By Hugh Falk, pollspeak.com
Chris Livingston/IconSMI
PROBLEM OF THE WEEK: Pittsburgh, USF and Kansas
I knew this week would pose a serious problem for conscientious AP voters who adhere to the AP guidelines and "pay attention to head-to-head results." What should they do with Pittsburgh, USF and Kansas this week? Unranked Pittsburgh beat No. 10 USF, who beat No. 16 Kansas earlier. They all have the same number of losses (one). The ideal solution is to rank the winner of the head-to-head over the loser. So it should be:
Pittsburgh
USF
Kansas
However that was the exception more than the rule on this week's ballots. Kudos to Doug Lesmerises, Jon Wilner, Anthony Gimino, and Tom Keegan who were the only AP voters to rank them in that order, and an honorable mention to Stewart Mandel who provided the unique solution of not ranking any of them (which is a drastic but perfectly acceptable solution).
This was probably hard for many voters because it required drastic shifting of their ballots. It could even mean dropping Kansas after their win, which voters don't like doing. However, the AP Guidelines specifically say this is what voters are supposed to do. In summary, it says voters should pay attention to head-to-head results and make significant changes when necessary.
These three teams have the same record and have head-to-head match ups for reference. There is no reason to rank them out of order. If Pittsburgh isn't worth ranking yet ... then neither is Kansas. Many voters disagreed with Mandel about Kansas, but did they consider that the Jayhawks haven't beaten an FBS team with a winning record yet? The come-from-behind victory at Iowa State was not a signature win worth changing the status quo. Kansas may turn out to be the best of the three, but until they prove it on the field, only the voters above have it right (on this issue).
DOOMSDAY WATCH
Tensions are growing worse between the humans and computers over who is No. 1. The human polls (Coaches, Harris Interactive and AP) still have Oklahoma No. 1. The computers still favor Alabama, and the Anderson & Hester Computer Rankings, which debuted this week, gives Oklahoma its lowest ranking at No. 7. Massey is the only computer to have Alabama at No. 2 (and Vanderbilt at No. 1).
Auburn and Wisconsin are the first teams with two losses to be ranked in the polls ... the human polls. The computers disagree, ranking them between 29 and 63.
WHO'S No. 2 AND No. 4?
With all the talk about who's No. 1, there's even more variety at the No. 2 and No. 4 spots.
Poll -- No. 2, No. 4
AP Poll -- Alabama, LSU
Harris Interactive -- LSU, Missouri
Coaches' Poll -- Missouri, Alabama
Colley Matrix -- Vanderbilt, Texas
Sagarin Ratings -- Northwestern, Vanderbilt
Massey Ratings -- Alabama, Utah
Anderson/Hester -- Missouri, Texas
Billingsley Report -- Oklahoma, USC
Why do some computers rank schools like Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Utah, Duke, USC and Texas higher? Common sense says it's a lack of bias. However, what if the computers actually have a bias for schools with strong computer departments? Pollspeak leaves no stone unturned. According to U.S. News and World Report, the computer science program at Texas ranks No. 9, Duke and USC are tied for No. 20, Northwestern and Utah are tied for No. 39 and Vanderbilt is No. 58. Impressive, but we can dismiss this theory since co-No. 1 Stanford would obviously be ranked higher by the BCS computers.
Tatiana Golovin
Alison Preston
Did You See That?
Back in Time: July 3
Comments (18) Add A Comment
The computers are like performing surgery with a chef knife. One big problem is that the computers don't take into acount margin of victory. If you run a program based on that, your accuracy improves considerably (Sagrin does this on his "predictor" but that is not used by the BCS). The other problem is that occassionally, it won't properly assess the skills of players, which is visible to a trained observer.
Stewart L
Oakland , CA
Total Comments (41)
How's this even an issue? Didn't Pitt get worked at home by Bowling Green?
Frank Stallone
Total Comments (68)
USF and Kansas might have also lost their openers to Bowling Green, but we'll never know that. What we do know is Kansas lost to USF, USF lost to Pitt, and all three have one loss. Meanwhile Kansas is still looking for its first quality win. One reason Kansas is ranked over Pittsburgh right now is due to their previous rankings (starting with the preseason where Kansas was ranked highest). If voters didn???t cling to previous rankings each week, then it wouldn???t be an issue.
Pollspeak
Total Comments (15)
Pitt lost to a MAC team...deal with it. Kansas lost to USF in front of the largest crowd to attend a Bulls game all year. Kansas defeated Iowa State in Ames. If you don't think that's a quality win, then you are not aware of Big 12 football. Bot MU and OU struggled to win in Ames last year. This years ISU team is equal to if not better than last.
The previous post and original article wreak of east coast ignorance.
JerseyRedLeg
Elizabeth , NJ
Total Comments (1)
so let's sum this up... losing at home to a bad MAC team is better than losing on the road to a ranked team by a last-second field goal. furthermore, beating a team with a last-second field goal, despite getting dominated for three quarters in front of your home crowd, is a definitive indicator of one team being better than another. [/sarcasm]
what's next - - you gonna argue the merits of transitive scoring comparisons? wow, just wow.
Did You Eat Paint…
Colorado Springs, CO
Total Comments (4)
By that logic, you're saying Florida should be unranked because they lost to Misssissippi. Upsets happen. The ranking order of Pittsburgh, USF and Kansas is not transitive...it is based on head-to-head matchups.
Pollspeak
Total Comments (15)
Another big problem with the computers in particular, but also with the humans to some extent, is the consideration of injuries. Ohio State with Beanie Wells appears to be a much different team than without him, so USC gets credit for beating a top-15 team, when in reality the team that they beat (without Wells) is probably more like a 30. Last year's Oklahoma team lost Sam Bradford for a half and that had a significant effect on their chances. Wish there was some way to rectify that.
MrKid72
Total Comments (5)
whats bad is cry baby chase daniel wants sympthy cause he's scared, he states a nebraska lineman spit on him and proof is that it didnt happen, I think that while chase daniel was looking at the size of that nebraska lineman, chase daniel was drooling on himself and he thought a nebraska lineman spit on him. wait till chase daniel has to look at OU's lineman, chase daniel will pee his pants.
Oklahoma Nimrod
Atoka , OK
Total Comments (26)
Look at it another way. USF and Kansas lost road games. Pitt lost a home game. I don't see how you can rank Pitt higher than either of them. And if you are going to look at them based on records alone, not strength of schedule then Kansas will be worst than them both because they are the only one having to play 4 top ten teams this season. But that may not really be the case, will it?
justanotherfan
Annapolis , MD
Total Comments (1)
I would say it's a toss up between USF and Pitt. They both have 1 quality win, but Pitt has the far worse loss. It's not really bad to put USF above Pitt. [I mean, would you putt OU ahead Missouri last year?]
But for Kansas and USF, it's an open and shut case. USF has the far better win, the head to head, and Kansas has nothing. Unless you count an Iowa State team that lost to UNLV quality.
I'd be tempted to go USF > Pitt > Kansas as it stands right now. Though You could move pitt somewhere else and I wouldn't quibble.
dethwing
Lincoln , NE
Total Comments (2)
USF lost to Pitt at home...
BlakeBlazerOwns
New York , NY
Total Comments (180)
Seriously, kansas, pitt, usf they all suck, i agree w/ mandel leave their **** out
OhioDore
Total Comments (125)
And in theory, Ole Miss should have jumped Florida in the polls. And Vandy should be higher than both Georgia and Florida. Early in the season, I just don't think there's enough data to say how things should be based solely on head to head matchups without factoring in other things like home/away, who the opponent was, and guesses for how the rest of the schedule will turn out.
Or to look at it differently, Missouri had wins over teams that beat the Big Ten champion, the ACC champion, and the SEC champion last year. So why weren't they ranked #2 to end the season? Georgia didn't even win the SEC East. Ohio State lost to Illinois at home. USC lost to Stanford at home. Obviously, AP and USA Today voters care about a lot of stuff other than that season's records on the field.
competitionisgood
Total Comments (15)
If by scared you mean completely put an a@@ spanking on Nebraska at home then you are completely right. And oh how those big bad Nebraska lineman did so much against Mizzou. Did they even see the interior of the pocket? I think your kinda confused and need to go back and watch the game again. Or take a nap. Either one should help clear your brain.
cgerken44
Total Comments (1321)
that is stupid... didn't someone else mention ole miss beating florida? is that an "open and shut case"? no... as some other clown pointed out, upsets happen - and a healthy USF got lucky to beat a Kansas team missing key starters and travelling on a short week to a hostile environment. in lawrence, or on a neutral field, or even with a KU at 100%, it would've likely been a blowout win for KU.
what's worse with is that you turn around and say "USF > Pitt > Kansas". odd, considering Pitt beat USF... and since you say that USF>KU, then isn't pitt's best win BETTER THAN USF's win over kansas??? see what i did there, recycling your faulty logic? you can't have it both ways, moron.
Did You Eat Paint…
Colorado Springs, CO
Total Comments (4)
how did you reach that asinine conclusion, based upon what i posted? are you really that dense?
Did You Eat Paint…
Colorado Springs, CO
Total Comments (4)
Kindly re-read the first half of my post. The part that you so lovingly choose to ignore. As I mentioned, ranking Pitt and USF is difficult as Pitt has the better win but a terrible loss. Both need to be considered, and either ranking could easily be justified. That wasn't the point of my post.
Kansas is a far different story. I'm not even talking about head to head = automatically ahead. And if you weren't so quick to judge, you would have realized that. I repeat:
Kansas' best win is over an Iowa State team that lost to UNLV. USF's best win is over Kansas. Both lost to 1-loss teams, so they're even on that. One difference between the losses is Kansas' was on the road, while USF at home. There's something to that, but in my book a loss is a loss, regardless of where you play it. You may think otherwise, and you free to think that.
If Kansas picks up a better win, and Pitt loses a couple then I might consider changing them. Not before.
dethwing
Lincoln , NE
Total Comments (2)
it's official - you're delusional.
Did You Eat Paint…
Colorado Springs, CO
Total Comments (4)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.