In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 110
Online now 350 Record: 2683 (6/1/2013)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Finish the season beating 4 top 25 teams including the #1 team and a top 20 team basically on their turf. Um, yeah, include me in the Glasco camp.
We lost five games.
This isn't college basketball.
So? There were 6 win teams in bowls!
Ubben just posted. Is this correct?
Final season Big 12 poll update
January, 8, 2013
By David Ubben | ESPN.com
Both college football polls have been released, and here's how the Big 12 fared to close the season:
Associated Press (media)
12. Kansas State
Others receiving votes:
29. Oklahoma State
A little surprised Baylor didn't crack the top 25 there, but finishing the season with zero teams in the top 10 isn't a strong look for the Big 12. Entering 2013, there doesn't look to be a team that'll be a slam dunk for the top 10, though a team or two might slide in. Still, this is what happens when the league's top two teams get blasted in their respective bowl games.
USA Today (coaches)
11. Kansas State
Others receiving votes:
29. Oklahoma State
I was impressed with the voters for putting Texas one spot above Oregon State in both polls, but I don't quite see how you slot UCLA ahead of Baylor, considering the way the Bruins finished the season, with three consecutive losses, including two blowouts.
To Iowa State's credit, its Liberty Bowl loss helped Tulsa slide into No. 25 in the coaches' poll, too.
True, but you can't tell me there were 25 teams that were playing better football than we were at the end of the season. The Poll is supposed to reflect the best 25 teams AT THAT TIME. It doesn't really matter, but it's pretty ridiculous to leave the Bears out after DESTROYING the 17th ranked team in the country in their backyard.
What kept us out of the top 25 was 5 losses. Michigan squeaked in because they are a blueblood.
I guess the coaches didn't watch the Holiday bowl?
To have us only receiving votes, okay I understand that... What I don't understand is how they could have UCLA ahead of us after that game and by a full 20 points is just ridiculous.
Michigan's losses were to: Bama, ND, Nebraska, Ohio State and South Carolina. Their best wins were NW and MSU.
Our losses were to: WVU, TCU, UT, ISU, OU. Our best wins were KSU, OSU, UCLA.
Michigan has four losses to teams finishing in the top ten. We have three of our losses against teams finishing unranked. That's the difference, IMO. And, our win over KSU doesn't look so sexy now.
So what!? the poll is supposed to be the 25 best teams, not the 25 best records. you can't convince me that we weren't better than the likes of Utah St, Vandy, San Jose St, Northern Illinois, and even Nebraska and probably Cincy. Hell, UT had basically the same resume we did, except they beat us by 6, in Austin. they did, however, get boat raced by both OU and KSU of which we lost by a score (in Norman) and pounded in Waco. the horns are solidly inside the top 20, yet we're left out of the polls altogether.
Ultimately it doesn't really matter, but I would've loved for this team to be recognized for how truly good they were this season, by the national media. also, these polls, and some of your justifications as to why we're not in them, are just further proof of what a farse they are.
the only thing that i can say for sure is that I'm damn proud of the 2012-2013 version of the BU football team, and i know that there are not 25 (probably not 15) teams in the country that are "better" than they were.
Polls have NEVER been about ranking the best teams. Rather, they are a fluid representation of quality teams that end up ranked (or not) based on timing of wins/losses. Teams from non-BCS leagues (like TCU used to) get rewarded for piling up wins against a weak schedule.
The polls are based on human perception, which is a mix of last sense impressions, "reputation" of the school for quality in a sport, appeal of the coaches and so on. I strongly prefer the Sagarin ratings, which are mathematically based projections of strength and outcomes based upon strength of schedule.
They have us at #18 with a SOS of 7th toughest schedule in the nation. I think that is way more accurate than what some reporter from Pocatello thinks he knows about the program.
Good point. However I find it hard to believe if we started the year 9-0 and then finished the season on a 3 or 4 game losing streak the same folks using this premise now that we finished strong therefore we should be in the Top 25 would be "okay" us not being in the Top 15-20.
Instead, most would be saying, "Well we won 9 games, x-team only one 8 and they're ahead of us!"
But you are correct, none of it really matters at this point. We finished the year on a great note and have A LOT to build on in during the spring and summer.
Come September 1st, 2013 no one is going to remember who finished #25 or #26 in January. There is going to be an entirely new set of Preseason polls and it will be up to no one else other than this team to prove they belong.
And I think they will.
well, you and I are in complete agreement here. i actually like the fact that we're being ignored in the early 2013 polls. I want next year's team to have to play their way into them, and i want people to keep thinking we're the same old Baylor, right up to the point where we beat their ***..
I'm not that bothered by the fact that we're not in the polls, because the final polls really aren't a reflection of anything. They aren't a measure of how good your team is at the end of the season.
I think that the polls suffer from both primacy and recency bias. By primacy bias, I mean that the "big name" teams get soft treatment in the polls. They're viewed as contenders regardless of their performance over the course of the year and are given a pass on some of their losses. It's as though the thought is, "Of course Michigan and Texas are powerhouse programs. They deserve to be in the rankings." As for recency bias, I think it's both performance over the last bit of the season and the placement of your bowl game. We had the former, but I think we might have suffered because of the timing of the Holiday Bowl. Had it been this past weekend like the storied and fabled BBVA Compass Bowl, or even on the weekend before New Year's Day, I think the game might have been more noticed. As it was, though, the game was no longer fresh in anyone's mind at the end of the bowl season.
But then, I might be completely wrong. Just my $0.02.
i think that you're absolutely correct on the 1st part of your statement. the likes of UT, Michigan, USC, anyone from the SEC, etc are just assumed to be deserving b/c of who they are moreso than what they've actually done that year.
as for the second part of your statement, in my opinion, it may hold some water for those teams that play their bowl games prior to Christmas, but i think that anything after Christmas Day, especially in a game that is at the level of the Holiday Bowl, is recent enough in everyone's mind. had the tables been turned (we were the 9 win top 25 team going in, UCLA was 7 win, unranked team, and they kicked our tails), then it would be hard for me to imagine the Bruins not cracking the bottom of the top 25 (especially if they were on the fringe, as we were, going into the game).
We also probably suffered, a little, because our conference co-champs got absolutely obliterated in their very high-profile bowl games. they didn't do any of the Big 12 teams, not named UT, any favors with their showings.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports