Hoop Week 5 Top 25 Discussion Thread

[romeo212000]

"I don't recognize that game as a loss" could serve as one of the "Weekly LOL's"

I'll see to it.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Dude... you still have Okie State ranked and have Maryland unranked. THAT is a joke.

Dude ..... You have UGA ranked 4th and Clemson 6th. That's funny right there and I don't care who you are.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Have you even watched them? Their D isn't bad, and Stefon Diggs is a playmaker.

37-0 over WVU is fairly impressive, and the bottom of the polls aren't exactly strong.

Do you still have Wisconsin ranked?

I will after we beat Northwestern in a couple of weeks.

 

[Smart]

So, is Arizona State ranked with 1.8 losses?

Yes. People can disagree with the .8 loss all they want, but I rank based on merit and talent. And certainly Wisconsin didn't deserve to lose that game nor did ASU's talent lead the refs to make one of the worst blunders in football history. I've factored in bad calls before, and i'll do it again. And nothing about a 1 point loss versus Wisconsin or a TD loss where they outgained Stanford indicates that ASU shouldn't be ranked.

I also strongly disagree with you that West Virginia at home is better than a neutral site win over Mississippi State.

Smart, you don't even have Maryland in your ORV? They're unbeaten and beat the team that just beat Okie St. 37-0

I have Maryland as #3 in my first five out. They were #5 in my FFO last weekend. They are on my radar, but i'll wait until they beat someone other than an awful West Virginia team at home before I rank them.

 

[Sox33OSU]

Dude ..... You have UGA ranked 4th and Clemson 6th. That's funny right there and I don't care who you are.

Oh shut up. Clemson won by 3 at home, it's not like that somehow makes them demonstrably better. Since that game, we've seen Clemson barely get by NC State (thanks to an absurdly bogus call), while UGA has two wins over top 15 teams. If they played on a neutral field or at UGA, I think UGA would win.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Oh shut up. Clemson won by 3 at home, it's not like that somehow makes them demonstrably better. Since that game, we've seen Clemson barely get by NC State (thanks to an absurdly bogus call), while UGA has two wins over top 15 teams. If they played on a neutral field or at UGA, I think UGA would win.

So actually playing a team and beating them doesn't count anymore? And even with the terrible call at NC State, we probably still win that game. And while UGA has 2 wins over so called top 15 teams, we BEAT them head to head. UGA did not win, we did. Great teams win on the road and road games are a part of the season that every team faces. You have to win them. But I'm good with it. It's still early and I doubt we make it through the season unbeaten, so it won't make much difference at that point. If we do win out though, everything will come out in the wash, because at that point we will have beaten a top 10 FSU and one of those top 15 schools that UGA beat. Plus the Coastal champ will likely be a top 15 team too. Way too early to really take any of it serious. Just pokin a little fun at you.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Edisto, pretty much any team can beat any other team in a single game.

Let's say hypothetically that Ohio State goes on to lose 5 of their last 7, and Wisconsin wins out. Would Ohio State be the better team because they won head to head by a TD in September? Of course not.

Not that I think that will happen, but head to head isn't the be all end all, especially later in the season when that logic can get circular fast.

 

[ckhokie]

This is pretty absurd. There is no better gauge of who is better than head to head, especially since there is no reason to consider either fluke games. Ranking Georgia over Clemson (or Florida over Miami for that matter) just means you have some sort of alternative agenda

 

[uncfan103]

Yes. People can disagree with the .8 loss all they want, but I rank based on merit and talent. And certainly Wisconsin didn't deserve to lose that game nor did ASU's talent lead the refs to make one of the worst blunders in football history. I've factored in bad calls before, and i'll do it again. And nothing about a 1 point loss versus Wisconsin or a TD loss where they outgained Stanford indicates that ASU shouldn't be ranked.

I also strongly disagree with you that West Virginia at home is better than a neutral site win over Mississippi State.



I have Maryland as #3 in my first five out. They were #5 in my FFO last weekend. They are on my radar, but i'll wait until they beat someone other than an awful West Virginia team at home before I rank them.

All I am asking is why is it more acceptable to lose at West Virginia by nine than win at home by 37? You keep saying West Virginia is horrible, but you're not punishing Ok State for losing to the horrible team. NC State has not beaten a single half-decent football team and has a loss. Baylor hasn't beaten anyone of note. These teams get a pass and Maryland is left out? If West Virginia is such a terrible win, why is it acceptable to lose to them?

 

[OregonDucks]

who has Alabama played?

 

[uncfan103]

who has Alabama played?

aTm and VT. Much better than the teams Oregon has played

 

[OregonDucks]

oh we are still counting Va Tech as a legit team?

 

[ericd7633]

Edisto, pretty much any team can beat any other team in a single game.

Let's say hypothetically that Ohio State goes on to lose 5 of their last 7, and Wisconsin wins out. Would Ohio State be the better team because they won head to head by a TD in September? Of course not.

Not that I think that will happen, but head to head isn't the be all end all, especially later in the season when that logic can get circular fast.

Unless that scenario happens it's dumb to rank UGA ahead of Clemson. You're right head to head isn't the end all be all, but when one team in undefeated and the other team has one loss and it was to that team, it's just idiotic to rank the losing team ahead of the winning team. Until Clemson loses, if they do, they will rightfully be ahead of them.

I mean why play the games if you're not going to take into account the result of the game?

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Edisto, pretty much any team can beat any other team in a single game.

Let's say hypothetically that Ohio State goes on to lose 5 of their last 7, and Wisconsin wins out. Would Ohio State be the better team because they won head to head by a TD in September? Of course not.

Not that I think that will happen, but head to head isn't the be all end all, especially later in the season when that logic can get circular fast.

Yea, but that's why we play the games. Like I said, we all know it's still early but by the time it really counts, you'll have a body of work to judge them by along with head to head competition. But to discount a head to head win based on hypotheticals is ..... well ..... just crazy talk.

 

[ckhokie]

oh we are still counting Va Tech as a legit team?

VT is 4-1 with the 4th hardest SoS so far, and is number 4 in total defense.

 

[uncfan103]

oh we are still counting Va Tech as a legit team?

Should we not? They're better than UVA and Tennessee combined...

 

[OregonDucks]

VT is 4-1 with the 4th hardest SoS so far, and is number 4 in total defense.

Should we not? They're better than UVA and Tennessee combined...

maybe we didn't see the same team that has barely escaped Marshall and Georgia Tech.

 

[ckhokie]

Barely escaped GT? When was that game in doubt?

 

[OregonDucks]

Barely escaped GT? When was that game in doubt?

could have been the final 3 minutes when the score was 17-10 and GT had the ball.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Unless that scenario happens it's dumb to rank UGA ahead of Clemson. You're right head to head isn't the end all be all, but when one team in undefeated and the other team has one loss and it was to that team, it's just idiotic to rank the losing team ahead of the winning team. Until Clemson loses, if they do, they will rightfully be ahead of them.

I mean why play the games if you're not going to take into account the result of the game?

I wasn't talking about Clemson and Georgia specifically. Just about the concept of "Team A beat Team B and therefore must be ranked higher than Team B". I think there are other factors to consider.

The other convention that annoys me, as I've said before, is the whole "win and move up, lose and move down" approach to polls. If you were actually sitting down each week and trying to decide who the best 25 teams are, then teams could move up after a loss (e.g., #24 plays #2 to within a FG on the road) or down after a loss (e.g., #3 struggles against a scrub).