Serious question, are these meant to be done as a joke? I haven't paid much attention to these over the years, but just seeing some of the teams on here and their placement, I have to think this is a joke. Can someone fill me in?
BlogPoll Ballot Week 3
Here she is:
I HATE LOSERS. Seriously you guys. I may have gone overboard here, but violence is called for. This is a poll. It is not a ladypoll. KEEP YOUR LADYPOLLS THIS ONE HAS TEN CALORIES.
I miss Pitbull.
Stanford #2 from unranked? Well, they beat USC, which seems like the most impressive win anyone's had so far this year. Alabama still gets the not until such time as they release my parents from their underground bunker where they're also keeping Denard's carries… but past them Stanford has the best win of anyone. Squeaking by San Jose State? Mere bamboozlery! A flim-flam scheme to catch USC a-napping. They're scientists.
It's week three. This will all figure itself out, and the worst thing to do is have poll momentum. Here we strive to give everyone poll-sickness so they have to take poll-Dramamine.
Starting to get irritated with WVU's schedule. No one else has exactly covered themselves in glory, no.
You beat teams, you go up. Missouri, Florida, and ND leap up for playing actual teams and defeating them. Missouri got nailed by Georgia, yes, but beat Arizona State which beat Illinois and there they go.
Goodbye. Dropouts are predictable save Oregon State; they are still just 1-0 and now that Wisconsin win just means they're slightly better than UNI and Utah State.
Arizona. I only talk about coaches who coach for Michigan. Stop emailing me about coaches who do not coach for Michigan. Unless I am trying to post something about Michigan's offense in which coaches who do not coach for Michigan are necessary to provide context and explanation, I only talk about coaches who coach for Michigan. And Charlie Weis.
No, I am not interested in how well that appears to be going. Leave me be, ropeholders.
Virginia Tech. I told you this would happen! (I thought they were going to be awesome.) At least Pitt's explosion against a very, very intimidating defense helps explain where all the brains were on Wisconsin's staff.
South Carolina? Will lose to Missouri this weekend, or my name's not Sam America.
Seriously not a joke. The point of this poll is not to rank based teams on "preseason expectations" but actual performance.
ARIZONA MICHIGAN ROSE BOWL WOOOOOOO
poll momentum or POLLMENTUM.
Hold on. Stanford is now the second best team in America, but USC loses to them in Palo Alto by a TD and they're 15? That's just so inconsistent. That game basically showed that Stanford and USC are equivalent, so either they're both top 5 or neither of them are. I would go with the latter, but at least be consistent.
Keep in mind that neither Stanford nor USC has beaten anyone other than each other this year, so #2 is way premature.
Easy to say "Stanford was only a touchdown" better if you didn't watch. But Stanford dominated both lines of scrimmage and manhandled USC's star-studded offense. They have the best win of the season.
USC was also playing without their star senior center. And we all know how well that works out
Duly noted. And while that is a crippling blow, you would expect a Top 5 team to be able to make up for it. Stanford looked good to my eyeballs. Serious ManBall team.
If you want to look at the how the game looked instead of the score that's fine, but then you have to say OSU lost to Cal because they were outgained by 100 yards and won only because Cal took a page out of PSU's play book on field goals. If you want to talk about how a team "looks" then how did Stanford look against San Jose State who they beat by only 3 points?
Let's agree that rankings are largely subjective and that my eyeball experience of watching Stanford play real good makes me think they could be real good. And let's agree that football is a weird sport where teams can get outgained and still win kinda handily. I mean, if the game was called "Yardage" Cal would be looking good. But it ain't.
And let's agree that sometimes big teams teams don't show up for games against small time opponents and that using that fodder for "How good are they?" arguments can be misleading.
I mean seriously...
oh well, fuck it.
Alabama has outscored the opposition 149-14
vs LSU 21-0
vs Michigan 41-14
vs WKU 35-0
@ Arkansas 52-0
I mean take this FWIW
So Ohio State barely beats Cal, with the help of a questionable holding call, like 3 or 4 missed field goals, and a blown coverage? Yet they're number 10? I get that wins>all, but Wisconsin is 2-1, yet no one thinks they're anything special
Don't worry. Arizona will be out of the poll with the quickness once Oregon drops 70 on them this weekend.
They're spotting Oregon 23 1/2. But hey that means if Oregon drops 70 on them then Arizona will score 47 points and the game will last SEVENTEEN HOURS
It's amazing what an HC can accomplish when permitted to hire their preferred DC.
Damn these callouses...
I recall that Casteel wanted to stay in WV because of family (his daughter's school, etc.). No? Yeah, things might have been a little different had he come along with RR.
Before you get too excited, keep in mind that 1) Arizona gave up over 600 yards of offense to Oklahoma State last week and 2) RR's 2009 and 2010 teams were also ranked at this point in the season.
I'm taking Missouri over South Carolina this weekend too. Top tier SEC is as good as advertised, but second tier SEC is way overrated. Go Tigers!
Side note, I hope I'm not the only person who really wants Clemson to join the SEC just so the phrase "Go Tigers" can be as confusing as possible. I'd vote for any presidential candidate who promised to put all four of those teams in the same division.
For cereal? I watched Missouri Georgia. I don't think they're in the SEC's class yet (or ever). I expect South Carolina to eat their lunch.
Brian would not make a very good pollster. OSU is the 10th best team in the country? Did you watch them last week? That's the most obvious mistake to me, and there are a few more
Excuse me but I have a pet peeve when people cry about other people's rankings. It seems like either A.) the rankings have no flavor and are written by lemmings OR B.) people try to look at the information objectively and creat eheir own rankings.
B.) should be preferred 10 out of 10 times but every time someone does that they get hammered on one or two points.
sorry, it just annoys me when people criticise and offer no alternative...
I critiqued, but offered an alternative, is that OK? Also, at one point Brian posted these with the intent of getting feedback, so I think he wants this kind of discussion. Brian doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wants all of us to say,"Everything looks exactly perfect, babe." and not just because we're mostly guys.
Here is my Top 25, which is far better than Brian's Top 25 because I did it and Brian didn't.
- South Carolina
- West Virginia
- Florida St.
- Notre Dame
- Kansas St.
- Michigan St.
- Boise St.
- Mississippi St.
So now I'm allowed to critique away! Which is now irrelevant since I already have shared all of my thoughts in a neatly-organized list.
This is nonsensical. Florida at 9?
Flordia will get spanked by:
# 2 LSU
and probably South Carolina
Florida is a 4 loss team -out of the polls.
The Irish will end up with the same record.
This isn't a future predictor device. You say Florida will lose all those games, but will they? What if Florida beats Georgia and South Carolina? Doesn't that merit a Top Ten ranking?
What's nonsensical is ranking teams based on who they might lose to.
three of them are ranked in the top 5 by the poll-maker. Shouldn't the #9 team lose to #2, #4, and #5?
Seeing Arizona/RichRod ahead of Michigan = facepalm
I appreciate all the time you spend UFR'ing Michigan football...But if mgoblog is going to have a vote in this poll, maybe you could actually delegate this duty to someone who actually watches more than one game per week? I can only assume that this poll was selected by poorly trained monkeys?
WTF was that?