quote:
Ok State may need Va Tech to lose.

I don't think that Stanford/Boise/Houston pose much of a problem though. Historical voting trends and common sense suggest OSU would jump any of those teams even if they are behind them now

Thanks for all the work in laying out the numbers. I've read through your computer poll and it's very interesting.

Generally, I think everything you say is right on the mark but where I tend to disagree is precisely where the "threat" of Stanford and to a lesser degree, though still not quite as negligible as you make it seem, Boise then Houston, is simply discounted due to voters "common sense".

I would be interested in the historical voting trends that apply to such a unique situation. It seems to me, a layman, that historically every time there's any argument at all the votes reflect that indecision by being equally divided?

2007
I keep hearing 2007 as an example but I don't see how it supports Oklahoma St's prospects since the exact thing they can't have happen did indeed happen: votes were split all over the place! Hell, you even had some people voting Virginia Tech over LSU which seems to defy all the logic which dismissing a Stanford "problem" supposes all the voters will follow.

2006
This seems a bit more favorable comparison for Oklahoma St's prospects but there's some notable differences: the #2 team again lost just before the final poll and Florida only jumped Michigan, who was also coming directly off a loss. Assuming Stanford and/or VT and/or Alabama are all coming off decent or even big wins where is the compelling evidence to say ALL voters will now jump Oklahoma St over at least 2 and sometimes 3 of these teams especially considering the cache the SEC has recently developed?

I'm uncertain of the historical evidence which convinces me that practically all the PAC12 and west coast based coaches and Harris voters, for example, will drop Stanford after a win against a top 25 Notre Dame team whether they win the PAC12 or not.

Don't most of these voters already think USC is better than Oklahoma anyway and certainly that a Oregon loss is much, much better than a Iowa St loss? I would also doubt they all think the PAC12 is quite as weak as "common sense" may suggest. Yes, some will likely do as you say, but all or even the majority?

Add in the handful of outliers that will vote a Boise St or Houston highly (like, say, Hawaii and/or horrid scheduled Kansas in 2006) and that's already a much higher amount #4s or #5s to make up right there even with a VT loss.

Aren't we realistically thinking at least 40-50% #2 votes begins to overcome these votes? More if VT wins out?

I do follow you in seeing why many or even most voters would agree with you in voting Oklahoma St at #3. I probably would myself if they happen to look dominant against Oklahoma however I think from all the carefully laid out analysis to make this final jump from most voters to all voters is more one of faith than reason.

This post was edited on 11/22/11 at 2:39 am