# I don't get college football rankings. **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 26, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143 "2010-09-26T21:32:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/41 "2010-10-04T18:03:37Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > > [@zamboniracer](#): > > > > now they’re supposed to devote 12.5 hours in a day - with no breaks for meals or the restroom - to watch condensed versions of the top 25’s games. That’s not a reasonable expectation. > > I didn’t suggest that. To do so over the course of a week - yeah, I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable. There are, of course, going to be games they can and have to skip. But to make an effort each week to watch the games you’re covering - that’s not unreasonable. Sure they can watch it over a week, but that doesn’t help them with their votes, which are released Monday morning. They pretty much have 1-2 days–I don’t know exactly when they have to have the votes in–to condense all the games played into a list of rankings. They can tweak themselves during the week, but that just smooths the edges out for a long-term strategic ranking. But the next week’s ranking still require them to figure in the new weekend’s games. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/42 "2010-10-04T18:32:37Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > They can tweak themselves during the week, but that just smooths the edges out for a long-term strategic ranking. But the next week’s ranking still require them to figure in the new weekend’s games. Would anyone here complain if voters actually implemented a long term strategic ranking? Or argue that that would be worse than what they’re currently doing? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/43 "2010-10-04T19:02:17Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > Sure they can watch it over a week, but that doesn’t help them with their votes, which are released Monday morning. They pretty much have 1-2 days–I don’t know exactly when they have to have the votes in–to condense all the games played into a list of rankings. Sunday afternoon, actually. Here’s a link to [SI.com](http://SI.com)’s article announcing this week’s poll results. Note the time at which it was originally posted (it says 12:28pm on Sunday; it’s not clear to me if that’s Eastern or Central time): [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/10/03/ap.poll.ap/index.html](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/10/03/ap.poll.ap/index.html) The western conferences (Pac-10, MWC, etc.) will frequently have a game or two which is played late on Saturday evening, often not ending until midnight or later Eastern Time. Assuming that votes have to be in at least an hour or so before the AP releases the results, that probably gives writers less than 12 hours between when Saturday’s final games conclude, and when they have to get their votes in, and most of those hours are the middle of the night. I’m not sure about when the coaches’ polls are released, but I’d be willing to bet they don’t get much more time than that. ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/44 "2010-10-05T02:08:27Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > > [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > > > They can tweak themselves during the week, but that just smooths the edges out for a long-term strategic ranking. But the next week’s ranking still require them to figure in the new weekend’s games. > > Would anyone here complain if voters actually implemented a long term strategic ranking? Or argue that that would be worse than what they’re currently doing? I doubt anyone here would complain, but I think Vegas and other parties that have vested financial interest in these sort of things would. It’s Murphy’s Golden Rule. ---
**Author:** ![Neptunian\_Slug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Neptunian\_Slug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neptunian_Slug)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/45 "2010-10-05T03:21:18Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > I doubt anyone here would complain, but I think Vegas and other parties that have vested financial interest in these sort of things would. > > It’s Murphy’s Golden Rule. Vegas doesn’t care as long as they have an equal number of wagers on both sides of a game. I just don’t know what a “long term strategic ranking” means or how you police it. Do you penalize Michigan because they have had lousy teams for three years and just turned the team around? Should Texas get the benefit of the doubt for being good last year even though they have a mediocre team this year? When does long term give way to the present? ---
**Author:** ![Enright3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/enright3/32/2897_2.png) [@Enright3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enright3)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/46 "2010-10-05T14:58:50Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The theory is because they are insiders and know the game better than we, they can school us in polls. The BCS was supposed to eliminate slant and the human factor. It did not do it very well. I may be in the minority on this; but I disagree. It seems to me that the BCS HAS taken a lot of slant and human factor out of the game. The problem is that people thought that’s what they wanted; but it turns out they didn’t agree on the teams selected (thus inserting their slant and human factor back into the equation). They’d rather pick the National Championship game by public opinion if they can’t do it by playoff. To me, all systems for choosing teams for National Championship game will suck until we get some sort of playoff system. ---
**Author:** ![Enright3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/enright3/32/2897_2.png) [@Enright3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enright3)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/47 "2010-10-05T15:03:25Z")
> [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > I doubt anyone here would complain, but I think Vegas and other parties that have vested financial interest in these sort of things would. > > It’s Murphy’s Golden Rule. Vegas doesn’t care. Their money comes on the vig. It’s the only sure money in betting. It’s a common mistake to believe that when a team is ‘favored’ by X number of points that it’s a prediction that a team will win by that much. Not true. The point spread is an arbitrary adjustment amount to make all the bets come out even. Vegas is just the middle man in transferring that money from a losing bettor to the winning bettor; with a little off the top for them. ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/48 "2010-10-05T15:25:30Z")
> [@Enright3](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > The theory is because they are insiders and know the game better than we, they can school us in polls. The BCS was supposed to eliminate slant and the human factor. It did not do it very well. > > I may be in the minority on this; but I disagree. It seems to me that the BCS HAS taken a lot of slant and human factor out of the game. The problem is that people thought that’s what they wanted; but it turns out they didn’t agree on the teams selected (thus inserting their slant and human factor back into the equation). They’d rather pick the National Championship game by public opinion if they can’t do it by playoff. To me, all systems for choosing teams for National Championship game will suck until we get some sort of playoff system. Merely to point to an idea that makes some sense to me, I suggest you investigate [http://collegefootballbelt.com/index.htm](http://collegefootballbelt.com/index.htm) The College Football Belt. I’ve brought it up in other threads and it doesn’t seem to appeal to many other people either. But it is worth thinking about for improvements or as an alternative to the obviously biased polls in use today. For my money the major problem with any poll is the definition of the term “team” which fluctuates in its strengths and weaknesses form season to season, and even from game to game. Players and coaches move on, injuries and sanctions affect stability, and many other factors keep the “team” from being the same entity that played the last season or the last game. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/49 "2010-10-05T16:32:28Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So #21 WVU loses to #15 LSU in a close game. > > Okay, that would be expected, no? If the polls are right, any #21 team would lose to a #15 team. > > So why does that #21 team, WVU, drop entirely out of the rankings? So a team that finishes 6-6 and loses all 6 games to teams ranked in the top 10 should be ranked #11? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/50 "2010-10-05T16:40:46Z")
> [@Neptunian\_Slug](#): > > I just don’t know what a “long term strategic ranking” means or how you police it. Do you penalize Michigan because they have had lousy teams for three years and just turned the team around? Should Texas get the benefit of the doubt for being good last year even though they have a mediocre team this year? When does long term give way to the present? That’s quite a bit more “long term” than I had in mind. In this case, “long term” means “about 10 days or so”. The problem is that voters aren’t going to watch all 12-15 games they need to by the time they vote in the 36 hours before their vote needs to be cast. But if they spend an hour or two a day during the week catching up on what they missed, then reflecting their updated perspective in next week’s rankings (“I counted Whatsamatta U’s win over Eastern North Central State too much, because ENCS had their entire defense out with the flu”), it’d even out. Currently, it seems like they have absolutely no memory of anything that happened earlier in the season, and it’s strictly a week-by-week thing. That’s another point in favor of not having ANY rankings until Week 5 or so. ---
**Author:** ![Enright3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/enright3/32/2897_2.png) [@Enright3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enright3)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/51 "2010-10-05T17:18:14Z")
> [@notfrommensa](#): > > > [@jtgain](#): > > > > So #21 WVU loses to #15 LSU in a close game. > > > > Okay, that would be expected, no? If the polls are right, any #21 team would lose to a #15 team. > > > > So why does that #21 team, WVU, drop entirely out of the rankings? > > So a team that finishes 6-6 and loses all 6 games to teams ranked in the top 10 should be ranked #11? Here’s where rankings are difficult to assign. I see the logic in thinking that a #15 team should beat a #21 team; but I don’t think that’s the best way to look at rankings. It’s not that linear. I somewhat agree the rankings if I consider that if both the number 15 and the number 20 team played x random teams, the number 15 team would have a better record than the #20 team. If #20 beat #15 heads up; but #15 won every other game; and #20 lost every other game. There’s no question that #15 is still the better team. Using head to head as an indicator is flawed logic. Consider Texas, Texas Tech (or was it Texas A&M?) and Oklahoma a couple of years ago. Texas beat Oklahoma, Oklahoma beat Texas Tech, Texas Tech beat Texas. It was a circle of winning, but since Texas beat Oklahoma everyone thought Texas was the better team. It just simply wasn’t true. Oklahoma’s stats in every major category were better. All around, Oklahoma was the better team. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/52 "2010-10-05T17:48:56Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > That’s another point in favor of not having ANY rankings until Week 5 or so. IMO, College Football would lose a lot of the momentum if it did not have preseason and early rankings. the early season matchups get a lot publicity from the rankings. The Boise/Va Tech game. the Bama/PSU game. etc. ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/53 "2010-10-05T18:01:42Z")
> [@Enright3](#): > > > [@Hoopy\_Frood](#): > > > > I doubt anyone here would complain, but I think Vegas and other parties that have vested financial interest in these sort of things would. > > > > It’s Murphy’s Golden Rule. > > Vegas doesn’t care. Their money comes on the vig. It’s the only sure money in betting. It’s a common mistake to believe that when a team is ‘favored’ by X number of points that it’s a prediction that a team will win by that much. Not true. The point spread is an arbitrary adjustment amount to make all the bets come out even. Vegas is just the middle man in transferring that money from a losing bettor to the winning bettor; with a little off the top for them. No, I understand that spreads are meaningless when it comes to reflection of actual team talent and are really just used to guarantee that Vegas doesn’t lose money. I’m just saying that those who gamble on sports regularly might have real issues with this sort of thing, and might gamble less, and then Vegas loses money from less people betting. I don’t know if that’s even remotely what could happen, since I’ve never had any interest in gambling on sports, so I really don’t pay atttention to the system, but with how much the polls are marketed, I’d imagine someone would be losing out somewhere if they were released later than earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143/54 "2010-10-05T18:05:37Z")
> [@notfrommensa](#): > > IMO, College Football would lose a lot of the momentum if it did not have preseason and early rankings. > > the early season matchups get a lot publicity from the rankings. The Boise/Va Tech game. the Bama/PSU game. etc. I think college football suffers from too MUCH momentum. It’s too hard for that really good Iowa State team who put every single puzzle piece in place for a title run to crack the Top Five if their preseason rank is below #20 (hypothetical of course - Iowa State will never put together a team like that). I don’t think college football (or, in this case, ESPN) would lose much revenue if there weren’t rankings for a few weeks into the season. Va Tech, Boise State, Alabama and PSU all finished in the top 10 last year - that’s all the hype you need. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-get-college-football-rankings/555143.md?page=2)