*Official* 2007 College Football Thread

[Abagadro]

Ballgame. Crazy.

[Paelos]

MADNESS! KEEP KNOCKING DOWN THE PINS AND GEORGIA HAS A CHANCE!

I'd much rather have a Georgia v. Ohio State championship than a W. Virginia v. Kansas matchup.

[Abagadro]

MADNESS! KEEP KNOCKING DOWN THE PINS AND GEORGIA HAS A CHANCE!

I'd much rather have a Georgia v. Ohio State championship than a W. Virginia v. Kansas matchup.

To be honest I think that loss just hurt your chances. You had a better shot of leapfrogging over OSU with a win over an LSU sitting at #1.

Could still happen though I agree.

[Triforcer]

I give the Bucks about a 50/50 shot of making the NC now (either Oklahoma beats the winner of Kansas/Missouri, or WV loses to Connecticut).  If they make it, can anyone really disagree that they'd stomp Kansas/Missouri/WVU? 

[Abagadro]

Who knows. They haven't played anyone decent to know if they are any good. 

[Paelos]

I give the Bucks about a 50/50 shot of making the NC now (either Oklahoma beats the winner of Kansas/Missouri, or WV loses to Connecticut).  If they make it, can anyone really disagree that they'd stomp Kansas/Missouri/WVU? 

50

Day

Layoff

You people never learn. Schedule a damn game during rivalry week instead of sitting on your asses.

[Nevermore]

I give the Bucks about a 50/50 shot of making the NC now (either Oklahoma beats the winner of Kansas/Missouri, or WV loses to Connecticut).  If they make it, can anyone really disagree that they'd stomp Kansas/Missouri/WVU? 

So much for that idea.  Do you really think WVU would get stomped by Ohio?

[Montague]

I give the Bucks about a 50/50 shot of making the NC now (either Oklahoma beats the winner of Kansas/Missouri, or WV loses to Connecticut).  If they make it, can anyone really disagree that they'd stomp Kansas/Missouri/WVU? 

So much for that idea.  Do you really think WVU would get stomped by Ohio?

Before the Illinois game, I'd say yes. Now, I don't think so. The spread option gave OSU fits in that game, but Tressel could conceivably fix that in 50 days. Maybe. I still think West Virginia is overrated but nobody is really all that good this year anyway.

@Paelos - The Big 10 makes the conference schedule, there's not much they can do about it. Besides,  I don't think the 50 day layoff had that much of an effect last year. What did was Troy Smith reporting to practice 15 lbs heavier after making the rounds of the banquet circuit and believing his own hype. Antonio Pittman worrying about how many carries he was going to get because he wanted to make his draft stock higher. The offensive linemen throwing a party into the wee hours of the morning two days before the game. Ted Ginn getting hurt on the kickoff return. Jim Heacock ignoring the game plan of every SEC defensive coach last year (pressure Chris Leak) and trying to rush 3. In short, Florida was already a bad matchup and every bit as good as OSU, but the seniors believed their own hype and were looking past Florida and there were coaching errors - hence the blowout.

This year OSU will be better in the bowl game because Tressel wont make the same mistakes again (I hope).

[Paelos]

@Paelos - The Big 10 makes the conference schedule, there's not much they can do about it. Besides,  I don't think the 50 day layoff had that much of an effect last year.

Spin it however you want. Long layoffs mean lazy players. The team that competes closer to the actual game, barring injuries, usually wins. Why? Game experience trumps all in football.

[Paelos]

Also, Kansas suck-diddly-ucks. We all knew it. We all said it. They finally blew it against Missou.

Thank god, because I was tired of their we-played-nobody-and-were-undefeated bullshit.

[Abagadro]

Also, Kansas suck-diddly-ucks. We all knew it. We all said it. They finally blew it against Missou.

Thank god, because I was tired of their we-played-nobody-and-were-undefeated bullshit.

Get ready to hear it from Hawaii for the next month and a half.

So what's the difference between Kansas and OSU again? Oh ya, nothing.

[Paelos]

Also, Kansas suck-diddly-ucks. We all knew it. We all said it. They finally blew it against Missou.

Thank god, because I was tired of their we-played-nobody-and-were-undefeated bullshit.

Get ready to hear it from Hawaii for the next month and a half.

So what's the difference between Kansas and OSU again? Oh ya, nothing.

A late win.

As sad as that sounds.

[Nevermore]

Ran across this the other day.

College football fans, coaches, and observers have adopted a set of beliefs about how college football poll voters behave. I document three pieces of conventional wisdom in college football regarding the timing of wins and losses, the value of playing strong opponents, and the value of winning by wide margins. Using a unique data set with 25 years of AP poll results, I test college football’s conventional wisdom. In particular, I test (1) whether it is better to lose early or late in the season, (2) whether teams benefit from playing stronger opponents, and (3) whether teams are rewarded for winning by large margins. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I find that (1) it is better to lose later in the season than earlier, (2) AP voters do not pay attention to the strength of a defeated opponent, and (3) the benefit of winning by a large margin is negligible. I conclude by noting how these results inform debates about a potential playoff in college football.

Probably some stats student's project, but still interesting if true.

[Montague]

Ran across this the other day.

College football fans, coaches, and observers have adopted a set of beliefs about how college football poll voters behave. I document three pieces of conventional wisdom in college football regarding the timing of wins and losses, the value of playing strong opponents, and the value of winning by wide margins. Using a unique data set with 25 years of AP poll results, I test college football’s conventional wisdom. In particular, I test (1) whether it is better to lose early or late in the season, (2) whether teams benefit from playing stronger opponents, and (3) whether teams are rewarded for winning by large margins. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I find that (1) it is better to lose later in the season than earlier, (2) AP voters do not pay attention to the strength of a defeated opponent, and (3) the benefit of winning by a large margin is negligible. I conclude by noting how these results inform debates about a potential playoff in college football.

Probably some stats student's project, but still interesting if true.

I've skimmed that paper and far be it from me to disparage an OSU prof, but I think he's off base. An empirical statistical analysis of late season losses is almost meaningless without context. Early season polls are subject to wild swings because the voters' impression of teams is much more malleable.

Take Michigan as an example. They were #5 when they lost to Appy State and fell all the way out of the Top 25. Now let's take a hypothetical #5 ranked 10-1 Michigan team that for some reason plays Appalachian State at the end of the year and loses. Chances are that team would drop like a rock in the polls, but likely no further than 18 or 19 because voters tend to stratify the poll by losses. Taken from a purely mathematical standpoint, teams do lose more ranking points when they lose early, but this is because there is a far larger pool of more attractive(undefeated) teams to rank ahead of the losing team. By late in the season everyone's blemishes and weaknesses become apparent, and voters aren't likely to vote a 9-3 South Florida team ahead of a 10-2 Michigan team even if they lost to a Div I-AA school.

Ranking points also doesn't take into account the loss of prestige from going to a BCS bowl down to the Capital One or Citrus Bowl because of a late loss.

[Murgos]

Ran across this the other day.

College football fans, coaches, and observers have adopted a set of beliefs about how college football poll voters behave. I document three pieces of conventional wisdom in college football regarding the timing of wins and losses, the value of playing strong opponents, and the value of winning by wide margins. Using a unique data set with 25 years of AP poll results, I test college football’s conventional wisdom. In particular, I test (1) whether it is better to lose early or late in the season, (2) whether teams benefit from playing stronger opponents, and (3) whether teams are rewarded for winning by large margins. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I find that (1) it is better to lose later in the season than earlier, (2) AP voters do not pay attention to the strength of a defeated opponent, and (3) the benefit of winning by a large margin is negligible. I conclude by noting how these results inform debates about a potential playoff in college football.

Probably some stats student's project, but still interesting if true.

I've skimmed that paper and far be it from me to disparage an OSU prof, but I think he's off base. An empirical statistical analysis of late season losses is almost meaningless without context. Early season polls are subject to wild swings because the voters' impression of teams is much more malleable.

Take Michigan as an example. They were #5 when they lost to Appy State and fell all the way out of the Top 25. Now let's take a hypothetical #5 ranked 10-1 Michigan team that for some reason plays Appalachian State at the end of the year and loses. Chances are that team would drop like a rock in the polls, but likely no further than 18 or 19 because voters tend to stratify the poll by losses. Taken from a purely mathematical standpoint, teams do lose more ranking points when they lose early, but this is because there is a far larger pool of more attractive(undefeated) teams to rank ahead of the losing team. By late in the season everyone's blemishes and weaknesses become apparent, and voters aren't likely to vote a 9-3 South Florida team ahead of a 10-2 Michigan team even if they lost to a Div I-AA school.

So, you are saying that empirically it is better to lose late in the season rather than early because you fall less far in the polls?  I'm pretty sure that's what the original thing said too...

[Montague]

Ran across this the other day.

College football fans, coaches, and observers have adopted a set of beliefs about how college football poll voters behave. I document three pieces of conventional wisdom in college football regarding the timing of wins and losses, the value of playing strong opponents, and the value of winning by wide margins. Using a unique data set with 25 years of AP poll results, I test college football’s conventional wisdom. In particular, I test (1) whether it is better to lose early or late in the season, (2) whether teams benefit from playing stronger opponents, and (3) whether teams are rewarded for winning by large margins. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I find that (1) it is better to lose later in the season than earlier, (2) AP voters do not pay attention to the strength of a defeated opponent, and (3) the benefit of winning by a large margin is negligible. I conclude by noting how these results inform debates about a potential playoff in college football.

Probably some stats student's project, but still interesting if true.

I've skimmed that paper and far be it from me to disparage an OSU prof, but I think he's off base. An empirical statistical analysis of late season losses is almost meaningless without context. Early season polls are subject to wild swings because the voters' impression of teams is much more malleable.

Take Michigan as an example. They were #5 when they lost to Appy State and fell all the way out of the Top 25. Now let's take a hypothetical #5 ranked 10-1 Michigan team that for some reason plays Appalachian State at the end of the year and loses. Chances are that team would drop like a rock in the polls, but likely no further than 18 or 19 because voters tend to stratify the poll by losses. Taken from a purely mathematical standpoint, teams do lose more ranking points when they lose early, but this is because there is a far larger pool of more attractive(undefeated) teams to rank ahead of the losing team. By late in the season everyone's blemishes and weaknesses become apparent, and voters aren't likely to vote a 9-3 South Florida team ahead of a 10-2 Michigan team even if they lost to a Div I-AA school.

So, you are saying that empirically it is better to lose late in the season rather than early because you fall less far in the polls?  I'm pretty sure that's what the original thing said too...

Heh. Nothing like arguing against a point by proving it. That novella was supposed to have a sentence at the end that said "But a Michigan team that lost its first two games but then won 10 straight would almost certainly be ranked higher".

 



 

 

[Paelos]

Honestly, I think at this point we need to cut some of the games to get to a playoff scenario. We could keep the bowls as a kind of losers bracket, but a 12 game regular season is crap. I don't want to be watching regular season football after Thanksgiving. That's ridiculous.

[Rasix]

Penalty of the year.

[Nevermore]

The South Florida Bulls will be heading to the Sun Bowl which (due to overall crappy Big East bowl tie-ins) is the best non-BCS bowl a Big East team could get into this year (since the Gator Bowl had a hard-on for a Big 12 team this year).  Looks likely they'll play either Oregon or Oregon State (or UCLA, but I really hope not), depending on who wins this weekend and whether Arizona State ends up in a BCS bowl or not.  It's really a shame about Dixon's knee; a full strength Oregon vs USF would have been a hella fun game to watch.

[cmlancas]

I was really hoping for the ACCvBigE, FSUvUSF, in the Papajohns.com bowl. FSU publicly said they would decline going to that bowl though.

I'd rather watch a rematch of WVU and USF. or UFvUSF.

Nobody on this coast really gives a damn about OU/OSU/ASU.

[Abagadro]

Honestly, I think at this point we need to cut some of the games to get to a playoff scenario. We could keep the bowls as a kind of losers bracket, but a 12 game regular season is crap. I don't want to be watching regular season football after Thanksgiving. That's ridiculous.

Dan Wetzel had a pretty decent column today about how to do a playoff.

[Abagadro]

Penalty of the year.

That guy must be a fan of Ben Dreith.

[Montague]

Just thought I'd point out that on ESPN's CF page they have a poll: "Who is to blame if Ohio State makes it to the title game?"

Hehehehe.

[Paelos]

I want OU to beat Missouri into the ground. Then, Georgia goes to the Rose Bowl!

[Nevermore]

Unless Illinois sneaks up one spot in the rankings, then they go to the Rose Bowl.

[Montague]

Unless Illinois sneaks up one spot in the rankings, then they go to the Rose Bowl.

I doubt it. If OSU goes to the title game the Rose gets to pick from all teams not locked into a bowl. Most likely they take Georgia.

[Abagadro]

This season shows the complete bankruptcy of the BCS system. The games aren't over yet, but it looks like both WVU and Missouri are going to lose. If the next two teams move up you will have a team that played nobody decent play a team that didn't even win its own subdivision of its conference for a national championship.  How screwed up is that?

[Triforcer]

Pitt wins!  Of all the unlikely things to happen this year, this is by far full of the most unlikelitude. 

[Trippy]

I say Stanford beating USC was more unlikely.

[Montague]

This season shows the complete bankruptcy of the BCS system. The games aren't over yet, but it looks like both WVU and Missouri are going to lose. If the next two teams move up you will have a team that played nobody decent play a team that didn't even win its own subdivision of its conference for a national championship.  How screwed up is that?

FWIW, they're projecting LSU in the BCS - predicting they leapfrog Kansas in the polls

[Nevermore]

West Virginia didn't think they'd escape the Curse of the #2, did they?  I think that's the 10th #2 to lose this season.

If that Oklahoma/Mizzou score holds, it's going to be BCS chaos.

[Abagadro]

This season shows the complete bankruptcy of the BCS system. The games aren't over yet, but it looks like both WVU and Missouri are going to lose. If the next two teams move up you will have a team that played nobody decent play a team that didn't even win its own subdivision of its conference for a national championship.  How screwed up is that?

FWIW, they're projecting LSU in the BCS - predicting they leapfrog Kansas in the polls

In the BCS, but not the Championship. They would have to move from 7 to 2 by leaping over VaTech, Kansas and Georgia. I suppose it's possible but it would take a lot of voters doing things differently than they usually do with the "move one up" if you don't lose a game syndrome.

[Montague]

This season shows the complete bankruptcy of the BCS system. The games aren't over yet, but it looks like both WVU and Missouri are going to lose. If the next two teams move up you will have a team that played nobody decent play a team that didn't even win its own subdivision of its conference for a national championship.  How screwed up is that?

FWIW, they're projecting LSU in the BCS - predicting they leapfrog Kansas in the polls

In the BCS, but not the Championship. They would have to move from 7 to 2 by leaping over VaTech, Kansas and Georgia. I suppose it's possible but it would take a lot of voters doing things differently than they usually do with the "move one up" if you don't lose a game syndrome.

No, I meant the championship.  Said that the points from moving past Kansans and the computer points from beating Tennessee should put them in. Of course this is ESPN, so caveat emptor and all that.

[Abagadro]

I don't see that win having that large of an effect in the computer especially in comparison to VaTech.  VaTech is at 6 in the computer with .810 and beat the number 8 team in the computer BC.  LSU is 7 in the computer with a .790 and beat Tennessee which is at 13 in the computer with .510. So VaTech is higher and beat a higher ranked (by the computer) team.


EDIT: So LSU would have to make it up in the Harris and USA today which would mean voters leapfrogging them over Kansas, Georgia and VaTech which usually doesn't happen.

[Triforcer]

I wish that were true, but the entire college football world seems obsessed with LSU and putting them in the championship this year.  Actual game results don't matter, its a majarical combination of hype and APPRECIATING THEIR SECRET INNER TALENT/BEAUTY.