Rankings

[True2tRA]

This is why I'll always believe there should be no rankings until at least week 5 or 6. At least. Why do we feel the need to rank teams before we've even seen them?

 

That said, SC doesn't deserve to fall from the sky simply due to a week one loss to a pretty good team. The same reason Nebraska doesn't deserve to be top ten (yet) due to beating a team like FAU.

 

Just keep handling business and win games. Its really early.

[Branno]

And when Colorado crushed Nebraska in 2001, we dropped only two spots and were allowed to play for the National Championship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. This is getting stupid.

So because the Big 12 (and more specifically Nebraska) got the benefit 13 years ago that the SEC gets now, this somehow disproves my point? We should have dropped a lot further than we did, and we definitely did not deserve to be in the MNC.

 

But I agree with True, which I don't get to do very much. I really wish polls (including Sagarin's rankings) didn't get done until after week 6.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Well the BCS used to wait half a season before releasing its rankings, which were more binding than the others.

 

People may argue about preseason and early season rankings, but I'm not sure they want them to go away. They're too much fun to argue about.

 

There's a bigger problem with late-season losses than early season rankings. If a one-loss team loses early, it won't get punished like the team that loses its one game late in the season, regardless of conference.

 

As Al Davis used to say, Just Win, Baby.

[Chaddyboxer]

 

 

 

 

South Carolina dropped the furthest of all the teams that lost, by quite a bit.

If any other Conference had a team in the top 10 get absolutely crushed like that, they wouldn't be in the top 25.

Clemson dropped 7 after losing by a similiar margin to a higher rank team. You would already expect them to lose, correct?

Ole Miss jumps 3 spots for getting over the hump against unranked Boise and Bo threw 3 picks in the first half! What?

#16 Clemson loses at #12 Georgia 45-21. Drops 7

#9 South Carolina loses at home to #21 TAMU 52-28. Drops 12

 

These two situations aren't exactly the same when taken in context are they?

 

EDIT: To elaborate my point. #16 Nebraska loses 36-30 @ #22 UCLA and drops out of the rankings completely.

And as a counter when Wisconsin crushed a top ten Nebraska team, they did not fall out of the poll.

Yeppers. I think South Carolinas drop is about right.

[tschu]

It really is amusing to me how mad some of you get at the SEC

[papersun87]

good thing none of these rankings matter a lick anymore, eh?

[QMany]

It really is amusing to me how mad some of you get at the SEC

You're amused rather easily (and weirdly).

[papersun87]

we're number eight in this one: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/9/3/6095285/terrible-college-football-rankings

[Paul in WI]

Well, if the AP is so friggin accurate and wonderful, then I guess Michigan really was the true national champ in 97. Those writers are so biased in their voting that it'll make you puke if you look at their cards. I'll take a coach vote any day over some yahoo that is always putting a school 20 places below where they should be just because they're not fond of a particular program or because it will make their favored program look better.

[papersun87]

the coaches do that, too.

[VA Husker Fan]

Well, if the AP is so friggin accurate and wonderful, then I guess Michigan really was the true national champ in 97. Those writers are so biased in their voting that it'll make you puke if you look at their cards. I'll take a coach vote any day over some yahoo that is always putting a school 20 places below where they should be just because they're not fond of a particular program or because it will make their favored program look better.

You mean like Stoops and other Big 12 coaches trying to keep Northern Illinois out of a BCS bowl?

 

http://www.leanblog.org/2012/12/bcs-college-football-coaches-poll-shenanigans-bad-voters-or-bad-system/

[sd'sker]

we really should not worry about rankings. especially this early. the rankings have nothing to do with winning the B1G. although, i could see us getting left out of the playoffs if we went undefeated, but that would take a little bad luck.

[SandhillshuskerW]

we really should not worry about rankings. especially this early. the rankings have nothing to do with winning the B1G. although, i could see us getting left out of the playoffs if we went undefeated, but that would take a little bad luck.

I agree with this 100% I wish they would leave the polls alone until about week 5 or 6.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Well, if the AP is so friggin accurate and wonderful, then I guess Michigan really was the true national champ in 97. Those writers are so biased in their voting that it'll make you puke if you look at their cards. I'll take a coach vote any day over some yahoo that is always putting a school 20 places below where they should be just because they're not fond of a particular program or because it will make their favored program look better.

 

No chief, the AP and Coaches Poll are in virtual lockstep with each other and always have been. No idea where you're finding evidence of your claim. If you're still sore about 1997, be thankful Nebraska got its own share of the National Championship. The Coaches that year had also ranked Michigan above Nebraska after our near disaster against Missouri, and it's pretty rare for a team to go undefeated, win their bowl game and drop a position. I think the Huskers earned it that year, but much of the country thought the Coaches were being sentimental (biased) in bucking tradition and awarding the spot to Tom Osborne, who some believe made his pre-game retirement announcement for that very reason.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

I hope the committee can ignore the polls when making theirs, so 3 loss SEC teams aren't ranked still in week 8.