Kansas is #1, period [Archive] - NationalChamps.net

ZOOMBAG

10-30-2007, 09:20 PM

The one thing that seemed to start the Sagarin thread stemmed from the fact that one of his ratings had Kansas #1, thereby proving it to be "a joke".

After looking at it, I have to say, what's so wrong about having KU #1 right now vs anyone else? I want to hear honest logical arguments that are NOT perception related.

While I wouldn't rate them #1 in a poll vote I'd cast I'd have no real problem with anyone else that did because all the usual arguments people use really hold no real merit....

Of those the two most common ones are.

1) They haven;t played anybody. To that I say, so who among the four major conference undefeateds or one loss teams has?

KU has beaten Central Michigan 52-7 who now leads the MAC West at 4-0 and is 5-4 overall

SE Louisana (IAA) 62-0,

Toledo who is 4-5 overall 45-13 Purdue beat Toledo 52-24...

and Fla International 55-3 who at 0-8 is pretty bad, but Miami, FL only beat them by 17 and Penn St and Ark fared about the same against them.

So what about the other top teams:

Ohio St beat Div IAA Youngstown St 38-6, Akron (3-5) a whopping 20-2, Washington (2-6, 0-5 PAC 10) 33-14, and Kent St 48-3 who is 1-4 MAC and 3-6 overall. Hmmm..... Can't say that schedule is any better than KU's and KU won their OOC games much more impressively than these guys both scoring more points and giving up fewer points (23 vs Ohio St's 25)

BC??? Army(3-5) 37-17, Div IAA UMass who the beat by a whopping 24-14, Bowling Green 2-2 MAC, 4-4 55-24, and Notre Dame 27-14 who we all know is a real power this year. OK, so how is this pathetic resume better than KU's? Be specific, please. They gave up 65 points to a slate every bit as weak as Kansas'...

Arizona St?

Hmmm..... Real impressive here.....San Jose St 45-3, Colorado 33-14, and San Diego St. 34-13. At least no Div IAA's there, but then outside San Jose, they didn't really blow anyone away....

OU? Well without delving into their spectacular OOC resume, at least Kansas can beat Colorado.....something OU couldn't do.

LSU? Spare us the SEC overhype. Good opponent vs Virginia Tech, but then Middle Tenn St, Tulane and La Tech and they struggled against Tulane...for 3 quarters. Oh yea, they also lost a game that KU hasn't done yet.

Oregon????

Probably the best resume of the bunch having beat Michigan soundly, Houston, and Fresno St. But again, they've already lost a game, KU has not.

And what did KU NOT do against their patsies that any of these teams would have done with the same schedule? Would these teams have hung 70 on all those and given up only 10??? Probably not. KU did EXACTLY what you would expect a #1 team to do, that neither Ohio St, or BC did to their opponents and that dominate them ALL without exception.

So again, what is so bad about KU being #1?

The other classic non-argument you hear is the other school simply have better atheletes. That's a laugh!!! Who says? Why are Ohio St's better? Any proof. OSU's wideouts run a 4.45 vs KU's 4.49's??? OSU's O-line is actually few pounds lighter than KU's? LSU? ASU? Are their athletes better because the recruiting services told us they were? Or Mel Kiper thinks they'll put more in the NFL??? How?

So you can't really use schedule as there's no worse than anyone elses and they've done exactly what any top ranked team would do against that scheudle. Can't really demonstrate LSU, OU, OSU, BC or Oregon or ASU has demonstrably better athletes, so is there some reason I'm missing that picking KU #1 is really so outlandish as to prove anyone who would do that is patently wrong???

Let's hear it. I say KU is #1, counter with something I've missed that makes that a ridiculous statement.

EvilVodka

10-30-2007, 10:04 PM

Kansas's OOC schedule is a joke...you summed it up pretty well in your own post...

ZOOMBAG

10-30-2007, 10:07 PM

It rates no worse than Ohio St's or BC's. So what's the problem with it. And what would whoever you think is #1 done against the same schedule. KU outscored them 213-23. Which is far more than OSU or BC did against a similarly PATHETIC slate! And against Div IAA? KU 62-0, OSU 38-6 and BC 24-14.

And KU's Dvi IA OOC combined opponent record is MUCH better than either BC's or Ohio St.s. One of KU's OOC opponents appears headed for a bowl game, what bowl is any of OSU's or BC's going to????

So who's OOC is REALLY a joke again? And who has done better against their joke of a schedule?

Come on Evil, let's hear it.

EvilVodka

10-30-2007, 10:09 PM

Ohio State traveled on the road to Washington...thats nastier than staying home to play IA deadbeats

give it up Zoom

ZOOMBAG

10-30-2007, 10:14 PM

EvilVodka

10-30-2007, 10:23 PM

Washington is rated LOWER than Central Michigan in the BCS computers. They are DEAD LAST in the PAC 10 at 0-5.

Try again.

And you still haven't spoken of BC or OSU's OOC schedule which is even WEAKER than KU's.

COme on, try again.

Well look at who Washington has played...they've played and lost to #1, #4, and #5...AND they've lost to USC

Washington has at least beaten Boise State...who the hell has Central Michigan beat?

Scarlet Hayes

10-30-2007, 10:42 PM

I wish Kansas was number one. At least that way I wouldn't have to hear about OSU's lousy schedule. ;)

As much as I would love to see a limited playoff, so far this has been one heckuva season! No other sport on the planet has a regular season that even sniffs at college football's.

ZOOMBAG

10-30-2007, 10:46 PM

Again, KU's OOC schedule currently rates "tougher" than either Ohio St.'s and BC's. And KU beat their OOC slate by a far wider margin than either OSU or BC did.

The point of the thread is why, understanding this, is KU such a ridiculous choice for #1 when their resume is every bit as good, and probably better at this point, than the other undefeated teams. Do you think OSU and BC would have beaten KU's slate 213-23 like KU did, when they clearly didn't perform that well against a slate every bit as weak as KU's? You still haven't answered the question.

ZOOMBAG

10-30-2007, 10:49 PM

I don't mean to bag on Ohio St OOC schedule, but it appears certainly no better or worse than Kansas'. Same with BC. And KU did far better against theirs than either OSU or BC did. Yet when bagging on Sagarin for being ridiculous, these posters primarily cited the fact that he has KU #1 as the reason that rating is nonsense. I simply as why they think it is. I have yet to hear a valid reason why putting KU #1 at this point is any more ludicrous than having OSU or BC #1?

Scarlet Hayes

10-30-2007, 11:07 PM

To respond to your original point Zoom, there isn't a valid reason.

Like anyone else I can compare depth and athleticism and come to the conclusion that teams like OSU, BC, LSU, etc... are "better" than Kansas. But when it comes to objective measurments/comparisons....I got nothin'

Honestly, at this very point in time, I don't really know who the best team in the country is. There are arguments for and against about 6 or 7 teams. But if we're going by crunching raw numbers, alone, I have no problem with seeing Kansas number one.

EvilVodka

10-30-2007, 11:14 PM

As much as I would love to see a limited playoff, so far this has been one heckuva season! No other sport on the planet has a regular season that even sniffs at college football's.

Absolutely agreed

I'll take the flawed and chaotic college football over the NFL, IAA playoffs, and March Madness any day

GatorGrad

10-30-2007, 11:42 PM

Who cares? Let the season play out. If KU actually runs the table and wins the Big 12, then they will be deserving no doubt. But I think it's too early to tell if KU is for real right now.

CJHawkeyes

10-31-2007, 12:21 AM

Polls have warped college football fans' concept of competition. Instead of the regular season determining the WINNERS of available playoff berths, most fans think the regular season is there to identify the best teams in the competition. If an objective system produces winners that do not match their opinion about the best teams, the system is summarily dismissed even without knowledge of how the winners are determined and in spite of the fact that the particular system is not concerned with who the best teams are. Kansas is a "joke" according to fans that do not think Kansas is the best college football team even though objective rules that place the Jayhawks first are not making that claim.

I can accept that Sagarin's system places Kansas first even while opposing the use of a predictive system for reasons I have stated previously.

Bucs90

10-31-2007, 03:48 AM

Easy answer ZOOM. You said KU beat the patsies badly, just as any top ranked team would be expected to do. Yet, that logic applies do them, but didn't apply to Boise St??? Hawaii???

Maybe it's just opinions, but if Kansas and LSU played tomorrow, and you were forced by court order to bet your home on the game straight up no spread, who would you pick?

Jim

10-31-2007, 07:33 AM

How would you pick LSU vs. Oregon or LSU vs. Arizona State? How about LSU vs. Kentucky?

EvilVodka

10-31-2007, 08:03 AM

Kansas is a "joke" according to fans that do not think Kansas is the best college football team even though objective rules that place the Jayhawks first are not making that claim.

Kansas's schedule is a joke, sorry

4 horrible OOC games, all at home, and the fact that they dodge Oklahoma and Texas....their toughest game has been against Kansas State

Here are the top 25 wins for several teams in the top 10 BCS Standings:

Like Kansas, Ohio State doesn't have a single win over a top 25 team

Boston College
wins over #11 Virginia Tech, #24 Wake Forest

LSU
wins over #11 Virginia Tech, #16 Auburn, #20 Florida

Arizona State
no top 25 wins

Oregon
wins over #12 Michigan, #19 USC

Oklahoma
wins over #9 Missouri, #15 Texas

Looks like we now know why Ohio State, Kansas, and Arizona State are undefeated :eek:

d&g

10-31-2007, 08:08 AM

Kansas's schedule is a joke, sorry

4 horrible OOC games, and the fact that they dodge Oklahoma and Texas....their toughest game has been against Kansas State

Here are the top wins for several teams in the top 10 BCS Standings:

Like Kansas, Ohio State doesn't have a single win over a top 25 team

Boston College
wins over #11 Virginia Tech, #24 Wake Forest

LSU
wins over #11 Virginia Tech, #16 Auburn, #20 Florida

Arizona State
no top 25 wins

Oregon
win over #19 USC

Oklahoma
wins over #9 Missouri, #15 Texas

Looks like we now know why Ohio State, Kansas, and Arizona State are undefeated :eek:

You forgot Oregon's win over #12 Michigan.

EvilVodka

10-31-2007, 08:10 AM

You forgot Oregon's win over #12 Michigan.

edited and put in, thanks!

AJBuckeye

10-31-2007, 08:20 AM

When you look at the conference schedule, KU has beaten KSU, Colorado, and TAM. OSU has beaten PSU, Purdue, and MSU. You could so those are a wash as well. The only reason I give OSU the edge is in the manner that they have done. All 3 games by Kansas were close, where OSU has dominated there opponent. Even against MSU, although the Buckeyes won only by 7 it was because of 2 late turnovers for TD's and MSU never had the ball with a chance to tie the game.

Blue Hen

10-31-2007, 08:34 AM

d&g

10-31-2007, 08:47 AM

Can good teams have bad schedules ? Lets, hypothetically, say that LSU had Kansas's schedule (to date). Now LSU would have the same players, same coaches etc, but it would somehow be a lesser team because of a schedule ?

I think most will agree it very little to do with schedule, and more with the preception of talent of talent of Kansas. For most of America, Kansas is a mystery team with a limited football history. It'll take years of winning before anyone gives them the respect of Ohio St. or LSU. They can just ask their in-state rivals in Manhattan about that. KSU fans were consistently defending their schedule.

Blue Hen

10-31-2007, 08:56 AM

"perception of talent" and name brand recognition....agreed, far more important than schedule.

CJHawkeyes

10-31-2007, 11:48 AM

Kansas's schedule is a joke, sorry

4 horrible OOC games, all at home, and the fact that they dodge Oklahoma and Texas....their toughest game has been against Kansas State

Here are the top 25 wins for several teams in the top 10 BCS Standings:

Like Kansas, Ohio State doesn't have a single win over a top 25 team

Boston College
wins over #11 Virginia Tech, #24 Wake Forest

LSU
wins over #11 Virginia Tech, #16 Auburn, #20 Florida

Arizona State
no top 25 wins

Oregon
wins over #12 Michigan, #19 USC

Oklahoma
wins over #9 Missouri, #15 Texas

Looks like we now know why Ohio State, Kansas, and Arizona State are undefeated :eek:

I'm not defending Kansas' schedule nor endorsing the system that places them first. I'm simply saying that Kansas' #1 ranking Sagarin based on his particular rules cannot be disputed especially for reasons the system does not claim.

BTW, Arizona State has beaten two teams that Oregon and Oklahoma did not.

EvilVodka

10-31-2007, 11:59 AM

EvilVodka

10-31-2007, 12:01 PM

"perception of talent" and name brand recognition....agreed, far more important than schedule.

just a bunch of crap Hen...Kansas HAS NOT played anyone, bottomline

Much like Ohio State, its a moot point though...Kansas plays Mizzou, Oklahoma State, and a possible championship match vs. Oklahoma

if they win those games, I'll give them respect...until then...

EvilVodka

10-31-2007, 12:06 PM

I'm not defending Kansas' schedule nor endorsing the system that places them first. I'm simply saying that Kansas' #1 ranking Sagarin based on his particular rules cannot be disputed especially for reasons the system does not claim.

BTW, Arizona State has beaten two teams that Oregon and Oklahoma did not.

Well maybe you can deduce that I don't agree with Sagarin in this instance

Is Kansas #1 in Massey's composite rankings? Kansas has an average computer ranking of 5 in the BCS computer polls

A half-retarded monkey could see that Kansas's schedule thus far sucks

cupcake OOC, and dodging OU and Texas

CJHawkeyes

10-31-2007, 12:34 PM

Well maybe you can deduce that I don't agree with Sagarin in this instance

Is Kansas #1 in Massey's composite rankings? Kansas has an average computer ranking of 5 in the BCS computer polls

A half-retarded monkey could see that Kansas's schedule thus far sucks

cupcake OOC, and dodging OU and Texas

Based on what I think I know about predictive systems, I don't agree with using Sagarin. However, I don't question Kansas being #1 under his system. I cetainly see nothing wrong with your opposition to rules that would allow the Jayhawks to place first by running their particular schedule to date. That said, my original post in this thread spoke about those fans that dismiss any objective system that produces results that do not match their opinion about a completely different issue. For example, I'm in a discussion on another board with someone that thinks humans got it "right" in the years he listed whereas computers got it "wrong" as if there is a self-evident correct answer as to who should win. A large percentage of college football fans do not understand that different rules will inevitably produce different winners and that no system's results are more right than another. Which rules are used to determine the winners of a competition is simply a matter of preference. The rules I prefer require Kansas to do more than roll over a few cupcakes.

ZOOMBAG

10-31-2007, 12:58 PM

Who cares? Let the season play out. If KU actually runs the table and wins the Big 12, then they will be deserving no doubt. But I think it's too early to tell if KU is for real right now.

You missed the point of the thread. That being Sagarin is being criticized in th is forum for having KU #1 RIGHT NOW. I'm simply asking what's so ludicrous about that given their performance against their schedule.

ZOOMBAG

10-31-2007, 01:02 PM

just a bunch of crap Hen...Kansas HAS NOT played anyone, bottomline

Much like Ohio State, its a moot point though...Kansas plays Mizzou, Oklahoma State, and a possible championship match vs. Oklahoma

if they win those games, I'll give them respect...until then...

Kansas has beaten the crap out of most all the teams on their schedule, especially their OOC schedule. Would LSU have fared better than KU's 213-23 score on their OOC schedule? Probably not.

UNLV cruised to BBall title 17 years ago with very little effort. They played in the Big West back then and schedule strength in the 200's. Still the best team in the country that year and they proved it in a playoff but playing in the Big West made them no less of a team.

ZOOMBAG

10-31-2007, 01:05 PM

Boise St has lost already. Hawaii has not beaten very many teams by large margins, like Kansas has, so one can understand why KU might be rated higer in a system that uses MOV as a significant factor.

ZOOMBAG

10-31-2007, 01:06 PM

Oregon definitely would roll LSU at this point. I would still favor LSU over Kentucy in a rematch. ASU and LSU would be a pick 'em for me.

ZOOMBAG

10-31-2007, 01:10 PM

KU's claim to be OBJECTIVELY be rated over OU as the 'best" team in the Big 12 is that they won at CU while OU lost at CU. That's about as straight forward as that can get.

As for OSU they have narrowed the gap on KU during the conference part of the schedule, but KU still clearly outperformed OSU in the non-Conference schedule which as far as quality is about the same.

And the point is that even if one thinks OSU has inched ahead based on the last three games, it's not by enough to call Sagarin rating them #1 outrageous.

EvilVodka

10-31-2007, 01:12 PM

Kansas has beaten the crap out of most all the teams on their schedule, especially their OOC schedule. Would LSU have fared better than KU's 213-23 score on their OOC schedule? Probably not.

UNLV cruised to BBall title 17 years ago with very little effort. They played in the Big West back then and schedule strength in the 200's. Still the best team in the country that year and they proved it in a playoff but playing in the Big West made them no less of a team.

Lame and awkward basketball analogy aside...I think alot of teams would perform very well with that OOC schedule...

What's the score differential for Kansas's conference road games?

Face it, Kansas #1 right now is a joke

ZOOMBAG

10-31-2007, 01:13 PM

Ohio State gets kudos IMO for at least scheduling Washington, and traveling there as a road game...Kansas scheduled 4 cupcakes at home, all lined up in a row

And beat them by a margin comparable to what any other top 10 team would have done against the same or similar schedule(better than by what BC did against their equally pathetic OOC schedule).

So KU beat those four by a combined score of 213-23. One of those teams is now 4-0 in conference and probably bowl bound. Would LSU, OSU, BC, ASU, or OU win those four games by considerably MORE than 213-23? That's about 53-5 or so per game....

EvilVodka

10-31-2007, 01:16 PM

As for OSU they have narrowed the gap on KU during the conference part of the schedule, but KU still clearly outperformed OSU in the non-Conference schedule which as far as quality is about the same.

Defending Kansas's OOC schedule is laughable

Cmon Zoom, you're doing alot of digging trying to defend Sagarin

ZOOMBAG

10-31-2007, 01:22 PM

Defending Kansas's OOC schedule is laughable

Cmon Zoom, you're doing alot of digging trying to defend Sagarin

Answer the question, then.

KU beat those four by 213-23. That about 53-5 or so, per game. What would, in your opinion, all the other top five or six have won by in those four games?

UNLV won a national championship in 1991 with by far the weakest schedule of any national champion in bball history, but they also went coast to coast, wire to wire with a #1 poll ranking, too. They played in the Big West and to this day is recognized as one of the most dominant teams of all time in college bball. Did their weak schedule make them any less of a team?

The greatest team of all time in college football is arguably the Nebraska team from 1995. They played three of their four OOC games against patsies and won by even more than Kansas did this year. Did that make that team any less of a team? They were wall-to-wall #1 in the polls too. LSU played Mid Tenn St and Tulane this year. Does that make them any less of a team?

KU is going to get OU in the Big 12 title game if they beat Mizzou who is also a top 15 or so team. Then the BCS, so they will get tested yet. But to date, their resume is good enough so as not to label someone rating them #1 insane.

EvilVodka

10-31-2007, 01:48 PM

Answer the question, then.

KU beat those four by 213-23. That about 53-5 or so, per game. What would, in your opinion, all the other top five or six have won by in those four games?

UNLV won a national championship in 1991 with by far the weakest schedule of any national champion in bball history, but they also went coast to coast, wire to wire with a #1 poll ranking, too. They played in the Big West and to this day is recognized as one of the most dominant teams of all time in college bball. Did their weak schedule make them any less of a team?

The greatest team of all time in college football is arguably the Nebraska team from 1995. They played three of their four OOC games against patsies and won by even more than Kansas did this year. Did that make that team any less of a team? They were wall-to-wall #1 in the polls too. LSU played Mid Tenn St and Tulane this year. Does that make them any less of a team?

KU is going to get OU in the Big 12 title game if they beat Mizzou who is also a top 15 or so team. Then the BCS, so they will get tested yet. But to date, their resume is good enough so as not to label someone rating them #1 insane.

Given what we have to go on, Kansas's resume is not as impressive as other undefeated teams...you have to look at what each team has accomplished, and Kansas has not accomplished much...alot of teams would have success with that OOC

I'm done talking about Kansas's schedule thus far...there's nothing I have to add that hasn't already been posted...if you want to believe your own argument, that's fine

That said...I think Kansas loses soon...Oklahoma State and Missouri are going to be tough challenges, and I think Kansas will get exposed for what they really are...a good team, but not a top 10 team

GatorGrad

10-31-2007, 02:21 PM

I could name about 20 programs that would probably be unbeaten with KU's current to date schedule. That said, I don't have a problem with them being #1 at this point. Same for OSU, AzSt, BC, etc. They are unbeaten, and the current system puts such an emphasis on going unbeaten. I blame the system, not the schools.

It just doesn't matter right now because there is too much football left to be played to get all worked up over this right now. KU will have some tough games before all is said and done. They'll have their chance to prove themselves.

The sad thing is that KU's coach cannot look his players in the eyes and say "boys, if you win out and finish 13-0 as Big 12 Champs, you will get a chance to play for a National Championship." That is simply not a true statement because they don't control their own destiny.

Only in college football can you never lose a game and not at least have a CHANCE to prove yourself and have a shot at the championship. That's why real championships end at the conference level in Bowl Division Football. Keep in mind that this is coming from a Gator fan who just experienced the peak of the BCS mountain nearly 10 months ago.

HellYeahHokie

10-31-2007, 02:26 PM

Given what we have to go on, Kansas's resume is not as impressive as other undefeated teams...you have to look at what each team has accomplished, and Kansas has not accomplished much...alot of teams would have success with that OOC

I'm not sure I agree with Zoom on a lot, but I have to agree here. Sure Kansas' schedule sucks, but they are beating the crap out of those teams. A lot of teams might be undefeated with the same schedule, but a lot of teams wouldn't be dominating. LSU hasn't completely dominated the soft teams on its schedule (except the Hokies :( )So indeed, we can look at what Kansas have accomplished , and say that's an impressive resume' so far. "Why not #1?".

d&g

10-31-2007, 02:28 PM

I'm not sure I agree with Zoom on a lot, but I have to agree here. Sure Kansas' schedule sucks, but they are beating the crap out of those teams. A lot of teams might be undefeated with the same schedule, but a lot of teams wouldn't be dominating. LSU hasn't completely dominated the soft teams on its schedule (except the Hokies :( )So indeed, we can look at what Kansas have accomplished , and say that's an impressive resume' so far. "Why not #1?".

They've been living off that Virginia Tech win for awhile. It's not often you see that type of dominance of a good team. However, for the last month the Tigers have not looked dominant at all.

Blue Hen

10-31-2007, 03:48 PM

ZOOMBAG

10-31-2007, 08:07 PM

That's the whole point. Most here wouldn't rate KU #1, including me. I know James' system would not. But they are a "plausible" #1 and right now certainly very much in the hunt for one of the two spots in the BCS title game. They are good enough that no one can justly say a rating that has them #1 is idiotic.

ZOOMBAG

10-31-2007, 08:14 PM

One clarification. There may be 20 teams that could feasibly be undefeated with KU's schedule right now, but probably only a couple or so that could plausibly equal their 200-20 scoring performance. We know BC and OSU didn't against similar schedules.

They, like Hawaii, are entering their tough stretch in November. Their final game is Missouri in Arrowhead stadium and then, if they win that, they will get OU. If they win those, and they are not in the MNC game behind a one loss team, there will be some real trouble.

AJBuckeye

10-31-2007, 09:04 PM

You obviously did not watch the OSU games against Purdue and Penn St. Also the OSU win at Washington is clearly more impressive than any OOC win KU had.

AJBuckeye

10-31-2007, 09:32 PM

Bucs90

10-31-2007, 09:40 PM

AJ, I agree with you. I have seen two Kansas games, one entirely, one until 3rd quarter. I've also seen 2.5 OSU games. And OSU is BY FAR more impressive. I've said for a couple weeks now that I feel OSU is a legitimate #1, and I think every position on their team has proven itself except MAYBE their offensive and defensive lines. To be fair, their OL and DL have played outstanding, I just don't think they've faced much of a challenge just yet. The OU offensive line or LSU DL would be a great challenge. But overall, OSU has been far more impressive than KU, and IMO on par with LSU, Oregon and OU. I think any of those 4 teams would be justifiable as #1 right now.

EvilVodka

11-01-2007, 08:21 AM

You obviously did not watch the OSU games against Purdue and Penn St. Also the OSU win at Washington is clearly more impressive than any OOC win KU had.

Absolutely right, Kansas didn't even go on the road for OOC play...

Ohio State can't control the fact that Washington is having a hard time with an extremely tough schedule...all the Buckeyes have control over is the quality of teams that can be scheduled, and Washington is a much better opponent than anything Kansas scheduled

If Kansas was an SEC team, you'd have the absolute opposite argument on this board by the same people, saying how SEC teams don't travel anywhere and blah blah blah

EvilVodka

11-01-2007, 08:26 AM

So you don't rank teams, Evil, you just rank schedules....as you perceive them ?

Answer this question, honestly, please. How many Kansas games have you watched this year ?...and I don't mean occasional highlights. You seem to know alot about the Jayhawks so i'm just curious.

Not 1...although I think I caught the end of the Kansas-Kansas State game...

How many Kansas games has anyone watched? I'm pretty sure not one of the horrible OOC games were televised...

The truth is, I don't know how good Kansas is in comparison to the rest of the top 10, and I'm pretty sure no one does, so I go with what each team has accomplished, and Kansas hasn't accomplished squat

who knows, they may be the best thing since the '85 Bears, but until they are actually challenged by a good team, I personally won't put them #1

The only thing Kansas supporters can say is that this team might be Nebraska '95, but trying to justify their schedule is a joke

EvilVodka

11-01-2007, 08:42 AM

So indeed, we can look at what Kansas have accomplished , and say that's an impressive resume' so far. "Why not #1?".

No, you can't say that about Kansas's resume...horrible OOC schedule aside, Kansas quit blowing people out as soon as they hit conference play against mediocre teams

Kansas's resume sucks, period

you can say they might be a top team, they conquered their OOC schedule just like a solid #1 should, they could be the next USC or the '85 Bears

But so far, trying to justify their resume is a joke

EvilVodka

11-01-2007, 08:49 AM

They, like Hawaii, are entering their tough stretch in November. Their final game is Missouri in Arrowhead stadium and then, if they win that, they will get OU. If they win those, and they are not in the MNC game behind a one loss team, there will be some real trouble.

I wouldn't put up an automatic win for Kansas in Stillwater either...Oklahoma State has gotten alot better since getting manhandled by Troy...

HellYeahHokie

11-01-2007, 11:09 AM

There's a difference between trying to justify a schedule and trying to justify a resume. There is no defense of their schedule (to date). It sucks. However, what they have done against these cupcakes is their resume, and it's impressive.

Conversely, before last week's loss at NCSU, I was saying that UVA is not a good team. The reason? They were barely beating cupcakes. UVA schedule was weak, but their resume against that schedule (despite a 7-1 record) sucked.

Nobody is saying Kansas has a good schedule. No one is really saying that Kansas is the best team in the country. All this thread is saying is that there is no reason they can't be #1. If Ohio State can be #1, why not not Kansas? They both are undefeated with lousy schedules.

And that's all anyone is saying here. There is no plausible argument why they couldn't be a #1 team.

EvilVodka

11-01-2007, 11:58 AM

However, what they have done against these cupcakes is their resume, and it's impressive.

:D lol
Seriously, read this a couple of times, and if you don't find this funny, then maybe we've argued this to death

I don't know lol

ZOOMBAG

11-01-2007, 12:50 PM

Washington is 0-5 in PAC 10 play and only 2-6 overall. Will probably only be 1-8 or 2-7 in PAC 10 play by season's end. They will lose at Hawaii, too. Central Michigan is 4-0 in MAC play, 5-4 overall, and is headed, most likely, to the MAC title game and on to one of their bowls. Washington is going nowhere. Both played a Div IAA team with KU dominating much more impressively than Ohio St in theirs. Low end nonBCS opponents either MAC or SunBelt for the other games. I see no qualitative difference at all between the two and the combined Massey composite ratings of KU's OOC slate a tad better than Ohio St.....

Basically, the perception that Washington is better right now than CMU is simply not proveable by any qualitative means. The PAC 10 is better than the MAC but not enough for an 0-5 record to overcome a 4-0 record.

HellYeahHokie

11-01-2007, 02:25 PM

#1 caliber teams throttle weak teams.

Teams that aren't #1 caliber beat them, but don't throttle them.

Why is that funny?

AJBuckeye

11-01-2007, 08:13 PM

Hey it's about time we agree on something. Based on how they have played thus far I find it hard not to consider OSU the number 1 team. That being said, they are only one bad Saturday performance from being removed from this discussion. Although Kansas still has some opportunities to prove us wrong, I still put them clearly behind LSU and Oregon. I am not sold on OU yet as well with their recent loss at Colorado and a 10 pt win over a bad Iowa St team.

ZOOMBAG

11-01-2007, 08:18 PM

Zoombag, here are your exact words:

"Sagarin's ratings haven't been very good for several years now because they exclude MOV. I never have been a fan of his current rating. I have been using Massey';s composite since 1994 for my playoff scenario and it has always been my defacto standard for ratings. I trust nothing else."

That fact that your using a ratings system that you discredit to defend your position is ridiculous. However the ratings system that you rely 'massey' has OSU #1 and KU #5. Again you want to make a point that is fine but at least be consistent with the sources that you rely on.
Ugh.... can you even follow a thread? For Christ's sakes, man, that was referring to the modified rating he used to supply the BCS that have MOV calcs removed! I erroneously thought that was what he was still providing USA-Today, but it's not. He's back to publishing his real rating, which I do believe is pretty solid.

ZOOMBAG

11-01-2007, 08:31 PM

Well, again, folks seem to have a problem maintaining the purpose of the thread. I, too would probably put BC #1 because they have won more big games than the other undefeateds, then Ohio St, then a toss up between KU and ASU for #4. No way in hell would I ever rank a one loss team over an undefeated BCS team, ever for any reason.

But the point of thread was whether you agree with Kansas being #1 or not, would rating them #1 reach the level of ridiculousness, absurdity, outlandishness or insanity.

It also clear than no matter how hard most posters here try, they just cannot get past the "name" thing when it comes to ranking teams.

Bucs90

11-01-2007, 08:59 PM

Vodka, you said "Seriously, read this a couple of times, and if you don't find this funny, then maybe we've argued this to death."

I read what HYH said. Twice. It is very funny. I suppose it depends on what team we discuss, or more importantly, what conference said team belongs to, when judging OOC games. Kansas? HYH says they throttled the cupcakes, as they should, and that is impressive. How many SEC teams throttled their OOC cupcakes (Uh-um, 04 Auburn), or better yet, throttled their entire schedule- Boise 06, but don't get the same love or free pass?

I'm not knocking Kansas. I only brought them up because Sagarin had them #1, and no one is quoting Sagarin as much now as in prior years.

buckeyejim

11-01-2007, 09:03 PM

My opinion about all of this is...

...Let the ENTIRE season play out. It usually works out. By the end of the season every team will have been tested enough that we will know if they are a contender or not because all of the pretenders will have been snuffed out.

ZOOMBAG

11-01-2007, 09:05 PM

He's probably not mentioned because he opted out of the BCS a few years ago the same way the AP did. He's just not very relevant anymore, at least outside this forum.

And according Sagarin the computer ratings used today in the BCS are among the very poorest services from a technical standpoint. They were chosen because, mostly, they were the only ones willing to completely remove Margin of Victory calculations, which according to both Sagarin and Massey and many others, a fatal flaw of any rating service.

HellYeahHokie

11-01-2007, 09:36 PM

I read what HYH said. Twice. It is very funny. I suppose it depends on what team we discuss, or more importantly, what conference said team belongs to, when judging OOC games. Kansas? HYH says they throttled the cupcakes, as they should, and that is impressive. How many SEC teams throttled their OOC cupcakes (Uh-um, 04 Auburn), or better yet, throttled their entire schedule- Boise 06, but don't get the same love or free pass?.

What's funny is your ability to put up a reasonable debate.

It has nothing to do with team, because I would be the first person to believe that Kansas isn't really a #1 team, based on perception. I'm not a Kansas fan or a Big12 supporter. My argument applies to any team that blows away its competition. That fact that I'm using it for Kansas, rather than a more traditional power like Auburn, is proof enough that it's not about 'which' team, but results on the field.

And I'd be more than happy to make the same case for Auburn 04. I think USC had a better resume, but there's no reasonable argument why Auburn couldn't have been #2 that year based on results on the field.

But Boise 06? Come on dude. They didn't throttle all the cupcakes. They only beat Wyoming 17-10. They had a lot of solid wins, but they didn't beat down all of their weak opponents. If they had, I'd also have no problem saying they had a legitimate claim for #1 (at least a the 2/3 point of the season).

A #1 caliber team beats the crap out its cupcakes

ZOOMBAG

11-01-2007, 09:37 PM

Even Hawaii?

ZOOMBAG

11-01-2007, 09:42 PM

What's funny is your ability to put up a reasonable debate.

It has nothing to do with team, because I would be the first person to believe that Kansas isn't really a #1 team, based on perception. I'm not a Kansas fan or a Big12 supporter. My argument applies to any team that blows away its competition. That fact that I'm using it for Kansas, rather than a more traditional power like Auburn, is proof enough that it's not about 'which' team, but results on the field.

And I'd be more than happy to make the same case for Auburn 04. I think USC had a better resume, but there's no reasonable argument why Auburn couldn't have been #2 that year based on results on the field.

But Boise 06? Come on dude. They didn't throttle all the cupcakes. They only beat Wyoming 17-10. They had a lot of solid wins, but they didn't beat down all of their weak opponents. If they had, I'd also have no problem saying they had a legitimate claim for #1 (at least a the 2/3 point of the season).

A #1 caliber team beats the crap out its cupcakes

Boise from '06 is a classic case of proof on the field that SOS is not a particularly important factor. They had the weakest SOS of any BCS participant in the history of the BCS, even weaker than the #64 put up by Virginia Tech in their BCS title game season. But they still won the BCS bowl, and probably should have won it by a sizable margin if they'd have kept their foot on the throttle in the 2nd half.... Guess that SOS did matter then...

Bucky

11-01-2007, 10:54 PM

It will be fun to re hash all these non sense arguments at the end of the season.

At some point we are going to look back and laugh: Kentucky and Wisconsin were once considered top 5 teams. South Florida was once #2 and we all wondered if USC could ever lose. Crazy stuff.

Lincoln Tower

11-02-2007, 12:46 PM

Do you have a link to any of Sagarin's proofs/theoroms...etc. I can only find his ratings and nothing else.

ZOOMBAG

11-02-2007, 02:28 PM

He used to have a complete website with everything on it. Almost like an early form a blog. He'd publish all sorts of things there. It's all gone now. I guess he got tired of maintaining it or something. He used to even e-mail me regularly in response to questions. He got rid of that e-mail address some time ago, and now won't respond to much of anything anymore...

Bucs90

11-03-2007, 12:42 AM

HYH, have you looked at all of Boise's scores from 06? Then not only throttled their cupcakes, but a strong Oregon St team also.

The main point was you saying Kansas wins over cupcakes were "impressive". How can any win over a cupcake be "impressive"? They are cupcakes. Anything less than a blowout is really unacceptable. Blowing them out is just expected. BTW, I belive I remember you knocking Auburns OOC in 04 quite hard. Now, it's "impressive" for Kansas?

And above you said USoCal had a better resume than Auburn. How? Auburn played more ranked teams than USoCal or OU that year. Explain to me how you judge a "resume". I looked at how many top teams Auburn beat vs how many USoCal or OU beat, and I don't see where you get better resume from. Oh, those "top" teams Auburn beat were SEC teams, which means they are obviously ranked although they don't deserve it, whereas OU and USoCal's unranked in-conference opponents really should've been ranked but weren't because they don't get the SEC hype, right? So, guess thats how you judge "resume".

CJHawkeyes

11-03-2007, 01:16 AM

The more ranked teams argument in favor of Auburn (or anyone) is a flawed one because the top 25 is an arbitrary cutoff point. Oklahoma had five 7-8 win opponents that were outside the top 25. The number of ranked opponents for the Sooners would be greater if just a couple results between teams, both of whom they played, were reversed. However, it hardly makes sense that Oklahoma looks better because the same two opponents are 8-3 and 6-5 rather than both being 7-4 because the 8-3 team is "ranked."

Bucs90

11-03-2007, 02:17 AM

Thats a great point CJ. HYH says OU and USC had better resumes, but how? Based on what, his opinion? I hate the system we have, but it is what it is, it's what we got. And, under this system, Auburn played more ranked opponents than OU or USC.

The fact is that in 2004, Auburn got left out because USC and OU started the season off as 1 and 2 and never lost. Auburn's OOC schedule was the excuse used to stop the whining from the SEC fans. When, in reality, Auburn's schedule had more ranked teams, and thus more chances to be upset, than the other two. Yet, HYH says USC had a better resume somehow. I don't think any of the 3 had best or better resumes. Undefeated is all I need to see about any teams resume in it's respective division.

CJHawkeyes

11-03-2007, 02:38 AM