Okay, so we see the Blogpoll is done and all the votes are in for Florida. It would be interesting to think what the board thinks about the rankings though.
Let's say this was under the old system, where these teams were just matched up in bowls with no "championship game". Florida still has an impressive win over Oklahoma, but without the distinction of having won a championship game, do they still get #1? Rank your top five.
I'll go:
1) Utah
2) Florida
3) Texas
4) USC
5) Oklahoma
My Blog Poll
not to questions someones opinion ..... but
How can you leave out a 13-0 Utah but have Alabama at 5 when they lost to Utah?
1 Utah
2 Texas
3 Florida
4
1 Utah
2 Texas
3 Florida
4 USC
5 Oklahoma
CJK5H
1. Florida
2. USC
3. Texas
4.
1. Florida
2. USC
3. Texas
4. Utah
5. Oklahoma
...and by that, I mean helter-skelter, willy-nilly and putt-putt!
here it be
1. Flordia
2. USC
3. Utah
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma
1. Florida
2. Utah
3.
1. Florida
2. Utah
3. USC
4. Texas
5. Penn St.
here goes
USC
Florida
Utah
Texas
OU
Harvard: The MICHIGAN of the East
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
1. Mormons 2. Longhorns 3. Tebows
1. Utah
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. USC
5. Oklahoma
1. FLORIDA
2. UTAH
3.
1. FLORIDA
2. UTAH
3. TEXAS
4. USC
5. OKLAHOMA
Blog Poll
1) Tebow
...
Others receiving votes: Sodom, Gomorrah
Sooo I’m delusional and biased...
1. MICHIGAN
2. MICHIGAN
3. MICHIGAN
Proud To Be An American But Even Prouder To Be A Wolverine!
Visionary
I was tempted to do the same. This will definitely be my preseason poll; however, Michigan will be ranked 1-119 because I feel like I will have the same feeling entering next season as I did 2008.
It's great to be... a Michigan Wolverine!
13-0 has to be No. 1
1. Utah
2. USC
3. Florida
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma
The one undefeated team has to be No. 1, especially after beating the former no. 1. USC showed they have been more dominate than other 1-loss team so they should be second. Florida was good in the NC game but not good enough to stay ahead of USC.
What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve and...Those Who Stay WILL Be Champions.
BS Formula
I put all the teams into my BS formula. Here are the indisputable results:
1. USC
2. Utah
3. Texas
4. Florida
5. Oklahoma
Life should not be a journey to the grave to arrive safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What A Ride!" HST
Does anybody really think
Does anybody really think Utah would beat Florida or USC more often than not on a neutral site? They are a terrific story, but I just don't see it.
1. Florida
2. USC
3. Texas
4. Oklahoma
5. Utah
Sure
Well, yes -- Utah did beat Alabama at a site that definitely favored Alabama.
Life should not be a journey to the grave to arrive safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What A Ride!" HST
I never mentioned Alabama,
I never mentioned Alabama, because I don't think they are a top 5 team. Being able to beat a top 10 team but not being able to beat the rest of the top 5 does not make you #1, regardless of your record.
they play the games
They play the games to decide these matters. The problem with your argument is that the logic provides no room for the Oregon States that seem to always trip up USC. The bottom line is that the only team with a zero in the loss column is Utah. And they are the only team that takes a loss in hypotheticals because they are Utah.
If you have to ask twice it means that you didn't get it the first time.
So because SC lost to Oregon
So because SC lost to Oregon St and Utah beat them, that makes Utah better than SC? So....Penn State is better than SC, according to your transitive property. Wake Forest, then, is better than Florida, since Wake beat Ole Miss, and Ole Miss beat Florida. You can't use that reasoning.
The bottom line is that Utah has a zero in the loss column? These are rankings, not standings. If these were standings, the record WOULD be the bottom line. But throughout the year, there are teams ranked above others with fewer losses. Oklahoma has a 2 in the loss column and Boise St only has a 1. Should Boise St be ranked ahead of Oklahoma?
Can't say you're wrong....
Because there are a million ways to judge teams for rankings. If your sole method is who would beat whom tomorrow, then Florida or USC definitely deserves to be #1, but shouldn't it be about the body of work?
There are plenty of top 25 teams that I think would lose more often than not against non-top 25 teams at a neutral site, but those teams in the top 25 won more games. Again, I'm not saying I disagree, just giving an example of how someone could disagree with Florida over Utah.
MIIIIIIIIICH
OK, that's a valid argument.
OK, that's a valid argument. That the body of work over the entire season is more important that how good a team is right now. I've looked at the teams Utah has played and the scores, and I still would like to talk to someone who thinks that their body of work was better than that of Florida or USC. Florida lost to Ole Miss by a point (who ended up being a very good team who smoked TTU) but blasted almost every other team they played. Utah rarely played good opponents, and although they beat everyone, they struggled against bad teams (Michigan?). If those two teams switched schedules, would Utah still be the one who went undefeated?
I completely agree with both
I completely agree with both of you. Before someone can criticize one's top 5, they must first understand the frame of reference that the ranking was assembled under. For me, Utah is a borderline top 10 team because of the record. They can be included in the top 5 talk because of the way they beat Alabama. With that being said, I really struggle to put them much higher than 5 because I saw week 1's game. Good discussion!
It's great to be... a Michigan Wolverine!
That one's sort of a tough
That one's sort of a tough call for me (re: week one) because knowing with hindsight that Utah was going to be really pretty good might not have deflated this team after that loss like it did. Not saying how much of a difference that would make, but it definitely could have made a difference. In hindsight that loss was not nearly as bad as everyone made it out to be at the time.
Counterfactuals
What's the point in dealing with counterfactuals? As you pointed out, Utah beat Oregon State who beat USC but that does not mean Utah would beat USC (as Penn State proved, if you needed proof of it). This simple line of reasoning highlights the complete-bullshit factor in trying to postulate "who would beat whom" based on any evidence available other than observing an actual contest between the two.
The best we can do, then, is to deal purely with what actually happened. And the reality is, it is politics alone that kept Utah out of the BCS Championship.
1. Utah
2. Florida
3. USC
4.
1. Utah
2. Florida
3. USC
4. Texas.
5. Oklahoma
Old School Rules
1. Utah
2. Florida
3. USC
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma
Sorry big 12, bad performnace in the bowls and Texas you should have beat tosu by 14 at least.
I expect nothing and therefore never disappointed.
I'd say...
1. USC
2. Florida
3. Utah*
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma
*Undefeated, but I do not realistically think they'd beat USC or Florida consistently. If that's a bad metric, and record really is the better indicator of rank, then just throw Utah at number 1 and shift everyone down.
Touchdown Michigan!
Do you think Florida would beat
USC on a regular basis on a neutral site. I don't think so. The way each played in their final game, USC was the more dominate, more efficient and less error-prone than any other of the top BCS schools.
As of Jan. 8 USC would win more than lose against any other BCS school. Their defense was better and their offense was as good as any other in the bowl games. Okie showed nothing except they play in a defenseless conference. Alabama showed they only had a great defense in the SEC (which was weak on offense this season). Florida showed it was the only truly powerful team in the conference and better than Okie. Utah could hold their own against any of those teams on a neutral site. They may not win 6 of 10 against each, but as far as I know, there has never been a criteria for the NC that uses that as a measuring stick.
I put Utah No. 1 because they won ALL their games, including beating Alabama, which most of the "experts" said they couldn't do. USC, Florida, Texas and PSU all lost a game that by all rights, they shouldn't have lost. Therefore Utah is ahead. They took care of business.
What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve and...Those Who Stay WILL Be Champions.
In 1984 BYU went undefeated
and finished No. 1. Their schedule was much weaker than Utah's this year. Utah did all anyone could ask them to do. Win all your games, get batter as the season went on and dominate a higher ranked team in the bowl game. No one else did that.
Would USC beat Oregon St. at least 8-10 times? Sure. Would Florida beat Ole Miss 8-10 times? Most likely. Would Texas beat Texas Tech 8-10 times? Maybe. The key thing is, NONE of them did.
You have to play the schedule you are dealt and win all the games. Utah did that this year. That's all I'm saying. Would USC or Florida beat Utah 8-10, maybe, but based on the Alabama game, Utah might win five. They deserve some recognition.
What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve and...Those Who Stay WILL Be Champions.
So you agree that Boise State
So you agree that Boise State should have been national champs a couple years ago, right?
Your examples are all poor because of the teams you listed, the team that "would win 8-10 times" actually finished ranked higher.
Just because BYU did it once, doesn't mean all teams that finish undefeated deserve it. The competition was completely different that year, right?
As impressive as Utah was...
I don't think they beat Florida or USC without some unforced errors by the other team.
I do think they earned a chance to play the best teams in the country, which they they would have done under any reasonable playoff system.
Where's Charlie Bauman when you need him?
Mine is..
1. Florida
2. Utah
3. USC
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma
119. Ohio State
My 10
1) USC
2) Utah
3) Florida
4) Texas
5) Penn State
6) Alabama
7) Oklahoma
8) TCU
9) Oregon
10) Boise State
1. Notre Dame
2. Utah
3.
1. Notre Dame
2. Utah
3. North Texas
4. MICHIGAN
5. Florida
My Top 5
1. USC
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Oklahoma
5. Utah
It's great to be... a Michigan Wolverine!
I never said my OPINION was the right answer
This is a poll and we are all entitled to our opinions. My arguments for or against any team are based on criteria I deem important. I put more emphasis on the whole season than a couple of games.
as far as Utah struggling against Michigan, it was the first game for both and we all know most teams struggle right out of the gate. For Michigan it lasted all season, but still Utah improved every week of the season, except I beleiev against New Mexico or Wyoming where they had to squeak out a victory. The important factor to me is they improved over the course of the season and dominated and destroyed a previously undefeated and No. 1 ranked Alabama team on a not so neutral field.
Are USC and Florida better, stronger and possibly faster teams? No doubt. But at the start of the season all teams had a schedule to play and tough games and easy games. Utah ran the table, regardless of the competition, they ran the table. They beat a tough(at the time) BYU team. They beat TCU.
What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve and...Those Who Stay WILL Be Champions.
1) Florida
2) USC
3) Texas
4)
1) Florida
2) USC
3) Texas
4) Utah
5) Oklahoma
Post
1) Utah
2) Texas
3) USC
4) Florida
5) Oklahoma
This is based on my interpretation of the following measures, in order of importance: record, strength of losses (where applicable), strength of wins. You may ask, why do losses count more? My reasoning is this: If a team can win, then they should; if they don't, then they will be punished! No speculation involved.
My 2 cents
1. Gators
2. Trojans
3. Utah
4. Texas
5. Choke-lahoma
http://twitter.com/#!/JHScramble
1. Florida
2. Texas
3.
1. Florida
2. Texas
3. Oklahoma
4. USC
5. Utah
A few things about these
A few things about these polls, specifically about the anti-Utah plank laid out by WolvinLA.
Do I think that Utah would beat Florida in a best of seven series (ie, d I think Utah would routinely compete with them?)? No, probably not.
But the reasoning that Utah played a weaker schedule than Florida flies in the face of your reasoning that comparative results are irrelevant. If you choose to ignore the fact that Utah beat Oregon State, who beat USC, then how do you put stock in, for instance, a narrow win vs. Michigan? You can't cherry-pick the result from their schedule and claim one matters while the other doesn't. The simple fact is that everything is decided by leaps of logic in our own heads, as their is no fact that can support any conclusion. So could Utah beat Florida? Gut instinct would say no, but any attempt to assign reasoning to it breaks down - there is no factual case, because gut instinct would say that Alabama, who played Florida pretty tight, would beat them as well.
Second, the "Would they beat them CONSISTENTLY" question is not relevant at all. In no football league do they play a best of 7, or 5, or 3 to determine the winner. It's a single game. So the question becomes "Could Utah beat Florida?". Of course they could, once - any given Sunday, etc.
So the argument against Utah is, "Although it's unprovable and not supported by any factual data, I feel that their schedule was worse, because the teams they played wear uniforms with which I am more unfamiliar."
Quick Tally
Adding them up quickly, giving 5 points for first, 4 for second, etc., the poll looks like this....
1) Florida 90 pts (10 1st pl.)
2) USC 78 pts (5)
3) Utah 74 pts (7)
4) Texas 60 pts (0)
5) OK 25 pts (0)
Notre Dame, Michigan, and Tebow also received votes. So did Penn State, but somehow they lost to Michigan.
MIIIIIIIIICH
1) Florida
2) USC
3) Texas
4) Oklahoma
5) Alabama