yes plz
Blogpoll Ballot Week 14
 |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma |  2 |
| 2 | Florida | 2 |
| 3 | Texas |  1 |
| 4 | Alabama | 3 |
| 5 | Penn State | -- |
| 6 | Southern Cal | -- |
| 7 | Texas Tech | -- |
| 8 | Ohio State | -- |
| 9 | Utah | 2 |
| 10 | Georgia Tech | 6 |
| 11 | Oklahoma State | 2 |
| 12 | Cincinnati | 1 |
| 13 | Boise State | 2 |
| 14 | Oregon | 4 |
| 15 | Georgia | 3 |
| 16 | Missouri | 6 |
| 17 | Virginia Tech | 6 |
| 18 | Boston College | 6 |
| 19 | Oregon State | 2 |
| 20 | Michigan State | -- |
| 21 | Iowa | -- |
| 22 | Ball State | 3 |
| 23 | Northwestern | 1 |
| 24 | Florida State | 10 |
| 25 | Mississippi | 1 |
Dropped Out: West Virginia (#25).
Only one change: moving Texas above Alabama. There was a fierce, intelligent discussion in the comments that I considered but ultimately didn't change my mind, as I found this argument from LandonC most compelling:
As for Oklahoma/Texas debate... here's my problem with the argument of going straight to head to head. If Oklahoma had merely beaten Tech by 14, most people would still consider all three as being more or less tied. Then Oklahoma's advantage in non conference schedule would obviously carry the day. So Oklahoma is being punished for clobbering tech by 41 or whatever.
Also of note, If you look at the computer rankings they go Okla 1, UT 2, and TT 4, roughly tied with UT getting the bump over TT by having played Missouri. In my mind there's only two reasons for TT being completely eliminated from the conversation: Polling bias early in the year against TT and Oklahoma's outstanding game. Neither reason is good enough in my mind to eliminate TT from the comparison and thus turn to TT-Okla head to head results.
In my mind we're still picking from three teams that are 1-1 against each other, and the head to head Texas win can't be considered in isolation. Before Oklahoma beat Oklahoma State by 20, Texas had the better overall resume; now Oklahoma does. I would again like to stress that There Is No Right Answer here and that many of the Texas arguments are convincing.
Side note: why even have divisions? If the Big 12 did away with the N/S distinction we'd have a super easy way to figure out the answer to "Texas or Oklahoma": the Big 12 championship game. CFB would be better off if the 12-team conferences added another conference game, got rid of divisions, and just took the top two teams for the championship game.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 PM | 
IMO
IMO
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 PM |
A Slight Problem
A Slight Problem
"why even have divisions? If the Big 12 did away with the N/S distinction we'd have a super easy way to figure out the answer to "Texas or Oklahoma": the Big 12 championship game. CFB would be better off if the 12-team conferences added another conference game, got rid of divisions, and just took the top two teams for the championship game."
You would still have a 3 way tie atop the conference in your scenario!
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 PM |
or, more fundamentally,
or, more fundamentally,
why have a conference championship game?
seems to me that the conference championship games muddy the waters more often than not.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 PM |
kinda agree
kinda agree
with divisions, you have the silly result as this year, but without divisions, you have the possibility of rematches. i know this is a possibility with divisions too, but doesn't no divisions increase the posibility of silly rematches? look at this year- if you took #1 and #2, which have played already, it's possible that the other team wins, the teams are 1-1 against each other, and the only deciding factor is who won last. that doesn't seem quite right.
think if the big 10 had a conference championship but no divisions, and the game was simply #1 vs. #2. think about the number of years where this would still have been michigan/ohio state even after the michigan/ohio state game- all those years that m/osu finished #1/#2 in the big ten they just would have had to turn around and play each other again in the conference championship....
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 PM |
Jim H.
Jim H.
Looks like a dead heat, resume-wise, to me. I think USC is better, but it's a case where, luckily, they can settle it on the field.
USC's best wins: #10 OSU, #16 Oregon (combined, 79-13!!!)
#30 Cal
PSU's best wins: #10 OSU (by much less, though it was on the road), #21 MSU (by a wide margin), #25 Oregon State (by a wide margin) - MSU and Oregon State combined, 94-32!!!
USC's loss: #25 Oregon State
PSU's loss: #26 Iowa
Would probably give the edge to USC, too, but it'll be moot if USC beats UCLA this weekend.
USC annihilated two top 16 teams and beat a #30 team, PSU annihilated two top 20-25 teams, and beat the 10 team on the road, both lost to fringe top 25 teams.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:29 PM |
Resume wise
Resume wise
- I totally agree with you, very close between the two.
I just think USC is a much better team and more talented team than PSU. The nice thing is that we'll find out on Jan. 1st who is better. My money would be on USC.
http://twitter.com/#!/JHScramble
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 PM |
Texas-Oklahoma-Texas Tech
Texas-Oklahoma-Texas Tech
In terms of the round-robin between each of those teams, each team held serve by winning at home, except Texas, who won on a nuetral field. It's hard for me to put a team over another team who beat them by 10 on a nuetral field.
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:26 PM |
There is no right answer
There is no right answer
IMO we should go straight to the head to head BECAUSE there is no right answer.
Here is a good read
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR200812...
IMHE
December 4th, 2008 at 1:04 AM |
Head-to-head is the reason there's no right answer
Head-to-head is the reason there's no right answer
Specifically, everyone's 1-1.
USC should be above PSU.
http://twitter.com/#!/JHScramble