what is this madness on espn gameday, 61% says michigan to upset? is ohio state still asleep?
re: CK Award.
Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee.
yeah, we're boned.
Well that sucks. Every M blogger should have just left them off the list, to prevent this type of situation.
"Most cracked-out ballot of them all"
Thank you, thank you, you really do love me, you do.
At this point in the season you have several teams that have beaten each other resulting in a round robin type situation. For instance in the SEC, Florida beat Tennessee who beat Georgia who beat Florida. Just saying so-and-so beat so-and-so leads to circular reasoning.
It was easy to rank Arizona State ahead of Oregon for me – Oregon lost to the far worse team. Look at the losses this way–
Arizona State – lost on the road to 1 loss Oregon
Oregon – lost at home to 4 loss Cal
What I have trouble figuring is Arizona State at 8th in the BlogPoll.
Do I think Oregon is a better team? Yes, I do (they are 2nd in my Power Poll). But I’m grading results here, not applying my own likely misguided sensibilities as to who is “better”.
Because you don’t know who is better either. Let’s pull out some of those older Blog Polls where people have voted based on perceived quality. They look pretty dumb right now.
Finally, wasn’t the whole exercise of this BlogPoll to create a “better” product than the national polls? In the top 10 AP poll versus the BlogPoll, the only differences are WVU and Missouri swapping places at 5 and 6, and Georgia and Arizona State at 8 and 9. Versus the BCS, Kansas and Oklahoma swap places at 3 & 4, and the rest of the poll is identical through number 12, where Texas and Florida swap spots.
In other words, this BlogPoll looks almost identical to the national polls.
I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! The very notion that the Big 12 could have 3 teams in the top 5?
In the words of the late Jackie Gleason: "What is the world coming to?"
Except you do know who is better between Oregon and Arizona State. They played, and Oregon killed ASU.
AAB: LOLZ!!!
it's funny 'cause it's true.
So, the ASU > UO justification is:
1.) You don't know who's better even though they have the same number of losses, similar strength of schedule and played last week.
2.) My ballot for the blogpoll should be different than what the AP has.
I mean, seriously, why even play the games?
I doth protest!
I do not think the football Gods will smote me for having the gall to rank UM 18th (behind Wisci and Illinois, it should be noted).
But I'll be sacrificing a live chicken Friday, just to be safe.
Is that what we are doing here, ranking who is "better"?
Because if we are, we suck at it. We have been wrong just about every week.
Good God what is with Boston College this year? I really want to know - what has BC done or who have they played this season to warrant their continually inflated ranking?
At this point, based on their resume and two losses to two unranked teams they are no better than a #20 team.
\Do I think Oregon is a better team? Yes, I do (they are 2nd in my Power Poll). But I’m grading results here, not applying my own likely misguided sensibilities as to who is “better”.
Because you don’t know who is better either.//
>
I don't know you nor do I have any experience with your blog, but since you saw fit to comment here you've opened yourself for rebuttal:
Yes, between Oregon and Arizona State we all know who's better. They played, Arizona State lost pretty handily, despite Oregon having to finish the game without Dennis Dixon (who spent a fair amount of the second half injured), easily Oregon's best player on the field this year.
I assume based on this logic you listed Michigan ahead of Ohio State after The Game last year? After all, they played, Michigan only lost by three points on the road (when any bookie in Vegas'll tell you that homefield advantage is worth 3 points to the home team), so obviously they not only should have played OSU for the championship in Arizona last year, they should have had the Number One ranking going into the game, right?
Now, of course I don't believe that...but based on your logic, it seems possible that you do.
Johnny,
I'm open to rebuttal? I had better cover up then.
Seriously, your point is fair and I have no problem with it.
I have a problem with polls - I hate 'em. We need a playoff yesterday.
People see what they want in voting in polls, and college football gives them the ammo to justify it accordingly. Everyone says Kansas shouldn't be number 1 because of a weak schedule, yet had no problem putting an untested Ohio State number 1. Oregon loses at home to an increasingly terrible Cal team and it matters to no one. Ohio State loses at home to a Illinois team arguably far better than Cal and gets socked down 5 spots below Oregon.
Oklahoma loses on the road to a team Kansas handled, and yet gets ranked higher than Kansas. The inconsistencies go on and on.
So I should vote the way everyone sees it - the AP, BCS and BlogPoll are virtually identical - for fear of being criticized? Brian calls all my ballots "indefensible" (when most of them looked for the most part like everyone else's) so I should just toe the line?
Well next time I suppose I'll just look at the AP and BCS polls and vote accordingly. Wouldn't want to be different.
You want resume ranking? Oregon has wins over a very good ASU team, a good USC team, and a flawed but still solid Michigan team (in Ann Arbor. By 32). Arizona State has wins over a 6-4 Cal team and Colorado (at home). And Oregon has been flat-out destroying teams all year.
The only metric by which Arizona State is better is, as you point out, who they lost to. Oregon lost to a team that is 6-4 (although they were probably playing better than that at the time). Arizona State lost to a great team that has 1 loss and might be the best team in the country. The only problem being, of course, that that team is the very Oregon team you have ASU ranked above. "They're ranked higher because they got killed by the awesome team I want to rank them above" is both circular logic and bad logic.
Dammit, where is Son of Jorel that ridiculous troll? Boy, one loss to Illinois and that guy just takes his schtick on the road?
"I have a problem with polls - I hate 'em. We need a playoff yesterday."
i'll assume you're not a Michigan fan, but a playoff system == lots of games like M had last week vs Wisc: no one cared that much b/c the outcome had so little bearing on well, anything. the playoff will breed lots of reg. season games where the loser will simply shrug and say, 'well, who cares b/c the playoff games are what really matter anyway.'
new rules:
1. football outsiders is no longer a michigan blog. it is a general football blog and there happens to be a guy there who likes michigan. the new winner of the CK award is rocky top talk. i feel much better this way.
2. rules for voting - vote for the teams you think are best in descending order. don't vote for what you think is "fair" (e.g. UF should play osu b/c michigan got their chance; hawaii should be in the top 5 because they beat everyone on their schedule and that's all they can do). if we want a fairness poll we'll poll ethicists. don't vote in a "results based" fashion (e.g. arizona state lost to the better team than oregon did). vote for who you think is better. obviously results should play the predominate role in that determination but if i want it to be the only factor i'll consult an excel spreadsheet. if you think arizona state would win a rematch (and you'd be crazy to think so but let's say you do) then vote for them ahead of oregon and justify it by saying "i voted for the better team." the AP, etc. polls suck b/c all the voters inject their arbitrary notions of "fairness" into their votes. they get a vote b/c of their football knowledge, not b/c they're good at figuring out who should get the last cookie. don't imitate them.
DanK -
Let me rephrase - IF we assume that a "national champion" is something we collectively desire as college fans, then a playoff is the only legitimate way to determine it. Right now the NCAA doesn't even recognize a national champion in Division I-A (or whatever the hell they call it now) college football, but it does in the other divisions and virtually every other college sport, even rifle.
I personally don't think in a sport as diverse as Divsion I-A college football a "national champion" is even necessary. We have 119 teams of various talent. Were it up to me, all this talk of a "national champion" would vanish. Beat your main rival or rivals, win your conference, go to a bowl - that's a good year. And that's the way it used to be.
I say this as a Florida fan. I don't even think our national championships are legitimate in the commonly held sense of that term. Last year Florida beat Tennessee, UGA and FSU, won the SEC and crushed Ohio State. That is good enough for me - I don't need the comfort of the fake national title emblem.
Now, maybe in the Big 10 you can have games that are essentially meaningless to the title, but in the SEC that doesn't happen often. Plus, we have a legitimate title game. Our title - never shared - is won on the field.
"hoisted on your own Picard"?
Shouldn't that be pitard, or were you trying to make a reference to one of the captains of the Enterprise?
Georgia, Texas, Clemson are way over rated this year. I will give GA a pass since they did beat a good Flordia team. KS gets a pass until the lose, but shouldn't be ranked #4.
There are teams below them that would own them on any field. Hawaii and Kansas need thier bubbles to break soon.
Can anyone say Playoffs? What a great year for an 8, 10, or 12 team playoff.
-www.bighouseblog.com
Ish -
I made an inquiry when the year started as to how we should vote our ballots - by who we think is "best", or what other method.
No one saw fit to answer.
The AP actually has guidelines for voting (not that they are followed). Should maybe the BlogPoll?
@ Mergz:
Reasons for ranking Oregon higher than ASU:
-impressive OOC win (Mich)
-won head-to-head matchup in convincing fashion
-have already played their best three conference opponents (USC, Cal, & ASU while ASU hasn't played USC, beat Cal, and lost to Oregon)
-Top 5 scoring offense (ASU #25 scoring offense)
Reasons for ranking ASU higher than Oregon:
-Oregon lost to Cal, who lost to ASU (and the games were a month apart, during which Cal went from a 5-0 team w/ wins over Tennessee and Oregon to a 6-4 team w/ losses to UCLA and Oregon St. and a near loss to Washington St.)
uh...
I move Ohio State UP after a loss and get nary a mention!
\I have a problem with polls - I hate 'em. We need a playoff yesterday.//
>
I agree 100%.
\Everyone says Kansas shouldn't be number 1 because of a weak schedule, yet had no problem putting an untested Ohio State number 1.//
>
Even with the turnaround fom 2006 to 2007, the "justification" in giving OSU their props is that Jim Tressel and the Buckeyes are a proven commodity; the team that won the National Championship in 2002 is only different than this year's OSU team by one Maurice Clarett, I figure. Kansas? They're the basketball school.
I didn't buy OSU as the number one-ranked team in the country either, but I can rationalize their selection. But I do agree that any two or three other teams in the country this year ARE better than OSU...I just didn't expect Illinois to be one of them.
\Oregon loses at home to an increasingly terrible Cal team and it matters to no one. Ohio State loses at home to a Illinois team arguably far better than Cal and gets socked down 5 spots below Oregon.//
>
Cal's play has been tapering off, but I'm inclined to credit the strength of their conference for that rather than writing them off as a flat-out bad team. They've had their own issues with injuries affecting key players and when they were healthy they thumped a team that quite possibly will be playing for the SEC championship this year.
\Oklahoma loses on the road to a team Kansas handled, and yet gets ranked higher than Kansas.//
>
Oklahoma's strength of schedule is greater than Kansas' and their loss to Colorado is flukier than LSU's loss to Kentucky.
\The inconsistencies go on and on.//
>
This entire season has been a glaring inconsistency. Somehow it's Notre Dame's fault.
\So I should vote the way everyone sees it - the AP, BCS and BlogPoll are virtually identical - for fear of being criticized?//
>
Not at all...in the words of Stephen Hyde, "if you're not fighting the system, you ARE the system." But you can't expect to rank a team below a team they just beat and say "we don't know who's better" without taking a little flak.
The purpose of the playoff system most of us clamor for is to prove without a doubt who's got the best football team in the country, and the way that happens is by head-to-head competition between the teams until only one is left standing. Head-to-head competition is how we know Oregon's better than ASU; it's hard to be a proponent of a playoff system and then discount the merits of a head-to-head matchup that actually happens.
Anyway, I'm not attacking you as a person or as an internet entity (I don't even HAVE my own blog, after all...hey, I barely have a MySpace page), but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the matter.
Mergz, agreed....although i'm no fan of the title games. i prefer the Pac10 model of a true, full round robin.
"The purpose of the playoff system most of us clamor for is to prove without a doubt who's got the best football team in the country, and the way that happens is by head-to-head competition between the teams until only one is left standing."
I'm fairly certian that UM was better than MSU in hockey last year. that was based on 30+ games of evidence. again, 'MSU hockey 2007' is my most concise arguement against a playoff.
MSU hockey was living Bill Simmons' "Ewing Theory" in technicolor...with Jim Slater and Colton Fretter gone they naturally win the national championship.
hahahhaha you fools you have the audacity to challenge my coaching supremacy over all (except when I am hanging out the night before with Antonio Henton, checking out the ladies-which is what happened before illinois) but you bring forth the wrath of the CK award?!?!
your audacity would be charmiing if it wasn't so suicidal
packing list for that slum AA
giant sized buckeye dude-piston-check
game plan to befuddle English-check-hes easily confused
defense to stop single wide out passes-check
convince LBs that stomping Mike Hart isn't like beating on a midget-check
Syphillis prophylaxis to keep from catching anything from the student body-check
Well gang I am ready, will see you up there on Sat.
BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID
Mergz - let's not forget that Cal's slide is partly due to injury ... an injury which, you will note, happened *after* the Oregon game. With the head-to-head result and the fact that Oregon has at least two (probably three) wins better than AzSt's best, "they lost to Cal" isn't anywhere near enough to put AzSt above them.
As for the CK: don't sweat it too much, you weren't beating OSU this week anyway.
Illinois three spots below Virginia? Virginia moves up seven spots for pounding mediocre Miami? Illinois moves up eight notches for beating somewhat-above-average tOSU on the road?
The Hoos have two atrocious losses (Wyoming and NC State.) Illinois, on the other hand has only one puzzling, somewhat daft loss (Iowa.) Its other two defeats were a narrow one to titan Missouri and a prolonged-brain-flatulence capitulation to Michigan.
UVA has only a single credible Top 25 win (one point, over #16-at-the-time UConn.) Illinois has three such solid victories over Wisconsin, PSU at home and, ya know... yeah, that recent one on the road.
In the wake of your AOL.com hack jobs this week on the Illini, Brian, this provokes the following reaction:
Hmmmmmm (in a Marge Simpson kinda manner)
Good luck Saturday.
For anyone who's interested, here is my defense of my bold/manic-depressive ballot:
http://www.dawgsports.com/story/...11/14/235927/
08
Playoffs, like said above, will sometimes result in meaningless regular season games for teams with excellent records late in the year. Because we get so few college football games as it is, I'd prefer them to mean something.
I'm all for a plus-one scenario. It wouldn't result in meaningless regular season games, and besides, if you're the #5 team, you don't really have much of a gripe that you're the best team in the land. There's really no reason to include 8 or 16 teams, as these teams have almost no chance of winning it all and can have little gripe at being left out of the national championship hunt by virtue of having lost, in a typical season, at least 2 games.
Bring on the plus-one format!
Seriously, I'm not joking anymore. What's the procedure for throwing a voter out of the Blogpoll? There has to be one at some point. Whether or not it gets applied right now is another discussion, but what are the criteria?
With respect to which BlogPoll voter(s) are you asking that question, Erik?
Just curious.
Commenting by HaloScan
