Rankings

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.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NUpolo8 said:
MO Husker said:
deedsker said:
MO Husker said:
VA Husker Fan said:
South Carolina dropped the furthest of all the teams that lost, by quite a bit.
Click to expand...
If any other Conference had a team in the top 10 get absolutely crushed like that, they wouldn't be in the top 25.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
#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.
Click to expand...
And as a counter when Wisconsin crushed a top ten Nebraska team, they did not fall out of the poll.
Click to expand...
Yeppers. I think South Carolinas drop is about right.
 
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.

 
Paul in WI said:
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.
Click to expand...
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/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
sd'sker said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with this 100% I wish they would leave the polls alone until about week 5 or 6.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul in WI said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top