We’ve established the ground rules (albeit not without some controversy, though we have covered this ground before) and eliminated the also-rans, so now it is time to begin looking at the teams who made the grade, starting with No. 25 and working our way up to No. 1:
25. Southern Miss. Golden Eagles (12-2): Southern Mississippi won twelve games, claimed its conference championship by beating a previously undefeated opponent in a true road game, and beat five teams that finished with winning records. Granted, only one of the Golden Eagles’ victories was over a squad with a record better than 8-5, but, by the same token, four of USM’s triumphs were over clubs that ended up just under .500, at 5-7. What, then, held Southern Miss down? The Eagles’ two losses did; USM fell to Marshall (7-6) and to UAB (3-9).
24. Rutgers Scarlet Knights (9-4): The State University of New Jersey defeated two ten-win teams (Cincinnati and Ohio), and only one of the Knights’ victims was a Division I-A squad with more than seven losses. However, the Bearcats and the Bobcats were the only teams Rutgers bested that finished above .500, and the Knights’ record was dragged down by losses to a pair of 7-6 outfits (Louisville and North Carolina) and a setback suffered at the hands of Connecticut (5-7).
23. Penn St. Nittany Lions (9-4): Penn State had no bad losses---all four of the Lions’ losses were to teams that won at least nine games---but PSU had few notable wins; of the four teams with winning records the Pennsylvanians defeated, three finished 7-6, making the Nittany Lions’ marquee victory a four-point win over Temple.
22. Georgia Bulldogs (10-4): The Red and Black narrowly edged out Penn State for the No. 22 spot, though it was a close call. Both the Bulldogs and the Nittany Lions beat exactly four teams with winning records; in each instance, those four victims had a combined record of 30-22. The Classic City Canines got the nod because Georgia had better losses (to four teams that finished with eleven or more wins, two of them by three points, as opposed to PSU’s four losses to three teams that finished with eleven or more wins, one of them by three points), won its division, and had a better “second-best” win (over Georgia Tech) than Penn State could claim.
21. Nebraska Cornhuskers (9-4): The Big Red Machine notched five of its nine victories against teams who wrapped up the campaign sporting winning records, with two of those wins coming against nine-win Penn State and eleven-win Michigan State. Moreover, three of the Cornhuskers’ four losses were to eleven-win teams, all of whom Nebraska faced outside of Lincoln. What hurt the ‘Huskers’ cause, however, was a three-point home loss to a Northwestern outfit that ended the autumn with a 6-7 ledger. Dropping a decision to a squad with a losing record prevented Nebraska from finding a spot in the top 20.
20. Virginia Tech Hokies (11-3): VPI, like the Cornhuskers, beat five teams with winning records, two of whom went 7-6. Moreover, the Gobblers’ three best wins (over Arkansas State, Georgia Tech, and Virginia) were not the equal of the Cornhuskers’ (over Michigan State, Penn State, and Wyoming). However, the Hokies ended up in front of Nebraska because Virginia Tech had two more wins and a better set of losses, all of which were sustained at the hands of clubs that finished with double-digit win tallies.
19. Clemson Tigers (10-4): The Jungaleers beat the Hokies twice and captured the conference crown, which earned the Country Gentlemen a spot in front of VPI. In addition, Clemson won five games against teams that finished above .500, including Virginia Tech (twice), Florida State, and Auburn. The Tigers’ losses, while lopsided, were to teams that finished 8-5 or better.
18. West Virginia Mountaineers (10-3): One of Clemson’s aforementioned lopsided losses was to West Virginia in the bowl game, which explains why the Mountaineers deserved to be ranked ahead of the Fort Hill Felines. In addition, triumphs over nine-win Rutgers and ten-win Cincinnati bolstered WVU’s case. What kept the Mountaineers from climbing higher in the rankings were a pair of bad losses, to seven-win Louisville and to seven-loss Syracuse.
17. Baylor Bears (10-3): Baylor beat out West Virginia for the No. 17 poll position, despite the two teams’ identical records, because the Bears beat more teams with winning records (5), including eight-win Missouri and Texas, ten-win Oklahoma, and eleven-win Texas Christian. Moreover, Baylor’s three losses were a bit more forgivable than the Mountaineers’, as all three of the Baptists’ setbacks came on the road against winning teams. One of those winning teams, though, was Texas A&M, and the Aggies’ 7-6 finish limited Baylor’s ability to rise into the top 15.
16. Kansas St. Wildcats (10-3): This one’s pretty simple, really. Baylor and Kansas State each went 10-3 with road losses to Oklahoma State and wins over Missouri and Texas, but the Wildcats beat the Bears head-to-head, and KSU’s losses all were against teams that finished with double-digit win totals . . . one of whom, I would add, ended up as my No. 15 team.
Coming Soon: Counting up from No. 15 through No. 6.
Go ‘Dawgs!
0 recs | 25 comments
Well done, Kye
Bud Elliott - January 10, 2012
Kyle
Bud Elliott - January 10, 2012
Thanks!
T Kyle King - January 10, 2012
This does not scan
By your “logic” regardingyour selection for #1 South Carolina should not be ranked above Georgia because they didn’t win their division. They are therefore ineligible and should be eliminated from consideration. Move your team up a dozen spots. The rest of the season is irrelevant compared to winning a division.
Watchman - January 10, 2012
Kyle has only said he is a resume ranker about 1000 times now.
SC beat UGA head to head and won their bowl game, by his resume system that would put SC ahead of UGA.
And it’s not that I need to defend Kyle, it’s just that you are obviously here to be inflammatory.
tankertoad - January 10, 2012
Thanks, tankertoad. You beat me to it.
First of all, Watchman, lay off the scare quotes. I have stated repeatedly that I respect the reasonableness of contrary views; if you can’t extend me the simple courtesy of recognizing the internal consistency of my approach, you can take it someplace else where decent manners aren’t expected.
My position is that, in order to be a national champion, you must first be a conference champion. That applies solely to the No. 1 ranking. Affording a lower ranking to Georgia than to South Carolina has no bearing on the determination of a national champion. If you must know, the basic rationale for ranking the Bulldogs lower than the Gamecocks is that (a) Georgia finished with a worse record than South Carolina, and (b) South Carolina beat Georgia during the regular-season meeting.
Not for nothing, Watchman, but Alabama finished with a worse record than LSU, and LSU beat Alabama during the regular-season meeting, so my position is perfectly consistent.
You said in a previous comment that you had a measure of respect for this weblog, Watchman. I appreciate that, particularly given the strident, and inexplicable, Bulldog-bashing in which a small yet vocal segment of the Alabama fan base engages. If you were sincere about that, please act like it. I have too much respect for your intelligence to think that you are even remotely stupid enough to believe that “[t]he rest of the season is irrelevant compared to winning a division” is anything other than infantile, inflammatory, and asinine. I’m the one who’s affording a measure of appreciation to all the games a team plays.
T Kyle King - January 10, 2012
I think my respect for you is why I'm so disappointed
My intent is not to be inflammatory but to point out and illustrate what to me is the obvious and glaring flaw in your reasoning. A conclusion that requires overlooking what happened on the field last night because you don’t think the game should have been played between those two particular teams doesn’t work for me. Your blog, your poll, your rules, and I’ll let it go after this.
You have every right not count games in January if you like, but in that case it seems you should vote before the bowls are played like they used to in the old days (yes, I remember the 60s…) and just ignore any results that conflict with the opinions you’ve established based on the regular season.
I do understand that to a lot of people it isn’t “fair” for us to get another shot at LSU. I don’t understand why it’s not fair to take the results of that game into account. If we had beaten them 9-6 in overtime, you’d have a far stronger argument but that’s not what happened.
Watchman - January 10, 2012
What you seem to be ignoring isn't failure to count games in January
it’s also counting games in September, October, November, and December.
Mr. Sanchez - January 10, 2012
That simply isn't a fair characterization of what I'm doing, Watchman.
I’m not “overlooking what happened on the field last night,” and I don’t recall ever having expressed an opinion about whether “the game should have been played between those two particular teams.” I don’t think there ought to be a separate BCS National Championship Game as a matter of principle, but I don’t recall ever having stated an opinion about the team LSU ought to face in that game.
My position is simply that last night’s game represents one-thirteenth of Alabama’s season and one-fourteenth of LSU’s season, no more and no less. It was an impressive win over a good team, but, quite frankly, Louisiana State and Oklahoma State have significantly more impressive wins over good teams than Alabama does.
I recognize and admit that reasonable people view this issue differently, but I see no flaw in my reasoning, much less an “obvious and glaring” one. If we’re going to value a system that preserves the importance of the regular season, let’s take the regular season into account. That’s really all I’m doing.
T Kyle King - January 10, 2012
What I like about your approach
is that it sets boundaries for “who shot John.” Too many blogs end up with the inevitable “my statistic beats your statistic,” with no way to limit the number of pertabations out there. So, think you have done a reasonably good job setting the discussion parameters. Not sure I agree with all of these, but will give you the hat tip on being consistent in the process. Enjoyed the list, appreciate the work. And UGA was the only dawg I lost money on this year……
OldArmy - January 13, 2012
Thanks, OldArmy.
Much obliged.
T Kyle King - January 13, 2012
19-22 is just a tangled ball
While I hate that you give so much love to a Clemson team that beat a UGA common opponent by a closer margin than UGA beat them and then lost to a team UGA beat; but won their conference and beat VPI twice; but got blown out in a bowl. VPI beat a common opponent of UGA by a similar PD (11 to 14), was beat by Clemson twice and lost in OT in a bowl. Nebraska beat a team UGA lost to in triple OT in the bowl and lost to a team that UGA
should havecould have won. We all know UGA’s story. I would have probably put Nebraska at 19, followed by UGA, Clemson and VPI, but cannot really justify it any better than you have your rankings. can you just rank them all 19 and then Penn St at 23?Dawg2011 - January 10, 2012
Fair points, Dawg2011.
That’s why I use head-to-head more or less exclusively as a tiebreaker between otherwise equivalent teams, because, if you try using beat-the-team-that-beat-the-team as the be-all/end-all, you’ll drive yourself nuts.
I wish the BlogPoll voting mechanism let me tie teams, but, alas, I have to make a choice, which is yet another instance of the system compelling an artificial Bohr model-like certainty at the expense of a less satisfying yet infinitely preferable electron cloud model-like accuracy.
T Kyle King - January 10, 2012
Why Rutgers and not Missouri?
Do you really think RU could best Missouri on a neutral field? After Missouri absolutely destroyed UNC.
mpfische - January 10, 2012 via mobile
The
mpfische - January 10, 2012 via mobile
Five loss rule....
Seems insane to have the rule but…..
mpfische - January 10, 2012 via mobile
A team that goes 8-5 has won barely over 60 per cent of its games.
It seems reasonable to exclude teams that lost nearly two-fifths of their games from inclusion in the top 20 per cent of the sport, so I don’t consider the rule “insane,” but I am open to arguments. If you want me to consider Missouri, by all means, make the case for Missouri. My ballot deadline is not until 9:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow morning.
I have absolutely no idea whether Missouri would beat Rutgers on a neutral field, and, since those two teams will not be playing this season, I am utterly unconcerned about what would happen in such a hypothetical contest. I am concerned only with what actually happened on the field between Labor Day weekend and last night.
T Kyle King - January 10, 2012
Here goes....
Missouri’s Losses-
(1) Arizona State: Overtime loss in front of 90,000 in Tempe on a 105 degree night with a true sophmore quarterback making his first ever road start and second overall. Missed a game winning field goal at the end of regulation. ASU finished horribly, but they were great to start including a 43-22 win over USC. Climbed as high as #18 before falling apart.
(2) Oklahoma: In Norman on a Saturday night lost 38-28 before Oklahoma suffered so many offensive injuries.
(3) Kansas State: In Manhattan we lost 24-17.
(4) Got beat badly by OkSt…45-24
(5) Lost to Baylor 42-39 in Waco.
Wins-
(1) Miami – Ohio at home, they finished 4-8
(2) Western Illinois, they finished 2-9
(3) Iowa State 52-17, they finished 6-7 (was 52-10 middle of 4th quarter and this is the team that Rutgers beat by 14).
(4) A&M in College Station, they finished 7-6
(5) Texas 17-5, they finished 8-5
(6) Texas Tech, they finished 5-7
(7) Kansas, they’re awful.
(8) North Carolina, neutral field 41-24.
So, Missouri lost only to ranked teams on the road (except ASU who finished horribly and OSU who beat us at home). Yes they lost 5 games but most people you ranked between 15-25 would lose at Baylor, at Kansas State, at Norman, and against OSU. Seems clear that Missouri is better than at least #25 and #24.
mpfische - January 10, 2012
I respect the attempt, mpfische, but there's no "there" there.
A loss to a 6-7 Arizona State team is a bad loss, period. What’s there to offset it? Three wins over Division I-A teams with winning records, two of whom went 7-6 and one of whom went 8-5?
There’s just not enough on the plus side to offset the minus of five losses, one of which was to a team that finished under .500. If I were going to rank an 8-5 team, it would be Auburn, but I don’t see where Missouri did anything on the field that leads me to believe the Tigers accomplished more in 2011 than Rutgers did. Sorry.
T Kyle King - January 10, 2012
This is an SEC blog..
So maybe that’s why, but to me Auburn doesn’t seem competitive compared to Missouri…while Missouri was very competitive against ranked opponents, Auburn got taken to the woodshed by every ranked team it faced (MissSt finished 7-6 so I’m not going to include them).
mpfische - January 11, 2012
Oh yeah...
… you know how much Kyle loves him some Auburn.
vineyarddawg - January 11, 2012
Not what I meant....
I meant that the facts seem to suggest that Auburn didn’t play as well against stiff competition as Missouri did…so Kyle liking them maybe had something to do with his familiarity withthe SEC versus the Big 12.
mpfische - January 11, 2012
Welcome to SEC.
first and thom - January 11, 2012
Thanks...
Should be a lot of fun next year….I feel like we can compete with Georgia (if we play near perfect football) and South Carolina for the West…we’ll find out very early on.
mpfische - January 11, 2012
It's the East, actually, . . .
. . . but, geographically speaking, the mistake was understandable! :)
T Kyle King - January 11, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawg Sports to post a comment.