09-08-2016, 09:27 PM
Haha, it is a Jedi mind trick.
Alright let me look at the individual shifts. Here are the teams that jumped over Stanford:
#2 Texas (previously unranked): beat previously #10 Notre Dame. Fine, makes sense with his logic.
#5 Houston (Previously 15): beat previously #3 Oklahoma. Fine, makes sense, though I'm not sure why Texas' win over previously #10 Notre Dame in overtime would push the Longhorns from unranked to #2, while Houston's double digit win over previously #3 Oklahoma would move the Cougars from #15 to #10. Houston started more highly ranked, beat a more highly ranked team, and did so more decisively than Texas over Notre Dame, and yet Houston rises less than Texas? Wilner basically decides that Houston's win over Oklahoma was because Oklahoma wasn't that great (obviously, since Oklahoma lost by 10 to Houston!) While Texas' win over Notre Dame was because Texas was really much better than he thought (of course, since Texas beat a Notre Dame that pushed his new #2 Texas to overtime!) See what I mean about circular reasoning? It's almost like it is better to beat another team by a close score, because it proves that you beat a pretty good team rather than crushing the other team, which just proves the team you beat sucked and that your win should be discounted accordingly. Either way, though, I can justify jumping Texas and Houston over Stanford.
#6 Notre Dame (previously 10): Wait, what?!? Wilner jumped a team that lost to a previously unranked Big12 team over a team that beat a previously unranked Big12 team by 13 points. In what universe does that make sense? How does Notre Dame lose and move up in the rankings over any team that won?
#7 Wisconsin (previously unranked): Beat previously #5 LSU 16-14. I can see why he elevated Wisconsin over Stanford. But the Wisconsin win is at least as good as the Texas or Houston win, so why is Wisconsin behind Notre Dame, who lost?
#8 Texas A&M (previously unranked): Beat previously unranked UCLA. I'm not sure an overtime win over previously unranked UCLA merits a jump to #8, but you might make the case that UCLA is probably expected to be a stronger team than K-state. But it was an overtime win over an unranked team, so it's a bit puzzling that it is just worth one space lower on the totem poll than Wisconsin, who beat the previous #5 in regulation.
#11 TCU (previously #13): Beat unranked South Dakota State 59-41. Here's another one that doesn't make sense. TCU beats an FCS team by 18 in a game where they were ahead by 7 points after three quarters; Stanford beats a Power 5 team by 13 in a game they were up by two scores after three quarters. How does the TCU win merit jumping over Stanford, given that they beat an FCS opponent by a not-that-impressive game and Stanford beat a P5 opponent.
#12 Washington (previously #14): Beat unranked Rutgers. It was an impressive win, so I can understand jumping them, but my gut feeling is that K-State will be a better team (probably a bowl eligible team when all is said and done) than Rutgers, which should suck. But his assessment may be different, and at this juncture there is no way of knowing.
I can understand Texas, Houston, and Wisconsin jumping Stanford on the basis of very good wins. I can maybe understand Washington (not a great opponent, but a decisive score), and Texas A&M (not a decisive score, but UCLA was probably a better opponent than KState). I can't understand Notre Dame (they friggin lost!) or TCU (they beat South Dakota friggin state) jumping Stanford. Try to defend THAT!
BC
P.S. The data taken from here showing his current and last week's vote:
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll-voter/jon-wilner
Alright let me look at the individual shifts. Here are the teams that jumped over Stanford:
#2 Texas (previously unranked): beat previously #10 Notre Dame. Fine, makes sense with his logic.
#5 Houston (Previously 15): beat previously #3 Oklahoma. Fine, makes sense, though I'm not sure why Texas' win over previously #10 Notre Dame in overtime would push the Longhorns from unranked to #2, while Houston's double digit win over previously #3 Oklahoma would move the Cougars from #15 to #10. Houston started more highly ranked, beat a more highly ranked team, and did so more decisively than Texas over Notre Dame, and yet Houston rises less than Texas? Wilner basically decides that Houston's win over Oklahoma was because Oklahoma wasn't that great (obviously, since Oklahoma lost by 10 to Houston!) While Texas' win over Notre Dame was because Texas was really much better than he thought (of course, since Texas beat a Notre Dame that pushed his new #2 Texas to overtime!) See what I mean about circular reasoning? It's almost like it is better to beat another team by a close score, because it proves that you beat a pretty good team rather than crushing the other team, which just proves the team you beat sucked and that your win should be discounted accordingly. Either way, though, I can justify jumping Texas and Houston over Stanford.
#6 Notre Dame (previously 10): Wait, what?!? Wilner jumped a team that lost to a previously unranked Big12 team over a team that beat a previously unranked Big12 team by 13 points. In what universe does that make sense? How does Notre Dame lose and move up in the rankings over any team that won?
#7 Wisconsin (previously unranked): Beat previously #5 LSU 16-14. I can see why he elevated Wisconsin over Stanford. But the Wisconsin win is at least as good as the Texas or Houston win, so why is Wisconsin behind Notre Dame, who lost?
#8 Texas A&M (previously unranked): Beat previously unranked UCLA. I'm not sure an overtime win over previously unranked UCLA merits a jump to #8, but you might make the case that UCLA is probably expected to be a stronger team than K-state. But it was an overtime win over an unranked team, so it's a bit puzzling that it is just worth one space lower on the totem poll than Wisconsin, who beat the previous #5 in regulation.
#11 TCU (previously #13): Beat unranked South Dakota State 59-41. Here's another one that doesn't make sense. TCU beats an FCS team by 18 in a game where they were ahead by 7 points after three quarters; Stanford beats a Power 5 team by 13 in a game they were up by two scores after three quarters. How does the TCU win merit jumping over Stanford, given that they beat an FCS opponent by a not-that-impressive game and Stanford beat a P5 opponent.
#12 Washington (previously #14): Beat unranked Rutgers. It was an impressive win, so I can understand jumping them, but my gut feeling is that K-State will be a better team (probably a bowl eligible team when all is said and done) than Rutgers, which should suck. But his assessment may be different, and at this juncture there is no way of knowing.
I can understand Texas, Houston, and Wisconsin jumping Stanford on the basis of very good wins. I can maybe understand Washington (not a great opponent, but a decisive score), and Texas A&M (not a decisive score, but UCLA was probably a better opponent than KState). I can't understand Notre Dame (they friggin lost!) or TCU (they beat South Dakota friggin state) jumping Stanford. Try to defend THAT!
BC
P.S. The data taken from here showing his current and last week's vote:
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll-voter/jon-wilner