Hello. If anyone wants to hear Danielson explain himself...go here:
http://www.wxyt.com/
There is a link for an interview with him and "The Big Show" with Doug Karsch and Art Regner.
He's sort of a douche. But he makes valid points. He sounds like he's going to cry, too.
Go Blue!
Here is an issue I've heard NO ONE bring up at all... this is the problem with the way people voted:
The BCS formula is *predicated upon* the fact that the basis for the polls is to:
1)vote for best team in nation
2)vote for next best team
3)continue (2) n more times, until n=23.
The fact that the pollsters artificially amend the votes for ANY motivation other than 1,2,3 above *necessarily inhibits* the BCS system from operating the way it is designed to operate.
So, yes, if people really feel that UF is #2 (based on resume, sched strength, etc.)- fine vote for them. BUT, when they start voting based on 'deserve,' 'others had their shot,' or 'no rematch,' they, *by definition of a poll*, wrongly inhibit the system from working properly.
Based on previous voting (M ahead of UF untill Sunday), it was clear that the voters artificially amended the votes for motivations other than 1,2,3 above. Other evidence of this:
Look at the Vegas odds for a potential UF-UM game: M -6pts @ neutral Field.
Look at the sports team stock trading website Tradesports: OSU stock to win it all went UP after UF was declared to be the opponent.
(these are secondary arguments, but contribute to the notion that most people feel M was the better team and that in the latest poll voters did NOT vote based on best team, but rather other alterior motivations above). In the latest poll, they voted based on "no rematch/ deserve/had their shot."
Thus, the system *wrongly* jobbed Mich.
*****************
*****************
Now, those who believe that UF is rightfully #2 (i.e., the 2nd best team): Here is my logic against this:
1)Schedule strength is essentially even. Some computers say UF had a tougher sched, some computers believe UM had a tougher sched. According to the NCAA, UF SOS = #1, UM SOS = #3, if I remember correctly. While most people believe that UF had a tougher sched (myself included!) the *difference* between the 2 schedule strengths is razor thin- basically 6 of one, half-dozen of the other. Thus we must look at performance within games to judge the 2 teams:
2) UF: 1AA team (should not be included- it's basically a bye week...12W's vs 11W's is moot); Squeeked by many of their wins: FSU, SCar(!!!),Tenn, UGA, Vandy (!!! common opp to M).
How did UF perform vs those poor to goodish teams? I say not great. They needed how many missed kicks vs SCar? There was alot of sloppy play in 4-5 UF games. This is evidenced by the fact that UF was behind UM every week of the poll voting...clearly, based on *performance*, Mich was the better team according to the voters themselves for several weeks.
UM: Ball St(M put 2nd team in early in 1st half), Iowa, PSU were mildly close games. EVERY OTHER game was a convincing victory (convincing defined as: later in the 2nd half, did I feel the game was in jeopardy? no = convincing). Some would argue that the PSU & Iowa games were, if not convincing via the score, convincing based on
cont:
in game performance. Example: Clearly UM dominated play vs PSU @ PSU in a 7pt win.
Thus, for the several weeks prior to Dec 2, voters clearly felt (and rightly so) that UM was the better team.
Clearly M had the better loss- that point is not debatable.
So, each have same # of losses, M has the better loss, M has outperformed UF for the majority of the year. (remember, there is evidence that the pollsters themselves agree with both of these statements: that evidence being the fact that UM was been ahead of UF all season, including after the loss to OSU). The schedules are essentially even (and if not are close enough as to not out way in game performance). The only conclusion to make is that, in the final poll, the voters did not vote based on best team, but rather voted based other invalid reasons. recall, Invalid reason= reason other than 1,2,3 above.
Beat the Trojans and maybe, just maybe we can kick them out of top 10.
Everyone knows we got jobbed; even the Florida fans telling us to "stop whining" know it. After the Gators get blown out, it will be apparent even to the few who sincerely believe Florida is better.
Time to focus on roses and kicking USC's ass. I will have to make sure my hangover is gone by... what time does the game start?
It is uncanny, but I like to think of it has having my finger firmly on the pulse of the BlogPoll voters.
Besides Mr. Numb Existence is a meager attempt at attention-seeking...even from a Nebraska blog.
How many Mighigan fans did we have voting in this poll?
You have to admit, our poll's big ten roots are showing.
Erik, you think the only way a poll comes out with UM #2 is Big Ten bias? Separation in the AP was a swing of 2 votes, and there's a quote from at least one of those 2 that UM is probably the better team....
Such anger! I didn't say that's the only way.
Fact is, there are almost as many Michigan fans voting (5) this week as there are from all 12 SEC Schools(9).
Just thought that was a fact that needed to be brought to light.
Anger is good though. Now you know how Auburn felt in '04.
If enough people get pissed (especially a few big boys) then maybe things will change.
Erik: there are actually seven voters with some Michigan affiliation, as CMU's Sports Frog and Georgia's Braves & Birds are also secondarily Michigan fans. There's also Dan Shanoff, a Florida fan (EDSBS didn't get a ballot in.)
Remove the Michigan and Florida votes... and Michigan is still ahead on five more ballots.
OK, here's some BCS lineups based on the Blogpoll, using some various modifications of the system.
All of them, of course, have OSU-Michigan as the championship game, so I won't list it.
A) All current rules in effect, bowls get to pick:
R: USC-LSU
S: Florida-Notre Dame
O: Louisville-Wake Forest
F: Boise State-Oklahoma
B) 2-teams/conference limit, at-larges picked in poll order
R: USC-LSU
S: Florida-Louisville
O: Boise State-Wake Forest
F: Notre Dame-Oklahoma
C) No conference limit, at-larges picked in poll order
R: USC-LSU
S: Florida-Louisville
O: Wisconsin-Wake Forest
F: Boise State-Oklahoma
D) Only teams 3-10 used, matchups picked for balance (i.e. my best guess)
R: USC-Wisconsin
S: LSU-Boise State
O: Florida-Louisville
F: Oklahoma-Auburn
E) 3vs4, 5vs6, 7vs8, 9vs10, placed in bowls that make the most sense (or not, I kept switching them around)
R: USC-Louisville
S: Florida-LSU
O: Oklahoma-Wisconsin
F: Auburn-Boise State
That would be a pretty sweet 8-team playoff based on the Blogpoll:
1 Ohio State
8 Wisconsin
4 LSU
5 Louisville
3 Florida
6 Southern Cal
7 Oklahoma
2 Michigan
I think Sunday Morning QB essentially addressed the question which is really at issue:
1) Is the poll a "power" poll- whereby the team that would win a hypothetical game on a neutral field is ranked higher; OR
2) Is the poll a "resume" poll- whereby the team that has the best record versus the toughest schedule is ranked higher.
That's this whole debate in a nutshell. I think we can all agree on these two facts, then:
1) Michigan would beat Florida on a neutral field,
and
2) Florida has the better resume.
Now the question are:
a) do the voters get guidance on these matters from the people who run the polls (my guess is "no");
b) does each individual voter consistently vote in such a way that he is always picking one method- resume or power poll- every time he votes;
and (c) why the hell is no guidance given on these issues?
Solution: A NCAA voting committee, ala the tournament. Set up criteria. Pick ten-twenty people from all fields- ex-coaches, ADs, media types, etc. Make them accountable to the press, in the form of a chairman. Let them use the computer data, polls, games, etc. to form their opinion. Place an equal number of voters from the same conference on the panel.
Seems like a better way to do it to me.
This should be the last word on the subject, then. After all, you guys all have your very own *blogs*.
I disagree that FLA has a significantly better resume. I would argue that the resumes are so close, that a clear distinction cannot be made based on sched strength alone. thus, look at individual performace of each team in each game. that's what herbie did, and Danielson did not (among other things).
I never said signifigantly, I said better in terms of resume. And if you think Michigan would signifigantly defeat Florida on a neutral field, you are crazy. Michigan would win, but it would be close.
um, I never said UM would significantly defeat UF on a neutral field....by almost all accounts, it would be a close game.
What I'm saying is that judging who the better team is based ONLY on a (paper) 'resume', is not the proper way to analyse the teams. (this is because the 2 schedules are nearly the same). one needs to look at how they played in these games, and what the circumstances of the games were (this is what Herbie did, but not Danielson):
on-paper resume says: one pt win over 7-6 (-ish??) SCar @ swamp
deeper analysis of performance says: several missed kicks (PATs & FGs) and some sloppy play by UF lead to a 1 point win.
on-paper resume says: 8 pt win vs crappy Ball ST @ A2
deeper analysis of performance says: M was up 19 in the 2nd half, threw in the scrubs, and a few big plays led to a tighter game.
Deeper analysis still: SC is a good ball club, who gave many in the SEC fits this past year. For example, (and it is the only SC game I watched fully, thanks to an Auburn friend of mine) they played Auburn really tough, among other teams.
Ball State, on the other hand, didn't really do anything else all year. Caveat: I didn't watch Ball St play once, so I am assuming they really didn't do much against their other competition. Feel free to prove me wrong, and I will readily admit it.
My point is this: if you are going to dig deeper, then don't stop just at what happened in each game and examine the outcome. You better be willing to look over each opponent deeper too and not just see an opponent's record.
fine:
Vandy.... shall I even bother to continue?
Commenting by HaloScan
