2008-12-08T14:14:07-05:00
<p>
<p><strong>
<div class="photo_container image_center">
<div class="photo"><img src="http://img.fannation.com/upload/si_blog_post_images/sweep.pitt.icon.jpg" alt="Sweep" width="600" height="355" /></div>
<div class="photo_attributes">In theory, Pittsburgh should have jumped South Florida and Kansas in the AP poll. <br />Chris Livingston/IconSMI</div>
</div>
<p>By <em>Hugh Falk, pollspeak.com</em></p>
</strong></p>
</p>
<p>PROBLEM OF THE WEEK: Pittsburgh, USF and Kansas</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>Pittsburgh<br />USF<br />Kansas</p>
Taking stock of voter, computer polls
2008-10-06T21:01:05-04:00
18
2008-10-06T21:01:05-04:00
1
2
10
2008-10-07T22:45:12-04:00
4
CO
Did You Eat Paint Chips?
Colorado Springs
576962
19
it's official - you're delusional.
2999414
2008-10-07T21:56:11-04:00
2
NE
dethwing
Lincoln
577088
18
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.
2999243
2008-10-07T07:36:05-04:00
18
Pollspeak
169617
6
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.
2991022
2008-10-07T15:38:09-04:00
4
CO
Did You Eat Paint Chips?
Colorado Springs
576962
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.
17
how did you reach that asinine conclusion, based upon what i posted? are you really that dense?
2996722
2008-10-07T10:09:59-04:00
2
NE
dethwing
Lincoln
577088
11
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.
2992169
2008-10-07T15:34:25-04:00
4
CO
Did You Eat Paint Chips?
Colorado Springs
576962
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.
16
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.
2996635
2008-10-07T09:29:00-04:00
http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/191/253/thumb/CDY_0035.jpg
27
OK
Oklahoma Nimrod
Atoka
191553
8
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.
2991647
2008-10-07T14:48:25-04:00
http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/219/432/thumb/mizzou_crowd.bmp
1403
MO
cgerken44
Manchester
219732
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.
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.
2996075
2008-10-07T13:48:42-04:00
http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/558/952/thumb/Pie2.jpg
15
MO
competitionisgood
Saint Louis
559432
14
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.
2995250
2008-10-07T13:10:21-04:00
146
OH
OhioDore
Columbus
97546
13
Seriously, kansas, pitt, usf they all suck, i agree w/ mandel leave their **** out
2994809
2008-10-07T10:07:41-04:00
1
MD
justanotherfan
Annapolis
577089
10
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?
2992119
2008-10-07T10:14:15-04:00
http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/912/10/thumb/ist2_7355600-man-playing-electric-guitar-and-jumping.jpg
194
NY
realityrecall
New York
91510
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?
12
USF lost to Pitt at home...
2992225
2008-10-07T10:09:59-04:00
2
NE
dethwing
Lincoln
577088
11
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.
2992169
2008-10-07T10:07:41-04:00
1
MD
justanotherfan
Annapolis
577089
10
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?
2992119
18
<p>
<p><strong>
<div class="photo_container image_center">
<div class="photo"><img src="http://img.fannation.com/upload/si_blog_post_images/sweep.pitt.icon.jpg" alt="Sweep" width="600" height="355" /></div>
<div class="photo_attributes">In theory, Pittsburgh should have jumped South Florida and Kansas in the AP poll. <br />Chris Livingston/IconSMI</div>
</div>
<p>By <em>Hugh Falk, pollspeak.com</em></p>
</strong></p>
</p>
<p>PROBLEM OF THE WEEK: Pittsburgh, USF and Kansas</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>Pittsburgh<br />USF<br />Kansas</p>
<p>However that was the exception more than the rule on this week's ballots. Kudos to <strong><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=80&t2=41&v=20&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Doug Lesmerises</a></strong>, <strong><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=80&t2=41&v=35&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Jon Wilner</a></strong>, <strong><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=80&t2=41&v=378&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Anthony Gimino</a></strong>, and <strong><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=80&t2=41&v=62&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Tom Keegan</a></strong> who were the only AP voters to rank them in that order, and an honorable mention to <strong><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=41&t2=&v=60&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Stewart Mandel</a></strong> who provided the unique solution of not ranking any of them (which is a drastic but perfectly acceptable solution).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=41&v=62&w=7&r=T" target="_blank">Kansas</a>, 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).</p>
<p>DOOMSDAY WATCH</p>
<p>Tensions are growing worse between the humans and computers over who is No. 1. The human polls (Coaches, Harris Interactive and AP) still have <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=75&v=375&w=7&r=T" target="_blank">Oklahoma</a> No. 1. The computers still favor <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=3&v=375&w=7&r=T" target="_blank">Alabama</a>, 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 <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=110&v=194&w=7&r=T" target="_blank">Vanderbilt</a> at No. 1).</p>
<p><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&v=0&t1=9&w=7&r=T" target="_blank">Auburn</a> and <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&v=0&t1=118&w=7&r=T" target="_blank">Wisconsin</a> 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. </p>
<p>WHO'S No. 2 AND No. 4?</p>
<p><br />With all the talk about who's No. 1, there's even more variety at the No. 2 and No. 4 spots.</p>
<p>Poll -- No. 2, No. 4<br /><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=0&t2=0&v=375&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">AP Poll</a> -- Alabama, LSU<br /><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=0&t2=0&v=189&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Harris Interactive</a> -- LSU, Missouri<br /><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=0&t2=0&v=188&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Coaches' Poll</a> -- Missouri, Alabama<br /><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=0&t2=0&v=404&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Colley Matrix</a> -- Vanderbilt, Texas<br /><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=0&t2=0&v=402&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Sagarin Ratings</a> -- Northwestern, Vanderbilt<br /><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=17&t2=&v=405&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Massey Ratings</a> -- Alabama, Utah<br /><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=0&t2=0&v=194&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Anderson/Hester</a> -- Missouri, Texas<br /><a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=0&t2=0&v=403&w=7&r=V" target="_blank">Billingsley Report</a> -- Oklahoma, USC</p>
<p>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 <em><a href="http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/com/search" target="_blank">U.S. News and World Report</a></em>, 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.</p>
11741
18
NY
The SI Staff
New York City
21244