In the just-released AP NCAA football poll, South Carolina is ahead of USC, which is ahead of Florida State, which is ahead of Clemson. See, SC lost to LSU, which was ranked 9th last week, in Baton Rouge, and it was a close game, so that means they shouldn’t drop that far from their No. 3 perch, right?
And USC has lost exactly once, to Stanford, in Palo Alto, when Stanford was ranked No. 21. Stanford has subsequently lost at Washington and then “lost” at then-No. 7 Notre Dame. So maybe USC’s spot at No. 11 makes sense, right?
And Florida State, for its part, lost by one point at unranked North Carolina State, yet smoked everyone else it’s played — except Clemson, which hung close in Tallahassee for three-plus quarters before finally losing a shootout.
That’s Clemson’s only loss. And they’re at No. 14. They lost to the then-No. 4 team in a close game on the road, and have crushed everyone else they’ve played.
The obvious answer to this is that the college football polls are a combination of subjective evaluations of teams’ relative talents merged with nonsense about when and how teams lost games — shouldn’t those be baked in to the subjective evaluations of teams’ relative talents? — and we ought to just come along for the ride. And that Clemson is behind all those other teams because they started out behind them, so when, as the No. 10 team, they lost a close one on the road to the No. 4 team, they naturally dropped farther down the rankings… except that doesn’t that imply they might deserve to be ranked higher if they’re playing the No. 4 team close?
And except that there are real-life effects in play here, with overall school prestige and money and pride and such all wrapped up in these rankings.
Which is why I try not to get too worked up over such things.
(Image cc-licensed: "2008 Clemson Football, Clemson, SC" by scmikeburton)
No comments:
Post a Comment