BCS Standings: Texas is No. 2 Because They Played. That's Fair
by cocknfire on Nov 1, 2009 8:30 PM EST
in Football
11 comments
Welcome to the BCS Standings, where you can not play and still look worse than you were last week.
1 Florida
2 Texas
3 Alabama
4 Iowa
5 Cincinnati
6 TCU
7 Boise State
8 Oregon
9 LSU
10 Georgia Tech
Texas moves to No. 2 because humans are easily distracted and go "Ooh. Shiny!" when Texas shellacks Oklahoma State while Alabama takes a week off. Computers, unimpressed by things like "they didn't play this week," continue to rank Alabama based on all nine weeks and so have the Tide and Texas tied.
Iowa remains in fourth place. And, no, not simply because the computers don't consider MOV; consider that despite the slow start against Indiana, the Hawkeyes still won by 18. The problem, if one exists, is in the use of the computers at all and not in the exclusion of MOV. At least for this week. In other weeks, sure, it's a problem.
Iowa is actually second per the computers this week, with Florida in first place. In fact, Florida maxed at 1.000 in the computer polls (remember, the best and worst scores are discarded) and actually nearly hit a perfect mark in the standings as a whole with a .992. Harris voters are the least impressed with the Gators but still have them No. 1.
No real surprise among the Cinderellas, which to me includes likely Big East champ Cincinnati as well as TCU and Boise State. As long as the Horned Frogs keep winning, we can hope that sanity will prevail and they will make a BCS bowl ahead of the Broncos. You can make a case that both of them deserve to be in the big-money games if they're undefeated, but I see no basis for putting an undefeated Boise in ahead of an undefeated TCU. The coaches appear to understand this hang-up I have on strength of schedule, something that eludes the luminaries that comprise the Harris Poll. The computers also put Boise below Oregon, something that would cause the human voters minds to seize up; "Boise ... defeated ... Oregon ... week ... one ... rest ... of ... season ... meaningless."
Georgia Tech also gets a boost from the computers to get into the Top 10 ahead of Penn State. This is good news for the ACC, which needs to preserve its BCS berth by having its champions continue to be ranked well despite the general perception that the league is mediocre.
The Harris voters continue to make a strong case for their expulsion from the standings. Not only is Boise ranked ahead of TCU and Iowa but in front of Cincinnati, which hasn't played Georgia's schedule but also hasn't played Boise's. Like the coaches, they have Oklahoma in the Top 20 because, well, because the name of the team is Oklahoma.
The losses by South Carolina and Ole Miss excise them from the standings; for the SEC, it's the feast of the Top 10 or the famine of irrelevance.
0 recs |
11 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
There’s some interest to be mined in the details this week, but the only real question I had last night was whether GaTech or Penn St would be the one to nudge into the top 10 (assuming USC fell out, and it did across the board, a small triumph for sanity.)
Bad luck for Bama to have a bye on a day when UF and UT were rolling over big name rivals, but they’ll return the favour this coming week when they’re tangling with LSU while UF takes on Vandy and Texas plays… um, UCF. The scheduling gods give with one hand, and they take with the other.
by peachy rex on Nov 1, 2009 9:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well
“Not only is Boise ranked ahead of TCU and Iowa but in front of Cincinnati, which hasn’t played Georgia’s schedule but also hasn’t played Boise’s”
While I can see good cases for TCU and – I suppose – Iowa over Boise, this just isn’t so for Cinci. First, they have played two common opponents. One is a crappy Miami (OH) team that both beat badly. But the other is Fresno State, where BSU had a definitely more impressive win at Fresno than Cinci did at Cinci. Second, the Oregon victory is likely to turn out to be the most impressive victory of the year for any team whatsoever until the SEC championship game. Third, Cinci’s schedule is actually very, very comparable to Boise’s (sagarin’s SOS puts BSU’s SOS at 80, Cinci’s at 74). I suppose you can still make the argument for putting Cinci over BSU, but simply handwaving about strength of schedule isn’t good enough.
by killtacular on Nov 1, 2009 9:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I guess it depends on how you define strength of schedule
I use Sagarin sometimes and might use it to help put my BlogPoll ballot together this week, but I don’t really like it for a variety of reasons.
Here’s what I’m talking about: Cincy’s best wins are at South Florida, at Oregon State and at Rutgers. Boise’s is vs. Oregon and then what? At Fresno and at Hawaii? Sure, the Fresno win is better for the Broncos, but they also weren’t that impressive against UC Davis or Tulsa, while Cincinnati cruised past its FCS opponent and hasn’t really been challenged in a game outside of Fresno and maybe Oregon State.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Nov 1, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oh sure
I mean, as a BSU fan I don’t personally buy that, but its entirely reasonable. My point is that argument is more of a “number of quality wins” argument than a straight up “undefeated’s strength of schedule” argument.
by killtacular on Nov 1, 2009 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Top 3 order still doesn't matter
for Texas, UF, or Bama – win out and you’re in. For that matter, LSU can win out and be in the BCSMNCG.
Side note: that game needs a better name, quick.
by rco3 on Nov 1, 2009 9:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Meaningless.
The only truth to be taken from the BCS now is that, if everyone holds serve, Texas will face the winner of the Florida/Alabama SECCG and I think everyone can agree with that…
"A player who conjugates a verb in the first person singular cannot be part of the squad, he has to conjugate the verb in the first person plural. We. We want to conquer. We are going to conquer. Using the word 'I' when you're in a group makes things complicated." ~ Wanderley Luxemburgo, 1999
by ejruiz on Nov 1, 2009 10:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agree with a lot of your post...
But the complaint with which you lead the post is unsustainable.
1. Texas was ranked slightly ahead of Alabama early in the season.
2. Human voters bumped up Bama (largely because of their convincing showing against Virginia Tech in Atlanta) and dinged Texas because the Longhorns struggled to knock out OU.
3. A week ago, Texas began closing the gap with humans when they waxed Missouri and Alabama got dinged for nearly losing at home to Tennessee (who lost to UCLA).
4. This week, Texas blew out Oklahoma State on the road and, just as voters had done earlier in the season with Bama’s win over VT, credited Texas in the rankings.
5. While Texas rose to #2 in both human polls, the jumps were very minor, point-wise. (See here.) They moved up in ranking because they were so close to Alabama after last week (See point 3, above) and gained just enough points in each human poll that the Longhorns overtook the Tide, but only by about as much as they led Texas by last week.
The upshot is that unless you want to say that Alabama was wrongfully credited for their quality win over VT, you can’t fairly characterize the credit given to Texas this week for a similarly impressive win as merely distracted penalization of Alabama in an off week. Nor, for that matter, can you validly accept the ground Bama gained with humans when Texas got dinged for struggling with OU, when the bulk of the point movement between TX and Bama occurred last week, when it was the Tide’s turn to get dinged for struggling.
Alabama didn’t get the shaft for not playing. They got their bump for their wins, and took their lumps for their struggle. Same as Texas, only the Longhorns’ bye was three weeks ago. When, funny enough, Alabama moved on them in the polls.
(Yes, this lengthy rebuttal is me procrastinating doing real work. Good post overall, TSK)
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 2, 2009 12:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree that Alabama got credit early this season and then got knocked for struggling against Tennessee. But at what point are we going to start taking Tennessee seriously? So many teams have gotten dinged for not defeating Tennessee by a sizable enough margin or by getting blown out by the Vols, and we’re still talking about Tennessee like they’re a glorified .500 midmajor. I’m not saying they’re great; I’m just saying that defeating them by any margin is become more impressive in my book.
As for the credit this week for the blowout of Oklahoma State: It’s a question of how much credit you want to give them. Certainly, Texas is a lot closer to Alabama in my book than they were a week ago, but I don’t know that anything I saw this weekend would convince me to move Texas ahead of Alabama if I didn’t have them there already. Don’t forget that Houston beat Oklahoma State, if by a smaller margin, and aside from maybe Georgia (which doesn’t look that good) OSU really hasn’t defeated anybody. (I’m more skeptical of Missouri than I used to be; they’re a good team, but not a lot for anybody to hang their hat on.)
I’m also not into “crediting” teams by moving them up. I think you have to consider that sometimes, but I still like looking at the entire resume and judging based on that. It’s hard for me to say a resume goes from the second-best in the country to the third-best just because this is the team’s week off.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Nov 2, 2009 2:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Something else to consider – VaTech is now a 5-3 team. If we’re going to take Tenn seriously – and that affects Florida’s position as well – then by the same token, at some point doesn’t VaTech stop being such a marquee win for Bama? By the current rankings, Florida and Texas have a better #1 win than Bama (though opinions obviously vary on the relative merits of Okie St.) That will change if Bama beats LSU, of course, but the whole point of resume ranking, I’m told, is judging solely by what has actually happened already.
by peachy rex on Nov 2, 2009 5:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the middle of the schedule
That’s where I think Alabama has Texas and maybe Florida. The Virginia Tech win might not be as good, but Alabama doesn’t have as many absolute dogs as the Gators and the Longhorns do.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Nov 2, 2009 7:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You doth protest too much
I generally agree with all your points. That is, we generally agree on how to rank teams.
What I found bizarre about the point in the post, and now again in your reply, is the leap from your thoughts about how to rank teams to the disbelief that a team in a bye week might get jumped by a team that played. It’s bizarre because such a leap is not inconsistent with anything else that you’ve said.
Take, for example, the staple of your thesis — that teams should be judged on their resumes. Clearly, Alabama’s resume can’t change in an off-week, but what relevance is that to any other team’s? Certainly Texas’ resume can (and did) change; do you think it inconceivable that a voter could, after this week, look at the resumes side-by-side and nudge Texas either up next to, or one in front of, Alabama? The timing during Alabama’s off-week is, on the “look at the resumes only” entirely irrelevant. In fact, objecting to the timing of Texas’ (truly small move up, points-wise) ascension is inconsistent with a “look at the resumes only” philosophy.
Now, if you want to argue that Alabama’s resume is better, that’s entirely different. But even here, by bringing in the “when can we take Tennessee seriously?” point, you’re implicitly acknowledging the fluid evaluative process in ranking teams. If you want to look at Tennessee’s apparent improvement, you can’t similarly object to voters doing precisely that with Texas, simply because Alabama’s off.
The Tennessee escape may be looking better; the Virginia Tech perhaps impressive. Texas’ escape against OU may be looking better; its OSU win looked great. And on and on — this is how it works. More to the point, this is how you think it should work. What doesn’t work is simultaneously objecting to such a small movement in the polls based on Alabama being on a bye week.
You ain't hurt.
by Peter Bean on Nov 2, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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.
