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.
Thoughts?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:58 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 2:28 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 2:30 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 9:56 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 2:35 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 2:37 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 3:34 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 2:48 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 3:21 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 4:22 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 6:50 PM ^
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.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:28 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 11:13 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 3:08 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 3:22 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 5:30 PM ^
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.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:34 PM ^
September 17th, 2008 at 10:38 PM ^
September 18th, 2008 at 4:48 AM ^
September 18th, 2008 at 2:34 PM ^
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.
Go Blue.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:56 PM ^
September 20th, 2008 at 11:47 PM ^
Comments