Bashing the Polls - Again

You know exactly why I love this time of year, and it's not because of the beautiful oranges and yellows that appear on the leaves of trees that drop onto the green lawns with the cool, brisk air whipping through your hair as you stake out the high profile homes that will be bombarded by trick-or-treaters. Even though those are wonderful things, nothing can compare to college football and the tradition, competition, and opposition; however, there is something that always spoils football every other year - the campaigning of political figures that pollute the airways, highways, and mail. I don't know what makes me more disgusted, the filth I learn about a person on a commercial or knowing that the opponent has paid to say those things about someone else. The attack-ads have become the norm and I find it a complete turn off - as in, turn off the TV. They are horrible! You can always tell, without the volume on, if the commercial is favorable of the person who has their picture on the television or not by how heinous the photos are. If the ad is an attack-ad, the person it is attacking has pictures that look like they were caught at the grocery store checking out labels on the back of a soup can. You know that look. Don't say you've never seen that look before! Of course, the favorable ads have professionally taken photos and nice props and little children being loved and stuff. It's repulsive! Why can't they just state their opinions and their stand on the topics and hope that the American people can be smart enough to vote for who they think is best suited for that particular position? I guess it's because we can't trust the majority of Americans to do the proper investigation into their own beliefs and the beliefs of the candidates and weigh out each one with full knowledge of the topics that are important to the individual and exercise their right to vote. We are just too busy! Too busy with college football, right? So, what do you believe? The attack-ads? The people who make them? How do you sort out the garbage from people that try to make someone else look bad? Both candidates attack each other, so who is the least trashy? Frankly, I don't really know. I need to do a better job, as an American, to exercise my right to dig into the stands for all of the candidates for each political position and vote my conscious. I love people and I always try to find the good in each one I encounter and I wish that the political candidates would show me the good they have in themselves to help me know. I don't want to know the bad - I have enough bad things about myself that I need to worry about, let alone each political figure. Politicians need to help things make sense for people to understand so we don't go to the polls and vote as a confused American with no reason for our decisions on the ballots.

Speaking of voting and being an informed voter, not only Americans who determine the leadership of this state or nation should perform their American duties, but the voters who participate in the leadership of rankings in college football should vote as an informed pollster with all the information available by digging into the subject matter to help make sense for the fans who scour the polls for justice of their successful team. As many "fanatics" of college football, debates break out all the time to legitimize certain rankings and try to justify, with their own particular biases, why certain teams are located conveniently where they are. Sometimes, like myself, "fanatics" are very critical and skeptical of who is ranked where and start to formulate theories of why the order of the top 25 teams is such as it is. So, much like an earlier topic, "Harris Poll Bias", I have found the current poll to be unchanging from its erroneous course since its inception.

I still don't understand how a poll can start near mid-season and determine a top 25 list that is always near-identical to the AP and Coaches' polls when the Harris poll confidently states that there is not a bias in its voting. Well, if there is not a bias, then they should be trying to explain their votes each week so the fans can understand the rankings and not start the week confused over and over again. Now the BCS is just another animal and nobody will ever be able to understand the computer aspect of that, but the two-thirds of the overall outcome of the BCS is human and should try much harder to get their votes correct and accurate.

Let me explain a little of my frustration by giving one example: my particular belief, when two teams have the same record and they played each other, the team that wins the head-to-head should be the team ranked higher - with Arizona at 4-1 and Iowa at 4-1 in the Harris poll's first week of votes, the voters put Iowa at #15 and Arizona at #21 while Iowa's only loss was to Arizona. I am trying to figure out the logic to an "unbiased" voting panel that proves to me that certain laws of nature aren't really laws... or... nature? So, the team that lost the head-to-head match-up is actually the better team - is what I get from the "unbiased" voting panel. It makes total sense, right? This explains why the Harris poll voters had Texas (3-2) receiving 30 points after losing two straight games to unranked UCLA and top 10 Oklahoma (5-0); however, that UCLA team that beat Texas in Austin that had the same 3-2 record did not receive a single point from the Harris poll voters. Please inform me of the logic in this one. I don't know how to twist this one. Shouldn't Texas' loss to UCLA at home look worse than a UCLA home loss to a ranked, undefeated team? Who knows?

So far, after eight weeks, we have seen some changes at the top, starting with the #1 ranked Alabama losing to South Carolina. The very next week, the #1 ranked Ohio State lost to Wisconsin. The very next week, the BCS #1 ranked Oklahoma lost to Missouri. Now, the new BCS #1 ranked team is Auburn who doesn't play anybody in the next two games (Ole Miss and Chattanooga), so I predict that there won't be any more changes of #1 until Auburn actually plays a real opponent with a home game against Georgia November 13th and then the Iron Bowl at Alabama on November 26th. Can I just mention something? Of course I can - it's my flippin' blog! When Alabama was #1 before losing, Oregon and Boise State were #'s 3 and 4, respectively. So, Ohio State moves in from #2 after 'Bama loses and Oregon and BSU bump up as well; however, the BCS starts up after Ohio State loses and there's not glimpse of Oregon or Boise State at the top. Hmmm. That's okay because Oklahoma loses to start another bump toward the top, right? Wrong! Oregon and Boise stay in place and an SEC team sneaks right in there. Have we seen this before? Either a Big XII or SEC school rises out of nowhere and grabs a #1 spot when the voters don't even have them at #1 OR #2 in the AP, Coaches, or Harris polls. Now if you are following my blog, you know that I'm not a fan of the Harris poll due to its obscure ranking techniques by making sure half of the SEC and Big XII are represented each week, no matter who they've lost to or who they have actually beaten on the field. That one (flawed) poll gives 1/3 of the information needed in the BCS formula in determining who plays for the coveted national title. One-third! These people who cannot vote as an individual with only one week in mind of who the teams have just played and their record of the previous games and who those opponents were and where they were played at. The failure of the BCS begins right there - without a playoff! A playoff is the only solution to resolve the mistake-prone BCS formula.

There is only one group that trumps the worthlessness of the Harris poll voters - the PEOPLE who plug in the decisive information into the computers that helps calculate another 1/3 of the BCS formula. Most of these calculations, I would presume, come from a strength of schedule and how many ranked teams are played and what the record of their opponents are, etc. Opponents' records are important, especially with non-conference competition; however, there should be other factors to take into consideration with conference competition - for example, the Apple Cup between Washington and Washington State and all the awful years of the Cougars football program and how they base their success of the entire season on that one game (whether a coach should stay or go), even if it's their only win; to beat a good Husky squad is great for the Washington State program, but terrible for the good Washington program - the point being, this has happened over and over again and is very common for rivals who loath one another to go back and forth with the underdog winning most match-ups. Another factor is what I keep saying and I'll continue saying it until my last breath on this beautiful planet, that there are a couple conferences, as a whole, that get so much love from the voters and the media to assure those particular conferences great rankings throughout the entire conferences which bolsters up the "appearance" of their "difficult" strength of schedule. This is a serious issue that is NEVER addressed which spins the world around the axis of the Southeastern part of the country. It is ridiculous! Now, if I'm a Southeasterner and a huge fan of... say... the Gators, I would not understand anything I just said because the media and voters have given my team and my conference so much love and I've partaken of this super-conference "Kool-Ade" that it has left my thirst more-than quenched. I've gotten my pockets stuffed and overflowing with the fact that the SEC can't be touched by any other conference when it comes to talent, quickness, speed, strength, and down-right dominance; and anything spoken of or even thought of that might mysteriously reach the lips (or fingers) of another soul are out-right profanities, blasphemous, and against all Holy writ of God, Himself. How is it that every year the SEC is the top conference in "everyone's" eye? Even on a down year, they still reign supreme without any doubt - meaning, top to bottom, the most complete and perfect of any conference existing or imaginable. It is absurd! They have their heads so far up their... well, I have to be careful here... way up in the clouds so far, that they actually think that eight conference games in the SEC are so difficult that each school HAS TO schedule much easier competition for the non-conference portion of the season. Really?!? So, cupcake city has to exist amongst the nation's elite? Shouldn't the elite be out there trying to exploit their dominance and overwhelming power over all the nation? Or, is the Strawberry Shortcake University scheduling a secret way of telling the nation that they fear taking on real challenges from real, legitimate teams from other automatic qualifying conferences? My personal feeling is the latter - they are afraid to come to terms with reality because reality is hard to deal with when you're a teenager and young adult with tender feelings. It's better to believe you are much better than anybody at any cost. Let's take a look at some of competition that boosts the strength of schedule for these powerhouses. Might as well start at the top of the BCS with Auburn because I'm sure they are proud to display their non-conference foes with pride and a feeling of accomplishment. The mighty Auburn Tigers have to take on four non-conference teams this year (like all years - except when there were only 11 games allowed to play each year). Those teams are: Arkansas State 3-5 (who, arguably played better than the then #12-ranked Arkansas when ASU gave up only 52 points to the Tigers while the Razorbacks gave up 65 to Auburn - sad, because Arkansas was ranked so high? or because Arkansas State is not?), Clemson 4-3 (who hasn't beat a ranked team out of two tries), Louisiana-Monroe 3-4 (who still gets to play LSU in November - plus, another team to give up less points than Arkansas with 52), and coming up, Chattanooga 5-2 (who will be 6-2 when they come to Jordan-Hare Stadium as a team that's not even Division I - FCS school that has a 0-20 record against Auburn). Good thing the computers will recognize the 6-2 record of Chattanooga or maybe that home game for Auburn might not look so good, otherwise. (sarcasm) Let's look at Florida: Miami, OH 4-4, South Florida 4-3 (who hails from the conference that nobody gives any credit to and finally won their first conference game on 10/23), Appalachian State 7-0 (again, we see another FCS school with a great record that will boost the strength of schedule for the SEC, but Appy State is NOT a Division I - there's a HUGE gap in talent and amount of scholarships), and then Florida State 6-1 (which will finally be a competitive game for the first time in 5-6 years, but FSU is in the "down" conference of the ACC, so may be misleading competition). Let's look at South Carolina: Southern Miss 5-2 (Conference USA that has one real win over Kansas 2-5), Furman 4-3 (yet, another FCS school - crazy!), Troy 4-2 (Sun Belt powerhouse (sarcasm)), and ending the season with a huge rivalry game against Clemson 4-3 (Pac-10 would call this game a "conference" game - but the Gamecocks have the luxury, like Florida/Florida State, to have an in-state rival in a different conference and call it a "non-conference" opponent). Finally, the one-loss team that the media is itching to put in the national title game two years straight, Alabama and their amazing non-conference slate: San Jose State 1-7 (that home game must have taken the Tide 4 hours minimum to prepare for this massive battle (sarcasm)), Penn State 4-3 (ranked #18 at the time of play, but since hasn't faired too well with a loss to Illinois and only one win so far in conference to Minnesota 1-7 and finds itself way outside the top 25 - not much of an Alabama win now), Duke 1-6 (they even lost to Army - and it wasn't even close), and finally Georgia State 5-3 (another FCS school that doesn't have a chance). This non-conference schedule has a win total of 11 games between the four team. Isn't Alabama the defending national champion? These games were not scheduled after the fact it won the title, right? If you are a team that recruits better than anyone else in the nation and plays in a conference better than anyone else in the nation and has a head coach getting paid more than anyone else in the nation and has assistant coaches getting paid more than anyone else in the nation and touts the Heisman trophy winner from last year and probably a couple more in the near future, this schedule is the best you can do? Really? Penn State is the only respectable opponent on the list and that turned out to be a dud in the end. Duke? That's the best you can shoot for in the ACC? The bottom feeder of the conference over the last 2-3 DECADES? Really? Do you really have to play an FCS school? Can't you stand up to the plate like a big boy and prove your worth by now? Can't you play legitimate teams from legitimate conferences by now? Can't you prove your #1 status GIVEN to you by playing competition that helps measure what kind of team you have on the field? Or are you afraid? Are you one of those politicians that sits in a corner and points out the flaws and make fun of the mistakes of the other teams in the nation while you make yourself look really good smearing the guts of unworthy competition all over the turf like a professional photo shoot with deliberate props? Anyway, these are the teams that are getting the kudos from the PEOPLE who plug in information into computers to tell the computers to adjust the calculations in such a way to make these teams look extraordinary in terms of greatness and athleticism and dominance in NCAA Division I football.

The PEOPLE who vote in the polls and the PEOPLE who insert information into computers have not seen what Boise State fans see, or what Pac-10 fans see, or what Mountain West fans see, or even what the Big East fans see in terms of individual accomplishment and a season as a whole and not just key wins at convenient places at convenient times. Too many times has the Pac-10 taken a back seat to inferior competition so a "more popular" team can take the crown. Now Boise State is feeling it way too much with the longest win streak in the nation, currently at 21 after the win against Louisiana Tech, and is already getting slighted by voters and computers and the #3 ranking will likely be as close as they get to playing for the national title because they will probably get passed over by a one-loss Alabama team who beat Duke, Georgia State, and San Jose State (by less than Boise State, by the way).