SportsHoopla Top 25 Week 5 2015

[The Crimson King]

SportsHoopla Top 25 Week 5
First Place votes in parentheses

1. Ohio State - 609 (13)
2. Michigan State - 569
3. UCLA - 564 (5)
4. Ole Miss - 559 (3)
5. Notre Dame - 509
6. Georgia - 504 (2)
7. Utah - 479 (3)
8. LSU - 473
9. TCU - 469
10. Baylor - 441
11. Clemson - 386
12. Florida State - 345
13. Oklahoma - 338
14. Texas A&M - 322
15. Alabama - 293
16. Northwestern - 264
17. USC - 172
18. Stanford - 164
19. West Virginia - 155
20. California - 139
21. Oklahoma State - 132
22. Florida - 109
23. Michigan - 79
24. Toledo - 61
25. Wisconsin - 59

Dropped from rankings: Oregon 15, Arizona 18, Georgia Tech 20, BYU 23, Temple 25

Others receiving votes: Temple 44, Kansas State 42, Miami 41, Mississippi State 29, Iowa 27, Memphis 21, Duke 18, Boise State 16, North Carolina State 7, Texas Tech 7, Houston 3, Arizona 1

Week 4
Week 3
Week 2
Preseason

 

[dennis580]

17. USC - 172
18. Stanford - 164

Something doesn't appear right.

Also interesting is 5 teams had 2 or more 1st place votes while the #2 team(Mich St.) had zero 1st places votes.

 

[mutiger]

Something doesn't appear right.

Also interesting is 5 teams had 2 or more 1st place votes while the #2 team(Mich St.) had zero 1st places votes.

True, Stanford beat USC by 10 on the road.....however, I have Stanford over Northwestern and Stanford lost to them by 10 on the road to start the year. I personally had Stanford over both of them. Sometimes upsets happen

 

[uncfan103]

True, Stanford beat USC by 10 on the road.....however, I have Stanford over Northwestern and Stanford lost to them by 10 on the road to start the year. I personally had Stanford over both of them. Sometimes upsets happen

Agreed, sometimes upsets happen. Sometimes the better team wins. If I were to do a power ranking of the best teams, USC would be ahead of the Stanford and Stanford would be ahead of Northwestern. But, since I'm doing rankings and have no logic that backs up my guess other than historically southern cal is better I didn't factor in who I thought was better and instead let the actual play on the field and results determine rankings. Same reason I don't have Alabama number one or UNC ranked.

 

[nddulac]

True, Stanford beat USC by 10 on the road.....however, I have Stanford over Northwestern and Stanford lost to them by 10 on the road to start the year. I personally had Stanford over both of them. Sometimes upsets happen

All cows are brown.
Bessie is a white cow.
Therefore, not all cows are white.

 

[dennis580]

True, Stanford beat USC by 10 on the road.....however, I have Stanford over Northwestern and Stanford lost to them by 10 on the road to start the year. I personally had Stanford over both of them. Sometimes upsets happen

Well that is even far, far ,far more wrong to have a undefeated Northwestern behind a 1 loss Stanford which they beat. Really you should NEVER have a undefeated behind a 1 loss team that they beat head to head. If your both undefeated, and won head to head how you can rank the 1 loss team above them.

 

[7Samurai13]

Well that is even far, far ,far more wrong to have a undefeated Northwestern behind a 1 loss Stanford which they beat. Really you should NEVER have a undefeated behind a 1 loss team that they beat head to head. If your both undefeated, and won head to head how you can rank the 1 loss team above them.

Ask some of your Big12 brothers. Last year they were saying TCU got screwed out of the playoffs despite being ranked below Baylor and Baylor beating them head to head. You can't use logic with some people.

 

[rmilia1]

Agreed, sometimes upsets happen. Sometimes the better team wins. If I were to do a power ranking of the best teams, USC would be ahead of the Stanford and Stanford would be ahead of Northwestern. But, since I'm doing rankings and have no logic that backs up my guess other than historically southern cal is better I didn't factor in who I thought was better and instead let the actual play on the field and results determine rankings. Same reason I don't have Alabama number one or UNC ranked.

Many people here don't know the difference between power rating and rankings. That has become abundantly clear since week 2

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

Texas A&M is getting way too high in everyone's rankings

they have yet to beat anyone good.

Texas A&M should be ranked around where Toledo is since their best wins are the same team.

also I'm disappointed that we didn't rank Temple I know they had a letdown and almost lost to UMass but Penn State has looked solid other than the wooping Temple put on them

other than that we have a great pull

and certainly much better than any of the crappy polls

 

[4down20]

Head to head comparisons are bad in general because you are ignoring the majority of the data/games of a season in favor of a single matchup.

The rankings are an overall rankings based on all teams and the season, not single games which are often a result of matchups and how the team performed in general. The best teams do not always win. Single games are obviously part of the data/games and have weight in that manner, but when you are looking solely at those teams and games you are just going to end up screwing up.

The only time it makes sense to consider head to head is if the teams are close. If I was thinking USC is #17 and Stanford is #18, I'd switch them around. But if I think USC is a top10 team and I don't think Stanford is, then despite the 1 loss, it would be ridiculous for me to rank USC below Stanford.

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

Problem is at this point USC has no wins that prove they can still be ranked higher than Stanford, Arizona State sucks

overall

Stanford's loss > USC's loss - Northwestern is better than Stanford, we saw that happen
Stanford's best win> USC's best win - USC is better than Arizona State by a lot, as we saw.

 

[4down20]

Problem is at this point USC has no wins that prove they can still be ranked higher than Stanford, Arizona State sucks

overall

Stanford's loss > USC's loss - Northwestern is better than Stanford, we saw that happen
Stanford's best win> USC's best win - USC is better than Arizona State by a lot, as we saw.

Stanfords loss is not > USC's loss.

Northwestern is not better than either of the teams. Again, this is what I mean by taking single games and using that data to ignore the rest of the data.

Here are some advanced stats with power rankings.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2015 OVERALL COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS

Currently USC and Stanford are #10 and #11. Northwestern is #26.

 

[uncfan103]

Head to head comparisons are bad in general because you are ignoring the majority of the data/games of a season in favor of a single matchup.

The rankings are an overall rankings based on all teams and the season, not single games which are often a result of matchups and how the team performed in general. The best teams do not always win. Single games are obviously part of the data/games and have weight in that manner, but when you are looking solely at those teams and games you are just going to end up screwing up.

The only time it makes sense to consider head to head is if the teams are close. If I was thinking USC is #17 and Stanford is #18, I'd switch them around. But if I think USC is a top10 team and I don't think Stanford is, then despite the 1 loss, it would be ridiculous for me to rank USC below Stanford.

Again, you're not doing the same kind of rankings differently than everyone else. You're ranking the best 25 teams, based on things other than results and performance. A lot of people are trying to rank the top 25 based on the what they have proven and how they have done this year rather than how they have recruited and done in previous seasons.

The people questioning the head to head rankings are the people trying to figure out how people looking at this year and this year only can rank Southern Cal ahead of Stanford. We all understand how power rankings can ignore head to head results, because there is no logic needed when putting rankings together.

 

[Deep Creek]

"Lies, damn lies and statistics."

 

[4down20]

Again, you're not doing the same kind of rankings differently than everyone else. You're ranking the best 25 teams, based on things other than results and performance. A lot of people are trying to rank the top 25 based on the what they have proven and how they have done this year rather than how they have recruited and done in previous seasons.

The people questioning the head to head rankings are the people trying to figure out how people looking at this year and this year only can rank Southern Cal ahead of Stanford. We all understand how power rankings can ignore head to head results, because there is no logic needed when putting rankings together.

The advanced stats I quoted are based solely on the games played and is 100% based on performance.

Stanford has a much worse loss than USC. USC has looked better in it's other games.

 

[uncfan103]

The advanced stats I quoted are based solely on the games played and is 100% based on performance.

Stanford has a much worse loss than USC. USC has looked better in it's other games.

So, you're trying to use statistics to guess which team is better than another team when you could just look at how the two teams did when they played against each other?

Teams have played between 2 and 4 legitimate games, how can you or your statistics decide that of those games one is a fluke or an outlier?

 

[rmilia1]

Using advanced stats is fine. However the truth is NW is 4-0, has 2 quality wins and owns a head to head win over Stanford. NW win over Duke is also better than any win USC has. If you want to do a power rating that's fine but it's not a CFB ranking. I happen to think Bama is light years better than Ole Miss but it's not fair to use opinion when you can use fact.

 

[tabascojet]

@The Crimson King high/low?

 

[4down20]

So, you're trying to use statistics to guess which team is better than another team when you could just look at how the two teams did when they played against each other?

Teams have played between 2 and 4 legitimate games, how can you or your statistics decide that of those games one is a fluke or an outlier?

Advanced stats do something no human is capable of. They examine every game played in FBS college football without bias.

It's funny how you say statistics can't decide anything based on looking at every game made in college football, while you claim that you are somehow able to do it yourself while watching on a couple of games a week max and then apply your own biases.

Advanced stats take into account the teams you are playing and all the games, and I'd put my faith into them before your opinion any day of the week.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Head to head results > the rest.