T1B

Figured I'd get the ball rolling on this since it hasn't been started yet.

1- LSU, I still think they're the best team in the country and would pick them to win against anyone on a neutral field
2- Oregon, that loss to Cal isn't looking quite as excusable now but I still really like this team
3- Oklahoma, solid team with only the one close road stumble
4- Ohio St, the offense is starting to come around but I'd still favor those first 3 over them at this point
5- Boston College, still not sold on them but at some point the 0 in the loss column does count for something and even though VT has an inept offense a road win on a Thursday night is impressive
6- Kansas, fully expect them to lose a game (or two) down the stretch but they earned this lofty ranking
7- Arizona St, another team I expect to lose down the stretch but with the schedule they have if they don't they'll rocket up my rankings
8- West Virginia, me thinks if they'd have been healthy for the USF game they'd be undefeated right now
9- Missouri, starting to think they might not stumble to the finish line like in recent years
10- Georgia, knocking off UF the way they did really impressed me
11- Auburn, I know they've lost 3 times but on a neutral field I'm hard pressed to pick anyone else over them
12- Virginia Tech, have a D worthy of a top ranking and an O worthy of Div-2 status
13- USC, no shame in losing at Oregon and this team still has lots of talent, the Stanford loss still an ugly mark though
14- Texas, thanks to a mediocre roster of teams they're able to show up this highly ranked
15- Alabama, a host of good but unimpressive teams to pick from so I'll go with Bama for no real reason other
16- Hawaii, as long as they remain undefeated I'll keep them ranked but they are NOT a legit team so they'll barely crack the rankings

I agree with your top 4, nothing below that really matters anyway. But....Hawaii isn't even a top 25 team. BC and ASU will fall. VT and USC don't belong in a top-16. Just my opinions. I think you got the top right, which is all that matters in this quagmire of a season.

I point out that Hawaii is a fraud team BUT for me that 0 in the loss column means enough that they'll come in at 16 each week for me until they lose.

If VT and USC are out then who takes their place??

Where did this 16th team bullshit come from? It's top 15.

1 Ohio St
2 LSU
3 Boston College
4 Oregon
5 Oklahoma
6 West Virginia
7 Arizona St
8 Kansas
9 Missouri
10 Georgia
11 Texas
12 USC
13 Virginia Tech
14 Michigan
15 Hawaii

I think we used to do 16.

1. OSU
2. LSU
3. Oregon
4. BC
5. ASU
6. WV
7. OU
8. KU-have beaten KSU, ATM, and CU ALL on the road. That is not small potatoes.
9. Mizzou
10. Georgia
11. Bama
12. USC
13. Va Tech
14. Michigan
15. Wake Forest-haven't lost since week-2 and their qb was out then

1 tOSU - they have done everything asked of them including not losing to teams they shouldn't
2 BC - hard to put them there but hey a Va Tech meltdown away from being out of the race
3 LSU - offense is shaky and coach miles sometimes leaves you wondering but immense talent
4 Oregon - prolific offense...wow
5 OU - run through the Big 12 and outside shot at BCS berth
6 ASU - big game this saturday
7 KU - great team in a potentially watered down Big 12?
8 WVU - slaton and company are rolling
9 Mizzou - chase daniel and company just keep piling it up
10 Georgia - How fucking sweet was that!
11 Michigan - potential big one on Nov. 17th
12 Bama - Big one looming this weekend
13 Wake - rolling
14 Va Tech - catch the on side kick dude
15 Hawaii/USC

others Sconsin, Purdue, Texas, Tennessee

1. tOSU
2. Oregon
3. LSU
4. OU
5. WVU
6. ASU
7. MU (Mizzou, for the KC crowd)
8. KU
9. Ga
10. USC
11. Mich
12. Fla.
13. BC
14. VaTech
15. Wake

Ohio State is more and more proving they are deserving of that #1 ranking. They haven't lost and they haven't really come close to lose either. That team seems to be getting better with each week. I don't think there is a team on their remaining regular season schedule that can expose them. We'll see if they face Michigan with Hart and Henne at or near 100% but I'm becoming more and more convinced they will go 12-0. We'll see what happens to them in early January but at this moment, they are a legitimate #1 football team.

I find it more and more interesting that as the season has rolled along...the teams LSU, Oklahoma and Oregon have lost to are progressively getting worse but yet these three teams are still getting a pass over teams that haven't stubbed their toe.

LSU lost in triple OT on the road to a team at the time had one loss but now has 3 losses.
Oklahoma lost with a last second field goal on the road to a team that is now 5-4.
Oregon's close loss at home to Cal seemed acceptable at the time but the Bears have now dropped 3 in a row and are a far cry from the contenders they appeared to be early in the season...does that loss look less impressive now?

Bag on BC for winning ugly but they are winning games. Is it fair to ignore a loss for a team that may appear to be better than the group of unbeatens? For one game this season, those teams weren't the better team on the field...shouldn't that come into play at some point? These unbeaten teams appear to have flaws and weaknesses but they just haven't faced an opponent that could expose those weaknesses enough and take them down. Until it happens, you have give them a little more respect. I think this just adds fuel to the fire for a posteason tournament of some kind. These debates over this team would beat this team shouldn't be an issue...we should be able to see it for ourselves played out on the field.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Where did this 16th team bullshit come from?

And this coming from a guy who wants a 16-team playoff? Shame on you, Mgo.

L45B wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Where did this 16th team bullshit come from?

And this coming from a guy who wants a 16-team playoff? Shame on you, Mgo.

I had included a 16th team in my poll this season as the phantom #16 seed.

I still am a big supporter of an 8-team, home-field advantage playoff system that rewards conference winners and eliminates teams with no business playing for an NC (with regard to at least the last 50 seasons of CFB).

Danimal wrote:I think we used to do 16.

Ahhhh, yes. My apologies to Shine for being a dick.

Shine wrote:8- West Virginia, me thinks if they'd have been healthy for the USF game they'd be undefeated right now

Since when weren't they healthy going into that game?

L45B wrote:I still am a big supporter of an 8-team, home-field advantage playoff system that rewards conference winners and eliminates teams with no business playing for an NC (with regard to at least the last 50 seasons of CFB).

I'm definitely more in favor of 8 as well. I'm cooling on the idea of having every conference represented in a 16-team playoff. If you look at the non-BCS conference leaders with the exception of Hawaii...it's a lot of 3-5 loss teams. These teams would be massacred if they ran into LSU, Oklahoma or Ohio State. I think you take the six conference champs and two at-larges but put in an exemption for any non-BCS conference unbeaten to get an invite. This would be the ultimate proving ground and it keeps the emphasis on the regular season and how important it is to win your conference. I'd be more excited about winning the Big Ten if he meant advancing to the national playoff instead of a bid to the Rose Bowl, where the reward just isn't the same.

Shoalzie wrote:Oregon's close loss at home to Cal seemed acceptable at the time but the Bears have now dropped 3 in a row and are a far cry from the contenders they appeared to be early in the season...does that loss look less impressive now?

You mean back when Kal was the #2 team in the country... back before they lost their Jr QB who they had bet the farm on and replaced him with a freshman, and back before DeSean Jackson decided to take the rest of the season off?


Do you actually follow CFB Schotz, or just follow along closely enough to bitch about the lack of a playoff and how some shit team running up an unbeaten record with a shit schedule is getting the shaft?


Let me guess -- somehow in your answer, you'll manage to include the names Henne and Hart... we get it.

Shoalzie wrote: Is it fair to ignore a loss for a team that may appear to be better than the group of unbeatens? For one game this season, those teams weren't the better team on the field...shouldn't that come into play at some point? These unbeaten teams appear to have flaws and weaknesses but they just haven't faced an opponent that could expose those weaknesses enough and take them down. Until it happens, you have give them a little more respect.

So by this line of thought the rankings at the top should be:

1- tO$U
2- BC
3- ASU
4- KU
5- Hawaii

Sorry but I'm not buying what you're selling.

Shine wrote:

Shoalzie wrote: Is it fair to ignore a loss for a team that may appear to be better than the group of unbeatens? For one game this season, those teams weren't the better team on the field...shouldn't that come into play at some point? These unbeaten teams appear to have flaws and weaknesses but they just haven't faced an opponent that could expose those weaknesses enough and take them down. Until it happens, you have give them a little more respect.

So by this line of thought the rankings at the top should be:

1- tO$U
2- BC
3- ASU
4- KU
5- Hawaii

Sorry but I'm not buying what you're selling.

OSU has not played a team currently ranked in the top 25 if I'm not mistaken. And don't give me any crap "well, they were ranked when we played em". Horrible take.

If OSU makes it to the title game.....

Opponent 42
tosu 14

Book it.

Dinsdale wrote:how some shit team running up an unbeaten record with a shit schedule is getting the shaft

Hey the big 10 is #1!

You are trying to become the next board bitch with a take like that.

Sin,
WolverineSteve, Sky, Snake, ect.

I wouldn't go that far, Shine...you're taking my statement to the extreme. I'm just trying to understand why a team that wins all their games can be discredited while a team that has lost doesn't get discredited for said loss. Were these losses flukes? I'm getting the sense from many of you that they were but they did happen. What happens if these teams lose a second time...would those flukes as well? Do you still put a 2-loss LSU team in the title game over an unbeaten Boston College because you still think they're better?

Ranking these teams now have become more of an exercise in discrediting a team's resume and not about taking wins and losses for what they are. If Kansas and Arizona State do run the table...which would include wins over Oklahoma and Oregon respectively...is that enough to earn your respect? I'm trying understand where losing a game doesn't count when you're perceived to be a great team but a team that does win every game is considered a fraud.

Shoalzie wrote: Do you still put a 2-loss LSU team in the title game over an unbeaten Boston College because you still think they're better?

No, but a one loss LSU is still better than those undefeated teams.....opinion that will be settled if LSU can run the table. I think they will.

T REX wrote:

Shoalzie wrote: Do you still put a 2-loss LSU team in the title game over an unbeaten Boston College because you still think they're better?

No, but a one loss LSU is still better than those undefeated teams.....opinion that will be settled if LSU can run the table. I think they will.

That is true...I was just putting that out hypothetically. LSU to survive the SEC with only one loss will be very impressive. The major one-loss teams LSU, Oklahoma and Oregon have quite a gauntlet in front of them and in the process could defeat and eliminate Arizona State and Kansas from this discussion.

I kind of want to see those teams win out instead of seeing Arizona State and Kansas go unbeaten because the title game would be unbeaten Ohio State vs. unbeaten Boston College and then listen to the arguments over how the one-loss Tigers, Sooners and Ducks should be in that game over either or both teams. Another ugly scenario would be having Ohio State, Boston College, Arizona State and Kansas win out and have LSU win out since Oregon and Oklahoma would have a second loss in this case. Let those arguments begin whether a one-loss LSU team should be in the title game over any of those four unbeatens. My fellow BCS-haters will laugh with glee.

The BCS's worst nightmare could take place this season if either situation holds true. I highly doubt we're going to have full closure to this season no matter what two teams meet in the title game. We could have 1-3 teams with legit beefs at being shafted for the title game.

If anyone had said before the season that the Big 12 would have 3 top ten teams at the end of October and two of them would be Kans and Zoo and the only undefeated one would be Kans - well, I'd be really, really poor cuz I'd have prolly given that individual 100-1 odds

Shoalzie wrote:I wouldn't go that far, Shine...you're taking my statement to the extreme. I'm just trying to understand why a team that wins all their games can be discredited while a team that has lost doesn't get discredited for said loss.

Ranking these teams now have become more of an exercise in discrediting a team's resume and not about taking wins and losses for what they are. If Kansas and Arizona State do run the table...which would include wins over Oklahoma and Oregon respectively...is that enough to earn your respect? I'm trying understand where losing a game doesn't count when you're perceived to be a great team but a team that does win every game is considered a fraud.

Who's discrediting anything?? Just because I don't rank tO$U #1 doesn't mean I'm discrediting them. Rankings are a fluid thing that can, and probably should, change every week. As things unfold you adjust accordingly. I had KU, BC and ASU much lower 2 weeks ago but the fact they continue to win games has moved them up in my rankings. Should they continue to do so they'll continue to move up. There's a reason I have shit-ass Hawaii in at 16 and that's because despite being a fraud of a team they have 0 losses. Not losing any games certainly does count for something. At the same time losing only 1 game doesn't completely invalidate everything else a team has done.

But as my post points out, you can't just simply rank teams based on the number of wins and losses or else you would have a top 5 like I listed.

MuchoBulls wrote:

Shine wrote:8- West Virginia, me thinks if they'd have been healthy for the USF game they'd be undefeated right now

Since when weren't they healthy going into that game?

Going into the game they were, actually playing 4 quarters of that game they were not.

The Mountaineers lost White late in the second quarter after the junior quarterback took a helmet to his right thigh on a running play. He limped off the field and remained on the sideline, but did not return.

Perhaps poorly phrased on my part but what I was trying to say is that if WVU had played at full strength that whole game IMO they wouldn't have lost. Speculation to be sure and just my opinion but that's all rankings are.

Shine wrote:

MuchoBulls wrote:

Shine wrote:8- West Virginia, me thinks if they'd have been healthy for the USF game they'd be undefeated right now

Since when weren't they healthy going into that game?

Going into the game they were, actually playing 4 quarters of that game they were not.

The Mountaineers lost White late in the second quarter after the junior quarterback took a helmet to his right thigh on a running play. He limped off the field and remained on the sideline, but did not return.

Perhaps poorly phrased on my part but what I was trying to say is that if WVU had played at full strength that whole game IMO they wouldn't have lost. Speculation to be sure and just my opinion but that's all rankings are.

Seeing as to how we have limited Pat White the last 2 seasons I don't think I'd be going out on a limb by saying we would have won that game had White remained in there for 4 quarters. WVU's back up QB was more effective in that game because he was beating us with the pass, which then set him up to run. White wasn't doing anything in the passing game to make us drop more guys into coverage, thus we were able to stop the run and punish him when he was tackled. We did the same thing in 2006 and knocked him out of the game for a few series as well. Seeing him in that Rutgers game the other day also confirmed my suspicions that he a pussy. He went to the turf on a few occaisions to avoid the hit.

We match up well with WVU because they are a finesse running team and we have the speed on D to contain them from going outside. A power running team like Rutgers has been able to knock us around the last 2 seasons because they have a big O line that can push our D line around. WVU's O line isn't built that way.