Head-to-head

I recently read an article that gave the UT v. OU score and said the game wasn't as close as the score indicated. Really? Anyway, I'm not going to get into that. And, I'm not going to debate the merits of Texas or Oklahoma. But, I am going to say that head-to-head shouldn't be the be-all/end-all that it is regarded to be.

If Team A beats Team B head-to-head, what does that really mean in the grand scheme of things? Does it mean that Team A is better than Team B? UT fans would argue that, but I think it's hard for Browns fans to argue that Cleveland is better than the NY Giants based on the MNF game earlier this season (the Giants only loss before Sunday). Utah beat TCU this year to win the MWC. But, is Utah better than TCU? I'm not sure. It was a close game at Utah. What if that game had been in Fort Worth? Would Boise State be in a BCS bowl? Would a one-loss TCU team (with the only blemish being at OU) be in a BCS game as a one-loss "mid-major"?

Many things go into a head-to-head match-up. Maybe, one team just doesn't match up well against another team. Maybe home field advantage played a small role. Perhaps, weather conditions favored one side over the other. It's even conceivable that a bad call swayed the outcome to some extent. Or, there may have been injuries that prevented a team from being 100% in that game, or maybe subsequent injuries hurt a previously powerful team. If Tim Tebow broke his leg on the last play of the SEC Championship, would people still be voting UF #1? Would they still vote them ahead of Alabama?

In the case of three teams that play, each ending with one win and one loss, we have a "rock, paper, scissors" situation. If Team A beats Team B but loses to Team C, while Team B beat Team C, what then? Rock smashes scissors. But, paper covers rock ... and scissors cut paper. So, which is best? What happens if you introduce "brick" to the trio of "rock, paper, scissors". Well, obviously, scissors are out of luck. However, paper benefits. What if we introduce "cardboard"? Or "box-cutters"?

The "best" teams often lose, especially when confronted with enough opponents/contests. MJ's Bulls lost games. The Patriots lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl last year. The Cowboys lost to the Rams this year. Does that mean that the Rams are better than the Cowboys? Obviously, it would be absurd to say that the Rams were a better team than the Cowboys. The idea that head-to-head isn't the ultimate trump card extends to situations where teams only lose a few games as well, especially when teams don't play most of the teams. If you get into A beat B and C beat D and E beat F and C beat A but lost to Q and this and that, you won't be able to come up with a consensus winner. There's a reason why they came up with computer rankings (computers are better at processing large amounts of data than human's are) ... and there is a reason OU is #1 in all 6 of the computer rankings, while four different teams (Texas, Florida, Texas Tech and Utah) all hold down the #2 spot in at least one computer's rankings.