Wins and Rankings

[Gizmo]

Can anyone out there tell me how rankings are calculated when considering wins against top 25 opponents? Does the opponent's ranking at the time of the game or at the end of the year count? Finally, do different ranking systems calculate wins against ranked opponents in different ways or is there a standard procedure?

I'm curious because I have a different "glass is half full" opinion about our schedule last year. We played a number of teams that were ranked at the time we played them and I think this distinction is critical in understanding each game. An opponent that is ranked in the top 25 will usually buy into the hype or even think they deserve to be ranked higher. Their preparation and excitement will usually be more intense as well. In addition, Charlie underwent preparations commensurate to the ranking of the opponents we played.

I say this because everyone wants to trash our win against Pittsburgh, but when you open your season against the #23 team in the nation you expect a fight. Then we went into the Big House and played what we thought was the #3 team in the country and won a very close game. We also dismantled Purdue who was ranked #22 at the time. And our Michigan State loss was against a team that was rising in the rankings before their season fell apart against Ohio State at halftime. Conversely, despite their great defense, we can't take too much credit for our win against Tennessee despite their high ranking early on in the season. Anyway, my point is that our wins were against highly ranked opponents AT THE TIME we played them. We beat them, added a loss to their records, dropped them in the rankings, showed opponents how to beat them, and took a bite out of their confidence.

Any answers to my questions or opinions would be appreciated.

 

[BigIrish]

i don't have an answer for you but i agree with the sentiment. the same team that's ranked #3 plays differently when it finds itself unranked later that season. the quality of a teams schedule SHOULD be judged on the agreed upon quality (or ranking) of an opponent WHEN THEY PLAY, not at the end of the season.

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

Can anyone out there tell me how rankings are calculated when considering wins against top 25 opponents? Does the opponent's ranking at the time of the game or at the end of the year count? Finally, do different ranking systems calculate wins against ranked opponents in different ways or is there a standard procedure?

Computer rankings are all pretty much kept secret as far as how to they come to their rankings.

Beating a top 25 team that turns out to be bad does help your Ranking in the human polls as a Big win tends to jump you up in the polls and as your past opponent falls you don't follow, but I would believe you do in most computer polls as they all take SOS into account.

I'm curious because I have a different "glass is half full" opinion about our schedule last year. We played a number of teams that were ranked at the time we played them and I think this distinction is critical in understanding each game. An opponent that is ranked in the top 25 will usually buy into the hype or even think they deserve to be ranked higher. Their preparation and excitement will usually be more intense as well. In addition, Charlie underwent preparations commensurate to the ranking of the opponents we played.
I say this because everyone wants to trash our win against Pittsburgh, but when you open your season against the #23 team in the nation you expect a fight. Then we went into the Big House and played what we thought was the #3 team in the country and won a very close game. We also dismantled Purdue who was ranked #22 at the time. And our Michigan State loss was against a team that was rising in the rankings before their season fell apart against Ohio State at halftime. Conversely, despite their great defense, we can't take too much credit for our win against Tennessee despite their high ranking early on in the season. Anyway, my point is that our wins were against highly ranked opponents AT THE TIME we played them. We beat them, added a loss to their records, dropped them in the rankings, showed opponents how to beat them, and took a bite out of their confidence.
Any answers to my questions or opinions would be appreciated.

First I'll go with the extremes, few years back Alabama was a Pre-season #3 and went 3-8 now do you think the first few teams that beat them were should consider it a quality win?

Also, see ND's win against Washington State in 2002, they were unranked and we came back from down 19-3 to win the game They went on to finish the year something like 10-1 and finish in the top 10 Do you think we beat a mere unranked team that year or a top 10 team....

Also, to the point of some teams would be ranked if we didn't beat them....thats just it, when you beat a team and they are good enough to get back into or to stay in the top 25 DESPITE their loss to you, it shows how good the team was and how 'quality' the win was.

Same thing if you beat a team and despite their loss to you they still finish in the top 10....Doesn't matter what they were ranked when you played them, you beat a top 10 caliber team.

As for teams like Michigan State they should never have been in the top 25, but when you start out 4-0 beating a team that looked to be on the rise on National TV you are going to get some pres but, outside of us they beat some real garbage to get that ranking, they lost to every other decent team they played and some bad ones. They were only ranked because they looked good playing bad teams and upset us. Once they got to the meat of their schedule they fell apart

We didn't show anyone how to beat Pitt, when a team like OHIO can beat Pitt, Pitt is just not good.

yea Purdue was ranked when we played them but did they even finish with 5 wins they were losing games before we played them?

Yes winning and high rankings can bring confidence but if one loss is enough to dismantle your team so bad that they finish with a sub .500 record....you didn't have a good team in the first place.

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

i don't have an answer for you but i agree with the sentiment. the same team that's ranked #3 plays differently when it finds itself unranked later that season. the quality of a teams schedule SHOULD be judged on the agreed upon quality (or ranking) of an opponent WHEN THEY PLAY, not at the end of the season.

So you think the team that beat a #3 Alabama team that finished the year 3-8 beat a Top 5 team and not a vastly overranked team?

If so, I disagree, the polls go through way to big of a change up the first 4-5 weeks and in many cases through another whole big mix up once teams get to the meat of there schedule.

To me the last poll is the most important, if you beat a team that finished in the top 25 despite their loss to you, you beat a damn good team.

 

[Gizmo]

Computer rankings are all pretty much kept secret as far as how to they come to their rankings.
Beating a top 25 team that turns out to be bad does help your Ranking in the human polls as a big win tends to jump you up in the polls and as your past opponent falls you don't follow, but I would believe you do in most computer polls as they all take SOS into account.

Thanks for the info. I had a feeling the answer might not be available, but I thought perhaps someone knew differently.

I guess in the end the system tends to balance itself out as far as the pros and cons are concerned. Even if a team ends up having a bad season, if you beat them when they are highly ranked you do get a boost in the polls. At the end of the year there are those who will say you're over-ranked, but the naysaying doesn't tend to drop you in the polls. And if you beat a good team while they are unranked you won't get the initial boost in the polls, but as the season rolls on people (maybe even pollsters and bowl committees) will see the merit of your win.

One thing I would like to see is polls hold off on preseason and early season rankings and wait a few weeks to publish anything official. This would let the dust settle somewhat and help out with early season aberrations like Tennessee and Michigan and conversely Notre Dame last year.

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

Yes waiting till week 8 or so would be ideal for the polls but even that can be misleading considering where the meat of a teams schedule is.

It won't ever happen though because rankings = bigger ratings.. #19 vs #12 will always pull in ratings