Lack of Respect From Pollsters and ESPN?
posted by Scott Hood, Tuesday, September 29, 2009
But when the polls came out on Sunday, USC was nowhere to be found. Instead, they had to settle for the consolation prize, a spot among the teams in the “Others Receiving Votes” category.
Based on the calls into 107.5 FM The Game on Monday, it’s fair to say a fair number of fans were disappointed with the omission.
If you think about it, USC is one play away from a place in the Top 15. Had they been able to beat Georgia in Athens, I have no doubt they would have entered the Top 25 two weeks ago. Then the victory over Ole Miss would have propelled them up the rankings by a minimum of a half dozen spots.
Should USC get credit for playing the Dawgs down-to-the-wire on the road? Maybe. But voters in these polls are typically black-and-white. If you win, you move up. If you lose, you move down or don’t get considered at all.
Bottom line, you have to win. Unless, of course, you’re Notre Dame, the only school around that can lose and still rise a few notches in the polls.
Looking at the AP poll, it’s apparent there are a couple of dynamics at work. First, seeing Ole Miss fall 17 spots from No. 4 to No. 21 means USC didn’t get much credit for beating the Rebels.
It’s as if the voters said, collectively, Ole Miss was a fraud and didn’t deserve to be ranked that high to begin with. So, they whacked them. Remember, when USC was No. 6 in 2007 and lost in horrific fashion to Vanderbilt, 17-6, they only fell nine spots to No. 15. It actually took losses to Tennessee and Arkansas before USC fell out of the Top 25.
Essentially, then, the AP voters had a temper tantrum worthy of a four-year old. At this point, Ole Miss might have about as much credibility with the pollsters as Bernie Madoff, with emphasis on the word “might.”
If AP voters want to discredit Ole Miss rather than reward USC, that’s fine. That stuff has been going on in the polls for a long time.
But there are two things I can’t figure out, so someone needs to educate me.
Iowa debuted at No. 13 after beating Penn State on the road. That’s good. But their first three wins came against I-AA Northern Iowa in a game they should have lost, a poor Iowa State team and Arizona, a middle-of-the-road Pac-10 team. Granted, Iowa has beaten three BCS schools but only the Penn State win is worth much, in my opinion.
But if you’re a Gamecock fan, the most aggravating development was Oregon debuting at No. 16. This is the team that looked pathetic against Boise State in their opener. Yes, they walloped California, 42-3, at home last Saturday.
But here’s the quirk: Cal dropped 18 spots to No. 24, a clear indication the voters didn’t believe they belonged at No. 6. It appears to be the same ill will the voters showed for Ole Miss.
Yet, Oregon seemingly received thunderous applause for beating the Golden Bears, while USC got very little credit for dominating the Rebels. Is there that much difference between Ole Miss and Cal?
The only difference was the scores. Oregon beat Cal by 39 points, while USC bested Ole Miss by six. But does that make Oregon 12 spots and 208 points better than the Gamecocks? It has to be the uniforms.
Besides Cal, Oregon’s two other wins came over Purdue and Utah. Are those enough to make the Ducks the seventh highest rated 3-1 team in the land?
If USC beats SC State Saturday, they should slide into the Top 25 so, in the end, it might be no harm, no foul.
The disrespect – if that’s the term you want to use – extends to TV as well. The Oct. 10 Kentucky game was recently picked up by Fox Sports Net for broadcast at 12:30 p.m.
The only reason FSN got the game was because CBS (as expected) and ESPN and its wide family of channels passed. According to the league office, CBS plans to show a doubleheader on that date. Florida-LSU will be shown in prime time (8 p.m.), which is hardly a shock considering the national championship implications.
The 3:30 slot is unfilled and the network will choose among four games. The remaining three games will be televised by ESPN, ESPNU or the SEC Network. Here are the four games up for bid:
Alabama at Ole Miss;
Auburn at Arkansas;
Georgia at Tennessee;
Houston at Mississippi State.
In my opinion, any of the first three games are just as attractive as USC-Kentucky. But Houston-Miss. State? Really? I know Houston is a media darling right now with a No. 12 national ranking and cute wins over Oklahoma State and Texas Tech but I don’t see that game as more attractive nationally than the Gamecocks and Wildcats.
I might be wrong – as my wife often reminds me – but I don’t think so.
Link to this entry - Discuss this entry - Return to Blog Home
After South Carolina beat No. 4 Ole Miss last Thursday, many Gamecock fans awaited the release of the new national polls, eager to see where USC landed among the Top 25.
But when the polls came out on Sunday, USC was nowhere to be found. Instead, they had to settle for the consolation prize, a spot among the teams in the “Others Receiving Votes” category.
Based on the calls into 107.5 FM The Game on Monday, it’s fair to say a fair number of fans were disappointed with the omission.
If you think about it, USC is one play away from a place in the Top 15. Had they been able to beat Georgia in Athens, I have no doubt they would have entered the Top 25 two weeks ago. Then the victory over Ole Miss would have propelled them up the rankings by a minimum of a half dozen spots.
Should USC get credit for playing the Dawgs down-to-the-wire on the road? Maybe. But voters in these polls are typically black-and-white. If you win, you move up. If you lose, you move down or don’t get considered at all.
Bottom line, you have to win. Unless, of course, you’re Notre Dame, the only school around that can lose and still rise a few notches in the polls.
Looking at the AP poll, it’s apparent there are a couple of dynamics at work. First, seeing Ole Miss fall 17 spots from No. 4 to No. 21 means USC didn’t get much credit for beating the Rebels.
It’s as if the voters said, collectively, Ole Miss was a fraud and didn’t deserve to be ranked that high to begin with. So, they whacked them. Remember, when USC was No. 6 in 2007 and lost in horrific fashion to Vanderbilt, 17-6, they only fell nine spots to No. 15. It actually took losses to Tennessee and Arkansas before USC fell out of the Top 25.
Essentially, then, the AP voters had a temper tantrum worthy of a four-year old. At this point, Ole Miss might have about as much credibility with the pollsters as Bernie Madoff, with emphasis on the word “might.”
If AP voters want to discredit Ole Miss rather than reward USC, that’s fine. That stuff has been going on in the polls for a long time.
But there are two things I can’t figure out, so someone needs to educate me.
Iowa debuted at No. 13 after beating Penn State on the road. That’s good. But their first three wins came against I-AA Northern Iowa in a game they should have lost, a poor Iowa State team and Arizona, a middle-of-the-road Pac-10 team. Granted, Iowa has beaten three BCS schools but only the Penn State win is worth much, in my opinion.
But if you’re a Gamecock fan, the most aggravating development was Oregon debuting at No. 16. This is the team that looked pathetic against Boise State in their opener. Yes, they walloped California, 42-3, at home last Saturday.
But here’s the quirk: Cal dropped 18 spots to No. 24, a clear indication the voters didn’t believe they belonged at No. 6. It appears to be the same ill will the voters showed for Ole Miss.
Yet, Oregon seemingly received thunderous applause for beating the Golden Bears, while USC got very little credit for dominating the Rebels. Is there that much difference between Ole Miss and Cal?
The only difference was the scores. Oregon beat Cal by 39 points, while USC bested Ole Miss by six. But does that make Oregon 12 spots and 208 points better than the Gamecocks? It has to be the uniforms.
Besides Cal, Oregon’s two other wins came over Purdue and Utah. Are those enough to make the Ducks the seventh highest rated 3-1 team in the land?
If USC beats SC State Saturday, they should slide into the Top 25 so, in the end, it might be no harm, no foul.
The disrespect – if that’s the term you want to use – extends to TV as well. The Oct. 10 Kentucky game was recently picked up by Fox Sports Net for broadcast at 12:30 p.m.
The only reason FSN got the game was because CBS (as expected) and ESPN and its wide family of channels passed. According to the league office, CBS plans to show a doubleheader on that date. Florida-LSU will be shown in prime time (8 p.m.), which is hardly a shock considering the national championship implications.
The 3:30 slot is unfilled and the network will choose among four games. The remaining three games will be televised by ESPN, ESPNU or the SEC Network. Here are the four games up for bid:
Alabama at Ole Miss;
Auburn at Arkansas;
Georgia at Tennessee;
Houston at Mississippi State.
In my opinion, any of the first three games are just as attractive as USC-Kentucky. But Houston-Miss. State? Really? I know Houston is a media darling right now with a No. 12 national ranking and cute wins over Oklahoma State and Texas Tech but I don’t see that game as more attractive nationally than the Gamecocks and Wildcats.
I might be wrong – as my wife often reminds me – but I don’t think so.
Link to this entry - Discuss this entry - Return to Blog Home
Previous Blog Entries
Scott Hood. Since February of 2005, Scott has covered the South Carolina football, men's basketball and baseball programs for GamecockCentral. He may be reached by email at scottblog(at)gamecockcentral.com. Replace (at) with @.