There have been a lot of changes this week, including a new team atop the rankings. Thursday night Boston College got something Ohio State has yet to get: a statement win over a good team. Even if they relied on the miracle arm of Matt Ryan to come from behind and win at the last second, they beat a tough opponent on the road, and this is enough to carry them above the Buckeyes.
The Cross Poll in no way influences the BCS Poll, making it about as relevant as the AP Poll. And because I watch at least one college football game per week, this makes the Cross Poll about as informed as the Coaches’ Poll. And because I use a combination of other polls and screwy computer formulas, this makes the Cross Poll about as accurate and confusing as the BCS Poll. And because no one cares where I rank these teams, this makes the Cross Poll about as important as the Harris Poll.
The Cross Poll is not an attempt to predict how good teams will be at the end of the season. Instead, it ranks the teams based on how well they’ve played to this point. It takes more than just win-loss record into account when determining teams’ rankings, factoring in who teams beat and who they lost to.
With that preface out of the way, here’s the Cross Poll rankings for Week 9, now with last week’s rankings in brackets:
1. Boston College (8-0) [2]
2. Ohio State (9-0) [1]
3. Arizona State (8-0) [3]
4. Kansas (8-0) [4]
5. LSU (7-1) [5]
6. Oklahoma (7-1) [6]
7. Oregon (7-1) [7]
8. West Virginia (7-1) [9]
9. Missouri (7-1) [11]
10. Hawaii (8-0) [13]
11. Connecticut (7-1) [19]
12. Georgia (6-2) [18]
13. Virginia Tech (6-2) [10]
14. USC (6-2) [12]
15. Texas (7-2) [20]
16. Alabama (6-2) [25]
17. South Florida (6-2) [8]
18. Boise State (7-1) [23]
19. Florida (5-3) [15]
20. Michigan (7-2) [22]
21. Clemson (6-2) [NR]
22. Auburn (6-3) [NR]
23. South Carolina (6-3) [16]
24. Wake Forest (6-2) [NR]
25. Purdue (7-2) [NR]
Fallen from the Rankings: Virginia (7-2) [14]; Kentucky (6-3) [17]; California (5-3) [21]; Penn State (6-3) [24]
I find it interesting how many people forget the body of work for Cal. They beat Oregon & Tennessee (not ranked by you, but others) and this most recent loss was on the road against a top 5 team. They have yet to lose by more than 11 which is more than many of these ranked teams can say.
Do you really think your 20-25 could beat Cal right now? Heck, I'd take them against at least 10 of your ranked teams.
Norcalfella,
Cal is a difficult one to rank at the moment. They started the season strong, but they've gone into a massive tailspin at the moment. Since beating Oregon (their only good win other than Tennessee) they've lost three straight. It's hard not to slip out of the rankings when you lose three straight.
True, they lost to an undefeated Arizona State team, but they also lost to UCLA (the only team who lost to Notre Dame) and to Oregon State at home. For them to move back up, they're going to have to start winning again.
As for beating anyone in the top 20-25, it's all speculative at this point, isn't it? You could argue that they could be any of them, but I could also make an argument they could lose to any of them. Do I think Cal could beat Wake Forest? Probably. But I can't know that. And at the moment, Wake has two losses, and Cal has lost their last three in a row. Until they play one another on the field, I can only go based on record, who they've played, and the final score, all of which I take into account.
kellyscott,
Oregon has one loss; the top four do not. That's the most important thing I'm taking into consideration at the moment. It doesn't mean that all four of them will remain undefeated and ranked ahead of Oregon, but at the moment that's how it stands.
As far as other one-loss teams, Oregon is only slightly behind Oklahoma and LSU. These three are pretty interchangeable at the moment.
jd - Wake would have 4 or 5 losses if they had played Cal's schedule though.
Another thing to consider is that Cal lost to Oregon State with a freshman QB losing his mind at the worst possible moment.
The 3 losses thing doesn't bother you so much where Florida, Auburn & South Carolina are concerned though does it? Because they play in the SEC right? Didn't Cal smoke Tennessee who is more or less leading the SEC East?
Norcalfella,
How Wake would do with Cal's schedule I can't really say. Again it's all speculative.
I was afraid the East Coast Bias implication was going to come out. First of all, if you notice, Kentucky, who have been on a tailspin much like Cal's recently, also dropped out of my rankings. In fact, they fell much farther than Cal because you just simply don't get blown out at home by Mississippi State.
As for the three you mentioned, my only defense is the system I use to rank teams. I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but there's no such thing as true objectivity. Especially when one thing I take into account in the forumla I have devised for these rankings is where teams are ranked in other polls, including both the AP and the BCS. The obvious SEC-bias in those polls naturally carries over into my own.
I personally believe South Carolina should not be ranked. Nor should Auburn. And Florida is a very iffy 19. But I have created a forumla, and I'm sticking to it to try to eliminate as much of my own bias as possible. And my bias is largely against the SEC and the Big Ten, both of which I believe are over-rated. We excuse SEC schools for losing three games because their schedule is so much more "difficult" than other BCS schools, and I think that's bs. We don't hold the SEC to the same standards we enforce on the Pac-10 or the Big East, and I for one think that's wrong. My only defense is that I'm staying true to the criteria I have created for this poll, even if I disagree with it.
Last edited by jdcross on October 31st at 8:44 AM.
I'm sorry that your team is ranked lower than you believe they should be. However, the difference between Cal and those SEC schools (other than any bias you may perceive) is that those schools didn't lose three in a row. They had wins scattered throughout. When Cal starts winning again, they'll move up, especially if they beat someone like USC. Until then, I'm sticking to my guns that you don't lose three straight.
Isn't this the beautiful thing about NCAA football thought, the disagreements and opinions and defending of one's opinion. Without this, what would we have to blog about?
Yeah, but the logic that losing 3 in a row being more damning than losing 3 scattered is weak.
When you've beaten good teams (Oregon, Tennessee) it matters more than a school like Boise State (lost to UW) or Michigan (need I bring up App State? spanked by Oregon who Cal stomped) or Wake (lost to Nebraska who has been killed since) having worse losses.
Cal lost to UCLA who is erratic, but played a good game. They lost to Oregon State with the frosh QB and then ASU who is undefeated. No really bad losses and no blowouts. Plus more significant wins than Texas, Boise State, Michigan & Clemson combined.
I don't think that logic is weak. When you lose three straight, something is wrong. Terribly wrong. It doesn't matter if all of those were close wins. When you lose three in a row, it's more damning because it reveals consistent struggle. With the parity in the BCS conferences, most teams are going to lose some. But most good teams are not going to go on losing streaks. This isn't baseball. Cal is a very good team. I just have them ranked about 27th AT THIS POINT. They'll go up when they start winning again.
