Read the arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer about what the best criteria is to judge the ability of a college football team – computer rankings or the “eyeball test.”
History affectionately refers to the team as the 2002 Ohio State “Luckeyes” (it is even in the Urban Dictionary!). Somehow, someway – much like this college football season with the Iowa Hawkeyes… until last week against Northwestern – the team seemed to find exciting and improbabld ways to pull out a win. For the Luckeyes it was a last second pass from Craig Krenzel to the Michael Jenkins against Purdue, or a pass interference call to extend the national championship game and give the Luckeyes the chance to win the game and the season.
The Luckeyes never passed the eyeball test used by fans and savvy members of the media. The method is simple – watch a team and surmise if the team is talented enough to make an impact in the conference or national title race. Does the team do the “little things” well? Does the team play with consistency? Does the team control the line of scrimmage and make key catches to get beyond the stick on third down? The 2002 Luckeyes did… and the computers do not measure that. Until senior quarterback Ricky Stanzi was injured last week, the 2009 Iowa Hawkeyes did as well.
Iowa is a curious case this season. Until the surprising and unfortunate loss at home last week to Northwestern the team was ranked fourth in the country. The computers were very fond of Iowa because of the strength of schedule from its opposing teams. Iowa opponents have tallied a combined 49-35 record this season. While on the surface it may appear as though the Hawkeyes luck through some wins – like many believe the team did in week one versus Northern Iowa – the truth is that the team has played some very talented teams and won more than it lost.
Like the Luckeyes, the Hawkeyes (Lawkeyes??) simply did not pass the eyeball test. But, the computers did love the Luckeyes, and even gave the team a shot against Miami in the title game – eventually. The Luckeyes finished up as national champions. The Hawkeyes’ final chapter from this season is yet to be written, but the team has played excellent opponents and still has the opportunity to make a BCS game with a win over Ohio State – of course – this coming weekend. And, the computers love the strength of schedule.
OR, do the computers have it all wrong? It seems, watching the Hawkeyes play, that the team is just downright lucky against some vastly inferior opponent. Stanzi threw five interceptions against Indiana a week before the Northwestern loss, but the team still managed pull off an incredible come-from-behind victory. The computers just evaluate the wins and losses and strength of schedule. Fans and media can use their eyeballs to determine if a team is able to play with the other elite teams in the country. Many believe teams like the Luckeyes and Iowa are not up to the test.
Therefore, what is the best method for evaluating the quality of a college football team?
Loyal Homer will argue that the best method for evaluating a team’s quality in college football is with the old, tried and true eyeball test. Bleacher Fan will argue that the objective computers more fairly and accurately evaluate the quality of a team.
Perhaps more than any other debate or any other commentary about the BCS, this debate captures true insight into the value of the old way college football functioned and the new way college football now functions.
Fans, media – what is to be trusted more, your eyeballs or the computers? Let the debate commence!
