Who *SHOULD* be #1?

Submitted by Eye of the Tiger on August 18th, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Now that we've got the AP Poll, Coaches Poll and various preseason rankings, which team do you think looks like the #1 team going in to the season, and why

For me, it's USC. I think they are the most talented and the most balanced, and have a clearer path to 12-0 than LSU (who I would put #2) or Alabama (who I would put #3). OU also has a clear path, but I don't think they would match up well with any of the other three I just mentioned. I'd finish the top 5 off with Oregon, as most seem to do.

[I'd love to see us up there, but I think there are still too many questions that need to be answered before we could even dream of the top 5.]

 

Comments

cigol

August 18th, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^

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.

bluebrains98

August 18th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^

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.

OverDey

August 18th, 2012 at 2:10 PM ^

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.

chally

August 18th, 2012 at 2:24 PM ^

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?

Wolverman

August 18th, 2012 at 4:07 PM ^

 Oregon did play in a BCS game , they played in the rose bowl.

 I have a slight problem with USC as number 1. They where just as inconsistant as Michigan was last year ( Barely sqeaking by minnesotta at home and losing to ASU). When they where good, they where good but when they where bad lol. If you put that with the fact they are paper thin everywhere on the roster , I can't think USC will come close to a NCG this year.

turtleboy

August 18th, 2012 at 8:03 PM ^

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.

Harperbole

August 18th, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^

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.

mackbru

August 18th, 2012 at 2:31 PM ^

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.

MGoVoldemort

August 18th, 2012 at 2:28 PM ^

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

Leaders And Best

August 18th, 2012 at 2:38 PM ^

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.

corundum

August 18th, 2012 at 2:51 PM ^

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.

Leaders And Best

August 18th, 2012 at 3:49 PM ^

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. 

JDNorway

August 18th, 2012 at 2:44 PM ^

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.

Maize_Nation

August 18th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^

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.

mackbru

August 18th, 2012 at 3:06 PM ^

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.

 

GoBlueInIowa

August 18th, 2012 at 3:12 PM ^

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.

Leaders And Best

August 18th, 2012 at 3:33 PM ^

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.