Explaining the BlogPoll Ballot
First, let me admit that I didn't devote as much time to my BlogPoll ballot as I usually do. I can blame it on moving and long-winded politicians -- and I do -- but the results are still, I believe, close to what I would have come up with had I taken the usual amount of time.
I'm not going to reprint the whole ballot beyond simply the rankings, but it's here for those who want to look at it before reading more.
My attempts to justify:
1 Florida
2 Utah
3 Texas
4 Oklahoma
5 Southern Cal
Most of this is self-explanatory. I did consider putting the Utes first, but that really wouldn't have been fair to Florida. You can say what you want about Utah having beaten everyone they played or "done everything they could do," and that's true. But, in my mind, they didn't accomplish as much as Florida. Sure, their best wins stack up against Florida's best wins, but get below the first four or five and the Gators' victories are far superior. Good enough, in my mind, to erase a one-point loss to a team that ended up in my Top 10.
Texas ahead of Oklahoma -- there, Longhorn fans, ya happy? And there's Southern Cal, down at No. 5. Take that, Musberger! But why, beyond my previously stated distaste for the Trojans? Here are the losses of the Top 5 teams: Mississippi, none, Texas Tech, Texas and Florida, Oregon State. Which of those things is not like the others? Southern Cal did have some good wins -- they are, after all, in the Top 5 -- but their best wins are arguably against two teams whose most challenging game not involving Southern Cal came against each other, and was far from a model of well-played football. Does that mean Penn State and Ohio State might be overrated? Maybe so. But it also means I'm not putting USC-West above two teams who made it through the Big XII maelstrom, the only remaining undefeated FBS team and the team that spent its last seven games turning every non-Top 2 opponent it faced into flambe.
They crushed, if that word is strong enough, your #8, #9, and #14 teams and their lone loss was substantively the same as Florida’s. Finally, if USC’s victory was impressive enough to knock Penn St. 4 spots down below a team with one more loss that PSU actually beat, I can’t quite understand why the Trojans would only move up to #5 behind a 2-loss Oklahoma team.--Nashville
This is an argument I'm willing to grant, up to a point. But, by that same measure, Oklahoma defeated my No. 7 by 25, my No. 11 by 44 and my No. 17 by 41. And while the arrows mean something, they don't mean everything. For the most part, I don't move teams up or down by going, "Well, they were at this ranking last time, so they have to move up x number of spaces or down at least y places..."
6 Alabama
7 TCU
8 Ohio State
9 Penn State
10 Mississippi
The Tide's only losses were to the No. 1 and No. 2 teams on my ballot. I can't dock them too much for that. TCU now looks like they should be considered a one-loss BCS conference runner-up, so they belong about here. Why put Ohio State ahead of Penn State? That might be one I'd like to have back, but Ohio State's three losses look better than Penn State's two losses -- if Ohio State doesn't make that late-game turnover against Penn State, who would you put here? Mississippi is a lot better than anyone gives them credit for, and for all those who put Texas Tech ahead of them, I don't get where you're coming from. I mean, I guess I can see another resume voter docking Ole Miss for its losses, but have you seen Texas Tech's early season "schedule"?
11 Texas Tech
12 Georgia
13 Virginia Tech
14 Oregon
15 Florida State
See above on Texas Tech. Georgia closed with a pretty good win over Michigan State, and had a good season if they don't play Alabama, Florida or Georgia Tech. I know, if and if and if. Virginia Tech and Oregon defeated some impressive bowl opponents and Florida State made the Badgers wish they'd declined the invitation to Orlando.
16 Iowa
17 Missouri
18 West Virginia
19 Oregon State
20 Michigan State
Iowa and Missouri -- two sides of the same coin. The Hawkeyes started unranked and didn't get much attention until they defeated Penn State; they took that chance and did well with it. Missouri started ranked high and ended up here; when they got the spotlight, the Tigers collapsed. Welcome back, West Virginia; congrats on the Pat White-inspired win over the Tar Heels. Oregon State suffered a de facto loss, and Michigan State really did lose, but none of the other teams impress me, so there they are.
21 Georgia Tech
22 Cincinnati
23 Boise State
24 North Carolina
25 Arizona
Four bowl losers here, including one that displacedute says I punished too severely.
I hate their stupid blue turf and their fans are like BYU fans only less-knowledgeable and more annowying, but they lost by 1 to your #7 team and they beat your #14 team.
True. But outside of Oregon, their best win is -- what, Louisiana Tech? And they lost by one -- but they lost. Margins matter less for the losing team than for the winners. And that one-point loss came in a game in which the Broncos were outgained 472-250, ran the ball just 28 yards and were almost doubled up on first downs (28-15).
But wait, there's more -- the Bottom 5 were very controversial, as Nashville's comment pointed out.
Cal had a better record in conference play and overall, though admittedly, they did lose to Arizona. Even though Arizona finished strong, there are enough quality 4 loss teams that a 5 loss team need not be included.
I don't necessarily set a bar on "this number of losses disqualifies a team." Arizona was someone I picked more out of desparation than anything else. However, Cal's best win is arguably against Oregon, then Miami, then it deteriorates rapidly. Arizona's best wins are against (ahem) Cal, BYU and then a schedule almost as good as Cal's. It's a close call; I went with Zona.
0 recs |
4 comments
Comments
Thanks
I appreciate the explanations. Perhaps because I grew up on the West Coast I tend to believe more in the Pac-10 than do many out here, but even considering that allegiance, I can’t say I’m persuaded. Though less important, I find myself exercised more by the exclusion of Cal than by USC’s position within the top five.
If we agree that Cal and Arizona are comparable, then their respective Pac-10 records should carry a good deal of weight as they all shared opponents. Cal went 6-2 against their common opponents while Arizona went 4-4. Interesting. Furthermore, Cal lost every game on the road against bowl teams (Maryland, Arizona, USC, Oregon St.) Arizona lost two games at home (USC, Oregon St.) and two games against teams with losing records (Stanford, New Mexico!). Finally, on the subject of quality wins, I think Cal takes the cake here. Oregon is unquestionably their best, but wouldn’t you say Michigan St. is a close second? That’s two wins over teams in your top 25 compared to none by Arizona.
As to USC, I still think that #5 is too low. Oklahoma’s extra loss, particularly considering the fact that Vegas favors the Trojans over everyone in college football, makes this a no-brainer. Now legitimate arguments exist for whether they ought to be 2-4, primarily resting on your opinion of the Pac-10 versus the Big XII now that bowl season has finished, but it just a stretch to put a 2-loss team ahead of the 1-loss Trojans. Put differently, if Florida’s defense was able to hold Bradford & Co to 14 points, how much fewer points would USC have allowed?
by Nashville on
Jan 14, 2009 5:12 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Fair enough
On Arizona, I’m open to the idea that I might have gotten that one wrong.
Put differently, if Florida’s defense was able to hold Bradford & Co to 14 points, how much fewer points would USC have allowed?
Again, this is the kind of comparison that I try to avoid as a resume voter. There’s a case either way here — but it can’t be made based on games that weren’t played. Who has the best resume? I still think it’s probably Oklahoma. And I think you’re underestimating Florida’s defense, which shut down almost every team they faced post-Mississippi. If you were a good offensive team, you had a mediocre day against Florida. If you were mediocre, you had a bad day, etc.
I was unimpressed with Southern Cal to begin the year. I’m still not overly impressed with them. They had a year worthy of being in the Top 5, I’ll begrudgingly grant. But nothing more.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on
Jan 15, 2009 1:47 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Entirely reasonable
There’s a case either way here — but it can’t be made based on games that weren’t played.
What ifs are certainly the bane of the college football analyst’s existence so I think you’re right to not rely upon them. My point was simply that USC’s defense was objectively better than Florida’s throughout the year. Clearly the bowl games showed that Florida can play D but they also showed that USC is pretty damn good on offense, and both teams proved that against some of the toughest possible opponents (OU #1 Scoring Offense; PSU #5 Total defense).
Where exactly the Trojans ought to rank is just something we’re going to have to disagree on even if we do agree it is within the confines of the top 5. I personally think that it would be at worst a pick’em between Florida and USC. I understand others who wish to rank undefeated Utah and/or 1-loss Texas above ‘SC. Like I said, I wouldn’t, but it’s tough to pick between 1-loss teams. And that’s the key difference in my mind. Because Oklahoma has 2-losses. And USC doesn’t.
In any case, thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.
by Nashville on
Jan 17, 2009 12:16 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bring Back the Top Twenty
There simply aren’t twenty-five teams worthy of being ranked this year. It wasn’t just a down year for the SEC and the Big Televen…it was a bad year overall. (Oh and after the bowls can we agree that the Big Twelve was seriously overrated?) Lots of mediocre teams beating each other and pounding their chests like they had done something impressive.
by Watchman on
Jan 14, 2009 11:43 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs







