By Hugh Falk, Pollspeak.com
When two teams' records are the same, the winner of the head-to-head match-up should be ranked higher. I call this the "head-to-head rule." Based on feedback, it seems some people still aren't sold on the idea. Let's start by way of example:
Nineteen AP voters ranked LSU (8-3) over Mississippi (8-3) this week after the Tigers lost to the Rebels. What's interesting is that even though 41 out of 60 voters ranked Mississippi higher, LSU still came out ahead in the poll (No. 17 to Mississippi's No. 20). That's because LSU voters heavily favored the Tigers while about 30 of the Ole Miss voters only ranked the Rebels one spot above the Tigers.
I actually thought we would see more than 19 voters rank LSU higher because last week the ranking gap was huge between these two teams in LSU's favor. So while I'm pointing out that 19 voters still think that LSU is a better team after the loss, I'm also giving kudos to the other 41 voters for making "significant changes in your ballot from week to week" as the AP voter guidelines state. Too many voters continue to use the "slide" rule of moving teams up a limited number of spots after a win and sliding down teams a limited number of spots after a loss. When voters do this, it is tough for lower ranked teams to make headway, and it is the reason that the AP included the "significant changes" guideline. The truth is that some of those 19 voters might think LSU is still a better team, but I'm confident that some are just using their own slide rule. And as we all know, slide rules were replaced by computers years ago.
On that note, the computers think LSU is better than Ole Miss, too. So there is obviously merit to ranking LSU higher if you don't believe in the head-to-head rule. But that is one of the things that separate the humans from the computers. Humans put a lot of faith in head-to-head results; computers don't. (Except Billingsley, which has a one-week, head-to-head rule.)
Do people really support the head-to-head rule? I've heard plenty of arguments from people about why head-to-head isn't that important, but for some reason they usually come from fans of teams that recently lost a game. However, when talking objectively (like before the season starts) I hear far fewer arguments. In fact, I hear many calls for a playoff system, which is the most unforgiving head-to-head rule of them all - you lose, you're out. It doesn't matter how good Team A usually is or how bad Team B usually is. The popularity of playoffs is the biggest evidence that humans accept head-to-head results for determining their champions.
The head-to-head rule is far more forgiving than a real playoff. At some point, however, you have to say, "Sorry, you lost. Better luck next year." If fans and coaches were allowed to rationalize who progresses in a real playoff, there would be bloodshed. Obviously, this season-long playoff isn't a formal rule, and I don't expect it to be. However, I do think it is a fair method of ranking teams with the same record. Voters who don't follow it should certainly be checked for ignorance (i.e. forgot), bias or worse.
To be clear, I don't think anybody should follow the head-to-head rule blindly. Every rule has exceptions, but I do think it should be the standard until there is a good reason to do otherwise. The decision to rank a loser over a winner should be made objectively and intentionally. Personally, it would take a special situation for me to do so, but it is possible.
Keep in mind that one of the goals of Pollspeak is to help weed out bias and even corruption in college sports. So it is important that voters are able to justify their rankings. Otherwise voters could be unreasonably biased or (and I know it sounds paranoid) they could be bribed or coerced. That is why it is important that the process be transparent (no secret ballots) and why voters be questioned about what seem like irrational choices. Going against head-to-head results is one way to help identify bias, but it isn't definitive. Voters can have valid reasons for going against the head-to-head rule. Obviously, it also isn't the only indication of bias. Pollspeak will be tracking voters over the season and over the years to identify patterns of bias. Does somebody vote Team X higher because they think they are a better team that week, or do they just usually rank Team X higher?
I also think the head-to-head rule holds more weight earlier in the season. For example, if Boise State beats Oregon in week one, why wouldn't you rank the Broncos higher that week? In week one, who is to say one team is better than another based on anything other than the game they played against each other? As the season progresses, the sample size is bigger, but don't be fooled. The football season is way too short to put more faith in transitive speculation than what actually happened when the teams meet on the field. There is already so much subjectivity in the BCS (i.e. which is the best undefeated team). That is the price of having so few games in the season. We don't need to create more subjectivity by valuing biased opinions over actual results when we are lucky enough to have them.
So should Ole Miss be ranked over LSU? An LSU fan could argue that the Tigers lost to better competition: Florida instead of South Carolina for example. Their point is that if Ole Miss lost to inferior competition, the Rebels must be inferior. However, LSU lost to...well...Ole Miss. How bad is Ole Miss? The Rebels can't be so bad that they make LSU look like they lost to inferior competition, but if they're not inferior, then the Rebels should be ranked higher. Also LSU hasn't beaten a currently ranked team, while Mississippi beat...LSU. Shouldn't who you beat count as much as to whom you lost? It's a catch 22 that doesn't really work in LSU's favor no matter how you look at it.
Even if you think LSU is better, I don't know how anybody who watched the end of that game can conclude that LSU is MUCH better. Granted, LSU had a chance to win...on the road. However, it took an on-side kick and a Hail Mary to get into that position. Then there was the infamous spike heard round the world, which was a clock management mistake of epic proportions -- a mistake that is indicative of coaching issues beyond a typical fumble or injury problem. The only slide rules I follow are posted on the playground: "Always slide down feet first and sitting up, never head first." I think both of these teams should be closely ranked either way, but based on the head-to-head result, I'd give the edge to Ole Miss.
Edyta Sliwinska
Daniella Sarahyba
Arizona Rattlers Cheerleaders
Biggest Retirements of 2010
Comments (21) Add A Comment
Fair enough.
ISE
Total Comments (107)
Pollspeak makes a good case for Ole Miss being ranked above LSU, but there are worse, or at least equally bad, head-to-head grievances. Why, for example, is Penn State ranked above Iowa?
ISE
Total Comments (107)
LSU shouldn't be ranked ahead of Ole Miss because they are underachieving as a whole, have a horrible QB, and have a headcoach that doesn't know how to use timeouts, and an offensive coordinator that doesn't know how to call plays (especially on that final drive...sacked after being within fieldgoal range).
GeauxTigers2008
Total Comments (1)
Here is reality: Ole Miss had almost 450 yards in total offense; 4 trips to the red zone....only 1 TD and 3 field goals; 2 TD's called back (After all, it is SEC officiating), a cheap LSU TD on a blocked field goal. So from where we were sitting the story line was: "Ole Miss Hits LSU In The Mouth" Stupid play calling in the red zone by Mr Conservative - Houston Nutt - kept the game close. LSU only had 150 yards of total offense going into the last 6 minutes of the game.
But no....the National story line is "Onside Kick...Hail Mary...LSU Loses Game" LSU did not deserve to win....Ole Miss is the better team and demonstrated it.
Jeff from Oxford, MS
Total Comments (2)
This is a fairly welll stated argument for head-to-head as the "trump card" in the beauty contests ... er, polls. But just watching that game one got the impression that Ole Miss was the better team regardless of the result. LSU is overrated this year ...
Further to this poll BS, what's up with my Trojans in the polls? To quote Pat Forde "in the current AP Top 25, USC is No. 24. That's behind three teams the Trojans have beaten: No. 9 Ohio State, No. 16 Oregon State and No. 21 California. Meanwhile the Trojans are ahead of two of the three teams it has lost to in unranked Stanford and Washington. Voters have had a hard time getting a handle on USC all season, and there's your proof."
MNMIUM
Total Comments (22)
H2H results should always be taken into consideration when the teams have the same record otherwise all bets are off and you try to determine where a team should rank. It's too subjective with conference coaches pumping up their conference teams to make money.
The SEC is considered the best conference because they rank their overrated teams high in order to capitalize on lucrative BS Bowl money.
If you take the names off the teams and look at the results without bias TCU would be the #1 team in the country. Texas would probably be #2. They are the most complete teams in the country and are playing the best football. Florida and Alabama are ranked 1 and 2 because that's where they started based on prestige. They are not playing great football (no, beating up on ridiculous opponents like FIU and Chattanooga doesn't constitute dominance) and should be moved down.
Suicidaire
Total Comments (93)
Because beating teams like Texas State speaks volumes about your program...
Scott1
Total Comments (8)
The only reason Ole Miss won is Gary Crowton. If he fails to show up to the game LSU wins easily. Ole Miss is a 19th century neanderthal that allows **** meetings on campus.
#1tigerfan
Total Comments (17)
Now, Now #1 tigerfan....LSU is lacking talent "between the ears"...nothing Crowton can do about that. Better start recruiting better talent.
Jeff from Oxford, MS
Total Comments (2)
Not only can honoring a 'head-to-head' rule be difficult to justify, sometimes it can be impossible to enact. If three or more teams are involved in a round-robin melee of circular win/loss results, one of the head-to-head results cannot be reflected in a poll. And if a 10-1 team stubles one week against a 3-8 team, you clearly do not vote the winner higher in rankings than the loser.
Early in the season, polls indicate what is believed about their potential. As the season progresses, polls become a reflection of comparative performance. However, the poll still expresses something of a probability assessment about if one team plays (or in some cases were to RE-play) another, who would win.
That Ole Miss beat the Tigers mattered less to me than HOW they won, and I think if they were to play again on a neutral field, LSU would prevail. Had the Rebels had won by 40 points, I would definitely feel differently, but under the circumstances I feel justified ranking LSU above Mississippi despite the head-to-head result.
deralbert
Williamsburg, VA
Total Comments (2)
Snappy retort. So, let me get this straight. Florida, Alabama and Texas should get a pass because of their pedigree? How enlightened.
If you wanna talk about pedigree, TCU beating Oklahoma in Norman (something that's only happened twice in the Stoops era) says a LOT about a program. Damn near shutting out Texas Tech in Lubbock is a nice feather as well. Going on the road and beating 2 ACC teams (one of which will play for their conference championship) is nice, too.
One more thing, before you cast stones at a team's schedule, take a look in the mirror. Beating teams like <insert creampuff for your team to clobber> speaks volumes about your program...
Teams like TCU have to beg, borrow and steal to get teams to play them and its always on the road. Your prestigeous teams need only cut a check to have the FIUs, Troys and Chattanoogas of the world (yes, i'm looking at you, Florida) come to your place to get slaughtered.
Let's go to the scorecard:
Team 1 - 5th in total offense - 3rd in total defense - 27.1 point margin of victory - 3-0 vs Top 30
Team 2 - 12th in total offense - 6th in total defense - 27.6 point margin of victory - 4-0 vs Top 30
Team 3 - 16th in total offense - 2nd in total defense - 26.7 point margin of victory - 2-0 vs Top 30
Team 4 - 30th in total offense - 1st in total defense - 22.3 point margin of victory - 4-0 vs Top 30
Team 1 is the most complete team in the country. Team 2 and 3 are even, but Team 2 gets the slight nod for having more W's against Top 30 teams and a slightly higher margin of victory.
Once again, take the names off the top 4 and TCU is #1 in the country based on the results from the field.
Suicidaire
Total Comments (93)
I'm not sure why you'd choose LSU as your subject. USC is currently ranked below 3 teams they beat (Ohio State, Oregon State, Cal) and ahead of 2 teams who beat them (unranked Stanford, Washington). How's that for a poll?
EricUSC
Tucson, AZ
Total Comments (45)
Did you see the game? As the writer said, Ole Miss dominated the stats and it took a slew of fluky plays, including: VERY questionable penalties to take away the first Rebel TD; a mishandled loose ball in the 4th quarter by the Reb defense that would have sealed the win; the onside kick; and the hail mary. The game is never played on a neutral field, so that's sort of impossible. The fact that Ole Miss beat them like a drum last year in Tiger Stadium has little to do with this discussion, just as the fact that this year's game in Oxford has no bearing. LSU may finish the year with a better record than Ole Miss, in which case they should finish higher. But if the records are even, Ole Miss should be ranked higher. It is a no-brainer.
danielkevin
Austin , TX
Total Comments (59)
GO SAINTS!!!!!
danielkevin
Austin , TX
Total Comments (59)
LSU beat Auburn, Auburn beat Miss State & Ole Miss, Ole Miss beat LSU. Based on your theory then Auburn should be ranked higher than Ole Miss. Logically you can say the day LSU lost to Ole Miss, Ole Miss played better. That doesn't make them a better team. Ole Miss only scored a field goal against Bama while Auburn nearly beat them. LSU held FL to 12 pts, the least amount scored by them this year. It is the SEC. Ole Miss handed FL their only loss last year in the swamp. On that day Ole Miss played better than FL but did it mean they had a better team?. Rankings are subjective. If you want a pure logical way to rank teams objectively then develop a computer program to do it and eliminate the human emotion element. Quit worrying about where your team is ranked and enjoy watching them play their bowl game. The real national championship is Dec 5 in Atlanta. Geaux SEC!
LSUMotorsports
Deland , FL
Total Comments (2)
Works in theory... but then there's the real world, e.g., Team A beats Team B in their head-to-head but Team B's star QB (Mr. Heisman) was injured and didn't play that game... he's better now.
GlennAllen
Richmond , VA
Total Comments (222)
But Mr. Heisman played the whole game.
LSUMotorsports
Deland , FL
Total Comments (2)
Suicidaire,
Wouldn't teams 2 and 4 be more deserving since they have 4 victories over Top 30 teams; also, what are the records against Top 15 teams?
Team 1 : TCU 1-0 (BYU #14)
Team 2 : Texas 0-0
Team 3 : Florida 1-0 (LSU #13)
Team 4 : Bama 2-0 (VT #12 & LSU #13)
So there you go, ranking based on the numbers:
1 Bama
2 Florida
3 TCU
4 Texas
I agree with you that TCU can play with anybody and that they've played a tougher schedule than they are credited. However, when faced with such even teams you can make the numbers say what you want.
ironoxide
Mobile, AL
Total Comments (31)
BTW If you base the rankings on SOS as calculated by the BCS computers they would be:
1 Bama
2 Florida
3 Texas
4 TCU
When you play with numbers funny things happen.
ironoxide
Mobile, AL
Total Comments (31)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.