ND how in the world?

[Delmar]

Then why are teams ranked before the season starts?

That's not how it works. It's subject to each voter's preference. Some guys will vote solely based on record. Others will do it solely based on how good they think the team is. Most probably use a hybrid model. I'm not trying to reward wins, I'm trying to figure out who the best teams are.

If Notre Dame isn't actually good, they'll fall out of the rankings, right? Same difference.

If I were a voter in week 3, I would want my ballot to look like the the rankings after conference championship weekend. It takes no skill in analysis to say "ND is 0-2, so not good enough to be ranked." That's a caveman's ballot.

The problem is they’ll beat the Little Sisters of the Poor on their schedule and immediately go back to the Top Ten having proven nothing.

 

[05_never_again]

Preseason rankings should just be for fun and rankings after that should fluctuate significantly based on results. Ultimately preseason rankings should be meaningless, in my opinion (I realize that's not the world we live in).

It seems to me where you and I differ is you want to find the best teams and I want to reward overall best performances on the field to this point. How about we do a hypothetical scenario for a second. Let's say you have two teams with comparably difficult schedules who are both vying for the last playoff spot. Team 1 has a record of 9-3 and team 2 has a record of 10-2. Let's say team 1 is favored over team 2 by a touchdown on a neutral field, has a huge talent advantage, and most people believe they are the better team. Which team should get in? In my opinion, the team with the better on the field record should get in, even though they may not be the best team by any other metric. I feel the same way about rankings. In my opinion, ND shouldn't be rewarded with a ranking until they have had positive on the field results. (Again, I realize this isn't how rankings work, this is how I think they should work).

I'll also point out that there's not enough data on any team at this point to make a final say on them. We think Miami and Texas A&M are good, but the data we have is limited.

Even if there wasn't an official preseason poll that was published, and the only poll came out at the end of the year, a team's ranking in a human poll is always going to be influenced by what voters thought of them before the season started. Every team has expectations placed on them before they've ever played a game.

IMO, Texas would probably still be ranked in an end of season poll if they went 8-4 because they were thought to be really good before the season started by most people. "Poll inertia" would still be a thing without preseason polls because people are going to create relative perceptions of teams as the season goes along, and before the season starts.

 

[n_huffhines]

The problem is they’ll beat the Little Sisters of the Poor on their schedule and immediately go back to the Top Ten having proven nothing.

Playing down to the wire with top 10 teams is proving something. Tennessee proved something on Saturday, despite losing. I think people looking at that game should say, "Well, Tennessee is a hell of a team if they have their two corners back." and we should either climb in the rankings or stay in the same spot. Dropping is absurd. We all but won that game and if they are indeed the #6 team (now #3), we're not supposed to win it.

If ND wins out, they will be 10-2 and they will have not played any cream puffs. They'll have a bunch of wins over solid teams. And their losses will probably both look really good.

It will work itself out. If they go 9-3 losing to USC and they get in, I'll be there with you probably.

 

[05_never_again]

Playing down to the wire with top 10 teams is proving something. Tennessee proved something on Saturday, despite losing. I think people looking at that game should say, "Well, Tennessee is a hell of a team if they have their two corners back." and we should either climb in the rankings or stay in the same spot. Dropping is absurd. We all but won that game and if they are indeed the #6 team (now #3), we're not supposed to win it.

If ND wins out, they will be 10-2 and they will have not played any cream puffs. They'll have a bunch of wins over solid teams. And their losses will probably both look really good.

It will work itself out. If they go 9-3 losing to USC and they get in, I'll be there with you probably.

I appreciate ND hate as much as anybody, but they get unfairly criticized by people for not playing anybody. They don't play the hardest schedule in the country, but how many teams don't have an ETSU or UMass on the schedule?

 

[n_huffhines]

Even if there wasn't an official preseason poll that was published, and the only poll came out at the end of the year, a team's ranking in a human poll is always going to be influenced by what voters thought of them before the season started. Every team has expectations placed on them before they've ever played a game.

IMO, Texas would probably still be ranked in an end of season poll if they went 8-4 because they were thought to be really good before the season started by most people. "Poll inertia" would still be a thing without preseason polls because people are going to create relative perceptions of teams as the season goes along, and before the season starts.

Texas will have played #1 tOSU, #11 OU, #20 Vandy, #3 UGA, and #10 TAMU. If they go 8-4, they might belong in the rankings. I'd put them in over some 9-3 teams with weak schedules.

 

[05_never_again]

Texas will have played #1 tOSU, #11 OU, #20 Vandy, #3 UGA, and #10 TAMU. If they go 8-4, they might belong in the rankings. I'd put them in some 9-3 teams with weak schedules.

If they aren't starting out from as high of a position in people's minds though, they might slip out of the poll.

You're right that they still might deserve to be ranked at 8-4, depending on how the seasons of their opponents turn out, but if they weren't perceived to be at top team at the start of the season and then lost to every good team on their schedule, they'd probably end up not being ranked. Whereas if they're perceived to be really good and then lose to good teams (especially if they are close losses), they'd still probably be ranked.

My point was just that "we can do away with bias by not having a preseason poll" is just silly. People are going to have preconceived notions of teams regardless of whether there's a published poll or not.

 

[LouderVol]

I appreciate ND hate as much as anybody, but they get unfairly criticized by people for not playing anybody. They don't play the hardest schedule in the country, but how many teams don't have an ETSU or UMass on the schedule?

they don't need an ETSU or UMass. they will likely be favored by a touch down or more in all their remaining games. not because they are that good, but because the competition is a sleep walk.

8 or their 12 regular season games should be them sitting their starters going into the 4th. There aren't a ton of bad-bad teams. but its a bunch of teams who will be happy to make a bowl game.

even including TAMU & Miami I think most SEC schools would gladly trade schedules.

 

[05_never_again]

they don't need an ETSU or UMass. they will likely be favored by a touch down or more in all their remaining games. not because they are that good, but because the competition is a sleep walk.

8 or their 12 regular season games should be them sitting their starters going into the 4th. There aren't a ton of bad-bad teams. but its a bunch of teams who will be happy to make a bowl game.

even including TAMU & Miami I think most SEC schools would gladly trade schedules.

Never said they play an SEC schedule. They just don't have any creampuffs at all on their schedule, which is more than a team like Indiana can say.

Indiana plays 2 really good teams (@Oregon and Penn St) and solid teams like ND does, but unlike ND, Indiana throws in Old Dominion, Kennesaw St, and Indiana St on the schedule. ND doesn't play anybody like those latter 3 teams.

 

[Hunter10139]

Even if there wasn't an official preseason poll that was published, and the only poll came out at the end of the year, a team's ranking in a human poll is always going to be influenced by what voters thought of them before the season started. Every team has expectations placed on them before they've ever played a game.

IMO, Texas would probably still be ranked in an end of season poll if they went 8-4 because they were thought to be really good before the season started by most people. "Poll inertia" would still be a thing without preseason polls because people are going to create relative perceptions of teams as the season goes along, and before the season starts.

I totally understand that. I'm saying that poll inertia shouldn't be a thing. I'm saying rankings should be able to fluctuate more when we have less on the field data. I realize that's not how it currently works, I'm saying in my opinion it should work differently.

 

[05_never_again]

I totally understand that. I'm saying that poll inertia shouldn't be a thing. I'm saying rankings should be able to fluctuate more when we have less on the field data. I realize that's not how it currently works, I'm saying in my opinion it should work differently.

Everybody is human...it is going to happen. Even if there were no preseason polls everybody has an idea before seasons start on how good any particular team is "supposed to be" and is going to be influenced by that, even if they try not to.

 

[Hunter10139]

Everybody is human...it is going to happen. Even if there were no preseason polls everybody has an idea before seasons start on how good any particular team is "supposed to be" and is going to be influenced by that, even if they try not to.

I mean, I think some people are capable of voting based on actual results, not just a feeling. The current AP voters definitely aren't.

 

[superdave1984]

Follow the money and you will find the answer

 

[05_never_again]

I mean, I think some people are capable of voting based on actual results, not just a feeling. The current AP voters definitely aren't.

It's only possible to gauge the actual results relative to something, whether it be other teams, your own expectations, or something else.

The AP Poll or even the CFP itself are no different than lists of "power rankings" that writers will put together for professional sports. The only way to come up with rationales for those rankings is to do comparisons to different things because you're ranking the strength of the teams relative to each other. College sports is unique in that those power rankings actually determine who gets to play for championships and such; you can't just strictly go by wins and losses due to the sheer number of teams involved and the vast differences in schedule strength.

 

[LouderVol]

Then why are teams ranked before the season starts?

That's not how it works. It's subject to each voter's preference. Some guys will vote solely based on record. Others will do it solely based on how good they think the team is. Most probably use a hybrid model. I'm not trying to reward wins, I'm trying to figure out who the best teams are.

If Notre Dame isn't actually good, they'll fall out of the rankings, right? Same difference.

If I were a voter in week 3, I would want my ballot to look like the the rankings after conference championship weekend. It takes no skill in analysis to say "ND is 0-2, so not good enough to be ranked." That's a caveman's ballot.

but you run the danger of a Florida State last year. Top 10, SHOULD have been good, on paper was more talented than probably 10 of the teams they faced.

the results should matter more.

relying on something beyond the field of play is a recipe for really bad takes.

 

[n_huffhines]

but you run the danger of a Florida State last year. Top 10, SHOULD have been good, on paper was more talented than probably 10 of the teams they faced.

the results should matter more.

relying on something beyond the field of play is a recipe for really bad takes.

Right, but that's just one example where ranking a team based on talent went wrong. Make no mistake, we have lots of examples of that. But, we also have a zillion examples of ranking teams based on record going horribly wrong. BSU, Indiana, and USM were the teams that got into the playoff based on record as opposed to talent/surviving a juggernaut of a schedule, and all 3 of them got waxed.

 

[LouderVol]

Right, but that's just one example where ranking a team based on talent went wrong. Make no mistake, we have lots of examples of that. But, we also have a zillion examples of ranking teams based on record going horribly wrong. BSU, Indiana, and USM were the teams that got into the playoff based on record as opposed to talent/surviving a juggernaut of a schedule, and all 3 of them got waxed.

I don't think you are going to find an argument to solely look at wins and losses; but I figure you get better results modifying that metric; than modifying what they "should" be.

instead of pure wins and losses, look at strength of record type stuff.

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't think you are going to find an argument to solely look at wins and losses; but I figure you get better results modifying that metric; than modifying what they "should" be.

instead of pure wins and losses, look at strength of record type stuff.

Of course. Look at everything. But the point is, that IMO, rewarding wins is not the objective.

 

[LouderVol]

Of course. Look at everything. But the point is, that IMO, rewarding wins is not the objective.

I mean it should be with those qualifiers.

you go 0-12 in close games against the 12 best teams in the nation, no one should rank you #13. at some point you have to win the games to be considered one of the best. but also yes, you go 12-0 against the 130th strength of schedule also doesn't mean you should be #1.