Case for South Florida and Virginia over USC, Oregon and Oklahoma?

[JaredL]

I was looking through the latest BCS ranking and noticed that there is a huge disparity in the computer and human polls with a few teams. Of the one-loss teams, Virginia and South Florida are the most underrated by the humans compared to the computers. Virginia is ranked 21 in the AP poll and 6th in the BCS computer average. South Florida is 11th in the AP and 5th in computer average.

On the other end are USC, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Oregon. USC is tied for 9th in the AP and 21st in computer average, Oklahoma is 4th and 14th, WVU 6th and tied for 10th, and Oregon 5th and 9th.

Of particular interest to me are USC, Oregon and Oklahoma since South Florida beat WVU.

South Florida has big wins at Auburn and at home against West Virginia. Their only other tough game was a loss at Rutgers last Thursday. Virginia lost their opener at Wyoming and has since beaten powerhouses Duke, UNC, Georgia Tech and Maryland. If this were basketball that would be quite a run.

USC has the hard part of their schedule to go (Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Arizona State and UCLA left). Their loss to Stanford at home is the worst loss of all the teams mentioned in this post. They won impressively at Nebraska which right now is their only big win other than the super impressive shutout against Notre Dame, who have an offensive genius as their head coach. Oregon crushed Michigan in the Big House, though that win was diminished by Michigan having lost the week before to Appalachian State. It looks better now that Michigan has won 6 straight since. Otherwise the ducks have beaten mediocre or worse teams by a lot. Oklahoma lost at Colorado and have big wins at Texas and versus Missouri.

Looking at the computer polls individually, South Florida is ranked better than Oklahoma and USC in every single poll and ranked better than Oregon in every poll but one, where Oregon is ranked one slot higher. Virginia is ranked better than all 3 of those teams in 4 polls. In the other 2 they are ranked worse than USC, OU and the U of O in one and better than USC and OU but two slots below Oregon in the other.

So South Florida is easily the best ranked team of those 5, followed by Virginia, Oregon, Oklahoma and USC.

What is it about these teams and computer rankings that make it so? I can somewhat understand South Florida since they had big wins at Auburn and versus West Virginia and that the computers don't suffer from being biased toward recent games. However, IMO the rest of their schedule is weaker than the Pac 10 teams or OU. Virginia I don't understand at all as their loss is pretty bad and their wins aren't impressive.

What do you guys think? Is there a good case for South Florida and Virginia over USC, Oregon and Oklahoma?

[Kos13]

There is no case. At all. The computer polls are a complete joke.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no case. At all. The computer polls are a complete joke.

[/ QUOTE ]uh what, you serious???? If anything, the coaches and AP polls, which are based of opinions, are a complete joke. Surely you can see this.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no case. At all. The computer polls are a complete joke.

[/ QUOTE ]uh what, you serious???? If anything, the coaches and AP polls, which are based of opinions, are a complete joke. Surely you can see this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Computers w/ Margin of Victory > AP Poll > Coaches Poll > Harris Poll >>>>>> Computers w/out Margin of Victory

[dlk9s]

(Disclaimer: I'm a Virginia fan)

I think Virginia's true ranking is somewhere in between the computer and human polls.

I have no idea how the computer polls crank out their rankings, but the human polls are pretty easy to explain. Virginia was supposed to be pretty mediocre this year, a borderline bowl team. The horrible loss to Wyoming, in which they gained 100 total yards essentially made it so that voters would not even give them the time of day until they reeled off about four in a row (deservedly so).

Those two things, combined with most of the wins being by 5 points or less (the last 3 are by a combined 4 points) over unimpressive teams, cause people to think Virginia is just "lucky" and doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the top ten.

Now, I don't think Virginia is a top ten team. But, with a record of 7-1, I think somewhere in the 12-16 range is accurate.

Not that anyone looks at it, nor does it really matter, but Virginia pretty dominated most of the Duke, UNC, and GT games, only to let them make runs in the 2nd half (GT actually took the lead). Statistically, Virginia crushed Maryland, except for being able to get the ball in the end zone (Virginia's 4th string RB had more yards than the entire Maryland team). The UConn and MTSU were most definitely close throughout.

Virginia suffers simply from being unimpressive, despite the victories, and it doesn't help at all that there isn't a big marquee win on the schedule. Virginia has had problems on offense, but they have been improving (as evidenced by the large yardage totals against UMD, just not visible in the score). Plus, their #1 WR has been out all year, their #2 WR has been injured, their #1 RB, who was leading the ACC in rushing, has been out for almost three games, and against UMD, their #1 TE got hurt.

The defense, on the other hand, is quite stout.

So, long story short, the team has a really good record, but the wins have been close over sub-standard competition. Are they top ten? No. Top 15? Yeah, I think so. And ugly 7-1 is still 7-1.

The final three games (at NC State first, which sets up to be a trap game) will be the test. Wake, at Miami, Virginia Tech. All winnable, but all losable.

[Kos13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no case. At all. The computer polls are a complete joke.

[/ QUOTE ]uh what, you serious???? If anything, the coaches and AP polls, which are based of opinions, are a complete joke. Surely you can see this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously agree with this...I'm actually in the middle of presenting on this for a class, and people who don't know anything about football have already figured out that the entire system, from top to bottom, is horrible. Does anybody honestly believe that USC, Oregon, Oklahoma, LSU, etc. are worse than USF and Virginia?

Arizona State is fourth in the nation, and their toughest game has been...Oregon State? Ohio State is probably going to the NC even though their schedule is incredibly weak. Teams who lose typically fall to the bottom of the one-loss "bracket." It's supposed to be a ranking of the best teams, not a line where you go to the back when you lose. Teams in weak, "big" conferences (like Ohio State) can simply schedule terrible OOC games, making it easy to go undefeated. Since losses are the only thing the system cares about, the entire thing is a mess. Stick Ohio State in the SEC or the Pac-10, and they lose at least two games.

Bottom line: USF, Virginia, and other similar teams would get crushed by a lot of the teams ranked lower than them in the computer polls.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no case. At all. The computer polls are a complete joke.

[/ QUOTE ]uh what, you serious???? If anything, the coaches and AP polls, which are based of opinions, are a complete joke. Surely you can see this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously agree with this...I'm actually in the middle of presenting on this for a class, and people who don't know anything about football have already figured out that the entire system, from top to bottom, is horrible. Does anybody honestly believe that USC, Oregon, Oklahoma, LSU, etc. are worse than USF and Virginia?

Arizona State is fourth in the nation, and their toughest game has been...Oregon State? Ohio State is probably going to the NC even though their schedule is incredibly weak. Teams who lose typically fall to the bottom of the one-loss "bracket." It's supposed to be a ranking of the best teams, not a line where you go to the back when you lose. Teams in weak, "big" conferences (like Ohio State) can simply schedule terrible OOC games, making it easy to go undefeated. Since losses are the only thing the system cares about, the entire thing is a mess. Stick Ohio State in the SEC or the Pac-10, and they lose at least two games.

Bottom line: USF, Virginia, and other similar teams would get crushed by a lot of the teams ranked lower than them in the computer polls.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, are you agreeing with yourself or with the guy who disagrees completely with you?

I'd like to talk about the bolded part of your last response. Are you saying that "people who know nothing about football" are looking at data with which they have assigned no real life value (ie, to them, there is no difference btwn saying "team B" or "USC") and can determine that USC is empiracally better than USF? Or perhaps, simply explaining the differences btwn computer polling and human polling to these unaware-of-football people allows them to come to the obvious conclusion that human polling is better? Or, are we talking about people who passively follow football who instinctually know that USC is better than USF?

The third is precisely why computer polls were created.

View this:
(1-7) W 38-10
at (4-4) W 49-31
(2-5) W 47-14
at (2-5) W 27-24
(3-4) L 24-23
(2-6) W 20-13
at (1-7) W 38-0

compared to:

(5-2) W 28-13
at (5-3) W 26-23
(2-5) W 37-10
(6-1) W 21-13
at (4-3) W 35-23
(4-3) W 64-12
at (5-2) L 30-27

If you look at those schedules w/o team names attached it is obvious who is better. It isn't even close. The question is a) Is it right to discount USF's win vs. a 5-2 Elon b) should we give more credit for a USC road victory over 4-4 Nebraska simply because it is nebraska? The public has a hard time divorcing itself from what the media has hammered into them. USC was supposed to be the unchallenged #1 in the country. They have played an unimpressive schedule and preformed unimpressively. USF is supposed to be a dumpy Big east school. They have impressive wins vs. accepted good schools, and won impressively against unaccepted "good" schools (like 5-2 elon).

USC might well be the worst 6-1 team in the country while USF might be the best. I have no way of explaining why. By all right USC SHOULD be better by far. Their recruiting pool, facilities, coaching, EVERYTHING is better than USFs. Their talent level is certainly better as well. But so far this year, all that talent has combined for a weak showing vs. nearly every sub-par opponent they've face. How do you beat Arizona by only a TD at home? How does ANY "good" team lose to Stanford at home? It is ludicrous to rank them ahead of USF.

[johnnylovescandy]

It's not difficult to envision scenarios where Auburn was ill-prepared to deal with a hungry USF team and WVU didn't bring their A-game to Tampa. Be patient and we'll see USF tumble some more when Pitt, Cincy, & Louisville take a huge bite out of their ass. Then again, the entire Big East officiating crew is now suspect after seeing last week's Louisville/UConn debacle...

[Kos13]

I just meant that, after explaining how the BCS works, even people who have no idea what football is have told me they think the system is terrible.

Your argument is great if you're only looking at W/L. Problem is, this is retarded because the teams they're beating ALSO play weak schedules, so their records don't prove anything. USC obviously has played like crap and doesn't deserve a high ranking, but they're also the most talented team in the country, and they play an extremely difficult schedule. If they run the table, they would, without question, have a serious argument as a NC contender. Same goes for LSU and Oklahoma (though OU doesn't really play anybody either).

It's just clear at this point that the only thing that matters is a loss. So if you're Ohio State, you just schedule OOC cakewalks like Kent State, scrape by against the Michigan States of the Big Ten, and your whole season comes down to one game. If you win, you make the NC...even though you'd lose 2-3 games in the SEC or Pac-10.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
if you're Ohio State, you just schedule OOC cakewalks like Kent State, scrape by against the Michigan States of the Big Ten

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, Ohio State beat the crap out of MSU except for a span of about 50 seconds.

But yeah, Ohio State's schedule is weak. I have no doubt that they are one of the best teams in the country, but probably not #1.