T1B

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4375901

I know this stuff is stupid, but it gives us something to nitpick until the season starts.

Here's what they came up with:

1 USC
2 Florida
3 Oklahoma
4 Texas
5 LSU
6 Ohio St
7 Penn St
8 Alabama
9 Notre Dame
10 Georgia
11 Michigan
12 Nebraska
13 Va Tech
14 Florida St
15 Tennessee
16 Oregon
17 Utah
18 Wisconsin
19 Auburn
20 Boise St
21 Clemson
22 Cal
23 BYU
24 Miami
25 Texas Tech
26 Oklahoma St
27 Iowa
28 West Virginia
29 Ole Miss
30 UCLA
31 Oregon St
32 Georgia Tech
33 South Carolina
34 Michigan St
35 Arkansas
36 Boston College
37 Missouri
38 Kansas
39 Texas A&M
40 Arizona St

It's pretty obvious how much very recent success is weighted here; because it's history that would have A&M on the list at all, and the complete opposite of what's got Utah so high. Things that jump out at me are how low Miami is; not sure they've fallen hard enough and long enough to check in at 24. It was only 7 or 8 years ago they had some of the most talented teams in cfb. Same with Michigan. They definitely warrant a top 10, all things considered. No Colorado is kind of bunk. I'd put them on there over South Carolina, and perhaps Kansas and Ole Miss.

31 more days!!!

Michigan at #11 is about right. Notre Dame in the top 10 is unwarranted except for tradition, but that would have Michigan in there then. So a little confusion there I think.

The Top 5 look solid with LSU a little weak there, maybe have Bama in there instead.

Well, it was 3 different guys taking turns drafting teams, which is why you have some differences in looking at tradition vs. current performance. I think it looks like a fairly solid list, if you are going on the basis of trying to project where teams are going to be for the next 5-10 years.


With that said, College football isn't going to contract down to 40 teams, and I wouldn't want to see that. I guess this thought experiment is in response to the watering down of the bowl system and trying to make it easier to crown a "true" national champ, but this would be a bad way to go about it. We can do a playoff without contracting division 1.

I can't stand reading ESPN's idiots, they remind me of Vag, so I didn't click the link. It makes no sense- it seems some of them are traditional powers and others are 2000's powers. Teams like Nebraska and Notre Dame are high but neither of them are Top 20 this decade and then you've got Boise State, a team that was a nobody prior to this decade. What a completely random list. Only ESPN could create a list of teams with different standards for each pick. Way to continue to be incredibly gay and lame ESPN!

wtf is Cal doing on any of those lists?

they should be playing DII.

i say the Pac 10 should drop Kal and pick up Fresno St. It'd mos def make the conf. stronger.

Mark Schlabach wrote:The Nittany Lions have won the Big Ten two times during the BCS era. Kentucky would have won it three times.

Colorado has won an MNC more recently than nearly 3/4 of that list. Just sayin'...

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Colorado has won an MNC more recently than nearly 3/4 of that list. Just sayin'...

the first list, omitting CU is a joke compared to Kansas, Missouri, or OSU historically....or even the last 10-15 years. the only way those teams are ahead of CU is if you base this list on the last 3 seasons and that's it.

the "prestige" list, I can claim the #1 and #119 teams as primary and secondary rooting interests...first and last, Alpha and Omega. heh.

9. Florida State: 1,110
10. Miami: 1,109

Jeez, could we cut that one any closer? I guess in this one that kick curled its way back inside the upright, after first veering off wide right again.

TheJON wrote:I can't stand reading ESPN's idiots, they remind me of Vag, so I didn't click the link. It makes no sense- it seems some of them are traditional powers and others are 2000's powers. Teams like Nebraska and Notre Dame are high but neither of them are Top 20 this decade and then you've got Boise State, a team that was a nobody prior to this decade. What a completely random list. Only ESPN could create a list of teams with different standards for each pick. Way to continue to be incredibly gay and lame ESPN!

Translation: ESPN refuses to blow smoke up my ass by naming Iowa a factor in cfb this half-century including this year. Yes, I shall stand across the Missouri river and rub one out as I envision Iowa having half the success of Nebraska over the years and even a quarter of NU's tradition.

At least you got wrestling...wait NU is better now.

H4ever wrote:

TheJON wrote:I can't stand reading ESPN's idiots, they remind me of Vag, so I didn't click the link. It makes no sense- it seems some of them are traditional powers and others are 2000's powers. Teams like Nebraska and Notre Dame are high but neither of them are Top 20 this decade and then you've got Boise State, a team that was a nobody prior to this decade. What a completely random list. Only ESPN could create a list of teams with different standards for each pick. Way to continue to be incredibly gay and lame ESPN!

Translation: ESPN refuses to blow smoke up my ass by naming Iowa a factor in cfb this half-century including this year. Yes, I shall stand across the Missouri river and rub one out as I envision Iowa having half the success of Nebraska over the years and even a quarter of NU's tradition.

At least you got wrestling...wait NU is better now.

First off wrestling is gay. 2nd off, what the fuck do you mean "NU is better now"? I could give 2 shits about wrasslin' but Iowa has won the last 2 national titles and like 8,000 of the last 8,001 and from what I'm told they're a lock to win again next year. But I digress....

As for the ESPN comments........uhhh.......yeah dude, it's got nothing to do with Iowa actually. Did you read what I wrote? I said there's no consistency with the list. Some of the teams are ranked based on all-time status and others based on the last decade. Not sure how you took that as me being pissed ESPN didn't rank Iowa real high. Matter of fact, I can't even begin to think how in the fuck one could possibly take it that way. Dumb response. next.