TheIcon34

September 20th, 2009 at 6:46 PM ^

Why are you not pointing out that Washington should be ranked ahead of USC, I mean they did beat them and by your logic, should be ranked ahead of them? What about the fact that Oklahoma is still ranked ahead of BYU and BYU beat them? This could be argued every week in every poll, just the nature of polls.

Joined: 04/12/2009

MGoPoints: 144

mgofootball4

September 20th, 2009 at 6:57 PM ^

I'm not saying that logic is always correct for obvious reasons like USC and Washington. Usually I don't have an issue when these scenarios take place, but BYU and Florida State are both teams that are totally unproven. I guess that why it's annoying. It is early as well, things will shake out and become more accurate as the season progresses.

Joined: 06/21/2009

MGoPoints: 159

Ernis

September 20th, 2009 at 9:38 PM ^

They provide the context for all future polls. Consider if there were no preseason rankings; USC loses to UW, FSU beats BYU, all rankings = 0. Then, after week 4, rankings come out based on the prior 4 results. Where would USC or BYU fit? Would this look like the week 4 rankings based on the current system? It would take a mountain of defeats to keep USC out of a BCS bowl. Would that be the case if there were no preseason rankings?

Joined: 09/23/2008

MGoPoints: 11453

mrfoxdoc

September 20th, 2009 at 6:47 PM ^

UW just beat SC, but is ranked well below the Trojans. It's a tricky proposition, to assume that because team A beats team B, team A is "better" than team B (and thus should be ranked higher), because it doesn't take into account a team's entire body of work nor does it fit well when a huge underdog pulls an upset. I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum before. FWIW I think BYU is highly overrated.

Joined: 09/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42

bouje

September 20th, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^

They are not similar in anyway. Sure both UW and FSU are both 2-1 but FSU lost close to Miami who has looked like a top 20 team and UW lost to LSU in a close game too. But the big thing that is different is that UW was winless in the P-10 last year whereas FSU has been mediocre for awhile. Also UW barely beat USC whereas FSU completely manhandled BYU who knocked off OU (albeit without Bradford). BYU should have had a severe drop and should be +/-a few spots whereas UW still has more to prove.

Joined: 09/30/2008

MGoPoints: 4705

stankoniaks

September 20th, 2009 at 8:16 PM ^

Sure, lets base rankings of teams on their performance from last year. :X As a Michigan fan are u really sure ur trying to bring up last year as a reason a team shouldn't be ranked for their performance this year? It's a new year. Just like we're much better than last year, perhaps so is UW, which wasn't really an 0-12 caliber team, especially since their amazing QB Jake Locker isn't injured for the whole season.

Joined: 02/04/2009

MGoPoints: 1766

Mongoose

September 21st, 2009 at 2:02 AM ^

In 2006... Appalachian State beat Michigan, at Michigan. Michigan beat Illinois, at Illinois, without their top RB, and with their top QB and their top WR injured. Illinois beat OSU, at OSU. OSU went to the NC game. And yet, Appalachian State wasn't ranked ahead of OSU. Blasphemy.

Joined: 12/18/2008

MGoPoints: 1346