Another Reason to Watch the Games
Friday, March 3, 2006 at 07:15PM Hidden in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article about Clemson's receivers is this gem by coach Tommy Bowden:
As the Tigers kick off spring practice this weekend, coach Tommy Bowden hopes so. The Tigers were 8-4 last year. Bowden knows how close Clemson was last year, which is both comforting and maddening.
"Fourteen points away from being undefeated," Bowden said. "When a team will realize that a few plays make a season, but you never know what plays those are going to be, we'll get there. That's why every play has to be executed. I see that potential this year."
Can you imagine the respect Clemson would have earned last year had a few more breaks gone their way and achieved a spotless or near-spotless record? Yet for anyone watching their team, it was brutally obvious they weren't an elite team. This is another example of how records can be deceptive and why voters and fans need to go out of their way to be as informed as possible about contending teams.
I would have felt terrible for the teams Clemson leapfrogged had they gone say, 10-2 last year when in fact their level of play was fairly well reflected by their record---good, not great. Just sayin'.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
http://tigerpundit.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_tigerpundit_archive.html#114150274623188042
In the wonderful world of hypotheticals, had Clemson gone 10-2, despite sloppy and poor play, would still have racked up a very good record in a pretty good conference. Elite they would not be. But who at 10-2 is elite?
Imagine putting arguments like yours in the context of a school test. Instead of grading on the how many questions were answered correctly, we grade on how many the student wanted to get right, or even how many we think they had the potential to get right.
because high school tests are standardized! College football schedules are not. There are many more wild elements involved in record such as home/road, early/late, the natural ups and downs of the season, soft vs. strong OOC slates, weak vs. strong schedules.
It's not about feeling sorry for leapfrogged teams, but too many are strict adherents to analysis by record, which is too absolute and flawed given the circumstances.
Feeling "sorry" for someone is obviously worlds away from feeling "terrible" for them.
Now, you are correct in destructing my football/school-test analogy.
Still, you degrade one method of ranking for being "flawed" and "absolute." The undeniable truth is that any other method of ranking is either also "flawed" and "absolute" (ie. computer models) or flawed and ambiguous. Pick your poison.
Personally, I agree that we should look beyond the wins and losses. That's why I like computer models because they use the exact same criteria week-to-week. They are devoid of the human emotion that so easily clouds our judgement.
Back to Clemson and the wonderful world of hypotheticals. I'll assume that the 2 losses would have come to Miami and BC. Both of which finished with an average ranking of 17.5 That would have left Clemson at 4-6 at home and 5-5 on the road (for the regular season). And those two losses at home were in triple overtime and overtime, respectively. They would have finished the season regular season with 7 straight wins. And their OOC schedule still would include wins over Temple and ranked (at the time) Texas A&M and at South Carolina.
Let's not forget, that had Clemson gone 6-2 in conference, they would have faced VT in the ACC championship game and gone to a much better bowl game.
So for the factors that you seem to value, Clemson would have had a great season and have been worthy of a very high ranking. So why feel terrible for the teams they might have leapfrogged? Right, Clemson would only have been a "good" team.
Behold the beauty of subjective rankings.
How should teams be ranked? Should it be based on records, perceptions, absolute numbers, or some combination?