The only measurable is final APso how do you score it against another pick
so how do you score it against another pickIt sounds like CD just wants to come up with a consensus Top 10 from our own community, rather than make it into a competition.
so how do you score it against another pick"Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory."
It sounds like CD just wants to come up with a consensus Top 10 from our own community, rather than make it into a competition.Thats a good approach
However, if it were a competition, then I'd measure absolute value of places "off" from the final, per ranking spot, per ballot.
Here's 2022's preseason mag consensus top 10 and the actual AP final top 10:who's?
who's?Consensus, not one mag.
Steele?
1. ClemsonGood list.
2. Georgia
3. Ohio State
4. Alabama
5. Texas
6. Michigan
7. LSU
8. Tennessee
9. Penn State
10. Utah
Good list.Gotta see some defense.
no USC?
I tend to favor teams with a returning/quality QB- so I have USC in there a Michigan around #2.
Just about everybody has a new QB, nearly, right?from the 4-team playoff
1 - texasLonghorns at 1?
2 - osu
3 - uga
4 - usc
5 - bama
6 - clemson
7 - michigan
8 - fsu
9 - utah
10 - lsu
throw a bit of a wrench in it.
1 - texasHEY - Says top ten not sandbagging
2 - osu
3 - uga
4 - usc
5 - bama
6 - clemson
7 - michigan
8 - fsu
9 - utah
10 - lsu
throw a bit of a wrench in it.
Longhorns at 1?(https://i.imgur.com/R7NcHje.png)
You been trying some of Bama's finest there rolltide ?
(https://i.imgur.com/R7NcHje.png)Landing in the woods to play cards with the Yeti,Jimmy Hoffa,Elvis,DB Cooper,New Jersey Devil & Amelia
Longhorns at 1?honestly, thought you guys were pretty good last year. took us to wire and had some injury bad luck. got a lot returning, including one of those all powerful qb's that's all the rage nowadays.
You been trying some of Bama's finest there rolltide ?
honestly, thought you guys were pretty good last year. took us to wire and had some injury bad luck. got a lot returning, including one of those all powerful qb's that's all the rage nowadays.last year we lost a bunch of games that were very close
also, don't tell anyone, but this also makes it convenient if we lose to y'all early while still sorting out stuff, including qb. kind of a built in excuse, and when we get stuff sorted later on we deserve a rematch in cfp. and if we win, well we just beat the might #1 texas.
genuinely do think you'll be contender this year though. makes me quite nervous for our early game.
last year we lost a bunch of games that were very closeI think that the prior seasons' close games tend to be an underrated factor. Texas went 8-5 last year and I think most of us and the prognosticators just look at that as an 8-5 team but there is some room for nuance. Texas had seven one-score games last year: Two wins and all five losses:
it just depends on winning the close ones this year
our defense is the key this year
just have to wait and see
Honestly the problem I'm having with this is amongst the teams closest to home.
I obviously watched the last two installments of THE GAME. Based on that I have a hard time putting Ohio State ahead of Michigan.
OTOH, I also watched both Ohio State's and Michigan's postseason performances the last two years and based on that I have a hard time putting Michigan ahead of Ohio State.
Do "we" let last season color our assessments too much?I don't think so. I think that at least most of us take turnover into account.
In that case THE GAME could be meaningless to the B1GCG.In that case, if you are Ryan Day, do you rest your starters for THE GAME?
No, he wouldn't do that of course. I do wonder what sorts of similar things could happen with the 12 GPO.I'd say probably not for a couple reasons:
I was musing about the UGA-Tech contest, as another example. Would Smart sit his one's knowing his two's could win that game? Nope, never. Wouldn't happen.I do think, however that UGA/Tech might be treated differently than tOSU/M for a number of reasons.
He's going to sub a lot, as usual of course, and into the late third most starters probably are cheering and directing the band. Even your one's need "practice".
Yeah, it's not comparable to The Game, except the part about resting your ones, it's more a case for that than The Game. I've mentioned before I would prefer to drop them from the schedule especially if we have a 9 game conference slate. It's like playing Charleston Southern or something.It is . . . except that Charleston Southern wouldn't have a history of being competitive and those occasional spurts.
| 96 | November 24, 2001 | Atlanta | # (Number)19 Georgia | 31–17 |
| 97 | November 30, 2002 | Athens | # (Number)5 Georgia | 51–7 |
| 98 | November 29, 2003 | Atlanta | # (Number)5 Georgia | 34–17 |
| 99 | November 27, 2004 | Athens | # (Number)8 Georgia | 19–13 |
| 100 | November 26, 2005 | Atlanta | # (Number)13 Georgia | 14–7 |
| 101 | November 25, 2006 | Athens | Georgia | 15–12 |
| 102 | November 24, 2007 | Atlanta | # (Number)6 Georgia | 31–17 |
| 103 | November 29, 2008 | Athens | # (Number)18 Georgia Tech | 45–42 |
| 104 | November 28, 2009 | Atlanta | Georgia | 30–24 |
| 105 | November 27, 2010 | Athens | Georgia | 42–34 |
| 106 | November 26, 2011 | Atlanta | # (Number)13 Georgia | 31–17 |
| 107 | November 24, 2012 | Athens | # (Number)3 Georgia | 42–10 |
| 108 | November 30, 2013 | Atlanta | Georgia | 41–342OT |
| 109 | November 29, 2014 | Athens | # (Number)16 Georgia Tech | 30–24OT |
| 110 | November 28, 2015 | Atlanta | Georgia | 13–7 |
| 111 | November 26, 2016 | Athens | Georgia Tech | 28–27 |
| 112 | November 25, 2017 | Atlanta | # (Number)7 Georgia | 38–7 |
| 113 | November 24, 2018 | Athens | # (Number)5 Georgia | 45–21 |
| 114 | November 30, 2019 | Atlanta | # (Number)4 Georgia | 52–7 |
| 115 | November 27, 2021 | Atlanta | # (Number)1 Georgia | 45–0 |
| 116 | November 26, 2022 | Athens | # (Number)1 Georgia | 37–14 |
| Series: Georgia leads 70–41–5[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean,_Old-Fashioned_Hate#cite_note-series-1) |
Yeah, Tech on occasion has had a decent to good team in the past, but even that has been a while now. The common result is a blow out. When Tech wins, it's barely. Tech has not won in Atlanta since 1999 oddly enough. It's boring, to me.Interesting:
And then, they remarkably boat race OSU 2 years in a row and.....get embarrassed on the biggest stage both years.I remain perplexed by this. Michigan has obviously looked much better in THE GAME the last two years but Ohio State has looked better in those regular seasons otherwise and much better in the last two postseason. I still don't know why, some possibilities:
They've basically done jack squat in the past 73 years.They claim 11 NC's with the ninth and 10th coming consecutively in 1947 and 1948 and . . . Only one since (1997).
Bo treated bowl games like a vacation for his kids, and it showed.Is that where you guys got your RB obsession from? Getting there was the prize? The NC be damned?
Is that where you guys got your RB obsession from? Getting there was the prize? The NC be damned?I think a part of it was that the rivalry simply got too big. Woody and Bo were intense and that intensity was focused 24/7/365 on beating the other in November. Everything else became secondary.
Also, when did the AP start doing rankings after games that were at one time considered exhibitions? Sometime in the 60's, yes?That is in my admittedly very long post above. They did it in 1965 then started in 1968 and kept doing it.
That is in my admittedly very long post above. They did it in 1965 then started in 1968 and kept doing it.Darn. I missed that part. Sorry.
So the Ten Year War started right as that began.
I think "back in the day", the Rose Bowl was a big deal, it had history, pageantry, and often two top teams from difference conferences competing on Jan. 1. That is considerably diluted today, but the history remains.It still has some of that, but it lost luster when Miami and Nebraska soiled the hallowed ground in 2002.
I've always thought a conference championship was a Big Deal, the Goal for most programs. The NC was "mythical" back then (and winning your conference could be shared of course). It's a bit sad today that winning the NC is now the goal for 15-20 odd progams each season.
I'm just dumbfounded that two HCs so obsessed with winning seemed to let up in the RB.I think we all are, to honest. It made the conference look even worse than it already was.
I'm just dumbfounded that two HCs so obsessed with winning seemed to let up in the RB.I don't know that they let up. I think it was a combination of factors including:
I think "back in the day", the Rose Bowl was a big deal, it had history, pageantry, and often two top teams from difference conferences competing on Jan. 1. That is considerably diluted today, but the history remains.I can assure you that the Rose Bowl remains a big deal among teams that don't regularly play for MNCs.
I don't know that they let up. I think it was a combination of factors including:#1 above: many here have insisted to me that isn't a thing
- The intensity for THE GAME was so strong that it simply couldn't be maintained into the next game.
- I think, particularly earlier that Bowl games were still seen as a reward/vacation, not part of the chase. As noted above, the AP only switched to a post-bowl final poll for the 1968 season so that was new when the Ten Year War started in 1969. Also, in 1968 the final regular season #1 (Ohio State) beat #2 (USC) in their bowl so there was no change. Same in 1969 when #1 Texas beat #9 Notre Dame. The first time #1 actually changed as a result of the bowls was 1970 when #1 Texas and #2 Ohio State both lost their bowls (to #6 ND in the Cotton Bowl and #12 Stanford in the Rose Bowl). #3 Nebraska beat #5 LSU in the Orange Bowl and jumped up to #1.
- I think that the general weakness of the "little eight" hindered the Buckeyes and Wolverines in that the conference slate didn't really expose any weaknesses that needed work.
- Changing times: Woody and to a lesser extent Bo stuck with their outdated offenses in part because they were good enough to win nearly all of their games. In that era of the Big Ten you *MIGHT* occasionally see a team that could pass effectively but those teams generally couldn't run or play D so Woody and Bo just ground them into dust. Then when they got to Pasadena they ran into (usually) USC teams that could run, pass, and play D.
- Dumb luck: Over the course of the 10 years of the Ten Year War the Buckeyes and Wolverines went 1-9 in Rose Bowls. The one win was a 42-21 blowout. The losses were by:
- 1 M to Stanford in 71
- 1 tOSU to USC in 74
- 7 M to USC in 69
- 7 M to Washington in 77
- 7 M to USC in 78
- 8 M to USC in 76
- 10 tOSU to Stanford in 70
- 13 tOSU to UCLA in 75 (beat them earlier in the season)
- 25 tOSU to USC in 72
The Buckeyes and Wolverines were competitive, it isn't like the Pac Champ just romped every year.
#1 above: many here have insisted to me that isn't a thingI think #5 is more probable than #3 and #4,
#2: idk, they're keeping score, aren't they? The one good thing about Mullen (which he threw out the window in the Cotton Bowl vs OU) was if they're keeping score, we might as well win.
#3: I can totally buy that
#4: I think that aligns with #3
#5: Ehh...I'd buy that if it was 4-6 or 3-7, but 1-9? 1-9 is too severe for me to buy that. What's more likely is simply that USC was a program above, aka the SEC has been in our modern era.
I think #5 is more probable than #3 and #4,I'm gonna look into it....see the record of the best non UM/OSU team each season vs UM/OSU.
Huskers and Sooners had #3 and #4 in the Big 8
Interesting:i don't mean this dickish, but it might come across that way. if it does, apologies.
From 2001-2019:So for the two full decades from 2001 through 2020 (neither UGA/Tech nor tOSU/M was played in 2020), Ohio State was MORE dominant over Michigan than Georgia was over Tech.
- Ohio State led Michigan 17-2
- Georgia led Tech 16-3
It NEVER got boring to me, ever. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.
Honestly, if Ohio State had won the last two then won 31 more in a row to go 48-2 over 50 games from 2001-2051, it STILL wouldn't have been boring to me.
i don't mean this dickish, but it might come across that way. if it does, apologies.No, your post didn't come across as "dickish".
but osu doesn't really have a close 2nd rival (or 1b as some call it) like uga (and bama, which is where this comes from for me, i'll explain later). uga has at least 2, maybe 3 (au, tenn, uf) that were on par or close (maybe even above) gt in rivalry status when the domination started. I'll let uga fans tell me if i'm wrong (maybe i am), but that's the way it seems to me.
from my perspective, relevance of the rival matters. tenn just beat bama for first time in 15 years. since 01, it's 17-5 in favor of bama. 01 was end of a decent tenn streak, before couple years back and forth, then bama's dominance. point i'm trying to get to is that rivalry had started to wain a little in last few years. partly because tenn was i shambles, partly cause of bama dominance, but also partly because we had au and kinda lsu to step in as the 'important' game(s) on the schedule. don't get me wrong, we wanted to beat tenn, because F-tenn (that's for you @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) ) but it wasn't really a worry or something? don't know how to explain that part.
As far as secondary rivals you are right, Ohio State doesn't really have any which is part of what makes THE GAME so big. The closest we have, I would say, is Penn State and that is 100 years newer so it just isn't the same thing.It felt like UW and OSU were building a rivalry (when Barry was winning against them) but the B1G wonks kinda took it away.
No, your post didn't come across as "dickish".bored? no. being not the most important game/rival? yes, and it's been true for parts of my life/fandom.
Rivalries, IMHO, are built on a lot of things and it is interesting to get other perspectives on them. To that end, could you ever see yourself getting bored with beating Auburn?
It felt like UW and OSU were building a rivalry (when Barry was winning against them) but the B1G wonks kinda took it away.It was, but it always felt transitory to me.
Doesn't help that UW has/had two protected rivals.
[img width=274.381 height=309]https://i.imgur.com/5wsHZp4.png[/img]
It was, but it always felt transitory to me.Good thing it's been a long time since that was the case. Last losing record (5-7) was 2001.
What I mean is that Wisconsin is a big game for Ohio State when both are good but that is true of any team. A rivalry is big no matter what.
Ie, if Michigan and Wisconsin are both terrible this year, I'll want tOSU to win the games but beating a terrible UW team isn't "exciting". Beating (or not beating) Wisconsin is only exciting to the extent that THIS game matters, THIS year. A rivalry is different. When Michigan had their 3-9 debacle in 2008 it was still a big deal to beat them. Beating a terrible Badger team wouldn't excite me.
Good thing it's been a long time since that was the case. Last losing record (5-7) was 2001.I wasn't saying that Wisconsin sucks, quite the opposite. My point was that I care about beating Wisconsin because they are good. I care about beating Michigan because they are Michigan.
And even then, I wouldn't call them terrible. That loss to Minnie still pisses me off. And that game against IU was the only game I walked out on. Maddening.
(https://i.imgur.com/dKDXppU.png)
Good thing it's been a long time since that was the case. Last losing record (5-7) was 2001.I would ;)
And even then, I wouldn't call them terrible.
@847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) ,1. Not at all.
I hope this doesn't come across as arrogant or condescending.
....
Helmets matter to fans, that is my point and it is an additional reason that beating Michigan is a big deal to me even when Michigan sucks whereas beating Wisconsin is a big deal only to the extent that the particular Wisconsin team is a quality opponent.
Helmets matter to fans, that is my point and it is an additional reason that beating Michigan is a big deal to me even when Michigan sucks whereas beating Wisconsin is a big deal only to the extent that the particular Wisconsin team is a quality opponent.I kinda disagree. I think rivalry trumps helmet.
I kinda disagree. I think rivalry trumps helmet.Oh I wasn't saying that Helmetosity trumps rivalry, just pointing out that in Ohio State's case those two converge.
Back when I watched Purdue football, beating IU was ALWAYS a big deal. Doesn't matter how much we suck. Doesn't matter how much they suck. Gotta win that game. POTFH!
Now, for a non-rivalry game, I do agree. Beating a helmet is more exciting than beating a non-helmet, even if they both suck equally that year.
Is PSU a helmet?Both are on the fringe in my book, they aren't quite BBs. Tennessee might be a close to almost also.
Is UNL?
Is PSU a helmet?would you rather play and win vs one of them than a Michigan St. or Illinois with a better record?
Is UNL?
would you rather play and win vs one of them than a Michigan St. or Illinois with a better record?It depends. I really thought UNL and UW would become rivals, but it's too one-sided for that to be.
this was a terrible thought experiment and i hate it.
Example:
Suppose that Ohio State scheduled to open the 2033 season with OOC games against Alabama and Mississippi State. Further suppose that both the Tide and the Bulldogs just completely suck in 2033. Ohio State crushes both of them and they both finish sub .500.
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/362258662_619593483606230_7376703627034932664_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=Ek0wK4DMyl4AX-zyxxp&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfAJ86xB2sij7dDNChblLYAZXLhOlt2z7wviY2-d-860jw&oe=64BE909C)Supports my thinking that if Minnie was ever gonna do it, it was last year.
makes me wonder how many returning starters for coach primeUSC upgraded a ton of returning starters from '21 to '22, and they went 4-8, I think, before the upgrades.
I would bet there is a loose correlation between number of returning starters and number of additional wins (or losses) in the following season.WHERE'S THE DATA?!? STOP RELYING ON FEELINGS!
well, I hope so.I could argue every metric is over valued in isolation, but the progs obviously try and construct some kind of composite and generally get about the same final "polls" preseason as everyone else unless they throw in an outlier for clicks. The top 3 preseason nearly always end up very good, top ten or better.
Or else some folks are overvaluing this metric like returning QBs