Do not speak of Notre Dame again

I know the perils of transitive results in college football. Matchups matter, other externalities may affect results, injuries can happen, etc.

But when it's a one week difference for comparisons, and a number of the externalities would normally work against the point you're trying to make, well, I'll make an exception.

One week ago, Temple (yes, TEMPLE, as in arguably the worst team in FBS this decade, the team that got booted out of the Big East even though all the good teams were fleeing, the team whose current senior class once was part of a 26 game losing streak, the team who opened this season with a home loss to FCS Villanova... that Temple) went on the road and beat Navy. Navy is OK this year, but not great. Temple is probably the biggest surprise of the season in college football, yes, but it was a close win by the Owls.

Yesterday, Notre Dame, at home, ranked and with an excellent chance at a BCS berth, loses to that same Navy team when Heisman wannabe Clausen took a sack in the endzone in the last minute of the game.

Just a couple of years ago, Temple was booted out of the Big East (the same Big East that allows Notre Dame to compete in most sports but allows Notre Dame to hoard their football cash and remain an independent). In 2006, when the current seniors at Temple were suffering through that 26 game losing streak, Temple had to play as an independent before the MAC would allow them to join. Only, unlike Notre Dame, Temple didn't have their own TV contract or preferential treatment from bowls.

Today, Temple can go on the road and do something that Notre Dame can't do at home. The Owls also have a better overall record.

So here's my modest proposal: Notre Dame shouldn't get a single benefit of the doubt - ever. No more BCS preferential treatment. Let Notre Dame be treated like all the other teams not playing in a tough conference. TCU, Boise State, Utah, Houston, BYU, Troy, Central Michigan, and yes, even Temple... all those teams have an objective, reasonable claim to a BCS bowl bid ahead of the Irish. Of course, only one of those teams can get a BCS bowl bid, while the Irish can play a cakewalk schedule, face no conference opponents (and the difficulty appurtenant thereto - you play the same team every year and they know your tendencies and have seen all of your film multiple times when scouting your other opponents), and can still waltz into the BCS with a good but not great record. ND can play after January 1 thanks to rules that apply to nobody else. While other teams would finish 3rd or 4th in their conference and go to a respectable bowl with a 9-3 or 10-2 schedule, the Irish get an 8 figure unshared payout.

Join a real conference, go undefeated against a real schedule, or just play by the same rules as the other minor football programs. Until the Irish do anything like that, no credit, no benefit of the doubt.

Read More...

Summary only...

Five Field Goals

Assume for the moment that South Carolina is capable, or at least competent offensively.

Now, hypothesize that Georgia would play an aggressive, risk-taking defense, rather than a keep-everything-in-front-of you, no big plays defense.

What percentage of drives do you believe would end in a punt or turnover as a result of such aggressiveness?

Aesthetically, Georgia's defense is death by a thousand cuts. So painful to watch. You can see the frustration on the faces of offensive players begging to be allowed back on the field. You fear for the lungs and legs of the defensive players who've been asked so much from. It seems like such a terrible strategy, this bend-but-don't-break thing.

But then I see South Carolina forced to kick 5 field goals with a line of scrimmage inside our 25, and a goal line stop to seal the game to boot. That's crazy. Consider - what if Georgia did play an aggressive, risk-taking strategy and caused INTs or fumble recoveries on half of those possessions, but allowed TDs on the other half (which would've been insanely efficient for a D.) Well, that'd be 21 points where 15 were allowed - and a 4 point win would've become a 2 point loss.

Anecdotal, yes. And still ugly. And, of course, an aggressive defense might very well stop drives long before they get into the red zone. And bend-but-don't-break doesn't always lead to 5 FGs and a goal line stop - an unlucky bounce or a bad call or a missed assignment or a slipped tackle and one of those FGs becomes a TD. But... walking out of the stadium, I thought maybe we were lucky, but maybe Martinez's strategy actually preserved a win.

I guess it depends on what you think of South Carolina's offense. If it's capable of making a team pay for taking risks, then against similarly talented offenses, I might swallow hard and suffer through the continuous stream of 8 yard tight end curl routes on 3rd and 7s. If it's the kind of team that completes around half its passes and can't muster 150 yards against a mid-tier ACC team... well, then the Dawgs might think about taking a few more risks against some of their upcoming opponents.

Read More...

Summary only...

Nugget from Phil Steele for next weekend

So I read Phil Steele on the can, and it could be said that I'm not exactly studying during that time. So I want to make sure I remember a few nuggs that kind of jump off the page.

In his "Football 365 Days a Year" piece, which sticks in a number of items he couldn't fit into their own full article, Steele focuses on starts lost to injury in the previous year. Basically, he suggests that injuries have a lot to do with luck, and a team that suffers a ton of injuries one year isn't likely to suffer as many the next while a team with an incredibly small number of injuries isn't likely to have the same good fortune. Relatedly, a team that has suffered a lot of injuries in the previous year benefits from a few silver linings: not only will many of those good players who were injured return (and since they were the starters before injury, it's possible they add significant talent), but because of those same injuries, the team allowed backups to gain significant in-game experience.

For example, Trinton Sturdivant was Georgia's best lineman heading into last year, when he suffered a season-ending injury in training camp. He returns this year, providing a strong infusion of talent (assuming he's healthy). Consider also, that because of Sturdivant's injury, Vince Vance made 6 starts (before also getting injured). Vance is back now too. Further, because of Vance's injury, Clint Boling played all over the line (versatility can be a massive advantage for a pretty deep line). And Bean Anderson picked up 7 starts. Now, entering the season, Vance and Anderson are backups on the depth chart and they have 13 starts and hundreds of snaps under their belt.

Back to Steele (and this is on pg. 314 if you're keeping up at home). Steele has calculated a raw number of games that starters have lost to injury or suspension. Then he's analyzed how teams with significantly large or small amounts of games starters have lost performed in the next year. Steele's numbers over the last 5 years:

If a team loses 32 or more starts in one year, 74.5% of the time that team improves their record the following year (41 out of 55).

If a team loses 6 or fewer starts in one year, only 35.7% of the time did that team improve their record the following year (15 of 42).

Steele's anecdotes are even better. This time last year, Utah had the most starts lost in the previous season (51 starts lost). They improved from 9-4 to 13-0. This time last year, Illinois was coming off a run to the Rose Bowl in a year when they suffered just 2 starts lost. They ended up 5-7. Purdue lost just 4 starts in 2007 when they went 8-4; they went 4-8 in 2008.

So how does this fit in with next weekend?

Last year, Georgia lost 44 starts to injury or suspension, which was tied for 6th most in the nation.

Last year, Oklahoma State lost all of 2 starts to injury or suspension, which was the second fewest in the nation.

From my numbers, guys who are listed as backups on Georgia's current depth chart have as many as 47 career starts, among at least 10 different players (and that's just for last year). Oklahoma State's depth chart has backups with 8 total starts and that's just 2 players.

Could be hot next week. If it's a shootout, players will need to get rotated in and out. Just something to think about.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lebowski Standings - Final 2008

Done this in past years.  Rankings based upon who had the best season at winning each game on their schedule.  Ties among teams with the same record are broken via ColleyRatings strength of schedule, except where one team won a head-to-head matchup.  Full list below the fold.


120.  Washington  0-12 (1)
119.  North Texas 1-11 (102)
118.  SMU 1-11 (77)
117.  Washington State  2-11 (50)
116.  Miami U.  2-10 (113)
115.  Western Kentucky  2-10 (103)
114.  Idaho  2-10  (98)
113.  Tulane  2-10 (85)
112.  Iowa State  2-10 (76)
111.  San Diego State  2-10 (71)
110.  Eastern Michigan  3-9 (105)
109.  Army  3-9 (101)
108.  New Mexico State  3-9 (97)
107.  Indiana  3-9 (64)
106.  Utah State  3-9 (48)
105.  Michigan  3-9 (36)
104.  Toledo  3-9  (108)*
103.  Syracuse  3-9 (16)
102.  Kent State  4-8 (125)
101.  Louisiana-Monroe  4-8 (124)
100.  Ohio  4-8 (110)
99.  Wyoming  4-8 (81)
98.  Marshall  4-8 (70)
97.  Central Florida  4-8 (93)*
96.  UAB  4-8 (104)*
95.  New Mexico  4-8 (51)
94.  Mississippi State  4-8 (45)
93.  Texas A&M  4-8 (44)
92.  Purdue  4-8  (41)
91.  UCLA  4-8  (28)
90.  Baylor  4-8 (12)
89.  Duke  4-8 (8)
88.  MTSU  5-7 (122)
87.  Florida International  5-7 (119)
86.  Akron  5-7 (115)
85.  Temple  5-7 (106)
84.  UTEP  5-7 (84)
83.  Kansas State  5-7 (80)
82.  Louisville  5-7 (68)
81.  Illinois  5-7 (55)
80.  Tennessee  5-7 (32)
79.  Auburn  5-7 (38)*
78.  Colorado  5-7 (23)
77.  Stanford  5-7 (22)
76.  Arizona State  5-7 (53)*
75.  UNLV  5-7 (72)*
74.  Arkansas  5-7 (6)
73.  Virginia  5-7 (2)
72.  Northern Illinois  6-7 (118)
71.  Memphis  6-7 (111)
70.  NC State  6-7 (11)
69.  Hawaii  7-7 (75)
68.  Arkansas State  6-6 (123)
67.  Louisiana-Lafayette  6-6 (126)*
66.  Bowling Green  6-6 (117)
65.  San Jose State  6-6 (107)
64.  Florida Atlantic  7-6 (109)
63.  Southern Mississippi  7-6 (96)
62.  Fresno State  7-6 (95)
61.  Minnesota  7-6 (88)
60.  Nevada  7-6 (82)
59.  Wisconsin  7-6 (66)
58.  Notre Dame  7-6 (63)
57.  Colorado State  7-6 (61)
56.  Kentucky  7-6 (56)
55.  U. of Miami 7-6 (18)
54.  South Carolina  7-6 (14)
53.  Clemson  7-6 (21)*
52.  Vanderbilt  7-6 (13)
51.  Buffalo  8-6 (94)
50.  Troy  8-5 (121)
49.  Louisiana Tech 8-5 (114)
48.  Central Michigan  8-5 (112)
47.  Houston  8-5 (92)
46.  Arizona  8-5 (79)
45.  Air Force  8-5 (78)
44.  Navy  8-5 (86)*
43.  Connecticut  8-5 (58)
42.  Louisiana State  8-5 (47)
41.  Kansas  8-5 (29)
40.  South Florida  8-5 (67)*
39.  Rutgers  8-5 (59)*
38.  North Carolina  8-5 (20)
37.  Wake Forest  8-5 (9)
36.  Maryland  8-5 (46)*
35.  East Carolina  9-5 (83)
34.  Boston College  9-5 (30)
33.  Western Michigan  9-4 (116)
32.  Iowa  9-4 (74)
31.  Northwestern 9-4 (87)*
30.  West Virginia  9-4 (54)
29.  Oklahoma State  9-4 (43)
28.  Michigan State  9-4 (37)
27.  Nebraska  9-4 (34)
26.  California  9-4 (31)
25.  Florida State  9-4 (27)
24.  Georgia Tech  9-4 (42)*
23.  Mississippi  9-4 (26)
22.  Pittsburgh  9-4 (15)
21.  Oregon State  9-4 (7)
20.  Missouri  10-4 (39)
19.  Virginia Tech  10-4 (17)
18.  Rice  10-3 (100)
17.  Brigham Young  10-3 (91)
16.  Oregon  10-3 (52)
15.  Ohio State 10-3 (40)
14.  Georgia  10-3 (10)
13.  Tulsa  11-3 (120)
12.  Cincinnati  11-3 (62)
11.  TCU  11-2 (69)
10.  Penn State  11-2 (65)
9.  Texas Tech  11-2 (60)
8.  Ball State  12-2 (127)
7.  Alabama  12-2 (33)
6.  Oklahoma 12-2 (4)
5.  Boise State  12-1 (99)
4.  Southern California  12-1 (35)
3.  Texas  12-1 (5)
2.  Florida  13-1 (3)
1.  Utah  13-0 (73)

Read More...

Summary only...

Yikes

472 yards rushing against a D that only gave up 23 points and 345 total yards to Florida? And we gave up how many yards to that freshman Kentucky QB on the option? Scary.

I'm not feeling as good about 8 in a row as I was a few months ago.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pepsi Challenge: Mediocre-ish Teams Edition

Which team is better?

Team A:

5-2

1 win vs 1-AA/FCS opponent

Unbeaten in own conference

438 yards per game (20th nationally)

34 points per game (25th)

338 yards allowed per game (49th)

22 points allowed per game (49th)

113th toughest schedule according to Colley Ratings

97th toughest schedule according to GBE

Both losses to top-15 teams (one team is 7-1, the other is 7-2, both from major conferences, both on the road).

No wins over ranked opponents.

Team B:

5-2

1 win vs. 1-AA/FCS opponent.

Unbeaten in own conference

357 yards per game (69th)

24 points per game (71st)

312 yards allowed per game (34th)

15 points allowed per game (11th)

112th toughest schedule according to Colley Ratings

110th toughest schedule according to GBE

Both losses to teams at or near .500 (one is 4-4, the other 4-3, one from a major conference, the other a mid-major, both on the road)

No wins over ranked opponents

One team scores a lot more, the other allows a lot fewer points.  Neither team has played a decent schedule.  Neither team has proven that they can beat a good opponent, but one of these teams at least has only lost to very good teams.

Neither team is in line for the national title or anything, so this is more of an academic exercise than one that will determine anything all that important.

But Team B is currently 26th in both the AP and Coaches' Polls.  Team A barely gets a whiff of votes in either poll (no votes in the Coaches' poll, 1/13th the number of votes in the AP poll that Team B got).  And I've seen a few bloggers giving blogpoll votes to Team B.  

We're at the point in the season where what people think will happen ought to be eclipsed by the evidence of what has happened.  The evidence doesn't show any real difference between these two teams.

So why is it that people give the benefit of doubt to West Virginia (Team B) but don't give the same deference to Troy (Team A)?

Just askin'.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pepsi Challenge: High Powered Offense Edition

Which team is better?

Team A:

7-0

2 wins vs. 1-AA/FBS opponents

45.9 points per game on offense (5th)

557 yards per game on offense (2nd)

21.1 points allowed per game on defense (43rd)

24.8 scoring margin

126th toughest schedule according to Colley Rankings

116th toughest schedule according to GBE

Against toughest opponent: home vs. 4-3 team, in overtime, by 6 points

Team B:

7-0

1 win vs. 1-AA/FBS opponent

56.6 points per game on offense (1st)

624 yards per game on offense (1st)

27.1 points allowed per game on defense (80th)

29.5 scoring margin

129th toughest schedule according to Colley Rankings.

120th toughest schedule according to GBE

Against toughest opponent: home vs. 4-3 team, by 35 points

Both teams have played against atrocious schedules.  One has played slightly worse opponents, but the other has played 2 lower division opponents.  Neither has played a ranked opponent.

One has a higher powered offense, while the other has a slightly better defense.  Both teams have one close win (6 points), but all of their other games were blowouts.

So...

Any idea why one team is ranked in the top 6 in the coaches' poll, while the other barely cracks the top 25?  Any idea why one team got 4 times as many points in the AP poll as the other?

What is it about Texas Tech (Team A) that is that much more impressive than Tulsa (Team B)?

Just askin'.

Read More...

Summary only...

About Saturday

1. William Hung has more rhythm than the officiating crew of the USC-UGA game. The only thing they were good at was stopping frequently enough to allow me to replenish my beer. So thanks for the hangover, incompetent refs!

2. On that same note, I don't think the refs changed the outcome of the game. I do think that they affected both offenses. The game did not have to look that ugly, offensively, for either team. Georgia's offense and South Carolina's offense looked decent on certain drives when the refs stayed out of the damn way. I'd actually like to watch these two teams play each other with a competent crew.

3. AJ Green is good. I'd have liked a few more deep throws yesterday. And I expect more next week.

4. Speaking of next week... Will Sun Devil fans blame Chick-fil-a for the turd dropped against UNLV? Will Gameday not go to the desert now? Will they instead go to Florida-Tennessee? It's an odd twist of fate. Will Georgia benefit from ABC/ESPN corporate synergy for once?

5. I am excited for the inertia-driven polling that will eventually place an early-losing, once-beaten Ohio State ahead of a later-losing, once-beaten Southern California team. Pollsters: remember how shitty the Buckeyes lost and put their ceiling at #10, no matter how many mediocre Big Ten teams they beat.

6. Speaking of mediocre... Cal, what the hell? Oregon, what the hell? Arizona State, what the hell? UCLA, what the hell? Arizona, what the hell? With the Pac-10 having exactly one good team, the ACC having no good teams, the Big Ten having maybe one good team (I'm talking about Penn State), and the Big East having maybe one decent team (South Florida), who is going to fill those at-large BCS slots? Might be the time to amend the prohibition against having more than 2 teams from the same conference (SEC and Big XII) or the prohibition against more than one non-BCS-automatic-qualifying conference team (so ECU and BYU could both make it). At the least the powers that be should start thinking about this.

7. Shiner Black Lager = good.

8. Was that Mark Richt Ford commercial national or local? It made him look really good.

9. A short annoyance about College Gameday yesterday... would it kill Lee Corso to at least know what conference the teams he talks about play in? Rice has not been a member of the WAC for several years now. Related: Vandy is half way to bowl eligibility, and that's awesome.

Read More...

Summary only...

One other thing about Florida-Miami from last night

One of the nicer things about not having College Football around is the complete lack of Penn Wagers' presence in our living rooms and stadia.

How that guy has a job still is a question science cannot answer.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dear Brent Musberger

Florida did not kick a meaningless field goal to impress recruits, or voters.

Florida did not throw to the end zone or run plays with time left on the play clock on their final drive to win "the beauty contest."

Florida did not continue to "showcase their offense," with all starters in, when Miami had already not used their final time out, and when Florida could have kneeled out the clock.

No, Brent, you naive drunk.

The line was between 21 and 22, depending on the source. Florida was up 20. It was a gambling move alone. Please the big donors.

I'm sure there's a network taboo with mentioning gambling. But it does a disservice to viewers. Urban Meyer pressed his O to please his gambling fans. Don't mention it though. Might not match the narrative of Saint Tim and Pope Urban.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lebowski Rankings - FINAL 2007

As always, these are objective rankings based solely on wins and losses, with strength of schedule and head-to-head competition the only tiebreakers. This list does not depict who is the "best" team, only which teams have done the "best" at winning every game on their schedule. Number in parentheses is strength of schedule according to Colley Ratings. There were a ton of head to head ties, so I'll explain those one by one below the fold (* indicates a head to head win, # indicates a complicated circle of teams, @ indicates a split of 2 games, and more info is below). This is the whole list.

120. Idaho 1-11 (106)
119. Southern Methodist 1-11 (98)
118. Florida International 1-11 (69)
117. Minnesota 1-11 (37)
116. Duke 1-11 (25)
115. Northern Illinois 2-10 (120)
114. North Texas 2-10 (94)
113. Utah State 2-10 (87)
112. Alabama-Birmingham 2-10 (79)
111. Nevada-Las Vegas 2-10 (56)
110. Syracuse 2-10 (26)
109. Rice 3-9 (119)
108. Louisiana-Lafayette 3-9 (91)
107. Marshall 3-9 (72)
106. Army 3-9 (71)
105. Colorado State 3-9 (62)
104. Baylor 3-9 (52)
103. Iowa State 3-9 (31)
102. Kent State 3-9 (100)*
101. Notre Dame 3-9 (14)
100. Mississippi 3-9 (6)
99. New Mexico State 4-9 (116)
98. Washington 4-9 (3)
97. Texas-El Paso 4-8 (109)
96. Tulane 4-8 (112)*
95. Eastern Michigan 4-8 (108)
94. Akron 4-8 (93)
93. Temple 4-8 (115)*
92. San Diego State 4-8 (57)
91. North Carolina 4-8 (33)
90. Stanford 4-8 (20)
89. Toledo 5-7 (114)
88. Buffalo 5-7 (113)
87. San Jose State 5-7 (107)
86. Arkansas State 5-7 (103)
85. Western Michigan 5-7 (101)
84. Louisiana Tech 5-7 (96)
83. Middle Tennessee State 5-7 (89)
82. Wyoming 5-7 (65)
81. Miami (FL) 5-7 (53)
80. Kansas State 5-7 (48)
79. Pittsburgh 5-7 (35)
78. Washington State 5-7 (34)
77. Arizona 5-7 (17)
76. North Carolina State 5-7 (15)
75. Vanderbilt 5-7 (11)
74. Nebraska 5-7 (9)
73. Nevada 6-7 (118)
72. Miami (OH) 6-7 (110)
71. Colorado 6-7 (28)
70. Maryland 6-7 (13)
69. UCLA 6-7 (2)
68. Ohio 6-6 (123)
67. Louisiana-Monroe 6-6 (92)
66. Northwestern 6-6 (84)
65. Iowa 6-6 (86)*
64. Louisville 6-6 (38)
63. South Carolina 6-6 (4)
62. Southern Mississippi 7-6 (111)
61. Memphis 7-6 (125)*
60. Ball State 7-6 (95)
59. Indiana 7-6 (75)
58. Georgia Tech 7-6 (55)
57. Michigan State 7-6 (44)
56. Oklahoma State 7-6 (24)
55. Texas A&M 7-6 (21)
54. California 7-6 (19)
53. Alabama 7-6 (16)
52. Florida State 7-6 (22)*
51. Central Michigan 8-6 (102)
50. Western Kentucky 7-5 (126)
49. Houston 8-5 (122)
48. Bowling Green 8-5 (117)
47. Navy 8-5 (105)
46. Florida Atlantic 8-5 (90)
45. Texas Christian 8-5 (80)
44. Purdue 8-5 (76)
43. East Carolina 8-5 (74)
42. Rutgers 8-5 (61)
41. Arkansas 8-5 (42)#
40. Mississippi State 8-5 (30)#
39. Kentucky 8-5 (5)#
38. Troy 8-4 (81)
37. Fresno State 9-4 (104)
36. New Mexico 9-4 (97)#
35. Air Force 9-4 (83)#
34. Utah 9-4 (68)#
33. Florida 9-4 (1)
32. Connecticut 9-4 (67)#
31. Wisconsin 9-4 (64)#
30. Penn State 9-4 (59)#
29. Illinois 9-4 (50)#
28. Wake Forest 9-4 (49)#
27. Virginia 9-4 (58)*
26. Texas Tech 9-4 (78)*
25. Clemson 9-4 (40)#
24. Michigan 9-4 (39)#
23. South Florida 9-4 (23)#
22. Auburn 9-4 (18)#
21. Oregon 9-4 (10)
20. Oregon State 9-4 (27)*
19. Tulsa 10-4 (99)
18. Central Florida 10-4 (88)
17. Tennessee 10-4 (7)
16. Boise State 10-3 (121)
15. Cincinnati 10-3 (66)
14. Arizona State 10-3 (32)
13. Texas 10-3 (54)*
12. Oklahoma 11-3 (45)
11. Boston College 11-3 (40)@
10. Virginia Tech 11-3 (29)@
9. Brigham Young 11-2 (70)
8. Ohio State 11-2 (60)
7. Southern California 11-2 (51)
6. West Virginia 11-2 (43)
5. Georgia 11-2 (12)
4. Missouri 12-2 (46)
3. Louisiana State 12-2 (8)
2. Hawaii 12-1 (123)
1. Kansas 12-1 (77)

Explanations:

Asterisks indicate a head-to-head win by a team with an identical record, but a lower strength of schedule. The winning head-to-head team is placed immediately above the losing head-to-head team. Examples: Kent State over Iowa State, Tulane over UTEP, Temple over Akron, Iowa over Northwestern, Memphis over Southern Miss, FSU over Alabama, Virginia over Wake Forest, Texas Tech over Virginia, Oregon State over Oregon and Texas over Arizona State.

The ampersands next to Boston College and Virginia Tech refer to the fact that the two teams played twice and each won once. Because of that, I've reverted to strength of schedule.

Number signs indicate a scenario where 3 or more teams have beaten another team with an identical record, but also lost to another team with an identical record, creating a circle. When this happens, we'll revert to the strength of schedule as the tiebreaker, but wins and losses by teams outside such circles will still apply. There are 4 such examples this year and I'll explain them each.

(A) Three SEC teams finished at 8-5. Kentucky beat Arkansas but lost to Mississippi State. Arkansas beat Mississippi State but lost to Kentucky. Mississippi State beat Kentucky but lost to Arkansas. Perfect Circle, revert to strength of schedule.

(B) Three WAC teams finished at 9-4. Utah beat New Mexico but lost to Air Force. Air Force beat Utah but lost to New Mexico. New Mexico beat Air Force but lost to Utah. Perfect Circle, revert to strength of schedule.

(C) Four Big Ten teams finished at 9-4. Michigan beat Illinois and Penn State, but lost to Wisconsin. Illinois beat Wisconsin and Penn State, but lost to Michigan. Wisconsin beat Michigan, but lost to Illinois and Penn State. Penn State beat Wisconsin, but lost to Michigan and Illinois. Not exactly a perfect circle, but reverting to strength of schedule leaves us with an equitable result. The two teams that finished 2-1 in this circle placed higher than the 2 teams that finished 1-2. Among the 2-1 teams, Michigan beat Illinois head-to-head, so by SOS and head-to-head, Michigan is ranked higher. Among the 1-2 teams, Penn State beat Wisconsin head-to-head, so by SOS and head-to-head, Penn State is ranked higher.

(D) All of the teams in the 9-4 category proved to be quite complicated. Every single team that finished 9-4 beat, lost to or both beat and lost to another 9-4 team. This created a massive circle for 5 of the teams, and affected how all of the teams were placed. Auburn beat Clemson, who in turn beat Wake Forest, who in turn beat Connecticut, who in turn beat South Florida, who in turn beat Auburn. Connected thereto... Virginia also beat Wake Forest and Connecticut (but lost to Texas Tech). And Auburn beat Florida (who also lost to Michigan, who also lost to Oregon (who also beat Fresno State but also lost to Oregon State). The decision I made was to separate the "closed circles" from one another, ignore head-to-head wins within closed circles, but then apply head-to-head wins outside those circles. The result is thus:

Oregon is placed first because they had the (second) best SOS, but Oregon State was placed ahead of them because of the head-to-head win. No 9-4 team beat Oregon State, and no 9-4 team other than Oregon State beat Oregon. Next, I follow SOS to include the 5 team circle, but I place the Big Ten teams from the 4 team circle in their appropriate slot based on SOS (since none of the Big Ten teams lost or beat any of the teams within the 5 team circle). Auburn, followed by South Florida (despite the head-to-head win), followed by Michigan because of SOS. I have not slotted Florida yet, despite their excellent SOS, because they lost to both Auburn and Michigan and didn't beat anyone with a 9-4 record (a fact they only share with Fresno State). Michigan is followed by Clemson, who is then followed by Texas Tech and Virginia before Wake Forest. Virginia didn't lose to anyone in that 5 team circle, but did beat Wake Forest (and UConn, but Wake is slotted higher based on SOS). Therefore we'll slide the Texas Tech and Virginia head-to-head wins in ahead of Wake, but behind the other teams in the circle with a higher SOS. After Wake Forest, we'll slot the three other Big Ten schools, based on their SOS ranking. Then Connecticut finishes up the 5 team circle. Here's where we slot Florida. Logically, we couldn't slot Florida any higher than this, because every team above Florida would have beaten another team at 9-4. They can't be ahead of Michigan or Auburn because they lost to both. And every other team ahead of them beat either Auburn or Michigan or beat a team that beat Auburn or Michigan (by some stretch). Florida didn't beat any of those teams. We can rank Florida ahead of Utah, Air Force, New Mexico and Fresno State because none of those teams beat Florida or any team with a link to a team that beat Florida.

Make sense?

Read More...

Summary only...

Thoughts on the UNC assault cases

You may read the background here.

My thoughts on the alleged perpetrators:



Coolio never should've cut his signature braids.












And thus ruins my dreams of a PM Dawn reunion.









Did these hip hop artists learn nothing from the deaths of Biggie and Pac? Crime doesn't pay.

Read More...

Summary only...

Revisiting the BCS Selections

Go back and read my piece on BCS selections (scroll down or click HERE).

Now read Stewart Mandel's piece HERE.

Here is a relevant part:

Two sources not directly involved in the decision speculated that the commissioners feared such a matchup might damage the legitimacy of the Ohio State-LSU title game.

...

Asked whether the split possibility played a factor, Slive insisted, "It never came up."

My response to Mike Slive's comment: "Bullshit."

Read More...

Summary only...

Something About Ranked Opponents

The M Zone calls a team's record against ranked opponents the "dumbest stat in college football". I, for one, think punting statistics are the dumbest in college football, because they don't take into account the intent of a particular punt (if punters are pooching or cornering kicks frequently, the average length of a punt is a moronic stat).

But the topic of record against ranked opponents is an interesting one, and I think The M Zone's analysis is incomplete.

Their view is that when people cite a particular record against ranked opponents, they normally cite the record against opponents who were ranked at the time they played, and this is erroneous because teams can very well be ranked inaccurately at the point they play. As examples, they cite LSU's schedule, and credit for wins against South Carolina and Alabama, who were ranked at the time LSU played each. South Carolina and Alabama both went in the tank at the end of the year, losing their last 5 and 4 games, respectively.

The M Zone says that "record against ranked opponents" should take into account the rankings of those opponents at the end of the year, when the body of work is complete.

My view: yes, simply citing ranked opponents as of the time played is incomplete analysis. But citing ranked opponents as of the end of the regular season is also incomplete analysis.

Rankings are fluid over the course of the year, but so are teams. It is possible that an inflated ranking early in the year isn't an accurate picture of a particular team (such as, say, an early win over a top-10 preseason ranked Louisville team). But it's also possible that an inflated ranking early in the year is an accurate picture of a particular team at that point in time - just the team changed significantly over the course of time, as a result of injuries or personnel changes.

The M Zone cites South Carolina as it relates to LSU (and dozens of others have pointed to Georgia's loss to South Carolina as a reason for excluding the Dawgs from the BCS NCG). USC lost their last 5 games, dropping their overall record to a thoroughly mediocre 6-6. The week LSU played USC, USC was 3-0 and ranked 12th in the country. One could look at their final record and say they were significantly overrated at the time. Or one could look further. USC's best player on the defense, Jasper Brinkley (an All-SEC linebacker) injured his knee in the LSU game, changing the USC defense entirely. Before the injury, USC had averaged allowing fewer than 10 points per game. After the LSU game, with Brinkley out, USC conceded 28 points per game. Maybe they started playing better opponents, maybe they simply weren't that good overall. Or maybe the loss of key personnel (who played in the games against LSU and Georgia) made a massive difference to the season. The "at the time of" ranking might be an accurate depiction of the team LSU (or Georgia) played, AND the "end of season" ranking might also be an accurate depiction of the complete season USC had.

The thing is that temporal rankings can provide some context as to a game's value, but it takes more than a cursory citation. The problem is that the citation of such a stat is a simplification - but then again, the citation of any stat can be a simplification.

And at the end of their post, The M Zone is definitely right about how crazy it is that this sport uses opinions to decide things, and those opinions rely on incomplete information.

Read More...

Summary only...

Thought for the Day

LSU is playing for the national title instead of Georgia because Tennessee had a better season than Arkansas.

Wrap that around your brain.

Read More...

Summary only...

The BCS Does Not Want Good BCS Bowls - Just a Good BCS Title Game

Stewart Mandel is a frequent target of this blog, because I think he writes conventional wisdom and often fails to analyze such critically (and because I think he has a limited understanding of the sport he covers). But this post is not to bash him (which I most certainly could, for a number of his writings over the last week or so), but rather to use one of this posts today as a jumping point.

Mandel, in a column at CNNsi, writes about one of the underreported problems with the BCS. The fact that the goal of having a 1 vs. 2 National Championship Game has led to less compelling matchups in the other BCS bowls.

But you can't blame the bowls for most of those choices. In nearly every case, they were simply following selection protocol -- Pac-10 champ to the Rose Bowl, Big 12 champ to the Fiesta Bowl, ACC champ to the Orange Bowl, etc., etc.

He's right about this. #1 is playing #2 in the BCS National Chamionship Game, but then the next 4 teams in the final BCS rankings do not play each other. #3 Oklahoma plays #11 WVU. #4 Virginia Tech plays #8 Kansas. #5 Georgia plays #10 Hawaii. #6 USC plays #13 Illinois.

Mandel uses this problem to divert on a tangent regarding the tension of retaining traditional bowl matchups and how a "plus one" model might solve some things.

I take a different approach. See, I think you can necessarily blame the bowls for the weaker BCS bowl matchups because of the selection protocol. The BCS is a system in place to elevate 2 teams to a National Title Game. This is its primary goal and there really isn't a secondary goal. There are other concerns (such as maintaining traditional bowl matchups), but those are tensions against the goal - not a goal in and of itself. Whatever works against the prospect of elevating 2 teams to a National Title Game is necessarily against the interest of the BCS.

And because there is just one real goal to the BCS, the selection procedures are set up in a manner such as to prevent a compelling matchup in the other BCS bowl games. See, if the 3rd place team were to play the 4th place team in the Rose Bowl or some non BCSNCG game, then there's a significant opportunity for a split title, resulting from the AP Poll.

I can't stress this enough: a split title is the worst case scenario for the BCS. The worst case scenario isn't the current one, where a host of teams have reasonable arguments to play in a game but the process has selected one - in fact that's the precise raison d'etre for the BCS, to make a choice out of reasonably similar teams. No, the worst case scenario is if the selections take place, and the BCS gets it wrong.

Let's use a hypothetical. Assume Ohio State and LSU play in the BCS NCG and the two combine for 8 turnovers in a 13-10 joke of a game that neither team plays well in. A few days beforehand, say USC and Oklahoma played in the Rose Bowl and USC absolutely annihilated Oklahoma 57-7. Most reasonable people would think that the BCS certainly got it wrong - and there's an almost definite chance that USC would be awarded at least one poll's title. This was the case in 2003. If the system gets the choice wrong (and that's the only job the system has to do), it calls into question everything.

The BCS knows this. And that's why it is completely in their interest to dilute the other BCS bowls. If the 3rd best team is playing the 4th best team, it's too much of a showcase for those teams - and a great result by either of them calls into question whether the BCS got the right selection for the BCS NCG. But if the 3rd best team is playing the 11th best team, well, that's not as much of a showcase for the 3rd best team. Even a big victory might not be enough to raise the suggestion that the BCS NCG did not include the right teams.

The goal is not to have 5 good matchups. The goal is to have 1 good matchup - and the other 4 can very well be sacrificed in order to keep that 1 good matchup. That's why the BCS NCG keeps moving later and later into January. Separate this game from the others. Eliminate the suspicion that the BCS NCG is just a game like all the others. Set up a system that works in a way so that the remaining good teams do not play each other. Use the "promotion of traditional bowl matchups" as a method to prevent actually good games.

Don't think the weaker BCS bowl matchups are unintentional.

Read More...

Summary only...

Shorter Coaches Standing Up For Their Teams

Last night, the late SportsCenter invited the coaches of several schools competing for a slot in the BCS National Championship Game to come on the show via calling in and state the case for their team.  Here, briefly, is what the three coaches said:

Mark Richt: It's a bad system.  We're a strong team.  Our losses were the results of youth.

Pete Carroll: It's a bad system.  We're a strong team.  Our losses were the results of injuries.

Les Miles: I'm not going to come on here and criticize any other team, but Georgia sucks for the following reasons.  Also, we didn't really lose because I don't comprehend the concept of this "overtime" thingamajig.

Les Miles wears a tall hat because it has to fit around his ass.

Also: there's little doubt in my mind that Les Miles' approach will work.  Pollsters don't reward class.  They reward people who stand up and say "I want this", even if they are assholes while doing it.  

Read More...

Summary only...

This Week in Piscine Marksmanship

Oh Peter, I have been ignoring you for too long.

Peter King's ability to remain internally logical = null set.

1. On Darren McFadden:

I think I don't care how good Darren McFadden looked last Friday, and if you saw how he steamrolled LSU in Baton Rouge, you know he looked like a future star in the NFL. Probably. I wouldn't use a high first-round pick on him. Of the top 50 running backs in the NFL entering this weekend (ranked by rushing yards), 30 were not first-round picks... More than any position in football, running back is the one you can find players from the most disparate sources.

2. On LaDanian Tomlinson (who was drafted 5th overall):

[I liked] LaDainian Tomlinson, who reached 10,000 rushing yards in six-plus years. He could have been yours, Atlanta.

The lesson: don't actually take running backs highly, just eventually regret not taking running backs highly.

Peter King's knowledge about college football = null set

1. On College Coach Contracts:

College contracts are such one-way streets, with the coach holding all the power. Why guarantee the coach that much money, when he can basically leave any time he wants to anyway?

Such is called "negotiation". Where college football programs are significant money-makers for institutions, and successful college football coaches are in limited supply, there is a "marketplace" for such coaches' skills. The guaranteeing of a contract is necessary because other institutions will do the same. Further, most colleges include something called a "buyout" clause in the contract, which says the coach can leave "anytime he wants to" but he (or the institution he leaves for) has to pay often a significant amount of money to do so. This is also "negotiation" and "market-based economics". And I'm not sure I need to explain this to you, but with everything else you've written, who knows? - a college coach's contract isn't "guaranteed" to the extent that if he leaves for a new job, his former institution continues to pay him. Were Bill Callahan to have been wildly successful at Nebraska and the Kansas City Chiefs offered him their job, Nebraska wouldn't continue to pay him under that contract.

2. On Bill Callahan:

On Oct. 23, Callahan said, "I have done an excellent job in every area." In the four Nebraska games since, this excellent coach oversaw a team that allowed an average of 50 points per game.

OH SNAP! You got him good! Wait, did you say October 23? You mean after the Texas A&M game that dropped them to 4-4 overall, and was their third straight loss? Mr. King, anyone with a passing knowledge of the sport didn't need the last 4 Nebraska games to realize that Callahan's statement is ridiculous. Most of us saw that a year or two ago. Also, what did you expect a guy to say in his own defense? "I have been a mediocre coach who has destroyed the tradition of winning at Nebraska." It's kind of dumb to use his own words against him. Now, had you used a defense by Tom Osborne, maybe this would make sense. Instead, it's just a gotcha statement with no meaning (except maybe to show that you haven't been paying attention).

3. On who should compete in the BCS National Championship Game:

The national championship game has to be the Missouri-Oklahoma winner against West Virginia.

Yes, it just has to be. Because a 2-loss Oklahoma team deserves to play for a title far more than a 1-loss Ohio State team or SIX other 2-loss teams that have played against tougher schedules than Oklahoma (USC, Arizona State, Georgia, LSU, BC, Virginia Tech). Actually, I'm a little surprised he didn't pimp Hawaii here. (If Missouri beats OU, fine. But Oklahoma's resume is not better than any of those other schools I listed above).

4. On playoffs, amateurism and time:

And no, there shouldn't be a playoff. Enough of this "amateur'' sport. I've railed against this before, but it's patently absurd that college students be asked to practice football for who-knows-how-long in the spring, return at the beginning of August and practice through the last game in January -- the same as an NFL team does -- without asking them to continue games into their second semesters.

I wonder if Peter King knows that there already is a playoff in place for every other division of college football, and they complete those games before the second semester begins in all of those divisions. He should know that, right? Didn't Colgate, his own daughter's college and the school he writes about all the time, participate in the 1-AA/FCS playoffs as recently as 2005 (and they were in the title game in 2003). If time considerations are of such concern, why are playoffs allowed at any level of play?

Not to get too nerdy here, but what does that second sentence mean? Is he saying that college football isn't amateur, so it shouldn't be treated as such? Is he saying that college football should be more amateur, so what's already the case in college football is too much? Is he saying simply that he's had enough of college football because of some other reason? Why is one of the nation's most widely read sports columnists so difficult to comprehend?

And further, ahem... not to get too nerdy here, but does that third sentence actually read how he intends? It's absurd to ask athletes to practice for as long as we already ask them to unless we can ask them to practice more? Is he arguing for more games? I figure he means "it's absurd that we ask this of them, let alone the even crazier idea of asking for more", but that's not what he wrote. And I think what he actually wrote is a decent argument FOR a playoff or some other system than the current one - these kids sacrifice so much already, it's only fair that they have a chance to settle titles on the field.

As for the amount of time college students are asked to practice, well... it'll take you just a second or two on the Googletubes to find out very clearly that the NCAA regulates and limits practice time. "Who knows how long in the spring"? I do, along with anyone who can use a search engine: 15 designated practice days, a maximum of 4 hours per day. Yes, college football teams return in August for camp and practice through the season. But the NCAA further limits that. There are different rules for particular times (preseason/during the season), so perhaps you should just go to this link and take a look for yourself. As for your description of college practices as "the same as an NFL team does," well, that's patently ludicrous. Every single NFL team had a training camp longer than the 29 practices allowed by the NCAA. Further, practices for NFL teams are (for each session) significantly longer and allow more contact than NCAA rules permit. College athletes aren't asked to do the same thing as professionals. Not even close.

And on the non-college football front, his paragraph on Alex Rodriguez truly shows how little he understands of negotiation. I would love to sell this guy a used car.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lebowski Standings v.2007.5

As always, these are objective rankings based solely on wins and losses, with strength of schedule and head-to-head competition the only tiebreakers. This list does not depict who is the "best" team, only which teams have done the "best" at winning every game on their schedule. Number in parentheses is strength of schedule according to Colley Ratings. Asterisk indicates a head to head win (where the winning team is placed ahead of the losing team, regardless of SOS). This list does not include the results of any games played this week.

1. Kansas 11-0 (114)
2. Hawaii 10-0 (128)
3. Ohio State 11-1 (63)
4. Louisiana State 10-1 (26)
5. Missouri 10-1 (69)
6. Boise State 10-1 (127)
7. Arizona State 9-1 (49)
8. West Virginia 9-1 (55)
9. Georgia 9-2 (21)
10. Boston College 9-2 (38)
11. Virginia Tech 9-2 (48)
12. Virginia 9-2 (60)
13. Oklahoma 9-2 (75)*
14. Texas 9-2 (72)
15. Connecticut 9-2 (79)
16. Oregon 8-2 (20)
17. Southern California 8-2 (68)
18. Brigham Young 8-2 (83)
19. Illinois 9-3 (45)
20. Wisconsin 9-3 (71)
21. Air Force 9-3 (94)
22. Florida 8-3 (2)
23. Cincinnati 8-3 (44)*
24. South Florida 8-3 (15)
25. Tennessee 8-3 (28)

Next Five: Clemson, Utah, Central Florida, Tulsa, Troy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Let's talk about Kansas

Over the last few weeks I've ranted and raved about various polling things. Yes, I complained about UConn and what I perceived as what should be subjective polling using the easy way out. UConn got whipped by Cincinnati last week. So now I have to find a new target. Let's talk about Kansas.

The Kansas Jayhawks are 10-0 and ranked third in the nation in the BCS, 4th in the AP Poll.

The primary strength of Kansas and reason for its lofty ranking is the zero in the loss column. I say this because it cannot be their accomplishments against quality opponents or in big games. It is merely the fact that they are unbeaten against one of the worst schedules of any team in a BCS conference:

Colley: 105th toughest schedule (only Texas Tech is worse among BCS conference teams)
GBE: 98th toughest schedule (only USC is worse among BCS conference teams)
Sagarin: 97th toughest schedule (worst among BCS conference teams)
Team Rankings: 117th toughest schedule (worst among BCS conference teams)
CBS Sports: 73rd toughest schedule (only ahead of USC, Texas Tech, and Miami (FL) among BCS conference teams)
NCAA (warning - PDF): 86th toughest schedule (only ahead of Texas Tech, Miami (FL), and USC among BCS conference teams)

Here's my question: What other teams are "undefeated" against the portion of their schedule as bad as Kansas' entire schedule?

We'll find out who Kansas' toughest opponent is so far, and then look at the schedules of other teams and see if anyone else remains unbeaten against opponents as bad as Kansas' toughest (or worse).

So who is Kansas' toughest opponent?

There are 25 teams ranked in the BCS standings. Kansas has played none of them.
There are 34 teams receiving votes in this week's AP poll. Kansas has played none of them.
There are 35 teams receiving votes in this week's USA Today Coaches' Poll. Kansas has played none of them.
There are 36 teams receiving votes in this week's Harris Poll. Kansas has played none of them.

Let's then look at the BCS sanctioned computer polls, as they rank all teams.

According to Sagarin's ELO-CHESS (the one used for the BCS), Kansas' toughest opponent is Oklahoma State, at #47.
According to Anderson & Hester, Kansas' toughest opponent is Oklahoma State, at #42.
According to Billingsley (which has serious flaws in my estimation), Kansas' toughest opponent is Texas A&M, at #37.
According to Colley, Kansas' toughest opponent is Texas A&M, at #48.
According to Massey, Kansas' toughest opponent is Oklahoma State, at #44.
According to Peter Wolfe, Kansas' toughest opponent is Texas A&M, at #40.

So, basically, Kansas hasn't played anyone better than around 40th in the nation so far. If you place any importance on their undefeated record, you are necessarily assuming that they would not lose to teams tougher than they have played already. That might be an assumption you would want to make (it's not nice to assume someone would lose). But here's the rub: if another team has lost to teams better than Kansas, it is a reasonable position to take to say that that team can be better than an unbeaten Kansas team. For example, LSU has lost one game, to a decent/good Kentucky team that, by every rating system available, is far superior to anyone on Kansas' schedule. To say Kansas deserves to be rated higher than LSU because they are unbeaten necessarily requires the assumption that Kansas would beat teams better than they have already played such as Kentucky).

Let's look and see who else hasn't lost to anyone as bad as or worse than Kansas' toughest...

1. Using Sagarin's ELO-CHESS, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Oklahoma State (47):

LSU, Oregon, Ohio State, West Virginia, Florida, Arizona State, Missouri, Clemson, Georgia, Virginia Tech, South Florida, Kentucky, Connecticut, Tennessee, Penn State, Boston College, Auburn, Wisconsin, Alabama, Hawaii (though clearly the same test applies), South Carolina, Arkansas, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and Troy.

That's 27 teams according to Sagarin's BCS list that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 27 teams' records.

2. Using Anderson & Hester, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Oklahoma State (42):

LSU, Oregon, Arizona State, Missouri, Ohio State, Georgia, West Virginia, Florida, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Tennessee, Connecticut, Penn State, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Auburn, Hawaii, Alabama, Mississippi State, Purdue, Arkansas, and Vanderbilt.

That's 22 teams according to A&H that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 22 teams' records.

3. Using Billingsley, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Texas A&M (37):

LSU, Ohio State, Oregon, West Virginia, Arizona State, Virginia Tech, Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Clemson, Penn State, Connecticut, Hawaii, South Florida and Troy

That's 15 teams according to Billingsley that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 15 teams' records.

4. Using Colley, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Texas A&M (48):

LSU, Oregon, Arizona State, Ohio State, Missouri, West Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Boston College, Connecticut, South Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Penn State, Hawaii, Auburn, Alabama, Mississippi State, Rutgers, Troy, Georgia Tech, Arkansas and Vanderbilt

That's 26 teams according to Colley that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 26 teams' records.

5. Using Massey, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Oklahoma State (44).

LSU, Oregon, Arizona State, Missouri, Ohio State, Georgia, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Florida, Clemson, Boston College, Tennessee, Kentucky, Connecticut, Wisconsin, South Florida, Penn State, Auburn, Mississippi State, Alabama, South Carolina, Hawaii, Georgia Tech, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Arkansas and Troy

That's 27 teams according to Massey that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 27 teams' records.

6. Using Wolfe, the following teams have also not lost to anyone worse than or equal to Kansas' best opponent, Texas A&M (40):

LSU, Oregon, Missouri, Arizona State, Ohio State, West Virginia, Georgia, Virginia Tech, Hawaii, Florida, Clemson, Connecticut, Tennessee, Penn State, Auburn, Mississippi State, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Alabama, Vanderbilt and Arkansas.

That's 21 teams according to Wolfe that haven't lost to anyone worse than the best team on Kansas' schedule. If you rate Kansas highly because they are undefeated, you should also see zeroes on those 21 teams' records.

In sum, if you are ranking Kansas highly, you must be placing a lot of emphasis on not losing, without regard to how bad or mediocre the opposition is. And if you are placing a lot of emphasis on not losing to bad or mediocre opposition, there are about two dozen other teams who also haven't lost to bad or mediocre opposition (but several of them have played and beaten good or great opposition).

Perhaps you really do think Kansas would beat significantly better opposition than they've faced so far. Perhaps the next couple of weeks will prove such.

But based on the knowledge we have right now of that team, there are reasonable arguments to place the Jayhawks in a poll in the high teens or worse. And if you use resume ranking, there aren't reasonable arguments to place the Jayhawks in the top 3.

Read More...

Summary only...