Blogpoll Final Ballot: Week 3

Submitted by Tim on September 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Rank Team Delta
1 Alabama
2 Texas 2
3 Florida
4 Miami (Florida) 7
5 California 5
6 Cincinnati 3
7 Boise State 1
8 Penn State 3
9 Mississippi 5
10 Houston 3
11 Southern Cal 9
12 Virginia Tech 3
13 Ohio State 3
14 Florida State 10
15 TCU 2
16 Auburn
17 UCLA
18 Georgia Tech 6
19 Oklahoma State
20 Michigan 1
21 Iowa
22 LSU
23 Brigham Young 17
24 Georgia
25 Notre Dame 2
Last week's ballot

Dropped Out: Nebraska (#18), North Carolina (#20), Oklahoma (#22), Kansas (#25).

Changes from Draft:

  • Moved Ole Miss down. Their resume is far less impressive than a bunch of teams near the top, and is on par with (at best) Penn State. Speaking of whom, the Lions' resume probably doesn't quite warrant being ranked where they are, but I'll let momentum hold them for another week, since conference play in the Big Ten is rolling around, and they'll finally have a chance to actually prove themselves against Iowa. Cincinnati moves past both of those teams because they have big road wins against a team expected to win their own conference (Rutgers, whom they shitcanned) and one from the west coast.
  • I moved Kansas down, down, down. I was talked into including them in week 1, and they have stayed on the poll mostly just because they were already there. Without good resume wins, they haven't earned their spot on the poll yet, and were bumped. Notre Dame took their spot.
  • I moved Virginia Tech up, because they were being a little unfairly punished for one loss, when it was to the number one team. Considering they've beaten a ranked team, just like the Trojans, they should be around that level, so I slotted them between USC and Ohio State.
  • I moved Iowa down because they have one bad win (Northern Iowa) and two fairly neutral wins (big over Iowa State, average over Arizona). That doesn't compare to most teams. They'll have a chance to prove themselves on the road against Penn State.
  • Moved GT down some, because their offense hasn't been as impressive as last year, and they've been bad in both a win (Clemson) and a loss (Miami).
  • UCLA replaced Oklahoma, because the Sooners have one "good" loss (to BYU), but no good wins yet. They'll have a chance in the near future (they play at MIami in a couple weeks) to get back into the poll.

In future weeks, I want to go strictly on a resume-only ranking. That might mean a little bit of chaos as far as the Mr. Manic-Depressive award goes next week, but that's life, I guess. I'll also try to be a little more transparent with my methodology, probably going with a chart, a la Dr. Saturday last year.

I will admit, some of the wonky-ish ratings have happened in attempt to not be irrationally exuberant on Michigan. With a transparent methodology, that won't happen anymore, and everything should be much more consistent.

Comments

U of M in TX

September 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 AM ^

Notre Dame instead of Oklahoma? If you replaced Oklahoma with UCLA for the reasons that you mentioned, why is Notre Dame still there? Their resume is equally as weak, plus their best WR is out for the season!

Jeff

September 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^

I don't think it's that bad of a choice. At this point resume ranking is hard because we don't know how good the other schools are. Floyd being gone shouldn't affect their poll position, it will just affect their future games.

Right now Oklahoma and Notre Dame have comparable losses. Oklahoma blew out Tulsa and Idaho State. Notre Dame blew out Nevada and won a close game against Michigan State. Michigan State is a better win than Tulsa and Idaho State. So Notre Dame should be ranked higher than Oklahoma.

chally

September 24th, 2009 at 10:58 AM ^

Tim,

I really enjoy your work, but I'm very confused by your approach to resume ranking. You claim that Kansas gets bumped out of the poll becuase they don't have the resume wins, but you simultaneously rank Penn State in the Top 10. I think the resume of the two teams look so remarkably similar, I'm not sure what theory supports their divergent treatment.

Penn State is 3-0, with three home wins against Akron, Syracuse, and Temple. They have outscored their opponents 90-20. Their opponents are 2-3 in other games (1-1 against FCS teams). Syracuse has proven to be roughly equivilant to a lower Big 10 team (close loss to Minnesota, close win over Northwestern). Penn State averages 397.3 yards of offense per game (46th in NCAA), and 212.3 (7th in NCAA) yards of defense per game.

Kansas is 3-0, with two home wins against Northern Colorado and Duke, and an away win at UTEP. They have outscored their opponents 127-26 (and road games are usually worth 3 points to Vegas). Their oppenents are 3-3 in other games (1-2 against FCS teams). Admittedly, Kansas's best opponent (either Duke or UTEP) is not to the level of Syracuse. Kansas averages 537.7 yards of offense per game (3rd in NCAA), and 287.2 yards of defense (27th in NCAA)per game.

So, we have two teams with identical records. One team has better statistics, a better margin of victory, and a road win, but against slightly (but not significantly) lesser competition. Somehow, it is this team that gets overlooked entirely, while the other team is Top 10 worthy. And this is known as resume ranking?

Look, I don't agree with resume ranking generally. I'd rather rate based on expected team strength at this point. I think Penn State would beat Kansas on a neutral field by about 10 points. But if you want to rank based on resume, I don't see how Kansas's resume is lacking when compared to a team like Penn State. Just something to think about next week.