- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The paradox of "beating a ranked team"
Posted on 10/9/17 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 10/9/17 at 1:50 pm
Team X is 6-0 and ranked #10
Team A beats Team X
Team X loses 3 more games and finishes the season unranked.
Did Team A beat a Top-10 team or an unranked team?
I say they beat an unranked team.
(On the flip side, if you beat an unranked team that finishes high in the polls thereafter I think you should be credited with beating a highly ranked team.)
In other words, midseason rankings shouldn't matter IMO. When comparing resumes at the end of the year, quality victories should only be determined by the opponents' ranking as of the end of year, not at the time you played them...
Team A beats Team X
Team X loses 3 more games and finishes the season unranked.
Did Team A beat a Top-10 team or an unranked team?
I say they beat an unranked team.
(On the flip side, if you beat an unranked team that finishes high in the polls thereafter I think you should be credited with beating a highly ranked team.)
In other words, midseason rankings shouldn't matter IMO. When comparing resumes at the end of the year, quality victories should only be determined by the opponents' ranking as of the end of year, not at the time you played them...
13
Posted on 10/9/17 at 1:52 pm to gizmoflak
dear diary
Posted on 10/9/17 at 2:02 pm to gizmoflak
quote:
Team X is 6-0 and ranked #10
Team A beats Team X
Team X loses 3 more games and finishes the season unranked.
Did Team A beat a Top-10 team or an unranked team?
I say they beat an unranked team.
Agreed.
Happened to the Hogs (on both sides of the equation) last year.
TCU was #15 when we played them, and we beat them in Fort Worth. They ended the year at 6-7, so I hesitate to call that a win over a ranked team.
Inversely, Arkansas was #8 in 2012 when Louisiana-Monroe beat us. We finished the season 4-8, so it's a stretch to call that a win over a Top 10 team.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 2:03 pm to gizmoflak
If beating ranked teams mattered Clemson would be ranked number 1
Posted on 10/9/17 at 2:20 pm to gizmoflak
quote:
When comparing resumes at the end of the year, quality victories should only be determined by the opponents' ranking as of the end of year, not at the time you played them...
I disagree for one reason--injuries.
Team A beats # 10 Team B in week 3.
Team B's star QB gets hurt in week 6 (team is 5-1 at this point).
Team B proceeds to lose 3 if their next 6 without their QB, going 8-4.
Does Team A get penalized because Team B's QB was injured and the season fell apart?
ETA: The rest of your point, I agree with. If no major injuries occur, yet that team who was preseason #3 finishes 7-5 and unranked, then that's not a very good win.
This post was edited on 10/9/17 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 10/9/17 at 2:27 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Draconian Sanctions
quote:
dear diary
Such a shitty poster.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 2:31 pm to gizmoflak
I tend to fall on your side, but I can make an argument for the other way and it is sort of viable.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 3:10 pm to 225bred
quote:
225bred
nasty guy
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:01 pm to gizmoflak
It should be an average of the year end ranking and the ranking at the time of the game...
The reason is the atmosphere and pressure surrounding ranked games makes them different than games where one team earns their ranking long afterward. Unranked games don't have the spotlight where everything is magnified.
The reason is the atmosphere and pressure surrounding ranked games makes them different than games where one team earns their ranking long afterward. Unranked games don't have the spotlight where everything is magnified.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:24 pm to gizmoflak
quote:
In other words, midseason rankings shouldn't matter IMO. When comparing resumes at the end of the year, quality victories should only be determined by the opponents' ranking as of the end of year, not at the time you played them...
But you also have to consider would they be ranked if you didn't beat them. Bowl season you have a pair of teams matched up ranked #18 or lower, the losing team will fall out of the top 25. Does that mean the winning team just didn't beat a ranked team?
Another example 2003 BCS Standings, back then you received bonus points if you defeated a team that finished in the top 10 of the BCS standings.
LSU beat UGA when they were ranked #7 in the AP poll, then again when UGA was ranked #5 in the AP poll. The second loss dropped UGA to #11 in the final BCS standings. Even though LSU beat UGA twice while they were ranked in the top 10, and if wasn't for the 2 losses to the Tigers they would have been in the top 5, LSU was not given credit for beating a top 10 UGA team.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:34 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
The reason is the atmosphere and pressure surrounding ranked games makes them different than games where one team earns their ranking long afterward. Unranked games don't have the spotlight where everything is magnified.
The problem is there is no justification to any of the early rankings other than pre conceived notions
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:49 pm to gizmoflak
LSU in 2011 beat every BCS winner.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 9:28 pm to gizmoflak
Sidenote: If you believe team X is overrated and you beat them, haven't you just devalued your win, by implying you beat an inferior opponent?
Posted on 10/9/17 at 9:34 pm to gizmoflak
But for years posters have said:
"They made them quit."
So that win should be counted as a top 10 team - not as a win against a 9-4 team at the end of the year.
What role does beating a top 5 team have on that team's future performance? Did they give up a little, knowing they were out of the race? Was their confidence shatttered?
I know K-State shattered the frick out of Oklahoma's confidence heading into the BCS title game against LSU - that was a shell of a team in the Sugar Bowl that rolled everyone before K-State and scored a billion points.
Getting embarrased and shocked like in the Big12 title game can ruin your future play and belief in your abilities.
"They made them quit."
So that win should be counted as a top 10 team - not as a win against a 9-4 team at the end of the year.
What role does beating a top 5 team have on that team's future performance? Did they give up a little, knowing they were out of the race? Was their confidence shatttered?
I know K-State shattered the frick out of Oklahoma's confidence heading into the BCS title game against LSU - that was a shell of a team in the Sugar Bowl that rolled everyone before K-State and scored a billion points.
Getting embarrased and shocked like in the Big12 title game can ruin your future play and belief in your abilities.
This post was edited on 10/9/17 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 6:57 am to gizmoflak
quote:
In other words, midseason rankings shouldn't matter IMO. When comparing resumes at the end of the year, quality victories should only be determined by the opponents' ranking as of the end of year, not at the time you played them...
I can make an argument either way. Sometimes a team deserves their ranking early on but injuries/player loss can vastly change the quality of the team play. I think more thought needs to go into this, in general. Most voter have no real idea about the quality of many teams in the top 25.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:31 am to gizmoflak
Yep, that's why I always tell people that in certain cases, it can actually help to lose a game in the long run. Could be the difference between having an extra ranked opponent.
Now obviously not multiple games. But losing one extra game per year leaves a similar record but often a much better looking strength of schedule.
Now obviously not multiple games. But losing one extra game per year leaves a similar record but often a much better looking strength of schedule.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:35 am to SlowEasyConfident
quote:
f beating ranked teams mattered Clemson would be ranked number
Clemson should be #1 until someone beats them. They are the current champion.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:35 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
I know K-State shattered the frick out of Oklahoma's confidence heading into the BCS title game against LSU - that was a shell of a team in the Sugar Bowl that rolled everyone before K-State and scored a billion points.
It was more that their heisman QB was hurt and playing the best defense in the country.
You really think Oklahoma gave up after a loss that didn’t mean anything? They lost that game, but still got to play for a championship.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:03 am to gizmoflak
quote:That's what the committee does, dummy
When comparing resumes at the end of the year, quality victories should only be determined by the opponents' ranking as of the end of year, not at the time you played them...
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 8:03 am
Posted on 10/10/17 at 12:51 pm to Draconian Sanctions
My kinda response
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News