Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

    Originally posted by 26mi235
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by gh
    Didn't VaTech lose its first two?
    They lost to Boise State and James Madison, but I think even that most ardent LTotP haters, such as Marlow, would concede that the James Madison loss was an extreme statistical outlier on their resume. Without that loss they would most likely be ranked #4, behind TCU and ahead of Stanford.
    Their conference is not all that successful this year, so assuming that they would rank above Stanford, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Arkansas, Boise State (they did lose at home and BSU has only one loss) and other one-loss teams seems rather problematic, as would putting them above Oklahoma and LSU. I think that they would not come off too well in the computer polls, where they are WAY behind the human polls, would kill them. (20 20 18 20 24 22 20 => .220 vs .52 and .57).

    Conclusion: I do not put them in the top-10, much less in the top 4.
    I think you misunderstood me. I was speculating on where they might be ranked if they hadn't lost to James Madison. Here are the two things to keep in mind.

    1) Their computing ranking would be significantly higher without a loss without to James Madison, which is no doubt a big drag in the computers.

    2) They only dropped to #13 in the human polls after they lost to Boise State which happened in week 1 of the season. After they lost to James Madison in week 2, they fell out of the rankings and didn't reenter the rankings until week 7 at #23. Without the loss to James Madison, not only would they have started their ascension in the human polls earlier than all the other one-loss teams who lost later, but they would have also started from a lot higher position. If we use history as a guide, all those other one-loss teams would have presumably dropped behind them in the human polls when they eventually lost, since ranking in the human polls is directly affected by the timing of the loss.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

      Originally posted by Conor Dary
      Originally posted by jazzcyclist

      Then there is Oregon, where the NIKE money came first and then the winning came.
      Yes, every program should have their own billionaire.
      So Microsoft's Paul Allen just gave $26M to Washington State, but poor bastard has his priorities crossed; seems more interested in global animal research than football.

      http://foundation.wsu.edu/campaign/AllenGift.html

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

        Originally posted by jazzcyclist

        If we use history as a guide, all those other one-loss teams would have presumably dropped behind them in the human polls when they eventually lost, since ranking in the human polls is directly affected by the timing of the loss.
        They would have been behind Boise State because many voters will not move them ahead of a team that beat them (and at home) when they have the same record without something really big on their record, and VT has nothing big on its record. VT got beat by the only ranked team they played; in the AP poll only one team that they beat got any votes at all -- 2 for NC State. That schedule is not going to win them very many points on the computer polls where they are way down compared with the human ones, and, again, the human polls have them blocked by Boise State.

        Also, I think the 'inertia' of voting for a team in the polls is overstated. A number of the coaches and other busy people will not spend a lot of time figuring out the voting each week, but they spend much more effort and time for the one or two at the end.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

          Originally posted by 26mi235
          Originally posted by jazzcyclist

          If we use history as a guide, all those other one-loss teams would have presumably dropped behind them in the human polls when they eventually lost, since ranking in the human polls is directly affected by the timing of the loss.
          They would have been behind Boise State because many voters will not move them ahead of a team that beat them (and at home) when they have the same record without something really big on their record, and VT has nothing big on its record.
          That doesn't contradict my original statement.
          If not for their loss to James Madison, they likely would be ranked #4 today behind TCU, since their one loss came earlier than everybody else's
          Virginia Tech would have been ranked #5 in the human polls before Boise State lost to Nevada and #4 afterward. Here are the facts on all the one-loss teams:
          • Virginia Tech lost on 9/06 and fell to #13 in the Coaches' Poll
            Stanford lost on 10/02 and fell to #18
            Wisconsin lost on 10/02 and fell to #19
            Ohio State lost on 10/16 and fell to #10
            Michigan State lost on 10/30 and fell to #15
            Boise State lost on 11/26 and fell to #10


          Originally posted by 26mi235
          VT got beat by the only ranked team they played; in the AP poll only one team that they beat got any votes at all -- 2 for NC State. That schedule is not going to win them very many points on the computer polls where they are way down compared with the human ones
          Don't you know what happens to folks who live in glass house when they throw stones? According to Jeff Sagarin, Virginia Tech's schedule strength is ranked #63 compared to #71 for Wisconsin. Also, Wisconsin has only played two ranked teams all year and Virginia Tech will play its second ranked team today. And because of its schedule, Wisconsin is also ranked much higher in the human polls than it is in the computers. Come on man.
          Originally posted by 26mi235
          and, again, the human polls have them blocked by Boise State.
          It is Virginia Tech's two losses than is keeping them behind Boise State, not their head-to-head matchup. Based on your logic, Wisconsin should be ranked behind Michigan State in the human polls.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

            Originally posted by jazzcyclist
            Also, Wisconsin has only played two ranked teams all year and Virginia Tech will play its second ranked team today.
            If Florida State is not ranked after losing, then they will not count as a ranked team in your setup. If you count were they ranked well into the season, then Wisconsin has Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Iowa, Illinois (?), Ohio State, and Ohio State was number 1 ranked at the time. In addition, VT lost twice at home.

            It does not matter where VT was ranked before Boise State lost, a LOT of voters have a rule that if A beat B and they both have 1 loss, unless the B has some major factors in there, A will rank ahead of B. So, VT falls behind. And, I do not think that a one-loss VT would have been ranked ahead of Ohio State, Wisconsin, Stanford and possibly others. VT did not have their only loss to a number 1 team or a victory over a number 1 team (Stanford, Wisconsin).

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

              Originally posted by 26mi235
              Originally posted by jazzcyclist
              Also, Wisconsin has only played two ranked teams all year and Virginia Tech will play its second ranked team today.
              If Florida State is not ranked after losing, then they will not count as a ranked team in your setup. If you count were they ranked well into the season, then Wisconsin has Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Iowa, Illinois (?), Ohio State, and Ohio State was number 1 ranked at the time.
              Agreed.
              Originally posted by 26mi235
              It does not matter where VT was ranked before Boise State lost, a LOT of voters have a rule that if A beat B and they both have 1 loss, unless the B has some major factors in there, A will rank ahead of B. So, VT falls behind.
              What you're saying is nonsensical. You're saying that after Boise State lost to Nevada, not only would the voters have dropped Boise State down to #10, they would also dropped Virginia Tech down to #11 despite having just won their 11th game in a row. There's simply no history of the voters ever doing anything like this. For example, Michigan State was #5 and Wisconsin #9 before Michigan State lost. After Michigan State lost, the voters dropped them to #15, but they didn't drop Wisconsin down to #16, they moved them up to #7 (#7 Missouri also lost). You win, the teams above you lose, you move up, that's the way it's always worked.
              Originally posted by 26mi235
              And, I do not think that a one-loss VT would have been ranked ahead of Ohio State, Wisconsin, Stanford and possibly others.
              You think wrong. They were only ranked two spots behind #11 Wisconsin after the Boise State loss (Miami was #12). As teams above them lost, they would have moved up just like Wisconsin did. After Wisconsin and Stanford lost and fell to #19 and #18 respectively, Virginia Tech would have moved up to #8 just based on attrition. After Ohio State loss, they fell to #10 behind one-loss Alabama and Utah. For some reason, you seem to think that the normal rules of attrition would have benefited the Hokies.
              Originally posted by 26mi235
              VT did not have their only loss to a number 1 team or a victory over a number 1 team (Stanford, Wisconsin).
              Wisconsin didn't beat the #1 team, they beat the #6 team. As you have previously pointed out, Ohio State's final ranking is the only thing that matters.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

                Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                Wisconsin didn't beat the #1 team, they beat the #6 team. As you have previously pointed out, Ohio State's final ranking is the only thing that matters.
                Yes, you NEVER beat the number 1 team, right? Beating the Number 1 team is different than beating a team ranked X where is is any other number. People remember knocking off the Number 1 team, which with almost certainty will then not be the number 1 team.

                You should look at the repeatedly published statements, mainly writers on SI or ESPN etc, of course (or they would not be published so often), that state that they have a rule that they will not rank team B over team A where A beat B and they have the same record (sometimes there is a qualifying remark about exceptional circumstances). Having more losses relieves them of that voting rule constraint. So, it is NOT non-nonsensical, it is an often-stated voting rule.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

                  So we've gotten to the bottom of the problem of rankings: By what criteria are they ranked? We don't have that set out in front of us like T&FN's annual rankings do.

                  Computer rankings systems were mostly developed for gambling purposes, so they rank teams according to how the rankings' creator feels the information at hand suggests the teams would play in a future matchup. A loss only downgrades a team's computer ranking in that it is information that suggests a lesser level of future performance.

                  We don't even have that criteria set down for human polls. There, the voters rank teams according to how they "deserve" to be ranked. Probably a combination of record, margin of victory, strength of opponents, and an observation of level of play.

                  We don't fret about polls in sports where every team plays every other team. There we just look at standings. So I've always thought the best rankings system would answer this question:

                  If every NCAA FBS team played home-and-home with every other team, what would their records be?

                  That's the only reasonable way to rank teams.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Ohio State prez trashes non-BCS schools

                    26mi235, you know you are one of my favorite posters, but these imaginary rules that you are talking about must have come from the same place where the cycling etiquette rules came from that you talked about back in July, because there is absolutely no evidence that they are ever applied. When Michigan State lost, they fell behind Wisconsin in the polls despite having beaten them earlier in the season. When Missouri lost they fell behind Oklahoma in the polls despite having beaten them earlier in the year. Furthermore, after South Carolina beat Alabama they remained behind them in the polls and after Nevada beat Boise State they remained behind them in the polls. As a man with as great a mathematical mind as yours, you should know that it's impossible to apply a rule like this to college football. What happens when you have three one-loss teams who all lost to each other?

                    Another incorrect statement of yours is that it's impossible to beat the #1 team. Wrong! Texas did it in 2008, Illinois did it in 2007 and Kansas State did it in 2003. And while I agree with you that the final ranking is the only thing that matters, I don't understand why you insist on making an exception for Wisconsin's win over Ohio State. Come on man. Come on. :P

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X