College Football - Week 1 (Sept. 4th)

[Guest]

I think those are pretty dumb at least at this point. If you want to do a resume ranking, I think you have to wait several weeks, maybe even until the half-way point. Why rank teams not based on how good they are, but how good their season has been after 1 or 2 games where unbalanced schedules are their most unbalanced?

 

Because it helps eliminate the anchoring effect that is brought on by irrelevant factors like program history.

[shnsajax]

That was the most useless article in college football history.

[hawkeyecub]

well i guess texas tech should just keep playing lousy teams at home, they'll have a great season then

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

This isn't hard to grasp. We only have a 1 game season to go on right now, so everyone who won their game has done more than those who lost. As the season progresses you have more teams with losses and a strength of schedule component becomes a greater and greater part of your resume(even in Doc Saturday's Week 1 poll, he gave top billing to those who beat BCS conference teams last week). If Texas Tech plays SMU and Abilene Tech the whole year then they aren't going to have a better resume than other undefeated teams, several teams with 1 loss, and maybe even some teams with 2 losses.

 

it just seems arbitrary to me. he refuses to rank texas because they played a perennial doormat (that happened to go 10-3 two years ago), but then he ranks troy for beating bowling green and texas tech for beating usually-terrible smu. and if every team that won their game has done more than a team that has lost, why are teams with losses ranked ahead of teams that won games in the first week, even if they were against bad i-a programs or against i-aa programs?

 

it seems to me that if you're ranking a team like utah #4 for beating a team that he thinks is good (pitt), then you don't put pitt down beneath teams that beat crappy MAC and WAC teams when they took a good MWC team to overtime on the road. and this statement is absurd:

 

That leaves Boise State, an edge-of-your-seat winner Monday night against Virginia Tech, and TCU, fresh from a borderline dominant effort over Oregon State, as the clear winners of the weekend, ambitious upstarts who took on ranked outfits on neutral ground and came away with the marquee,

 

yes TCU playing on the neutral ground of irving, texas, a grueling 15 miles from campus.

 

he then goes on to say that texas a&m beat youngstown state. the entire thing is just riddled with errors and inconsistencies. it's a really poor piece of work.

 

It's Youngstown Stat, get it right.

 

The actual ranking of teams who fit his criteria don't make sense either. Northwestern winning at Vanderbilt is less impressive than ISU beating Northern Illinois at home just because NIU is from a terrible league and went to a terrible bowl so they qualify as a bowl team? Is Mizzou beating Illinois on a neutral field really 7 spots better than winning at Vandy?

[Tracer Bullet]

I think those are pretty dumb at least at this point. If you want to do a resume ranking, I think you have to wait several weeks, maybe even until the half-way point. Why rank teams not based on how good they are, but how good their season has been after 1 or 2 games where unbalanced schedules are their most unbalanced?

 

Because it helps eliminate the anchoring effect that is brought on by irrelevant factors like program history.

 

hardly seems to be the case. which defeated opponents are "worthy" is still entirely subjective.

 

I'd prefer to not have any rankings until the first BCS came out.

[Guest]

I think those are pretty dumb at least at this point. If you want to do a resume ranking, I think you have to wait several weeks, maybe even until the half-way point. Why rank teams not based on how good they are, but how good their season has been after 1 or 2 games where unbalanced schedules are their most unbalanced?

 

Because it helps eliminate the anchoring effect that is brought on by irrelevant factors like program history.

 

hardly seems to be the case. which defeated opponents are "worthy" is still entirely subjective.

 

I'd prefer to not have any rankings until the first BCS came out.

 

It is to a point, but the alternative is unecessary bias, or something even crazier like the Iowa blog who ranks strictly on margin of victory in week 1.

 

But the whole point is that the entire poll is re-evaluated each week. I'm not going to defend individual points like ISU ahead of Northwestern, but the concept behind it is pretty much the best unbiased way to rank teams short of the computer polls.

 

I'd prefer no rankings until the BCS too, but there's too much to be gained by ranking teams before then and hyping matchups in the non-con, so it's a bit of a pipe dream.

[Jon]

This is impressive:

 

ESPN[/url]"]ESPN’s Labor Day (Monday, Sept. 6) prime-time telecast of Boise State defeating Virginia Tech 33-30 averaged 7,252,000 households, making it the network’s most-viewed college football game – covering regular-season and bowl games – in households. With 9,888,000 viewers (people 2+), the telecast ranks as the second most-viewed college football game among total viewers (trailing only ESPN’s coverage of USC at Ohio State in 2009 which averaged 10,586,000 viewers). The Labor Day matchup averaged a 7.3 rating (equaling the average for USC at Ohio State) and stands as the highest rating for a college football game in 16 years (Florida State at Miami averaged a 7.7 on October 8, 1994). Additional highlights include:

 

* The telecast was the most-viewed program of the day across all networks -- cable and broadcast -- among households, total viewers, and all key male and people demographics. In addition, ESPN was the No. 1 network of the night among households, total viewers, and all key male and people demographics.

* The matchup is the third most-viewed ad-supported cable telecast across all networks in 2010 among households behind ESPN’s Monday Night Football (Minnesota at Chicago) and the NFL Pro Bowl coverage. It is also the fifth most-viewed ad-supported cable telecast in 2010 among total viewers.

* The game stands as ESPN’s most-viewed and highest-rated non-Saturday college football telecast since at least 1990 (when ESPN began tracking audiences).

* The telecast was the most-viewed and highest-rated college football game of the five-day opening weekend schedule across all networks (cable or broadcast).

[Tracer Bullet]

I think those are pretty dumb at least at this point. If you want to do a resume ranking, I think you have to wait several weeks, maybe even until the half-way point. Why rank teams not based on how good they are, but how good their season has been after 1 or 2 games where unbalanced schedules are their most unbalanced?

 

Because it helps eliminate the anchoring effect that is brought on by irrelevant factors like program history.

 

hardly seems to be the case. which defeated opponents are "worthy" is still entirely subjective.

 

I'd prefer to not have any rankings until the first BCS came out.

 

It is to a point, but the alternative is unecessary bias, or something even crazier like the Iowa blog who ranks strictly on margin of victory in week 1.

 

But the whole point is that the entire poll is re-evaluated each week. I'm not going to defend individual points like ISU ahead of Northwestern, but the concept behind it is pretty much the best unbiased way to rank teams short of the computer polls.

 

I'd prefer no rankings until the BCS too, but there's too much to be gained by ranking teams before then and hyping matchups in the non-con, so it's a bit of a pipe dream.

 

I guess, but it's not like the blogpoll is mainstream or even widely recognized. it's gimmicky.

[SouthSideRyan]

This is impressive:

 

ESPN[/url]"]ESPN’s Labor Day (Monday, Sept. 6) prime-time telecast of Boise State defeating Virginia Tech 33-30 averaged 7,252,000 households, making it the network’s most-viewed college football game – covering regular-season and bowl games – in households. With 9,888,000 viewers (people 2+), the telecast ranks as the second most-viewed college football game among total viewers (trailing only ESPN’s coverage of USC at Ohio State in 2009 which averaged 10,586,000 viewers). The Labor Day matchup averaged a 7.3 rating (equaling the average for USC at Ohio State) and stands as the highest rating for a college football game in 16 years (Florida State at Miami averaged a 7.7 on October 8, 1994). Additional highlights include:

 

* The telecast was the most-viewed program of the day across all networks -- cable and broadcast -- among households, total viewers, and all key male and people demographics. In addition, ESPN was the No. 1 network of the night among households, total viewers, and all key male and people demographics.

* The matchup is the third most-viewed ad-supported cable telecast across all networks in 2010 among households behind ESPN’s Monday Night Football (Minnesota at Chicago) and the NFL Pro Bowl coverage. It is also the fifth most-viewed ad-supported cable telecast in 2010 among total viewers.

* The game stands as ESPN’s most-viewed and highest-rated non-Saturday college football telecast since at least 1990 (when ESPN began tracking audiences).

* The telecast was the most-viewed and highest-rated college football game of the five-day opening weekend schedule across all networks (cable or broadcast).

 

I'm impressed that the NFL can get that many people to watch the Pro Bowl. These people will watch anything.

[Flames24Rulz]

This is impressive:

 

ESPN[/url]"]ESPN’s Labor Day (Monday, Sept. 6) prime-time telecast of Boise State defeating Virginia Tech 33-30 averaged 7,252,000 households, making it the network’s most-viewed college football game – covering regular-season and bowl games – in households. With 9,888,000 viewers (people 2+), the telecast ranks as the second most-viewed college football game among total viewers (trailing only ESPN’s coverage of USC at Ohio State in 2009 which averaged 10,586,000 viewers). The Labor Day matchup averaged a 7.3 rating (equaling the average for USC at Ohio State) and stands as the highest rating for a college football game in 16 years (Florida State at Miami averaged a 7.7 on October 8, 1994). Additional highlights include:

 

* The telecast was the most-viewed program of the day across all networks -- cable and broadcast -- among households, total viewers, and all key male and people demographics. In addition, ESPN was the No. 1 network of the night among households, total viewers, and all key male and people demographics.

* The matchup is the third most-viewed ad-supported cable telecast across all networks in 2010 among households behind ESPN’s Monday Night Football (Minnesota at Chicago) and the NFL Pro Bowl coverage. It is also the fifth most-viewed ad-supported cable telecast in 2010 among total viewers.

* The game stands as ESPN’s most-viewed and highest-rated non-Saturday college football telecast since at least 1990 (when ESPN began tracking audiences).

* The telecast was the most-viewed and highest-rated college football game of the five-day opening weekend schedule across all networks (cable or broadcast).

 

I'm impressed that the NFL can get that many people to watch the Pro Bowl. These people will watch anything.

 

Wasn't that Vikings-Bears game essentially meaningless too? I'm shocked that the Favre Bowl had a lower number than the [expletive] Pro Bowl.

[TruffleShuffle]

It's Youngstown Stat, get it right.

 

The actual ranking of teams who fit his criteria don't make sense either. Northwestern winning at Vanderbilt is less impressive than ISU beating Northern Illinois at home just because NIU is from a terrible league and went to a terrible bowl so they qualify as a bowl team? Is Mizzou beating Illinois on a neutral field really 7 spots better than winning at Vandy?

 

oh my bad, it was youngstown stat.

 

other things that didn't make sense in that poll:

-minnesota being left out after winning at MTSU, which went 9-3 last year (yeah they're not a good team, but why the hell are you giving ohio st credit for beating a marshall team that has been bad since byron leftwich left)

-oregon getting into the poll simply because they destroyed a team - if you're going to leave out teams like texas and alabama then go all the way with it.

 

the entire thing seems like it was written by CubbieBum for the ball state register.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wait, where was the PI?

[SouthSideRyan]

It's Youngstown Stat, get it right.

 

The actual ranking of teams who fit his criteria don't make sense either. Northwestern winning at Vanderbilt is less impressive than ISU beating Northern Illinois at home just because NIU is from a terrible league and went to a terrible bowl so they qualify as a bowl team? Is Mizzou beating Illinois on a neutral field really 7 spots better than winning at Vandy?

 

oh my bad, it was youngstown stat.

 

other things that didn't make sense in that poll:

-minnesota being left out after winning at MTSU, which went 9-3 last year (yeah they're not a good team, but why the hell are you giving ohio st credit for beating a marshall team that has been bad since byron leftwich left)

-oregon getting into the poll simply because they destroyed a team - if you're going to leave out teams like texas and alabama then go all the way with it.

 

the entire thing seems like it was written by CubbieBum for the ball state register.

 

Pretty short on typos