I guarentee Michigan will be ranked higher than USC in the Coaches Poll 2010

Submitted by Quail2theVict0r on July 8th, 2010 at 12:19 PM



This will be an unranked season for USC in USA Today's football coaches' poll. Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, told USA Today that because the school is under major NCAA sanctions and prohibited from playing in a bowl, it will be ineligible for the poll.



July 8th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^

Technically I think we need to get votes before that statement is factually accurate. Alas, it has been proven that 0 in fact does equal 0...

That being said, I'm sure after a couple wins (including a destruction of ND in ND) I'm sure we'll start picking up steam


July 8th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

Jedelman11 - You are right, but I don't think you go far enough: if USC has 0 votes - they are unranked. Technically, if we are to be ranked higher, they have to be ranked also. Otherwise, we are simply ranked and they are unranked - that is the only comparison available. Or, as you state, we would both be unranked if both got 0 votes.

So, we cannot be ranked higher than USC on the coaches poll. We can be considered a better team than USC (or not), but that would be captured in a different poll. 


July 8th, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^

I disagree with this, and here's why.  I think everyone is ranked, technically.  Obviously the top 25 are the top 25, then the next vote getter is #26 and so on.  Let's say there are 15 other teams who receive at least one vote.  Thus, every other team is tied for #41, according to that poll.  So, if we receive one vote to come in at #40, we would be ranked higher than USC. 


July 8th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^

Not so. If they a priori choose not to give USC a vote, they are not making a statement on USC's worth or rank. USC is not considered for the poll -  they are technically not part of the poll. Thus, the only comparison in terms of USC available is that x team is part of the poll, and USC is not. That is it according to the coaches poll. 

For example, if you say that UM gets 1 vote, but another team considered for the poll got 0 votes, then you can say that UM is ranked higher. But if USC is not considered for the poll, you can't make that comparison. Or you can, but it is meaningless. 


July 8th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^

OK, well obviously it's all meaningless.  If USC is ranked #3 in the AP poll and not in the coaches poll, then of course it's meaninless to say we are ranked ahead of them if UM receives one vote on each.  I didn't think that was the point, and I don't think that's what the OP was saying. 

You kinda just took the fun out of it.


July 8th, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^

Look - you chose to initiate a debate about technicalities. There was no debate going on before that. Yes, I elaborated my point to debate with you, and in doing so took the argument to its 'technical' extreme to show that you were wrong. But it's pretty juvenile for you to then come back with some sort of 'you ruined it for all of us' response. 


July 8th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^

I somewhat agree, but margin of victory matters in college unlike in the pros. Beating UConn by 3 and ND by 7 is a lot different than dismantling UConn by 24 and ND by 30 in terms of "style points" which most early polls (and some late season ones as well) heavily depend upon. It really depends how both games turn out, 2 wins against the same 2 opponents dont always count the same.


July 8th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

I guarantee that you spelled guarantee wrong.


As for rankings Id be perfectly happy to stay out of them at the beginning of the season. After getting ranked last year everyone started freaking out about how we were going to dominate and then.... collapse.  I have no problem with staying quiet and building momentum until we do something more impressive, like beating MSU and Iowa at home.