Jump to content

Back in top 25+1 on cbs sports


billikenblue

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, BilliesBy40 said:

Gary Parrish is consistently one of the best in the business at ranking teams. I appreciate how he is thoughtful about placement (e.g., SLU is one spot ahead of LSU), and isn't afraid to drop teams if he realizes they were over-ranked. 

I'm not disputing Parrish's rankings and I agree that SLU should be a ahead of LSU based on each team's overall resumes.  However, I don't buy that team A beating team B necessarily means that team A must be ranked ahead of team B.  Better teams have off nights, worse teams get hot, and/or certain teams are bad matchups for others despite being "worse" overall. 

There are numerous examples of worse teams winning:

A SLU specific example would be Duquesne beating SLU twice last season.  No one in their right mind would try to argue that based on each team's overall resume Duquense should have been ranked ahead of SLU.  Duquesne lost at home to GW last season for Pete's sake.

More recent examples this season would be: #12 Mizzou beating #15 Illinois* or #24 Virginia Tech beating #4 Villanova.

* - I contend that despite AP ranking Miz higher, Illinois is much much better and has a better overall resume.  Illinois has 3 losses though so they've slipped in the rankings.  Wrong-headed thinking of "team A beats B, therefore they should be higher" is why Illinois is behind both Miz and Rutgers who are IMO inferior overall.  That thinking is also what is keeping Mizzou artificially high because voters keep putting them ahead of Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

I'm not disputing Parrish's rankings and I agree that SLU should be a ahead of LSU based on each team's overall resumes.  However, I don't buy that team A beating team B necessarily means that team A must be ranked ahead of team B.  Better teams have off nights, worse teams get hot, and/or certain teams are bad matchups for others despite being "worse" overall. 

There are numerous examples of worse teams winning:

A SLU specific example would be Duquesne beating SLU twice last season.  No one in their right mind would try to argue that based on each team's overall resume Duquense should have been ranked ahead of SLU.  Duquesne lost at home to GW last season for Pete's sake.

More recent examples this season would be: #12 Mizzou beating #15 Illinois* or #24 Virginia Tech beating #4 Villanova.

* - I contend that despite AP ranking Miz higher, Illinois is much much better and has a better overall resume.  Illinois has 3 losses though so they've slipped in the rankings.  Wrong-headed thinking of "team A beats B, therefore they should be higher" is why Illinois is behind both Miz and Rutgers who are IMO inferior overall.  That thinking is also what is keeping Mizzou artificially high because voters keep putting them ahead of Illinois.

I'm with you. What you said isn't mutually exclusive from being thoughtful in placement.

RUBillsFan likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

I'm not disputing Parrish's rankings and I agree that SLU should be a ahead of LSU based on each team's overall resumes.  However, I don't buy that team A beating team B necessarily means that team A must be ranked ahead of team B.  Better teams have off nights, worse teams get hot, and/or certain teams are bad matchups for others despite being "worse" overall. 

There are numerous examples of worse teams winning:

A SLU specific example would be Duquesne beating SLU twice last season.  No one in their right mind would try to argue that based on each team's overall resume Duquense should have been ranked ahead of SLU.  Duquesne lost at home to GW last season for Pete's sake.

More recent examples this season would be: #12 Mizzou beating #15 Illinois* or #24 Virginia Tech beating #4 Villanova.

* - I contend that despite AP ranking Miz higher, Illinois is much much better and has a better overall resume.  Illinois has 3 losses though so they've slipped in the rankings.  Wrong-headed thinking of "team A beats B, therefore they should be higher" is why Illinois is behind both Miz and Rutgers who are IMO inferior overall.  That thinking is also what is keeping Mizzou artificially high because voters keep putting them ahead of Illinois.

I agree to some extent but the large majority of the time the better team wins and should be ranked higher. I get their are exceptions and you have to look at an entire resume, but in the end the one absolute you have is a game two teams play against each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

I'm not disputing Parrish's rankings and I agree that SLU should be a ahead of LSU based on each team's overall resumes.  However, I don't buy that team A beating team B necessarily means that team A must be ranked ahead of team B.  Better teams have off nights, worse teams get hot, and/or certain teams are bad matchups for others despite being "worse" overall. 

There are numerous examples of worse teams winning:

A SLU specific example would be Duquesne beating SLU twice last season.  No one in their right mind would try to argue that based on each team's overall resume Duquense should have been ranked ahead of SLU.  Duquesne lost at home to GW last season for Pete's sake.

More recent examples this season would be: #12 Mizzou beating #15 Illinois* or #24 Virginia Tech beating #4 Villanova.

* - I contend that despite AP ranking Miz higher, Illinois is much much better and has a better overall resume.  Illinois has 3 losses though so they've slipped in the rankings.  Wrong-headed thinking of "team A beats B, therefore they should be higher" is why Illinois is behind both Miz and Rutgers who are IMO inferior overall.  That thinking is also what is keeping Mizzou artificially high because voters keep putting them ahead of Illinois.

Hope to see the Vols knock Mizzou down several spots with a win tomorrow at CoMO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I agree to some extent but the large majority of the time the better team wins and should be ranked higher. I get their are exceptions and you have to look at an entire resume, but in the end the one absolute you have is a game two teams play against each other. 

This is why they have an NCAA tournament instead of just awarding the National Championship to whichever team has the "best" overall season.  For ranking / seeding purposes, you look at the entire resume and don't necessarily bow to the thinking of "team A beat team B, so they have to be higher".  However, winning games actually matters and is the most important thing.  Therefore, the National Champ is decided by who wins the tournament regardless of who is the "best" on paper.  Many years the NCAA champ is also the "best" team on paper at the end (especially with NCAA wins factored in).  Nearly every year the NCAA champion is an exceptionally good team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...