Michigan should be #1!
alternate headline: man does job
Michigan should be #1!
Trick question, Ditka is God.
Ditka v. a hurricane, but the hurricane is named Ditka.
Their NFL passing attack will finally end the SEC's reign of terror. The only problem I see is the possiblity of playing Oregon twice. If USC's secondary depth issues pop up, those are going to be coinflip firework shows.
Morris to Treadwell with a brick wall line and pounding RBs will pick up the torch in 2014.
There has been way too much emphasis on schedule strength in discussions of pre season rankings. How good a team is and how tough or easy their schedule are independent.
agree, schedule strength should not be factor of pre-season rankings. beg to differ, if you feel the same for final season rankings. last year, definitely think we caught a bit of a break having some big games at home. this year, not so much. if oregon had anyone else on the schedule except lsu as a first game, believe most likely they would have played in bcs game.
still believe alabama should never have had the second chance to play lsu, that should have been okla st.
I agree as well. If you use the SOS argument, then last year you could make the case that Michigan was preseason top 25 team based on the schedule.
I'm not sure I understand the position of those who don't think that schedule should be a consideration in determining pre-season rankings. As I've always understood them, pre-season rankings are not power polls. They are not merely trying to estimate which teams have the most talent overall, but rather are trying to predict which teams will end the season having had the best season.
To put it another way, the final version of these polls are supposed to measure which teams had the best season overall. Why do people expect that a pre-season version of the same poll would be based on an entirely independant criterion (team talent), rather than on the criterion that accounts for the final poll?
Well therein lies your problem, you don't understand what the polls are about.
They are about ranking the teams in order from best to worst, they aren't about ranking them from who you think will make the championship to who you think won't.
Agreed, they won some big games, but their defense was bad, and they lost some key players last draft, while Oregon should be even better with a sophomore deanthony thomas. Oregon should be the top Pac 12 team, and a fee schools on the list really will drop off of it and stay off it this season.
This, for the love of god.
SOS and preseason rankings are quickly becoming a huge pet peeve of mine.
I think we should always be #1. I'm in favor of Michigan never losing a game. I don't understand why other schools can't accommodate this request.
head says usc, but heart always screams, "Meeeshigan!" (in a very ufer-ish voice, of course!)
Their tears would be so much sweeter after losing in the Big House.
should always be preseason #1 in my opinion.
only thing about that though, there is so much turnover in college. you might have an entire squad with few if any remaining players to start the new season. agree if you are talking pros, but not college. besides pre-season rankings are such bs, let the games decide.
Maybe if every team in CFB was the same, and no players ever showed improvement from year to year.
They won last year, not the current year.
I'm gonna have to go with USC. I can't say that I'm much a fan of USC, but anyone that can bring down the SEC, I'm ok with.
And it's not even all that close. The addition of Redd will be big and while their defense is somewhat a weak spot they will be able to score in bunches against any defense they line up against.
I think USC is a bit overrated and Oklahoma might sneak-up this year because they were such a dissapointment last year.
People say that about Oklahoma every year though, they're like FSU, except with more BCS losses
At least OU has been making BCS games. They've been pretty reliable to make the BCS (and then yes, lose subsequently)
Michigan. If you aint first you're last.
Based on the USC we saw by the end of last season, and given that they team returns most starters -- plus a few that played at half-strength, plus Redd -- I'd have to go with them. Barkley, as a senior, should be awesome. And their schedule borders on soft. Their toughest road game is at Stanford, and their only top-10 opponent is Oregon (in LA).
Fortunately, despite their ability to land so many blue-chippers, I think they'll take a step back over the next couple years. The scholarship reductions will impact the Trojans' depth. Teams can't be great without a deep bench.
Since I can't start my own thread, I present to you, Mgoblog, my submission for worst post ever.
I hate Scum and Hoke's fat ass shity attitude
Warm - Posts: 5 - Views: 344 - Started by: Woody Hayes
Woody Hayes360 posts
I have to say, the cockyness he displays and the way he disses us has made me really not like this man. I think his need to attempt to make "the game" seem to be all there is, is kind of back firing on him. Recruits have reported being turned off by it, and though yes, I like any die hard S & G bleeding homer, want nothing more than to beat the shit out of Scum every year - I loved the Dick Rod era, that beat down of 45-0 or something like that a couple years back was a very good day. But this fat cat has taken it to another level. Yes, he should want to beat OSU, but as reported by recruits, he is not talking about BIG championships and national championships - well UFM is. That is why in the end UFM will own Joke - he wants to win it all - not just beat Scum.
3 hours ago
Cool Starry Bra
Was that. It reads like an osu fan who has no clue what he's talking about and that he majored in English at msu
There is no doubt in my mind that this post is just a Michigan fan making fun of OSU fans. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Is there not a single Buckeye who understands basic grammar?
Love me some MIAA football, but for the record Brits > Scots
undefeated since 1878
Stongest team on the OL and DL. USC has the flashy skill players, but they have some major question marks on the DL. Alabama has to replace a lot of players in their defensive back seven, but they have the talent waiting in the wings. USC has little depth at OL and DL.
USC's offense is loaded, but you are correct, they have had two season ending injuries on the DL and will probably lose a game for it. I don't think there is a clear choice for a #1, making this season a little more wide open than years past.
Post-spring, USC's backup DT was Zach Kusnir, a SDSU walk-on transfer who started his career at QB. USC is extremely green at DT. Unless their RS freshmen DTs are instant contributors, some teams are going to gash their defense.
As you mentioned, they already lost their starting DE and another DE in the two-deep to season ending injuries.
There SHOULD not be a pre-season ranking. How does it make sense to rank teams which have achieved nothing?
Vegas, journalists, bloggers and forum posters should be left to predict whom they think will win the most games, but the whole concept of a preseason ranking is silly.
When I clicked on this thread, I thought it was another discussion about who should wear the #1 jersey.
They should just wait till the 6th week of the season before introducing the polls.
Preason polls are awful, and then you have the majority of the voters who won't drop a team unless they lose, it's just a mess.
The one thing the BCS got right was its decision to not rank teams until well into the season. Pre-season rankings are, in addition to wild guesses, hopelessly unfair. Inevitably, many or most voters will err in favor of teams that are highly ranked from the start -- because, hey, look how highly everyone else ranks them.
But the BCS assimilated polls that started preseason into its formula.
but if Michigan can't get in the NC game I want to see an Oregon USC rematch.
I agree with USC as number one, of course a couple more injuries then they are in trouble.
What bothers me about this is a team that was supposedly slammed by the NCAA comes off of their bowl ban as the number 1 team in the country - just doesn't seem right to me.
The bowl ban cost them a shot at the Pac-12 title last year and potential Rose Bowl. The scholarship sanctions could have an effect as this season is the first year (75 total scholarships and 15 scholarships per year for next 3 years). USC has done a pretty good job planning for the sanctions by backdating scholarships and recruiting at an extremely high level, but their lack of depth at multiple positions could cost them a national championship in the next 3-4 years.
I think USC has already and will continue to pay a serious price due to these NCAA sanctions.
Good points, maybe it more the perception of a team coming off some of their punishment and being number one that bothers me. I hope that they have some down years in the next couple years because of depth issues - but being realistic that is going to mean some 2-3 loss years.
Ohio State will not feel any effect of their sanctions unless they are in a position to win the Leaders division or compete for a National Championship this year (1 year bowl ban).
Their scholarship sanctions are a joke with a reduction to 82 total scholarships per year for the next 3 years. For comparison, Michigan has been under 80 scholarships for the last 5 years just due to attrition alone (2013 will be the 1st year Michigan will be at or close to the 85 scholarship limit in a long time). The only effect this has on Ohio State is a couple walk on players will lose the potential of earning a scholarship. Every year a school will lose at least 1-2 scholarship players during the offseason due to transfer, academics, or personal conduct and those scholarships would usually be transferred to walk-ons for one year. Ohio State received no yearly limit in new scholarships like USC or PSU so they will be able to make up for any personnel losses the following year.
You may have just hit my issues with this, tt probably does really come down to the frustration that the "sanctions" that ohio got are not going to have any negative effect on them unless they light it up this year.
Well, I guess there has been benefits based on the ohio scandal, getting rid of vest for urban, who has decided to allow Ohio to open up has been nice (of course I do think that Hoke and team have more with opening up Ohio then what happened at ohio, but urban’s national view has helped). I hear there are issues trying to find tee-shirts down there.
Most Important: Veteran and top Quarterback in the country.
High-powered, slashing offense and a very solid addition of Silas Redd.
Doubt their D with get "gashed," but even if they do let some teams put up numbers on them I am sure the Offense will be more than up to the task.
Until somebody beats them, I have to go with Alabama. If it happens the first game of the season, I will be happy to change my opinion to Michigan.
The ol' cliche, to be the best you got to beat the best...I'm glad that we at least have the opportunity!
She dealt with me.
The Charlotte bobcats
University of Southern Cal.
If you read the original statement, you'll see USC was picked because they were argued to be "the most talented and the most balanced." AND THEN "they have the clearest path to 12-0."
The other team mentioned as having a "clear path" to 12-0 is OU, who were put 4th. Why? Because they "don't match up well" with #s 1-3. That would be a talent/coaching/performance-based argument, wouldn't it?
Similarly, that would indicate schedule was not the major factor in determing the relative placing of the top 5, wouldn't it?
[Now, of course, if you want to argue why those actual picks are wrong, as some have, I think that's a-ok. USC may indeed turn out to be paper tigers. All we really know at this point is the paper element, and that's highly debatable.]
...if it was my video game dynasty in year 3.
Toledo is going to win it all this year.... and recruiting is going well with the #1 HB and #4 MLB enjoying all the attention the Rockets are showing them.....
EMU. They goin to the 'ship.
My gut says USC, but I don't think they'll go undefeated this year. They have studs all over the field, but some serious depth issues. In fact, I don't think its a stretch to say that no BCS team will go undefeated. Maybe Oregon, depending on how well they can replace Darron Thomas and LaMichael James. But they're going to have to play USC twice in all liklihood.
Oklahoma is overrated, and I think LSU and Alabama will both lose at least once. Alabama loses too many playmakers, and LSU's offense is meh.
They shouldn't do rankings at all until at least the beginning of October. Preseason rankings are just guesswork, and it often works out that team A stays ranked above team B all season not because team A played better, but just because they started with a higher ranking.
Laquon Treadwell as soon as he commits.