Final AP Poll (5 B1G teams in the top-17)

Final AP Poll (5 B1G teams in the top-17)

Submitted by BoFlex on January 9th, 2018 at 11:36 AM

AP just released its final poll of the season.

Of note...

  • Top 4:
    • #1 Alabama
    • #2 Georgia
    • #3 Oklahoma
    • #4 Clemson
  • Five total B1G teams represented
    • #5 Ohio State
    • #7 Wisconsin
    • #8 Penn State
    • #15 Michigan State
    • #17 Northwestern
  • Others
    • #6 UCF recieves four 1st place votes
    • #11 Notre Dame

AP national college football writer Ralph Russo doing Reddit AMA tomorrow (8/3) at 1pm ET

AP national college football writer Ralph Russo doing Reddit AMA tomorrow (8/3) at 1pm ET

Submitted by Caesar on August 2nd, 2016 at 9:48 PM

AMA stands for "Ask Me Anything." Russo will be answering questions about the AP's recent top 100 list and other college football topics.

Harbaugh's barber breaks his silence

Harbaugh's barber breaks his silence

Submitted by The Mad Hatter on August 21st, 2015 at 11:11 AM

A nice AP fluff piece which includes quotes from Bill Stolberg, barber extraordinaire and Harbaugh hair cutter since the 70's.

Stolberg, 74, remembers the younger version of Harbaugh and can compare it to his present-day personality.

“He was an ambitious kid,” Stolberg said. “I don’t think much has changed

As much as Harbaugh cares about his school, a seven-year contract worth about $40 million surely played a role in luring him back. Plus, the NFL will probably remain an option.

Stolberg accepts that, but says “I think he’ll retire here. ... If he has the teams that he’s expecting, he’ll be another Saban.”

AP poll is out

AP poll is out

Submitted by rb4kb8 on March 10th, 2014 at 12:52 PM

UM is tied with SDSU for 8th. Nova is 3rd. Kansas 10. Syracuse 11. Wisky 12.


EDIT:  the reason I didn't link was b/c the link wasn't out yet.  The AP hadn't updated it's site yet when the poll hit my desk.  Sorry.

Michigan up to 16 in AP and Coaches Poll

Michigan up to 16 in AP and Coaches Poll

Submitted by MI fan in MT on February 24th, 2014 at 12:51 PM

@umhoops Michigan at 16 RT @USATODAYsports: The new USA TODAY Sports #CoachesPoll is here:


Other notables (AP--Coaches):


MSU        18--18

Iowa        20--19

Wisc        14--14

OSU         22--20

ISU           15--17

Duke         6--7

Arizona     3--3


Standings v. Rankings

Standings v. Rankings

Submitted by MGoPietrowski on November 21st, 2011 at 3:24 PM

This has been on my mind ever since I walked out of Michigan Stadium on Saturday afternoon, with the biggest smile I've had in a while. I think it is worthwhile to discuss, and even though many of you will disagree with me and my own opinion, i can easily see how that would be possible, and wont act all butt-hurt about it. 

I have spent alot of time lately wondering about the polls and the various weekly rankings that come out, that we wait for, every sunday afternoon. I know that the rankings and win/loss results account for half of the fun we have with this great sport when our teams aren't on the field, but I definitely think that one thing thats lost within a BCS "rankings" system that would not be in a standings format: Logic. 

I would like to give you three examples as to why I feel this way:

1. THE NFL. I know they get to fit a whole 12 teams into their post season quest for a Championship, whilst the NCAA has to pick just 2. I understand this makes for an easier method of explaining to fans why their team is out of the running. But at the same time, not once do you hear ESPN announcers sitting around arguing that a 7-9 Steelers team should get in over a 9-7 Bengals team because of bullshit intangibles such as  strength of schedule, who has the harder conference/division/etc. Nope. It's cut and dry. Wins and losses. You know what you have to do, and you have to do it. 

2. NCAA CONFERENCE STANDINGS. For those of you who say "That Win-Loss stuff just can't work in college football" :::::: All of the conferences base who wins their divisions off of Win/Loss Records and then pre-determined tie breakers. At no point have we heard any news coming down from the Big Ten Atheletic Offices that One team with a worse win loss record should get a berth to the B1G Championship because their schedule was harder. Lord knows. In a perfect world, we would have beaten Iowa, and if we were tied 7-1 and 7-1 with Sparty at the end of the season, they wouldn't have permitted who went to Indy by a poll of sports writers who only watch 3 games a weekend. They'd go with head to head, then mutual opponentsm, or division record.

3. IRRATIONALITY: I am not saying that I think Michigan should be ranked above Oklahoma state, but does no one else realize what happened this weekend? Michigan routed a nationally tradional power, who was not only ranked, but concerning the BCS, was ranked higher than them. Michigan rolled Nebraska. How far do we advance? Three spots. We barely crack the top 15. However, Oklahoma State lost to AN UN RANKED TEAM in Iowa State. Somehow, after they were given the charge to simply prove their worthiness by going into Iowa, beating a team that's not even currently recognized by the BCS pundits, and they flat out failed. Apparently, they are still the #4th ranked team in the country. 

And why does the BCS computer-run poll seem to resemble national media opinion/hype in the most uncanny of ways? When LSU strokes a conference opponent, LSU uber alles. When Michigan rolls a team that was picked to beat them, apparently Nebraska had a bad day, or they were over rated. Do you not see that these are opinions? Just like the one I'm giving you! My problem is that a purely mathematical ranking system shouldn't reflect exactly what these ESPN dicks are saying, at least as accurately as it is. 

I'm not going to open the can of worms that is BCS v PLAYOFF/ and i'm not going to touch the whole top 3 teams are SEC teams thing with a 20 foot pole. But until this rankings thing is figured out, or at least kept honest, college football can not be considered a real, tangible and competitive sport. In many cases, it doesn't matter how hard these kids play, or how many losses they do or don't have, but which talking head with the most clout seems to be giving them the biggest endorsement. 

Imagine if the Red Wings had to depend on Rosenberg to decide if he was going to get hard for them or not, in order to make the playoffs.

That's some pretty frustrating shit...


Your Top 25?

Your Top 25?

Submitted by Vasav on November 20th, 2011 at 3:28 AM

I think this is a fun exercise this week what with all the madness:

1)LSU 2)Bama...huge gap...3)Arkansas 4)Stanford 5)VT

6)Houston 7)Oregon 8)OK St 9)Sparty 10)Boise

11)USC 12)OU 13)UGA 14)USC 15)Wiscy

16)K St 17)Mich 18)Baylor 19)TCU 20)Penn St

21)Clemson 22)Neb 23)ND 24)UVA 25)Tulsa

and the difference between 3 and 24 is not so great

Wouldn't it just be right for UVA to knock off VT next weekend? AND NW to knock off Sparty? Along with SEC drama? But alas, this isn't 2007. I feel like this was the weekend for all the craziness, and from here on out things will remain somewhat sensible. But then again, I thought the offense would have to carry us this season. So what do I know?

Semi OT: AP Reports that Schools Lower Admission Standards for Athletes

Semi OT: AP Reports that Schools Lower Admission Standards for Athletes

Submitted by Seth9 on December 30th, 2009 at 12:14 PM

While this is perhaps the least surprising thing I've ever read, I did find the distinction between regular and special admissions to be interesting. Also, I found the idea that Steve Spurrier singlehandedly managed to reduce South Carolina's admissions requirements to be amusing.

Completely OT - Is this the New AP Style Grammar?

Completely OT - Is this the New AP Style Grammar?

Submitted by Blazefire on October 8th, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Alright, I hate to get picky, but when you're a professional news source, you might want to pick up your Little Brown Handbook from 9TH GRADE JOURNALISM class, and read some basic English rules.


Nearly 1 in 4 people is Muslim.


A: The "to be" verb references people, which in itself is a reference to a large group of people. Are. Seriously, it's not that hard. Are.

2: You can't, and I mean CANNOT have nearly one. If you want to use that statistic, you must, and I mean must, multiply it. Nearly 3 in 10 would be much more appropriate, or, better still, X% of people.

D: Numbers under 10, excepting some very rare circumstances, should really be written out. This is more flexible, given the nature of the internet, but still.