Do You Care About the Ducks' Ranking?
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 18, 2009 11:35 AM PDT
40 comments
The Ducks moved up to #12 in the AP poll this week. 2 teams above them, Virginia Tech and Ohio State, both lost, but they were jumped by Georgia Tech. I was slightly upset about this for about 2 seconds when I realized for the first time in years, I don't really care what the national rankings are.
The chances of the Ducks winning out is, in my opinion, not very realistic. The PAC 10 is tough this year, and every game left on the schedule will be tough. But even if they do win out, so many teams would have to lose that the chances of getting to the National Championship Game have to be 100-1 or worse. It seems at this point that the shoot-for-the-stars goal of this season should be the Rose Bowl. To make the Rose Bowl, it doesn't really matter what the rankings are; it's all about the standings.
I usually watch both the polls and the standings as a season progresses, but for the first time that I can remember I don't really care that much where the Ducks are ranked in the polls. What are you paying more attention to, the ranking of the Ducks, or the PAC 10 standings?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Addicted To Quack Moderators. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon fans.
0 recs |
40 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Have a little Chip Kelly in you, jMCD.
While I voted for caring about the standings come the end of the year, none of that matters if we can’t give the Fuskies whatfor this week.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
by qrsouther on Oct 18, 2009 11:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee DeeDee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 18, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At this point, I could not care less about rankings. Things will shake out. All that matters is the top two teams in the final poll of the year.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Oct 18, 2009 11:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I used to get all worked up about in years past. I found it interesting that I just really don’t care this year and was wondering if others are in the same boat.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 18, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also just noticed that Chokelahoma damn near stayed in the top 25 of the Coach’s Poll. They were ONE VOTE shy of being #25 at 3-3. I sure love me some polls. /sarcasm
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 18, 2009 12:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They are in the AP #25, that is
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
by Matt Daddy on Oct 18, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow. That’s just amazing to me. I didn’t even notice that. Talk about living off your name and tradition.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 18, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where do you think they should be ranked?
they were in the game against a top 3 team with their back up. look at the teams just outside of the ap top 25. notre dame, miss, south florirda, nebraska, mich, central mick. which one of these teams would you have as a favorite in a game against ok? i would pick ok in every one of those game. college football is the only sport where a win just isn’t a win and a loss just isnt a loss. its how did they happen and who did they happen against and when did they happen. ok lost their first game by one to byu, they lost by one to miami, and they lost by 3 to texas. they have played with their back up qb most of the year. neither texas or ok impressed me at all in the red river rivalry, in fact it was a very poorly played game but it was a rivalry game and emotions can affect the game. i think ok is better than a lot of teams and i would put them around 25 in the nation.
wants to challenge the definitions of sin and search the world for lovers of ultimate beauty but never settle in.
by joffthedeckk on Oct 19, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it depends on how you rank teams. If you rank them on who would be favored in a game then we’d have to change a lot of things. It’s not supposed to be about who would be favored, it’s supposed to be about who’s done the most. I would take Oklahoma against many of those teams too, but they lost to all 3 good teams they played and beat all 3 bad teams they played. There are 4-2 teams that have done more that should be ranked above them in my opinion. If we go purely off of who we “think” is the better team and who we “think” would win between teams then records would pretty much be irrelevant. Hell, the Beavers have accomplished more than Oklahoma in my opinion by beating Stanford.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 20, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait, what?
college football rankings are about figuring out who the best teams are, pure and simple. so you would rather see teams in bowl games and the national championship that have good records rather than who are the best teams? i guess we should start playing portland state, idaho, and western oregon every year. instead of boise st, utah, purdue, tennesse, georgia, etc. the great thing about college football is, “records…pretty much (are) irrelevant…” i want a playoff and still think there will be as much monday water cooler talk with a playoff but the thing that makes college so great is there is so much guess work.
wants to challenge the definitions of sin and search the world for lovers of ultimate beauty but never settle in.
by joffthedeckk on Oct 20, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d really like to see where you are getting the idea that polls are supposed to be about who would win on a neutral field. I’ve never heard or seen that before. That’s partly what it’s about, but voters also take into account a team’s resume: who they’ve played, what their record is, where those games have been played, etc.
Oklahoma is a 7 point favorite at Kansas, but is ranked below Kansas in both polls. Are you saying that Oklahoma, at this point, shoud be ranked above Kansas? I hate that Kansas hasn’t scheduled tough, and they won’t be rewarded when it comes to BCS selection time because of it, but to say Oklahoma should be ranked above them now I think is an idea that almost everyone would disagree with.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 21, 2009 6:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think POWER RANKINGS and blog polls operate differently. Power rankings I think are based purely on who would win on a neutral field. I read something from Ted Miller earlier this year responding to people asking why he had one team as his top Pac 10 team in the power rankings but had a different team higher in his poll voting. I can’t find the link for the life of me.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 21, 2009 6:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is a quote for Jon Wilner:
As you alluded to, the AP encourages its voters to base their rankings on performance.
From this interview.
They are specifically talking to him about an AP basketball poll he did, but he references the fact that the way the basketball and football polls are done are the same.
I think one of the issues here, and I’ve heard this from some voters on TV before, is that they don’t tell the voters what their criteria is. Each voter can have totally different criteria. One will think the way I think, and one will think the way you think. How the heck can they have any kind of consistency? The short answer: they can’t and they haven’t.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 21, 2009 6:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For anyone interested, read this article. Basically saying the same thing…there is no definition of the criteria the voters are supposed to use, and no matter which way they vote (purely results, purely “who would win on a neutral field”, or a combination) there are flaws. Playoff time.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 21, 2009 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i got in a long arguement with brad
about this yesterday. i think the polls are made to get the best teams to play each other in the bcs. brad (and i think you) thinks it is about who “deserves” it more. he said he thinks ball st last year play in the national championship game because they were undefeated. I think this is crazy and which much rather see the best teams play each other, thus creating the best football to watch. we do agree it’s playoff time. so you want to debate about how many teams should be involved? i think 8
wants to challenge the definitions of sin and search the world for lovers of ultimate beauty but never settle in.
by joffthedeckk on Oct 21, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with 8.
I agree with a lot of what you think though in regards to the polls. I think that when you talk about the national championship game that you need to take overall record into account, but that the 2 best teams should be playing for the national title. An undefeated team with a crap schedule does not deserve to be in the title game.
But when it comes to the rest of the rankings, I do think it’s about who has accomplished the most. After the title game, the final poll of the season, after the bowls are done, is the only way to say “team A had the 3rd best year of any team, so they are ranked #3”. That team may lost to USC on a neutral field, but they went 12-1 and USC blew it and didn’t. Since USC can’t beat the teams they should, they don’t get to be ranked higher.
It might be nice if the AP, the Coach’s Poll, or the Harris Poll would create some freakin’ criteria or guidelines for voters. Or at least a definition of what the PURPOSE of the poll is. You have some voters voting based on who would win and some voting based on who has done the most to that point. Why even have a poll if the people voting DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON!!??!?!?!
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 21, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
“…voters also take into account a team’s resume: who they’ve played…” (i dont know how to quote like the rest of the kids on here.) i think oklahoma deserves to be number 25 because of who they played and how much they’ve lost by. they have lost 3 games by a total of 5 points. the 3 games were against ranked teams. you really think kansas should be ranked ahead of ok? they have played no one and lost 1 game to by a total of 4 points to colorado. in my mind a 3 losses by a total of 5 points to byu, vt, and miami is better than a 4 point loss to colorado. my buddy brad thinks that my thinking is all subjective and i am only assuming that byu, vt, and miami are better than colorado. i am ok with that. i think in every sport the game is played on the, “field, not on paper” but college football is different. is it good that college football is different? i wont answer that, but it is different. i believe the polls should be a power ranking and i think we should get the correct people to make the ranking. not the coaches.
wants to challenge the definitions of sin and search the world for lovers of ultimate beauty but never settle in.
by joffthedeckk on Oct 21, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As an aside, I think your buddy Brad is an idiot.
by ntrebon on Oct 21, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks buddy
wants to challenge the definitions of sin and search the world for lovers of ultimate beauty but never settle in.
by joffthedeckk on Oct 22, 2009 3:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I find the poll interesting. 148 people took the time to do the vote. Only 10 of them said they are more concerned with the Ducks’ national ranking. I bet a good percentage of the people who have stopped caring about the polls is because they are fed up with what you and I are discussing. Did you see the group of politicians building momentum to change the BCS?
Some pretty big names there. We’ll see. Looks like they agree, including the President, with an 8 team playoff too.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 22, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i am not going to sit here and say it always done correctly (im looking at you coaches) but the idea of the polls is that on a neutral field team 25 would beat 24, 24 would beat 23, 23, would beat 22 so on and so on. i am just really confused, what do you think the college football polls are supposed to show?
wants to challenge the definitions of sin and search the world for lovers of ultimate beauty but never settle in.
by joffthedeckk on Oct 20, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you have a link to something that says that’s the criteria voters are supposed to use? I guess I figured that they were ranking the teams based on what they’ve actually done on the field. If your logic is true, why not just let Vegas establish the top 25?
I cannot find a reference to anything published by the NCAA, the BCS, the AP, or any other source that says that voters are supposed to rank the teams based on who they think would win on a neutral field. I’m not saying that you are wrong, but I have never seen anything that says that’s how voters are supposed to vote. I’ve always gone on the premise that they are doing a combination of who are the best teams based on who they “think” are good and what they’ve actually DONE on the football field.
To answer your question about scheduling Portland State…if you ever read any comments frome me you’d know that I totally oppose that. I never once said PURELY based on record, but if you play 3 good teams and lose all 3, then play 3 bad teams and win those 3, you don’t KNOW how good that team is. All you know is they can’t beat ANY good teams.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 21, 2009 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What were the first 3 teams that Florida played this year?
by DONALDUCK on Oct 21, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without looking, I have no clue. I’m not convinced Florida is the best team. I’d vote Alabama #1 right now based on a combination of their record, who the’ve played, and how they looked playing them.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 21, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Troy and Florida International were two of them.
My point is, that they are still ranked from 1 – 3. I’m with you MCD.
by DONALDUCK on Oct 21, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gave up on the rankings long ago...
I always assume we will be underrepresented in them, so I really do not care about them.
A much needed bye week; and two whole weeks to focus the inner hatred of UW even moreso than normal.
Locker...Welcome to my profile, You will be formally introduced by Juju at a later date, 10/23 to be more specific!
by CaDuck on Oct 18, 2009 12:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fox just showed the first BCS standings. The Ducks are #11. Boise State is #4.
HUCK THE fUSKIES.
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 18, 2009 1:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rose Bowl
That’s my #1 and only focus. We win the Pac-10 and happen to make it to the NC game I’ll be overjoyed but I’d rather focus on what we CAN control, which is our Rose Bowl destiny.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Oct 18, 2009 1:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
BEAT WASHINGTON
Much of the credit goes to a defense that hasn’t allowed a substantial touchdown drive in nearly a month
by trumpetduck on Oct 18, 2009 2:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
That’s it. The first half of the season was a battle. The second half will be even more so. Win in Seattle. Nothing else matters until October 25th.
By the grace of Juju, we all are day-to-day.
by JConant on Oct 18, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The real fun is practicing all week and then playing football on Saturday"
Chip Kelly, Head Coach, Oregon Football, October 16, 2009
by DONALDUCK on Oct 18, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
Completely agreed.
We got through the first half of the season after the disaster in Boise. All that matters right now isn’t where we’re ranked or anything, but getting out of Seattle with a solid win.
Huck the Fuskies!
by surgingchaos on Oct 18, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I won't deny it
I care about the rankings. Do I care more about them than about Pac 10 standings? That’s tough. I’d say no, but it’s close.
And yes, I know that logically, the rankings don’t matter a whit unless the Ducks are up for the NC game or an at large berth to the BCS. But still, I think the rankings are interesting and provide great fodder for discussion and debate. I love discussion and debate.
So I do care about the Ducks’ spot in the rankings. I’m not going to get crazy and indignant about it unless they get really shafted, but I like to know that my team is respected and thought of highly. Maybe that makes me a silly person, but I can live with that.
I feel the need, the need...for speed!
by Gorbachav5 on Oct 18, 2009 9:31 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm going to go out on a limb
and say that most if not all people that said they dont care, really really agree with you. I love our team getting respect and talking about rankings, but I try and stay level headed and not care. Oh and beat Washington
Much of the credit goes to a defense that hasn’t allowed a substantial touchdown drive in nearly a month
by trumpetduck on Oct 18, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rankings only matter for two teams. I’m not holding my breath to be 1 out of 60 at the end of the season. I can hardly look at the season past our visit to Washington.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
by JShufelt on Oct 19, 2009 6:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm Concerned with All of the Rankings & Standings
That’s the fun of being a fan.
by Grant H on Oct 19, 2009 11:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Polls Shmolls
We give the Fuskies a traditional whoopin’, take care of business for another month, and all the SEC-homers and imaginary computers in the world can’t keep us out of the Grandaddy of Them All.
by JonathanPDX on Oct 20, 2009 3:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you live out of state, you care about the rankings
I have lived in Chicago for the last five years, and I have noticed a definite trend:
Ducks ranked = Ducks on TV
Ducks not ranked = time to scramble for an online radio or video stream
Until we get a Pac-10 Network, I will continue to keep a close eye on the rankings.
by DavisDuck on Oct 20, 2009 8:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ditto
No TV= No BCS. Teams that arent very good get moved up in rankings because of exposure. Pac-10 needs a station.
Week 6 Wrap up…Tell me what you think
http://tightend.blogspot.com/2009/10/week-6.html
"Don't Be Afraid to Stand on a Pile of 'No's' for one 'Yes'"
by curiousg87 on Oct 22, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
