Sorry Brian, I don't agree with your poll, never have. I also don't agree with the fact that any one who voices disappointment gets their comment taken off.
Generalizations get slightly less haphazard:
Notes and stuff:
BOY WAS I RIGHT ABOUT LSU. And by "right" I mean "not right." Their combination of wins can't be denied. Q: should a hypothetical one-loss LSU get into the national title game over a hypothetical undefeated Wisconsin if Oregon and WVU are ten-win outfits? I say yes. Wisconsin needs to man up, stop drinking the wrong beer made from rice by Europeans, and schedule an actual nonconference game this century. I may have them entirely too high since they've played no one at all, but we'll find out a lot about them this weekend.
IT WAS REAL, BOISE STATE. Sorry, but other teams are playing other teams and beating other teams instead of not doing so. Moving Nebraska ahead of the Broncos is probably not cool since they only played Wyoming, but Washington is looking legit—moreso than Georgia, anyway.
JUST IN TIME FOR THEM TO EXPLODE. Welcome Clemson to the top ten. I am getting enthused about their prospects, which means they're about to lose inexplicably.
BOY, DO I HATE THE MIDDLE OF THIS POLL. I liked Illinois preseason but then they go out and squeak by Western Michigan the same week Arizona State handles USC. So they've got a win over a ranked opponent and need to go up. So there they are. I don't like it, but on resume it's hard to deny them.
Similarly, I hate putting South Carolina's interception factory in the top 15, or Baylor, but I don't have much choice.
TEXAS DROP. Bye week plus re-evaluation of Rice win given Baylor beating them badly.
MICHIGAN. Notre Dame win has a little more cred and San Diego State is expected to be a solid upper-tier MWC outfit, so they creep up.
Sorry Brian, I don't agree with your poll, never have. I also don't agree with the fact that any one who voices disappointment gets their comment taken off.
agreed with a ballot posted like an hour ago?
Don't worry about explaining why; it will only (possibly) legitimize your argument.
I mean the poll is one thing, but I've never experienced someone's comment getting taken off for only disagreeing. Are you sure the comments you're talking about weren't offensive or rule breaking in some way?
I can only speak for myself, but I've never pulled a comment for "voicing disappointment." People bitch about random shit all the time, and while they are often mocked until our throats are sore, they usually remain. Threads titled "I IZ CONCERNED!!!" tend to get pulled, but only because we don't need a new thread for every person's opinion.
As mentioned above, individual comments are usually removed for either (a) being racist or otherwise inappropriate, or (b) containing unsubstantiated rumors.
maybe he's talking about his comment getting minimized for being moderated down?
One note of disapproval, and it's considered trolling. Just shows people on this site aren't open to other opinions.
Amuses me. Don't forget, the Internet is forever, so no matter how right you are for the rest of your life, there will always be this.
I mostly agree. Illinois at 13 is too high though, especially after a 3 point win against WMU. And I'd put Arkansas in the poll before I put in USC.
Arkansas hasn't done anything. USC has a win over Utah, which seems like a quality win after they annihilated BYU.
But they almost lost to Minnesota, which... yeah.
Utah is a quality win? Keep in mind, they were a blocked short-FG away from going to OT against Utah, at home. They were a play away from losing to Minnesota who has lost to South Dakota St and New Mexico St. Their only game away from home they turned the ball over 4 times en route to a blowout. USC has done nothing to deserve a spot in the rankings.
All anyone on TV ever talks about is how Bielema is 23-0 against non-conference opponents and who do they play? SoDak? Theyre a joke and I cant stand them.
Disclaimer - Boise State fan to some degree (order of magnitude smaller than M fandom though)
"Wisconsin needs to man up, stop drinking the wrong beer made from rice by Europeans, and schedule an actual nonconference game this century."
vis a vis this:
"Sorry, but other teams are playing other teams and beating other teams instead of not doing so."
You already examined Nebraska in this way, now subject Wisconsin to the same scrutiny... Note that while Toledo is 1-3 having seen parts of their three losses, would imagine they would be favored against anyone Wisconsin has played so far. And interestingly, Tulsa is already a common opponent for Boise State, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.
Edit- I'm failing at blockquoting, someone get the damn kids off my lawn...
Yeah, but this is when Boise needs to be playing someone. Wisconsin still has the B1G season to prove themselves, when does Boise prove they belong?
No doubt Wisconsin has a much harder schedule over the year, I have the (perhaps mistaken) impression that Brian is looking at results to date when assembling his ballot. If Nebraska's OOC schedule is the reason to move them ahead of BSU, how does that thinking translate to Wisconsin's perpetually putrid OOC games?
A scholar and no doubt a gentleman
"I love to win. Love it. Football is just too hard and too tough if you’re not successful. This isn’t just recreation, and the sport isn’t for everybody. I just don’t want to expend all this time and effort and come up short.” -Bo Schembechler
Year in and year out, Wisconsin's pre B1G schedule is almost always composed of very weak competition. While Wiscy certainly has significant fire power on O, some of those numbers they run up mean nothing. Moreover, they seem to do the same thing year after year. If Wilson can put up those same numbers next week and Nebraska, I will be a believer. Until then, you simply don't know just how good they are.
vs. Tulsa (who has also played Okla. & OKSt)
vs UNLV (beaten similarly by Washington St.)
vs Oregon State (losers to FCS Sacramento St.)
vs Northern Illinois (Lost to Kansas)
vs. South Dakota (FCS)
vs. Chattanooga (FCS)
vs. Washington (let them get a little close towards the end)
vs. Fresno St.
I agree that BSU should be higher, but then again, I do live in Boise. They didn't just beat Georgia, they crushed them. The final margin didn't come close to reflecting how dominant they were. Georgia features a Wisconsin-esque O-line that averages 330 pounds, and they were getting owned by the BSU D-line. I also would probably take Kellen Moore over just about anybody in the country if my team needed a TD and only had about two minutes to play. His passing is so precise it is almost surgical. Also, they were playing a lot of backups early against Tulsa in order to stay healthy so that they could get revenge on Nevada next week, and yet they still had a margin of victory that was only slightly less than that of Oklahoma and OK St.
I am not arguing that they have a tougher schedule than someone in the SEC or the Big 12, but at the same time, every time that they are given a chance to play a quality team, they answer the bell. If they are undefeated, I would love to see them play in the NC, but at least I would like to see them play in a BCS game against one of the SEC or Big 12 powers to see where they stack up.
their win vs ASU is a nice one, but their game vs WMU is also something that you wouldn't expect from a Top 15 type team. I'd flip flop TAMU and Illinois...even though they came from ahead to lose at home, Okla St is a legit Top 10 team. Illinois barely beating WMU shouldn't be rewarded so handsomely. Sure Illinois ASU win looks great with ASU punking USC but if you make those kinds of comparisons, Michigan should be closer to Illinois since UM punked WMU.
agree with everything except illinois. i realize the asu win looks pretty good right now but winning a 3 point squeaker over a middling to bad mac squad at home should not get anyone moved up 6 notches.
Truth be told, I think WMU is one of the top tier MAC teams this year. They had a pretty good outing against us, and if they hadn't been plagued with turnovers could have made it downright uncomfortable. They demolished CMU (which admittedly just lost by a similar score to MSU) and at this point I'm inclined to think that keeping it close with Illinois is more to their credit than the Illini's discredit. They should run wild over much of the MAC this year.
I am actually starting to believe that this may be Stanford's year. I dont see anyone in the PAC12 beating them and if they run the table I would assume that they get into the National Championship game as long as Oklahoma and one or both of LSU or Alabama lost.
still expecting the punchline about Illinois at #13?
Plus: expect 1/2 of the Big12 to drop in the next 2 weeks. Texas will lose, A&M will lose again, OSU are being set up for a fall with this top 10 business, and KState may be able to hold off BaylorBears complete and utter lack of defense.
Also: VT and Clemson play each other next, Nebraska and Wisconsin play each other next, I also expect South Carolina and Oklahoma to drop 1 sooner rather than later.
Also: Boise should run the table, yet again, because they only schedule 1 real game a year, and USF shouldn't have any trouble with the "teeth" of the Big East. (Cincy might get them.)
No, you are not alone in your disbelief over Brian's continuing hard on for Illinois (all hail our merciful Overlord, Mr. Cook!). I suspect the root of Brian's love for Illinois is that he (and I believe he has even stated this himself) loves the RR/zone-read option offense which Illinois still runs. Or it could be that Ron Zook's hair reminds him of GERG.
Back when Brian did this instead of Tim there was always a Big Ten team he hilariously overrated until they lost a couple times. He looooooved Iowa in 2006 (preseason #2! And I think he kept them top tenish until Alan Branch made Drew Tate think he was in Mecca) and I think Purdue in 2005.
To be fair, I think Illinois is the third best team in the conference, but wouldn't rank them higher than 20 or so.
Illinois does not run the RR offense. They've got a lot more triple-option elements. Their offense is somewhere between OSU's and Georgia Tech's.
Illinois did beat Arizona State, who freaking destroyed USC...Then they almost lost to Western...
I'll just come out and say it, I think Michigan has improved more than Illinois. And Michigan won last year. Its hard to justify ranking them ahead of Michigan.
Considering the source though, I'm not surprised.
Both teams are 4-0.
Michigan managed to luck their way into a victory over a solid Notre Dame team that is now 2-2. Make no mistake, this game was far more about Notre Dame's inability to close than Michigan's ability to win (As we've seen from the last two weeks, all of the people foolishly claiming that Denard was making quality intelligent "fade" throws rather than just playing jumpball, have been proven wrong. He is just woefully inaccurate right now and in that Notre Dame game needed some serious Hemingway/Gallon bailouts on top of poor secondary play).
Illinois is 4-0, and while they scraped by WMU - who by the way did give us trouble - they also beat a 3-1 ASU team with victories over USC and Missouri.
You can easily make the case to put Illinois over Michigan. However, it is tough to make a case that Illinois should have jumped up 6 spots after they barely beat WMU. So if you wanted to argue that Illinois shouldn't be so far ahead of Michigan, you would have a legitimate argument.
IMO, just because Arizona State beat up on USC is no reason to have Illinois ranked that high. Minnesota had a shot to beat the Trojans. And this is a team who lost to New Mexico State and South Dakota State. A win over USC today is not what it would have been 4 years ago. Illinois is too high and the Big Ten does not look very good 4 weeks into the season.
I'm not sure Wisconsin is the #5 team in the nation but with the schedule they have, it's not going to be tough to rack up a ton of wins. The best team they play all season is Nebraska and they have them at home. Their none conference schedule? A joke as always. The Badgers non-conference opponents since 2003 have a .310 winning percentage. This has gone past the point of being ridiculous.
I like the combination of bold+caps. It's like a guy talking way too loud in a quiet place, which is funny to me.
A&M really deserves to be higher. Their one loss came against a ranked outfit and only by one point. They should be ahead of the Illini for example.
I like the point about a one loss LSU deserving national championship love.
If we're going to keep human polls (no playoffs) we need to reward strong OOC scheduling. The whole middle of the poll is hateful because it features a bunch of teams who scheduled poor OOC schedules. I'd really say move WVU and A&M up to reward them for strong OOC / starting conference play early. Banish the people who scheduled FCS teams to #15 or lower and keep them there until they pull out some signature win.
And on the same lines, Okie State, Clemson, and Boise all deserve to go above Wisconsin, if only because we kind of know something about them and that something seems good (though the minute you start thinking that about Clemson, they're guaranteed to go right in the toilet). While the beef machine seems like it's still running at Wisconsin, let's see them next week before they get to be in the top 5. (Of course, Stanford's open to the same critique, but Arizona's at least in the "plausible loss" category.)
Wisconsin needs to man up, stop drinking the wrong beer made from rice by Europeans....
Rice is really an American way to make beer...just sayin. As much as it pains me to pull for Wisconsin, they seem to be the only B1G school that can compete with the likes of Alabama and LSU. But I guess we will see after the Nebraska game.
Still dont think Michigan deserves to be ranked. But, in working out my ballot right now this morning, I am having a hard time not including them. The paint is drying and I have them at 24 right now. Still hemming and hewing on some things before its finalized and posted at the JCB
I guess I'd like to actually see them not implode against the meat of the Big 10 before putting them in and risking the wrath of Coulter/Krugman Curse.....then again, I am an IU rep in the poll, so maybe thats not an issue!!
I think teams like Missouri, USC, Utah, Washington, Auburn, and a host of others would beat Michigan and they arent making my poll.......Beat State on 10/15 to be go to 7-0 and then I wont feel like a worthless Homer by including them.
I don't think Michigan is great by any means, but USC and Washinton are not good and I think we beat them soundly.
only the record of each team, and BCS conference unbeatens will always rise higher at this stage of the season, regardless who they have played. The polls are more for fans and TV ratings and otherwise have very little meaning right now.
Teams that have had a "bad" loss thus far should fall. USC is overrated based on their last game. I also think FSU without their starting QB will continue to struggle and tsio's loss to Miami took a new perspective as K State showed how weak Miami is.
While I agree it'd be nice to see them play some tougher competition, I also wonder how easy it is for them to schedule tougher competition.
I have no idea how hard Boise trys to schedule tougher competition, but I'm guessing there's a lot of teams that are not interested in playing Boise either.
It is my understanding that BSU will play anybody anywhere (including "neutral site" games like Georgia at the Georgia Dome and VT in DC), but people don't really want to schedule them. If they are going to risk losing to a top 10 team, most teams prefer to schedule a traditional powerhouse that will bring instant credibility if they beat them. If you lose to BSU, you take a hit because you lost to a non-BCS team, and if you beat them people will write it off as beating an overrated MWC team.
I may be a homer on this comment, but...
I don't think losing by 1pt to a team ranked higher than you should mean tumbling 7 places in the poll, especially when you were playing w/o your top defender that game