Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2009/10 College Football Thread

dukebound85 said:
I never understood this scenario

when a 1 vs 2 game is played and it is a nailbiter and 1 wins

Why does 2 drop in the rankings?

I ask as the USC/OSU game was close so I am baffled why a OSU team who ALMOST beat USC would drop from 8 to 11. In my mind, they should MOVE UP even though they loss....



Arent the rankings supposed to be a measure of a team? If so, why should a close loss drop them in the polls when they play a higher ranked team?
Click to expand...

You don't reward teams that lose. No matter how fantastic they may have played or how they almost won, when you lose...you lose and thus drop.

If Team 3 has won a game and Team 2 has lost, Team 3 moves up.

If we are going to start saying that since Team 2 almost won thus should stay....we are then going down a slope of excuse making which I can see being extended to ridiculous levels....'Well, Team 3 does have 3 loses but all to Top 20 teams! They should be ranked ahead of Team 4 that is undefeated!"
 
DiamondMac said:
You don't reward teams that lose. No matter how fantastic they may have played or how they almost won, when you lose...you lose and thus drop.

If Team 3 has won a game and Team 2 has lost, Team 3 moves up.

If we are going to start saying that since Team 2 almost won thus should stay....we are then going down a slope of excuse making which I can see being extended to ridiculous levels....'Well, Team 3 does have 3 loses but all to Top 20 teams! They should be ranked ahead of Team 4 that is undefeated!"
Click to expand...
but if say #2 loses to #1 by 1 point, doesnt that still validate that #1 is number 1 and #2 is #2

thats my point

shouldnt rankings be the measure of the teams performace as opposed to soley the win/loss column?
 
dukebound85 said:
I never understood this scenario

when a 1 vs 2 game is played and it is a nailbiter and 1 wins

Why does 2 drop in the rankings?

I ask as the USC/OSU game was close so I am baffled why a OSU team who ALMOST beat USC would drop from 8 to 11. In my mind, they should MOVE UP even though they loss....



Arent the rankings supposed to be a measure of a team? If so, why should a close loss drop them in the polls when they play a higher ranked team?
Click to expand...


I love it. USC is so mighty that people feel that teams who lose narrowly lose to us should move up in the rankings.

;)
 
dukebound85 said:
when a 1 vs 2 game is played and it is a nailbiter and 1 wins

Why does 2 drop in the rankings?
Click to expand...

I see both sides to this argument.

On the one hand, yes - you don't "punish" a team for losing a game that, according to the polls, they would be expected to lose more often than not.

On the other hand, no - it's not about "punishing" the team that lost as much as it's "rewarding" the teams behind them that won.

But you're absolutely right, in the end I think a responsible voter can, at least to a point, cast records aside and vote on which teams are best regardless of record.
 
dukebound85 said:
but if say #2 loses to #1 by 1 point, doesnt that still validate that #1 is number 1 and #2 is #2
Click to expand...

No, for the same reason that when Stanford beat USC two years ago, it didn't mean Stanford was a better team than USC for that season

1 point loss is a loss and teams that won deserve to jump ahead of the team that barely lost
 
DiamondMac said:
No, for the same reason that when Stanford beat USC two years ago, it didn't mean Stanford was a better team than USC for that season

1 point loss is a loss and teams that won deserve to jump ahead of the team that barely lost
Click to expand...

that is not analogous to the point i am making at all:rolleyes:

i am not talking about "upsets" but rather going into a game the #1 is expected to win against the #2 (as thats why they are ranked). However if #2 is on par with #1 but loses at the last second in an otherwise very even game, then how does that automatically make #2 no longer #2?

Now what about this scenario....

#1 barely loses to #2 and the polls then have #2 moving to #1 and #1 dropping to #2

The polls are a reflection of the best team by performance (or it should be). Before the geam, it was thought #1 was #1. After the game, the polls say #1 is really #2 based on the previous #2 beating them

How is that any different than the first scenario where #2 validates that they are not #1 in a game but are deservedly a #2 team when the narrowly lose to the #1 team?

Tomorrow said:
I see both sides to this argument.

On the one hand, yes - you don't "punish" a team for losing a game that, according to the polls, they would be expected to lose more often than not.

On the other hand, no - it's not about "punishing" the team that lost as much as it's "rewarding" the teams behind them that won.

But you're absolutely right, in the end I think a responsible voter can, at least to a point, cast records aside and vote on which teams are best regardless of record.
Click to expand...

yea, i see it too just thought i would comment on it
 
The polls have always been ridiculous, just as the BCS has always been broken. Another point: Houston completely outplays Ok St and beats them in Stillwater, yet is ranked 5 spots behind the Cowboys. Stupid.
 
And Utah wins (even if it wasn't the most beautiful win) and they drop a spot or two in the polls. Teams ahead of them lost, yet they win and still drop. WTF?

SLC
 
At least they didn't drop in the Coaches poll, that's the only one out so far that has any bearing on the BCS. They went up one spot there, and down one spot in the AP "who gives a crap" poll.

Utah is still BCS eligible, barely.

SLC
 
DiamondMac said:
Utah looked terrible against a bad team. I get why they dropped.
Click to expand...

Yes, but doesn't that contradict what you said before that "A win is a win is a win?" Shouldn't you move up with a win? I'm not trying to bolster the Utes with this point (they looked ugly last night), but you have to admit that the way the polls are done can be absolutely crazy. The fact that Oklahoma State is above Houston is a good example of this.

IgnatiusTheKing said:
I wouldn't worry about the BCS quite yet. They still have to get past Oregon (shouldn't be a problem), TCU (should be tough) and BYU (good luck). Run the table with wins over those teams and you'll be in the BCS.
Click to expand...

I agree except I think that TCU will be tougher than BYU. It's probably too early to tell (TCU has only played one game so far), but I think TCU is the team to beat in the Mountain West this year.

P-Worm
 
647602369_vqfBY-L.jpg
 
^^^ I still don't think Texas is gonna run the table. I'd be very surprised if we made it to the title game.
 
IgnatiusTheKing said:
I wouldn't worry about the BCS quite yet. They still have to get past Oregon (shouldn't be a problem), TCU (should be tough) and BYU (good luck). Run the table with wins over those teams and you'll be in the BCS.
Click to expand...

No I'm not saying we will, We'd have to run the table or get very very lucky (nonBCS above us lose multiple games and we still stay in the top 16)

What I'm saying is that you've got to be top 16 as a non qualifier to get in. If the highest non AQ is #17 they don't get to play. Not so for the AQ schools.

I think this is TCU's year, but I wouldn't mind if the Utes did it again.

SLC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back