10-25-2011, 12:57 PM
It's amazing the amount of energy spent arguing the merits of one writer's opinion. Personally, I've followed JW's blog for 3 years and have historically appreciated his non-conformist, unapologetic ranking system. I'm glad that there are some lone wolves out there using different ranking systems. The argument "his rankings are so different from everyone, therefore he's wrong" that so many people post on the Hotline is way off base (I know that's not what people here are arguing.) If everyone voted the same way +/- a couple of spots, what's the point of having a poll?
I don't think JW has anything against Stanford, but he's just a critical curmudgeon at heart and since he watches Stanford and C.al more than other teams, he sees their flaws more than those of other teams. If he lived in South Carolina and followed Clemson and the other U.SC, I don't doubt he would rank them lower than the nation does as well. On the other hand, his writing styles is condescending and he often throws childish barbs at his readership, so overall he's pretty much a hack. But the forum is fun for bantering with Pac12 rivals without having to go to their boards, so I continue to visit.
The flaw in his ranking logic is that he doesn't take margin of error into account. He thinks, like the computers, that a "quality win" is a 1-0 event. Sure, Duke isn't a "quality opponent", but the way we beat them, as we've beaten our other opponents, is so impressive that those wins should also be considered "quality," IMO.
I don't think JW has anything against Stanford, but he's just a critical curmudgeon at heart and since he watches Stanford and C.al more than other teams, he sees their flaws more than those of other teams. If he lived in South Carolina and followed Clemson and the other U.SC, I don't doubt he would rank them lower than the nation does as well. On the other hand, his writing styles is condescending and he often throws childish barbs at his readership, so overall he's pretty much a hack. But the forum is fun for bantering with Pac12 rivals without having to go to their boards, so I continue to visit.
The flaw in his ranking logic is that he doesn't take margin of error into account. He thinks, like the computers, that a "quality win" is a 1-0 event. Sure, Duke isn't a "quality opponent", but the way we beat them, as we've beaten our other opponents, is so impressive that those wins should also be considered "quality," IMO.