[BostonCard]

As usual, his logic is... uh... interesting.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...falls-out/

So he gives Michigan State the #1 slot based on their victory over his previous #8 Oregon, with the logic that it is the most impressive win of the season.  OK, reasonable logic, whatever.  But then he decides to move Oregon from #8 to #4 on the basis that it was a close game.  If Michigan State's win is impressive enough to merit movement to #1, then you can't say that Oregon kept it close enough that they too should be moved up.

Oy vei.

He does have Northwestern as #21.

BC

[BostonCard]

As usual, his logic is... uh... interesting.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...falls-out/

So he gives Michigan State the #1 slot based on their victory over his previous #8 Oregon, with the logic that it is the most impressive win of the season.  OK, reasonable logic, whatever.  But then he decides to move Oregon from #8 to #4 on the basis that it was a close game.  If Michigan State's win is impressive enough to merit movement to #1, then you can't say that Oregon kept it close enough that they too should be moved up.

Oy vei.

He does have Northwestern as #21.

BC

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I actually follow his logic.  He's saying Oregon is the 4th best team in the country, in his eyes, as they played his #1 team in the country very tough.  I don't agree with his conclusion, but I get it.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I actually follow his logic.  He's saying Oregon is the 4th best team in the country, in his eyes, as they played his #1 team in the country very tough.  I don't agree with his conclusion, but I get it.

[stupac2]

Who cares? The AP poll is utterly meaningless masturbation now.

[stupac2]

Who cares? The AP poll is utterly meaningless masturbation now.

[martyup]

I don't know how he could have Notre Dame at #5 when they needed a miracle to beat UVA.  Also, I noticed that he has NW in the top 25.  If they stay ranked, then our loss doesn't look as bad on paper.

[martyup]

I don't know how he could have Notre Dame at #5 when they needed a miracle to beat UVA.  Also, I noticed that he has NW in the top 25.  If they stay ranked, then our loss doesn't look as bad on paper.

[winflop]

I don't know how he could have the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends at #5 when they needed a miracle to beat UVA.  Also, I noticed that he has NW in the top 25.  If they stay ranked, then our loss doesn't look as bad on paper.

You can put as much lipstick on that paper as you want marty.  That was one of the ugliest losses I've seen from a Stanford team since IdiotFace and HeWhoMustNotBeNamed.

[winflop]

I don't know how he could have the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends at #5 when they needed a miracle to beat UVA.  Also, I noticed that he has NW in the top 25.  If they stay ranked, then our loss doesn't look as bad on paper.

You can put as much lipstick on that paper as you want marty.  That was one of the ugliest losses I've seen from a Stanford team since IdiotFace and HeWhoMustNotBeNamed.

[BostonCard]

I actually follow his logic.  He's saying Oregon is the 4th best team in the country, in his eyes, as they played his #1 team in the country very tough.  I don't agree with his conclusion, but I get it.

I don't; it's circular logic.  The reason he made MSU his #1 team is that they beat Oregon.  It would be one thing if he elevated Oregon for losing a tight game against a team he already had ranked #1, but that's not what happened; he increased the ranking of both teams.

By definition, only one of the two teams could have exceeded his expectation.  If he expected MSU to win big and Oregon kept it closer than he expected, fine, raise Oregon, but then he shouldn't have made Michigan State #1.  If he expected Oregon to win, then by winning MSU exceeded expectations and it's perfectly fine for them to be #1, but then don't also raise Oregon's ranking (unless teams ahead of Oregon embarrassed themselves, which they didn't).

It's exactly this sort of circular logic that lets him rank the SEC so highly when they beat up on each other.  If SEC team A wins, then he raises their ranking because they beat a tough SEC opponent.  But then he doesn't penalize the losing team, because they kept it close against a highly ranked SEC team.

Roughly speaking, if one team exceeds expectations, then the other one had to have underperformed.  That is the logic behind the ELO system in chess (and that 538 applies to the NFL).  Points given to the winner of a match are deducted from the loser, in rough proportion to the degree of surprise of the result; thus a win over a good team gives the winner more points than a win over a bad team.

BC

[BostonCard]

I actually follow his logic.  He's saying Oregon is the 4th best team in the country, in his eyes, as they played his #1 team in the country very tough.  I don't agree with his conclusion, but I get it.

I don't; it's circular logic.  The reason he made MSU his #1 team is that they beat Oregon.  It would be one thing if he elevated Oregon for losing a tight game against a team he already had ranked #1, but that's not what happened; he increased the ranking of both teams.

By definition, only one of the two teams could have exceeded his expectation.  If he expected MSU to win big and Oregon kept it closer than he expected, fine, raise Oregon, but then he shouldn't have made Michigan State #1.  If he expected Oregon to win, then by winning MSU exceeded expectations and it's perfectly fine for them to be #1, but then don't also raise Oregon's ranking (unless teams ahead of Oregon embarrassed themselves, which they didn't).

It's exactly this sort of circular logic that lets him rank the SEC so highly when they beat up on each other.  If SEC team A wins, then he raises their ranking because they beat a tough SEC opponent.  But then he doesn't penalize the losing team, because they kept it close against a highly ranked SEC team.

Roughly speaking, if one team exceeds expectations, then the other one had to have underperformed.  That is the logic behind the ELO system in chess (and that 538 applies to the NFL).  Points given to the winner of a match are deducted from the loser, in rough proportion to the degree of surprise of the result; thus a win over a good team gives the winner more points than a win over a bad team.

BC

[FarmBoy]

I don't; it's circular logic.

To be fair, at this point of the season, all rankings require a lot of circular logic and assumptions about pre-season strength and quality. If I were lord of college football, I would disallow teams to be ranked until they've played at least 4 FBS opponents.

Who cares? The AP poll is utterly meaningless masturbation now.

Unless you believe the football playoff committee is influenced by the media noise, which I do. If TV broadcasts are using the AP rankings to promote games, then the committee will take note when teams play and beat "top 25 teams". Hopefully they're relying on advanced statistics as well, but given human nature, I don't doubt the committee members will be psychologically affected by the numbers next to the team names.

[FarmBoy]

I don't; it's circular logic.

To be fair, at this point of the season, all rankings require a lot of circular logic and assumptions about pre-season strength and quality. If I were lord of college football, I would disallow teams to be ranked until they've played at least 4 FBS opponents.

Who cares? The AP poll is utterly meaningless masturbation now.

Unless you believe the football playoff committee is influenced by the media noise, which I do. If TV broadcasts are using the AP rankings to promote games, then the committee will take note when teams play and beat "top 25 teams". Hopefully they're relying on advanced statistics as well, but given human nature, I don't doubt the committee members will be psychologically affected by the numbers next to the team names.

[oldalum]

I don't think MSU's rise to #1 is based on their exceeding expectations. The first rankings are based purely on speculation but are not purely random; there is a good chance that a few teams (say, e.g., Stanford) might not perform according to initial expectations and therefore get dropped from the rankings. But it is not likely that most initially ranked teams will turn out not to be ranked later on. But at this point in the season, when two currently ranked teams play each other and the game is very close, we learn more than their currently correct rank order and that they should be close in ranking. The chance that both teams don't really deserve to be in the top 25 is far less than the chance that just one is a fraud, so we have much greater certainty that both teams deserve to be ranked. They therefore should rise above most (I would argue all if you want to be strictly evidence based) of the initially ranked teams that beat cream puffs, because we don't really have any more confidence based on results that those easy-but-meaningless-win teams belong in the ranking at all. I.e., playing a close game against a team you think is really good is better than blowing out a team that you think is bad. So I don't think elevating MSU to #1 is wrong, and the gap between MSU and Oregon should be close but its precise size is pure speculation.

[oldalum]

I don't think MSU's rise to #1 is based on their exceeding expectations. The first rankings are based purely on speculation but are not purely random; there is a good chance that a few teams (say, e.g., Stanford) might not perform according to initial expectations and therefore get dropped from the rankings. But it is not likely that most initially ranked teams will turn out not to be ranked later on. But at this point in the season, when two currently ranked teams play each other and the game is very close, we learn more than their currently correct rank order and that they should be close in ranking. The chance that both teams don't really deserve to be in the top 25 is far less than the chance that just one is a fraud, so we have much greater certainty that both teams deserve to be ranked. They therefore should rise above most (I would argue all if you want to be strictly evidence based) of the initially ranked teams that beat cream puffs, because we don't really have any more confidence based on results that those easy-but-meaningless-win teams belong in the ranking at all. I.e., playing a close game against a team you think is really good is better than blowing out a team that you think is bad. So I don't think elevating MSU to #1 is wrong, and the gap between MSU and Oregon should be close but its precise size is pure speculation.

[Hulk01]

Hard not to be impressed by Michigan State's 37-24 win over Western Michigan. and Oregon's 61-42 win over Eastern Washington. 

[Hulk01]

Hard not to be impressed by Michigan State's 37-24 win over Western Michigan. and Oregon's 61-42 win over Eastern Washington. 

[oldalum]

You're easily impressed, then.  ;)
If you think neither MSU nor OU should have been ranked after their first-game results, then my reasoning (or guess at Wilner's reasoning) would not apply. But if you would still have ranked them in the top 25 after week 1, then margin of victory vs. unranked teams would be a second- or third-order effect after wins or losses against ranked teams. And plenty of other supposedly top teams had marginal first games as well.

[oldalum]

You're easily impressed, then.  ;)
If you think neither MSU nor OU should have been ranked after their first-game results, then my reasoning (or guess at Wilner's reasoning) would not apply. But if you would still have ranked them in the top 25 after week 1, then margin of victory vs. unranked teams would be a second- or third-order effect after wins or losses against ranked teams. And plenty of other supposedly top teams had marginal first games as well.

[CTcard]

I give Wilner credit for trying to base his ballot on what the AP people ask for. But, it's a plus scheme with minus execution, as it seems too much for him to keep it all straight - not to mention bits of circular logic noted by BC.

Other Wilner rankings of note:
18. ASU
So ASU has a fairly bad loss vs Texas AM (despite a score that was close-ish until 4 minutes left - they were pushed around badly) and a difficult win vs Cal Poly San Luis Opispo. Wilner has them the highest of anyone in the country by 5 spots.

7. Texas AM
Apparently this high ranking is on the strength of their win over his over-rated ASU. Circular logic is back.
Though while Wilner has them a lot higher than their overall placement (#14) he is not as crazy as one guy who put AM at #2.

12. Utah
Not actually crazy with wins over Michigan and Utah State, but that's a lot of credit for teams we don't really know much about yet. Next highest voter has them at #14 then #17, actual #21.

22. Boise State.
Lost a close game to his #14 BYU, dropped from Wilner's #20 in the previous week. Similar issue to the MSU-Oregon, but less extreme.

[CTcard]

I give Wilner credit for trying to base his ballot on what the AP people ask for. But, it's a plus scheme with minus execution, as it seems too much for him to keep it all straight - not to mention bits of circular logic noted by BC.

Other Wilner rankings of note:
18. ASU
So ASU has a fairly bad loss vs Texas AM (despite a score that was close-ish until 4 minutes left - they were pushed around badly) and a difficult win vs Cal Poly San Luis Opispo. Wilner has them the highest of anyone in the country by 5 spots.

7. Texas AM
Apparently this high ranking is on the strength of their win over his over-rated ASU. Circular logic is back.
Though while Wilner has them a lot higher than their overall placement (#14) he is not as crazy as one guy who put AM at #2.

12. Utah
Not actually crazy with wins over Michigan and Utah State, but that's a lot of credit for teams we don't really know much about yet. Next highest voter has them at #14 then #17, actual #21.

22. Boise State.
Lost a close game to his #14 BYU, dropped from Wilner's #20 in the previous week. Similar issue to the MSU-Oregon, but less extreme.