Final Regular Season Blogpoll Draft Ballot
 |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | |
| 2 | Texas |  1 |
| 3 | TCU | 1 |
| 4 | Cincinnati | 1 |
| 5 | Boise State | 1 |
| 6 | Georgia Tech | 2 |
| 7 | Florida |  5 |
| 8 | Oregon | 1 |
| 9 | Ohio State | |
| 10 | Iowa | |
| 11 | Virginia Tech | |
| 12 | Penn State | 1 |
| 13 | Oklahoma State | 5 |
| 14 | LSU | 5 |
| 15 | Pittsburgh | 3 |
| 16 | Oregon State | 2 |
| 17 | Miami (Florida) | |
| 18 | Stanford | 3 |
| 19 | Nebraska | 1 |
| 20 | Utah | |
| 21 | Arizona | |
| 22 | Central Michigan | 3 |
| 23 | Texas Tech | |
| 24 | Clemson | |
| 25 | North Carolina | |
| Last week's ballot | ||
Dropped Out: Southern Cal (#16), Brigham Young (#22), Houston (#24).
As someone who's a huge fan of the little guy, I really wanted to get TCU or Cincinnati ahead of Texas, but the more I looked at their resumes, the less I could justify it. Both might an equal say among their top group of wins, but the 'Horns have so much more depth in their schedule that the end carries them through (5th best win for Texas: Nebraska. 5th best win for TCU: Colorado State?). In fact, there might be an argument for moving Cincinnati ahead of TCU, but not Texas.
Other than that, everything is pretty straightforward. USC drops completely out from #16, but they probably should have been lower last week anyway. Stanford probably shouldn't have dropped, but again, they were probably overrated by me last week.
There are a couple big movers who didn't play, but their jumps were more based on teams ahead of them losing (and a closer look at the resumes by me) than anything else, so I don't feel too bad about it.
Where did I go wrong? Let me know in the comments.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:51 AM ^
I'll say it again: Losing by thirty of an ultimately 7-5 team is not the mark of a top 15 team.
Florida falls below GT? Really?
December 7th, 2009 at 10:26 AM ^
I get where you're coming from, but who deserves their spot?
For example it's a similar distortion, but no less technically untrue, if you were to say "Oklahoma State has only lost to a 10-win team on a fluke interception, to the #2 team in the country, and to their in-state rival, on the road without their starting quarterback in good health, completely without their running back and best TWO receivers, in a place where that rival team has only lost twice in the last ten years."
December 7th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
How can you have Utah ranked and BYU dropping out?
BYU has lost to Florida St. and TCU. Utah has lost to Oregon, TCU, and BYU. They probably should both be ranked, but having Utah ahead of BYU is indefensible given the head to head result.
Also, dropping Florida below a 2 loss GT is absurd. They have one loss to the #1 team.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
Dang it, you stole my thunder.
How is Utah ranked ahead of BYU?
Thank you.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:10 AM ^
Oregon looked outstanding on thu. night.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
about nine games this season ... they crapped the bed in Boise, gave Purdue about thirty-six chances to win (which frankly amazes me, Purdue should have won in Autzen, the same place where USC was completely pwned), and didn't play well against Stanford.
The rest of the time, they looked about as good as the MSM were telling us USC would be this year.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:13 AM ^
But the winner of the SEC and the Big 12 have clearly gone through a far tougher schedule than TCU or even Cincy (particularly given the fact that the Big East are pretty much second rate teams). So, and though I don't like Texas or Saban, the 1-2 matchup is right on the money. For the Big 10, I think the tOSU-Oregon and Wisconsin - Miami matchups should provide some excellent football.
And now...I realize I will continue to get negbombed but doesn't it just taste so bittersweet to all us true Michigan Men to see what Harbaugh has done to Stanford? WIth their tougher recruiting standards he continues to bring in top recruiting classes and finish in the top 20. He's not going to Notre Dame. He's going to be Stanford's version of a Mike Krchyevskyski. Damn.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:01 PM ^
Can you PLEASE put up just ONE post in which you don't pat yourself on the back for stating an opinion that you know will be "negbombed" but, by God, just needs to be said for the benefit of us all? Also, please stop speaking on behalf of "all us true Michigan Men" -- I think it's safe to say you don't speak on behalf of a good number of them. Finally, I'll bet you a dollar that Harbaugh's not at Stanford longer than a couple more years -- unlike Mike Krzyzewski (who I assume you were referring to), I don't see Harbaugh passing up a pro coaching offer, regardless of what happens with Notre Dame or other college offers.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
so just SHUT UP about him please. Thank you.
-True Michigan Man; from day 1.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:12 PM ^
since Harbaugh has become almost a hot-button topic here. But there is already a literature of comments on Harbaugh brought about by Brian's old post from two years ago. It looks like this post precedes the Mgopoints days, so all the comments are labelled "Anonymous (not verified)," and some of them are hotly stated and even contentious. Perhaps you think they should be disregarded on this account. I'm just wondering if harsh rebukes such as this one give you pause or whether you've been there done that with them already and can help put them in context.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^
I probably wouldn't drop Pitt 3 spots for losing on a botched extra point. They played a good game against your #4 team. Oklahoma State should probably not jump Pitt or Oregon State.
December 7th, 2009 at 6:09 PM ^
I wonder if Cinci and Pitt would be ranked anywhere near the same way if Pitt's holder hadn't bobbled the snap for the extra point and Pitt had gone on to win and be the conference representative. Trying to apply a transitive logical system to events that frequently don't play out on the field in accordance with the transitive law is one of the logical conundrums of the beauty-pageant approach to ranking teams, and why we seemingly have very nearly as many split mnc's in the BCS era as in any comparable stretch of the old bowl era.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^
Agree with Erik, who has OKst beaten this year? Texas Tech?
December 7th, 2009 at 10:16 AM ^
You might be right, Texas' schedule might be deeper, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how Nebraska is their fifth best win. Oklahoma, Ok. State, Tech and who else are you categorizing as a better win? Is it just because they were extremely lucky to get by Nebraska? Looking purely at wins and losses, I'd say Nebraska is Texas' second best win. To me, it looks like you are cherry picking so that you can say "see how much better Texas' fifth best win is than TCU's." I could very easily make the argument that if you look at the top four wins for each team (Cincy: @Pitt, @Oregon St., WVU and @Rutgers. TCU: @Clemson, Utah, @BYU, @UVA. Texas: @Ok. St., Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas Tech), Cincy and TCU match up or best Texas and conceed that any of these teams would have run through the rest of their schedules.
Also, I don't know what to make of this, but PSU, Ok. State, LSU and Pitt have zero wins over top 25 teams between them? Maybe it's worthwile to credit lower ranked teams for good wins rather than punish them for bad losses?
Finally, I agree with erik_t, there's no justification for dropping Florida below Ga. Tech.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:22 AM ^
I want to know how Nebraska is Texas's 5th best win. I see 1, maybe 2, wins on their schedule that are better than Nebraska: Okie State and maybe Texas Tech. I assume the other 2 are the win over a 7-5 Oklahoma team that Nebraska beat and, hmmmm, Texas A&M? Missouri? I have no idea.
The way I'd rank their wins is:
Texas: Okie State, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Missouri, TAMU, Kansas, UCF, Colorado, Wyoming, UTEP, Louisiana-Monroe
TCU: Clemson, BYU, Utah, Air Force, SMU, Wyoming, Virginia, UNLV, San Diego State, Colorado State, Texas State, New Mexico
I'll give the schedule strength edge to Texas, but TCU had exactly two games all season decided by 10 or fewer points - 14-10 at Clemson and 20-17 at Air Force. Texas had 4 such games - 34-24 at home vs. Texas Tech, 16-13 against Oklahoma, 49-39 at TAMU, and 13-12 against Nebraska. TCU has been utterly dominant on both sides of the ball all season (albeit against a extremely top-heavy MWC schedule), whereas Texas showed little consistency on either side of the ball against a fairly terrible Big 12 slate.
I'm not disagreeing with the Texas vs. TCU comparison, but I also don't think it's as cut and dried as people think.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
Facts don't belong on the internet. That being said, I agree with this analysis. TCU vs Texas would probably produce a 10-point TCU win.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
I'll agree Texas had a little tougher schedule than TCU but no way did they have a tougher schedule than Cincy. Cincy's top three wins are all against teams ranked higher than Texas' top win (which was Nebraska btw, not sure how you think they're the fifth best win, clearly the second best team in the Big 12). OKie State is the highest ranked team they've beaten, but as mentioned before, ranked lower than Cincy's top 3 wins. What else? 3 points over a 5-loss Bradfordless Oklahoma team? Texas Tech?
The perception the Big 12 is better is just false.
The bottom of the big 12 is just as bad as the Big East, Baylor and Colorado are about the same as Syracuse and Louisville. The conferences have the exact same percentage of teams going to bowls. The Big East actually has a higher winning percentage as a whole.
Then Texas best nonconference win would be home vs. UCF as opposed to Cincy's road win at Oregon State, a team 5 points away from a BCS bowl. Second best nonconference win for Texas would be Wyoming and Cincy against perennial bowl team Fresno State.
If you wanna say Texas is the better team, that's your opinion (personally I think TCU is better than both Cincy and Texas) but I struggle to see how Texas resume is better than Cincy's.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
So let me get this straight. Florida plays in the toughest conference and ends up with one loss. Georgia Tech plays in a crappy conference and ends up with 2 losses. One of those losses was at home to a team that lost to Florida by 24 points and ended up a very unimpressive 7-5. The other loss was a complete manhandling at the hands of Miami. And Florida is behind Georgia Tech? You've seriously got to be kidding me.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^
I agree with this, but for one thing -- I think the PAC 10 was tougher than the SEC this year, and maybe enough so that 2-loss Oregon deserves to be ahead of 1-loss (and a real turkey at that) Florida. Maaaayyyybe
December 7th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
I second the idea that Florida should be above Georgia Tech. Better record, better result vs. common opponent.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:00 AM ^
Rethinking scheduling stuff per those above me, I don't see how Texas' schedule is inarguably superior to TCU or Cincy. And TCU's (at least) _resume_ (as distinct from schedule) is unquestionably superior to me; Texas left at least one loss on the field.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:37 PM ^
1) Resume cannot exist distinct from schedule. Blowing out teams that might be competitive in intramurals is not more impressive than squeaking past a ranked team.
2) Colley's SOS ratings: Texas 42, Cincy 66, TCU 92.
Sagarin's SOS ratings (granted, Sagarin's rankings make no sense this year): Texas 44, Cincy 63, TCU 88.
There isn't a whole lot more meat at the top for Texas, to be sure, but their weaker games were vaguely losable instead of Miami-OH and a 2-9 1-AA team (Cincy) or nine teams ranked #60 or worse (TCU).
December 7th, 2009 at 11:13 AM ^
I find it interesting that Oregon and Oregon State both lost spots... did they somehow both lose the Pac 10? Put GA Tech back where it belongs, please.
Also, I don't get everyone's fascination with Penn State flirting with the Top Ten. Seriously? Their only merit right now is that they are scheduled to play a relatively poor LSU team... which they will probably lose to.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:59 AM ^
Although I try not to get in the habit of telling people that their opinion is wrong, GT over UF seems unjustifiable.
Edit: This was meant to be placed as a reply to post #13
December 7th, 2009 at 12:15 PM ^
Other than being a conference champion, Ga. Tech is behind Florida in every other measurable. The best (imo) is common opponents. They both played Vandy, FSU, and UGA.
Ga. Tech:
Vandy W 56-31
FSU W 49-44
UGA L 24-30
Florida:
Vandy W 27-3
FSU W 37-10
UGA W 41-17
Furthermore, if Florida played at Ga. Tech, who would win and by how much?
Just b/c the ACC is a BCS conference doesn't mean it's that good. Do you think the ACC champion deserved to be ranked ahead of Michigan at the end of the 2006 season?
December 7th, 2009 at 1:29 PM ^
Nice post Sharik
December 7th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
GT over Florida makes little sense.
Also I think you should reconsider Cincy vs. TCU. If you're going win by win I think Cincy's schedule is much much deeper.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:25 PM ^
with polls, with 'mythical' national championships; even if it did partly screw Michigan over a decade ago.
But, what pisses me off to know end is how the chosen voters will vote a team, e.g. Georgia Tech, over Florida, even though THEY ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE FLORIDA WOULD KICK GT'S ASS, because they go through these silly faux statistical and tentative moral notions like, well, I can't punish GT for losing, or, well, one team lost their conference title, the other didn't.
Wrong.
You think Florida is better than Georgia Tech? If yes, put them higher.
Oh. Makes me so mad!
December 7th, 2009 at 9:29 PM ^
And what pisses me off to no end is people who do things like "I know Oregon lost to Boise, and Boise hasn't lost, but I still think Oregon is the better team, so I'm putting Oregon ahead". Vote based on what has happened, not some hypothetical games played out in your imagination.
(That's not to say that GT ahead of Florida is even remotely defensible. It isn't. One has a loss to the consensus #1 team. The other has two losses to a decent team and a mediocre team. Quality wins are about even between the two. I don't see any measure by which GT in front makes sense. But I'd much rather have people voting based on who someone has beaten and/or lost to than what they think would happen in a hypothetical game, results of actual games be damned.)
December 8th, 2009 at 5:41 PM ^
Yes, what has happened, like Oregon over USC, Arizona, Utah, Oregon State, etc. Boise over... Nevada?
Boise beat Oregon, I get it. Nearly every other game the two teams have played other than that says Oregon has put together a better resume. One game cannot be a team's entire body of work.
You are wrong. You have been wrong ever since I moved Oregon ahead of Boise. End of story.
Comments