Who's to say

[Rockerbraves]

Again, if you just take the raw numbers, vs the teams played, and factor in the fact that Oklahoma has a quality road win, and Texas doesn't, then you can clearly see that any computer would have OU higher.

 

 

Colley Bias Free Rankings - First and foremost, the rankings are based only on results from the field , with absolutely no influence from opinion, past performance, tradition or any other bias factor. This is why there is no pre-season poll here. All teams are assumed equal at the beginning of the year. If you include some kind of human input, what's the point of a computer poll in the first place? Garbage in, garbage out.

 

team rating record SOS: rank top 25 wins top 50 wins best game

 

1. TEXAS 0.940002 11-1 0.596669: 4 3 5 W: #2 OKLAHOMA

2. OKLAHOMA 0.921550 11-1 0.575142: 13 4 6 W: #6 TEXAS TECH

3. ALABAMA 0.912339 12-0 0.481062: 82 1 4 W: #13 GEORGIA

4. FLORIDA 0.904828 11-1 0.555632: 31 2 5 W: #13 GEORGIA

5. UTAH 0.899982 12-0 0.466646: 86 2 4 W: #14 TCU

6. TEXAS TECH 0.869949 11-1 0.514940: 56 2 4 W: #1 TEXAS

7. SOUTHERN CAL 0.864298 10-1 0.521443: 52 2 3 W: #10 OHIO STATE

8. BOISE ST 0.857003 12-0 0.416504: 114 1 1 W: #22 OREGON

9. PENN STATE 0.853634 11-1 0.495906: 72 2 4 W: #10 OHIO STATE

Edited December 3, 2008 by Rockerbraves

[detlef]

Colley Bias Free Rankings - First and foremost, the rankings are based only on results from the field , with absolutely no influence from opinion, past performance, tradition or any other bias factor. This is why there is no pre-season poll here. All teams are assumed equal at the beginning of the year. If you include some kind of human input, what's the point of a computer poll in the first place? Garbage in, garbage out.

 

 

1. TEXAS 0.940002 11-1 0.596669: 4 3 5 W: #2 OKLAHOMA

2. OKLAHOMA 0.921550 11-1 0.575142: 13 4 6 W: #6 TEXAS TECH

3. ALABAMA 0.912339 12-0 0.481062: 82 1 4 W: #13 GEORGIA

4. FLORIDA 0.904828 11-1 0.555632: 31 2 5 W: #13 GEORGIA

5. UTAH 0.899982 12-0 0.466646: 86 2 4 W: #14 TCU

6. TEXAS TECH 0.869949 11-1 0.514940: 56 2 4 W: #1 TEXAS

7. SOUTHERN CAL 0.864298 10-1 0.521443: 52 2 3 W: #10 OHIO STATE

8. BOISE ST 0.857003 12-0 0.416504: 114 1 1 W: #22 OREGON

9. PENN STATE 0.853634 11-1 0.495906: 72 2 4 W: #10 OHIO STATE

To be honest, it's pretty hard to take that very seriously because I know of almost no data that seems to swing UT's way. UT had a marginally more difficult in conference schedule by playing Missouri. However, that is more than made up for by OU's significantly stronger OOC schedule where UT's best team was Arkansas and OU beat two teams now ranked in the top 15 BCS. Not sure where TCU and UC rank in the Colley rankings but it would be safe to say that both are much higher than Ark as well as being higher than Missouri. So, net-net, OU has the edge on strength of schedule.

 

Now, that doesn't even take into account the significant advantage OU has over UT in point differential in both common games and common games among strong opponents.

 

So, UT's best victory is better than OU's but only by 4 spots in this guy's rankings. Of course, OU's loss is to a team ranked 5 spots ahead of UT's loss. Now, maybe this guy makes a really big deal about your best victory, but I would argue that is a flaw. Especially when it means a team who has victories over the #2 and, say #15(whatever OSU is) is given more credit than a team who has victories over the #6, #15 (again OSU), as well as two others right around 15 or better.

[Rockerbraves]

Now, that doesn't even take into account the significant advantage OU has over UT in point differential in both common games and common games among strong opponents.

As with the NFL, NHL, NBA, and Major League, score margin does not matter at all in determining ranking, so winning big, despite influencing pollsters, does not influence this scheme. The object of football is winning the game, not winning by a large margin.

 

Ignoring margin of victory eliminates the need for ad hoc score deflation methods and home/away adjustments. If you have to go to great lengths to deflate scores, why use scores?

 

What about home/away? Though reasonable arguments can be made for a home/away factor, I do not know of a simple, mathematically consistent means of rating the relative difficulty of playing at the Swamp vs. playing at Wallace-Wade Stadium. The home advantage for some teams is simply more than it is for others. There are further complicating factors, such as home weather for a northern team in November vs. home weather for a southern team in August.

 

Even the pollsters seem to forgive or forget big scores or surprisingly close scores, home or away, after a few weeks. Usually, after a few weeks, a W is a W and an L is an L, as it should be anyway.

[detlef]

As with the NFL, NHL, NBA, and Major League, score margin does not matter at all in determining ranking, so winning big, despite influencing pollsters, does not influence this scheme. The object of football is winning the game, not winning by a large margin.

 

Ignoring margin of victory eliminates the need for ad hoc score deflation methods and home/away adjustments. If you have to go to great lengths to deflate scores, why use scores?

 

What about home/away? Though reasonable arguments can be made for a home/away factor, I do not know of a simple, mathematically consistent means of rating the relative difficulty of playing at the Swamp vs. playing at Wallace-Wade Stadium. The home advantage for some teams is simply more than it is for others. There are further complicating factors, such as home weather for a northern team in November vs. home weather for a southern team in August.

 

Even the pollsters seem to forgive or forget big scores or surprisingly close scores, home or away, after a few weeks. Usually, after a few weeks, a W is a W and an L is an L, as it should be anyway.

I suppose I would have thought making a case and then adding "that doesn't even take into account point differentials" would warrant a response that addressed the meat of my argument. That being the rather substantial advantage OU has in quality wins.

 

I would also add that, while I understand the theory behind eliminating margin of victory so teams aren't rewarded for not calling off the dogs vs Directional U, there could and should be a compromise. That is, to reward margin of victory vs teams ranked above a certain level. Thus, beating OSU by 20 means more than beating them by 1.

 

I understand a win is a win and looking at things this way is a luxury that leagues who allow enough teams into the NC tourney to say. However, considering that we need to pick only two among many deserving candidates, leaving credible data on the table might not be so wise.

Edited December 3, 2008 by detlef

[Rockerbraves]

I suppose I would have thought making a case and then adding "that doesn't even take into account point differentials" would warrant a response that addressed the meat of my argument. That being the rather substantial advantage OU has in quality wins.

Don't forget to take into consideration when talking about quality wins that Texas best quality win is against the #2 ranked Oklahoma team. My guess is that the computer thinks Texas could beat Cincy and Tcu as well.

[detlef]

Don't forget to take into consideration when talking about quality wins that Texas best quality win is against the #2 ranked Oklahoma team. My guess is that the computer thinks Texas could beat Cincy and Tcu as well.

There's a big difference between being good enough to beat a team and having done so. Hell, I would imagine the computer feels Texas could beat Tech as well but they didn't.

 

Essentially, every time you face a good football team there's a decent chance you lose. Thus, the more good teams you play, the more credit you should get for having many wins.

 

By your logic, if a team has played only 1 good team all year and beaten them, say they're the #2 team in the country. That means more than someone beating the #3, #4, #5, and #6 teams. I mean, if you can beat #2, you should be able to beat 3-6, right? Only, one team had prove itself against very stiff competition 4 times rather than once.

 

When you couple that with the very inexact science of ranking teams to begin with, I think quantity of wins over very solid teams has to take precedent over one win against a team considered elite.

 

Again, maybe H2H trumps all this, but you began this version of the argument by showing a computer that ranks UT ahead of OU without playing that card and I just don't see how the raw data can support that.

[Rockerbraves]

It's not my logic we are debating. I said I GUESS the Colley system thinks?

 

How can you possibly think [team A] is better than [team B]?

 

What I think about a team has absolutely nothing to do with my rankings. My rankings are based strictly upon a unique mathematical prescription, which is applied directly to wins and losses this season (only). Namely, my method has no available adjustments, tweaks or tunable parameters. As such, my method was applied identically in Week 7 of 2004 as it was in Week 3 of 1999. In fact, for my rankings to be influenced by any subjective factor, I would have to possess a magic wand that changed the properties of arithmetic such that 1 + 1 = 2.3. Short of that, my thoughts on teams simply cannot affect the rankings.

 

Now if you really want to know the math that goes behind these rankings here is a link. But I warn you it's like 20 something pages with symbols I've never seen before.

 

http://www.colleyrankings.com/method.html

[detlef]

It's not my logic we are debating. I said I GUESS the Colley system thinks?

 

How can you possibly think [team A] is better than [team B]?

 

What I think about a team has absolutely nothing to do with my rankings. My rankings are based strictly upon a unique mathematical prescription, which is applied directly to wins and losses this season (only). Namely, my method has no available adjustments, tweaks or tunable parameters. As such, my method was applied identically in Week 7 of 2004 as it was in Week 3 of 1999. In fact, for my rankings to be influenced by any subjective factor, I would have to possess a magic wand that changed the properties of arithmetic such that 1 + 1 = 2.3. Short of that, my thoughts on teams simply cannot affect the rankings.

 

Now if you really want to know the math that goes behind these rankings here is a link. But I warn you it's like 20 something pages with symbols I've never seen before.

 

http://www.colleyrankings.com/method.html

I understand that you're simply tossing this guy out there for discussion. And I certainly don't want to dive into that mess of calculations. However, regardless of how complex his formula is, it is only as good as the logic behind it. Or at least, it is simply one man's logic. It appears to me that, assuming H2H is not a factor in his equation, the only way he can put UT ahead of OU is to overvalue a team's best victory at the expense of the total amount of solid victories. There simply doesn't seem to be any other metric that puts UT ahead.

 

It simply my opinion that, assuming that is the case (and there's little reason to think otherwise) that his opinion is not credible.

 

UT has one very, very solid argument for why they deserve to be ahead of OU. They beat them head to head. That it is the beginning and end of their argument because there is simply no other manner in which the teams can be compared that breaks their way. Absolutely none. Now, again, considering the circular tie and my refusal to dismiss UT's loss to Tech, I don't think that's enough to rank them above OU.

 

However, if this guy doesn't even take H2H into account? Then there's absolutely no way in hell.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Colley Bias Free Rankings - First and foremost, the rankings are based only on results from the field , with absolutely no influence from opinion, past performance, tradition or any other bias factor. This is why there is no pre-season poll here. All teams are assumed equal at the beginning of the year. If you include some kind of human input, what's the point of a computer poll in the first place? Garbage in, garbage out.

 

team rating record SOS: rank top 25 wins top 50 wins best game

 

1. TEXAS 0.940002 11-1 0.596669: 4 3 5 W: #2 OKLAHOMA

2. OKLAHOMA 0.921550 11-1 0.575142: 13 4 6 W: #6 TEXAS TECH

3. ALABAMA 0.912339 12-0 0.481062: 82 1 4 W: #13 GEORGIA

4. FLORIDA 0.904828 11-1 0.555632: 31 2 5 W: #13 GEORGIA

5. UTAH 0.899982 12-0 0.466646: 86 2 4 W: #14 TCU

6. TEXAS TECH 0.869949 11-1 0.514940: 56 2 4 W: #1 TEXAS

7. SOUTHERN CAL 0.864298 10-1 0.521443: 52 2 3 W: #10 OHIO STATE

8. BOISE ST 0.857003 12-0 0.416504: 114 1 1 W: #22 OREGON

9. PENN STATE 0.853634 11-1 0.495906: 72 2 4 W: #10 OHIO STATE

 

 

Ok? That's one computer poll. If you took what I said and thought I meant any single computer poll, then I'm sorry. But if you look at the averages, it's pretty clear. BTW, that same poll, had Texas Tech ahead of Oklahoma last week. Not saying that means anything, but I've noticed many of you on this board seem to tout this particular poll moreso than others. The Sooners are ranked #1 in 3 of the 6 computer polls, #2 in 2 others, and#4 in the 6th poll. You touted the only poll that Texas is ranked #1 in. They are #2 in 2, #3 in 2, and #4 in the other. Statistical edge, to Oklahoma.

 

And oh by the way, no one said that computers have a preseason bias. My argument has always been, the BCS as a whole has a preseason bias. If USC and Georgia NEVER lost, and anyone else went undefeated, I maintain, they would be the 2 teams playing for the BCS national title, as happened in 2004, when USC and Oklahoma were annointed as the BCS national championship participants in August, and Auburn (and Utah) went undefeated. Not saying that USC and Oklahoma weren't deserving, just pointing out there was a clear preseason bias.

Edited December 3, 2008 by GWPFFL BrianW

[Rockerbraves]

UT has one very, very solid argument for why they deserve to be ahead of OU. They beat them head to head. That it is the beginning and end of their argument because there is simply no other manner in which the teams can be compared that breaks their way. Absolutely none. Now, again, considering the circular tie and my refusal to dismiss UT's loss to Tech, I don't think that's enough to rank them above OU.

 

However, if this guy doesn't even take H2H into account? Then there's absolutely no way in hell.

Tell me again what exactly is the ONE very solid argument for why the Sooners derserve to be ahead of Texas?

 

If it's SOS it might not be as obvious as you think if you keep the human element out of it like assuming Rice sucks.

 

According to the Colley system bias free rankings Texas has the better SOS.

 

Leaving out the 6 common opponents that leaves us with this.

 

Oklahoma played the following with Colley rankings

 

Chattanooga Not ranked (1-11 record with a sucky schedule not even worthy of being ranked)

Cincy #12

Washington #120 (only SMU & N Texas are ranked lower)

TCU #14

Kansas St #83

Nebraska #26

 

Texas played the following:

 

Florida Atlantic #81

UTEP #87

Rice #36

Arkansas #66

Colorado #68

Missouri #22

[detlef]

Tell me again what exactly is the ONE very solid argument for why the Sooners derserve to be ahead of Texas?

 

If it's SOS it might not be as obvious as you think if you keep the human element out of it like assuming Rice sucks.

 

According to the Colley system bias free rankings Texas has the better SOS.

 

Leaving out the 6 common opponents that leaves us with this.

 

Oklahoma played the following with Colley rankings

 

Chattanooga Not ranked (1-11 record with a sucky schedule not even worthy of being ranked)

Cincy #12

Washington #120 (only SMU & N Texas are ranked lower)

TCU #14

Kansas St #83

Nebraska #26

 

Texas played the following:

 

Florida Atlantic #81

UTEP #87

Rice #36

Arkansas #66

Colorado #68

Missouri #22

I think that there is a point at which SOS should not matter. That is, there's a threshold that any team below that should be assumed completely beatable and nothing that should factor into the equation. If your system actually gives a team more credit for beating the 87th best team than the 120th, then I think your system misses the point. SOS should really just be about how many teams you have played that pose a realistic chance of beating you and for any team that is talking NC game, that ranking is likely somewhere around 50 or 60 (and that is frankly pushing it). Now, that said, should a team lose to someone outside that ranking, it should be a huge, huge blow that pretty much trumps all.

 

Thus, with that in mind, what you're actually talking about is Cincy, TCU, and Nebraska vs Missouri and Rice. No other team on either team's schedule should have been considered as a realistic challenge at all and should thus have no impact on the teams resume.

Edited December 3, 2008 by detlef

[Rockerbraves]

There's a big difference between being good enough to beat a team and having done so. Hell, I would imagine the computer feels Texas could beat Tech as well but they didn't.

 

Essentially, every time you face a good football team there's a decent chance you lose. Thus, the more good teams you play, the more credit you should get for having many wins.

 

By your logic, if a team has played only 1 good team all year and beaten them, say they're the #2 team in the country. That means more than someone beating the #3, #4, #5, and #6 teams. I mean, if you can beat #2, you should be able to beat 3-6, right? Only, one team had prove itself against very stiff competition 4 times rather than once.

 

When you couple that with the very inexact science of ranking teams to begin with, I think quantity of wins over very solid teams has to take precedent over one win against a team considered elite.

 

Again, maybe H2H trumps all this, but you began this version of the argument by showing a computer that ranks UT ahead of OU without playing that card and I just don't see how the raw data can support that.

Now it seems you are changing your opinion. By your logic a top rated team can't be beat by anyone ranked outside the top 60.

 

Detlef you do recall last season, don't you?

 

#1 West Virginia got beat by #77 Pittsburgh at the end of the season.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Rockerbraves

[detlef]

Now it seems you are changing your opinion. By your logic a top rated team can't be beat by anyone ranked outside the top 60.

 

Detlef you do recall last season, don't you?

 

#1 West Virginia got beat by #77 Pittsburgh at the end of the season.

I'm not changing it at all. I'm just not prepared to accept one team gets more credit for beating one completely putrid team over another. Also, I specifically said that, provided anyone loses to a team outside the top 60, they should immediately be removed from consideration which is precisely what happened to WVU.

 

Honestly, my logic falls completely in line with the logic behind removing margin of victory, only it does so in a better manner. Those who want to do away with margin of victory always point to why a team should not profit from beating some sad-sack school by 70 pts. However, if you go that way, you eliminate the very real reward a team should get for beating a top 10 team by 40 (as OU did).

 

If SOS were only used to judge how many credible teams you've beaten, then it would be a far more effective barometer. Seriously, look at teams ranked 50-60. None of them are teams that one should really point to as defining victories. Thus, I really can't see why any below that should matter any more than the next.

 

It's not that hard a concept to understand, and if you're actually prepared to argue this, it pretty much shows that you're out of decent points.

[Rockerbraves]

I'm not changing it at all. I'm just not prepared to accept one team gets more credit for beating one completely putrid team over another. Also, I specifically said that, provided anyone loses to a team outside the top 60, they should immediately be removed from consideration which is precisely what happened to WVU.

 

Honestly, my logic falls completely in line with the logic behind removing margin of victory, only it does so in a better manner. Those who want to do away with margin of victory always point to why a team should not profit from beating some sad-sack school by 70 pts. However, if you go that way, you eliminate the very real reward a team should get for beating a top 10 team by 40 (as OU did).

 

If SOS were only used to judge how many credible teams you've beaten, then it would be a far more effective barometer. Seriously, look at teams ranked 50-60. None of them are teams that one should really point to as defining victories. Thus, I really can't see why any below that should matter any more than the next.

 

It's not that hard a concept to understand, and if you're actually prepared to argue this, it pretty much shows that you're out of decent points.

I'm out of decent points, you got to be kidding me?

 

You are the one who said and I quote "UT has one very, very solid argument for why they deserve to be ahead of OU. They beat them head to head. That it is the beginning and end of their argument because there is simply no other manner in which the teams can be compared that breaks their way. Absolutely none."

 

Yet when I ask you for the ONE very, very solid argument for why the Sooners deserve to be ahead of Texas all you can come up with is subjective arguments like margin of victory (which Stoop's teams are so famous for) or the Sooners could never lose to an vastly inferior team (which again Stoop's teams are famous for).

 

Enjoyed the debate, but please don't act like Texas does not have a reason to be upset about this after ending the season with identical records yet the Longhorns beat the Sooners by double digits on a neutral field.

[detlef]

I'm out of decent points, you got to be kidding me?

 

You are the one who said and I quote "UT has one very, very solid argument for why they deserve to be ahead of OU. They beat them head to head. That it is the beginning and end of their argument because there is simply no other manner in which the teams can be compared that breaks their way. Absolutely none."

 

Yet when I ask you for the ONE very, very solid argument for why the Sooners deserve to be ahead of Texas all you can come up with is subjective arguments like margin of victory (which Stoop's teams are so famous for) or the Sooners could never lose to an vastly inferior team (which again Stoop's teams are famous for).

 

Enjoyed the debate, but please don't act like Texas does not have a reason to be upset about this after ending the season with identical records yet the Longhorns beat the Sooners by double digits on a neutral field.

Dude, I said "solid argument" and I don't think saying that UTEP and FL Atlantic are better than UW and Chatanooga counts as a "solid argument". I mean, that is your current argument, right?

[Sgt Ryan]

Im your huckleberry Rocker. I'll be glad to give you several reasons why OU should be going over Texas. First of which, when you have 3 teams tied and each went 1-1 against each other, H2H is completely irrelevant in any tiebreaker at this point.

 

 

1. Margin of Victory in games against each other. OU is +34, Texas is +4, and Tech is -38.- Huge advantage OU

2. If the NFL settled this tie, OU would go on tiebreaker #5, which is the first that applies. Strength of Victory - Each team beat each other, so outside of that, OU has the strongest victory with its win over #11 Cincy.

3. Strength of Schedule. OU's schedule is stronger than texas.

4. OU has the only quality win on the road, none of the other teams beat anyone ranked on the road. OU beat #12Okie St by 20. Texas survived the same opponent in Austin by 4.

 

And Finally,

 

5. Big 12 rules state the highest in the BCS breaks the tie. OU led the BCS over texas, so per rule they Go, Duh.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Sgt Ryan

[Rockerbraves]

Dude, I said "solid argument" and I don't think saying that UTEP and FL Atlantic are better than UW and Chatanooga counts as a "solid argument". I mean, that is your current argument, right?

No my solid arguement is the same as your's . Head to head. Waiting to hear your solid arguement that puts OK over the top?

Edited December 3, 2008 by Rockerbraves

[Sgt Ryan]

Dude, I said "solid argument" and I don't think saying that UTEP and FL Atlantic are better than UW and Chatanooga counts as a "solid argument". I mean, that is your current argument, right?

 

 

No joke, all this rambling to say the worst 2 teams on the schedule for both teams, is Texas only argument in a 3 way tie. Does it get any weaker than that. Check out the 5 reasons above. Id say they are more relevant that the worst 2 teams on each teams schedule.

[Sgt Ryan]

No my solid arguement is the same as your's . Head to head. Waiting to here your solid arguement that puts OK over the top?

 

read the post above this numbnuts. I gave you 5 reasons.

[detlef]

No my solid arguement is the same as your's . Head to head. Waiting to hear your solid arguement that puts OK over the top?

So your solid argument besides H2H is H2H? Gotcha. You were doing better with FL Atlantic v UW.

[Rockerbraves]

Im your huckleberry Rocker. I'll be glad to give you several reasons why OU should be going over Texas. First of which, when you have 3 teams tied and each went 1-1 against each other, H2H is completely irrelevant in any tiebreaker at this point.

 

 

1. Margin of Victory in games against each other. OU is +34, Texas is +4, and Tech is -38.- Huge advantage OU

2. If the NFL settled this tie, OU would go on tiebreaker #5, which is the first that applies. Strength of Victory - Each team beat each other, so outside of that, OU has the strongest victory with its win over #11 Cincy.

3. Strength of Schedule. OU's schedule is stronger than texas.

4. OU has the only quality win on the road, none of the other teams beat anyone ranked on the road. OU beat #12Okie St by 20. Texas survived the same opponent in Austin by 4.

 

And Finally,

 

5. Big 12 rules state the highest in the BCS breaks the tie. OU led the BCS over texas, so per rule they Go, Duh.

Sarge you might be right, but I read the Strength of Victory to mean among the 3 teams tied. That would eliminate Texas Tech and thus th tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-club format). Which is head to head. Texas over Oklahoma.

[detlef]

No joke, all this rambling to say the worst 2 teams on the schedule for both teams, is Texas only argument in a 3 way tie. Does it get any weaker than that. Check out the 5 reasons above. Id say they are more relevant that the worst 2 teams on each teams schedule.

Sorry dude, you missed it on the NFL. It says that they go until a team is eliminated from consideration and then restart at the top. Going by that, TT gets bounced as of #5 (I think), and then UT and OU get compared. At very least, they don't go until one team is #1 as you suggest. They go until one team is #3.

[Rockerbraves]

So your solid argument besides H2H is H2H? Gotcha. You were doing better with FL Atlantic v UW.

No arguing, just pointed out how an unbias ranking had Texas over Oklahoma. You were the one who argued that a team's head to head should get trumped by SOS which I simply argued was not so obvious as the humans make it out to be.

[Sgt Ryan]

Sorry dude, you missed it on the NFL. It says that they go until a team is eliminated from consideration and then restart at the top. Going by that, TT gets bounced as of #5 (I think), and then UT and OU get compared. At very least, they don't go until one team is #1 as you suggest. They go until one team is #3.

 

 

If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated during any step, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-club format).

 

OU wins the tie, so there are not 2 clubs tied here. This is how I read this. If say OU and Texas both beat Cincy, and Tech didnt play them, Tech would be eliminated because there are still 2 clubs tied. But Texas didnt beat Cincy, so they are not still tied with OU here. So its my opinion OU broke the tie, and won.

[detlef]

No arguing, just pointed out how an unbias ranking had Texas over Oklahoma. You were the one who argued that a team's head to head should get trumped by SOS which I simply argued was not so obvious as the humans make it out to be.

I understand that you are illustrating how one could interpret UT's SOS as being better. However, I'm simply rebutting that it can only be that way if you're prepared to compare who's victories over totally crappy teams should count more than the next. Hell, even if you want to say that beating FL Atlantic is better than beating UW, you have to at least severely weight the difference. I mean, one is 87 and one is 120, right? That means they're "33 better". Is that a more significant win than say, beating #4 FL rather than #33 Tulsa? I mean, that's only "29 better".

 

So, if we're actually discussing the true merits of each team's case and not just trying to randomly throw out arguments, I do think it fair to assume all teams that represent the worst half of the college football world should be thought of as essentially worthless victories. At least to teams vying for #1.