How do they rank?
Brian Churney
Here is a story of three teams. We'll call them Team A, Team B and Team C.
Team A wins its first game in relatively easy fashion. The game was played at home against a much weaker opponent. The next week, it loses a very close game filled with questionable calls. It loses the game on the road against a team ranked much higher.
So after two weeks, the Team A is 1-1
Team B plays a very good opponent in its first game and is beaten badly. Although ranked higher than its opponent, Team B has to play on the road. At one point, Team B is behind by 41 points.
The next week, Team B plays a much lower-ranked team, albeit on the road. In fact, the opponent is similar to Team A's first week opponent. Team B struggles with this team and wins the game with three late touchdowns.
Team B too is 1-1
Team C plays a team slightly lower than itself in the rankings. Team C plays at home and loses fairly convincingly. Team C only has one game.
Team C is 0-1.
So we have three teams, all with one loss, two of which have one win each.
All of their stories are fairly similar. They all have lost to a top 10 team, and the two with wins have beaten schools whose basketball teams are tougher than their football teams.
A reading of the three team's scenarios would lead one to believe that Team A should be slightly higher ranked than the other two teams. At the very least, the teams should be ranked closely to one another.
However, in reality, the actual position of our three teams is much different.
In reality Team A (our beloved Notre Dame) is ranked below Team B (Arizona) in one poll and below Team C (Ohio State) in both polls. What's more, while Ohio State remains in the middle of the race for BCS bowls and waits for the few teams ahead of them to slip up once, Notre Dame and Arizona must climb much farther to win a bowl invitation.
Why, one might ask, does this senseless phenomenon occur?
Two words: preseason rankings.
Preseason rankings are a function of "experts'" (which I hesitate to call them for lack of credentials) prognostications. They have little factual basis.
Sure, the "experts" consider starters returning and quality of players. But how many times do these supposed "experts" misevaluate freshmen talent, underestimate team cohesiveness or disregard potentially devastating injuries (such as the one to Miami's Najeh Davenport)?
How many times do these "experts" over-rank or under-rank? Does anyone still honestly believe Arizona deserved to be ranked No. 3 in the preseason rankings?
Preseason rankings do little more than imbalance the playing field. Imagine what it would be like to start a course 100 points in the hole. Now, imagine a professor or "expert" decides who gets the 100 points and who loses them. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
A lot has been made of Florida State's streak of finishing the season in the top five. But consider that during the last five years, they've averaged a preseason ranking of 2. Rarely do we see five undefeated teams in the country. Therefore, Florida State virtually is guaranteed a top-five ranking even if it loses one game.
Furthermore, in the last five years, Florida State has never finished higher than its preseason ranking. It seems that its "streak" is just as much a product of prognosticators' undying love for them as it is its field performance.
Contrast this to Notre Dame's preseason average ranking of 13 and we've already seen an imbalance.
While Notre Dame, too, has not finished ahead of its preseason ranking, we certainly don't have a streak of finishing in the top five. If Notre Dame were to finish with one loss (improbable), it would certainly need many teams to lose to finish in the top five.
Preseason rankings taint college football rankings.
How can one evaluate a team without having seen them for a few weeks?
One should not place a team that continues to win by large margins behind a team that wins by the same margins even if one believes the latter team is a better team.
Why doesn't the NCAA realize this unfairness? Why can't pollsters wait four or five weeks to properly evaluate teams and then rank them accordingly?
If the NCAA decided to implement a mandatory waiting period on polls, we wouldn't have this situation: three teams with similar credentials and vastly different chances at a title.
Here is a story of three teams. We'll call them Team A, Team B and Team C.
Team A wins its first game in relatively easy fashion. The game was played at home against a much weaker opponent. The next week, it loses a very close game filled with questionable calls. It loses the game on the road against a team ranked much higher.
So after two weeks, the Team A is 1-1
Team B plays a very good opponent in its first game and is beaten badly. Although ranked higher than its opponent, Team B has to play on the road. At one point, Team B is behind by 41 points.
The next week, Team B plays a much lower-ranked team, albeit on the road. In fact, the opponent is similar to Team A's first week opponent. Team B struggles with this team and wins the game with three late touchdowns.
Team B too is 1-1
Team C plays a team slightly lower than itself in the rankings. Team C plays at home and loses fairly convincingly. Team C only has one game.
Team C is 0-1.
So we have three teams, all with one loss, two of which have one win each.
All of their stories are fairly similar. They all have lost to a top 10 team, and the two with wins have beaten schools whose basketball teams are tougher than their football teams.
A reading of the three team's scenarios would lead one to believe that Team A should be slightly higher ranked than the other two teams. At the very least, the teams should be ranked closely to one another.
However, in reality, the actual position of our three teams is much different.
In reality Team A (our beloved Notre Dame) is ranked below Team B (Arizona) in one poll and below Team C (Ohio State) in both polls. What's more, while Ohio State remains in the middle of the race for BCS bowls and waits for the few teams ahead of them to slip up once, Notre Dame and Arizona must climb much farther to win a bowl invitation.
Why, one might ask, does this senseless phenomenon occur?
Two words: preseason rankings.
Preseason rankings are a function of "experts'" (which I hesitate to call them for lack of credentials) prognostications. They have little factual basis.
Sure, the "experts" consider starters returning and quality of players. But how many times do these supposed "experts" misevaluate freshmen talent, underestimate team cohesiveness or disregard potentially devastating injuries (such as the one to Miami's Najeh Davenport)?
How many times do these "experts" over-rank or under-rank? Does anyone still honestly believe Arizona deserved to be ranked No. 3 in the preseason rankings?
Preseason rankings do little more than imbalance the playing field. Imagine what it would be like to start a course 100 points in the hole. Now, imagine a professor or "expert" decides who gets the 100 points and who loses them. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
A lot has been made of Florida State's streak of finishing the season in the top five. But consider that during the last five years, they've averaged a preseason ranking of 2. Rarely do we see five undefeated teams in the country. Therefore, Florida State virtually is guaranteed a top-five ranking even if it loses one game.
Furthermore, in the last five years, Florida State has never finished higher than its preseason ranking. It seems that its "streak" is just as much a product of prognosticators' undying love for them as it is its field performance.
Contrast this to Notre Dame's preseason average ranking of 13 and we've already seen an imbalance.
While Notre Dame, too, has not finished ahead of its preseason ranking, we certainly don't have a streak of finishing in the top five. If Notre Dame were to finish with one loss (improbable), it would certainly need many teams to lose to finish in the top five.
Preseason rankings taint college football rankings.
How can one evaluate a team without having seen them for a few weeks?
One should not place a team that continues to win by large margins behind a team that wins by the same margins even if one believes the latter team is a better team.
Why doesn't the NCAA realize this unfairness? Why can't pollsters wait four or five weeks to properly evaluate teams and then rank them accordingly?
If the NCAA decided to implement a mandatory waiting period on polls, we wouldn't have this situation: three teams with similar credentials and vastly different chances at a title.
All Sports Stories for Thursday, September 9, 1999
