Biased Polls

I just read a bulletin on MySpace in regard to college football polls being biased against Nebraska.

Outside of a short stint in Georgia when I was young, I've only lived in the state of Nebraska (not for long, though...), so I don't know what others think about bias of their teams from other parts of the country. But, for the past 10 years or so, many of those around me claim that anyone associated with football outside of Nebraska is biased against Cornhuskers' football. If any sports' commentator has anything neutral to say about the Huskers, isn't 100% positive in regard to them, picks against them, or gives the pros and cons to a change made in Lincoln, many Huskers' fans that I know flip out, claiming that "Everyone hates Nebraska football. They're all against us! It's us against the world!" This may be a good motivator for the players themselves. If a player of a future opponent says something negative in regard to Nebraska, then that can be used by the head coach as material to pump his team up and motivate them even further for that weekend's game. But, it was just one person. Just because an analyst picks against Nebraska some week, that doesn't mean he/she picks against them every week. Not everyone has to be in love with Nebraska football. They don't seem to understand that.

This guy's argument dealt around the AP Poll's ranking of South Carolina, Virginia Tech, and Nebraska. Nebraska is ranked 25th, behind both South Carolina (16th) and Virginia Tech (17th). All teams are 3-1, and this friend of mine pointed to the three team's losses. South Carolina fell to LSU 28-16 (28-7 until late). Virginia Tech got demolished by LSU in Baton Rouge 48-7. Nebraska fell at home to USC 49-31 (49-17 until late). The closest game of all was the LSU/South Carolina duel in Baton Rouge, but even then, it was really a three score game and one has to take weather as a factor. If the weather wasn't so nasty, would LSU have won by even more? I'm thinking so, but that can't be proven. It's just speculation. Virginia Tech got hammered from start to finish against LSU by 41 points. Nebraska fell by 32 points at home to USC. What's worse? A road night loss in Baton Rouge by 41 or a home loss in Lincoln by 32? That's debatable, which is why one must look at a team's whole resume' to rank them properly. South Carolina has beaten Louisana-Lafayette by 14, Georgia by 4, and I-AA South Carolina State by 35. Virginia Tech has defeated East Carolina by 10, Ohio by 21, and I-AA William & Mary by 41. Nebraska beat Nevada by 42, Wake Forest by 3, and Ball State by 1. Outside of the team's one loss, South Carolina's opponents are a combined 3-9. Virginia Tech's opponents are 3-9. Nebraska's opponents are 5-7. Thus far, none of the three teams have an all too impressive resume'. The most impressive victory was SC's over Georgia. The worst loss has to either be Va Tech's to LSU or NU's to USC. The least impressive win has to be Nebraska's 41-40 win over Ball State. Do I think South Carolina should be ranked 16th and Virginia Tech 17th? No, I don't. But, did I feel it was wrong to drop Nebraska one spot from 24th to 25th after their lucky one-point win over Ball State? Again, no.

I'm tired of listening to Nebraska fans whining. When Kirk Herbstriet argued with Lou Holtz and Barry Switzer about who the best team ever was, claiming the '95 Nebraska team couldn't beat '01 Miami or '04 USC, who cares? That's his opinion. Regardless of what one's opinion is on the subject, it's impossible to prove. It's not like talking about this year and hypothesizing who may goto the National Title game and who would win in such a predicament. That will eventually play out and the game will be played on the field. There's no way we can ever know who would win between '95 Nebraska and '01 Miami or '04 USC.

Is it like this elsewhere? In Ann Arbor, do fans think the media is out to get them and that they're all biased against the Wolverines? In Tallahassee, do they feel this way about their Seminoles?

While sports' writers and analysts may show their biases here and there, it's their job to be as objective as possible. It's their job to pick the games based on what they've learned through the years and what they truly think will happen as opposed to what they want to happen. From what I can tell, the ones showing bias in this scenario are the Nebraska fans, favoring their Huskers over all else. I picked USC to beat Nebraska. Why? Because I thought they were too quick on the offensive side of the ball, would limit the run game, and would exert enough pressure on Sam Keller to disrupt his timing and potentially force some turnovers. Also, Bill Callahan's 0-6 record at Nebraska against Top 10 opponents didn't change my mind any. It's not because I was biased against Nebraska. I also picked them to win their other three games and they've done just that, although not as convincingly as expected. That's not showing bias. Showing bias is picking them regardless of their opponent or picking against them regardless of their opponent. Lou Holtz is extremely biased, toward Notre Dame and South Carolina, two schools he used to coach. He picks them to always win. That right there is bias.

I'm curious to observe the differences (if there are many) as I travel to and eventually move to Columbus, Ohio in the next couple months. I hope the fans are a bit different there. Nebraska has the reputation of having great, respectable, knowledgable fans, but the ones I know are fair-weather, biased whiners.