Happy Joyous Friday! (Sounded too much like that "valley" place)
I'm sure there is some complicated formula that the media uses to determine the rankings of the teams in the AP and in other polls like the ESPN Power Rankings.
To me it should be a simple matter of who I think is the better team, and who I think would beat the others if they played. It seems to me there is a general consensus of where teams "should" be and then everyone puts them in that slot.
For example, based on the current ESPN Power Rankings Ohio State is ranked 9th and PSU is unranked. This would tell me that voters believe that OSU is the better team and would win head to head.
Adam Rittenberg and Brian Bennett's ballots reflect this with OSU at 10 and 9; though they have PSU ranked at 22 and 23, respectively.
So, based on this, and my apparently flawed logic, both Adam and Brian should be picking OSU to beat PSU, right?
Also, which factor more determines an "upset"? I've read multiple sources that say the "Buckeyes are going in to Happy Valley to try to pull off the upset."
I believe this is determined by the -2.5 spread, not the rankings. To me, when an unranked (AP and ESPN) team faces the number 9 (AP and ESPN) team, it is the Lions that are trying to pull off the upset.
Thoughts?
Yes, most people view the spread to determine who is the favorite. OSU was an underdog going into East Lansing even though they were ranked ahead of Sparty in the polls.
The top 25 is all based on past results. The pick is not necessarily who is better, and takes into account matchups, location, game time, injuries, etc. Another example is that Michigan is ranked ahead of Nebraska and Nebraska is favored in Vegas. Plus, for the media, they might pick the upset just to get credit if it happens.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
I'm not sure how the Top 25 can be based on past results when it starts with "pre-season" ranking. Aren't they more based on expectations than an actual reflection of results?
A results oriented poll would have Louisville ranked ahead of the 6 one-loss teams and the 1 two-loss team (or a least a little higher in the list).
If losing two games to highly ranked opponents is the only thing of value on your resume, then there are a few MAC schools that should be ranked right next to South Carolina. And why is Stanford ranked ahead of Ohio?
It seems there is some magical formula used to decide these things, and it doesn't appear to be "past results".
I'm thinking it might be TV ratings?
This was really a bit tongue-in-cheek. But it has always baffled me. Like if #2 beats #10, then #10 shouldn't;t drop in the polls. They were SUPPOSED to lose. :-)
And how could a team that won the game drop from 7 to 9? Results say they should stay or move up.
Thanks for the response, Hail.
You're right about the preseason rankings being a predicted outcome scenario. What I meant was in response to you question about why a team who is ranked higher than their opponnent may not be favored, in that a team moves up, drops, or stays the same based on the results of the previous game(s). That doesn't simply mean that W/L is the only factor.
The way the top 25 is ranked is a thread-worthy on its own. I will say I believe this year is the worst/strangest I've ever seen. The B1G is just screwed no matter what this year. Michigan has lost to #1 Bama and #10 (now #5) ND, neither a home game and are barely in the top 25. If a big-time win can propel you forward, a loss to a highly ranked team shouldn't boot you out of the polls.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
Exactly. Based on South Carolina's schedule and ranking, your school should be right up there with them (but not ahead of us!) :)