For one thing I would consider head to head results. You’ve got Michigan over MSU and USC over ND. ND is your lowest ranked 1 loss team, ok fine, but it’s hard to wrap my mind around such high rankings for 2 loss teams and even a 3 loss team.
And I don’t know how Navy grades out for you, but they are top 25 no doubt.
Uh, Indiana State was ranked #1 heading into the tournament, so that’s perhaps not the best example you could use.
ISTM (see posts 370 and 374 above) that the best mid-major teams would be “competitive” in a power conference in the sense of finishing around .500, but not in the sense of threatening to win the conference or being part of the national championship conversation.
I think that head-to-head results are often overemphasized, but in the two cases you mentioned I think the point is valid. The differences between those rankings are pretty minor, though; actually, the system sees USC, ND and the three teams in between as exactly tied, so the placement of USC as five places higher is purely arbitrary. Perhaps I could be a bit less cutesy with the tiebreaker.
I do think that the conventional wisdom tends to be overly impressed by won-loss records at the expense of considering strength of schedule and margins of victory, so I think it is a good sign that this system correlates less closely than the AP with win-loss record. This also comes back to the mid-major issue; both the CFP and I have all 21 power 5 teams with two or fewer losses ranked. They fill out the other four slots with AAC teams, while I do it with three-loss P5 teams (I do have several mid-majors just barely outside the rankings). I think my way is better, but I can’t claim to know for sure. It seems like a lot of love for a conference that is a collective 8-15 against the P5, though admittedly those four ranked teams are a very respectable 5-2 (.714), which is better than my four three-lossers’ 17-11 (.607), though in a smaller sample size.
I have two-loss Michigan at #9, and I’m OK with that. Both losses were close and to good teams, they have had only one close win (at Minnesota), and they beat Northwestern 38-0.
As far as Navy, my system thinks very poorly of them, rating them as equal to South Carolina and Nebraska. They lost badly to the only P5 team they played, and the only remotely quality win they have is last week over Memphis; I do think my system isn’t giving them enough credit for that, but even if Memphis had been ranked #1, Navy still wouldn’t be close to being ranked. Their schedule is just too weak.
Consider the arguments that could be made for some other mid-majors over Navy:
Temple has a win over Penn State, and played ND much closer than Navy did.
Houston is undefeated with wins over Louisville and Vanderbilt (yeah, it’s Vanderbilt, but still, 34-0).
Despite the head-to-head result, Memphis beat Ole Miss and Bowling Green.
Bowling Green played Memphis much closer than Navy did, and also beat Purdue and Maryland.
Boise State has wins over Washington and Virginia.
Toledo beat Arkansas and Iowa State.
And not only is their schedule weak, they haven’t even been particularly dominant. Navy’s biggest margin of victory in a conference game is 25 points; all of the above teams except Memphis have beaten that at least twice.
It could be argued, with some justice, that I am giving some of the above teams too much credit for beating crappy P5 teams. But that’s an argument for not ranking them, not an argument for Navy. Navy’s second-best win is, I guess, South Florida, which lost to Maryland. Or maybe Air Force, which lost by 15 to a Colorado State team that Boise State beat by 31.
Even though they do still have Houston on the schedule, I can’t imagine Navy is going to come close to being ranked by me, and I’m really fine with that. My message to mid-majors: If you want to be taken seriously, and aren’t planning to go undefeated, your second-best nonconference opponent really can’t be Air Force.
:smack: While technically true, this obviously makes the exact opposite of the point I was going for (BGSU lost to Memphis). It is a bug in my system that Bowling Green is nearly ranked, with the difference between it and other mid-majors being that it has two wins against P5 teams – but those are two of the worst P5 teams. So I will leave it at Temple, Houston, Boise State, and Toledo as mid-majors who I feel have better resumes than Navy.
Nah, cancel that. BGSU may be overrated, but I would still take them over Navy. Probably Memphis, too, head-to-head be damned.
I would disagree that head to head results are overemphasized. That’s why you play the games. When the rest of your analytics (outside of actual record) overrules head to head, you’re overthinking it.
I know it sounds cliché, but you can’t appreciate Navy by looking at the numbers. You have to see them in action. They completely dismantled Memphis.
Navy will have a hard time getting games against good, out of conference teams (aside from Notre Dame, who is committed to play Navy for infinity) because they’re so unique and so specialized and so very good at what they do. They naturally won’t run up the score very often because of their style of play.
Fair point. Henceforth, when two teams have nearly identical ratings, but one has beaten the other, head-to-head shall take precedence over my whims as a tiebreaker.
Memphis is the strongest opponent Navy has beaten, and they beat them by a larger margin than they have beaten any other conference opponent. Ergo, one or both teams were not playing at their usual level, and we can’t judge Navy based on the assumption that this game represented a typical performance for them.
On further review, the “dominance” problem I alluded to is a red herring. My system awards a one point bonus for winning by 15 points or better. Navy has earned four such points, while the other teams I compared it to are all between 3 and 6, so that’s not Navy’s real problem. The problem is that I just don’t see how you can rank a mid-major team with no victories over a decent P5 team ahead of any of the several with such victories, unless they are much MORE dominant over their own conference than the others are, which Navy isn’t.
I get that Navy has a unique scheduling issue, since they are also going to play Army and Air Force every year. That leaves them only one extra spot to schedule a potential quality win, which this year they used on…Colgate, suggesting that they are much less concerned than you are about their place in the national rankings! But you can’t give them extra credit based on the assumption that they would have beaten stronger opponents if they had played them.
I think Navy will play anyone, anywhere. Just last year they played Ohio State close and Urban Meyer said after the game that’s the last time he’ll play against Navy. And I think that attitude has become much more common among coaches and directors of big football programs. There is no benefit what so ever to playing Navy. If you beat them, eh big deal it’s Navy. And their style of offense makes you change your entire defensive scheme for a week.
Army might disagree. It’s, what, 15 straight now?
I’m a little surprised Coach Ken Niumatololo hasn’t moved on to something bigger yet.
Army is not a big football program. And given the success, or lack of, that Paul Johnson has achieved at Georgia Tech, I’m not surprised Ken N. is stuck at Navy.
Paul Johnson, lack of success? 3 ACC championship games in 7 years, and a top 10 ranking last year. Nothing to sneeze at.
It has the same resources, and constraints, as Navy. It just hasn’t made use of them.
The point I was making way up there is that it will become more difficult for Navy to get signature wins because big football programs don’t want to play them. Army does not fit the category of big football program that is a signature win for Navy, outside, of course of the prestige and rivalry with Army.
Navy has some unique issues with its offense and scheduling restrictions, but it’s the same basic problem that faces any mid-major team trying to upgrade its reputation and national profile. Everyone bitches about the playoff system, but honestly, the ability of major programs to dodge quality mid-major opponents is probably the most unjust aspect of college football.
All IMO:
The MidMajors should have a National Championship of their very own. I think a Championship game between Memphis and Boise could be compelling.
There is just not enough weeks in a season to determine a champion of 100+ teams.
The Power 5 teams should be limited to one Mid Major and one FCS team on their schedule or they are not eligible for any of the Major* bowls or the Playoff.
*A definition of Major Bowls to be determined later.
This is pretty much where I am, too. I still don’t like the committee idea to pick the at-larges, but you’d have to have some kind of process.
For one, I would reserve one of the three at-large spots for a non-Power 5 conference champ. For another, anybody outside the Power 5 that ends up undefeated is in. So, if Boise State, Houston, and Notre Dame all end up unbeaten, they’re in … and should Bama or Ohio State lose just one game and fail to win their conference, that’s too bad for you.
Again, if there’s not exactly three undefeated teams outside the Power 5, you’d have to come up with some method to figure them out. But I like the fact that this makes conference schedules and championship games essentially a play-in for the playoffs, and it takes the biases of a committee out of the picture.
I’m all for an eight team playoff and I wouldn’t even go so far as to guarantee a spot for the power 5 conference champs. There have been 3 loss conference champs and if they don’t make the cut, too bad.
Ask a Georgia Tech fan. Most of them want him gone. If it wasn’t for last year’s surprising season, he may have been fired already. (A lot of it involves difficulty in recruiting players for the option)
Avoiding losses is why the top teams only schedule easy opponents outside the conferences. Making the conference title all-important lets non-conference games mean something again. A narrow loss to a Top 4 team should not hurt worse than 3 wins against cupcakes - but right now it does. I want to see interconference, intersectional showdowns again, not just a bunch of walkovers.
They’ve still shown themselves to be the best teams in their conferences, by the only metric that matters.
And? If there are three one-loss teams in the PAC-12 but the SEC champ has three losses, why should the SEC champ get in?