Week Thirteen Polls Released

Submitted by justingoblue on November 18th, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Well, at least we braced ourselves for the top of the poll...


  1. Notre Dame (56)
  2. Alabama (2)
  3. Georgia (1)
  4. Oregon
  5. Florida State
  6. Florida
  7. LSU
  8. Kansas State
  9. Clemson
  10. Texas A&M
  11. Stanford
  12. South Carolina
  13. Oklahoma
  14. Nebraska
  15. Texas
  16. UCLA
  17. Oregon State
  18. Louisville
  19. Rutgers
  20. Michigan
  21. Oklahoma State
  22. Boise State
  23. Northern Illinois
  24. Mississippi State
  25. Kent State

Dropped out: No. 19 Louisiana Tech, No. 21 Southern California, No. 25 Texas Tech.

Others receiving votes: Utah State 74; Northwestern 59; Louisiana Tech 36; Washington 36; Southern California 14; Tulsa 14; San Jose State 7; San Diego State 6; Arizona 5; Vanderbilt 4; Wisconsin 4; Fresno State 3; Middle Tennessee 3; Arkansas State 2; Cincinnati 1; Texas Tech 1.



  1. Notre Dame (60)
  2. Alabama
  3. Georgia
  4. Ohio State
  5. Oregon
  6. Florida
  7. Kansas State
  8. LSU
  9. Texas A&M
  10. Florida State
  11. Stanford
  12. Clemson
  13. South Carolina
  14. Oklahoma
  15. UCLA
  16. Oregon State
  17. Nebraska
  18. Texas
  19. Louisville
  20. Michigan
  21. Rutgers
  22. Oklahoma State
  23. Kent State
  24. Northern Illinois
  25. Utah State
  26. Mississippi State

Others receiving votes: Northwestern 20; Washington 20; Boise State 20; Arizona 13; Southern California 12; Tulsa 10; San Jose State 8; Fresno State 7; Wisconsin 4; Louisiana Tech 4; San Diego State 2; Iowa State 1; Vanderbilt 1; Baylor 1; TCU 1




November 18th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^

Can someone explain to me how Notre Dame doesn't have all the first-place votes? As much people can argue those SEC teams may be better than them, it doesn't take away from the fact that ND is undefeated with 3 wins over top 20 teams. 


November 18th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^

Glad to see Ohio so low in the AP. Looks like they wouldn't take #1 even if they were the only undefeated team at the end of the year. Not that it matters, because we'll obviously BEAT OHIO


November 18th, 2012 at 4:28 PM ^

Man, I would be seriously p*ssed if anyone voted for OSU to be #1 at the end of the year. They are on a 2010 Auburn-like path of pulling miraculous wins out of their azzes every week. 5-0 in games decided by a TD or less on the season along with unimpressive wins over UAB and UCF. They were completely outplayed by Wisco last night (barely over 200 yards and only 7 offensive points in regulation) and somehow lucked their way to another undeserved victory.

I fully expect to see Bielema's name under the Mathlete's "Dumb Punt of the Week" section this week after punting from the OSU 30 yard line.


November 18th, 2012 at 5:04 PM ^

The sec plays a tough schedule though. They all have to play against each other right? I think it's time that schools get punished for shitty ooc wins late in the season. There is zero chance that Sam Houston state and western Carolina are any challenge for a major BCs conference team. Why should Oregon get dropped below Alabama when Alabama lost to Texas a and m, which has a horrible defense and just gave up 28 points to Sam Houston state.

Leaders And Best

November 18th, 2012 at 12:52 PM ^

Already a huge rivalry weekend, but the matchups are fantastic.

#20 Michigan @ #4 Ohio

#1 ND @ USC

#5 Oregon @ #16 Oregon State

#6 Florida @ #10 Florida State

#13 South Carolina @ #12 Clemson

#11 Stanford @ #15 UCLA

#24 Oklahoma State @ #14 Oklahoma

TCU @ #18 Texas


Been a great month of college football.


November 18th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^

for the B1G participant.

And with what Gardner's been doing, I think we have a good shot at beating the ESS-EEE-SEE rep.

Not as much $$$ for the conference as the BCS bowl, but I don't really care about that.


Absolutely agree on the decimation of our BCS chances last night. Had Oregon won out, all of the other four PAC-10 teams above us would have been assured of a loss. Now with Oregon notched in its gun, I don't see how Stanford falls below us. (And if Stanford wins next week, it's Oregon taking the #2 PAC-10 spot.) I don't see how #2 ACC Clemson (10-1) falls beneath us, and obviously the #2 ESS-EEE-SEE team (and likely #3-6) will end up ahead of us. I think Nebraska losing to Iowa is our most likely BCS opening at this point.


November 18th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^

I don't mind seeing ND at the top this week. Considering that two of Michigan's losses came to what are now top-5 teams, and the other was potentially a result of Denard being injured, it's possible that we can rise in the rankings again when we BEAT OHIO next week.

I fully expect ND to lose to USC, just because it's not that easy to go undefeated. But if they don't, and they play in the NC game, I will enjoy seeing them get taken apart by Alabama or whoever they play.


November 18th, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^

"I don't mind seeing ND at the top this week. Considering that two of Michigan's losses came to what are now top-5 teams" 

Actually, two of Michigan's losses have come to Top 2 teams.  One at  neutral site, one on the road.

Michigan plays OSU next weekend.  That means that they'll have played three of the Top 4 teams (although we're hoping that OSU drops after next week's game).




November 18th, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^

If ND loses its down to Oregon, Florida State, and Florida for the second spot.  Going to be quite a debate if that happens, especially if its Florida and Oregon that are fighting for the second spot.  Danielson will be campaigning for another all SEC title gmae, though this time around Oregon will have Fox and Gus Johnson in their corner.  


November 18th, 2012 at 1:20 PM ^

I don't disagree with that point, but if Florida upsets FSU and ND does indeed lose what would be the other option?  Florida would also not have won their conference.  K-Stae got blasted by Baylor.  Clemson would also not have won their conference.  UCLA will be favoured to beat Stanford next week seeing as the game is at UCLA


November 18th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^

Hopefully they don't all come to pass, but yeah, it would be another clusterfuck.  I guess my order of deservingness to play the SEC champ would be:

Notre Dame (if undefeated)

Oregon (assuming Stanford loses and they win the Pac 12)

FSU (as one loss ACC champs)

K-State (as one loss Big 12 champs)

Stanford (assuming they win Pac 12)

Nebraska (assuming they win Big Ten)

Big East champs (w/ one loss)

Then look for non conference champions.


November 18th, 2012 at 3:13 PM ^

Stanford losing seems pretty unlikely to me because that game is meaningless to UCLA.

Think about it. If UCLA plays their best and wins that game, their reward is heading to Autzen stadium to face what many people still beleive is the best (or 2nd best) team in the country. 

Instead, they could simply rest their starters, get some good film on Stanford (who is in a must-win situation), and get ready to take on the Cardinal again the following week for the Roses. 

I hate the situation there, but with the Conference Champ Games, it only makes sense for UCLA to give less than 100% against Stanford next week. 


November 18th, 2012 at 3:38 PM ^

I was really surprised to see teams playing outside of their division in the Pac 12 at this time of year.  Makes no sense.

The Michigan-OSU thing is going to be a clusterfuck at some point, but at least there is a reason for keeping the game at that time of year.  No idea what the Pac 12 schedule makers were thinking.


November 18th, 2012 at 1:32 PM ^

Alabama did it last year.  I don't necessarily disagree with your point that you need to win a conference (or be an undefeated independent) to play for the MNC.  However, Alabama was clearly the best team last year so it's probably a good thing that they were in the game even though they didn't win the SEC.

It'll be interesting to see how the playoffs work in 2014.  I wouldn't be surprised to see two teams from the same conference make the final four.  That means one of them wouldn't have been a conference champ.  It would have happened with Michigan in 2006.

steve sharik

November 18th, 2012 at 12:56 PM ^

...ND loses to USC and Ohio beats us, be ready for that always-enjoyable Urban Meyer politicking for the national title.

Frankly, it's a strong argument.  Not bulletproof, but strong.  The only thing holding them back is a signature win due to the weakness of the B1G and their soft non-conference slate.  They've always had at least one strong non-con, and I bet when they scheduled Cal they were a top-10 program, but they can't point to anything other than being undefeated.  However, being the only undefeated team is a strong argument.

Leaders And Best

November 18th, 2012 at 1:02 PM ^

They will probably play 2 less games than the team that wins the BCS National Championship Game. If they beat us, we will fall out of the polls which will leave Nebraska as their only victory over a ranked opponent. No way anyone votes that #1. The only way this argument could hold any merit is if the Big Ten went out and dominated the bowl season (which is highly unlikely especially with Ohio and PSU both ineligible).

After a month of bowl games, people will forget about Ohio and Urban when the final polls come out.


November 18th, 2012 at 2:08 PM ^

Why would he bother politicking? They can't win the national championship because they can't play in the championship game. They could potentially be #1 in the AP poll but the last time there were two national champions was 1997.


November 18th, 2012 at 3:00 PM ^

No, there was only one national champion in 2003. USC was #1 in the AP pollbut going into the 1998 srason the powers that be decided that there would be a national championship game the winner of whichwould be the national champion. For several years the AP poll helped decide who ewould play in that game but ultimately the sole national champion was the winner of that game.


November 18th, 2012 at 3:11 PM ^

The AP gives out a national title, as does the Coaches/BCS (the BCS uses the Coaches Poll trophy), and the AP was not in any way affiliated with the BCS in 2003. There are no "powers that be" that prevent the Associated Press from crowning their own national champion, or prevent a school from accepting that honor.

Pretty much the exact same thing happened with Michigan and Nebraska following the 1997 season: Nebraska went to the Bowl Coalition championship game, which Michigan played in the Rose. The results were exactly the same as well: Rose winner got the AP title, Bowl Coalition/BCS winner took the coaches.


November 18th, 2012 at 3:55 PM ^

the reason you don't hear "two championships" from Tressel and "six championships" from Saban is that they didn't win two or six, they won one and three.

Michigan didn't win 26 titles in 1947 and 1948 under Oosterbaan (although 26 organizations crowned his teams national champions), they won two, one in each season.


November 18th, 2012 at 6:02 PM ^

"the reason you don't hear "two championships" from Tressel and "six championships" from Saban is that they didn't win two or six, they won one and three."


You can't have it both ways. Either there have been 14 national championships awarded since the BCS started in 1998 or there have been 28 (counting 2004, otherwise 13 and 26). To say that there were 15 championships in 14 years (or 14 championships in 13 years discounting 2004) doesn't work.

Prior to the 2003 season, all participants had agreed on a system to determine the champion. USC pathetically clings to a meaningless title because they didn't like the results of that system after the fact.

snarling wolverine

November 18th, 2012 at 6:17 PM ^

Not all participants agreed to this system, or else the AP would not have kept the right to vote for whomever it wished.  AP voters reserved their independence precisely for cases like this, where the both human polls voted USC #1 going into the bowls.  Even some of the coaches ended up voting them #1 in the final poll despite it being against the rules (since they didn't appear in the "championship game.")  

I think you are letting personal bias against USC cloud your judgment.  I don't like them either,  but they have a completely valid claim to the '03 title.  The injustice of the computers voting them #3 was sufficient enough that the computer polls were reworked after that season.


November 18th, 2012 at 6:33 PM ^

All participants being the powers that be within college football, not the media. The AP was invited to be part of the process of selecting the participants for a national championship game but that's all. Prior to 1998, sure, the AP title meant something. That's because there was no system in place to select a champion. Following the nonsense of the 1997 season, the only polls that matter are the ones agreed upon to select the participants in the championship game. Once that final poll is released, it no longer matters. Whoever wins the game is the sole national champion.

The AP could have decided to randomly vote UNC #1 in a poll and give them a trophy after the culmination of March Madness this past year. It wouldn't have made them co-champions along with Kentucky. There was a system in place and whoever won out was the sole champion. Ditto for the BCS. It's an extremely flawed system but it is still the system.

And this has nothing to do with USC in particular. I don't like them or cheer for them (unless I feel it could help Michigan), but I don't have a strong dislike for them either.


November 18th, 2012 at 6:19 PM ^

Let's say thirteen selectors for the national championship exist (two are involved in the BCS, the Coaches and Harris Polls), does 2009 Alabama claim thirteen titles for their season? They don't; they count it as a national championship year and note the organizations that voted them winners.

Also, M would definitely recognize a title from the AP Poll. It's the oldest continually active way of selecting a national champion in NCAA football and carries a ton of weight in the football community.