Is this based on who I think would beat the others, or an eye test, or a projection of what the CFP will be, or what?However you prefer to do it. Mine is sort of a mixture of resume and eye test with resume getting weighted a little heavier.
Your list looks OK to me. I don't think UK would beat OSU on a neutral field though most of the time.
NC State is folding.
I'd have Georgia State in the 22-25 region.I bet you wouldn’t. You mean Georgia Southern? Lol.
I haven't watched most of these teams play.Neither have the people who rank them. At least not to any great extent.
I bet you wouldn’t. You mean Georgia Southern? Lol.State, Southern, same thing. Not really.
[th]RK[/th] [th]TEAM[/th] [th]REC[/th] [th]PTS[/th] [th]TREND[/th] | ||||
1 | (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F333.png&hash=f484e18f81e4df7fdcb5baae63ca0350) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/333/alabama-crimson-tide)Alabama (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/333/alabama-crimson-tide)(62) | 8-0 | 1598 | — |
2 | (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F228.png&hash=39a5d3b3d1f3eb44a19d9d288fe4282a) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/228/clemson-tigers)Clemson (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/228/clemson-tigers)(2) | 8-0 | 1537 | — |
3 | (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F87.png&hash=aab792f80cfef89eb4775729776b053a) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/87/notre-dame-fighting-irish)Notre Dame (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/87/notre-dame-fighting-irish) | 8-0 | 1458 | — |
4 | (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F99.png&hash=87a24357e1d86d297b11fe8685243801) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/99/lsu-tigers)LSU (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/99/lsu-tigers) | 7-1 | 1403 | — |
5 | (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F130.png&hash=9767a49161fe0672213a3fb9e7ba09e7) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/130/michigan-wolverines)Michigan (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/130/michigan-wolverines) | 7-1 | 1295 | — |
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F61.png&hash=c81ecf6baae96f6835266098bbd3199b) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/61/georgia-bulldogs)Georgia (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/61/georgia-bulldogs) | 7-1 | 1295 | 1 | |
7 | (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F201.png&hash=b0c0e4e432fbed756608dc19f65b7460) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/201/oklahoma-sooners)Oklahoma (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/201/oklahoma-sooners) | 7-1 | 1190 | 1 |
8 | (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F194.png&hash=979c08af1a89c6411517527a3afa2051) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/194/ohio-state-buckeyes)Ohio State (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/194/ohio-state-buckeyes) | 7-1 | 1096 | 1 |
9 | (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F2116.png&hash=c3422e08524a1e152fed215657cbf283) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2116/ucf-knights)UCF (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2116/ucf-knights) | 7-0 | 1082 | 1 |
10 | (https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F277.png&hash=860c17f0e3b42b1bad2c0d016305cca8) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/277/west-virginia-mountaineers)West Virginia (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/277/west-virginia-mountaineers) | 6-1 | 992 | 2 |
Kentucky is the lowest ranked one loss P5 team at 12th.Exhibit #983823839 of the cowardice of voters. What are they afraid will happen if they rank a 2-loss team ahead of a 1-loss team?!? Nuclear war?!?!
PSU is highest ranked 2 loss team at 13th.
Exhibit #983823839 of the cowardice of voters. What are they afraid will happen if they rank a 2-loss team ahead of a 1-loss team?!? Nuclear war?!?!What if you were to learn that the polls have extreme variance and the published version is merely an average and half the poster do have PSU above (maybe well above) UK?
What if you were to learn that the polls have extreme variance and the published version is merely an average and half the poster do have PSU above (maybe well above) UK?It's not specifically about UK/PSU, but in your instance, we either have too many voters, or half the voters are poor.
It's not specifically about UK/PSU, but in your instance, we either have too many voters, or half the voters are poor.Maybe. But the other half may be more aggressively ranking other teams (while the ones ranking PSU over UK rank the others more boringly) and the entire group is just unlucky that the way it averages out looks so bad.
Except there is a definitive cutoff (excluding mid-majors) on team losses, all the way down to 22 (UVA). Literally listed are the undefeated, then the 1-loss teams, then 2-loss teams.
It should be embarrassing for them.
Fro would probably have the SEC 1-14.It'd be funnier if I was more of a homer. This is so tired....
I kid, I kid.
He'd obviously knock both Kentucky and Tennessee down a few spots. Perhaps even outside of the top 20.
Exhibit #983823839 of the cowardice of voters. What are they afraid will happen if they rank a 2-loss team ahead of a 1-loss team?!? Nuclear war?!?!So post yours. That is the purpose of this
Coaches PollThis one looks about right to me, although I would put Michigan 4 and LSU 5, and switch Georgia and Oklahoma.[th]RK[/th]
[th]TEAM[/th]
[th]REC[/th]
[th]PTS[/th]
[th]TREND[/th]
1
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F333.png&hash=f484e18f81e4df7fdcb5baae63ca0350) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/333/alabama-crimson-tide)Alabama (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/333/alabama-crimson-tide)(62)
8-0
1598
—
2
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F228.png&hash=39a5d3b3d1f3eb44a19d9d288fe4282a) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/228/clemson-tigers)Clemson (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/228/clemson-tigers)(2)
8-0
1537
—
3
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F87.png&hash=aab792f80cfef89eb4775729776b053a) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/87/notre-dame-fighting-irish)Notre Dame (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/87/notre-dame-fighting-irish)
8-0
1458
—
4
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F99.png&hash=87a24357e1d86d297b11fe8685243801) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/99/lsu-tigers)LSU (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/99/lsu-tigers)
7-1
1403
—
5
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F130.png&hash=9767a49161fe0672213a3fb9e7ba09e7) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/130/michigan-wolverines)Michigan (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/130/michigan-wolverines)
7-1
1295
—
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F61.png&hash=c81ecf6baae96f6835266098bbd3199b) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/61/georgia-bulldogs)Georgia (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/61/georgia-bulldogs)
7-1
1295
1
7
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F201.png&hash=b0c0e4e432fbed756608dc19f65b7460) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/201/oklahoma-sooners)Oklahoma (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/201/oklahoma-sooners)
7-1
1190
1
8
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F194.png&hash=979c08af1a89c6411517527a3afa2051) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/194/ohio-state-buckeyes)Ohio State (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/194/ohio-state-buckeyes)
7-1
1096
1
9
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F2116.png&hash=c3422e08524a1e152fed215657cbf283) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2116/ucf-knights)UCF (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/2116/ucf-knights)
7-0
1082
1
10
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fi%2Fteamlogos%2Fncaa%2F500%2F277.png&hash=860c17f0e3b42b1bad2c0d016305cca8) (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/277/west-virginia-mountaineers)West Virginia (http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/277/west-virginia-mountaineers)
6-1
992
2
No credit for being our defending National Champions?
UCF is getting nowhere near my top 10. They don't play anybody and would be significant under dogs to all 10 of those teams.
No credit for being our defending National Champions?Wait, wasn't that USF? I think you're getting your directional Group of 5 Florida schools mixed up.
Wait, wasn't that USF? I think you're getting your directional Group of 5 Florida schools mixed up.Ha, no, it was UCF, but the fact that this comment happens is symbolic of the fact that the Knights don't matter.
What if you were to learn that the polls have extreme variance and the published version is merely an average and half the poster do have PSU above (maybe well above) UK?NO. Clearly a Democracy is worse than a Dictatorship. Cowards.
. Also: LSU's wins over A&M and Miami don't look quite like they did 4-5 weeks ago. Miami and A&M are awful.Auburn & Miami, Miami and Auburn.
Auburn & Miami, Miami and Auburn.Auburn’s offense is terrible but they have a pretty good defense.
1. Alabama (8-0)All the way at 7th? Wow. Tough crowd.
2. Clemson (8-0)
3. Notre Dame (8-0)
4. LSU (7-1)
5. Georgia (7-1)
6. Oklahoma (7-1)
7. Michigan (7-1)
8. Ohio State (7-1)
9. Washington State (7-1)
10. UCF (7-0)
All the way at 7th? Wow. Tough crowd.Nebraska isn't a good team this season and was a bad team back in Sept. 90-0 wouldn't have been enough to rank Michigan at #4.
The 500-0 beat down in Ann Arbor not fresh anymore? If Harbaugh was an ass and liked to keep in the first team defense late and run up the score and throw the ball late into the 4th that game probably would’ve been 90-0.
tough crowdBased purely on resume to this point, I think Georgia and Kentucky have had a tougher schedule. Splitting hairs, and for now it's a snapshot. If Michigan winds up with 1 loss, they'll have picked up some much better wins. As of now, a win at #26 Michigan State is the only win Michigan has over a composite top 40 team.
Wolverines at #7????
This Dawg edition has "issues". Maybe like many Dawg fans I expect something close to perfection, but the defense is missing Roquan and is not stopping the run very well. The offense can look great and then awful in minutes. The OL is really dinged up and not playing like last year's at all.Watched the entire game start to finish. Have to say, I was not that impressed with Georgia. Florida probably could've ran for 300 yards had they been more committed to running the ball. They let Franks throw it too much and Felipe Franks is awful. Pretty much any Felipe Franks pass is a wasted play. Not sure he could throw for 250 yards in a skeleton drill with like 4 or 5 receivers and no defense. He really blew that game for Florida and handed it right to Georgia. The Georgia defense was getting very little to no pressure on Franks and they had issues stopping the run and tackling. Most of Franks' bad plays honestly were unforced. He had all day in the pocket, he's just friggin terrible.
Florida could have made that a very close game had the turnovers not killed them, and the almost did anyway until late.
Auburn’s offense is terrible but they have a pretty good defense.Not sure why there's such a precipitous drop-off in offensive production. I thought that outside of "David" Tua, Stidham would have been able to make a claim as the SEC's second-best QB. That obviously isn't the case at this point.
A&M and Miami are just bad football teams imo.
I don't regard A&M as a "bad football team". They are 5-3 and hung with both Bama (a bit) and Clemson (to the end). They also play at Auburn this weekend. Auburn is a slight favorite.Hmm. Not sure I agree on A&M. They got blown off the field by Bama 45-23. They hung with Bama for about a QTR and a half. They played Clemson tough- but that was before Lawrerence took over- and Clemson always plays teams they should crush close. Clemson seems to be a team that plays up or down to it's level of competition.
One might consider Auburn close to bad after their loss AT HOME to Tennessee.
Auburn may be the most disappointing team versus preseason in existence.
The highest ranked team to lose was NCSU (13th I think). So, no change in top ten is really needed unless you drop OU for that close call.Maybe, maybe not. The idea that if you win you keep your spot is sorta poll era thinking. The committee reevaluates you and your resume each week like it’s the first time they’ve ever seen it. There is no baseline from last week to go by.
The highest ranked team to lose was NCSU (13th I think). So, no change in top ten is really needed unless you drop OU for that close call.This is the attitude of the lazy voter. Ugh.
1. AlabamaLSU beat one of the worst SEC teams in years by only 7 points. Texas won on the road late, and Wazzou spanked a good team. There is no reason to keep those 3 in the same order as I did last week, imo. The top 7 did what they were supposed to do, I'll give you that.
2. Clemson
3. Michigan
4. Notre Dame
5. West Virginia
6. Georgia
7. Ohio State
8. LSU
9. Texas
10. Washington State
How they'll get rest against the vaunted Citadel one can only guess.Are they even Div I ?Yep. All FCS games are in fact D1
They are FCS and 4-5.Looking at it, they had a hard luck start. Losses by 7, 1, 3. That’ll kill a team in that conference. I know there were good a few years ago, but they seem to have fallen off.
They are really bad.
I'm sorry, but did UTAH STATE go from unranked to #14 in the AP poll?!? WTF is the world coming to???No. They made the poll two weeks ago, going from unranked to 18th on a week when seven teams fell out.
No, it doesn't matter, but it's still demented.
My impression is that the gap between the top teams and the second tier teams is unusually large this year.Yeah I think the teams ranked in the teens look substantially worse to me than teams normally in that range.
1. Alabamathis is basically my exact top 10, but flip WVU and Washington State.
2. Clemson
3. Notre Dame
4. Michigan
5. Georgia
6. Oklahoma
7. Washington State
8. West Virginia
9. Ohio State
10. UCF
The three undefeated P5 teams are 1-2-3 and the remaining 6 one loss teams are 4-9. Slick.If this was something important to you, you'd be arguing the other way. The argument against taking it seriously and producing your best ranking is...well nobody else does it? Is that a message you'd send to a kid about something?
And how much actual thought do you think goes into any of this? Imagine one sportswriter who really spends an hour thinking about this, pondering the possibilities, and then he devises a good poll (maybe), and his vote is subsumed with 57 or so other rankings and basically disappears with a 2% impact. Why would anyone bother?
Just line'em up, make a few tweaks, and send it in.
Utah State had a one TD loss to MSU first game out, and then 9 straight wins with a lot of offensive production over second tier teams. Now, are they really better than UF, PSU, UDubb, et al.? Probably not, and they would not be favored over teams ranked below them.If the teams ranked in the teens have maybe one extra loss than in previous seasons, why do we automatically suggest they're worse than in previous years?
But at three losses, those teams ranked below them are also rather mediocre, it's just that this season there are a lot of 7-3 teams. UK just lost at Tennessee and is ranked 20th. Someone has to be. The AP ranks two FOUR LOSS teams now.
this is basically my exact top 10, but flip WVU and Washington State.Their defense is so terrible, you move them down one spot? :88:
I was going to put Oklahoma at 5, but man, their defense is just terrible.
Their defense is so terrible, you move them down one spot? :88:as bad as that defense is- that offense is as great.
I'm talking about here. We do this for leisure, for fun. And yet many of us are slaves to the loss column.My poll this week had the three undefeateds and then the 6 one loss teams but that’s how I saw them this week. I feel comfortable putting them where I have them. I have a couple of three loss teams in front of two loss Syracuse. Last week I had LSU in front of a couple of one loss teams. This week their resume changed a little and they had a pretty uninspiring win so I moved them down.
If this was something important to you, you'd be arguing the other way. The argument against taking it seriously and producing your best ranking is...well nobody else does it? Is that a message you'd send to a kid about something?It isn't important to me, or to AP sportswriters, or to coaches, or to anyone else. They do have important stuff, it's about prioritizing.
All I know is that listing the top 3 undefeateds, then the next 6 one-loss teams, then a courtesy UCF at 10th is lazy A F.here's your not lazy ranking
The OU at 10 versus 6 "question" is moot anyway. Maybe they should be 10, maybe 6, maybe higher. If we accumulate these opinions, as the AP does, then they end up at 8, if there are only two opinions. If there are 58 opinions, they probably end up 6 or 7.This is correct, BUT if we simply listed the teams based on number of losses and where they started in the preseason poll, that rankings list would almost definitely be incorrect. So that's all I'm harping on - let's not all rank the teams in a manner that is most especially incorrect.
And there is currently no metric for deciding which is correct, it's OPINION.
You know what's crazy?What's more crazy is they are probably legitimately the best football team in the state of Florida.
UCF will likely have won 25 straight games AND not deserve a playoff spot.
I'm amused by the Michigan over Notre Dame crowd.head to head should matter.
Let's go to the tape. Head-to-head: ND had the win.
But Michigan has improved so much! Not ND, though--despite replacing their quarterback (the one who beat Michigan).
Common opponent: Northwestern: Michigan came from behind to win by three at Northwestern. Notre Dame never trailed, built a 14-point lead in the third quarter, and won by ten at Northwestern.
To be fair, Michigan has blown out a lot of teams, and has four wins over P5 teams with winning records, 7-3 Penn State having the best record of the bunch. Notre Dame also has four wins over P5 teams with winning records--and, of course, 9-1 Michigan is one of those.
Michigan does have the better stats, though. So there's that.
Anyway, y'll are entitled to you opinion, and I'm sure this applies to me, too, but your colors are showing. :-)
here's your not lazy rankingThat's right. I'd argue a ranking can, at best, have signs of being lazy. But sometimes a poll could appear lazy but be well thought out. And when many polls are averaged, the odds of this may be higher. I don't disagree with OAM's idea of the symptoms of a lazy poll, but I do disagree that seeing those symptoms is to prove the disease.
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Michigan
4. Notre Dame
5. West Virginia
6. Georgia
7. Ohio State
8. Washington State
9. Texas
10. Oklahoma
compared to my lazy ranking
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Notre Dame
4. Michigan
5. Georgia
6. Oklahoma
7. Washington State
8. West Virginia
9. Ohio State
10. UCF
same 9 teams, some a couple spots up or down
our biggest difference is the Sooners - 4 spots
your extensive research gives the Longhorns over the Knights as the difference
I guess time will tell. This week Texas favored by 3 over ISU, UCF favored by 7.5 over Cincy
ND is better, too, not least because it has upgraded its quarterback play.rematch would definitely be cool. But I don't see how that happens. I think if Michigan or ND are 4 they would have to play Bama and both teams would get bounced out immediately.
Maybe we should all hope for a rematch. :-)
If Bama loses, it's possible the ranking is Clemson, ND, M, UGa.wow, yeah. could you imagine a National Title match of Michigan vs ND? Might be the highest rated game ever if that happened.
I think UGa would probably pass Michigan, because Bama is so much better than OSU, but on SOS and damage of loss, they may not.
So yeah, a rematch is impossible unless both win in the national semifinal. That's the real dream.
I rank Michigan over Notre Dame because I like Michigan and don't like Notre Dame.OU's defense is about #127.
Similarly, I'd rank OU at #127.
I think the calamity, which of course I'd love to see, is if UGA beats Bama say 26-23 in OT, to pick a score out of the blue, and Bama has been #1 all year and is 12-1.I think Michigan wouid be in over Alabama. While this year is supposed to exist in a vacuum those are still human beings in that committee room. I think the committee would feel really queasy about putting a non champion Alabama over the Big 10 champ two years in a row, especially if this year those teams would have the exact same record.
Is that a "play in game"? Or is it considered as just another game? It depends on what Michigan does as well, and OU/WVU and Wazzu. But imagine we have Clemson at 13-0 and ND at 12-0 taking the top spots. UGA at 12-1 would be in there almost certainly, and then what?
Michigan 12-1 or Bama 12-1? I think Wazzu and OU/WVU would be below that pair, as they are now.
One could argue that Michigan already had their shot and lost to a playoff team, but the same would be true for Bama. Are they truly picking the "best teams"? Or "the best teams for the playoff?" I view those two things as being slightly different.
That would be fascinating.
IMO, Dexter Williams being suspended was a bigger deal than Notre Dame playing its second best QB.I do too.
it'd be mich over bama and i don't think last season would have much if any effect on it. nor should it.I think you're right but I'm also a fan, so that's nothing. Instead, I'll say that both of us would be sweating it out. It'd be close.
(...) and Bama (in that order). Why? Because I think on a neutral field, Bama would probably beat Michigan (it'd probably be closer than a lot of people think, but the Tide would certainly be favored).But that's not one of their stated criteria. When teams are that close, they claim to break the tie by looking at four criteria:
Until proven otherwise, I think they'll simply rank themIf Auburn would have beaten UGA last year you don’t think they would have been ahead of 1 loss non-champ Wisconsin?
- Undefeated
- 1 loss conference champs
- 1 loss non-champs
- 2 loss conference champs
They only analysis goes into distinguishing teams within those tiers. I also think if there aren't 4 teams that fit into that, things will start to get interesting. Is that when a Group of 5 team sneaks in? I still suspect not, considering UCF is still well behind a 2 loss LSU, and only 1 spot ahead of a 2 loss Syracuse, that doesn't really have an outstanding resume. I think last year UCF was behind 4 two loss non-champs?
I rank Michigan over Notre Dame because I like Michigan and don't like Notre Dame.I like this kind of honesty.
Similarly, I'd rank OU at #127.
If Auburn would have beaten UGA last year you don’t think they would have been ahead of 1 loss non-champ Wisconsin?I don't know, that's interesting. I do think they are going to avoid 2 loss teams if at all possible. The thing that muddies the water there is a 2 loss Big Ten champ Ohio State, which just beat Wisconsin. They could use the TCU/Baylor argument to knock them both out and just roll with Auburn, like they did with Ohio State.
I think you're right but I'm also a fan, so that's nothing. Instead, I'll say that both of us would be sweating it out. It'd be close.you'd be sweating it out, but i'd be going in expecting to be left out. i'd be pleasantly and confusingly surprised if it was bama. last year i thought we had a legit argument, this scenario i wouldn't.
I don't know, that's interesting. I do think they are going to avoid 2 loss teams if at all possible. The thing that muddies the water there is a 2 loss Big Ten champ Ohio State, which just beat Wisconsin. They could use the TCU/Baylor argument to knock them both out and just roll with Auburn, like they did with Ohio State.Going into the CCG last year a two loss Auburn was ranked #2 in the country while an undefeated Wisconsin was #4. The committee was all in on Auburn. They weren’t trying to avoid putting them in there. They would have definitely been in there over a one loss Wisconsin and, if Miami has beaten Pitt, a one loss Miami.
I'm sick and tired of the limitations of the poll voters. No, their polls don't matter, but it's a larger point.Wait, you complain that the sheeple voters are slaves to total losses and just rank teams in order of their losses.
WV loses yesterday, they drop in the polls. Fine. They fall right behind Texas in both polls. Their win over the Horns 2 weeks ago is rendered meaningless.
WV has one fewer loss than Texas, but the idiotic voters are slaves to WHEN you lose, still. Why did WV and Texas bother playing their game???? Why have the last-second win? Why go for two? Two weeks later it's thrown out the window.
Wait, you complain that the sheeple voters are slaves to total losses and just rank teams in order of their losses.Thanks for injecting the "feel superior" bit in there. Very cool.
Then when they fail to follow that narrative, you complain they they are NOT slaves to total losses, and you invent some new reason to bash them and feel superior.
I find that... fascinating.
1. Alabamalast week you had Texas at #9.
2. Clemson
3. Michigan
4. Notre Dame
5. Washington State
6. Georgia
7. LSU
8. West Virginia
9. Oklahoma
10. Ohio State
No, I forgot them. They're still at 9, with OU at 10.Maybe you should take more than 5 minutes when doing this.
It doesn't take much to feel superior to one of the poll voters. Most wildlife are...you may even be as well.
Army and Pitt became the 52nd and 53rd teams to be ranked this season, setting a record for the most ranked teams since the poll expanded to 25 in 1989. The previous high was 51 teams ranked in 2008.Boy, you really want me to be wrong, don't you?
This doesn't sound lazy.............
This is why folks wanted to try computers back in the day. "We" learned that algorithms are subject to weirdness at times. Thanks Al Gore!!!By this, I think you meant "We learned that algorithms don't contain nearly as much of the inherent bias as people do." Right?
By this, I think you meant "We learned that algorithms don't contain nearly as much of the inherent bias as people do." Right?I’m with CD on this. Some of the stuff these computers spit out defies explanation. Sagarin is one of the more well known and cited computer rankings. Here are some of his current gems.
No, I mean what I said, algorithms are the classic example of GIGO.I couldn't disagree more.
And that is why we almost NEVER hear about computer rankings today. If they had any real value, they'd be front and center.
most reasonable systems mirror the lazy AP pollHow do you define "reasonable"?
btw, the committee having Florida at 11 is nuts. Florida is nowhere near the 11th-best team in the country.I think you’re falling victim to a certain fallicy. You’re imagining the 11th-best team in the country has to be a certain thing, a certain level of quality. And it doesn’t. It just has to be better than the batch of teams from 10-20 or so. And Florida might be because it’s a jumbled middle.
Which team below Florida is better?I have Florida #16 in my rankings. Not that my opinion is the standard but I’m with OAM that of all the teams in the top 25 Florida is probably more over valued than any other team, imo.
A lot of teams LOOK over ranked until you check the alternatives who look no better.
We all have opinions. Computer algorithms are just complex human opinions, in general, adjusted by humans over time to make them appear to be "more reasonable", which means, more like human polls. I bet with time one could perfect an algorithm that would mimic the AP poll 90% or better.
And what would that accomplish?
And of course in football, you have the inherent problem of lack of syllogism.
I have Florida #16 in my rankings. Not that my opinion is the standard but I’m with OAM that of all the teams in the top 25 Florida is probably more over valued than any other team, imo.some would blame SEC bias
some would blame SEC biasI have no idea. Maybe. I don’t get too worked up if I rank a team in a particular slot and someone else ranks them a couple of spots differently. Most of the time I can see the logic of it even I don’t necessarily agree. But I have found where they have put Florida especially curious this year. But I also think they are over valuing LSU so I guess they are over valuing Florida’s win over them.
If computers were the end all for rating football teams they would all have similar conclusions. They don't. They are all different. Ergo, they are no better than human polls.Well, no better than the humans that programed them.
I am sorry but the current Kentucky team that just got hammered by Tennessee could not hold a candle to the Kentucky team of two months ago and having Florida above them in the standings is completely justified. Sometimes teams run out of steam. That is what happened to Kentucky.Most people seem to think this way, but again, this is all about the sliding scale of resume vs eye test. Right now, UK's resume is stronger than its eye test. So is Florida's.
That was rhetorical. You have a much more precise knowledge of UNL than any voter that doesn't cover the Huskers.One could argue that’s good and bad. You might have an implicit bias to notice the flaws more than other teams’ flaws.
One could argue that’s good and bad. You might have an implicit bias to notice the flaws more than other teams’ flaws.I agree. Knowledge of your own team with an emotional attachment is a double edged sword. OAM has been much higher on WVU all season than I have.
True, but if I'm "too" hard on my Gators, it's because of my knowledge of them. I'd take the '08 or '96 Gators vs anybody, and my confidence is in direct relation to their quality of play. Florida is 8-3. 2 of those are FCS. So 6-3. Lost 2 games it was favored and upset LSU. The most specific difference in Florida this year is it's offense - instead of ranking in the 100s, it's in the 60s. An offense in the 60s is good enough to score big on crap teams, but clams up really badly against defenses with a pulse.The offense compared to great Florida teams means nothing to being No.11. Just doesn’t. Losing in games when you’re forced, especially one early in the season is not even that useful a metric, other than it hurts the feelings of bettors and that team’s fans.
I'm afraid the committee voters are even a lot like a TV announcing crew. They fly in, get the depth chart, find out how to pronounce everyone's name, and get a narrative blurb on the team. Interview a few of the notables, and then announce their game as if they have ANY familiarity with the team. They do a pretty good job, considering, but slip up plenty - to the eyes and ears familiar with the program.
Ranking Florida 11th isn't criminal, but it isn't correct, either.
They arguably are worse. I believe they are definitely worse early in the season, and arguably worse even now. That is why you have to look pretty hard to find any there days, and they do vary quite a bit because the algorithms are different. Which one is right? We really have no idea.None are right or wrong because there is no right or wrong.
Part of that is because the team that is 18th will beat a team that is 5th about 30% of the time, and that means "We" have absolute knowledge and omniscience and KNOW the real rankings.
And of course Week One rankings would change over time even if We had omniscience.
Getting to 8-3 after a 1-4 start would indeed be amazing.:021:
Getting to 8-3 after a 1-4 start would indeed be amazing.They are THAT good ...
I prefer body of work over how are they playing nowSo much this.
injuries and other strange things happen in college football, early in the season and late in the season
to be a truly great team and merit a top 4 slot, you need to come out of the gate well and not stumble early
I prefer body of work over how are they playing nowThis. Not 100% this, but this.
injuries and other strange things happen in college football, early in the season and late in the season
to be a truly great team and merit a top 4 slot, you need to come out of the gate well and not stumble early
So much this.not only this, but ya gotta have a bit of good luck to either go undefeated or only one loss
Injuries are part of football. The schools that have enough depth to withstand them are better "teams" than the ones that don't.
so, the uproar won't be the end of conference champ games?The fans wouldn't want to see a crap team win a CCG and make it into the playoff, but the other conferences would love it. Depends who you think is wagging the dog - fans or insider decision-makers.
Dern it!
How would you personally rank a team that started out "house afire" and won 8 straight over some top level teams and then had injuries and lost the next 3 to midlevel teams? They are 8-3 now, not that impressive, but they also have 3-4 impressive wins, early in the season, and an 'excuse". Body of work? Or how they are now?I tend to shy away from the time aspect. They just play so few games. Things shift so much. Trends are a little about perception. I know some people like them, but ones I like more don’t.
Consider whether the injuries are season ending versys "out for three weeks".
In a less dramatic situation perhaps, imagine a team looks great, has two key injuries, and loses two late season games to finish 11-2, but the players are supposed to be back in 3 weeks. Take Alabama as an example, great looking team, 3 critical injuries and they lose to Auburn and UGA to finish 11-2, do they merit consideration for the playoff or not?
unfortunately this leads MOST teams to schedule lightly in SeptemberFIFY
I think Bmam should be in if they lose to the Dawgs, dern fine team
Georgia is in if they win - top 2 are in if they lose
Texas and Washington, a la the AP????Yeah, I dropped them below Notre Dame this week for the first time all season.
Do you realize how many ranked teams Clemson has played this season? Number 18 Syracuse, and they beat them by four, at home, and No., 22 A&M who they beat by 2. Clemson has looked good beating a bunch of bad teams. The two teams they played with a bit of a pulse they beat by a total of 6 points.
I think Bmam should be in if they lose to the Dawgs, dern fine teamClemson would have to get crushed by Pitt. Which is very unlikely. Miami's DL crushed pitt's OL (who lost their best player on the OL 2 weeks ago) and Clemson's DL is similar in talent.
but, if Clemson loses to Pitt??? it's questionable, of course not any good 2 loss teams
Part of me is listening to the "Clemson hasn't played anybody with a heartbeat" yet.Opposing coaches might hopefully think this....until their OL has to block their DL. Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth.