|
Post by fullforce11 on Oct 4, 2004 21:35:20 GMT -5
#12 LSU- You didnt change their rank since last week after they got killed by Georgia #14 Ohio State- you drop them only 4 spots for losing to Northwestern? #20 Purdue- they are a lot higher than #20 and a lot better than quite a few teams that you have above them #28 Wake Forest- they lost to NC State and you only drop them 2 spots and when other teams win close you drop them more than that? ? #31 Georgia Tech lost big to Miami but yet you still left them in same spot? #33 Clemson- they are 1-3, how can you have a 1-3 team ahead of one loss teams. #37 Colorado- they lost yet they only drop 1 spot #39 Nebraska- didnt play well but still won and yet you have teams ahead of them that lost that you keep in same place??? You have a terrible bias towards the ACC when you dont drop the teams that lose and yet if other teams play close games and win you still drop them. There is no way there are 9 ACC teams in top 40. The poll in terrible and makes no sense for the most part. Ok, first off, I screwed up putting Purdue at 20, i moved them to a better location. Now, go back and look at the opening of last weeks response were I talk about how the rankings work. Now your specific grumbles. LSU LSU got beat by the best team in the nation who played better than they have played all year, David Greene especially, I was not impressed with them, yetI don't think Florida, Tennessee, Minnesota or Ohio State are a better team than LSU. Now Tennessee is a team that lost some points in my book, you can get stomped like they did in front of 110,000 fans, yet Auburn is an extremely good team. Ohio State did lose a relatively close game to Northwestern, who is not a bad team this year (though i wouldn't call them good). They played about as poorly as they can, and were impressive a few weeks back at NCState, who you will see I think is a very good ballclub. Speaking of NCState, Wake Forest lost in OT to NCState, i didn't expect them to make it as close as they did, so why should i move them down? Georgia Tech lost to the 4th best team in the nation w/o the leading rusher in the ACC and argueably the best Defensive End in the nation still weak coming off injury. Clemson has played the most difficult schedule in the nation so far, they are 1-3, but are better than teams that have 1 loss that have lost to Troy or Southern Miss (Nebraska also barely got a by a HORRIBLE Pitt team). Colorado lost to a decent Mizzou team in Missouri, it was a close game, if the game was at Folsom Field Colordo would've likely won. Nebraska hasn't played well all season, eventually I simply started believing they just aren't a great football team. They are decent, but no better than that. On the ACC in general... Yeah, the ACC does have 9 teams in the best 40 in the nation, the ACC has great parity. Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, NCState, Wake, VT, UVA, and Maryland are all decent football teams. I guess you would say there are only 7 teams that deserve the top 40 ranking (Clemson and Wake being left out). I would ask if you've watched them play this year? Also the SEC has 6 teams in my top 25 (Georgia, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, South Carolina ) the Big 12 has 8 in the top 40 (Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Mizzou, Colorado, KState, and Nebraska) the Big 10 has 5 in the top 40 (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Ohio State, Michigan) and the Pac 10 has 3 in the top 15 (USC, Cal, and ASU) 9 in the top 40 is the most for a conference in the top 40, but if the ACC is the second best conference in the nation and the best between teams 5 and 9 (as most of us would agree), 9 in the top 40 is reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by tigerbait99 on Oct 4, 2004 21:41:31 GMT -5
Ok, first off, I screwed up putting Purdue at 20, i moved them to a better location. Now, go back and look at the opening of last weeks response were I talk about how the rankings work. Now your specific grumbles. LSU LSU got beat by the best team in the nation who played better than they have played all year, David Greene especially, I was not impressed with them, yetI don't think Florida, Tennessee, Minnesota or Ohio State are a better team than LSU. Now Tennessee is a team that lost some points in my book, you can get stomped like they did in front of 110,000 fans, yet Auburn is an extremely good team. Ohio State did lose a realatively close game to Northwestern, who is not a bad team this year (though i wouldn't call them good). They played about as poorly as they can, and were impressive a few weeks back at NCState, who you will see I think is a very good ballclub. Speaking of NCState, Wake Forest lost in OT to NCState, i didn't expect them to make it as close as they did, so why should i move them down? Georgia Tech lost to the 4th best team in the nation w/o the leading rusher in the ACC and argueably the best Defensive End in the nation still weak coming off injury. Clemson has played the most difficult schedule in the nation so far, they are 1-3, but are better than teams that have 1 loss that have lost to Troy or Southern Miss (Nebraska also barely got a by a HORRIBLE Pitt team). Colorado lost to a decent Mizzou team in Missouri, it was a close game, if the game was at Folsom Field Colordo would've likely won. Nebraska hasn't played well all season, eventually I simply started believing they just aren't a great football team. They are decent, but no better than that. On the ACC in general... Yeah, the ACC does have 9 teams in the best 40 in the nation, the ACC has great parity. Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, NCState, Wake, VT, UVA, and Maryland are all decent football teams. I guess you would say there are only 7 teams that deserve the top 40 ranking (Clemson and Wake being left out). I would ask if you've watched them play this year? Also the SEC has 6 teams in my top 25 (Georgia, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, South Carolina ) the Big 12 has 8 in the top 40 (Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Mizzou, Colorado, KState, and Nebraska) the Big 10 has 5 in the top 40 (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Ohio State, Michigan) and the Pac 10 has 3 in the top 15 (USC, Cal, and ASU) 9 in the top 40 is the most for a conference in the top 40, but if the ACC is the second best conference in the nation and the best between teams 5 and 9 (as most of us would agree), 9 in the top 40 is reasonable. Fullforce.....i hate saying this but I think LSU is too high. Put us around #20. This seems like it is a rebuilding year for us, and we got killed by Georgia. I did find a few problems. Purdue- they should be ranked higher. Their offense is great, and their D stepped up against ND. Utah-I really don't understand the #25 ranking. They are a top 15 team. Michigan-they are still a top 25 team. Wake Forest-they are too high. Clemson-sorry qcomdrj....but they are not a top 40 team right now.
|
|
|
Post by huskersrule01 on Oct 4, 2004 22:00:06 GMT -5
Fullforce, I am glad that you can make a good arguement for your ratings but I still dont understand how you can move a team that won close down a few spots but dont move a team that lost down any spots, it just doesnt make sense. If you lose especially big you move down no matter who it is to.
On a lot of my remarks, it wasnt who they lost to , it was how bad they got killed like LSU and Tennesee and some they lost and it really doesnt matter who you lose to, you have to move down because there shouldnt be 3 loss teams ahead of teams with 1 loss.
Again with Clemson, they lost to a not very good GT team where they should have won but didnt and they got killed by A&M and lost to a good Florida State team by a bit. And by the way, yes I have seen Clemson played and no they didnt look very good.
Wake Forest, you said you shouldnt move them down because they did better than you thought.?? What does that have to do with anything, they will lost and should move down.
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Oct 4, 2004 22:13:20 GMT -5
Again with Clemson, they lost to a not very good GT team where they should have won but didnt and they got killed by A&M and lost to a good Florida State team by a bit. And by the way, yes I have seen Clemson played and no they didnt look very good. You're right, the O-line is causing the offense to be out of sync. However, we didn't get killed by A&M. Beaten soundly, sure. They did beat the defending Big XII champs last week and are 3-1 now. Our schedule is brutal. We still have road games at Miami and Virginia. Next year, if Whitehurst returns, and all those games are at home, we shall see how it turns out. I'm not writing this year off, but we definitely aren't winning the ACC or anything.
|
|
|
Post by huskersrule01 on Oct 4, 2004 22:16:23 GMT -5
Your right in that A&M beat last years Big 12 Champions but K-State is not even close to the team they had last year, without Roberson the offense just doesnt go like it did and they lost a lot of their good players last year
|
|
|
Post by tigerbait99 on Oct 4, 2004 22:17:45 GMT -5
Your right in that A&M beat last years Big 12 Champions but K-State is not even close to the team they had last year, without Roberson the offense just doesnt go like it did and they lost a lot of their good players last year Roberson really must have been a bigger part of that offense than I thought. I really thought Sproles would still be able to carry this team. But I guess not.
|
|
|
Post by huskersrule01 on Oct 4, 2004 22:23:29 GMT -5
Roberson not only had experience last year but could also beat you with his running and that was just one more threat you had to worry about when you play them while now that threat is not there.
|
|
|
Post by huskersrule01 on Oct 4, 2004 22:25:27 GMT -5
Also the KSU defense is not as good or dominant like it could be last year.
|
|
|
Post by soonerfan07 on Oct 4, 2004 22:26:41 GMT -5
Sproles is probably out of the Heisman race with Kstate doing so badly this year
|
|
|
Post by huskersrule01 on Oct 4, 2004 22:31:56 GMT -5
Sproles is probably out of the Heisman race with Kstate doing so badly this year Sproles is a really good runningback but without the big threat at QB it will be hard for him to have big games against good teams because they will be focused on him more so than if there was a top QB to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Oct 4, 2004 22:55:48 GMT -5
Fullforce, I am glad that you can make a good arguement for your ratings but I still dont understand how you can move a team that won close down a few spots but dont move a team that lost down any spots, it just doesnt make sense. If you lose especially big you move down no matter who it is to. On a lot of my remarks, it wasnt who they lost to , it was how bad they got killed like LSU and Tennesee and some they lost and it really doesnt matter who you lose to, you have to move down because there shouldnt be 3 loss teams ahead of teams with 1 loss. Again with Clemson, they lost to a not very good GT team where they should have won but didnt and they got killed by A&M and lost to a good Florida State team by a bit. And by the way, yes I have seen Clemson played and no they didnt look very good. Wake Forest, you said you shouldnt move them down because they did better than you thought.?? What does that have to do with anything, they will lost and should move down. The way i decide my rankings is I watch the games i can, then look at recaps and stats of games i can't. Following this, I take that information and try to determine a top 40 based on who would win if team A plays team B at A's home, at B's home than at a truly neutral location (just so you know, the sugar bowl is not a truly nuetral location for LSU as the rose Bowl isn't for USC and the Orange Bowl isn't for Miami). Isn't it interesting that 3 of the BCS bowls last year were won by teams in their own home territory (2 in their own city and LSU in New Orleans.... but i digress. If I believe team A would beat team B at home and at a neurtal then team A will be higher than team B. WIN-LOSS RECORDS DO NOT MATTER NEARLY AS MUCH AS IN THE AP & ESPN/USAToday POLLS. My poll position is not an award given to a team who has done well, but an attempt top determine who is superior. (One reason why Utah is not that high is that they would likely lose to most top 20 level teams even in Salt Lake City.) I believe Georgia would be able to beat every team in the nation at home and at a truly neutral site, Oklahoma could beat every team but Georgia at home and at a truly neutral site (though I've been going back and forth between them and Texas at 2 and 3, luckily I won't have to wait too much longer to find out the answer) and so on... But my rankings would theoretically allow team A to defeat team B at Team A's home field and still have team B be ranked higher (This almost happened in the case of Maryland and WVU for example.) A close game, going to overtime, won at the last second, in front of 60,000+ at home does not mean you are a better team than the losing team.
|
|
|
Post by tigerbait99 on Oct 4, 2004 22:57:21 GMT -5
Sproles is probably out of the Heisman race with Kstate doing so badly this year I would agree with that right now. But you never know. He is a great RB, and I wouldn't quite count him out yet.
|
|
|
Post by tigerbait99 on Oct 4, 2004 22:59:10 GMT -5
The way i decide my rankings is I watch the games i can, then look at recaps and stats of games i can't. Following this, I take that information and try to determine a top 40 based on who would win if team A plays team B at A's home, at B's home than at a truly neutral location (just so you know, the sugar bowl is not a truly nuetral location for LSU as the rose Bowl isn't for USC and the Orange Bowl isn't for Miami). Isn't it interesting that 3 of the BCS bowls last year were won by teams in their own home territory (2 in their own city and LSU in New Orleans.... but i digress. If I believe team A iwould beat team B at home and at a neurtal then team A will be higher than team B. WIN-LOSS RECORDS DO NOT MATTER NEARLY AS MUCH AS IN THE AP & ESPN/USAToday POLLS. My poll position is not an award given to a team who has done well, but an attempt top determine who is superior. (One reason why Utah is not that high is that they would likely lose to most top 20 level teams even in Salt Lake City.) I believe Georgia would be able to beat every team in the nation at home and at a truly neutral site, Oklahoma could beat every team but Georgia at home and at a truly neutral site (though I've been going back and forth between them and Texas at 1 and 2, luckily I won't have to wait too much longer to find out the answer) and so on... But my rankings would theoretically allow team A to defeat team B at Team A's home field and still have team B be ranked higher (This almost happened in the case of Maryland and WVU for example.) A close game, going to overtime, won at the last second, in front of 60,000+ at home does not mean you are a better team than the losing team. I see your point fullforce. And I agree with it for the most part. However I can also see the other side of that argument. Either way a win is a win, and a loss is a loss.
|
|
|
Post by qcomdrj on Oct 4, 2004 23:32:15 GMT -5
I see your point fullforce. And I agree with it for the most part. However I can also see the other side of that argument. Either way a win is a win, and a loss is a loss. And that side is the one that says USC should stay number 1 because they have not lost, per se.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Oct 11, 2004 1:55:28 GMT -5
1. Oklahoma 2. Miami 3. Texas 4. Virginia 5. Auburn 6. Florida State 7. Wisconsin 8. USC 9. California 10. Georgia 11. Arizona State 12. LSU 13. Tennessee 14. Florida 15. Purdue 16. Virginia Tech 17. Ohio State 18. West Virginia 19. Oklahoma State 20. Minnesota 21. Louisville 22. Utah 23. Texas A&M 24. Georgia Tech 25. Michigan 26. Maryland 27. North Carolina State 28. Southern Miss 29. Boise State 30. Wake Forest 31. Missouri 32. Texas Tech 33. Notre Dame 34. Stanford 35. Clemson 36. South Carolina 37. UAB 38. Boston College 39. UCLA 40. Arkansas
just out: UConn, Fresno State, Northen Illinois, Louisiana Tech, Iowa, Memphis, Alabama, BYU, Iowa State, Marshall, San Diego State, Kansas State, Colorado, North Carolina, Air Force, and Navy
|
|