|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1,371
|
CU Medallion [65878]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33335
Joined: 12/3/03
|
Who else other than me thinks that wins over ranked
Nov 29, 2016, 3:14 PM
|
|
teams should be evaluated based on the ranking AT THE TIME THE GAME WAS PLAYED.
Case in point: Louisville. At the time the game was played, they were ranked #3, and we were #5. Now, because they have fallen apart down the stretch, with nothing much to play for, we only get credit for beating #16? Nostradamus himself could not tell you what the rankings would have done if they won that game instead of us.
Auburn is another case, playing very well until injuries hit them. Should we be penalized for them not being the team now that they were then? I call BS. But, that is the criteria it appears is being used.
I don't hear anything about Ohio State only beating #5 Michigan, they are getting credit for beating #3. Appears the SEC bias has just changed coats, now BIG, BIG, BIG.
I know, sound whiney, but it's about time the ACC got credit for being a pretty good conference too. Didn't hardly hear a peep about us going 3-1 against the SEC. (Probably because HEIS-man Lamar Jackson and Lewisville took a dive.)
Ok, rant over.
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [6575]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5488
Joined: 9/22/16
|
Re: Who else other than me thinks that wins over ranked
Nov 29, 2016, 3:15 PM
|
|
No. It's where the team ends up at the end of the season. Do you really think that Texas beat a top 10 Notre Dame team?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [140875]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33918
Joined: 12/5/10
|
Or that Nebraska beat a #22 Oregon team.***
Nov 29, 2016, 3:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [140875]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33918
Joined: 12/5/10
|
I do not agree with your first sentence.
Nov 29, 2016, 3:19 PM
|
|
The ranking at the time of loss (especially an early season game) is often incorrect. We never know how good a team actually is/was until a season has played out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [2]
TigerPulse: 26%
Posts: 31
Joined: 10/11/16
|
Re: Who else other than me thinks that wins over ranked
Nov 29, 2016, 3:20 PM
|
|
That ONLY applies if the media is discussing the likes of Washington, Clemson, etc. Not Alabama or Ohio State.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27400]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31837
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: Who else other than me thinks that wins over ranked
Nov 29, 2016, 3:22 PM
|
|
Just Win Baby
solves everything
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9660]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9003
Joined: 11/29/15
|
Well they don't claim that Louisville lost to a number 5 Clemson***
Nov 29, 2016, 3:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1806]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1888
Joined: 1/31/12
|
We just need to thank FSU for taking care of business and
Nov 29, 2016, 3:26 PM
|
|
ending the year on a high note. They are probably the bannermen holding up our SOS right now. That and a multi-touchdown beat down over a ranked VT should help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2922]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4061
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Should be a little bit of both involved....
Nov 29, 2016, 4:00 PM
|
|
I think more weight can be given to the end of year ranking, since it takes the whole season into account. Some teams get better and their ranking improves, others fall as the season goes. The first several weeks are way too influenced by pre-season rankings, and that's where the 'ranked at the time' philosophy doesn't work as well.
However, a team could be ranked high, then lose a QB or something and be ranked lower by the end...in this case the 'ranked at the time' thing is better.
I think that some sort of 'balance' between end of year and current ranking might be the best way to look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2928]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2631
Joined: 5/19/10
|
Re: Who else other than me thinks that wins over ranked
Nov 29, 2016, 4:04 PM
|
|
So, by that logic:
FSU beat #11 (7 loss) Ole Miss
Texas beat #10 (8 loss) Notre Dame
Texas A&M beat #16 (8 loss) UCLA
...and that's only week 1
There are way too many of these from the first 5-6 weeks of the season. The ranking usually carries over for a week or two (i.e. OSU beat #3 Michigan), but when teams drop, those wins aren't going to look as good. That's just how it works
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [453]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 865
Joined: 2/9/99
|
You contradicted yourself with the Auburn example
Nov 29, 2016, 4:06 PM
|
|
Auburn was unranked when we played them. We are now getting credit for beating a ranked team that was unranked when we played them.
I agree there's a balancing act, Louisville was playing better football when we played them. Then their idiot coach got them all fired up about the polls and they forgot to play football at Houston for Herman's payday interview. Last week with nothing to play for, they played like there was nothing to play for. But when we beat them they sure looked like a top 5 team and I hate that every loss they have hurts our schedule strength.
Auburn was clearly better than an unranked team when we beat them so I like that using current rankings reflect that.
Also the reason you hear about us playing an unranked Va Tech team and OSU beating #3 Michigan is that the polls haven't been updated. After tonight, I'm assuming VT will be ranked and Michigan will be #5. Then the reference points will shift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17631]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11054
Joined: 10/13/08
|
No. Take Ole Miss for example...
Nov 29, 2016, 4:10 PM
|
|
In Week 3, LSU beat a #11 Ole Miss team. At season's end, they're not even bowl-eligible.
They were WAY over-rated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17850]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16710
Joined: 9/1/12
|
Not me. Neither is perfect, but end of year seems more accurate.***
Nov 29, 2016, 4:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Not me. Pollsters don't know anything at the beginning
Nov 29, 2016, 5:01 PM
|
|
of a season. Just look at every pre-season poll.
But it's also true that teams change during a season due to injuries and other things.
For example, USuCk wouldn't have beaten Tennessee early on, while ANYbody could beat them now.
So to get the best polls, each and every game of each and every team must be analyzed considering who played, where the played, how the refs "played", weather, etc... which of course no voters are going to do.
So generally we're just stuck with a beauty contest, and everybody on here knows how they turn out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3728]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3532
Joined: 11/30/14
|
Re: Who else other than me thinks that wins over ranked
Nov 29, 2016, 5:07 PM
|
|
Yeah I gotta disagree with the " at the time the game was played" argument, all wins and losses should be judged at the end of the season, lots of things change throughout the course of the season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1,371
|
|
|
50
