Blogpoll Roundtable

SHANE'S RESPONSES:

1

These questions are part of a series of discussions for participants in the Blog Poll, which you can view here. It's just one part of what is an excellent Michigan sports blog. The responses this week are located here.

1. What would it take for you to vote someone other than USC #1 in the poll? If you already are, what would it take for USC to regain the top spot on your ballot?

I don't think there is anything that'll change my mind on this. USC is the best team, bar-none. Look at where their players will be going in the draft, for starters. They've got candidates for almost every award offered. They've got 3 (or 4 or 5) obvious top 5 draft picks (Leinert, Bush, White, Smith, and Jerrett). Their backup quarterback is better than probably 90% of the country's starters.
It isn't just about who they have.
USC's supposed cupcake schedule to start the season has turned into one of the toughest roads in the country, in my mind. The Pac 10 has shown they are for real this season (Arizona State almost beating LSU, Oregon beating Fresno State, and of course USC's play). The Pac 10 has shown they have some depth this year... while the Big 12 has shown they have none. There are 6 quality teams in the Pac 10 (USC, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State (yes, look at how they've played this season), Cal, and Arizona State) (I want to put in Stanford... but UC-Davis!?!). I think even the bottom teams are on their way up, especially with the coaches they now have (Willingham for the Huskies, Stoops in Arizona... and both played some better teams close). The Big 12 has 3 decent teams this year in my mind, Texas, Texas Tech, and Nebraska. Every other team has been a disappointment. I think Iowa State deserves some thought too... but they have just hit the slums of a tough stretch of games recently. But Texas A&M: huge disappointment. Colorado: overrated. Oklahoma... we shall not even discuss. Missouri: everything was there for them this year... but they haven't played up to it. Kansas State, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and, in my mind, Oklahoma!?!, are the bottom of the barrel. Not much better than Baylor the last few seasons. Speaking of... Baylor... they may be the one shining spot in the conference beyond Texas.
USC's schedule has been the best of the top teams. Notre Dame, Oregon, Arizona State. All on the road! They've still got Cal and UCLA to come, and, lest we forget... Fresno State, another underrated team.
If USC loses, they drop. But if they win, they can't. They almost lost last week, and I think 99% of the country was hoping they would. But they are most explosive, well-rounded, discipled football team in the country! And they showed some serious character coming back the past three weeks against three really good teams on the road (I also think they showed some character in winning the overlookable Arizona game when Arizona seriously came to play). These games showed USC to have flaws, particularly in their secondary, but they are the best team in the country without question.
Texas will end the season with one big victory, on the road at Ohio State. Their team isn't well-rounded enough to beat USC at a neutral field. If I think of a team that has a more complete team, and has played some more difficult games... the most interesting National Championship game I can envision... I see Virginia Tech.
But the Trojans have a quintillion weapons. They win games with heart. They play gutsy and with excitement. They win close games over big teams. And, oh yeah, they haven't lost in 26 or 27 games! No way teams like VTech and Texas, who weren't top contenders last year (they weren't even the best teams in their conferences... despite Tech winning it, they did it as everyone else collapsed, not by being the greatest team) should be above them. I kinda hate USC too. But you have to admit, they are a juggernaut.
I'm an OU fan. But even I felt dirty saying Jason White should get back-to-back Heismans last year. He wasn't that calliber of player. He isn't NFL material. Matt Leinert is. He showed that Saturday with a PERFECTLY placed ball to Jerrett on the first do-or-die play of the game, then followed that up with two gritty plays to end and win the game. Should they have lost Saturday? Yes. They had the game lost if that ball lands in-bounds. But Texas Tech should have lost 2 weeks ago. And Nebraska should have lost to Missouri when they won the championship in 1997. Coulda shoulda. It's about winning when it comes down to it. All you who want a playoff... this is what you believe in. A win is a win is a win. And USC's wins look awesome when you see who they've beaten.

2. Which of the undefeateds is most likely to remain so? Who is least likely?

Based on who's left on the schedule:
Texas
USC
UCLA
Texas Tech
Virginia Tech
Georgia
Alabama

Teams I really believe have the best chance based upon how good they really are and how they match up in the remaining games:
USC
Virginia Tech
Texas
UCLA
Georgia
Alabama
Texas Tech

Texas does have the easiest road left. That's not to say they can't lose. They have to show their defense is up to the task of stopping Texas Tech's prolific passing game... which I don't think is an easy task for any team. Texas A&M has been a real enigma this year as so many people thought they were the team to take the next big step this year... but have really floundered. Should they be back on track by the time the 'Horns come calling, though, it is certainly possible, as they always give Texas fits, and have the offense to play with big teams if they can get going.
And, funny as it sounds, DO NOT OVERLOOK BAYLOR. Don't look now, but this team has played some great football in the last year. The Nebraska loss really has to have hurt their confidence a lot. But it all started a year ago with that win over Texas A&M... and they had them beat again this year. They've become a team that can play to the level of their opponents... I think they have the upper hand on OU this week... and then could beat a deflated Texas Tech team next week before the big one with Texas. Texas might be prone to overlook them, and Baylor has become quite good at defending the home turf in Waco. I'm not saying its a guarantee, but I almost certainly will take Baylor to make a game of it.
The other game that is a challenge is the Big 12 title game. Nebraska (most likely) will be another stumbling block... and will have the chance to pull a 2003 Kansas State.
Checking off the rest of the schedule is not something I'd be doing as a Texas fan.
The Big 12 is the worst its been in modern memory. But that still doesn't hand Texas the title. They keep playing solid football, it's their's. But they've had a tendency to slip up.

USC should win their next three. That leaves three ranked teams for the final three games. I think Cal has shown to be overrated. They lost their experience on offense this year, and the rest of the Pac 10 has evolved lightyears over the past two seasons. I'd be more worried, if I'm USC, about the final two games. If Fresno State were getting them in Fresno, maybe the miracle of all miracles could happen. They are an underrated team ready to make a big upset. But though they have the rest of the season to prepare... they just can't match USC, and USC should walk. That leaves UCLA. Could be their toughest challenge yet (can it get any harder!?!). Home field advantage doesn't mean much, it's a rivalry game, and UCLA has seen quite a few years of being stepped on by big brother.
But I still have to believe USC wins.
Next week will show a lot about USC. How do they come out after four strange games for them. They weren't the invincible team they'd become taken on the mentality of, especially last week. They struggled early against AState and Oregon, but they just willed their way to eventually easy wins. I thought they would come out revived last Saturday... that those two games would be all the "wake up calls" they'd need. But ND played their hearts out... and as I said all year, anything is possible in South Bend... any game played there is mass chaos. It totally came to that. But as I said two weeks ago, they either lose to Arizona State or they don't lose a game. Including in January. USC will win it all.
They struggled to eek out three road wins in the past month. But they were three very good opponents, all three specifically set on beating USC. And they went on the road and won all 3. How many teams can do that!?! Just one in my book.
And now they have three teams... three teams, which, other than maybe UCLA, are not as good as the three they just played. And they get them at home.
Again, they have to play like they want to win.
But after playing with such passion this weekend, and for the past two seasons, I don't see how they don't do it.

Virginia Tech: Tough road ahead still. 5 losable games.
But their defense has been light's out.
At Maryland will be a test this weekend. But then they get their two toughest opponents at home. Two teams which really haven't done anything too special, and have just coasted (Miami and Boston College). At Virginia should be a win, as the previous two weeks have shown us that they aren't very consistant... I think the win over FSU will be what UV lives on the rest of this season as they coast to a mid-level bowl game. North Carolina has played better than expected this season, but Louisville showed how a prepared team handles them. Then of course there's the ACC Title game. No one from the Atlantic has shown themselves to be very spectacular. FSU should be able to get the spot even still... as they beat BC, and have a relatively winnable remaining schedule in conference. With that, they probably come in with renewed miracle hopes at a National title appearance. But they can't beat Virginia Tech. Their offense is just too bad. They shouldn't have beaten Miami (Miami found every possible way to lose that game... even though they themselves aren't that good), and if you've watched closely, they've struggled EVERY WEEK way more than the scores show. They lead The Citadel by only 3 at halftime, trailed BC in the 4th quarter (acceptable), only led Syracuse by 17 at the half because of an uncovered deep pass and a fumble recovery, being otherwise unimpressive, and only led Wake by 3 going to the 4th quarter. Oh, and then there was last week. Their offense has shown little ability to sustain drives... and their defense hasn't played quite up to expectations either. They've struggled with a lot of bad teams... and certainly could still lose the Coastal. VTech could realistically expect to shut them out. All VTech has to do is play smart football.
They've got a scary looking schedule remaining, but each game is winnable, and I think Tech has already shown with their consistant victories over good teams (Georgia Tech, West Viriginia, ... even NC State on the road because NC State had a lot of expectations and felt good about themselves at the time) that they have the ability to win the rest. GTech wasn't even an afterthought and West Virginia was a solid road win against a rival. They should be able to keep that play up, and the week off should only help them reinforce their domination.

Texas Tech: Doubt they'll beat Texas. If they do, they still have Baylor, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma to survive. Could be their year to finally take the next step and show this passing game can compete with the best. They've come so close to beating Texas and even OU in years past... but haven't pulled off the major win yet. Maybe this is the year. I doubt it. And let's not forget the Big 12 title game.

UCLA: Everybody's now saying they should waltz into The Colliseum undefeated. But back up for a second. Oregon State and Arizona State are not to be overlooked. This is the Pac 10. And this year the Pac 10 is playing like the Big 10 or SEC. On any given week, anyone can beat anyone. And every game comes down to the wire. It's been a very exciting season so far. Arizona or Stanford could beat them too, as neither team is just awful. UCLA hasn't shown themselves to be a team is a step above the rest like USC has. They survived Cal and Washington State the past two weeks with immaculate 4th quarters. So I give them a 50% chance at best to make Dec 3 undefeated (and, btw, why in the world do they have a month off before USC!?!).

My most valid statement about Georgia and Alabama was made a few weeks ago, when I took a look back at teams that have escaped the SEC undefeated. Each season was a serious down year for the other teams in the conference. This year isn't that. There's too many good teams, and it's much like the Big 10. No one can escape. I'm not sure USC could even escape the Big 10 or SEC.

Georgia: This just in: Georgia hasn't shown anything yet. They haven't had a real game to date. They beat Tennessee two weeks ago... but UT has looked ugly most of this season. Let's not forget they eeked out a home victory over South Carolina. How does that look now!?!?! Not very good. USC#2 may've been feeling a lot better about themselves back then... but that's a game you've got to put away. Alabama did it. Why couldn't Georgia. Admittedly there are only 3 real tests on slate for the Dawgs. But they are big tests. Florida, Auburn, and Georgia Tech. Florida has a great team I think people are starting to write off too early. It's obvious to me that Chris Leak is not a road quarterback. Good thing he doesn't have to be one in Jacksonville. Georgia really hasn't shown the enthusiasm and passion the other undefeateds have this year. And I think Florida will come in with a big itch to scratch and beat Georgia. If not there, Auburn is a good place to look for a loss. I'm not very convinced in Auburn... and a home game bodes well for Georgia... but it's the SEC... so you just can't be certain of any team winning consistantly... and Auburn has shown they are a decent team at the least.
Atlanta may be their biggest challenge of all. Georgia Tech has kind of gone behind the radar screen since VTech slaughtered them. The road doesn't get any easier for them, as they could conceivably lose 4 of their last 5. But I could also see them getting on a roll at home, beating Clemson and Wake (teams they should beat), then handling Virginia, and coming in with big passion to spoil their neighbor's run.
Oh yeah, did I forget... SEC title game anyone!?!

Alabama: Last and maybe least. Alabama is a good team. Their win over Florida was convincing that they have reached the next level. But their three remaining tough games are even a scarier bunch, Tennessee, LSU, and Auburn (who have a combined 4 losses). They lost Crothro, and their offense didn't look so good last week. That's the obvious. But I think their schedule is just as big a concern no matter who they have playing. I think Tennessee comes in with a chip on their shoulder after a poor start this week and tries to take it off on Bama (see Wolverines, Michigan). LSU has shown their ability to win on the road (Arizona State) and is one bad mistake of a 4th quarter from being undefeated still. They, in my mind, are the frontrunners for the SEC title. And then there's that whole Iron Bowl thing. Another one of those games where both teams come in with so much emotion. Auburn won't get there without losing again (in my mind), but they'll be all that much more passionate should Bama come in undefeated.
Did I mention there's an SEC title game? Who wants to play Florida again!?! Or Georgia!?!

Georgia and Bama still have huge rivalry games, three opponents near the Top 25, and the conference title game... and they play in the wacky SEC.
USC has three ranked oppoenents left, none really as good as the ones they've played, they've already weathered an awesome storm... and they're all home games.
Texas just has to play up to their ability, and they should win out if they do that. That's a big if with Texas.
Texas Tech wants to show they've reached the next level. Sorry, but I don't think they can, even if they beat Texas. No D.
UCLA has won some thrillers, but they haven't played strongly enough that they can survive the rest of the Pac 10 schedule... and even if they do... it'll be a mountain to climb to beat USC.

USC and VTech have done the most so far, with a good collection of victories. Texas and Alabama each have one big one. UCLA has shown some heart in surviving. Texas Tech has played Noone A&M.

If USC and VTech win out, it's gotta be them in Pasadena. No matter what happens. I have Texas #2 now because, so far they've played the better teams overall. And winning next week will help keep them there for a while. But VTech has a much tougher road left and looks like the better team when the race ends. And Texas can't cheat their way into the Rose Bowl this year.

3. If you were running the BCS system, would you let the computer rankings factor in margin of victory? Why or why not?

Not a chance.

College football is about whether you win or lose.

All you people who want a playoff (I am vehemently opposed to one)... you are telling me that winning a game, no matter how, is what makes you the better team. Chad argued last week in our poll-making that a heads up victory makes a team the better team no matter how the rest of their season has looked (though I won that battle this week with BC-FSU).

The margin of victory is largely forgotten in the long run. (See Jason's OSU poll for more great thoughts on this and other solid logic)

Margin of victory inclusion excites all kinds of ugly things against the spirit of the game. Do you remember in the NFL a few seasons ago when a team needed to win by like 54 (I believe it was Green Bay) and have help to make the playoffs in the final week. They came out in the 2 minute drill. I believe they also lost. But enough people got on Oklahoma for apparently running up the score vs Texas A&M a couple years back (note: they did NOT). An invitation to actually do so is the last thing we need.

Margin of victory IS a part of the BCS. Human pollsters can take whatever information they want into account when moving teams around. USC lost a few points in every poll this week. Over the course of the season, the team playing less spectacularly will pay with the human polls. It isn't a huge amount. But it's the right amount.

Why do we have the BCS?

Most people would probably just turn around with a higher pitched response... "WHY DO WE HAVE THE BCS". No one likes it any more. Why?

It was designed as a system to combine the biased but more dynamic human aspect of voting with the unbiased but strict rules of computers and other constants. It was to make a National Title Game that was the two best games. I could start going on about how the winners of the World Series, Super Bowl, and NCAA Tournament each year aren't
the best team in the nation, just the one that won the right set of games... but that'll inspire an overwhelming outcry, I know. Soon I will come up with a more formulated and logical response, including a lot of evidence, as to why I like the BCS.

But, putting the playoff argument aside, the BCS does what it was supposed to. Or it did. Until we went back to a system more based on point differential!

The BCS got broken in 2003. When we decided that, because Oklahoma didn't deserve to play in the title game over USC, we had to take away most of the computer's power because it didn't know what it was doing.
Our opinions may've been the correct one that year.
But we decided we'd make the system designed to fairly (with less bias than any committee or poll would have) choose the title game more influencable by us.

I think that was a bad choice, removing the loss, strength of schedule, and quality win categories... the three fairest parts of the system.

All the BCS is now is a glorified human poll. 67% is human voters. That means the people have the much more than majority rule over it. If a politcal party is 67% Democrat/Republican, they will get their way mainly. A politician can't lose Texas, New York, Florida, and California and still expect to win the presidential race. Even though the computers favored Texas in 2004, the reason Cal actually got jipped from a Rose Bowl berth came down to margin of victory that final week over Southern Miss. If margin entered the computers, it would've just been worse.

If we believe the voters and our opinions are already right, just remove the computers entirely. If we believe there are times when, in hindsight, our beliefs were wrong, keep the computers. I think instead of significantly altering the BCS each year because it hasn't reached our expected conclusion... perhaps we instead take a look at the 8 mighty computer polls behind it. Some are pretty rediculous! Georgia is #1 and Penn State #5 still in the Colley poll!?! What kind of messed up poll is that!?!

I'm a meteorologist. We have computer models too. When the forecast is very wrong, we don't look for a totally new way of representing the atmosphere, we look at what mistakes were made. We don't try to throw out our atmosperic data and equations and start from scratch. When they don't work very good, we try to advance the science working in the models. Tinker with stuff, find more perfect representation schemes. Perhaps not enough has been for this BCS land.

But to say margin of victory should be added seems ludicrous. It's already in the human polls. And it doesn't mean much. FSU looked ugly again a lot of teams this year, but ended up winning by a lot. Texas Tech's victories don't look that stellar. Does Bama beating South Carolina by more than Georgia make them the better team? But how do you deal with that? Is a 3 point win by FSU over Miami better than 3 50+ point wins by Texas Tech over bad schools? Say what you will, but it's comparing apples and oranges.

So maybe I'm saying you remove the computer polls before you stoop to adding margin of victory to the computers.

Maybe a BCS with human polls, a revised quality win component (counting wins over top 25 teams), strength of schedule, and losses is best.

From a person who doesn't want a playoff, though, I believe margin of victory only hurts things. And then my frustration over the additon of replay to college football will be replaced quickly with a new worst enemy (besides the looming playoff).

If you believe in a playoff, you believe it's about winning and losing, not the amount. Tennessee beat LSU. LSU was the better team. LSU was punished pretty hard for it. USC beat Notre Dame. Notre Dame was arguably the better team. Notre Dame wasn't punished nearly so bad. LSU only has 120 points on ND... even though Notre Dame has another loss to go with their's this weekend.

We need some consistancy.

But if you want a playoff, you can't call for margin of victory to be added. It's already in the human polls. And trying to make it count for so much more is doing exactly what you're against... basing things on something other than wins and lossees.

Let's get some consistancy!

It's said a lot by me, Chad, and a lot of people making the BlogPoll each week. So-and-so has a better body of work.

It's not about any one game totally. We accept that teams can have a really bad game here or there. Miami had a horrible one to start the season. LSU had a bad quarter a few weeks back.
We're always trying to be fair. I don't rate victories over the same team with the same weight... even if by the same score. How did the winning team look? Did the opponent come to play that game? Were there a lot of lucky bounces involved? How did the team then respond?
Margin of victory doesn't enter my own mind's poll. If margin of victory means so much, does that Florida, who beat UT by 9, is lightyears better than LSU, who threw it away late? Preposterous! Records mean more. And how teams play matter too. There are some sub-500 teams that I consider better than some 500 teams. Not just based on who they've played, but how they've played. Clemson is better than a lot of above 500 teams. Yet they lost bad to Wake.

What I'm getting at is that no single rule goes into my mind to rate teams. Not margin of victory, not ability or potential, not opponents played... not even number of victories. So maybe I've just realized I'm not a big fan of computer polls at all (though I still believe we need a system to apply some criteria to our beliefs to weight what can be some sharp biases). But I'm also saying that margin of victory just isn't near the top of anyone's list of comparison tools. Vanderbilt's 4 point win over Wake Forest means as much in my mind as Florida State's 17 pointer. Because of how the teams looked and the games they plaed. Nebraska's 7 point victory over Iowa State means way more than Baylor 10 point win the next week. Because teams aren't static entities. If you believe in momentum and iinspiration, how can you insist that a point differential means so much?