OSU probably is still the best team in the Big 10, but without Wells, their offense is not very good at all. I think them dropping in the polls was not just about the USC game either, but the Ohio game made them look bad
OSU in polls
I'm curious as to what other people think about Ohio State plummeting about 10 spots in the polls this week - and completely out of some of the blogpoll ballots.
Frankly, I think a large majority of people expected USC to win pretty handily - especially considering that OSU was playing without Beanie Wells. That said, I still feel like Ohio State is easily the best all-around team in the Big 10 (although Penn State might give them a run). And the way the Trojans' offense looked in that game, I think they would have beaten almost anyone in the country pretty badly, especially at the Coliseum.
Personally, I would still have OSU ranked in the 5-10 range. I would have to drop them behind Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, etc., but I just can't justify having Wisconsin, East Carolina and others ahead of the Buckeyes.
The only argument that could be made at this point is that if Chris Wells is unable to play - or far less than 100% - for a majority of the season, their offense could definitely have some issues.
This might be more of an argument about the polls in general - basically, if you lose to a team you're expected to lose to that everyone now agrees is the CLEAR No. 1, I don't see how that suddenly makes you a much worse team.
If you have any real resume component in your voting, you pretty much have to drop OSU toward the bottom of the top 25 or even out. What is their resume? They beat a FCS team, they struggled with a meh MAC team, and they got annihilated by the #1 team. They can move back up once they start winning games in the Big 10 schedule, but right now that resume really isn't that good.
It's very similar to how the market treats securities, IMO. Disappoint on the quarterly call, and a stock gets oversold. Beat estimates, and the market tends to extrapolate a little too much.
OSU is being oversold right now. If it were a stock, I'd be buying on the dip.
OOOOOOOOOOOO topical financial metaphor BURN! Take that Tressel!
That's actually a really good comparison, ColoBlue.
Maybe I just look at the polls differently. If given a ballot, I would vote based on who I thought was the best team, not who had the most impressive resume through 2 weeks or who I thought played the best on the most recent Saturday.
Since when does the "best team in the Big Ten" really mean anything though? Even if the Buckeyes run the table in the Big Ten, I still think that places them at about 10th nationally. It's not like the best teams from the major conferences get the automatic 1-5 spots.
"Best team in the Big Ten" means that they should be the highest rated team in the Big Ten. Do people think that Wisco and PSU would beat OSU on a neutral field? I strongly doubt it. How about this - if OSU had played the same schedule that Wisco or PSU have, would they be 3-0? I believe so. Because teams have such drastically different OOC schedules, using a resume system is wildly inconsistent at this point in the season. Polls are meant to be subjective, and I agree that OSU should be much higher.
I think it's ironic in that one of the reasons that Pryor chose OSU was that so he wouldn't be thrown to the wolves so early like he might have been at Michigan, but now after USC debacle, he's getting majority of reps in practice and may start in next game. Oh, how things work in life...
Ha ha...sweet, sweet irony.
The sad part about the whole situation is how freaking perfect he would be in the spread and shred with Sammy Mac and Odoms. And it would have been that way for 4 years (maybe 3). Now he's playing as a freshman (which he said he wasn't keen on doing) in a system that hasn't yet figured out how to use him outside of a ISQD where he still picks up 10 yds. And will probably live in my nightmares for the next few years.
I'd like to know whether this is true or not. I never heard anything about Pryor not wanting to be "thrown to the wolves too early." Unless there's some solid info out there, I'm going to assume this is false.
Anyway, I've always been confused by lower-ranked teams falling in the polls when they lose to a higher ranked team. Like if a #10 team loses to a #1 team, the #10 team always falls lower. It doesn't make sense, especially when it's a good, competitive game. But I've never seen a losing team go higher or stay the same in the rankings. Maybe it has happened, but I sure don't remember it.
This was by no means a "good, competitive" game. You go out there and lose by 30+ in a game that shouldn't have even been that close, a drop of 10 points seems like a bare minimum. Unfortunately for us, UOOS doesn't play a schedule anything like most of the teams currently ranked higher than them and should work their way back into the top 6-7, where as we saw at the end of last year, anything can happen
You follow Michigan football right? So I'm assuming you remember in 2006, when Michigan lost to OSU, then stayed in the #2 spot the next week. Right? Bueller? Bueller?
I think that the manner in which OSU lost warrants a significant drop. Preseason rankings are based on everyone's projections of returning talent, last years finish, coaching changes, etc. As the season progresses, rankings become more and more based on performance on the field. Based on a close win against a MAC team and a blowout beyond most people's predictions against a superior USC, OSU should drop significantly. Who cares what "they could have done w/ Beanie Wells." If OSU is really an elite team they will show it against a down Big 10 and win their bowl. Until they show they can beat or play with anyone decent they can drop that much after losing by 32 points. Go BLue!
How great is it that Mr. Plow took the trip out to LA thinking "yeah, now that I'm with OSU the trip out here is going to be so different!" Waaa-waaaaaaaaaaaaaa love the taste of those sweet tears of sorrow.
And the fact they played in the NC last year.
They stood atop the big11 at the end, but let's face it, they beat MSU by 7, lost to Illinois, and ultimately beat a crippled/no-offense M team 14-3. Really if it weren't for myriad of failed contenders (Oregon putting out USC then Dixon going down, Mizzou beating KU then losing to OU), and the non-draw of an all SEC NC, they probably would not have gotten the trip to the BCS game.
Boeckman has never been that impressive, and as has been said, without beanie, they really don't have an offense at all. If beanie has extended injury issues this season, they could have a disaster of a year.
Uh, Magnus, that was the worst case of reasoning that I have ever read. The goal is to be #1; if you lose, you are going to be pushed further away from that goal. If you win, you keep moving closer. Being #1 means you most likely have a perfect or near perfect record. It's simple as that; I'm not sure how the hell that can be confusing for you.
Atleast it wasn't in the National Championship game. If OSU didn't have Pryor-this season would be a bust! With him, they "might" win the Big Ten Championship and the sweater boy's myth will live on in the heads of OSU Fans. Yes, Pryor is that good, but the coach is not. When Coach Rod gets "his" team, sweater boy won't stand a chance. If I was one of OSU's top recruits, I'd be asking myself WTF did I get myself into or can I get out now? Michigan Fans knew this season would be a tough one and so will next year. But our time will come again and for now we just hope for divine intervention-obviously,ND had it last weekend.
The point Magnus was making (I think) is that if you are the #10 team and you lose a close game to the #1 team, that doesn't mean you are now worse than #10. True, you are no closer to winning the national title, but if (as a voter) you believe that they are better than the team ranked #11, you shouldn't move them down purely because they lost.
Think of it this way: Would the #11 team have performed any better in the same circumstances? If not, why are you penalizing a team for losing to a team they SHOULD lose to? You have to do some mental comparison, because teams don't all play the same schedules ...
And I can think of one specific instance of a team losing and moving up in the polls: When Missouri lost to Nebraska on the infamous kicked ball in '97, Mizzou went from unranked to #24, or something along those lines.
I agree w/ most of what you are saying but being blown out 35-3 after squeaking by a MAC team at home warrants a significant fall. The teams ahead of OSU are capable of putting up a better fight against a #1 USC team. Until OSU proves worthy of being a top 10 team on the field I have no problem w/ them falling significantly. Maybe they just aren't that good. They were ranked high due to returning talent from a 11-2 team last year. Doesn't mean the chemistry/schedule/etc. are still there.
Played somebody and beat somebody early - hard to argue with that. Skip Holtz will being going somewhere big soon.
OSU plummeted for one simple reason: it did not look like a top 10 team. They didn't particularly look like one today, either.