GoldenBlogs Top 25 - Week 7
My, my, my, I've ranted on and on these past couple weeks. Sometimes, I don't know when I'm actually being interesting, and when I'm merely indulging in rhetorical masturbation, belaboring the point I'm trying to make to exhaustion. So, with this week's Top 25, I'll try and be brief in my pre-poll comments.
This week, I just want to give a short argument why I don't just go with a pure résumé ranking. For example, take Georgia Bulldogs blogger and prominent résumé-ranker T. Kyle King of Dawg Sports' latest ballot. As a résumé ballot, it's fairly typical, and I don't have any particular qualm with it, at least as far résumé ranking goes. One reader, however, asks:
I hate to disagree with you, but UNC ahead of the Dawgs?
to which T. Kyle King responds:
This highlights the distinction between power polling and resume ranking. If this were a power poll, I wouldn’t rank North Carolina ahead of Georgia, because I don’t believe the Tar Heels would beat the Bulldogs head-to-head. Of course, I didn’t believe the Gators would beat the Bayou Bengals, either, so what do I know?
Due to the rampant uncertainty that makes college football inherently unpredictable (see Appalachian State over Michigan and Stanford over Southern California), I, like all resume rankers, go by what is known rather than what is supposed, and what is known is that North Carolina beat U.Conn. and Notre Dame, whereas Georgia has just beaten South Carolina. The math on that will change next weekend, when the ’Dawgs face Vanderbilt.
The bottom line is that, if I were to cast my ballot based upon which teams I think are better than which others, it would look very different, but, because I acknowledge the depths of my own ignorance, I cast my ballot based upon what I know particular teams have achieved on the field, which, again, shifts from week to week as earlier wins and losses gain or lose value based upon the subsequent performance of previous opponents.
(emphasis mine)
I don't mean to single out T. Kyle, as his reasoning is hardly extraordinary, yet I find it, let's say, dissatisfying. I admire his readiness to admit to ignorance (and I'm certain he knows more about football than I do), yet to vote up North Carolina despite not believing that they're as good as his ranking, well, that sort of result nags at me. It's akin to when BCS proponents, reacting to the system breaking yet again, shrugging their shoulders at the BCS's failure, confidently assuring us that "improvements are coming" and "we'll get it right eventually". Why wait? If something doesn't look right, fix it now!
In my view, résumé ballots tend to take too narrow a definition of "what is known rather than what is supposed." Sure, we all know North Carolina beat UConn and Notre Dame. We know the scores, too. But knowing how those wins were achieved seems quite 'knowable' as well. Were they lucky wins, with a close call or a freak fumble? Were they blowouts, essentially over in the third quarter? Has Vanderbilt been "creating" turnovers, or have they simply been lucky? Yes, there's some judgment involved, but if all I wanted was a rote, mechanical ranking, why did I ask a real, live human in the first place?
I don't think résumé ranking is useless, however. On the contrary, I'd say that starting with a résumé ranking would be a great way to begin constructing a top 25; in fact, that's what I did this week. From there, I considered other factors, like what I'd seen of teams playing (for instance, I saw North Carolina beat UConn, and came away not terribly impressed with either team). I think it's a useful tool, but as a final ranking, it is incomplete, wanting the judgment and refinement of a seasoned college football pundit.
And that's all I have to say about that. On with the Top 25!
![]() |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas | 5 |
| 2 | Alabama | -- |
| 3 | Penn State | 1 |
| 4 | Oklahoma | 3 |
| 5 | Southern Cal |
2 |
| 6 | Florida | 5 |
| 7 | Oklahoma State | 7 |
| 8 | Missouri | 5 |
| 9 | Texas Tech | 1 |
| 10 | Georgia | -- |
| 11 | LSU | 6 |
First, it's worth noting that the BlogPoll is now sponsored! We're on CBSSports.com, which means that our initial ballots are due earlier (Monday at noon), though the final ballots are still due Wednesday morning, so if you see glaring mistakes or lapses in logic in our ballot, be sure to let us know on Tuesday!
Two huge Big XII clashes this past weekend shook up the top 10, though all 4 of the teams involved looked good, even those in defeat, thus half of our top 10 currently comes from the Big XII. Texas turns in the best win of the season so far, jumping both Penn State and Alabama for the #1 spot, and Oklahoma State goes on the road to beat Missouri, storming the top 10 in the process. Meanwhile, in the SEC, Florida blows out previously unbeaten LSU, and probably could have jumped USC, except their one loss was at home to a team I have less regard for than Oregon State (Ole Miss). And LSU? Well, even though the loss wasn't close, it was on the road to a good Florida team; who would you have moved above them?
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | Brigham Young | 3 |
| 13 | Ohio State | 3 |
| 14 | Boise State | 2 |
| 15 | Utah | -- |
| 16 | Virginia Tech | 1 |
| 17 | Wake Forest | 3 |
| 18 | North Carolina | 3 |
| 19 | Vanderbilt | 6 |
Undefeated mid-majors and suspect once-beaten major conference schools populate the middle of our ballot. Vandy's miracle run finally hits a speedbump, but their previous wins are enough to keep them from falling too far. I took another look at Virginia Tech this week, and their season-opening loss to East Carolina is looking more and more like an aberration; they've handed both North Carolina and Georgia Tech their only losses, and the win at Nebraska doesn't look to shabby, either. Also, inspired by Dr. Saturday, I took another look at BYU, and came away less than impressed. Based on the fact that their two wins of note this year, a close one at UW and an epic blowout of UCLA, are looking less and less impressive as the weeks roll on, I dropped them significantly (though I couldn't justify dropping them entirely out of the ballot). Buyoued by Yellow Fever and HydroTech's (filling in for a vacationing CBKWit this week) confidence, they don't fall too far, but if this ballot were my own personal one, they would not be nearly this high.
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 20 | South Florida | 1 |
| 21 | California | 2 |
| 22 | Kansas | 4 |
| 23 | Michigan State | 3 |
| 24 | Pittsburgh | 2 |
| 25 | Minnesota | 1 |
And some other teams on the bottom of our ballot. Say goodbye to TCU (barely eked by Colorado State), Northwestern (losers to Michigan State), and Illinois (lost to Minnesota), and say hello to Michigan State, Pittsburgh (next in line, I guess), and Minnesota. Welcome to the poll, and enjoy your stay. With these teams, you never know how long they're going to last.
Meanwhile, we correct last week's oversight and kick Kansas below South Florida, while Cal moves up two spots after completely dominating BYE WEEK. Boy, I sure love getting them on the schedule!
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ah yes, the transitive property. College football’s favorite mathematical premise.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Does that mean we would lose to Middle Tennessee State?
by CalBandGreat on Oct 14, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I fear to know what would happen if Middle Tennessee State takes on Wazzu.
Watch out, Cumberland Gap!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yeah, the transitive property makes no sense. I just threw that out there because they beat a decently good Navy team. Not at all implying that Ball State is better than Wake Forest.
But Ball State still deserves to be ranked, imo.
Well, I’ll leave it to historians to decide whether Ball State deserves to be ranked. I don’t feel like we have enough distance from these events (emotionally) to make that determination.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Emotionally, they live next door to me. How can I get any distance from them?
It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.
Hey, what’s the opposite of shame?
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
no shame.
see Ms. Brittany Spears
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Oct 14, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
i sorta had them in the 'also receiving votes' category
thought about ball state, but they didn’t make the cut. i don’t know if the win over navy is as impressive as the best wins by michigan state, pitt, or minnesota, and they’re undefeated mostly by virture of a soft schedule.
tell you what, though. make a convincing argument for ball state over one of our bottom 3 teams, and YF and I will consider replacing them.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
The closest loss to Ball State has been by twelve points, that team being Navy, which defeated Rutgers, Wake Forest, and Air Force.
Moreso, they are undefeated and they look damn good doing it. Their defense is strong and Nate Davis has the tools to be a stud QB in the NFL.
Compare that to, say, Minnesota, whose best win is over a three-loss Illinois team.
Just as yellow fever is in the tank for Javon Ringer and Hydro has nominated himself as the leader of the Brock Mansion party yacht, ragnarok clearly has placed himself with the Mike Dunbar committee, and is working behind the scenes to usher his return now that we have the mobile quarterback to mange the spread offense (but not the receivers to run it).
CGB, where committee happens.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 14, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn't use resume ranking as my only criteria...
But I think it can be instructive. The polls can be depressing at times when they have blind faith for power teams like USC and LSU and skepticism towards teams like Ball State (although skepticism towards midmajors has gotten markedly better in the last few years IMO), plus the classic, ’I’ll just move everybody up a spot’ intertia that everybody hates.
As an example of why I like resume ranking take aforemention LSU. When you see that LSU is 4-1 with a road loss to Florida, your initial reaction is ,“tough loss for LSU, but I’m sure they’ll bounce back – they’re a great team.” But when you look at what they’ve actually accomplished it makes you think twice – two meaningless victories over a DII team and a North Texas team with no wins, two close victories over low-end SEC teams in Auburn and Miss. St., and one absolute thrashing at the hands of the Gators. Nothing in there suggests ‘top 15 team’ to me – either by resume or by perception in a power poll. So yeah, I think your poll has LSU a little high
btw, I appreciate you guys for voting Oklahoma ahead of USC, since a loss to #1 Texas should obviously be less damaging than unranked, 3-3 Oregon State.
re: Oklahoma
I did actually stop and think if was even going to drop them below Alabama and Penn State. In the end, I decided not to, but I really don’t consider their loss to Texas as much of a black mark. If anything, it’s a confirmation of their quality.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
re: LSU
You make a good point. I did think about ranking them lower. However, back to the question I posed in the post: who would you rank above them?
BYU’s best win is over UCLA, whose offense might be as bad as Auburn’s, but it’s defense is nowhere near as good, and the Cougars have a weak schedule overall.
Ohio State got thrashed at USC, and their best win (and only good win) is over 3-3 (0-3 in the Big 10) Wisconsin.
Boise State has a win at Oregon and not much else. Is the Oregon win better than LSU’s win over Auburn? Perhaps.
Utah or VaTech? I could see arguments made, I suppose. Make your case.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Based on resumes,
I think in no particular order Michigan State, Virginia Tech, Utah, and yes, Cal have accomplished more on the field. You could probably also make an argument for Ohio State, Vanderbuilt, Boise St., North Carolina and Wake Forest, though I personally wouldn’t.
Mich St. – A number of good wins by comfortable margins and one high quality loss on the road by 7
V. Tech – gave G. Tech and N. Carolina their only losses, plus a solid road win in Nebraska
Utah – solid wins against Air Force, Oregon State, and a road win against an admittedly bad Michigan, but still undefeated
Cal – LSU has a better loss, but no win nearly as valuable as Michigan State, and Cal has soundly beaten everybody else.
My instinct tells me that if any of those 4 teams played on a neutral field they would lose to LSU – but I think my instinct is based upon LSU’s achievements in the last 2 years and is totally separated from what they’ve done on the field so far this year, which was to allow the most offense Auburn and Miss St. have accomplished this year before losing to Florida.
Wow, I spent waaay too much time getting that info. Hope that makes things clearer.
Thanks for the input!
Virginia Tech – I actually like them a lot, and had them higher on my ballot than LSU.
Michigan State – A string of good wins, but no great wins yet. I fear to know what will happen to them if someone else manages to shut down Javon Ringer. Paging Ohio State?
Utah – Three good wins (though again, no great ones), no losses. They should probably be higher.
Cal – How high can you rank a team that doesn’t know who its starting quarterback will be? They score higher with the résumé crowd (Dawg Sports has them at #9) than those who are ranking teams based on what they see.
What about this for nos. 11-25?
11. Virginia Tech
12. Utah
13. LSU
14. Ohio State
15. Boise State
16. Wake Forest
17. BYU
18. North Carolina
19. Cal
20. Michigan State
21. Vanderbilt
22. South Florida
23. Kansas
24. Pitt
25. Minnesota / Tulsa / Ball State
I dunno; it fixes some problems, but creates others. What do you think? How would you rank the middle of the ballot?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Honestly, you can hardly tell with those last 15 teams. I’d just flip Harvey Dent’s coin.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 14, 2008 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
The one with two heads?
How would that solve anything? ;)
I kinda feel you on this one, though. You could squish these teams around in lots of different orders.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Works for me
The more we talk about it, the more I realize how much we split hairs trying to tell the difference between two teams at 5-1 with no common opponents – it almost feels like the intellectually honest answer is to throw your hands into the air and wait until the end of the year to try to figure the damn thing out
How does Kansas fall four spots for beating up Colorado—just because they lost to South Florida in a game that could’ve swung either way? How does Boise State fall after dominating Southern Miss on the road? How does Ohio State move up three spots after eeking out a win over a putrid Purdon’t team? How does Wake Forest move up three spots after winning the ugliest Thursday night game ever against a coach who was signing his walking papers? How does Pitt move into the rankings after an intrepid win over BYE.
And I sense some irritating “big schools would crush midmajors” bias here. If you claim to have watched UNC-UConn and come away not impressed by either team, then what’s the harm in putting schools like Ball State and Tulsa in the rankings, who have been impressive in every game they’ve played? They haven’t just beat everyone on their schedule, they’ve asswhomped the teams they’ve faced. Tulsa’s won by an average margin of 27+ points, and they’re supposed to be playing at the level of their competition.
What I sense you’re trying to do is measure the probability the nth team would beat the n+1st ranked team. We already have that. It’s Sagarian. Should we adhere by those rigid principles (that would place Cal in the top 15)?
by BearsNecessity on Oct 14, 2008 11:50 AM PDT reply actions
Simple – Kansas lost to South Florida, so clearly, they should be ranked below them since they have the same record. And clearly, South Florida should be ranked below Pittsburgh since they have the same record… oh wait.
BYU keeps dropping down because sportswriters collectively realised that if they ranked BYU high enough, they could actually make an NC game, which would be bad news bears.
yeah
The whole Pitt > South Florida > Kansas thing is a valid line of reasoning, although I tend to view such results as indicating that the teams are roughly as good as each other, not necessarily that one is better than the other (although in absence of better information, I’m forced to go with what happened on the field, of course.)
Pitt’s loss to 3-3 Bowling Green still kinda nags at me, though. It’s worse than USF and Kansas’ lone loss.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Delta Arguments
I hate delta arguments. They do not persuade me in the least. Each week, I try and put out the best ranking I can, based on the information I have at hand. It generally resembles the previous week’s ranking because much of what I thought I knew last week is still valid this week. Still, teams often move up or down for seemingly opaque reasons, like their victories from early in the season being reevaluated, or other teams moving up or down around them. The deltas are mildly interesting, I suppose, but I wouldn’t try and derive too much meaning from them, especially when they’re small.
Part of the problem is that we’re not ranking teams in a vacuum. When I rank Ohio State 13th, I have to come up with exactly 12 teams to rank above them; no more, no less. I generally look less at placement and more at the teams around them.
Also, I think the deltas are particularly wacky this week because CBKWit is on vacation, so HydroTech submitted a Top 25 instead.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
So…this is based on not how teams perform on the field, but how their opponents fared against other teams? Isn’t that specious logic?
by BearsNecessity on Oct 14, 2008 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
It's based on both
There’s no other way to compare two teams that haven’t played each other. I mean, other than recruiting rankings or their record the last 5 years or some other less relevant nonsense.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
What about how quality of blogs? Cal would clearly be #1!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I’ve always wanted to see Syracuse in the top 25.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 14, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I sense some "affirmitive action for mid-majors" from your ballot
I like Utah, I do, but I think you give them too much credit. Same with BYU. I actually voted for Tulsa this week (as did Yellow Fever), but when I averaged the ballots together, the math didn’t work out for them. Ball State is right on the cusp, too. I admittedly haven’t seen them play very much (only about half their game vs. Indiana), so the fact that they’ve apparently “looked good” in winning is lost on me. I’ll take another look, though, and make more of an effort to see one or two of their games.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I can easily see Mizzou pulling a Cal ’07 and losing a ton of games. Too bad the unimpressive non-conference schedule includes an underperforming Illinois team. Neither OK State nor Missouri would crack my top 10
...nuh nuh nuh gone
Who would you put on there then? Georgia and LSU because they’re in the S-E-C!!!!
by BearsNecessity on Oct 14, 2008 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I retract... OK State should be in there
1. Texas 2. Bama 3. Penn State 4. $C 5. Florida 6. Oklahoma 7. OK State 8. Georgia 9. BYU 10. Ohio State
...nuh nuh nuh gone
by Thoroughbred on Oct 14, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Mizzou should play Wazzu and the winner gets some kind of ceremonial Kazoo.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 14, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Best Win
Why isn’t Oklahoma State’s win over Missouri considered the best win? Going in to last week you could make an argument that Missouri was equal to or greater than Oklahoma. Texas barely beat Oklahoma on a neutral field while Oklahoma State barely beat Missouri on the road. I’m not saying that Oklahoma State would beat Texas but I have to consider a win on the road to be better when you’re looking at roughly equal teams (especially when you take away the Oklahoma bias).
Mizzou was fairly overrated thanks to “Chase Daniel for Heisman!” campaign. Their defense was always a little suspect.
by BearsNecessity on Oct 14, 2008 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I did watch a good portion of both games
Honestly, I don’t think Missouri is roughly equal to Oklahoma, and I didn’t make that argument last week, either. They’re good, sure, but they’re a step below. I hate to bring up last year’s results in this year’s rankings, but they did lose to Oklahoma twice last year.
OK State got a good win, no doubt, and they’re getting credit for it. I would argue, though, that they exposed Missouri’s lack of D somewhat in the win.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Abstractly, I prefer the résumé method ...
but I think it is best performed by computer-based systems. This is because even a résumé-minded pollster still can’t escape the problem of biased perception. There may be no bias in observing that Team A beat Team X and that Team B beat Team Y, but deciding which of those two victories was more impressive still hinges on a subjective assessment of whether Team X or Y is the better team. You wind up with a rather perverse situation of ranking A and B based not on your opinions of A or B but rather on your opinions X and Y. Computer polls are not immune to this, and some of the worst give far too much weight to supposed “strength of schedule”, so that it can matter more who you play than how you play. That’s wrong.
I believe the only reasonable human-based poll, particularly this early into the season, is to employ the “power” method, honestly accepting that our opinions are subjective. Hopefully, however, the power pollster will employ an open mind and abandon their preconceived notions about particular teams, if necessary, after seeing them play.
While I don’t like the BCS in general, I do believe they’ve finally got the formula more-or-less right with a relatively balanced mix of computer and human polls.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 14, 2008 2:34 PM PDT reply actions
"relatively balanced mix" is off the mark
Just look at the coaches poll.
The coaches have an incentive to skew the rankings towards their favor, both by voting themselves up and by voting their opponents up.
Also, most of the coaches don’t even watch the other teams play. They’re always talking about how they haven’t even seen the other team on film yet. Watching and ranking 25+ games isn’t a coach’s #1 priority.
There is a specious argument that the coaches know more about football than the computers or press, but it’s flawed in the light that those same coaches don’t even watch the teams they’re ranking. They just look at a final score.
The BCS formula = (usually) good for picking the Top 2, pretty bad at picking just about everything else
No
But I’ll gladly deposit his paychecks.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Oct 14, 2008 6:24 PM PDT reply actions
We have yet to ban anyone here on the CGB. Don’t make us make you the first!!!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
What if we were to make you the first?
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Hey, it could be worse. He could hat you!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
He hats me too. I just don’t bring that up because it’s too painful.
It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.

by 
5
3


















































