Jump to content

Can we talk about Alabama and Michigan and objectivity?


Recommended Posts

Posted
38 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

I mean Oregon whipped one of the big 12s helmet schools. 

Are there Big 12 schools who play without helmets now?

Because then I might be able to care about Big 12 football again, maybe.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, AeroHorn said:

Looks like the OP's point, albeit quite naive to put it mildly, is to rank the teams based purely what they have done in the first couple of weeks. So, here is the list for you.

Criteria: (i) Win-loss record rules regardless of the opponent because the ranking of the opponent is meaningless (ii) if the record is the same, then margin of victory matters because big wins are better than little wins and (iii) if still tied, then offense matters because both offense and defense can score points.

There are 54 undefeated teams and here is the week 2 BLIND (Beautiful List of Independent and Neutral Dumdums) poll. Congratulations, Texas Tech is number 2! 

image.thumb.png.cdd17c46c90c981509c14e0a26b6f421.png

That explains it!

Posted
23 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Are there Big 12 schools who play without helmets now?

Because then I might be able to care about Big 12 football again, maybe.

Helmet schools meaning marquee.  Like the Lakers, Yankees, Cowboys (Dallas), etc.  a traditional power that gets people to tune in.  

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Helmet schools meaning marquee.  Like the Lakers, Yankees, Cowboys (Dallas), etc.  a traditional power that gets people to tune in.  

 

i know.gif

Edited by TexArcher
I got what you meant, even though it is a weird phrase. My response was a joke partly at the fact that the Big 12 doesn't have any marquee teams. The rest of the country isn't planning their Sat around the Kansas State game.
Posted
14 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Helmet schools meaning marquee.  Like the Lakers, Yankees, Cowboys (Dallas), etc.  a traditional power that gets people to tune in.  

So not Oklahoma State.

Posted
6 hours ago, AeroHorn said:

Looks like the OP's point, albeit quite naive to put it mildly, is to rank the teams based purely what they have done in the first couple of weeks. So, here is the list for you.

Criteria: (i) Win-loss record rules regardless of the opponent because the ranking of the opponent is meaningless (ii) if the record is the same, then margin of victory matters because big wins are better than little wins and (iii) if still tied, then offense matters because both offense and defense can score points.

There are 54 undefeated teams and here is the week 2 BLIND (Beautiful List of Independent and Neutral Dumdums) poll. Congratulations, Texas Tech is number 2! 

image.thumb.png.cdd17c46c90c981509c14e0a26b6f421.png

There's nothing wrong with ranking teams like that.  By the end of the year that would probably converge decently with the actual polls.  But the actual polls are probably a better predicter of where things will shake out by the end of the year.

Posted

Aerohorn nailed it. If all wins were created equal, beating a D3 team would matter as much as beating Ohio State. But they are not, and it does not. The Texas team that is ranked, e.g., above Oklahoma has a significant continuity with the Texas team that beat OU and Michigan last year. Polls are imperfect, and there would be future upsets of higher-ranked teams by lower even if there were a perfect way to rank teams today. Nevertheless, the idea that people should not hold or express the opinion (polls being the collected opinions of groups) that some teams with lower win percentages as of game 2 are better than some with better is fatuous. Maybe Kent State could play middle school teams during the summer and be the rightful #1 for being 7-0 before the season starts for anyone else. Then you could have a win over #1!

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, WBT said:

There's nothing wrong with ranking teams like that.  By the end of the year that would probably converge decently with the actual polls.  But the actual polls are probably a better predicter of where things will shake out by the end of the year.

Texas Tech hasn’t done jack squat !!!

Texas Tech is not getting shafted by the polls.

But the last sentence in the quote cuts to the heart of the matter.

The pollster think so highly of what Norte Dame is gonna do in the future they ignore ND’s now - which is a loss

Likewise, they think so poorly of Mich and Bama’s future they are ignoring OU and FSU’s now - which are two wins 


We are used to non helmet schools getting this treatment. To see it happening to 4 helmet schools is something new altogether and it’s completely blowing up any pretense and narratives about history, culture, and tradition and is boldly and blatantly proclaiming F all y’all - we decide who we want in our little game and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Edited by BluTechsan
Posted
19 hours ago, Iceman said:

The first poll shouldn't be until the Sunday after CCGs.

Unless you like banners for winning September...

Yell Texas Am GIF by Texas A&M University

  • Haha 1
Posted
20 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

For me the entire issue starts with a singular aspect, pre-season polls. All polls done thereafter are influenced by it win or loss. #1 close loss on the road to #2 top 10. #8 road loss to unranked, move #8 down to top 20 and unranked into top 20, push out a lower ranked top 25 to make was for FSU. 

Both the preseason and polls post wins/losses also have massive bias based on brand recognition. 

The only cure, which wouldn’t remove brand bias, is not releasing any polls until the 6 week of the season. Play shitty teams up front, polls reflected, loose to shitty teams, polls reflected, beat good teams, polls reflected. 

I don't think it will ever happen but.. it would fix a lot of the issues. 

Well put and a summary of an opinion that I agree with.

It will never happen because arguing about ratings pre-season has almost become a sport of its own. However, the BCS ratings (or whatever they're called this season) have begun late in the  season in an attempt to get things right. That said, they are influenced by polls and ratings. Back we are at the start.

In my life, I've often seen Texas overrated at the beginning of the season and been proven right. Ironically, one of my favorite seasons for the Longhorns, 1977. saw us as merely receiving votes prior to the first game. Even losing our first and second team QBs playing OU,  we proceeded with Earl Campbell and a great defense to an undefeated regular season. We were number one through much of that until ND did what they do in the Cotton Bowl.

I write about Texas to show how the so-called blue bloods don't feel entitled to inflated rankings nor do they have much to do promoting them. It's the parrot world of sports writers and pundits who are responsible. The same guys who for years used the term "shadow of their own goal line" and changed mano a mano (hand to hand) to mano y mano (hand and hand) to mean man to man.  Idiots.

BTW, I like Tech.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Based on quality wins, South Florida should be ranked number 1.  Especially, if they win again this weekend.

Counterpoint-- losing to South Florida means you suck, and therefore South Florida has no quality wins, and is inherently incapable of ever having a quality win.

 

...is part of the circular logic that lands us in a thread like this.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted
10 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

Wow! If you’ve mis-read me that poorly and every one else has done so likewise the I do deserve all the shit I’m getting for this thread as I obviously cannot articulate an opinion.

My belief and reason for the thread is that I do NOT think FSU and OU are getting enough credit for those wins. 

And I’m asking why not?

What have the teams ranked ahead of them done the past two weeks that is is better? Nothing really save for a few exceptions (tOSU, LSU, Miami) 

The answer? Because those teams all had better starting positions. Nothing more. Nothing less. 


Look, the question wasn’t why aren’t Miss St and S Florida getting more love for beating ASU and Florida

It was why aren’t flipping bluebloods FSU and OU getting more props for beating bluebloods Bama and Michigan?


It’s confusing because come playoff time there’ll be a whole lot of talk about the gauntlets teams face in the BIG and SEC 


 

 

Are you AI?  You have to be AI or you’re fucking with us, right?  
 

  • Haha 1
Posted
21 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

I’m laughing at the responses.

But seriously, of course yell, fight, scream, politic on hold biases on behalf of our teams but can we not also promote a little objectivity when evaluating the overall landscape of the sport.

Why play the games if outcomes don’t matter? The never ending realignment discussions are always heavily focused on the BIG and the SEC and are told that football just means more in those leagues yet here we sit with FSU and OU virtually getting no credit whatsoever for victories over two of the bluest Blue Bloods on the map.

I really don’t understand it.

 

Well, there's your problem. You're trying to understand something that has, since its inception, been subjective, at least partly illogical and always lacking in enough data. Even on-field results are arguably "subjective" in a game where officiating can play a huge role, as can all sorts of other circumstances. It's played by humans, who are remarkably consistent in their inconsistency. That's just sport.

Also -- though I generally like Tech compared to most of, for instance, our original Big XII conference mates -- I have to say that "beating their drumb" in your OP is one of the most spectacular Freudian slips on Surly in recent memory. Thanks for that, @BluTechsan😆

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, utee94 said:

Counterpoint-- losing to South Florida means you suck, and therefore South Florida has no quality wins, and is inherently incapable of ever having a quality win.

 

...is part of the circular logic that lands us in a thread like this.

This.

I said this wasn’t about Texas Tech but I think in a small way - or in a loud in your face proclamation - it’s a message to Cody Campbell

The message being: “We still run the show and just to prove it, we won’t use some little upstart peon, we’ll tell a few of our national brands to sit this one out”

Posted
1 hour ago, Hayduke said:

Also -- though I generally like Tech compared to most of, for instance, our original Big XII conference mates -- I have to say that "beating their drumb" in your OP is one of the most spectacular Freudian slips on Surly in recent memory. Thanks for that, @BluTechsan😆

Yes. Any further explanation of how we are failing to understand @BluTechsan's premise will likely drain away any remaining kind indulgence.

Posted
3 hours ago, BluTechsan said:

Texas Tech hasn’t done jack squat !!!

Texas Tech is not getting shafted by the polls.

But the last sentence in the quote cuts to the heart of the matter.

The pollster think so highly of what Norte Dame is gonna do in the future they ignore ND’s now - which is a loss

Likewise, they think so poorly of Mich and Bama’s future they are ignoring OU and FSU’s now - which are two wins 


We are used to non helmet schools getting this treatment. To see it happening to 4 helmet schools is something new altogether and it’s completely blowing up any pretense and narratives about history, culture, and tradition and is boldly and blatantly proclaiming F all y’all - we decide who we want in our little game and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Are you new to watching football?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...