From: jfrederi@encore.com (Justin Frederich)
Subject: Re: Some comments
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:51:46 GMT

sager@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mike.r.sager) writes:

>First, let me say I'm not a fan of any of the top teams (I'm an Illini
>fan), so these comments should be unbiased.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  (You failed)

>One thing I was wondering about is why home field advantage is pretty
>much ignored when rating teams.  I realize Arizona is Miami and Washington's
>only common opponent.  But I think a key reason for the results of the
>two games was due to the home field.  Miami barely beats Arizona in Miami;
>Washington loses in Arizona.  Why should Miami be ranked ahead of Washington
>just because they were fortunate enough tp play Arizona in Miami?  If the
>home fields were reversed, we very possibly would have had opposite results.

But Mike , 'very possibly' is your opinion ! Should we change last years
split of the MNC because Miami played at Arizona and Arizona played at
Washington (plus Miami beat Florida State there). I didn't see your
unbiased opinion last year when the home/away argument went Miami's way.


>Next issue.  Why isn't Florida State being given more credit?  Their only
>loss came in Miami by a slim margin.  They have road wins at Clemson, NC
>State, Georgia Tech, and Virginia which I think is pretty impressive.  Yet
>no one mentions them as a possible national champion.

I've asked this same question about three weeks ago. However, in the current
polls Florida State is the *highest* ranked team that isn't undefeated.


>Then we have Alabama, Michigan, and Texas A&M being considered as possible
>champions just because they're undefeated (except for Michigan's tie).  Would
>these teams be undefeated if they had Washington or Florida St's schedule?
>Yet, when the rankings come out this week, those three teams will likely be
>ranked ahead of Washington and Florida St.

>I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't think the rankings reflect the
>true ordering of teams in terms of strength.  It's all a matter of timing
>and circumstance.  This might not be so bad if it wasn't for college
>football's ridiculous lack of a playoff system.  The rankings would just
>be for argument's sake until the playoffs settled things.  But because
>of the way college football is designed, the only chance teams like Washington,
>Florida St., and Arizona have of being champions is if all four of the
>undefeated teams lose a game.  A team like Arizona might be the best team
>in the country.  But they started out slow and therefore have no chance of
>being champions.
Let's look at this possibility. If Miami stays undefeated the rest of the
way, it would mean they would have beaten Arizona, Florida State, and
probably Alabama (in the Sugar Bowl). They would deserve the MNC and what
would a playoff prove in that case ? 
I personally would like to see a playoff only if the top 2 teams tie for
the MNC (ex.Wash vs Miami last year) but that's just my opinion .

>If there were a playoff system, do you think any team would
>look forward to playing Arizona at a neutral site?
 No - not even my beloved Canes. 

>By now I guess I'm just rambling, but after listening to a number of sports
>commentators say Miami deserves to be #1 and then reading a bunch of posts
>saying the same thing, I just wanted to add my two cents.  Although Miami
>very well could be the best team, I have a problem with everyone acting
>like it's so clear cut now that Washington has lost.  I'd like to see the
>rankings reflect who the best team is instead of having an ordering largely
>due to circumstance.  I'd like to see Miami, Washington, Florida St., and
>Arizona all receive some #1 votes because, to me, not one of these four teams
>is clearly the best.  An argument could be made for all of them.  But because
>of circumstances (home field, schedule strength, etc.), Miami will be on top.
>It's definitely time for a playoff system where things could be settled head
>to head.
 You said you weren't going to be biased :-) it appears that you were !

 I admit to being biased since it's my team that you don't think deserves
 to be number 1. I fully understand people not liking a successful team
 (I still hate the Yankees) but be fair. Miami played Arizona, Florida St,
 and Penn St. on three successive weekends. Arizona had just come off a
 loss to Wash St. and a tie with Oregon St. Miami was looking at what at
 the time were 2 top ten teams they had to play back-to-back. Don't you
 think they could have overlooked Arizona a little ? Also, even though
 Penn St. fell in the polls since. At the time they were undefeated and
 the Canes did play them in happy valley following 2 very physical games
 in a row. 

 Finally, in todays poll Miami's opponents are ranked 5,9,10, and 22.
 Florida State's are ranked 1,11,14, and 25. (But they lost to 1).
 Arizona's are ranked 1,6,15,18, and 21. (But they lost to 1 and 21).
 Washington's are ranked 7,9,15,18, and 21. (With the loss to 9).

 Justin Frederich

>Mike Sager
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college