Week 7 Coaches Poll

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 29, 2005
1,483
354
1,713
NW OKC
www.thomasandcathy.blogspot.com
#26
If you really think about it, rankings are so stupid. They totally benefit the Bluebloods. Lets rank the NFL: and let that be a factor in determining the NFL champion. The ideal scenario is for college football to get to the point where on the field head to head wins decide who the national championship is. It works in every other division and every other sport.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,743
4,432
1,743
#28
While this a cool idea, this system is broken. The fact that undefeated Cincy is ranked behind Notre Dame, a team they beat, damns the whole concept.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
Marble Game Algorithm:
1. all FBS teams start w/ 100 marbles + 10 bonus marbles for every P5 team on their schedule
2. beat an opponent at home or neutral field, take 20% of their marbles; beat them on the road, take 25% of their marbles.
That's it, that's the algorithm.
 
Jul 27, 2011
760
434
1,613
26
Bixby
#29
Yeah, it's a pretty cool idea. I like that there is a consistent set of rules for everyone but if an undefeated team can be ranked behind a team they beat head-to-head, the system doesn't work.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,743
4,432
1,743
#31
Yeah, it's a pretty cool idea. I like that there is a consistent set of rules for everyone but if an undefeated team can be ranked behind a team they beat head-to-head, the system doesn't work.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
Trust me, if Cincinnati goes undefeated it should work out.
 
Feb 15, 2017
1,435
666
243
66
Texas
#32
Can someone explain how Kentucky beating a 3-2 LSU earned them 5 spots to leap frog us to 11 in the AP?? A win in Austin will take care of that, I know, but still.
Kentucky has now beaten FLA and LSU in the same year since . . . well, a long time.
Would be like us beating uT and 0U in the same year which hasn't happened for . . well, for a long time.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,612
2,833
1,743
47
DFW
#34
We need more love here. We’re currently last in votes. We may not be the best of the four teams, but we probably have the easiest path to get there.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
10,260
6,638
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#35
Yeah, it's a pretty cool idea. I like that there is a consistent set of rules for everyone but if an undefeated team can be ranked behind a team they beat head-to-head, the system doesn't work.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
I haven't given it a ton of thought, but it seems like this system might be one that could be inaccurate at the start of the season and then become more accurate as the season progresses. The teams that played and won tougher games will have more marbles at the end. It makes upsets more what they are. Upsets. Not necessarily sole proof that one team is better than the other.

Do you think A&M should be ranked ahead of Bama (on ANY system) just based on their one game against each other?
 
Jul 27, 2011
760
434
1,613
26
Bixby
#37
Yeah, it's a pretty cool idea. I like that there is a consistent set of rules for everyone but if an undefeated team can be ranked behind a team they beat head-to-head, the system doesn't work.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
I haven't given it a ton of thought, but it seems like this system might be one that could be inaccurate at the start of the season and then become more accurate as the season progresses. The teams that played and won tougher games will have more marbles at the end. It makes upsets more what they are. Upsets. Not necessarily sole proof that one team is better than the other.

Do you think A&M should be ranked ahead of Bama (on ANY system) just based on their one game against each other?
I do not think A&M should be ranked ahead of Bama but it's a different scenario.

Bama has only one loss and A&M has two. If Cincy had two losses, I would have zero qualms with the system. But as you said, maybe the polls will be more accurate with a full season's worth of data points.

However, I do wonder - with Cincy not playing anymore P5 teams and ND playing several - if both teams win out from here, would ND still be ranked ahead of Cincy? If so, the system doesn't work.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,604
17,233
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#38
The problem with the marbles ranking is that when you play is as important as who you play (maybe more). If for example Iowa played ISU after Baylor did, then Iowa would have gotten fewer marbles from that win and Baylor more. Their strength of schedule would not change at all in that case but their # of marbles would.

And that would extend to other teams as well....our win vs Baylor would have been worth more marbles if they had gotten to play ISU before Iowa....and so on and so on.
 
Nov 18, 2010
2,603
1,025
1,743
#39
If you really think about it, rankings are so stupid. They totally benefit the Bluebloods. Lets rank the NFL: and let that be a factor in determining the NFL champion. The ideal scenario is for college football to get to the point where on the field head to head wins decide who the national championship is. It works in every other division and every other sport.
Exactly. Let's have a small group of people in the NFL vote on the four 'best' teams at the end of the year. And only those 4 teams can win the invitational tournament. You went undefeated? Too bad, your fan base is too small. You're not eligible.

College football has a blueblood eye-test invitational tournament.

I hope other teams who go undefeated will continue to put up banners and put 'national champion' on their stadiums. Until there is a real 'playoff' where ALL teams are eligible,, (conference champs auto-invited), it's not a real championship.