Dr. Saturday - NCAAF

Now in its fifth year, the Blog Poll is a weekly effort of dozens of college football-centric Web sites representing a wide array of schools under the oversight of founder/manager/guru Brian Cook at MGoBlog, and now appears on CBS Sportsline. It’s an effort to provide a more rigorous check on the mainstream polls that actually, like, count toward the mythical championship, and enthusiastically shines a light on its voters' biases. But mainly, it’s fun. The entire poll will be released later today.

This week's ballot is brought to you by inimitable curmudgeon Frank Deford, who remind readers to keep in mind the futility of it all:

Then again, the whole process is, well, rank, because, after all, nobody can possibly compare teams all over the country with any degree of intelligence. Nobody can even see many of them play. It's like being in Congress and voting on bills you know nothing about. So, it's very American.

Not everyone agrees with the last part, Frank, but the Doc waves the flag on his first ballot by celebrating not only the democratic act of voting but also the deeply American virtue of meritocracy: As always, the preseason rankings have been thrown aside to judge teams exclusively by their on-field merits to date. Everybody will adopt the "resumé" approach by the end of the season, but the goal here is to throw off assumptions and predictions to the greatest extent possible and maintain an internally consistent standard throughout the season. Think of it as a weekly snapshot of a constantly evolving beast. It's still subjective, and it's never easy.

Some assumptions, remain, of course: For the first week, teams are ranked essentially in order of the perceived strength of their opening day opponent coming into the season, with some adjustments for margin of victory. Strength of schedule is an enormously important factor in my consideration, and judging it accurately across a huge swath of varying schedules requires making new assumptions every week and discarding old ones. There will be a lot of natural turnover at the beginning of the season, but things will start to take shape by the time almost every team has played at least one big game by the end of September and become more rigid as we have more information.

No cupcakes allowed. Teams that opened against a I-AA opponent were not considered for this poll. Yes, that includes Florida, along with about half of the country. The Gators will make their way up the ladder when they win games that warrant moving them up the ladder, just like everyone else.

There were eight very impressive wins. I would say the top eight in this poll -- Alabama, BYU, Oklahoma State, Boise State, Missouri, Miami, Cincinnati and California -- clearly distinguished themselves with dramatic and in some cases very lopsided wins over quality (or perceived quality) outfits, led by Alabama, which dominated top-10/ACC favorite Virginia Tech far more than the 10-point margin suggests. I had 'Bama No. 1 after the beatdown it laid on ACC favorite Clemson to kick off last year, and Saturday night's effort was on par with that one for a Week One eye-opener.

Slots 10-21 are roughly equal. I'm not going to split a lot of hairs in this section, which (with the exception of South Carolina and Colorado State) consists exclusively of teams that beat respectable, higher-end mid-major programs, typically by a lot. Notre Dame, Michigan, Auburn, Ole Miss, Nebraska, Arizona and Bowling Green all handled '08 bowl teams by double digits. Ohio State wasn't so impressive against Navy, but the Midshipmen are a consistently successful program, compared to, say, Syracuse.

Southern Cal and Texas A&M fit into this category because San Jose State (6-6 last year) and New Mexico (five bowl games in seven years) are not the flimsiest tomato cans out there compared to some of the victims of teams in the "Waiting" category, and the Trojans and Aggies left them both strewn across the field in little pieces. Whether they should be above the best 0-1 teams is debatable, though.

I do not think Baylor, South Carolina, Colorado State and/or Bowling Green are any good. But this is not a predictive poll about where any of those teams will eventually finish; with what we know so far, based on what we thought coming in, their respective wins over Wake Forest, N.C. State, Colorado and Troy were among the best of the weekend when so much of the competition was scraping the bottom for an easy walk-over. Their status isn't likely to last long, not least because all of their victims looked terrible in defeat and may not be worth much as trophies by the end of the month.

Losing a competitive game against a quality team is better than throttling a deadbeat. The teams in the "waiting" category all laid the wood to various degrees to some of the worst I-A programs in the country, which doesn't count as much for me as putting up a fight against a really respectable outfit; Oklahoma, Navy, Florida State and even Virginia Tech, as thoroughly as the Hokies were trounced in the box score, all had chances to win their respective games against previously ranked opponents well into the fourth quarter. I'll take that over wiping out Akron.

As always, this will look completely different next week.

digg delicious
more

31 Comments

Post a Comment
  1. dethwing
    1. Posted by dethwing Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:39 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    In terms of a complete resume based ranking system, I think I'd rather have 1-0 teams (Regardless of who they beat) ranked above 0-1 teams. Those 0-1 teams will get there shot soon enough to move up, why start them early?
  2. Reality
    2. Posted by Reality Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:41 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Can you explain some more how you distinguish between the quality of the opponent? For instance, you must be making some assumptions (power-polling) to determine that a win over Oklahoma is more impressive than a win over Florida State.
  3. Jeff K
    3. Posted by Jeff K Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:48 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Not a big quibble, but I might rank Mizzou's win over Illinois on a neutral site as more impressive than Boise's win over Oregon on the smurf turf.
    Both vanquished opponents were supposedly-good BCS foes, but looked like they hadn't received any coaching in several months.
    Mizzou's win being at a neutral site instead of at home makes it more impressive to me.
  4. Jeff K
    4. Posted by Jeff K Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:50 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Also, Baylor's win was a road win at a BCS school. I think they should get a little more credit.
    Also, I'm a Big XII homer.
  5. The Bengal
    5. Posted by The Bengal Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:50 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Wow. LSU not even in the waiting category, Doc? I know they struggled against Washington, but Minnesota had to go to overtime vs. Syracuse and you've got them in the waiting category. Is Syracuse that much better than Washington?
  6. AgnosticTheocrat
    6. Posted by AgnosticTheocrat Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:53 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    My first immediate impression is that it seems a little odd to not rank Penn State after their thorough dismantling of Akron, a bowl team, but rank teams who lost their respective games and/or USC who beat a more mediocre outfit than Akron in SJSU.
  7. Dave R
    7. Posted by Dave R Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:53 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    LSU wins against a PAC-10 team two time zones into the night and doesn't make it above losing teams? and you say that teams are scored on merit alone, yet you give alabama extra points because they "dominated top-10/ACC favorite Virginia Tech far more than the 10-point margin suggests"... WTF? the score is the score.
  8. J Rizz
    8. Posted by J Rizz Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:57 am EDT

    Report Abuse

    Texas A&M and no Kansas? Ewwwww...
  9. Spencer J
    9. Posted by Spencer J Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:29 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    As I figured, there is a lot of vitriol for this ranking system. I happen to like it. The rankings will fluctuate enormously week-to-week, but at least there is some semblance of an attempt to actually rank on merit. @Reality: There will always be a need for a little assumption making since there is no way for every team to play every other one. What Doc has done is tried to make it so that those "assumptions" give way to actual football as early as possible instead of permeating deep into the season/rankings.
  10. alex
    10. Posted by alex Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:54 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    BYU at 2? Way too high and although an impressive win against Oklahoma, Ok looks like its not even top 3 in the big 12
  11. cheatypants mcsweatervest
    11. Posted by cheatypants mcsweatervest Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:09 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    ridiculous
  12. Brian M
    12. Posted by Brian M Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:10 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I think people are still thinking this is supposed to represent who's "better" overall, when all it really is trying to do is show who has performed better so far. Since there's only one week of data to go by, there are going to be "good" teams listed way below "lesser" teams, but if they're really that good, they'll rise up over the course of the season. The thing is, with only one week of data, it's really hard to even argue that the list is internally inconsistent. There's barely enough data to make a list like this at all, let alone one to make a conclusive argument for a specific team's rank. So relax, especially if your team didn't rise as high as you think they should. This isn't saying that Boise State is better than USC, for example, just that so far this season Boise State has given us all more evidence of their quality.
  13. Malcolm K
    13. Posted by Malcolm K Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:39 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    "...Nobody can even see many of them play...."
    Methinks that the DVR technology is still too new age for Frank Deford. I daresay Mission Accomplished regarding watching many of them play . My ass print on my couch will vouch for me.
  14. bignasty9600
    14. Posted by bignasty9600 Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:54 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Why do you continue to do this ridiculous exercise year after year? You cannot have a merit-based poll after one game...there's not enough data.
    Any system that ranks 1-0 Bowling Green over 1-0 Florida is flawed in every single way possible. You cannot do a merit-based poll until October at the earliest because to even determine which wins mean more...you have to subjectively rank the teams based on nothing. How did you determine Michigan was better than Auburn? By deciding, based on nothing, that Western Michigan is better than Louisana Tech.
    It's a nice thought in theory but it just doesn't work. And you end up looking like an idiot.
  15. gtne91
    15. Posted by gtne91 Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:58 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I thought the Iowa ballot was a more legitimate resume ranking ballot, but it got spiked, so maybe it is better that you wussed out on real resume ranking.
    I would have distinguished between FBS and FCS wins and gone with Tennessee number 1 instead of Air Force (or Alabama).
    I probably would have been spiked too.
  16. smente
    16. Posted by smente Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:04 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    As week 1 polls go, this is the best I've seen. Nice work Doc. I see no harm in making teams work for the love. Also, Agnostic TheoCrat - Akron was 5-7 last year and missed out on a possible bowl by losing the last game to Temple. That is not a good team, and it wasn't last year. Tim Curly needs to grow a pair.
  17. STRANGLE HOLD
    17. Posted by STRANGLE HOLD Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:20 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    the only poll Alabama will top cause the suck!
  18. Doghouse Reilly
    18. Posted by Doghouse Reilly Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:38 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Kudos on not ranking teams that have only played I-AA opponents. This isn't a I-AA ballot.
  19. HERETIC
    19. Posted by HERETIC Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:59 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Supernatural institute at number 10? it must be the catholic vote!
  20. Brian M
    20. Posted by Brian M Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:06 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    @bignasty9600: There's one other way to determine the quality of opponents in these games: watching the games. Even a 10-minute recap video will give you a reasonably good idea of the quality of the teams in the contest. Teams that look sloppy, mess up the fundamentals, execute plays badly, get lazy, and depend on luck to gain yards and/or score should be weighted less heavily than those who *play better football*, even if both lose.
  21. justmetalkinghere
    21. Posted by justmetalkinghere Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:08 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Bama will now claim a 13th national championship. We at Auburn and the rest of the SEC say "Thanks for nothing Doc"
  22. A!
    22. Posted by A! Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:31 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Doc: Miami and S. Carolina that high?!?! One won a close game featuring solid defenses and inept offenses. The other was all scoring with Big 12-like soft defenses. Yes, even a Mickey Andrews Defense can have a bad night.
    LSU homers: are you kidding!!!!! The Huskies get OUT-GAINED the Tigers 1 1/2 to 1. Yes, the same Huskies that have 12 wins in the last 5 YEARS COMBINED, including a 2008 season in which they went 0-12 and lost 9 games by 20+ points. Or to put it in terms you might understand.... during Les Miles' tenure at LSU, U-Dub has one win for every Tigers LOSS. And you want brownie points for that!
    USC goes to Seattle in ten days.... lets see how that goes
  23. elitist jerk
    23. Posted by elitist jerk Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:32 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    I love, love, love the last rule you used for making this poll. If the pollsters operated more with this mindset, we wouldn't have to sit through these early-season snoozers in the first place. It makes me wonder all the more, however, why you left Washington out in the cold. I would think that being competitive against LSU would count for more than failing to be competitive against Alabama.
  24. dethwing
    24. Posted by dethwing Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:08 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    Me thinks you missed the following bit of the post:
    "I do not think Baylor, South Carolina, Colorado State and/or Bowling Green are any good." It was in bold. I can see how you missed it. Oh wait, not I can't..
  25. charles l
    25. Posted by charles l Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:12 pm EDT

    Report Abuse

    i love, love , love how sec people keep knocking the big 12 for soft defenses as if saying that over and over again is somehow going to make the big 12 worse than the sec
    oklahoma held max hall and byu to 14
    osu held allpowerful sec georgia to ten
    mizzou held juice and the illini to nine
    methinks the big 12 has surpassed the sec

Dr. Saturday

Add to My Yahoo! RSS

Matt Hinton

Dr. Saturday is a college football blog edited by Matt Hinton. Email him tips and feedback.

Related Photo Gallery

Y! Sports Blogs

Dr. Saturday Recent Readers