Blogpoll Draft Ballot: Week 3
by JazzyUte on Sep 21, 2009 2:49 PM MDT
in Football
10 comments
 |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Florida | |
| 2 | Texas |  1 |
| 3 | Alabama | 1 |
| 4 | Penn State | 1 |
| 5 | California | 2 |
| 6 | Mississippi | |
| 7 | LSU | 1 |
| 8 | Boise State | 2 |
| 9 | Virginia Tech | 5 |
| 10 | Ohio State | 1 |
| 11 | TCU | 2 |
| 12 | Miami (Florida) | 10 |
| 13 | Oklahoma | 2 |
| 14 | North Carolina | 3 |
| 15 | Southern Cal |  13 |
| 16 | Houston | 3 |
| 17 | Cincinnati | 8 |
| 18 | Georgia | |
| 19 | Nebraska | 3 |
| 20 | Florida State | |
| 21 | Oklahoma State | 3 |
| 22 | Kansas | 1 |
| 23 | Michigan | |
| 24 | Iowa | |
| 25 | Georgia Tech | 13 |
| Last week's ballot | ||
0 recs |
10 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I have one qualm with most rankings, and here it is:
Results on the field have to be the #1 factor. As such, a team with an equal or better record cannot be realistically ranked behind a team they beat. So a 2-1 BYU team should not be behind a 2-1 OU team. Now, if BYU falls to 2-2 and OU is 3-1, all bets are off (because results on the field matter in every game). But as long as the records are the same or better, I can’t see justifiably ranking the losing team ahead of the winning team. Same with FSU/BYU or Houston/OSU or Oregon/Utah or any of the other ridiculous rankings that have come out recently.
The only exception to this rule would be a situation like OU/TTU/Texas last year, where all three teams have the same ranking and are caught in a 3-way tie. In that case you can rank them in whatever order you want, but you shouldn’t be allowed to put them more than 1 spot apart (so OU #1, TTU #3 and Texas #5 would be allowed, but no wider than that).
In your poll there are the following problems:
OU has to be behind BYU until BYU loses another game
UW has to be ahead of USC until UW loses another game
Ohio State has to be behind USC until USC loses another game
Georgia has to be behind Oklahoma State until Oklahoma State loses another game
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
I respect that line of thought, but I disagree.
Because I don’t see Washington as a top-25 team. Not yet, anyway.
The fact is, we’re only into week three and it’s impossible to get a feel of where a team really is.
I do not think BYU should be ranked and I’m not dropping Oklahoma out of the top-25 because it lost its opener without their quarterback for an entire half.
So I can understand your point, but I’m not sure I agree with it.
Here's my argument.
Right now we only have 3 games (or two for some teams) so we don’t have a lot of information. But if you are required to vote for teams 3 games into the season, you have to use the actual games on the field. I realize BYU looked horrible yesterday. Downright awful, and FSU proved on the field that they deserve to be ahead of BYU. But BYU proved on the field that they deserve to be ahead of OU.
Now, if the records are unequal then you can say a 12-1 Florida team is better than an 8-5 Mississippi team, even though Miss beat UF on the field, because there’s a whole body of work to judge them on, and Ole Miss fails on the body of work test. But if you have a 12-1 Ole Miss team and a 12-1 Florida team it is ridiculous to rank the loser above the winner, because the body of work results are the same (12-1 v. 12-1) and the head-to-head has to go to the winner.
Obviously I like kicking BYU out of the rankings, but it makes no sense. It’s impossible to say you rank teams based on the results on the field if you don’t rank the winner with the same record ahead of the loser. And it’s not just BYU. How can you have Ohio State 5 spots ahead of USC? Or Georgia 3 spots ahead of Oklahoma State?
So if I were redoing your ballot, here’s how it would go:
1- UF
2- UT
3- Alabama
4- PSU
5- Cal
6- Ole Miss
7- LSU
8- Boise
9- Va Tech
10- TCU
11- Miami (FL)
12- North Carolina
13- Houston
14- Cincy
15- UW
16- S. Cal
17- Ohio State
18- FSU
19- BYU
20- OU
21- Oklahoma State
22- Georgia
23- Nebraska
24- Kansas
25- Michigan
That cuts out Iowa (so what, they’re not that good) and GA Tech (again, not a big deal) and it preserves the on-the-field results. I mean, Oklahoma State destroyed Georgia, how can you have Georgia ahead? And USC beat Ohio State on the road, how can you have Ohio State ahead?
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Sep 21, 2009 4:26 PM MDT up reply actions
And if your concern is that UW isn't a good team
then that will be proven on the field in the next couple of weeks. But right now you have to use the on-the-field results, and UW and BYU have done more than half the teams on your list, like Kansas or Nebraska or Ohio State or Penn State, etc., even with the loss.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Sep 21, 2009 4:46 PM MDT up reply actions
This is why week-three rankings suck.
Because you don’t have a good feel for any of those teams.
Who do you think will finish with a better record when it’s all said and done, USC or Washington?
Exactly. I’m not saying your point is wrong – it’s very valid – but I’m going by how good a team is.
I think USC is better than Washington. Obviously it seems illogical to choose that, because the Trojans lost to the Huskies…but that’s how I see it.
This is why I hate early top-25 polls. They should release the first top-25 poll the week they release the BCS rankings.
I would agree with your last statement.
Early season polls are stupid. That said, shouldn’t you do whatever you can to make your poll as reasonable as possible considering the information you have? UW is better than USC right now. Same record, won the head-to-head. Can’t argue any other way. If UW finishes 5-7 and USC finishes 11-1 then obviously UW has a stronger body of work. But lets say both teams finish 11-1. Will you still argue that USC is better, even though they lost the head-to-head? That’s ridiculous, and it’s just as ridiculous in week 3 as it is in week 14. You should rank teams based on what they’ve accomplished on the field, like Kyle Whittingham, and not on how good you think they are, like Barry Switzer. ;-)
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Sep 22, 2009 8:56 AM MDT up reply actions
i hope tcu lives up to their number 10 ranking in your poll
they get to play clemson this week. clemson has to be the most up and down team in the acc and maybe the nation. they were supposed to be a national champioship caliber team. that fell flat. i think tcu will win b/c they have the speed and andy dalton is a very solid duel threat qb. i like the way gary patterson coaches his team too. this is the mwc only chance for a bcs bowl bid. if they get by clemson (2wins vs bcs opponents) and i think they would run the table in the mwc. peace out. ramble on!
by wolfmanshowlforever on Sep 22, 2009 3:40 PM MDT up reply actions
I disagree also...
I understand your argument but OU doesn’t deserve to be penalized because byu got lucky and beat them then got murdered be FSU. Same with OSU and USC. Because USC always loses a game to a no name team doesn’t mean every team they beat should automatically be penalized. What happens if USC loses another game to Cal and Cal loses two games but beats UW, and that’s UW’s only other loss? All are penalized because UW beat USC?
I see what you mean with the head to head. But in your way of thinking…that would make an Alabama/Florida final last year because when Florida beat them that put their records the same. But Florida had beat them the game before, so why would they have to play each other again?
GO UTES!!
Your alabama florida point is wrong.
Florida beat Alabama the last game of the year to put both teams at 12-1. So Florida was better head to head and had the same record. If Florida was 8-4 and Alabama was 12-0 then I wouldn’t have any problem putting Alabama ahead of Florida, but when two teams have the same record then you should put the winner ahead.
And if Cal/UW/USC all are 10-2 at some point, and they each lose to each other, then you can put any of them first (as I explained earlier) but you can’t have more than two spots between them. So you could put Cal at 8, USC at 10, UW at 12 or USC at 5, Cal at 7, UW at 9, whatever you want.
And keep in mind that I’m not penalizing teams so much for slip-ups to average or bad teams. If the team you lose to has a worse record than you then we’ll count it as a screw up and you’re not actually a worse team. But if the team you lose to has the same record as you, or better than you, then how could they possibly be a worse team?
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
