measures a team’s “goodness” throughout an entire campaign, and not just on one occasion. In that light, individual results really don’t mean that much (which seems weird at first glance, but upon deeper consideration isn’t so weird). Any given game, any given team can have a bad day. But over the course of many performances (which I think is the appropriate term), we can evaluate, subjectively, who has had the better season.
This is probably the same essential disagreement I have with playoff proponents. I don’t take an absolute, black and white attitude regarding results, whereas most people probably do. If over the course of a season, Oregon seems more impressive to me, I would have to say they are the better team, regardless of any one result, head-to-head included. By the same token, if a 14-0 team loses the championship game to an 11-3 opponent who looked weaker over the course of 3 months, I’m still inclined to say the 14-0 team was the better team, and therefore the Champion, or the “team of the year,” or whatever.
The whole thing is subjective anyway, so I prefer to evaluate every nuance of the season and come to the best logical conclusion I can in deciding who the best team is, as opposed to common wisdom which dictates our opinions should be ruled by some results more than others (a one-time Championship Game over the entirety of the season, for instance).
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 2, 2009 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
again...
Substituting purely subjective analysis for objective results makes absolutely no sense, and pretty much throws “logic” out the window.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think that only computers should do the rankings then?
Purely objective, once the algorithm is written down.
by Horn Brain on Nov 2, 2009 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If only computers were considered
we would be looking at a #2 Iowa right now. The computers don’t watch the games either, which is why there is a place for some subjectivity.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
rankings
I’m saying that when it comes to analyzing Oregon and Boise St (and those teams only), to put them right next to each other in the poll and have Oregon ahead of BSU is preposterous.
Any poll is going to have to rely on some subjective analysis, or even a lot of it. But to completely disregard the head-to-head matchup on two teams ranked that closely defies true logic.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What exactly are you trying to rank, then?
You’re clearly not trying to rank resumes, as you’ve said you don’t like that method. So what are you trying to rank? If everything else is illogical to you, then please lay out your own logical paradigm for ranking teams.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
?
Horn Brain asked for opinions on his ballot. My criticisms are solely aimed at the Oregon-BSU issue. My only problem with resume ranking (as I stated earlier) comes when addressing these types of issues. Voters will adhere more strictly to their subjective analysis than what actually happened on the field.
People lament the fact that not every team can play everyone else in college football. But here we have two teams that share a similar position in the rankings and did play each other and now people want to ignore what happened on the field. That’s what is illogical. Especially since BSU remains undefeated.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 3:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No one's ignoring what happened on the field.
They’re just taking it for exactly what it was: one game out of eight so far. It is exactly as important to ranking these teams as every other game is. You’re arguing for treating one game as more important than every other game simply because two teams happen to be close to each other in the rankings. That is, if Boise State and Oregon were not close to each other in the rankings, you think the game should count the same as every other game, but because they happen to be close to each other in the rankings, this one game should count more. That is the very subjectivity that you complain so much about.
Also, I do not lament the fact that not every team can play everyone else in college football.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes...
head-to-head counts more than whatever subjective analysis one comes up with.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of like...
Oklahoma State and Houston. Houston has a worse resume by far. Okie state has beaten Georgia and has had a much tougher SOS. But Houston won the head-to-head AND has a better record. Houston has to be ranked ahead of Okie State in my most humble opinion.
USC & ND are similar. I’d have USC ahead of ND for now. If USC loses again, however… then ND CAN go ahead as long as they have the better record.
Georgia Tech lost to Miami but they have a better record. They have even SINCE beaten teams that Miami has lost to. Given that, i’d have GT ahead of Miami.
I don’t know… i think resume voting is important, but here its like resume voting is voter-speak for “I can ignore head-to-head if i want to”
Back to the Boise v Oregon debate. Right now Boise has a SOS at around 85. That’s in the same neighborhood as A&M, Arizona State, Stanford & Vanderbilt, & Nevada. Oregon has an SOS of #8. That’s in the neighborhood of Vtech & Arizona & Florida State. Right now, its not like Boise is playing the sisters of the poor every week. Now at the END of the year Oregon is projected to have #3 SOS and Boise somewhere in the 90’s and Oregon won’t have the same company as they have now… Boise at that point will share SOS with the likes of BYU, Rice, Idaho, Troy & UNLV. Then and only then would the ‘resume’ argument start to hold weight with me!
You keep mentioning one of 8 games. Well thats more than 12.5% of games played. That’s significant in my eyes. now when its 1/12 games played and the final 4 games are against good competition (oregon) vs horrible competition (boise) then I see your point better.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Limiting the head-to-head comparions
As an advocate of ranking Boise above Oregon, the key for me is not merely that Boise beat Oregon but that an undefeated Boise beat Oregon.
If Boise loses this week, I would have no problem ranking Boise behind Oregon, just I would have no problem ranking Penn State ahead of Iowa if Iowa lost to Northwestern this weekend.
Once a team loses, relying on head-to-heads is treacherous because they almost always lead to circular results (last year’s Big XII) or to convoluted results (Texas State beating Penn State through a series of several “A beat B” results).
But regardless of the fact that Boise has played a weaker schedule, they have defeated everyone they have played. I don’t think anyone can say with any degree of authority just how good Boise may or may not be given the weak schedule — we don’t know at what point Boise would start losing. And if you wanted to rank Boise below other one-loss teams (say, Georgia Tech) on a subjective belief that Georgia Tech is better (whether power poll, resume, who the hell cares), no problem. All we can say with some level of confidence is that Boise is better than everyone they’ve played — including Oregon.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So by your logic
Since Oregon lost to (IMO) the worst undefeated team in the country, they can not morally be ranked any higher than 8th, because there are 7 undefeated teams? Seems like you’re punishing Oregon for losing to an undefeated team instead of a one-loss team. If Oregon had instead only lost to Utah, and didn’t play Boise (say they played someone kinda bad, like… oh… anyone from the WAC), you’d have no problem with me having them up there (keep in mind Utah would be ranked significantly higher now).
I think people forget that losing to a good team is BETTER than losing to a bad one. Or at least less bad.
by Horn Brain on Nov 2, 2009 5:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, no
All I am saying is that I wouldn’t rank Oregon any higher than the particular undefeated team which defeated them.
If you wanted to rank Boise State 12, after GT, PSU, et al, based on a subjective analysis that GT should be ranked higher through whatever methodology (power poll, resume coin flipping), I’m OK with that. I’m not wedded to undefeated teams automatically being ranked above all teams with losses. (As an aside, I’d rank Iowa below BSU and Oregon, so I’m not wedded to it with the specific teams we have in front of us.)
The difference with your theoretically ranking BSU behind GT and ranking BSU behind Oregon, obviously, is that we have on-the-field results that allow us to more clearly ascertain which team is better. I know we have an honest difference of opinion as to how much weight one should grant the on-the-field result.
And yes, I’d be
(And Utah winds up being a bad example, as an Oregon loss to Utah instead of BSU, with no other results unchanged, would lead to the exact same situation.)
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No idea what the "And yes, I'd be" sentence was leading...
Something brilliant which would have conclusively proven my point, no doubt.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 6:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you missed my point
Erecting a ceiling for Oregon at BSU’s ranking is bad because it punishes Oregon for losing to an undefeated team more than it would be punished for losing to a once-beaten team. No matter how well Oregon plays, I can only justify moving them any higher if I’m willing to drag Boise up to one spot above them.
Imagine Boise is once-beaten, though. Then I’m suddenly free to put Oregon where I think they belong? That doesn’t make much sense to me.
I can think of no hard and fast rules in a reasonable ranking process. Texas should have been ahead of OU last year because of a comparison of their resumes and a general eyeball test: Texas played Tech at the end of a brutal stretch and still came within a single second of going undefeated through one of the toughest four game stretches in college football history, while OU was run off the field in a game in which they nonetheless played well. Boise looked to be the beneficiary of a very bad day for the Oregon Ducks, who then proceeded to play like a completely different team after a few games to work out the kinks. Everything about that game screams that it is an outlier and not a good indicator of the relative strength of the participants, while everything about the OU-Texas game screams that Texas was the better team, as evidenced by the fact that OU had been completely worn out (physically) on offense and defense.
Ranking these teams isn’t easy at all. To do it, you have to weigh your internal power poll against your internal resume ranking. We all agree that power polling is wrong because you’re ignoring some of the information (Yes, ESPN, USC would probably have given Florida a tougher game than Oklahoma last year, but they did not sustain a high level of play throughout the year.). But you’re also wrong to completely ignore what you actually see with your own eyes when you watch a game. There’s real information in there, otherwise we would be content to read the box score of each Texas game on Saturday night. When you watch a team over a season, you get an idea of what a team is capable of on its best and worst day. When you go back and ignore all that, what good are you really doing to yourself in ignoring your own expertise?
by Horn Brain on Nov 3, 2009 12:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How, exactly, is that?
“Oklahoma State and Houston. Houston has a worse resume by far. Okie state has beaten Georgia and has had a much tougher SOS.”
OU-Lite has played exactly 2 teams with less than 3 losses – Houston and Texas – both were solid losses! OU-Lite’s season opening victory over a 4-4 Georgia team doesn’t impress me.
Houston’s victories over 6-2 OU-Lite, 6-3 Texas Tech and 5-4 Southern Miss stand head ‘n shoulders above any of OU-Lite’s victories. Who on OU-Lite’s schedule is comparable? Grambling State? Aggie? Baylor? Missouri’s 1-3 conference record doesn’t instill any fear.
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
by HornChamps on Nov 2, 2009 8:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I always hated....
on a test at UT when it was an essay question. What do you THINK was the reason so & so won the war? Well, i give all the explanation and might get only partial credit.
Then on a multiple choice i either get credit or i don’t.
Multiple choice was objective and the essay’s were very subjective. Allowed for bias and such to get into the equation. I always seemed to do better on the subjective tests if i spent alot of time with the TA’s and GA’s before the test. Coincidence?
When you have teams that are very close… especially right next to each other as we have in this poll… Head-to-head is so crucial because its the most objective thing we have at our disposal.
This isn’t brain science. AFTER RECORD, Its why in every sport i can think of the first tie-breaker is always head-to-head. Here you have Boise ahead in the record AND head-to-head.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Head to head is a tiebreaker in standings.
Rankings are not standings in the sense that we think of them. Standings are based solely on W-L record, which is why head-to-head matters so much. The rankings are based on far more information than just W-L record, which is why head to head matters less.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not only preposterous, its not going to happen. The fact is, the Coaches know whats up. Even BSU wins out and Oregon continues to win, Oregon will never surpass Boise.
by MJY6087 on Nov 2, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes. Ill give you 3 schrute bucks if you are correct
by MJY6087 on Nov 2, 2009 10:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am merely saying...
That (1) head-to-head doesn’t matter in resume ranking; only the quality of the win/loss matters, and (2) there is more to resume ranking than wins and losses; the quality of play on the field and the quality of the competition played against weigh heavily on rankings.
Iowa has played a tougher schedule than Texas has, and has not lost a game. If we didn’t look at how well teams played on the field in those wins, it would seem Iowa should be ahead of Texas in the rankings. And, lo and behold, the computers did just that. But because humans have the ability to process info about how well a team played in a game, they can take into account that Iowa has played terribly against some bad schools and has been lucky to sneak away with wins, and can adjust their rankings accordingly. The same principle goes for Oregon and BSU. Yes, BSU beat Oregon, but the quality of their play on offense was suspect and it seems clear that some (though not all) of their success on defense was due to Oregon playing poorly rather than BSU playing well. Taking this into account is not wrong. It makes complete sense in order to get a full picture of how well a team has played.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess my take is more in the bigger picture...
I’ll give Boise State their victory, but I weight it less as the season moves on. The first game, especially with a new coach, is a mine field. There is potentially so much turnover even when teams maintain their coaching staffs that September games never seem to tell you as much about a team as their play does over the entire season.
Oregon has obviously moved on from that game and their early struggles with Purdue and have amassed a broad and impressive set of victories. Boise State has that win against Oregon and that’s it. They haven’t even seemed to improve, struggling against UC Davis and Tulsa. Even if they dominated the rest of their games it would be hard to truly find their appropriate place because they are playing nothing but lower quality opponents.
by Rickyspub on Nov 2, 2009 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
just saw this
before I posted above. That point is well put to me.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And that's why the BCS sucks
we’re grading which team had the “prettier” season, not necessarily who’s the better team. We have evidence on who the better team is, but it just doesn’t count as much as it should, and it’s a damn shame.
by goingforthecorner on Nov 2, 2009 11:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
oregon-boise st
I’m not buying it. Maybe if you had Oregon as the fourth-best team in the country and thought they were that much better than the rest of the unbeatens after the top three. But you have them one spot ahead of Boise St.
Which means a direct comparison of the two teams completely disregards the fact that they played.
All Boise can do is schedule these teams outside of conference (which is getting harder for them to do as they continue to have success). They do, they dominate the Pac-10 leader, and they still get punished for being in a crappy conference.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 11:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good point
regarding the relative similarity in their rankings. One would have to concede that, if they are similarly ranked in the poll, then they must have similar resumes, at which point head-to-head would be the tie-breaker.
But I personally would move Boise down the list and probably would put Oregon at 4.
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 2, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
not to keep going on about TCU
but would you really have Oregon ahead of them?
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
TCU
I wouldn’t. Then again, I live about 2 minutes from Amon Carter Stadium, and my wife has covered them, so I like to see them do well.
All of TCU’s best wins are on the road. And that defense is legit.
Plus, Oregon, you know, lost.
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, so I kind of deliberately put Boise one spot behind Oregon.
You guys are hilarious. Last year, the reason Texas’ head-to-head win over OU was a reasonable justification to have Texas>OU was because the two resumes were borderline identical. Both had played very tough schedules and done exceedingly well in all but one game. In this case, you’re looking at different resumes. Oregon has clearly faced tougher competition, and the win over USC was much more impressive than the win that Boise had over Oregon. Add to that the fact that I am not a computer and I can see that Oregon has hit their stride, whereas they were a bumbling mess against BSU. I think Oregon is the better team (based on what I’ve seen on the field, if you can stomach that), and I can only hope that some kind of weird disaster puts Boise and Oregon together in the Rose Bowl.
It’s not Boise’s fault that they play in the WAC, but we’re not giving out charity points here. Their resume is not as good as Oregon’s. The win by Boise is good, but anyone with a brain can see that Oregon is not the same team they were in September.
That said, Oregon did lose a game and looked pretty bad doing it. That’s why I’m also not going to put them at #4 or anything. Iowa winning sloppy over some pretty good teams looks better to me than Oregon winning almost all of their games by a lot. It’s very nuanced up there, but I think I’m pretty close to what I think is fair.
by Horn Brain on Nov 2, 2009 11:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Please put the rest the whole 'poor Boise can't control the fact that they play in WAC' canard!
This is the worst piece of reasoning I can imagine for positioning Boise in the rankings. Hell, we are already getting blasted in the media for the Big 12 being down and yet some of the same people knocking us for playing in the Big 12 are trying to hype Boise claiming their conference shouldn’t be held against them. Yet, I highly doubt Boise State could get through our schedule unscathed even in this somewhat down year for the Big 12.
Boise can control their schedule. There is a category called ‘Independent’ and if Boise wants to play with the big boys they can go independent and create a schedule that isn’t below contempt.
by Rickyspub on Nov 2, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good points, but...
you know, these teams played against each other. And Boise won.
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You know what I like about the facts
If you make some of them important enough, you can be right about anything.
by Horn Brain on Nov 2, 2009 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Resume ranking is epistemologically flawed if it ignores head to head results
But then again, it’s just a poll. I wrote above that if the two were to play again, Oregon would likely destroy Boise. But this thinking ignores head-to-head and trudges along the same line of thought that put OU in the title game last year.
Boise beat Oregon, therefore, they deserve a higher ranking.
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It does not ignore them
I said that Texas’ h-t-h win over OU should have been decisive because their resumes were very close otherwise. Oregon pretty clearly has a better resume than Boise, in my opinion, but it’s not so good that I think Oregon should be next in line behind the top 3. So you get pretty close rankings that look wrong when you don’t think about them.
by Horn Brain on Nov 2, 2009 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So you get pretty close rankings that look wrong when you don’t think about them.
Give me a break
by Jason Mayer on Nov 2, 2009 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
?
I fail to see what “looks wrong when you don’t think” and “are wrong” have in common.
by Horn Brain on Nov 2, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand your logic
But still humbly request that you switch Boise and Oregon. Have some respect for head to head results for now. Drop Boise when they lose.
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But what if they and Oregon both win out?
You would have Boise State, with one suspect win over Oregon and not much else to show for a season, over PAC-10 champ Oregon, a team that beat USC by more points than they’ve lost by since 2004 combined? You can’t convince me that Boise dominated Oregon, that’s not how I saw the game. It was a sloppy execution twilight zone by Oregon. Given that, if there is only one spot left in the national championship game, I have to go with the team that has looked good more like 11 times this season over the team that has looked good once.
by Horn Brain on Nov 2, 2009 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If....
Then yes, i agree with you. Cal & USC will likely lose a bunch more games. Not impressed with any of Oregon’s victories beyond those two. If they win out though… i think you are right that Oregon should be ahead of Boise.
Especially if the Bowl matchups give Oregon a tougher contestant.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's when these finer points deserve more consideration
And a more thorough debate will ensue. But at this point, don’t screw them over. Losses have consequences. Boise beat Oregon — at this point, that’s all that matters to me.
But then again, I really don’t care that much. Boise should probably get dropped a couple of spots in every poll due as punishment for that awful blue field. That thing hurts my eyes.
by Iron on Nov 2, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No! I love the blue field!
And I’m frankly surprised that more teams haven’t done it. Did the NCAA pass a rule banning non-green fields after Boise installed theirs (but grandfathering Boise in)?
You know Oregon would have done so if their colors were something other than green.
How about Oregon State, with a field that alternatives between black and bright orange every five yards?
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to disagree. Being undefeated has to mean something. Boise St is a good team, this isnt a 13-0 Western kentucky team we are talking about here. Not only do I think BSU is better than TCU (only good win is a clemson team), I think they would play a tight game against any BCS team they went up against in a BCS bowl.
by MJY6087 on Nov 2, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not our fault...
That the big xii sucks this year… so just because a one-loss Oregon has a higher SOS and more impressive road wins and more wins against the top 30… does that mean they should be higher than Texas? I didn’t think so either. Unbeaten still means something. or so i thought.
by Orangechipper on Nov 2, 2009 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Big 12 is certainly down from last year, but it still is miles better than the WAC...
Most of the computers are starting to penalize Boise State for their schedule even though they are undefeated, we will get hit a little bit but all of the computers (except Sagarin) have already jumped us ahead of Boise and that’s with most of our crappy OOC schedule already in the books. The voters were finally catching on and if it wasn’t for Oregon’s rise (as if this team is the same one that took the field in Idaho!) they would continue to see that Boise State has a resume of one game. Oregon has now built an impressive counter to that first game loss while Boise has been beating (sometime unimpressively) a collection of some of the weakest teams in FBS. There is a point where being undefeated just isn’t that impressive and Boise State is firmly there in my eyes.
by Rickyspub on Nov 2, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing to be happy about
It’s November, and all we can find to argue about in the BCS is whether Oregon should be ranked ahead of Boise.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 2, 2009 11:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
nice
I’m sure we can whip a few more arguments if we tried.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was just thinking...
who’d have thought Oregon-Boise St would be such a button for so many people?
by BrooklynHorn on Nov 2, 2009 1:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
because it reminds everybody around here of last year's debacle...
….sore subject
by silky51 on Nov 2, 2009 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems to be.
Everyone got all hot and bothered about last year’s debacle last year and unfortunately (to me, anyway) took away from that the faulty idea that head-to-head is some be-all, end-all of football rankings. If we had been in OU’s position last year and won the Big 12 after losing the game, I think a lot of people would be arguing a position opposite of the one they’re arguing now.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
just to be clear though...
we’d be wrong if we were arguing the entire scenario, not just the head-to-head. I think you mentioned earlier that you thought our fixation on 45-35 was wrong-headed, and I agree with that.
The head-to-head results are certainly important – and from a lot of your arguments related to Oregon/BSU, I think I rate those results higher than you do – but they are not determinative. I believe we were superior to OU last year based on the entire body of work – we played a tougher schedule, in terms of timing as well as opponent (especially considering when it really counted, they’d not played Mizzou yet), and frankly, I think our wins were better, and our one loss was nowhere near as bad as theirs (factoring in the Tech at home vs. away history). In the end, there certainly was no rationale for distancing OU from us to the extent that you’d overlook the actual on-field head-to-head outcome. You look at us vs. Tech, and there was enough distance to at least minimize that result.
Given all that, in truth, I do think we should have gone instead of OU, and if the roles were reversed, I do think we’d probably be arguing the opposite position – but we would be wrong…
As it relates to this Oregon v. Boise St. matter, I don’t think Oregon has clearly enough superior results to overlook both the head-to-head, and the fact that, tougher schedule notwithstanding, they have NOT successfully navigated it – they do have a loss, and the team you want to leapfrog them in front of does not. The fact that the loss is actually TO that same team…. well, like I said, at some point the fact that they played counts for something. And if an ugly win is better than a pretty loss – it’s infinitely better than an ugly loss…
by Pflash on Nov 2, 2009 5:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
After the bitch fest about Houston not being ranked high enough (thank you UTEP)
I would have thought.
by Wells on Nov 2, 2009 10:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
on a completely different side note..
and only because many are posting on this subject………can I get some feedback on if there is any news on the status of Aaron Williams hurt knee? It would be a shame to lose him for any length of time.
by silky51 on Nov 2, 2009 12:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
only thing I keep seeing is “day-to-day” and may not play in UCF game. Hopefully someone’s got some insider.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If he's dinged at all
He should not play against UCF. Totally unnecessary. Let him heal up for conference play.
by Horn Brain on Nov 2, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yep
I’m really hoping we can use this week as a big momentum builder, rest those who need it and give the #2’s some more reps.
If you have any insight on this game, hook me up here.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fine rankings HB but the post needs more taxonomy and/or cryptozoology. nt
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Nov 2, 2009 2:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I was hoping for some analysis of Hobo Matters.
But HB is certainly no John Hodgman so I remain disapppointed.
by billyzane on Nov 2, 2009 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Head to head matters!!
Boise above Oregon is a total joke – you lose all credibility if you want to ignore head to head matchups. They played. Boise won and remains undefeated! They’re both top 10 but Oregon is NOT better than Boise whom again — they played and lost to – this season.
HOOK 'EM HORNS!!
by vegasrobert on Nov 2, 2009 6:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
why do you have Oregon over Boise? didn't Boise they beat them?
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs -- ask yourself what makes you come alive, and then go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
-- Harold Thurman
by thanos on Nov 2, 2009 8:34 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
you're a tad late
see the endless argument about this very thing above
by Infield Elephant on Nov 2, 2009 8:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
seriously....
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs -- ask yourself what makes you come alive, and then go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
-- Harold Thurman
by thanos on Nov 2, 2009 9:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
horn brain
do you think Boise beats USC with home field? what about Cal? just curious?
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs -- ask yourself what makes you come alive, and then go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
-- Harold Thurman
by thanos on Nov 2, 2009 10:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No, and probably
Though I have no idea which Cal team would run out of the tunnel. But I don’t think Boise would beat USC, even on the blue turf.
I believe (from watching the games) that Oregon lost to Boise because it couldn’t get out of its own way much more than because Boise played well defensively. That doesn’t mean that Oregon is ahead of Boise because I think they would win a rematch. I am not using “the Leinart method” of team ranking. I am saying that Oregon not only looks better than Boise State, they have played much tougher opponents in showing me this, and so I have no problem putting Oregon ahead of the Broncos when both my gut and my brain tell me to do so. Now, if Boise had beaten a few more decent opponents, I would probably keep Boise ahead, because their resume would be better and they own the gut-brain tie-breaker.
by Horn Brain on Nov 3, 2009 1:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a different USC
Seriously, the defense is so dysfunctional that Carroll said he has to scrap it. They’re not that good on offense, either. What’s hilarious is that they could lose to ASU this week. The chances are a little higher now that RoJo and Williams are probably out, and McCoy looks doubtful as well.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 3, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
kinda my point
the resume point only rings true if we hold Cal and USC to past performances. their body of work has not passed the eye test IMHO. Ohio State isn’t very good and they lost that game more than USC won it. The Vest puckered.
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs -- ask yourself what makes you come alive, and then go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
-- Harold Thurman
by thanos on Nov 3, 2009 10:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
