|
|
#1
11-11-2006, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
In college football, going undefeated, particularly in a BCS conference, is a special achievement and creates a presumption that such a team should play for the National title. However, that presumption may be overcome by teams with 1-Loss. I thought about what factors weigh in:
1) Strength of Schedule required to be better. The one loss team in question must have had a harder schedule to be considered, IMO. This brings up two interesting questions: a) What do you look at to determine who had the harder schedule? Each individual game? Computer ranked schedule difficulty? b) How much of a harder schedule does it have to be? This refers particularly to computer rankings. If the 0-Loss team had the 30th and the 1-loss team had the 29th that seems almost irrelevant, however if the 1-loss team had the toughest schedule in the nation, would that be enough? Where do you draw that line? 2) Who the 1-loss team lost to? Does it matter if they lost to an undefeated team (ala Texas) rather than a below average team (ala USC)? How much? 3) What if the 1-loss team would be in a rematch with an undefeated team that had already beaten them? To what extent should the 1-loss team be viewed as having already lost their chance because they played that team? 4) What about common opponents of both the 0-loss and 1-loss team? How do you view these issues? Do you add other considerations (aside from fandom of course)? 
|
|
#2
11-11-2006, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
[ QUOTE ]
2) Who the 1-loss team lost to? Does it matter if they lost to an undefeated team (ala Texas) rather than a below average team (ala USC)? How much? [/ QUOTE ] USC lost to Oregon St. Oregon State is #22 in the Colley rankings, #17 in Sagarin's ELO-Chess and #24 in Sagarin's Predictor. I wouldn't call that "below average". And to answer your question, the BCS was set up with 6 specific conferences in mind. If you are undefeated in one of those 6 conferences you deserve to be in the NC game. The only reason they shouldn't be in the title game is if there are 2 other undefeateds.
|
|
#3
11-11-2006, 02:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
Sorry Cal-guy, didn't realize OSU was that good, but the general question still remains. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
So, if you were a voter, and an undefeated BCS school who had a 100th ranked schedule was one choice and a 1-loss BCS school who had the toughest schedule was the other, you'd go with the undefeated team?
|
|
#4
11-11-2006, 02:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
caretaker,
good post, but if someone calls Oregon State (6-3, BCS #24) a below average team again i'm gonna go on a shooting spree. I think you touched on most of the major factors to consider. Things i'd argue with: -Common opponents i think is a bad way to compare teams... Buffalo (#151 Sagarin) did a hell of a lot better against Ball State than Michigan did, but it doesn't mean much. Analyze each team's performance in each game and there's no need for this. -Margin of Victory HAS to be a consideration. If you look only at who has beaten who, Rutgers is the #3 team in the country (Sagarin ELO_CHESS). However if you account for MoV, Sagarin drops them to #10 (#21 in Predictor). Clearly dominating wins and losses should mean more than winning/losing close.
|
|
#5
11-11-2006, 02:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
So if you were voting, what would you look at to make the choice and how much better would the 1-loss team have to be on those factors to put them over top?
|
|
#6
11-11-2006, 03:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
It depends. Right now, I'd take Texas, Cal, and probably Florida over Rutgers.
Last week, I would've taken Louisville.
|
|
#7
11-11-2006, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
Why Tex., Cal., or Flo. over Rutgers? Why not USC?
|
|
#8
11-11-2006, 03:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
Well, maybe USC. I just don't think USC is as good as Cal, Texas or Florida because of three iffy wins against Washington, Washington State, and Arizona State.
Meh, we'll definitely learn more about USC in the next 4 weeks.
|
|
#9
11-11-2006, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Cal-guy, didn't realize OSU was that good, but the general question still remains. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] So, if you were a voter, and an undefeated BCS school who had a 100th ranked schedule was one choice and a 1-loss BCS school who had the toughest schedule was the other, you'd go with the undefeated team? [/ QUOTE ] Well, it's practically impossible for a BCS school to have the 100th ranked schedule. E.g., Wake Forest has 103rd ranked schedule now (according to Colley, 89 according to Sagarin), but they play 3 top 25 teams in the next 4 weeks. But more to your point: I'd have undefeated Rutgers ahead of any one-loss BCS team, including Michigan/OSU loser.
|
|
#10
11-11-2006, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are the pollster: 0-Loss vs. 1-Loss Debate
[ QUOTE ]
It depends. Right now, I'd take Texas, Cal, and probably Florida over Rutgers. Last week, I would've taken Louisville. [/ QUOTE ] Will I ever be able to get you to realize Texas is overrated? Yes, they're good, but not the best 1 loss team ...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
