Polls, shmolls

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:11 pm

Can you smell the stench coming off this thing?

1. LSU (58) 6-0 1,498
2. California 5-0 1,416
3. Ohio State (2) 6-0 1,399
4. Boston College 6-0 1,283
5. Oklahoma 5-1 1,145
5. South Florida 5-0 1,145
7. USC 4-1 1,000
8. Oregon 4-1 936
9. West Virginia 5-1 931
10. Virginia Tech 5-1 913
11. Missouri 5-0 897
12. South Carolina 5-1 823
13. Arizona State 6-0 763
14. Florida 4-2 714
15. Wisconsin 5-1 689
16. Hawaii 6-0 632
17. Cincinnati 6-0 578
18. Kentucky 5-1 493
19. Illinois 5-1 425
20. Kansas 5-0 390
21. Florida State 4-1 213
22. Texas 4-2 195
23. Georgia 4-2 188
24. Purdue 5-1 149
25. Auburn 4-2 143
Others Receiving Votes
Virginia 67, Tennessee 60, Texas A&M 52, Texas Tech 44, Rutgers 44, Boise State 37, Connecticut 36, Indiana 30, Penn State 27, Michigan 22, Maryland 20, Wyoming 18, Clemson 16, Colorado 15, Wake Forest 12, Nebraska 10, Mississippi State 6, Brigham Young 6, Alabama 6, Kansas State 5, Stanford 4, Michigan State 3, UCLA 2.
Dropped From Rankings
Rutgers 21, Clemson 22, Nebraska 23, UCLA 25.

These things ar so full of bullshit.

-USC is too highly rated, most would agree. But aren't they probably the best one-loss team in the country. But they lost more recently than OU....bullshit.
-Why is BC ranked so high? Because they haven't lost yet? Who cares. They'll lose at least 2 games and should be ranked accordingly. Bullshit.
-USF and OU are tied.Undefeated USF won in Auburn and beat then #5 WVU. OU lost to shit Colorado. Bullshit.
-Florida is the 14th best team in the land while on a 2 game losing streak. Bullshit.
-Wisconsin drops 10 places while losing by 5 (I think), on the road, to a top 20 team who was favored. SC drops 6 spots while losing at home to a 40+ point underdog starting a back up QB who had completed one pass in the entirety of his college football career. Fucking Bullshit!

I'm sure there's more, but I'm feeling too nauseated to continue.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:28 pm

pretty much agree.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:31 pm

BTW, I think the 15th-ranked Badgers bounce back against #34 PSU this week, despite being 6-7 point underdogs.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:37 pm

It will be tough for PSU to beat UW.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:45 pm

We will try not to break the old man's other leg.

See You Next Wednesday · Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:01 pm

I think that Wisky fell primarily because nobody was really convinced they were the #5 team in the country before the illinois game.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:14 pm

question: Where would you put UF then?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:18 pm

T REX wrote:question: Where would you put UF then?

Same place as I'd put all of their fans -- in the brig for buggery.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:09 pm

Why is BC ranked so high? Because they haven't lost yet? Who cares. They'll lose at least 2 games and should be ranked accordingly

I don't understand this. So teams should be ranked according to losses/games that haven't even occurred?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:52 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Why is BC ranked so high? Because they haven't lost yet? Who cares. They'll lose at least 2 games and should be ranked accordingly
I don't understand this. So teams should be ranked according to losses/games that haven't even occurred?

Who cares?

That rant from Wolverine Steve was so rackable, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

But yes, you're correct. Teams can only be ranked on the games that have been played.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:44 am

War Wagon wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Why is BC ranked so high? Because they haven't lost yet? Who cares. They'll lose at least 2 games and should be ranked accordingly
I don't understand this. So teams should be ranked according to losses/games that haven't even occurred?

Who cares?

That rant from Wolverine Steve was so rackable, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

But yes, you're correct. Teams can only be ranked on the games that have been played.[/quote

A. Mgo, I was on a roll, logic need not be applicable. The core message being that the polls are bullshit is the only point I'll defend.

2. Thanks WW, I'll take the rack. I only wish my CFB bro's would recognize the bullshit.

c. I know that Mgo and I are on differring ends of the poll debate, but c'mon, even he must admit that there is some shady shit going down.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:49 am

T REX wrote:question: Where would you put UF then?

They should be behind every undefeated BCS conf. team, and most 1-loss teams. No doubt, they should be the highest rated 2-loss team, and even that can be argued. But the fact remains, Florida is on a 2-game losing streak.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:32 pm

Yet you say BC should be ranked lower?

Contradict much?

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:43 pm

well, he is putting together an entirely new school of philosophical thought. and it's not like he just said this:

A. Mgo, I was on a roll, logic need not be applicable. The core message being that the polls are bullshit is the only point I'll defend.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:46 pm

T REX wrote:Yet you say BC should be ranked lower?

Contradict much?

Yes, behind South Florida, Missouri, and maybe Arizona State. No contradiction there. He's right on that money about the Forida Gay-turds.

Shine · Post by **Shine** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:30 pm

WolverineSteve wrote:Others Receiving Votes
Indiana 30, Penn State 27, Michigan 22,

Gotta love seeing this though.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:55 pm

c. I know that Mgo and I are on differring ends of the poll debate, but c'mon, even he must admit that there is some shady shit going down.

I don't think polls are an ideal system (take a wild guess what I think is?), but they comprise the system we're stuck with, so debate and discussion related-to is totally warranted.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:26 pm

It's not all about "on paper" talent, Sam. I think the idea is to objectively factor in both who you think is good along with actual, on-field results. If we don't put stock in that whole wins/losses thing, then there'd be no reason to actually play the games. Might as well just suspend play for the next 50 years and rotate national titles between USC, Florida, LSU, and Oklahoma.

Oh, and of course Cal and Iowa.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:42 pm

Fair enough, but none of that has happened, so I don't see the point of debating it. Florida doesn't have a win over programs like OU or OSU. In addition, a loss to an unranked team at home should also factor into the result.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:20 pm

^^some in here have argued that point.

priceless.

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:04 pm

Michiganfan griping about poll positions...LOL.

Maybe if the Big Fem would nut up and start a championship game, they wouldn't be so dependent on the votes of sports writers, who selectively rank teams in order to hype big matchups for the next two weeks.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:37 pm

USC fans have long pointed at other teams win loss records and said "yeah but who did you beat and who did they beat?" Time for USC fans to point at their own team and say the same thing. The Trojans are 4-1 and those 4 wins are vs Nobody and the Trojans next 2 games are vs Nobody. Its not until USC goes to Eugene that this team will play anybody and even IF the Trojans get to that game at 6-1, I dont know if they belong in the top 15 let alone the top 10. They have no leadership at the WR position with Jarretts early departure and are painfully shallow in depth at O Line which doesnt look to improve for another year or two.

T1B

Polls, shmolls

Polls, shmolls

Re: Polls, shmolls