(10-29-2013 08:34 PM)niubrad00 Wrote: (10-29-2013 04:35 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote: It always annoys me the author makes his weekly "tongue-and-cheek" ranking almost exclusively a non-AQ membership club.
It's high time he gives the worst teams from the best conferences more recognition. After all, no one else achieves the least given the most resources.
Well, the worst 10 teams are usually non-AQ teams. What exactly do resources have to do with it? He's ranking the worst FBS teams (except for the #5 slot), that's it.
Mark Schlabach's rankings are
supposed to be somewhat farcical. They should not be a serious attempt to rate the teams according to their relative weakness of play. Go to the Sagarin and other computer rating systems to glean that information.
As a result, Schlabach weekly and annually relegates almost all of the slots to the non-AQ teams. To the surprise of no one, these schools and their conferences possess only a small fraction of the resources as compared to the AQs. It's no coincidence AQ teams are going to get 95% of the high school recruits judged to be the most talented. The non AQs have to rely on the 5% percent panning out, with the "just a bit too slow or too small" developing into special players, along with superior coaching. Several few AQ schools can achieve this golden trifecta at any given time. Many of the others will be relegated to being less than mediocre.
The point here, and this is important, is many of the
readers of the Bottom 10 will assume the non-AQ schools fielding teams with good records have only done so because of the weakness of their conference opponents. (Most won't have the knowledge or care about score differentials, non-league game results, etc.) Indeed, many of them will automatically assume the reason the poorer AQ teams got that way is because they didn't play enough non-conference games against the non-AQs. That is their perception.
If I remember correctly, when Steve Harvey (the Bottom 10 originator before ESPN existed) compiled his lists, he tended to spread the indignity around. This is where Mark Schlabach fails.
Coming full-circle back to the question, "What do resources have to do with it (the ranking)?" A lot! As an analogy, which person might be the one that has been the least successful: A) one who has an annual income of $15,000 a year or B) one who has an annual income of $150,000 a year? What if I also mention the first one grew up in poverty and lives in Bangladesh and the other one grew up in Newport, Rhode Island and lives off his inheritance?
So these are among my reasons why the likes of Purdue and Cal should be in this Inglorious Basterd [sic] of a poll rather than a third or fourth team from the MAC, Sun Belt or other non-AQ league.
Postscript: Remember the coveted #5 is reserved for a good team that incurs the top BCS stumble of the week. This implies it's the only way an AQ team can be included on the list.
