Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as well.

On 1/9/2024 1:28 PM, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as well.

They continually prove that the polls mean diddly squat.

> > Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as well.
> They continually prove that the polls mean diddly squat.

That's what my accumulated "exposure" is worth. (You know, as in what "influencers" tell shopkeepers - "Oh, I cant pay you in cash, but look at all of the Exposure you are getting!")

It used to be worth jack squat - excuse me: JACK SQUAT ($1 to the Chris Farley estate) - but the market has been on an upturn lately.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:28:33 PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as well.

It is inevitable that by the end of the college football season, there are going to be teams ranked ahead of teams that beat
them. There was only on team that went undefeated and they are on top. Everybody else got beat by somebody else but
there is no way to rank teams without a team being ranked behind a team they beat. Should Oklahoma be ranked ahead of
Texas because they beat they?

On 09 Jan 2024, leonard hofstatder <n.nut@comcast.net> posted some
news:unkcgk$257d5$1@dont-email.me:

> On 1/9/2024 1:28 PM, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
>> Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national
>> champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put
>> Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as
>> well.
>
>
> They continually prove that the polls mean diddly squat.

Hillary Clinton can attest to that!

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 5:10:17 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:28:33 PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as well.
> It is inevitable that by the end of the college football season, there are going to be teams ranked ahead of teams that beat
> them. There was only on team that went undefeated and they are on top. Everybody else got beat by somebody else but
> there is no way to rank teams without a team being ranked behind a team they beat. Should Oklahoma be ranked ahead of
> Texas because they beat they?

But in this case, the logic of the AP poll makes little sense. Alabama was ranked ahead of Georgia in the last poll. Alabama's only loss since that poll was to the #1 team in overtime.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:28:33 PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as well.

Based on the playoff results themselves, you would think, it would be:
#1 Michigan
#2 Alabama
#3 Washington
#4 Texas

Then we can argue about the rest or argue about whether Georgia should be ahead of Texas, but Michigan was marginally better than Alabama and significantly better than Washington.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 14:30:27 -0800 (PST), JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 5:10:17?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:28:33?PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
>> > Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as well.
>> It is inevitable that by the end of the college football season, there are going to be teams ranked ahead of teams that beat
>> them. There was only on team that went undefeated and they are on top. Everybody else got beat by somebody else but
>> there is no way to rank teams without a team being ranked behind a team they beat. Should Oklahoma be ranked ahead of
>> Texas because they beat they?
>
>But in this case, the logic of the AP poll makes little sense. Alabama was ranked ahead of Georgia in the last poll. Alabama's only loss since that poll was to the #1 team in overtime.

One of the weknesses of the polls has always been "you lose. you drop, you win, you stay or go up". Who you lost to or beat is secondary. It's how
TCUs and FSUs get over-ranked. Numerous other exmples. The times that doesn't happen is almost always pollster bias, which is another weakness in the
polls. It was always better to lose early so you can recover as the season progresses.

AP poll bias was actually researched in an academic study ten years ago. The conclusions were voters favored teams from their area, teams in large
market areas were favored, teams watched on national tv were favored, and W-L records were voted up or down with little knowledge of the team or
schedule.

> One of the weknesses of the polls has always been "you lose. you drop, you win, you stay or go up". Who you lost to or beat is secondary. It's how
> TCUs and FSUs get over-ranked. Numerous other exmples. The times that doesn't happen is almost always pollster bias, which is another weakness in the
> polls. It was always better to lose early so you can recover as the season progresses.

I think the biggest example of this is 1993, when #2 Notre Dame beat #1 Florida State, only to lose to Boston College a week later.
The real question may not be so much, "Did #2 Notre Dame deserve to be #1 more than a team that lost to it" as, "Did a Notre Dame team whose only loss was to Boston College deserve to jump to #2 over a Nebraska team whose only loss was in the de facto national championship game?".

There's a new bias, if you ask me: apparently, there's a new unwritten rule where the CFP championship game loser should be ranked #2. How did a TCU team that got blown out by Georgia finish ahead of an Ohio State team that lost to that same Georgia team by a shanked field goal attempt about a week earlier? I was going to suggest a similar case for Alabama over Washington this year - but Alabama somehow finished fifth.
> AP poll bias was actually researched in an academic study ten years ago. The conclusions were voters favored teams from their area, teams in large
> market areas were favored, teams watched on national tv were favored, and W-L records were voted up or down with little knowledge of the team or
> schedule.

Anybody familiar with my NOTCFP rankings may remember when I used the AP voters as the "committee members". Early in the season, they tended to favor teams in their area, but eventually they all honed in on each other.

Bonus RSFC Trivia while we're waiting for something to come out of this week's NCAA Convention (actually, pretty much all of the Division I stuff is Wednesday and Thursday) and the football rules committee: name pretty much the only instance where a school trumpeted a team's ranking in a poll other than using a #1 ranking to claim a national championship (I didn't mention any names COUGHucfWHEEZE).

On 2024-01-09, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:28:33 PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
>> Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as well.
>
> Based on the playoff results themselves, you would think, it would be:
> #1 Michigan
> #2 Alabama
> #3 Washington
> #4 Texas
>
> Then we can argue about the rest or argue about whether Georgia
> should be ahead of Texas, but Michigan was marginally better than
> Alabama and significantly better than Washington.

These differences were small, really. Remember, the score of the Michigan-
Washington game was 20-13 at the beginning of the fourth quarter --
one turnover could have changed everything. I agree that Michigan was
having the better of the line play, but one blown coverage and it
could have been tied. Where it goes from there, who knows.

I agree it is probably better to rank Alabama ahead of UGA and perhaps
ahead of Texas, but the differences are small and voting differently
is certainly defensible.

--
I have a cop friend who thinks he ought be able to give a new ticket;
"too dumb for conditions".

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 5:30:30 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 5:10:17 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:28:33 PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > Strange that, after Alabama lost in OT to the eventual national champion, not only did both the coaches' and sportswriters' polls put Texas ahead of Alabama, but they both put Georgia ahead of Alabama as well.
> > It is inevitable that by the end of the college football season, there are going to be teams ranked ahead of teams that beat
> > them. There was only on team that went undefeated and they are on top. Everybody else got beat by somebody else but
> > there is no way to rank teams without a team being ranked behind a team they beat. Should Oklahoma be ranked ahead of
> > Texas because they beat they?
> But in this case, the logic of the AP poll makes little sense. Alabama was ranked ahead of Georgia in the last poll. Alabama's only loss since that poll was to the #1 team in overtime.

Alabama is a two loss team. Georgia lost once. It doesn't matter how close either team's losses were. Alabama was the better
team in the SEC championship. Georgia was the better team over the course of the entire season. They should have been
ranked ahead of Alabama.