California Golden Blogs: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Check out our NFL Scoreboard: scores, schedule and blogs Bar-right-arrows



spread the word

GoldenBlogs Top 25 - Week 5

In the comments thread of last week's Top 25, reader Nashville asked a fairly basic question of us; what are we ranking, anyway?

Maybe I missed it, but is there a page where you initially explained what these rankings were intended to show?

I see lots of different rankings, like the quantitative methods designed to measure achievement up to this point, which fairly describes most computer ranking systems, and then the human pollsters, who seem to start the season predicting the finish and slowly through the season blend in the respective achievements. What I’m asking then is are you casting your ballots on the impression that at the end of the season Vanderbilt will be 21st in the country? Or are you casting your ballots based on the impression that up until now, Vanderbilt has accomplished more than all but 20 other teams? And so on through the rankings...

Although simply calling our Top 25 a 'Power Poll' wouldn't be entirely inaccurate, I felt that this question deserved a deeper, more thorough answer.  There are several ways of ranking college football teams, and each is intended to show a different relationship amongst the top teams in the country.  If we don't first establish what relationship it is we're trying to show, however, it's hard to say that such a ranking has any value at all.  Take, for example, the following ranking of breakfast cereals:

1. Honey Nut Cheerios
2. Kix
3. Lucky Charms
4. Cocoa Puffs
5. Cinnamon Toast Crunch

Now, I'll bet most of you looked at my rankings and immediately disagreed with them.  "How could you include Cereal X," you say, "and forget about Cereal Y?"  "This order is all wrong.  You know nothing about breakfast cereals!"  Perhaps.  Still, until you know how I'm ranking these cereals, arguing with me is rather moot.  I could be ranking them on tastiness, or on how fresh they stay in milk.  I could rank them on price, or on some sort of tastiness/price value scale.  I could simply throw all of that out and rank them on the entertainment value of the packaging and any prizes that might be inside.  Each of these would be a valid ranking, though some would clearly be more useful than others.  The smart shopper chooses the ranking system that most closely approximates what he or she is trying to accomplish.  Want to get healthy?  Look into Grape Nuts, or Total.  Trying to keep the kids happy?  Stick with the Lucky Charms.

And football teams?  There are plenty of ways to rank them, too.

Star-divide

Fortunately for me and my ability to have time to watch lots of Futurama reruns, Sunday Morning Quarterback has already written on this subject.  Let's quote him (but by all means, read the full article -- I would have quoted the whole thing if logistics and/or ethics allowed):

First up, the Power Poll, or as SMQ terms it, the 'Holistic Method':

The apparently preferred method, which asks simply, "Who's better?" or "Who would beat who on a neutral field?" or something like that. No measurables, just a human brain sorting information as it sees fit - a kind of almost metaphysical effort to determine the "essence" of a team in its current incarnation. If you're a voter and haven't given much thought to your overriding method, this is almost definitely what you're doing.

You can really sense the disdain, can't you?  SMQ is not fond of this method, but I think he sells it short.  Just because a voter isn't using a mathematical model to construct their ordering doesn't mean their reasoning lacks internal logic or well-thought-out arguments.

Still, he makes a good point; a voter could assemble any haphazard hodgepodge of teams and call it a 'Power Poll' using whatever justification they liked, to the point where those arbitrary justifications needn't even be internally consistent.  If we're going to use this method, we need to guard against lazily throwing together ballots that contradict themselves.

Next up, Résumé Ranking:

A method that attempts to rank based strictly on the measurable: if each team had a resume for this season and this season only, and its name at the top was blacked out, how would the voter rank those resumes? Takes into account only games played to date this season - these are folks who always complain about polls that come out and distort reality before October. SMQ's preferred method all year, and seemingly the default method for most end-of-season rankings.

A noble effort, I think.  Résumé voters attempt to completely ignore whatever reputation or conference affiliation a team may posses in assembling their rankings, judging teams solely by what they've accomplished on the field.  Ideally, this is what teams *should* be judged on, and not some sort of wishy-washy 'perceived strength' or anything, but in practice, it can be difficult to vote completely blindly.

My problem with this method, especially early in the season, is that when you avoid making judgments about a team, you still have to make judgments about how 'good' their wins were.  And that means making judgments about how good their opponents were.  Or their opponents opponents.  In effect, a résumé voter hasn't eliminated arbitrary judgments of teams; they've simply shifted them to a different level.

Some polls attempt to approximate the football season's Predicted Finish:

At the other pole, it's the mock stock approach - explicitly embraced most weeks by Orson and ripped off at least once by Gameday - of "buying" and "selling" (or "holding") teams based on where they're going to end up at year's end. These are the people who have West Virginia at two, or, weirder, one, based on the Mountaineers' softy schedule. It's not about what you've done, or how "good" you are - it's only about where you wind up.

I dislike these polls, not merely because they give too much credit to teams with soft schedules, but because in doing so, they reward teams not for quality of wins, but merely for quantity.  Going undefeated is great, and should be applauded, even rewarded; however, having the fewest losses doesn't necessarily prove to me that a team is actually the best.  Oftentimes, it merely demonstrates the schedule-maker's ability to line up a string of patsies behind a couple of ESPN Thursday Night specials.

And finally, we get Computer-Generated Rankings:

Like the "Resume" method, eliminates speculation and abstractions like perception and previous history to the extreme by running cold, hard numbers to reach a conclusion most bordering as closely as possible to scientific fact. The much-maligned computer guys.

It seems like this is what résumé-rankers aspire to: a complete analysis of the football season under scrutiny, with a total disregard for any team's reputation.  While there are weaknesses with this method (I'm sure many of you have looked at the computer rankings used by the BCS and wondered, "How in the world did they come up with that?"), it's not really worth discussing here, because I am not a computer.  Perhaps someday I'll devise my own computer ranking method; we can talk then.

------------

So, then, what method are we using to rank these teams?  Well, I shall not presume to speak for either Yellow Fever or CBKWit, but for my own part, I would call my efforts a blend of the first two methods.  Call it a Power Poll that leans heavily, though by no means exclusively, on teams' résumés.  What?  Let me explain:

In constructing my ballot, I attempt to provide a snapshot of who the Top 25 teams are 'right now'.  Not at the end of the season, and not necessarily how good they were in Week 1, either.  I do try and ask myself questions like, "Who would win on a neutral field?" but I try not to get too caught up in looks.  A team's résumé is very important - who they've beaten, where they beat them, and by how much.  Just as important is who they lost to, and how they lost.  The past is not forgotten (hense why Oregon State was never considered for this week's ballot), yet it may offer diminishing influence; if the OSU runs off a number of wins, demonstrating that last Thursday's toppling of USC was "improvement" and not merely a fluke, they shall rise in my rankings accordingly.

More than anything else, I'm looking for "evidence", of whatever kind I can get my hands on, that Team A is better than Team B.  Head-to-head matchups are great, but common opponents and relative scoring margins are also useful.  Anything I can point to and say, "This happened, and so it is likely to happen again."  Often, however, this isn't enough.  To rank two teams with dissimilar but relatively strong résumés, one must often look to wishy-washy human judgments such as "offensive dominance" or "has a better defense".  Especially early in the season, we just don't have enough data points to offer strong evidence for ordering any team over any other team; Oklahoma is almost certainly better than Louisiana-Monroe, but can you tell me whether or not Kansas is better than Utah?

In the coming weeks, I shall attempt to further elucidate my method.  For now, however, here is this week's Top 25.  Normally, I offer a few comments on the rankings, attempting to explain or justify various positions taken within.  Today, I offer it without comment, and invite you, dear reader, to examine our poll and determine if indeed our method is at least internally consistent.  Does it show an up-to-date power relationship amongst the top teams in college football?  Are teams with better résumés ranked higher?  Judge us, and I shall attempt to explain and defend our position, or, failing that, capitulate to your superior judgment.

After all, is Vanderbilt *really* one of the 20 best teams in college football?

Rank

TeamDelta
1 Oklahoma 1
2 Alabama 10
3 Missouri 3
4 LSU 1
5 Texas 2
6 Penn State 4
7 Texas Tech 2
8 Brigham Young 3
9 South Florida 4
10 Southern Cal
9
11 Georgia 7
12 Florida 9
13 Kansas 2
14 Utah 5
15 Boise State 5
16 Ohio State --
17 Wisconsin 9
18 Auburn 4
19 Vanderbilt 2
20 Oklahoma State 6
21 Fresno State 4
22 Virginia Tech 4
23 Oregon 3
24 Connecticut 2
25 Wake Forest 8

 

Dropped Out: Illinois (#18), East Carolina (#22), TCU (#23), Clemson (#24)

4 recs | Comment 103 comments | Digg!

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I would move Kix into the number one spot if I were you.

by CaliSeth on Sep 30, 2008 9:03 AM PDT   0 recs

Why didn’t you list Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs on your cereal list?

It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.

by Maharg on Sep 30, 2008 12:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I hear UNC moved past Ole Miss in this week’s AP Calvinball rankings

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 30, 2008 12:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

An Oversight

Plain and simple.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Sep 30, 2008 1:24 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I like Basic 4.

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 1:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

After all, is Vanderbilt really one of the 20 best teams in college football?

Ask me again Sunday morning. It’ll have a capital “HELL” at the beginning, yes or no ;]

by VandyImport on Sep 30, 2008 9:04 AM PDT   0 recs

Rec'd

I doubt I have to explain why.

by Nashville on Sep 30, 2008 9:08 AM PDT   0 recs

You aren’t full of self loathing?

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 9:11 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

At first yes

But then I realized, I don’t have to be embarrassed by my love for Honey Nut Cheerios. It’s perfectly acceptable. And Ragnarok ranking it #1 is just further proof of that.

Or is that not what you were talking about?

by Nashville on Sep 30, 2008 9:17 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Why do I always have to be talking about “something”?

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 9:19 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

We could talk about ‘someone’ if you want. Like that slut Serena van der Woodsen. I can’t believe she did that. Blair was supposed to be her best friend too!

by Nashville on Sep 30, 2008 9:32 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

She did get rather rude at the end there. Blair was trying to be nice. Poppy whatsherface is going to RUIN Serena!

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 9:52 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Love me some Honey Nut Cheerios

I couldn’t NOT put them at #1. In fact, it’s what I was eating when I wrote parts of this post!

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Sep 30, 2008 1:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That’s crazytalk. There’s no way Kix should even be in the top 25. And how could a top 5 list not have Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch Berries?

Wait, am I on the right blog?

How can you rank Oregon and not Cal? Aren’t we essentially the same team so far? And Boise State 15? If you rank them that high you have to rank Maryland. Right? Or did I totally misunderstand your explanation above?

by CalBandGreat on Sep 30, 2008 9:23 AM PDT   0 recs

I had Maryland!

And Michigan State both ranked. 23 and 24, I think. Then I had North Carolina bringing up the rear. How about that Butch Davis!

I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.

by yellow fever on Sep 30, 2008 9:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah, but how can you have Michigan State ranked and not Cal?

I guess if you’re taking into account the injuries incurred against CSU, but that seems more predictive than anything else.

I’m not sure what to do about Oregon, Cal, Maryland, or MSU right now. Hopefully it will shake out this week.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 30, 2008 9:39 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

mostly because we lost more recently

Than they did.

I'm still wondering why the Nets didn't draft Leon Powe.

by yellow fever on Sep 30, 2008 11:40 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Butch Davis? David Cutcliffe! Duke already has more wins this year than the past decade combined!

by CalBandGreat on Sep 30, 2008 9:40 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

North Carolina won the Miami game when the Miami receiver caught the ball in the air above the end zone with ten seconds left and then fumbled it into the North Carolina player’s hands. Most bizarro finish ever.

Of course they’ll probably just validate you by blowing out UConn.

by BearsNecessity on Sep 30, 2008 10:46 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

For my own part

I didn’t vote for Cal, Oregon, Maryland OR Michigan State. Right now, to me, all 4 are in the 26-35 range somewhere. Perhaps this weekend’s results will convince me to move one or more of them up.

Boise State, on the other hand, I did vote for, and rather highly, I might add. I’ll take all the blame for them being as high as they are. Perhaps they belong lower down, but unlike all of the other teams mentioned, they are still undefeated. Yes, their only quality win is against a somewhat suspect Oregon team that is quickly running out of quarterbacks, but they did win on the road (unlike Maryland over Cal), and it wasn’t as close as the final score indicates (much like Maryland over Cal). Personally, I think Boise’s win at Oregon is better than any win by any undefeated team ranked below them, and being undefeated should count for something, no?

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Sep 30, 2008 10:11 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Honestly, I don't care for Cap'n Crunch

Never have, never will.

You may be right about Boise, though. I will take another look at them.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Sep 30, 2008 1:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Anyone who writes a comment longer than my college essays deserves to be rec'd

Although the essence of your argument comes down to: Teams that finish strong should not get the best bowl. In that sense I agree with you. Although some people were calling for a Georgia-USC national title (totally undeserved considering some of the teams they lost to) last season because of how well they finished, it overlooks how well teams played from start to finish.

And when you have a season like last year’s, no possible format would have determined the #1 team to any football fan’s pleasing.

Football is filled with huge inefficiencies in determining who the best team on the field is. Not even a playoff would solve it; the NFL proves that every year when they don’t send the top 16 to the playoffs, but the 8 division winners regardless of record (similar to college football, who sends the 6 big conference champions to the BCS regardless of record). Although the rankings are in essence another inequity in the system, it is the only possible way to measure it without having a madcap 64 team playoff (and Phil Steele’s solution is impractical).

In many ways the system is rigged from the beginning to favor the status quo. Midmajors need to run the table to even get a shot. Big schools can even lose two games and find themselves in the title game because of how “tough” the wins on their schedule were. Teams with strong records get screwed because they didn’t win their conference and didn’t gain enough national recognition. And so on. Too many inefficiencies to rationally argue either way.

So any additional polling we participate in is mostly an exercise in personal biases and armchair knowledge. It’s a bizarro system that ends up usually coming back to who was ranked at the top to begin with.

On a side note, it’s why the NBA playoff format is the closest to determining the best team (NHL is too dependent on goalies and MLB is one round too short). Everyone may diss how long it is, but that’s how long you’d have to go to ensuring that the best NBA team usually wins. Screw you NBA haters out there!

by BearsNecessity on Sep 30, 2008 10:45 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Didn’t read, but recced anyway.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 30, 2008 11:40 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I could use bullet points to be honest.

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 11:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Please do not provide bullet points. Make him learn to read.

It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.

by Maharg on Sep 30, 2008 12:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Rec’d for flagging me!

It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.

by Maharg on Sep 30, 2008 1:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It appears you need to check yourself before you rec….myself.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 30, 2008 1:45 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

TOO LATE!

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 1:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

no no, i checked myself previous to my rec-ing

It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.

by Maharg on Sep 30, 2008 1:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You have brought shame to my ancestors.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 30, 2008 1:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Did you check yourself while wearing a giant rabbit suit? Because that’s just plain SICK!

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 1:52 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No, I hate furries more than CaliSeth hates sobriety.

It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.

by Maharg on Sep 30, 2008 2:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That’s…………….a lot of hate.

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 2:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Rec’d for flagging The Flagging Mahargs!

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 1:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Are they related to spazzy?

It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.

by Maharg on Sep 30, 2008 1:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Who isn’t related to Spazzy? Besides Stegosaurus, of course.

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 1:52 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I can read. I just don’t care to do it!

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 1:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Having a poll that is batshit crazy from week to week early in the season completely makes sense! Make everyone who has an equally bad loss work themselves backup equally. Get teams that have lost to bad teams off here. Favor zero loss teams early. Get Virgina Tech, Fresno State, Wisconsin, Wake Forest off of here. Punish USC much harder for losing to Oregon State, who lost to Stanfurd. I definitely do not understand teams benefiting from a positive preseason, or early season, perception. It makes more sense to have a one loss Kansas or Oregon team in the 20’s because they lost to undefeated teams.

by MCM711 on Sep 30, 2008 2:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

cumulative poll

do all these polls get added together to make a final poll of all bloggers? If so, where is it?

by Moscow Doug on Sep 30, 2008 10:28 AM PDT   0 recs

Anyone who writes a comment longer than my college essays deserves to be rec'd

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 30, 2008 11:00 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

Rec’d for Plagarism.

It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.

by Maharg on Sep 30, 2008 12:40 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

This doesn't get posted until tomorrow

But my ballot and total lack of rationale are explained here.

As you can see, ragnarok’s methodology (and the CGB collective) is much preferred to my madness that has Ball State ranked as the 23rd ‘best’ team in the country. Whatever dude, 5-0 be 5-0. I can’t wait for them to run the MAC table and go to the Orange Bowl.

by BearsNecessity on Sep 30, 2008 10:54 AM PDT   0 recs

well..

I ranked call this week.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Sep 30, 2008 11:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

But you have Sparty ranked above us!

by BearsNecessity on Sep 30, 2008 11:27 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hmm...

Yeah, I should change that.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Sep 30, 2008 11:33 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’ve always contended resume ranking is the way to go. Either that, or “neutral-field” ranking, but not until 5 games into the season (what’s the point of rankings until the final weekend, anyway?).

The problem with resume ranking is that it requires the pollster to base a team’s resume on who they’ve beaten. How do you know how strong the team they beat is? You then run into chicken-egg problems. So even resume ranking involves some kind of judgment on teams’ “essence” as SMQ puts it.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 30, 2008 11:16 AM PDT   0 recs

There is way too much writing here.

Can someone give me the entire thread in bullet points or a graph?

Wait… no… I can figure it out.

- TheMaharg talked about Cereal
- Spazzy Rec’d Cereal
- TwistNHook Flagged Spazzy for wreckless Rec’d-ing
- Everyone flags TwistNHook for eating the Rec’d ceral.
- TwistNHook posts naked. Nobody knows why.
- Zoonews hasn’t read this yet, because there is no photoshopped image.
- BearsNecessity said something incredibly intelligent.
- Everyone flags BearsNecessity
- ragnarok posts something long, and brilliant.
- Everyone rec’ds ragnarok.
- I jump in the middle of the conversation
- yellow fever made some sense
- Everyone makes fun of me for saying yellow fever made sense.
- Everyone realizes I pulled all these bullet points out of my ass, and rec’d me for it.

Is that pretty close to how it went?

It's spelled "S-h-u-f-e-l-t"

by JShufelt on Sep 30, 2008 3:17 PM PDT   1 recs

Too long to read, can I get bullet points?

It’s times like this I wish they’d never discovered CougCenterium.

by Maharg on Sep 30, 2008 3:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Flagged for being, well, basically, The Flagging Mahargs!

I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on