Rising:
Oregon State: This was obviously a monumental win for their program.
Washington State: Two straight weeks of good wins that help them out a lot.
Arizona State: They definitely needed this win; they’re still in the running for a good bowl, despite how bad things got for a while.
Hovering:
Oregon: AA Team. ‘Nuff said.
Falling:
USC: It certainly hurts them, but this team wasn’t running the table, so it’s really not as big of a deal as you might otherwise think.
Washington: This loss really hurt their bowl quest. It looks like their season will come down to the Apple Cup in Pullman.
UCLA: Bowl hopes are basically on life support right now.
Washington State 37, @ UCLA (-1.5) 15
(my pick: @ UCLA 23, Washington State 17)
Too much Brink, too much Hill, too many Bruin turnovers. In a game where UCLA had a halftime lead, that was the story of the second half, where Wazzu turned a deficit into a commanding victory.
What to take from this:
If you’re Washington State:
You have to be a little concerned with a so-so first half effort, but the second half was fantastic. This was a great game overall for this team. And after two straight years without a bowl bid, it has to feel good to have already locked one up before the end of October.
If you’re UCLA:
This was a disastrous loss for the Bruins. The finishing stretch is absolutely brutal, as there isn’t a guaranteed win among the last four games, which means that a losing record is not only possible but likely.
Arizona State (-1.5) 26, @ Washington 23 (OT)
(my pick: @ Washington 21, Arizona State 17)
This was a really fun game between these two teams. For a while, the Sun Devils looked to be in control, but U-Dub came back and sent it into overtime. But in the extra period, ASU was able to make the important plays, shutting down the Husky offense and then getting a touchdown to seal the win.
What to take from this:
If you’re Arizona State:
This was a very important win for the Sun Devils. The finishing stretch isn’t brutal, but it is tough, which makes 5-3 a whole lot easier to take than 4-4. Things are looking up for this team.
If you’re Washington:
It’s a tough loss to swallow, that’s for certain. The Huskies did almost everything that they could, but in the end it just wasn’t enough. Unless they come up with the game of the year in Autzen, they’ll have to sweep the last two games to have a postseason, which looks tough the way Wazzu is playing.
@ Oregon State 33, USC (-10.5) 31
(my pick: USC 24, @ Oregon State 14)
This was just a tremendous game. Oregon State constantly looked like they were going to put it away, but USC kept clawing back, kept making runs, and kept themselves in the game despite all the times they got themselves in serious trouble.
The first half looked like so many of USC’s lackluster efforts so far; they get themselves in some trouble, make a few mistakes, but are well within range at halftime, and it all seems fine. But in the second half, things started to fall apart for the Trojans, as they got stopped on their first drive, Oregon State got a touchdown drive, and then the Beavers followed it up with a Sammie Stroughter punt return for a touchdown. And then it finally felt wrapped up when the Trojans went for it on fourth and goal at the 10 and got denied.
However, a muffed punt by the Beavers gave USC new life, and from then on they seemed unstoppable, making key plays and getting themselves into position to win. But in the end, they couldn’t complete the comeback, with the two-point conversion pass getting knocked down to finally seal the win for the Beavers.
What to take from this:
If you’re USC:
To be honest, I’m not sure you can really read all that much into it for USC. This was just one of those games where pretty much everything went wrong; they had -6 turnover margin, they gave up a touchdown on a punt return, and they failed on a fourth and goal. And yet, even with all that, they were in position to send it to overtime right until the very end.
Certainly, this pretty much kills their national title chances, but the truth was that this was never really a national title caliber team, so I really don’t see this loss as being all that big of a deal for them. The main thing for them now is to try and make a BCS bowl, either automatic or at-large. That means that they can afford no more than one more loss (if that; one loss might well kill an at-large bid). Against a nasty finishing slate, that’s easier said than done, but they certainly have the talent to at least achieve a ten-win season.
If you’re Oregon State:
Obviously, this was a very important win for the Beavers, especially given that, other than Stanford, there are no guaranteed wins on their slate. Moreover, this was the type of win that can really get things off the ground, both in terms of exposure and recruiting. However, a note of caution must be sounded, just as the USC side had reason for optimism. The Beavers were given six turnovers and got a punt return for a touchdown, and yet they barely hung on in this game. Yes, USC is a higher level opponent than anyone left on their slate, but they still have to be somewhat concerned. Nobody else is going to give them so many gifts, and they need to do a better job of putting game away when they have the chance. If someone else mounts a comeback, it might not fall short.
@ Oregon (NL) 55, Portland St 12
(my pick: @ Oregon 42, AA 7)
Yawn…
My Pac-10 Record:
This week: SU 1-3, ATS 1-2
Season: SU 43-12, ATS 27-23
National Games of the Week:
Texas (-10) 35, @ Texas Tech 31
(my pick: Texas 31, @ Texas Tech 24)
Florida (-13.5) 21, Georgia 14
(my pick: Florida 31, Georgia 14)
There is no truth to the rumor that Georgia’s comeback was due to Florida players hitting the keg in the middle of the third quarter.
Tennessee (-3.5) 31, @ South Carolina 24
(my pick: Tennessee 28, South Carolina 13)
National Games record
This week: 3-0 SU, 2-1 ATS
Season: 20-10 SU, 19-10-1 ATS)
Bad Lines of the Week:
Purdue +3
Missed by 9 points
Ole Miss + 18.5
Covered by 12.5 points
Navy +13
Missed by 11 points
Bad Lines Record
This week: 1-2
Season: 4-5
My Top 25
1) Ohio State (9-0): vs Minn: W 44-0
2) Michigan (9-0): vs NW: W 17-3
3) West Virginia (7-0): bye
4) Rutgers (7-0): vs UConn: W 24-13
That was far, far too much of a lackluster effort against UConn. And yet, everyone around them had an even worse week, so they move up.
5) USC (6-1): @ Oregon State: L 31-33
With everything bad they did, they still almost pulled off the win. That says something.
6) Florida (7-1): vs Georgia: W 21-14
Georgia is nowhere near good enough that a seven-point win can be considered a good thing.
7) Louisville (7-0): bye
8) Cal (7-1): bye
9) Tennessee (7-1): @ South Carolina: W 31-24
There have just been too many mediocre efforts by the Vols to keep them above Cal, though they’re so close that it could easily flip back the other way next week.
10) Boise State (8-0): bye
11) Arkansas (7-1): vs UL-Monroe: W 44-10
12) Wisconsin (8-1): vs Illinois: W 30-24
Lackluster effort by the Badgers, but the get some leniency because it’s their first in a while (and because no one else did anything worth mentioning)
13) Notre Dame (7-1): @ Navy: W 38-14
This is the first time since Penn State that the Irish have actually looked like a top ten-caliber team. Solid game.
14) Texas (8-1): @ Texas Tech: W 35-31
Other than Oklahoma, this was Texas’ best win of the year. That’s why they’re not in the top ten.
15) Clemson (7-2): @ VA Tech: L 7-24
16) LSU (6-2): bye
17) Auburn (8-1): @ Ole Miss: W 23-17
The Tigers have hit the road three times, and two of them have been stinkers.
18) Oklahoma (6-2): @ Mizzou: W 26-10
19) Georgia Tech (6-2): vs Miami: W 30-23
20) Texas A&M (8-1): @ Baylor: W 31-21
21) BC (7-1): vs Buffalo: W 44-0
22) Wake Forest (7-1): @ UNC: W 24-17
An underwhelming win against a terrible team is worth a slight drop.
23) Missouri (7-2): vs Oklahoma: L 10-26
24) Oregon (6-2): vs AA: W 55-12
25) Virginia Tech (6-2): vs Clemson: W 24-7
Dropped:
22) Nebraska (6-3): @ OK State: L 29-41
Last Week:
1) Ohio State
2) Michigan
3) USC
4) West Virginia
5) Florida
6) Rutgers
7) Louisville
8) Tennessee
9) Cal
10) Clemson
11) Boise State
12) Wisconsin
13) Arkansas
14) Texas
15) Auburn
16) LSU
17) Notre Dame
18) Missouri
19) Oklahoma
20) Wake Forest
21) BC
22) Nebraska
23) Georgia Tech
24) Texas A&M
25) Oregon
Soapbox Moment:
There’s nothing overly important going on this week, so I thought I’d bring up another one of my non-urgent topics. This time: the BCS rankings system (don’t worry; I’ll get around to talking about the pros and cons of a playoff eventually, just not today), specifically the computer rankings. As you should know, the BCS rankings are the straight average of three different polls: the Harris Poll, the Coaches’ Poll, and the Computer Poll Average, with the Computer average taking the mean vote for each team, throwing away both the highest and lowest ranking.
As it stands now, many of the computer will come up with drastically different rankings, especially before the very end of the year. And there are at least some people (including at least one on this site) who take issue with this. Indeed, there has been a suggestion recently made that we scrap the idea of averaging a bunch of different computers and instead settle on a single formula that will be the only one used for the BCS rankings.
This is a really, really bad idea. I can pretty much guarantee you that if you were to take ten football experts, lock them in ten different rooms, and have them watch as much of this year’s games as they liked, but without any knowledge of the rankings or communication with each other, they would come up with at least seven (and probably more) different top 10 rankings amongst themselves. Sure, Ohio State would probably be a unanimous #1, and Michigan at #2, but after that things would certainly get contentious. Any of the Big East teams could make the top eight or so, and any (other than probably West Virginia) could get bumped from the top ten. USC could be right near the top or near #9. The top couple SEC teams could come in almost any order. Texas and Notre Dame could fit in there, or perhaps not, depending on the expert. At least one person is likely to at least Boise in at #10. And so on and so forth.
And here’s the point: if reasonable people who are very knowledgeable about football can come up with drastically different opinions, how in the world can we all come together and agree on how to construct just one computer formula? And if not, how could we possibly trust just one ranking system to “get it right” when even the experts will disagree? The simple truth is that we cannot. If anything, I would argue that we should have two or three more computers, just to make sure that there are more votes to balance out the formula biases that each system suffers from.
However, there are things that we can do to make the computers more realistic. The first and foremost is to bring back margin of victory. Yes, yes, I know that factoring it up supposedly encourages coaches to run up the score, but how is that any different from the current system, where ESPN commentators constantly talk about the importance of “style points” and running up the score (though they never call it that out loud)? Quite simply, there is no difference. Or rather, there is a difference: computer models can easily be built to discount blowout wins. From what I can gather, the New York Times model, for instance, completely ignores any margin greater than a specific number (I think it’s 30-something). Moreover, it’s also easy to slowly decrease the importance of each extra point scored past a certain number (one example: using the logarithm of the margin of victory).
Of course, there is certainly room for models which ignore margin of victory and simply look at wins and losses, but throwing it out for all computers takes away an important component of analysis. The fact remains that a team which suffers a very close loss (three points or less) shouldn’t be punished as much as a team which loses by 20+ against a similar level of opponent. Similarly, if one team always wins by double-digit margins, they should obviously get more credit than a team who keeps barely coming out of top against the same level of competition. And that’s why margins should be used. The important thing isn’t to completely blow teams out of the water; rather, it is supposed to simply be making sure that you’re never in serious danger of losing. That’s a better standard, and a much different standard than many poll voters use. And computers can factor that in exceedingly well, if only given the chance.
There are other factors that should be given at least some weight in some of the systems. Among them are: overtime (which can be used to adjust margin of victory), home/away/neutral field splits (which can either be used to adjust margin of victory or to adjust strength of schedule), and improvement (since some teams get better and others worse as the year goes on: see Arkansas for one big example). There are others as well, but it would be nice to at least see some of these added to some of the BCS computers.
Ultimately, of course, the truth is that no voting system, whether computer, human or otherwise, can completely get it right. And that is without a doubt one of the arguments that deserves to be made in favor of a playoff (which will be discussed another time). However, as long as we are using the current system, I think that it is only fair to make sure that all of the voters, human and otherwise, are given all of the tools they need to succeed. That’s why I suggested earlier that human voters be given at least until Monday to submit ballots, rather than the too-short deadline of Sunday around noon (see this article), and that’s why I believe that we need to have more computers with different rating structures, and that we give each of them the freedom to look at the results of the year from their own perspective. While there may in some cases be no single answer, the more informed and empowered the voters are, the more likely we are to have a result that is, at least, as fair as “humanly” possible.
Questions, comments or suggestions? Email me at cfn_ms@hotmail.com