T1B

Uhhh, Sam, you only had eight. You skipped 8 on your way to 9.

Mine:

1. Alabama
2. Penn State
3. Texas Tech
4. Florida
5. Texas
6. Oklahoma
7. USC
8. Oklahoma State
9. Utah
10. Boise State

Penn State
Alabama
Texas Tech
Florida
Texas
Oklahoma
USC
Oklahoma State
TCU
Utah

1 Alabama
2 Penn St
3 Texas Tech
4 Florida
5 Texas
6 OU
7 USC
8 Oklahoma St
9 Utah
10 Boise St

1. Florida
2. Alabama
3. Penn St.
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma
6. Texas Tech
7. USC
8. Oklahoma St.
9. Missouri
10. Ohio State

Cuda wrote:1. Florida
2. Alabama
3. Penn St.
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma
6. Texas Tech
7. USC
8. Oklahoma St.
9. Missouri
10. Ohio State

Texas Tech just beat Texas, so you have them ranked two spots behind Texas?

you catch on quick, gobbles

besides the fact that if taco tech could play texas 9 more times this year they'd go 0 for 9, Oklahoma is a better team than tech.

in fact, if i had to change anything, I might put mizzou ahead of okie state

Cuda wrote:you catch on quick, gobbles

I caught on to the fact that you’re a fucking idiot long ago. Thankfully you have no voice in this process.

1. Alabama
2. Penn St.
3. Texas Tech
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma
6. Florida
7. USC
8. Oklahoma St.
9. Gerogia
10. Utah

So - I like the thread idea. Obviously Florida RIGHT NOW deserves to be ranked higher than they did early in the season. RIGHT NOW, PSU is coming off a bye.

A few teams are red hot right now, and other are cooling. It makes you wonder what motivates voters...a season-long view, or RIGHT NOW. Personally, I would hope that voters would take into account how a team has fared all season, to some degree. For example, Florida is currently hot, but they began the season in disorganized fashion. I don't think the latter should be ignored. A loss is a loss, until we get a playoff one day.

I've always been a proponent of body of work. Florida looks unstoppable right now because they have scorched their last two opponents, but they still lost to an unranked opponent at home which means OU, Ok State, and Texas should be ranked ahead of them. Especially Texas because they've already gone through the gauntler. OU and OkSU still have some unfinished business with Tech and themselves, so you probably could give Florida the nod over OU and OkSU right now. But, the bottom line is, OkSU and OU losses came against a top five opponent, so why are they ranked behind Florida? None of the three teams non-conference shedule is head and shouders above the other. OU beating TCU is the only legit win out of all of them. Now, if Florida pounds FSU, then they get the nod pre-SEC championship.

This is the same deal with USC. They lost to an unranked opponent and still are not out of the woods yet as the PacTen title holder. If OrSU wins out, then USC is not Rose Bowl bound. If USC wins out, Penn St. loses to Michigan State, Texas wins out, Taco Tech beats OkSt but loses to OU, OU wins out, 'Bama only loses the SEC title game, then how can you determine who plays who for all the marbles? You'll be faced with the following one loss teams:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Florida
'Bama
Penn State
USC

If that does not draw controversy of the highest degree and force BCS officials to amend the current rules, then the game will never change.

This is a scenario you better hope for.

mizzou is not a top 10 team, not even top15, they are regressing right now.

fatboy is forcing every throw. defensive scheme is so poor.


I know Coffman wont get Heisman consideration, but he might be the best player in CFB this season. He is carrying Mizzou. Already #1 TE in catches in NCAA history, going to break passes caught by any WR/TE in history of NCAA. hurdles defenders weekly, makes one handed td' grabs week after week. He is in a farking Zone. He has turf toe, if he's not able to shake it, MU is in deep trouble when they play KU.

88 wrote:Should I have ranked Oregon State ahead of USC based on the result of that game?

No, but you rank Texas ahead of OU because the 'horns have played a tougher schedule up to this point AND they beat OU. Who gives a shit if OU was leading for most of the game. They lost because the better team won. It wasn't like OU shot themselves in the foot to lose that game. Texas outplayed them when it mattered most; in the final quarter.

Common sense.

This is what I mean - RIGHT NOW sets aside the outcomes of games in the past, and snapshots how you feel the teams stack up as of this past weekend. From that perspective, I myself agree that OU is above UT.

88 wrote:a very good TCU team.

Billy Clyde & Shake must have had some eligibility left after all

I don't understand why teams that "play well" in defeats carries so much weight around here. To me a win over a conference scrub is more impressive than a "good loss" vs anybody. Winning is what it's supposed to be all about.

Sudden Sam wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I don't understand why teams that "play well" in defeats carries so much weight around here. To me a win over a conference scrub is more impressive than a "good loss" vs anybody. Winning is what it's supposed to be all about.

I don't agree.

Texas losing like they did was far more impressive than USC rolling over Washington, for example.

The problem with this line of reasoning is, where do you draw the line? If team A has three "good losses" and team B is undefeated vs seemingly inferior competition - who do you rank higher? Do you still take the three loss team? If you're going with that logic, wouldn't you have to utilize it for every instance in order for the argument to be effective?

Interesting.

I think best case scenario, under your previous example, both teams would equal out. Best case scenario. No way I could make a clear cut case for the team with two losses as having the "more impressive" resume.

[obama]I guess that's a fundamental difference between you and I.[/obama]

1. Alabama
2. Penn State
3. Texas Tech
4. Texas
5. Florida
6. Oklahoma
7. USC
8. Oklahoma State
9. Utah
10. TCU

Sudden Sam wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Interesting.

I think best case scenario, under your previous example, both teams would equal out. Best case scenario. No way I could make a clear cut case for the team with two losses as having the "more impressive" resume.

The lower divisions seem to be voted on this way quite often. You'll see 2 loss teams ahead of undefeated teams.

Yes, and most of the time when you see that in the lower divisions, it’s because the two losses came against teams from a higher division.

Bump...Those inferior teams dont belong. Right Sam!