If YOU were a BCS pollster, would you vote for the "best" team, or "most deserving"?

[TUSooner]

I think they are sometimes the same, but not always.

BC is the example of the day, but you can find others (like OhSU maybe).

BC might "deserve" in some way to be #2:
Even though they haven't really played anybody who's all that good (Army? Duke? The Worst ND Team Evar?) they have managed to win every game (which OU has not); plus they just got a sexy last-gasp win on a conference rival's home turf on national TV.

But are they really the 2nd best team in the USA? Fla has 2 losses, LSU 1, OU 1, USC 1, USF 1, you get the ideer. Would you bet $1 on BC beating any of those on a neutral field?

Do you vote for BC because they "deserve" it in some cosmic way? Or do you vote for a team that you are reasonably certain would defeat BC 5 out of 6 times on a neutral field?

The point is not to bash BC or any team, but there seem to be conflicting criteria between voting for which team looks pretty and "deserving", and which team you really think is best.

Where is the line? Is there a line?

Please advise.

[badger]

If you rank undefeated teams higher that have easier schedules, you are encouraging people to play - as NP would call them, the "Sisters of the Blind" teams.

Just like the NCAA seems to be encouraging teams to not comply with the self-reporting request by bringing down the hatchet on teams that do :rolleyes:

[TUSooner]

I should have mentioned that I would vote for the team that I thought was "best"; i.e,, the team I think would beat another. Of course that's hard to know, but that's what I'd try to do.

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

I think they are sometimes the same, but not always.

BC is the example of the day, but you can find others (like OhSU maybe).

BC might "deserve" in some way to be #2:
Even though they haven't really played anybody who's all that good (Army? Duke? The Worst ND Team Evar?) they have managed to win every game (which OU has not); plus they just got a sexy last-gasp win on a conference rival's home turf on national TV.

But are they really the 2nd best team in the USA? Fla has 2 losses, LSU 1, OU 1, USC 1, USF 1, you get the ideer. Would you bet $1 on BC beating any of those on a neutral field?

Do you vote for BC because they "deserve" it in some cosmic way? Or do you vote for a team that you are reasonably certain would defeat BC 5 out of 6 times on a neutral field?

The point is not to bash BC or any team, but there seem to be conflicting criteria between voting for which team looks pretty and "deserving", and which team you really think is best.

Where is the line? Is there a line?

Please advise.

It sounds to me like you have hit on the human element of the human polls. I don't know that there is a clear line and certainly that line changes from voter to voter.

I personally don't think the BC is even one of the 10 best teams in the college football. I wouldn't pick them on a neutral field over OU, Tex, MU or KU. That said I think they have met the criteria in my bokk for being voted at least #3 and potentially as high as #1. If Arizona St were to win out I might vote them ahead of BC but then again BC has to win an extra game that BC doesn't.

The dilemma I would have would be if a team like LSU OU,Oreg, USC win out and BC manages to run the table but has a game that they won by virtue or a questionable call (see Oregon screw job) or if it becomes appreant (in my subjective opinion) that BC's schedule was just way too soft. Of course the computers have a say in that.

Obviously Hawaii won't be in the BCS title game even if they are undefeated so there is more to simply winning all your games. A team in a BCS conference though should get the benefit of the doubt.

[soonervegas]

If I was a pollster and was delat this scenario:

Ohio State 12-0
Boston College 12-0
LSU 12-1

I would have no problem ranking OSU and LSU #1 and #2.

[TopDawg]

I should have mentioned that I would vote for the team that I thought was "best"; i.e,, the team I think would beat another. Of course that's hard to know, but that's what I'd try to do.

The tricky thing about polls is that the preseason polls are ONLY about "best." There's really no "deserving" criteria at that point, so it's all about which teams you think are the best. It's after Week 1 that some measure of "deservitude" comes into play. I doubt any voter is "best-only" or "deserving-only", but has some sort of mixture.

I'd be interested to see what the computer programmers think their computers measure. I'd have to think it's more about "most deserving" since it's all mathematical.

[TopDawg]

I should have mentioned that I would vote for the team that I thought was "best"; i.e,, the team I think would beat another. Of course that's hard to know, but that's what I'd try to do.

That's right, I'm quoting this for a second post in a row... :D

How would you handle this scenario: let's say this year's OU/CU game was a case of #1 OU v. #2 CU. The following things would need to be considered when trying to decide who is best:

How each team played (OU made a lot of mistakes)
Where the game was played (at CU)
Final score (CU wins on last-second FG)

A strong case could be made that OU is really the best team. Had they fielded a punt cleanly, caught two passes they dropped, or (something that was out of their control) played the game at home, they probably would've won. Would you keep them ranked #1 even though they just lost to #2?

[Leroy Lizard]

The problem is that by what criteria are we saying that BC is not one of the top three teams in the country? They have beaten everyone they have played, including the #8 team in the country.

[Howzit]

I would vote OU #1 and the rest alphabetically.

[TopDawg]

I would vote OU #1 and the rest alphabetically.

Would you go by the full name or the shortened name? It could make a big difference for a team like the University of Akron.

On a side note, it would be a nice little slice of irony for Ohio State which wants everyone to call them THE Ohio State University. That's a pretty big drop for them.

[olevetonahill]

Id be a Homer
Id Vote OU Numba ONE :D

[CORNholio]

BC=undefeated
Kansas=undefeated
Kansas>BC
Why no talky about Kansas being no.2?

[Doged]

I'd vote "body of work" for the season. To distinguish between 1-loss teams, for instance, I'd look at who they beat, who they lost to and margin of victory against common (or similar if there were no common) opponents.

To me, undefeated trumps just about everything else. If a team hasn't been beat, there's nothing to gauge them by except the fact that no one has managed to beat them. It's easy to say LSU would crush Hawaii, for example, but how do you know? No one else has beat them so you can't say "they don't play well enough to win on the road" or "they lost to an option offense team". It's extremely hard to go through a season undefeated against an all-division 1 schedule, regardless of the perceived level of competition. (I'd ignore 1aa opponents all together unless the team lost to them.)

Once an undefeated suffers their first loss, THEN I might drop them to the bottom half of the poll but until that time my top teams would be the no-loss group.

I also wouldn't bother voting until after the 5th week of play. ;)

[Stitch Face]

Playoff.

[TUSooner]

That's right, I'm quoting this for a second post in a row... :D

How would you handle this scenario: let's say this year's OU/CU game was a case of #1 OU v. #2 CU. The following things would need to be considered when trying to decide who is best:

How each team played (OU made a lot of mistakes)
Where the game was played (at CU)
Final score (CU wins on last-second FG)

A strong case could be made that OU is really the best team. Had they fielded a punt cleanly, caught two passes they dropped, or (something that was out of their control) played the game at home, they probably would've won. Would you keep them ranked #1 even though they just lost to #2?
That scenario isn't too hard, I think. The winner is #1. In a case of head-to-head with teams of practically equal "credentials" (is that "deserving"?) , the score dictates the vote, not style or yards or anything else.


The problem is that by what criteria are we saying that BC is not one of the top three teams in the country? They have beaten everyone they have played, including the #8 team in the country.

This is the real question, I guess. You have to go by "body of work" at some point, which is in the "deserving" column. But, as happens, the body of work includes who you have played. In the BC example, if the best they've got is what they showed last night, they don't get a ton of credit in my book. At some point I would have to say, "That zero in the loss column looks very good. That means they've probably played close to their optimum level all year long. That's very commendable and 'deserving'. Good for them." But if I had to bet my house - or my reputation - on whether they would beat, say, UFla. I'd put my money on UFla.

If I were a voter, I would probably see what the gamblers think before voting. It's a little cheesy, but they consider a ginormous amount of data and stake their livelihoods on it. Or I might just copy Craig James's ballot. :D :O

You might also say that BC deserves a shot in the BCSMNC game because, anything can happen in one game, even though the chances of having a competitive and entertaining game might be better with another team in there. With Hawaii, it's an easier call, but I still think BC is closer to Hawaii than they are to UFla. IF BC wins out, "deserving" and "best" may come into close alignment, and if BC wins the bcsmnc game, I might change my mind altogether. :cool:

[Blues1]

The problem is that by what criteria are we saying that BC is not one of the top three teams in the country? They have beaten everyone they have played, including the #8 team in the country.

But in Truth VT is NOT or was Not The 8th best team in the Nation.....More Like 18th best team ..... :) -- The Polls Have been screwed up since pre-season....
Here's How I see it....as of right Now...!

#1 - LSU
#2 - Oklahoma
#3 - Oregon
#4 - Ohio State
#6 - Arizona State
#7 - USC
#8- Boston College
#9 - Kansas
#10 Tie - Mizzou - Cal -
JMHO ---- :)

and Still R'

[WakeflyingSooner]

Playoff.
Ditto!!!

[yermom]

a lot of it has to do with the conference too, Hawaii hasn't played anyone and really won't because of the conference they are in

BC has to get through the ACC to stay undefeated, just like tOSU has to get through the Big 10/11. their ranking might be a little inflated, but if they win out, they probably deserve to be that high

now teh BCS takes more of the SOS into play and quantifies that. if there is a big disparity then someone like LSU with a harder schedule but one loss could jump an unbeaten team

i think it all would kinda work out in the end

[Ash]

a lot of it has to do with the conference too, Hawaii hasn't played anyone and really won't because of the conference they are in

BC has to get through the ACC to stay undefeated, just like tOSU has to get through the Big 10/11. their ranking might be a little inflated, but if they win out, they probably deserve to be that high

now teh BCS takes more of the SOS into play and quantifies that. if there is a big disparity then someone like LSU with a harder schedule but one loss could jump an unbeaten team

i think it all would kinda work out in the end

I thought strength of schedule was no longer part of the equation.

[yermom]

the computer polls use it a within their calculations individually, but it's not applied again like it used to be

[LRoss]

My philosophy -- it's not about being the best, it's about winning. Sure, being the best makes winning more likely, but the best team doesn't always win. If we're voting for the "best" team then, do we have to disregard trivialities like the final score and break down which team was "better", being careful to disregard fluke plays, near-misses, and unfortunate bounces? Of course not. It's not about being the best -- no matter what the talking heads or message board guru's may say -- it's about winning. Vote for the team that wins.





(except Hawaii)

[Sooner5030]

NCAA football and the BCS is based on performance more than potential. If we wanted the best team at the end of the season we would have a playoff.

BC might not be a top 5 team when it comes to talent and "potential", but they closed the deal and beat a top 10 team on the road. They didn't have a hiccup or that game that they overlooked (yet). They showed up for every game so far.

[goingoneight]

Line 'em up and may the strongest survive to the end. The way champions should, IMHO.

[Crucifax Autumn]

The problem is that by what criteria are we saying that BC is not one of the top three teams in the country? They have beaten everyone they have played, including the #8 team in the country.

So vote 'em 7!

[TopDawg]

That scenario isn't too hard, I think. The winner is #1. In a case of head-to-head with teams of practically equal "credentials" (is that "deserving"?) , the score dictates the vote, not style or yards or anything else.

But that seems contradictory to what you said earlier, that you would go with the team that you thought was best...the team you think would beat another. Maybe you'd always allow head-to-head to trump your predictions, but I was just trying to point out the difficulties (or possible inconsistencies) in saying that you would always just vote for the team you think is best. If you didn't move CU over OU in that scenario, people would accuse you of being a homer. If you did move CU over OU in that scenario, you wouldn't be putting the team you think is the best at #1.

As soon as you don't put the team you think is the best at #1, then all of a sudden "deserving" has come into the mix to some extent.

[topper68]

I would vote for the entire body of work.

This from www.collegefootballadvisor.com

5. So who would win in a battle royal? - There seems to be three premiere teams in the Big 12 conference this season and for the first time in forever Texas isn't one of them. Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma have separated themselves from the pack and now look to make a run at not only the Big 12 Championship, but also a shot at the BCS title game. Missouri has already lost to Oklahoma in a game that was a lot closer than its final score. Kansas and Missouri play each other in the last game of the season and the winner should take on Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship game. So right now who is the best? If I had to put these teams in order I think I would have to go with 1. Oklahoma, 2. Missouri, and 3. Kansas. Here is my reasoning. First Kansas has been playing well, but over the last few weeks their offense does seem to be sputtering a little bit. I just think that Mizzou and OU have offenses that can carry their team a little better than Kansas' can. On defense Kansas is statistically the best, but they have not played any high powered offenses yet. It's really hard to tell how this team will react to an offense with a lot of weapons that can run and pass the ball. I think Missouri would win their game against Kansas 24-17 if they played right now. I also think that OU would beat Kansas 31-27 if they were to play tomorrow. So that leaves us Missouri and Oklahoma. I do think this will be the Big 12 Championship game and it will be a better game than the one in Norman. QB Chase Daniel is going to be the Big 12 offensive player of the year. This kid is a very solid football player that doesn't make a lot of mistakes. Though he did make mistakes against Oklahoma, I think he will certainly be attentive in San Antonio. OU has been having trouble running the football, which will be essential when the Sooners play Mizzou again. In the end OU's defense should be able to stop the Tigers' offense more effectively than Mizzou's can stop OU. Right now I think the final score is going to be OU 34 - Missouri 27.

[TUSooner]

But that seems contradictory to what you said earlier, that you would go with the team that you thought was best...the team you think would beat another. Maybe you'd always allow head-to-head to trump your predictions, but I was just trying to point out the difficulties (or possible inconsistencies) in saying that you would always just vote for the team you think is best. If you didn't move CU over OU in that scenario, people would accuse you of being a homer. If you did move CU over OU in that scenario, you wouldn't be putting the team you think is the best at #1.

As soon as you don't put the team you think is the best at #1, then all of a sudden "deserving" has come into the mix to some extent.
I know what you are gettuing at, but your example was too easy; If #1 plays #2, and #2 wins, then the question of "who would win" is answered. It does get dodgy when an unranked team upsets a ranked team, and the the unranked team loses to another unranked team, etc. So I concede that head-to-head doesn't always work.

It is hard to defend an absolute "best team" position, because nobidty really knows. But you see it at work with Hawaii. They're undefeated but almost nobody thinks they could compete w/ OhSU, LUSU, UFla, etc.

UFla presents another problem. I am pretty sure UF would hammer BC. HAMMER them, I say. But UF has lost three games,amd it's just conceivable that they could play bad enough, and BC well enough, so that UF would lose. So even though I think UF is "better" I might have to vote for BC because they "deserve" it. I say might.

It all boils down to the lack of any common measuring stick. Wihin a conference, you forget about who is "best" and you just lookat the standings. If a "bad" team wins enough conference games, they are the champ and deserve it. No discussion needed. But this simplicity is impossible with the BCS rankings or any that preceeded the BCS. That's why everybody wants some kind of playoff.
A Final Note: Even in playoffs, the "best" team may not win, but the issue is settled on the field, so it's OK.

[TopDawg]

I know what you are gettuing at, but your example was too easy; If #1 plays #2, and #2 wins, then the question of "who would win" is answered. It does get dodgy when an unranked team upsets a ranked team, and the the unranked team loses to another unranked team, etc. So I concede that head-to-head doesn't always work.

It is hard to defend an absolute "best team" position, because nobidty really knows. But you see it at work with Hawaii. They're undefeated but almost nobody thinks they could compete w/ OhSU, LUSU, UFla, etc.

UFla presents another problem. I am pretty sure UF would hammer BC. HAMMER them, I say. But UF has lost three games,amd it's just conceivable that they could play bad enough, and BC well enough, so that UF would lose. So even though I think UF is "better" I might have to vote for BC because they "deserve" it. I say might.

It all boils down to the lack of any common measuring stick. Wihin a conference, you forget about who is "best" and you just lookat the standings. If a "bad" team wins enough conference games, they are the champ and deserve it. No discussion needed. But this simplicity is impossible with the BCS rankings or any that preceeded the BCS. That's why everybody wants some kind of playoff.
A Final Note: Even in playoffs, the "best" team may not win, but the issue is settled on the field, so it's OK.

Well put. We're on the same page...I was just trying to illustrate that it's almost impossible to completely disregard "deserving" when you're putting together a (non-preseason) ranking. The weird part is that sometimes "best" is the determining factor (Ohio State over BC) and sometimes "deserving" is the determining factor (BC over LSU).

[Leroy Lizard]

If we had a playoff with every team included, which team would you put your life savings to win the whole thing?

Life savings, not just chump change. I love my Sooners, but I'm not going to lose everything I have over them.

Under such a financial threat, I would put my money on LSU.

If I also had to bet on the runner-up, I would choose Ohio State.

Suppose I had to predict the top eight finishers in the playoff, with significant financial hits for any mistakes? Tougher to decide. I'll let others try first.

[r5TPsooner]

There is NO doubt in my mind that if OU had scheduled better OOC opponents, we'd be sitting even better in the BCS that we are now. Granted if we won the game of course.

I think that the BCS rankings still has some mixin up left in them.

[sooneron]

There is NO doubt in my mind that if OU had scheduled better OOC opponents, we'd be sitting even better in the BCS that we are now. Granted if we won the game of course.

I think that the BCS rankings still has some mixin up left in them.
:confused:

We scheduled miami like 4 years ago. We had no idea they were heading for where they are back then. We followed the general rule of today's OOC scheduling - one marquee (scUM), one decent mid-major (tulsey), one borderline sucktastic team (UNT) and one scrimmage (USU).

Not looking at the marquee, the two that weren't supposed to be too bad have won their conference and had gone bowling a couple of times in the last few years.

[r5TPsooner]

:confused:

We scheduled miami like 4 years ago. We had no idea they were heading for where they are back then. We followed the general rule of today's OOC scheduling - one marquee (scUM), one decent mid-major (tulsey), one borderline sucktastic team (UNT) and one scrimmage (USU).

Not looking at the marquee, the two that weren't supposed to be too bad have won their conference and had gone bowling a couple of times in the last few years.


I wasn't talking about Miami. But Utah State and North Texas State? PLEASE! Joe knew they blew.

[Collier11]

You rank who you think are the BEST teams, IMO it would be #1 Ohio St, #2 LSU, #3 OU, #4 Oregon, #5 ASU, #6 BC. Being undefeated does not make you the best team necessarily in cfb. We know that either Oregon or ASU will lose this week, I am going for ASU because this is really the last "tough" game for Oregon and ASU still has some tough ones after this week. I also think/hope that LSU will lose again so if we take care of business we will finish either #2 or #3 behind Ohio st and possibly Oregon or LSU

[Collier11]

There is NO doubt in my mind that if OU had scheduled better OOC opponents, we'd be sitting even better in the BCS that we are now. Granted if we won the game of course.

I think that the BCS rankings still has some mixin up left in them.


Or we could have beaten an average Colorado team :rolleyes: