College Football News Top 25 poll/CFN reader feedback

[bstuff1979]

CFN has oregon at 16 and OU at 23...and it's not a typo. Given that anyone watching the game came away feeling a little violated and/or nausiated in knowing that the better team did not lose but was stripped of a win, how could any reasonable person rank the ducks ahead of OU? I've written an email to the site and I suggest that others do the same. Here's a copy of my email:

Given the unbelievable and, frankly, revolting outcome of the Oklahoma-Oregon game, how on earth can the College Football News Top 25 place Oregon ahead of Oklahoma? To anyone who watched that game, it was clear that Oklahoma was the better team and, even if not, Oklahoma won that game. Not only was there kick/catch interference, but an Oklahoma player also recovered the ball. This is, and I hesitate to use this word, indisputable via the replay. Aside from the top 25, I also have a second thought or question. Given that the call was so badly blown, and then the video replay was also blown, would it be completely inapropriate to bring up possible point shaving or game fixing by Pac Ten officials? To any rational human being, there can only be three possible reasons for the blown call(s). One would be an extra odinary amount of total incompetence by not one but an entire crew of officials. The other two would be either confrence bias or some variety of fixing. Of course, those would be very serious charges, but given the astounding outcome of the reviewed calls it is difficult to understand any other line of reasoning. With the amount of money on the line with the BCS, would a Pac Ten official feel any motivation or pressure, whether readily apparent or subconsciouse, to ensure a Pac Ten victory? I sincerely hope that the national sports media does not let this go unasnwered. The integrity of college sports, in my mind, has suffered a substantial blow this last weekend.

[fadada1]

nice.

point shaving is a tough one to call. but you never know. if there's enough money on the line, and the right situation arises, i'm sure anything is possible. it's not like it's never happened before. highly unlikely, but you never know.

i find it hard to believe that of the 10+ total officials on the field and in the booth, that someone wouldn't step up and say something. then, of course, it all can come back to an alternate adgenda by someone(s).

i think there will be enough response from SOONER fans and college football fans to create some kind of consequences. and i think you are "dead on" in saying that "the integrity of college sports... suffered a substantial blow..."

[OUHOMER]

Weren't we the dog going in. point shaving would be kinda hard to prove since we covered the spread

[1991SOONER]

I don't think many people care about the CFN rankings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Coaches and Harris polls along with the computer rankings make up the BCS poll which at the end of the year, is what really matters.

Even the AP poll is irrelevant anymore..

In my opinion, polls don't really matter anyway. As long as you had fun watching your team play, at the end of the day, its all worth it win or lose as long as there is integrity.

Yesterday was fun until the infamous on sides kick :(

[bstuff1979]

not so much point shaving in specific, but I think it's hard not to question some possibility of the game being fixed. Oklahoma was, and I'm not sure about the specific number, something around a 4 point underdog. It's more likely that the crew, if operating outside the moral bounds, had a larger interest in ensuring a Pac Ten win than they would in getting a little Vegas money. My point to CFN and in general is that if there is, which is more likely: incompetence beyond anything that words can adiquatly describe, or a conference bias due to the unreal amounts of money involved. Given the top heavy nature of the Pac Ten, an Oregon win would go a long way to ensure two Pac Ten teams in the BCS. An Oklahoma win would go even further to erase this possibility.

[bstuff1979]

I don't think many people care about the CFN rankings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Coaches and Harris polls along with the computer rankings make up the BCS poll which at the end of the year, is what really matters.

Even the AP poll is irrelevant anymore..

In my opinion, polls don't really matter anyway. As long as you had fun watching your team play, at the end of the day, its all worth it win or lose as long as there is integrity.

Yesterday was fun until the infamous on sides kick :(

I agree that the CFN rankings are not all that valid in terms of making any difference aside from an entertaining read, but my main objective is to get the national media to give this the attention it deserves and to have the questions answered. Emailing ESPN or SI won't go very far, they're a little too big and are likely more concerned with a slew of other things. CFN is a site that I'm sure the ESPN and SI folks check on from time to time, and if they bring up the possibility of any moral foul play it would lend some credibility to the story. At this point in time, it's all speculation but I really do think that it needs to be looked in to. It could have been sheer stupidity involved in the calls, but with the video replay I find that difficult to believe. Getting the smaller sports-news outlets to bring up these questions and concerns could get the ball rolling. If this was MLB or the NBA, you better belive that the ESPN's of the world would look into such possibilities as game fixing. If enough websites like CFN start asking those questions, then they may well join.

[MarylandSooner]

I say screw the polls, we need to start pouding people into submission.

Starting on 9/23.

[bstuff1979]

Just heard back from the folks at CFN, and this is what I got back:

"
Uhhhh, no. If Oklahoma was the better team, it would've played some D and not let Oregon score at the end."

Needless to say, I'm a little put out.

[proudsoonergal]

Just heard back from the folks at CFN, and this is what I got back:

"
Uhhhh, no. If Oklahoma was the better team, it would've played some D and not let Oregon score at the end."

Needless to say, I'm a little put out.

Dude, we gave up two touchdowns with less than two minutes left in the game and 500 yards of offense. I tend to agree with CFN on this one.

[stoopified]

At the very least IMHO OU and UO should be viewed as being almost dead even.There shoild not be more thahan 1-2 spots difference even IF UO is given credit for the win.

[bstuff1979]

Dude, we gave up two touchdowns with less than two minutes left in the game and 500 yards of offense. I tend to agree with CFN on this one.

Fair enough, but to say that Oregon is that much better than Oklahoma based solely on two drives (one that never should have happened in the first place) is a little much. Maybe I'm looking through crimson glasses on this one, but I really don't think that Oregon is a better team. If your going to rank the teams based on the CFN system, have them tied.

[Pepper]

Just heard back from the folks at CFN, and this is what I got back:

"
Uhhhh, no. If Oklahoma was the better team, it would've played some D and not let Oregon score at the end."

Needless to say, I'm a little put out.

By the same argument, if Oregon was the better team they wouldn't have been down by 13 points with 75 seconds to play. The teams were closely matched and on a neutral field we win easily. Even on their field we won.

[TrophyCollector]

"
Uhhhh, no. If Oklahoma was the better team, it would've played some D and not let Oregon score at the end."



There is no reasonable argument that can be made with that statement.

[proudsoonergal]

Guys. Please. We are starting to sound like a team to the south.

I had a great response to this post all typed out, but I must have timed out or something and it got lost. Argh.

The short version: We did not score as many points as Oregon. How many times did we get into the red zone and come away with only a field goal? We had a first and goal ON THE FREAKIN' TWO YARD LINE AND COULDN'T GET A TD with the best running back in the country. We let Oregon get behind our secondary TWICE in the last 75 seconds of the game. Bottom line: despite all the horrible calls (especially toward the end), WE were the ones that lost the game (specifically, I blame the defense).

Other than using points in a head-to-head matchup, how else can you rank teams? Inherently, this touches on the inherent problem with rankings. For example, why is Auburn considered "better" than Michigan? They haven't played. Another example: Why is LSU ranked lower than Auburn? I'm sure there are plenty of Tiger (yellow/purple variety) that are saying that their team is more talented than Auburn, yet, the bottom line is they did not score enough points. (I didn't see the game, so this is just an analogy.)

ARGH....I am back to being REALLY HACKED about this game. I must go to my happy place.

Note: I was at the game yesterday. In my opinion, I didn't think we looked better than Oregon, and the stats tend to support that.

[Pepper]

Well the only reason they scored twice in a row was because the refs took the ball away from us and gave it to them. They had two possessions in a row, and in a game where neither team showed much defense, that was the difference maker. Now, based on how well our offense was doing in the 2nd half, if we had 90 seconds to drive down the field with 1 timeout, we could have done so. Oregon made as many mistakes as we did. We deserved the win and earned it in my book.

[proudsoonergal]

I disagree. I think the reason they scored twice in a row is because we (a) did not tackle Dixon as he strolled into the endzone and (b) we allowed a receiver to get five yards behind our defense.

I don't know the answer to this, and I'm too tired to look it up, but how many drives did we have in the second half, how many times were we in the red zone, and how many times did we score a FG instead of a TD?

Oh, and in case there is any question, I completely agree that we were hosed on the onside-kick call and the pass-interference call. And, yes, I get that if the onside kick call had gone our way, we win. On a side note, though, if the PI had been overturned, it is pure speculation on whether we hold them or whether they get a TD on 3rd down instead of 1st down.

[Pepper]

I should have phrased it saying the refs gave them an underserved opportunity, not the actual points. But they only needed 37 yards for the winning TD. Bottom line, both teams made mistakes, but you can also look at it as both teams made plays. I can't agree with you. OU made the plays to win the game and the winning TD shouldn't have even been Oregon ball. If they give OU the ball 2 times in a row in the 4th quarter, we would have pulled away further than 13 points. Don't say it was OU's fault when clearly Oregon had an unfair advantage in a tight game.

As for settling for field goals, if we had not already been up by 7 or 10 points, I'm sure the play calling would have been less conservative. But with the lead it was more important not to turn the ball over or make a critical mistake in the red zone.

[oKOIhoma fan]

Dude, we gave up two touchdowns with less than two minutes left in the game and 500 yards of offense. I tend to agree with CFN on this one.

Not only that, but we had the ball first and goal TWICE in the 4th and had to settle for feild goals TWICE. I say never give a team hope. We score a TD one of those times, and we would have NEVER been in a onside kick situation that we were in.