Double post. Neg me until I bleed.
Double post. Neg me until I bleed.
I realize LSU has "better" wins than TCU and Boise, but they have rarely looked like an undefeated team all season. I'd take Boise to beat them in a heartbeat.
I agree. I understand the theory behind a resume ballot, but if you refuse to look at the actual performances in the game, your ballot becomes (win-loss record)*(strength of schedule). Might as well just use a computer.
On the same note, it's time to start punishing MSU for how they've been winning. Outside of the two game stretch against Wisconsin and us (unfortunately) they have been extremely unimpressive.
as part of the calculation, LSU wouldn't be #3. LSU would be ranked in the mid teens. In Jeff Sagarian Predictor ranking(not ELO-CHESS), LSU is #17 which isn't impressive because they have been playing too many close games including the win over Tenn and Ole Miss while Boise State has dominated the competition.
Resume ranking is good but you have to consider the way a team dominate the competition on the field especially if it's against weak competition. The way that Boise State has dominated week in and week out. I don't care if they're a non-AQ, that's pretty impressive.
Boise St's best win which is VT, has looked better and better as the season goes on and VT is likely end up ranked in the top 10 when all is said and done. VT's loss is likely a let down after they put all of their effort to beat Boise State in the season opener.
I agree. My "might as well use a computer line" wasn't meant to discuss the merits of particular computer rankings, it was to say that if you only look at record and the quality of the opponent played, you have pretty much eliminated the entire human element of the polls.
I think resume ranking is a good place to start, but people like Tim take it too far. I understand that what you see might be a bit of a mirage based on opponents, but you should at least look at teams and determine if their record reflects how they have played all year or if they are lucky to be where they're at.
Iowa shouldn't move up, even if they almost beat OSU.
I thought the same thing at first. I would initially put Mississippi St over Iowa based on who they lost to, but after considering who they beat I think Tim got it right. Iowa does deserve to be 23. They have wins over Michigan St, Penn St, & Michigan. Who else should be ahead of them? Mississippi St, Utah, Northern Illinois, USC, Miami (YTM)?
I have always been a Boise State Hater, but, I have to admit facts. They dismantled a not-aweful Fresno St. team and stopped what has been a good O in Hawaii. Friday will say a lot, but, the D in BSU (Yes That BSU) is pretty good. In LSU... not so much. Too many points to bad teams. If they played on a neutral fields, I have to believe BSU (YTBUS) would win, maybe be a lot.
And I think Wiscy and Stanford (JIMBO!) have been playing more impressively than LSU. If Wiscy and Stanford had LSU's schedule... I think the scores would be better for them compared to LSU. Really, the only LSU game that outright impresses me is the Alabama win, and major kudos for that. If that were Alabama's only loss, I might think differently. But Bama gave up 35 to the Ol' Ball Coach, and USC (Not That USC) has been beaten badly in other games, so Alabama ain't what it was last year.
So... I think you move 4 thru 7 up a spot and drop LSU to 7.
As noted by others, I'd rather see the mid major undefeateds ahead of LSU, but I'm sure you're already aware of those arguments and have taken them into consideration. Otherwise your top twenty is good
In the bottom five, I'd move the ACC teams back. I understand that Iowa has 4 losses, but 3 of them are to ranked teams, all of the losses were close, and they convincingly routed a top ten team. Arizona beat Iowa so they deserve to be ahead of them, but NC State and Florida State have lost convincingly to good teams and then also lost to not so great teams without beating anyone of note. I'd keep Utah as #25, so it'd be 21. Arizona, 22. Iowa, 23. NC State, 24. FSU, 25. Utah
Aside from the obvious examples like "if Michigan beats Ohio State, does that mean they are better", using head-to-head play really defeats the purpose of a resume ballot.
Arizona has one quality win, at home against Iowa. Their second-best win might be at home against Cal. They were routed at Stanford and have home losses to USC and Oregon State, neither of whom seems to be quite as good ... the case for USC is similar to Arizona's, with the single quality win being close to the same (at Arizona) and with an additional questionable loss (at home to Washington), and thus I think the loss to USC hurts Arizona.
Iowa's quality win is significant (home thrashing of MSU). They have the close loss at Arizona, close losses at home to Wisconsin and Ohio State, and one questionable loss (at Northwestern).
Iowa has two wins over teams .500 or better in Big Ten play (MSU and Penn State). Arizona hasn't beaten a team at or above .500 in Pac-10 play (perhaps a tougher schedule, but weaker results from it).
I would leave Iowa ahead of Arizona.
Both teams beat ASU. After that Stanford's best wins are #20 Arizona and USC.
Wisconsin's best wins are #9 Ohio State and #24 Iowa.
Both teams have one loss in an away game against a good opponent. Big picture, Wisconsin's resume is just a little better.
Tim, if we beat OSU, promise me that you will rank us.
My gripe as always will be the children of the corn.
Not sure what your love affair is with this team, but they've consistently shown no fight and gusto. I would put them somewhere between 20-25 after losing to a bad Texas team, mediocre A&M team, barely beating a D2 school and a couple other games they should have won big.
It took a crotch grab to put some fire into that team. With their beloved t-magic on one foot, i don't see them beating Colorado. Either way, i don't see how you can put them Oklahoma, Arkansas or VTech