T1B

1 Alabama
2 LSU
3 Oregon
4 USC
5 WVU
6 Georgia
7 Oklahoma
8 Michigan State
9 South Carolina
10 Kansas State

I like KSU a lot. Stout D and great QB play. That'll win you a lot of games.

I'm still taking the wait and see approach on FSU. Fucking play somebody...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: I'm still taking the wait and see approach on FSU. Fucking play somebody...

Saturday's FSU vs WVU tilt would have told us a bunch about one or both, but WVU got cold feet.

While I haven't been all that impressed by USC so far, I'm curious as to why Oregon isn't being held to the same standard here? They too haven't covered in either game, they've given up quite a few points (many more than USC has) to Arkansas St and Fresno St, and they've played both times at home.

last year KSU wasn't a world beater but they were great to watch. unlike so many teams these days, they don't beat themselves...scheme great to the talent they do have. sound tackling and shit. block and tackle. rack Darth Snyder here in round 2. who says you can't go home again. rarely do these "return to the past" hires work out.

now, that said, i hope KSU gets pounded in Norman this week. but, there's been some weird dynamic in the other Stoops-Snyder matchups. former assistants and all.

edit: OU and KSU play in two weeks. Bye week for OU, forgot.

Left Seater wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: I'm still taking the wait and see approach on FSU. Fucking play somebody...

Saturday's FSU vs WVU tilt would have told us a bunch about one or both, but WVU got cold feet.

Regardless, how much can you say you've learned about FSU after games against Murray State and Savannah State? They *could* be a great team, just gotta see it to believe it.

SEC sandbagging/teabaggin?

get a room.

anyway, Air Force is a team that is hard to prepare for and Troy Calhoun is a very good coach. i think Michigan is maybe a top 25 type team...AFA aren't the patsies that the other service academies generally are. i would not say either that beating UM is a statement win (just because it was on TV the first week) OR that AFA is a team you should roll.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: I'm still taking the wait and see approach on FSU. Fucking play somebody...

Saturday's FSU vs WVU tilt would have told us a bunch about one or both, but WVU got cold feet.

Regardless, how much can you say you've learned about FSU after games against Murray State and Savannah State? They *could* be a great team, just gotta see it to believe it.

Totally agree, we don't know crap about FSU. I was just lamenting the loss of a game between teams most have in their top 10.

Sudden Sam wrote:

King Crimson wrote:anyway, Air Force is a team that is hard to prepare for and Troy Calhoun is a very good coach. i think Michigan is maybe a top 25 type team...AFA aren't the patsies that the other service academies generally are. i would not say either that beating UM is a statement win (just because it was on TV the first week) OR that AFA is a team you should roll.

You're right. But if UM was a #8 in the country type team, they shoulda beat them worse than they did.

From what I'd heard/read before the season, Michigan was not going to be as good as some folks were suggesting. Young D-line, etc. Most folks seemed to think they'd have more losses than last year. Hoke's first year had Wolverine fans unrealistically excited.

the only people unrealistically excited about michigan this year, aside from our particular lot of inbreds calling into sports radio every day to bellow MNC OR BUST!!, were the sportswriters who'd mention the whole d line thing then vote them top ten anyhow. our receiving corps is also bad news bears and our qb is someone i wouldn't trade for anyone yet will admit doesn't quite have the skill set suited to what hoke's trying to do. we're nowhere near the top ten but we are in a shitty conference, which isn't a bad place to tread water while getting the band back together.

air force:

Maybe it wouldn't work against Alabama but pair that Air Force offense, personnel and all, with a quality defense and you're winning nine games in the Big Ten. Falcon total offense against BCS-ish foes the last three years:

2012 Michigan: 417
2011 ND: 565
2011 TCU: 416
2010 Oklahoma: 458
2010 TCU: 231
2010 Utah: 411
2010 GT: 287 (in a 14-7 win)

So unless you also run a flexbone triple option or are the 13-0 2010 TCU team that finished first in total and scoring defense and won the Rose Bowl by holding Wisconsin to 19 points (on 385 yards, FWIW), Air Force is going up and down the field on you.

Van wrote:While I haven't been all that impressed by USC so far, I'm curious as to why Oregon isn't being held to the same standard here? They too haven't covered in either game, they've given up quite a few points (many more than USC has) to Arkansas St and Fresno St, and they've played both times at home.

The 4th stringers didn't cover?

Damn.

You know those games were 100-3 late in the 1st quarter, right?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I like KSU a lot. Stout D and great QB play. That'll win you a lot of games.

Cancelling your trip to Eugene helps the win total, too.

Pussies.

(That's where the Arky St. game came from.)

Sudden Sam wrote: Nothing wrong with that.

out of the mouth of sec babes. of course, even when he gets them up and running he'll still stick to the sec blueprint for feigned success by scheduling western western mexico state for three straight weeks of home games.

It's Arky St and Fresno St, so it simply does not matter. For you to be that impressed by them because of what they did against those two opponents at home is just silly.

And yeah, Sam, there is very definitely something "wrong with that." Scheduling Winning the Snyder Way is to be mocked.

They won their first game by thirty-nine, giving up only ten points to a (usually) prolific Hawaii offense. Their second game was a snooze-fest played just outside of New York City before 60,000 empty seats in howling winds and driving rain, and they still scored forty-two by stretching it out whenever they were the least bit threatened.

While they didn't look like a #1 team, they hardly looked "pretty average." You're simply holding them to an entirely different standard, is all.

Oregon has looked better than USC to the extent that some have ranked them...a whole 1 spot higher. Big fucking deal. The season will play itself out and we'll know who's better in time.

Papa Willie wrote: I've still been watching the game long enough to understand that Oregon is very good. Though you won't want to hear it - I think they're a good bit better than USC. I've watched a good bit of both of USC's first two games, and let's just say that it was easy to figure out why they dropped after winning. Not saying they're bad. They may wake up and kick ass, but they looked pretty average in their first two games.

Pure jokeshow. Pretend like you can evaluate football talent when all you're doing is looking at scores and thinking ooooh boy I sure feel gay looking at him, as if coaches are as concerned with milking every possible point out of early season patsies than they are with evaluating their own teams.

I just know USC was the first #1 team in a very long time to win by more than thirty-five and still drop in the polls. Does it matter a Mt. Tam of beans? Nope, it doesn't. If everything else goes according to hoyle, the two games against Oregon will determine whether they get there or not.

And sorry, Seer and socal, but yep, I'm still planning on there being two USC-Oregon games this season.



Now, how insanely annnoying would this be: Both USC-Oregon games are well-played nail-biters, and they split 'em. They each end up at 12-1. Meanwhile, the SEC champ ends up with two losses, as do FSU, Sparty and either OU or WVU.

Y'all ready for USC-Oregon: Round III?

It's not impossible. With Bama-LSU setting the rematch precedent last year a Thrilla in Manilla rubber match scenario isn't all that far-fetched, particularly since their games are likely to be much more exciting than those somnolent Bama-LSU slogfests.

1. Alabama
2. LSU
3. USC
4. Oregon
5. Georgia
6. Florida State
7. Oklahoma
8. West Virginia
9. Michigan State
10. Notre Dame
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
120. Houston

Van wrote:They won their first game by thirty-nine, giving up only ten points to a (usually) prolific Hawaii offense. Their second game was a snooze-fest played just outside of New York City before 60,000 empty seats in howling winds and driving rain, and they still scored forty-two by stretching it out whenever they were the least bit threatened.

While they didn't look like a #1 team, they hardly looked "pretty average." You're simply holding them to an entirely different standard, is all.

I watched that game... and southern CAL wasn't impressive at all. Syracuse was in that game the whole way and in fact had more total yards in the game then southern CAL.

If CAL state Eugene played southern CAL today... Eugene would win rather easily. When they finally meet later in the season I have a feeling southern CAL will be so depleted on the d- line due to injuries that Eugene will blow them out in their crumbling Mausoleum.

That's certainly a distinct possibility. Oregon has also suffered a bad injury or two already, but they very likely have the luxury of superior depth.

Van wrote:I just know USC was the first #1 team in a very long time to win by more than thirty-five and still drop in the polls.

Last time that happened was to ND in 1974.

I think I read somewhere that it happened in '94 to Florida. Whatever the case, the point is that when a #1 team does its job, which USC certainly did against Hawaii, they very rarely lose their spot at the top.

People were clearly just itching to anoint Bama.

They could've scratched that itch by just ranking them #1 to begin with.

The voters (finally) did it correctly.

With Bama having so many new starters this year it made sense to hold off on ranking them above a USC team that was returning nineteen of twenty-two starters plus all their kickers. Same thing with LSU, who also returned many more starters than Bama.

Go Coogs' wrote:1. Alabama
2. LSU
3. USC
4. Oregon
5. Georgia
6. Florida State
7. Oklahoma
8. West Virginia
9. Michigan State
10. Notre Dame
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
120. Houston

Hey. It's all about outscoring your opponent. Houston "does" have an effective offense....and no, I'm not lobbying for a sig bet....

Papa Willie wrote: Why is it that you gravitate towards my prostate so often? High nippage factor you have going here, Sport.

you sound butt hurt. not surprising considering the plungering you take from nearly everyone in here after ctrl-cuda'ing your own pathetic takes ad nauseum.

keep trying, chubstar, perhaps one day you'll accidentally say something legitimately funny.

Sam wrote:Why would it be surprising to see Alabama pound Michigan and move ahead of USC after their defeat of Hawaii?

Because the #1 team went out and did its job, winning by thirty-nine points. History has shown that whenever that happens, the #1 team stays put regardless of what anyone else does.

What, do you think this was the first time in eighteen years (my recollection) or thirty-eight years (Terry's) that a #2 or #3 team posted an impressive win while #1 quietly went about its business in dismantling an inferior opponent? Of course it wasn't. It happens all the time, and when it happens #1 retains its spot at the top.

This was an exceedingly rare exception. Based on precedent, it's not supposed to go down that way.

Clearly, if voters saw both games, they would assume Alabama was the superior team based on those two games.

Why? If they felt USC was the superior team going in, which was apparently the case given the Trojans' #1 ranking, their demolition of Hawaii should have done nothing to disabuse that notion.

Van wrote:Because the #1 team went out and did its job, winning by thirty-nine points.

Did they cover the spread?

Nope, they missed by one point, at least in terms of the spread we used here. Bama didn't cover last week either.

Sudden Sam wrote: I thought the idea of the polls was to vote for the team(s) one thinks are the best...in order of their "bestness".

the point of the polls is for anyone with a vote to use groupthink to autofellate. the narrative is written out beforehand and the justification follows.

Van wrote:Because the #1 team went out and did its job, winning by thirty-nine points. History has shown that whenever that happens, the #1 team stays put regardless of what anyone else does.

So put aside how it's historically worked for a moment. How do you think it should work? Don't you think a big reason why teams schedule cupcakes OOC is because they don't get dinged for it? What motivation does a team have to schedule a ranked team or two OOC if you can beat up on Hawaii and the like and keep your place in line?

Van's homerism knows no bounds.

Nothing wrong with that, we all do it, but clouded judgement nonetheless.

The reason USC ropped is because everyone saw them play... in rather mediocre style.

Dins, they didn't look the least bit mediocre against Hawaii. They won by more than thirty-five and still fell a spot. That never happens to a #1 team. That's the point.

Mgo, how I think it should work is that we shouldn't even have any polls until everyone has played six games, since most teams load up on OOC creampuffs to begin the season. In the absence of such a system, I think the voters at least ought to maintain consistency in their voting criteria. Seeing as how #1's never lose a spot when they do their job regardless of what anyone else does, that guideline should remain in effect.

I have no problem with USC falling out of the top spot following the Syracuse game. The Hawaii game, though? They should've remained #1. Everyone else in the same position always did.

Papa Willie wrote:Sorry Van, but 'Bama's absolute destruction of Michigan was just slightly more impressive than beating "Hawaii".

So what? That's not how it works. Or, at least, that's never how it worked over the past bazillion seasons. Had USC slipped up against Hawaii, that would have been one thing. They didn't.

Again, no #1 who won by more than thirty-five points has fallen from the top spot in god knows how long. That stat includes countless teams who faced identical circumstances: They beat some nobody while #2 or #3 looked impressive against a good opponent.

It happens all the time, and #1 always stays #1 until they actually do something wrong.

I know that, Jsc. I've already stated it a couple of times. My point only has to do with Week 1 and the way the voters pulled something on USC that hasn't happened in seemingly forever.

your point has been to drive home some inconsequential, niggling point about acceptable voting behavior. yes, teams ranked #1 generally aren't penalized because #2 had the luxury of a better opponent that particular week, but that rule also presupposes #1 actually has a bit of a resume to fall back on. preseason polls are based on expectations. entirely reasonable for everyone to have watched the bama/michigan game and re-evaluated their predictions.

Van being Van. Spends countless hours railing against cupcake OOC schedules, and wants every team that schedules that way to suffer except USC because a bunch of crusty old guys with a vote have been operating like idiots for 50+ years.

oh look, our little nipper taking a completely contradictory stance to his own earlier take just to make a joke no one would call funny. giggled while he wrote it, obviously.

M Club wrote:yes, teams ranked #1 generally aren't penalized because #2 had the luxury of a better opponent that particular week, but that rule also presupposes #1 actually has a bit of a resume to fall back on.

Which USC most certainly has, which is why they were ranked #1 in the first place. It hasn't mattered in the least what time of year it is, either. #1 never falls when they win by more than thirty-five.