Also, this is not regarding Lousiville being a good team or not. I am just curious how you can beat WV, (then ranked 3rd), raise your ranking from 5th to 3rd, then lose to Rutgers and fall from 3rd to 11th on the polls? Louisville may not have the football legacy that say, Ohio State has, but, they did not deserve to fall so drastically in the polls. Can anyone please give me a little info as to why this would happen?
2006-11-12 15:59:22 · 12 answers · asked by nonametomention 3 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
It all has to do with the confidence the coaches have in your team beating your opponents. Louisville lost a lot of confidence when they lost to Rutgers (c'mon - it's Rutgers!). They lost - rather handily - to an unranked team. And the ranked teams they DID beat wasn't by much. The ones voting on their ranking felt there were 10 other teams that were doing better with their schedules than they were. That is all. If rankings depended on who you beat, Rutgers would be #3, wouldn't they?
2006-11-12 16:31:03 · answer #1 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
After a loss, a team drops in the rankings (duh), and other teams move up. If in the beginning of the year a team A loses a blowout to team B, team A drops. Later on they'll move up the rankings after other teams lose. Then, when team B loses they fall behind team A. It happens all the time. Auburn beat LSU, now they're behind. Boston College beat Va Tech, now they're behind. Louisville beat WV, now they're behind. In the WV/Lou. scenario, it was just expedited. It's all when you lose, not how or to whom you lose. It happens all the time.
If you assume a loss means you are "not as good as you were" you have to fall in the standings. Therefore, it is better to "not be as good" early rather than late, when it counts.
Its tough, but there is no way to overcome it. It also has to do with how other teams do. If a lot of teams do well, you'll fall farther. If you don't fall after a loss (by assuming the loss was a fluke, just a bad game, or any reason), then the games themselves actually mean less. The human error element helps to be eliminated with this sort of thinking.
Personally, I think polls should not be "instated" until five or six games/weeks have passed. That way, the "little guys" would have a better chance to rise up without the prejudice toward the perennial powerhouses. Besides, the BCS doesn't even come out until then anyway. It would be a more fair and equal system.
By the way, Auburn fell 10 spots. (Yikes!)
2006-11-12 17:28:33 · answer #2 · answered by favre406 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The people that vote in polls (some, not all) have admitted that they rarely study the teams they vote for, so it's far from being accurate. They really are playing a guessing game, if they were so smart why do their higher poll choices get beat by lesser teams? In other words, if a #4 gets beat by a #12, then they were wrong weren't they? Also, there is regional bias in all polls, Auburn and WV both were receiving 1st place votes in the AP Poll (before they tumbled) you may have noticed.
2006-11-13 00:40:32 · answer #3 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
BCS rankings combine compuer points and human polls. the humans are the problem here.. they pick teams based on legacy and reputation.. west virginia won a major bowl last year, therefore, they get votes based on last year, even though this is supposed to be about this year.
same with rutgers. what do they have to do to get respect? the computer has them at #2, but the humans assume that the big east is weak, which it is not.
i don't get why notre dame is so high. their wins this year have been mostly against unranked teams with losing records.. heck, they even struggled to get by crappy teams like michigan state and ucla, yet they are ranked #5? please.. what a joke! louisville or west virginia would destroy them if they played!
2006-11-12 16:31:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think their thinking was when Louisville beat West Virginia, it was because of turnovers, and when Rutgers beat them, that was confirmed. I think the Polls still think West Virginia is a better team and they are assuming that they will beat Rutgers handily to prove it.
I don't agree with this line of thought at all, but this is what I think they are doing.
2006-11-12 16:11:42 · answer #5 · answered by WestCoastin4Life 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's because the Big East sucks balls. The only team that has proven themselves is West Virginia last season with a bowl win over Georgia. This is November, all the games are big matchups and the one-loss teams in real conferences deserve to be in front.
2006-11-12 16:08:29 · answer #6 · answered by Mussmania 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beacause Rutgers ain't West Virginia... Rutgers has only played in two bowl games in their history(at least 125 YEARS)... I believe West Virginia has actually played for the championship twice in the last 18 years...
2006-11-12 18:51:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The media love for USC will continually reason this project. percent10 has way too a lot media appreciate. those communities have performed out of convention nobodies and lost. they'll with somewhat of tremendous fortune beat one yet another and lose some video games to substantiate they really get one BCS bid and with somewhat of tremendous fortune it is the Beavers or another crew yet not USC or UCLA.
2016-11-23 18:50:13 · answer #8 · answered by apps 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to look at the whole picture. WV kicks azz and they know it. No matter if they win or lose!!
2006-11-12 19:14:56 · answer #9 · answered by ~B~ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well rutgers was ranked 15th @ the time. but i think the college system sucks anyways. but they'll never change it.
2006-11-12 16:26:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋