[OutsiderFan]

Polls come out in a couple hours.  What do you think they should be?  I'll go with:

1. Alabama - Until they get beat again, they are deserving of the top spot.
2. Louisville - Would anyone argue not having them this high?
3. Ohio State - Would anyone argue not having them this high?
4. Stanford - Sorry, Harbaugh.  Stanford has beaten two teams better than any you have played.
5. Michigan - More impressive than Clemson to date.
6. Clemson - Sorry Swinney, your buddy Shaw has two much more impressive wins.
7. Houston - Sorry, Herman, Oklahoma is a fraud, and you trailed Cincy in the 4th quarter before they imploded.
8. Michigan State - Would anyone argue?
9. Washington - Sucks to be jumped when you win 48-3, but that's what happens when you play patsies.
10. Tennessee - Time to end Florida streak, Vols... You even get to play them with their 2nd string QB at home this week!

How I think the East Coast biased polls will look:

1. Louisville
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. Michigan
5. Clemson
6. Houston
7. Stanford
8. Michigan State
9. Washington
10. Tennessee

[OutsiderFan]

Polls come out in a couple hours.  What do you think they should be?  I'll go with:

1. Alabama - Until they get beat again, they are deserving of the top spot.
2. Louisville - Would anyone argue not having them this high?
3. Ohio State - Would anyone argue not having them this high?
4. Stanford - Sorry, Harbaugh.  Stanford has beaten two teams better than any you have played.
5. Michigan - More impressive than Clemson to date.
6. Clemson - Sorry Swinney, your buddy Shaw has two much more impressive wins.
7. Houston - Sorry, Herman, Oklahoma is a fraud, and you trailed Cincy in the 4th quarter before they imploded.
8. Michigan State - Would anyone argue?
9. Washington - Sucks to be jumped when you win 48-3, but that's what happens when you play patsies.
10. Tennessee - Time to end Florida streak, Vols... You even get to play them with their 2nd string QB at home this week!

How I think the East Coast biased polls will look:

1. Louisville
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. Michigan
5. Clemson
6. Houston
7. Stanford
8. Michigan State
9. Washington
10. Tennessee

[stupac2]

Louisville isn't going to jump Alabama.

[stupac2]

Louisville isn't going to jump Alabama.

[CTcard]

6. Clemson - Sorry Swinney, your buddy Shaw has two much more impressive wins.
7. Houston - Sorry, Herman, Oklahoma is a fraud, and you trailed Cincy in the 4th quarter before they imploded.

Why are you apologizing to everybody - especially about ranking them in the top 10?

8. Michigan State - Would anyone argue?

Maybe. Not quite sure. Their first win over Furman was notably unimpressive.
They won at und, which usually is notable, but it's really not clear if und is any good this year with all the attrition they have suffered.

10. Tennessee - Time to end Florida streak, Vols... You even get to play them with their 2nd string QB at home this week!

Tennessee?
That's the only real head scratcher here.
Tennesee barely pulled out an OT win over Appalachian State (that just got wiped b Miami). They followed that up this last weekend by an overwhelming 9 point victory of Miami of Ohio - who doesn't like including Miami in their name anymore.

---------------------------------------------------------------
And our favourite pollster has his picks out.
Lots for everyone to complain about there.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-old-no-1/

[CTcard]

6. Clemson - Sorry Swinney, your buddy Shaw has two much more impressive wins.
7. Houston - Sorry, Herman, Oklahoma is a fraud, and you trailed Cincy in the 4th quarter before they imploded.

Why are you apologizing to everybody - especially about ranking them in the top 10?

8. Michigan State - Would anyone argue?

Maybe. Not quite sure. Their first win over Furman was notably unimpressive.
They won at und, which usually is notable, but it's really not clear if und is any good this year with all the attrition they have suffered.

10. Tennessee - Time to end Florida streak, Vols... You even get to play them with their 2nd string QB at home this week!

Tennessee?
That's the only real head scratcher here.
Tennesee barely pulled out an OT win over Appalachian State (that just got wiped b Miami). They followed that up this last weekend by an overwhelming 9 point victory of Miami of Ohio - who doesn't like including Miami in their name anymore.

---------------------------------------------------------------
And our favourite pollster has his picks out.
Lots for everyone to complain about there.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-old-no-1/

[OutsiderFan]

Well the current AP #10 is Texas A&M, and I'm not convinced they are a great team.  They almost lost at home to UCLA, who may be better than App State, but Tennessee was quite impressive against Virginia Tech too. I can't abide Wisconsin as a Top 10 team either.  Georgia almost lost to Nichols last week and barely beat a middling Missouri yesterday.

Honestly, at this point it seems there is a clear separation between the top 9 and the rest.  Maybe Miami might be deserving, but they have to beat a real team first.

[OutsiderFan]

Well the current AP #10 is Texas A&M, and I'm not convinced they are a great team.  They almost lost at home to UCLA, who may be better than App State, but Tennessee was quite impressive against Virginia Tech too. I can't abide Wisconsin as a Top 10 team either.  Georgia almost lost to Nichols last week and barely beat a middling Missouri yesterday.

Honestly, at this point it seems there is a clear separation between the top 9 and the rest.  Maybe Miami might be deserving, but they have to beat a real team first.

[CTcard]

Maybe Miami might be deserving, but they have to beat a real team first.

I guess UW doesn't have to?

[CTcard]

Maybe Miami might be deserving, but they have to beat a real team first.

I guess UW doesn't have to?

[washingtonismoney]

Tennesee barely pulled out an OT win over Appalachian State (that just got wiped b Miami). They followed that up this last weekend by an overwhelming 9 point victory of Miami of Ohio - who doesn't like including Miami in their name anymore.

Ohio is a different team than Miami of Ohio. Your overall point still stands.

[washingtonismoney]

Tennesee barely pulled out an OT win over Appalachian State (that just got wiped b Miami). They followed that up this last weekend by an overwhelming 9 point victory of Miami of Ohio - who doesn't like including Miami in their name anymore.

Ohio is a different team than Miami of Ohio. Your overall point still stands.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=15695.msg171749#msg171749 date=1474226392]
Maybe Miami might be deserving, but they have to beat a real team first.

I guess UW doesn't have to?
[/quote]

UW didn't fire their coach last year and hire another fired coach to replace him.  And though they have played cupcakes, they have dominated them.  In other words, UW was a much more known commodity and has performed to expectations or even higher, so they get the benefit of the doubt.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=15695.msg171749#msg171749 date=1474226392]
Maybe Miami might be deserving, but they have to beat a real team first.

I guess UW doesn't have to?
[/quote]

UW didn't fire their coach last year and hire another fired coach to replace him.  And though they have played cupcakes, they have dominated them.  In other words, UW was a much more known commodity and has performed to expectations or even higher, so they get the benefit of the doubt.

[BostonCard]

And our favourite pollster has his picks out.
Lots for everyone to complain about there.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-old-no-1/

I'm just shaking my head.  I thought the man adjusted his thinking based on actual results, but somehow he can't bring himself to adjust down the quality of Notre Dame, even though they lost to Texas who lost to Cal, and lost to Michigan State, whose other win was a less-than-stellar win over Furman.  Maybe the answer is simply that UND is just not all that good, and thus that Michigan State shouldn't have risen to #6 on the basis of a win over a 1-2 team, or at least no more than you would raise Stanford after it beat a different overhyped 1-2 team.

Notre Dame clearly isn’t an elite team at this point — the Texas loss at Cal is additional evidence — but MSU’s showing in South Bend stands as a better result than all but a handful of teams can claim at this point.

The Tide’s dominating Week One win over USC lost some of its shine with the Trojans’ listless showing at Stanford — that cannot be considered a quality win for the Tide at this point. (If USC improves, I’ll reassess.)

#DoubleStandard

BC

[BostonCard]

And our favourite pollster has his picks out.
Lots for everyone to complain about there.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-old-no-1/

I'm just shaking my head.  I thought the man adjusted his thinking based on actual results, but somehow he can't bring himself to adjust down the quality of Notre Dame, even though they lost to Texas who lost to Cal, and lost to Michigan State, whose other win was a less-than-stellar win over Furman.  Maybe the answer is simply that UND is just not all that good, and thus that Michigan State shouldn't have risen to #6 on the basis of a win over a 1-2 team, or at least no more than you would raise Stanford after it beat a different overhyped 1-2 team.

Notre Dame clearly isn’t an elite team at this point — the Texas loss at Cal is additional evidence — but MSU’s showing in South Bend stands as a better result than all but a handful of teams can claim at this point.

The Tide’s dominating Week One win over USC lost some of its shine with the Trojans’ listless showing at Stanford — that cannot be considered a quality win for the Tide at this point. (If USC improves, I’ll reassess.)

#DoubleStandard

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Don't forget, Wilner had Texas ranked #2 on his ballot last week.  Let's face facts.  If he paid attention to his craft - and what the AP is expecting him to understand - he would have known that Texas is a flawed team.  It has a very poor secondary and this should have been baked into his rankings.  The fact it got exploited like it did against Cal should have been baked into his assessment of that team.  Instead he had them #2.

So they lose to Cal and where does Wilner rank Texas after that?  NOWHERE!  If Texas went from #2 to unranked (has this ever happened on any ballot?), doesn't that Texas win over Notre Dame take some of the luster off Michigan State beating them, just like Alabama's victory to USC doesn't look as impressive in retrospect?  And hello, can't it work the opposite direction?  I mean Stanford beat a KSU team nobody thought was great, that went out the next game and thrashed FAU 63-7.  Doesn't Stanford's KSU win have a lot more luster now?

And for crying out loud, what is the hard-on he has for LSU?  He's got a very mediocre Wisconsin team ranked #6 because Wisconsin beat LSU.  If any voter doesn't have Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Louisville, Clemson, Stanford, and Washington in the Top 9 they shouldn't be voting.  Wilner doesn't have Michigan, Stanford, or Washington in his Top 9.

[OutsiderFan]

Don't forget, Wilner had Texas ranked #2 on his ballot last week.  Let's face facts.  If he paid attention to his craft - and what the AP is expecting him to understand - he would have known that Texas is a flawed team.  It has a very poor secondary and this should have been baked into his rankings.  The fact it got exploited like it did against Cal should have been baked into his assessment of that team.  Instead he had them #2.

So they lose to Cal and where does Wilner rank Texas after that?  NOWHERE!  If Texas went from #2 to unranked (has this ever happened on any ballot?), doesn't that Texas win over Notre Dame take some of the luster off Michigan State beating them, just like Alabama's victory to USC doesn't look as impressive in retrospect?  And hello, can't it work the opposite direction?  I mean Stanford beat a KSU team nobody thought was great, that went out the next game and thrashed FAU 63-7.  Doesn't Stanford's KSU win have a lot more luster now?

And for crying out loud, what is the hard-on he has for LSU?  He's got a very mediocre Wisconsin team ranked #6 because Wisconsin beat LSU.  If any voter doesn't have Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Louisville, Clemson, Stanford, and Washington in the Top 9 they shouldn't be voting.  Wilner doesn't have Michigan, Stanford, or Washington in his Top 9.

[BostonCard]

I will take the unusual step of defending Wilner on dropping Texas from 2 to unranked.  A couple weeks ago, I argued that he shouldn't have ranked Texas so high, because although it is possible that UND was an elite team and Texas was better, an equally likely explanation was that UND was overrated, and Texas was merely good.  But given that he did decide to rank Texas #2 on the basis of its win over Notre Dame, the fact that Notre Dame lost again means that he has to revisit the logic that put Texas at #2.  Couple that with Texas' loss to Cal, and, well, it is reasonable to drop them altogether.

BC

[BostonCard]

I will take the unusual step of defending Wilner on dropping Texas from 2 to unranked.  A couple weeks ago, I argued that he shouldn't have ranked Texas so high, because although it is possible that UND was an elite team and Texas was better, an equally likely explanation was that UND was overrated, and Texas was merely good.  But given that he did decide to rank Texas #2 on the basis of its win over Notre Dame, the fact that Notre Dame lost again means that he has to revisit the logic that put Texas at #2.  Couple that with Texas' loss to Cal, and, well, it is reasonable to drop them altogether.

BC

[fullmetal]

1. Alabama
2. Ohio St.
3. Clemson
4. Stanford
5. Michigan St.
6. Louisville
7. Michigan
8. Houston
9. Wisconsin
10. Washington
11. Miami (FL)

I never bought FSU as a #2 team, so I can't give Louisville that much credit. 

[fullmetal]

1. Alabama
2. Ohio St.
3. Clemson
4. Stanford
5. Michigan St.
6. Louisville
7. Michigan
8. Houston
9. Wisconsin
10. Washington
11. Miami (FL)

I never bought FSU as a #2 team, so I can't give Louisville that much credit. 

[OutsiderFan]

I will take the unusual step of defending Wilner on dropping Texas from 2 to unranked.  A couple weeks ago, I argued that he shouldn't have ranked Texas so high, because although it is possible that UND was an elite team and Texas was better, an equally likely explanation was that UND was overrated, and Texas was merely good.  But given that he did decide to rank Texas #2 on the basis of its win over Votre Dame, the fact that Votre Dame lost again means that he has to revisit the logic that put Texas at #2.  Couple that with Texas' loss to ןɐɔ, and, well, it is reasonable to drop them altogether.

BC

That's fine, but show some logical consistency with all the other rankings.  I'm surprised Wilner doesn't have San Diego State ranked #2 now, because they did beat the team that beat the team he thought was #2.

[OutsiderFan]

I will take the unusual step of defending Wilner on dropping Texas from 2 to unranked.  A couple weeks ago, I argued that he shouldn't have ranked Texas so high, because although it is possible that UND was an elite team and Texas was better, an equally likely explanation was that UND was overrated, and Texas was merely good.  But given that he did decide to rank Texas #2 on the basis of its win over Votre Dame, the fact that Votre Dame lost again means that he has to revisit the logic that put Texas at #2.  Couple that with Texas' loss to ןɐɔ, and, well, it is reasonable to drop them altogether.

BC

That's fine, but show some logical consistency with all the other rankings.  I'm surprised Wilner doesn't have San Diego State ranked #2 now, because they did beat the team that beat the team he thought was #2.

[paloalto]

I don't see a reason to move Stanford up.  U. S. C. is 1-2.  They have a blowout loss and a win to a mediocre team.  The only reason to think they are a good team is speculation.  Their record indicates they are not a good team.

[paloalto]

I don't see a reason to move Stanford up.  U. S. C. is 1-2.  They have a blowout loss and a win to a mediocre team.  The only reason to think they are a good team is speculation.  Their record indicates they are not a good team.

[dabigv13]

You could say the same about Louisville and FSU. You can't rank solely based off of results at this time, projections have to make up a big portion of any rankings, by humans or computers.

[dabigv13]

You could say the same about Louisville and FSU. You can't rank solely based off of results at this time, projections have to make up a big portion of any rankings, by humans or computers.

[CTcard]

The only reason to think they are a good team is speculation. 

You can't rank solely based off of results at this time, projections have to make up a big portion of any rankings, by humans or computers.

Well, you don't have to just use speculation and projection. One thing you can do is watch teams play and evaluate how well they do things and, well, how good they are.

It is a little tricky, because level of competition figures in. And certainly journalists seem to be generally trained not to have opinions of their own based upon observations of their own. But you can take a good stab at it if you watch enough football and spend the time to learn about how things are supposed to work. For example, there is a difference between completing a lot of passes because nobody is covered and competing passes even though receivers are covered because the ball is delivered right on the money. There is a way to figure out if an OL is letting in rushers because they are busy double teaming one guy while another roams free versus simply being over-powered one on one. But this takes doing a lot of homework.

U$C has a bit of both by the way. They have some fantastic athletes. Their lines both were strong at the start of the game. But, they made lots of bone-headed plays (look at all those illegal motion penalties) and they seemed to wear out pretty badly in the second half - either physically, emotionally, or both.

[CTcard]

The only reason to think they are a good team is speculation. 

You can't rank solely based off of results at this time, projections have to make up a big portion of any rankings, by humans or computers.

Well, you don't have to just use speculation and projection. One thing you can do is watch teams play and evaluate how well they do things and, well, how good they are.

It is a little tricky, because level of competition figures in. And certainly journalists seem to be generally trained not to have opinions of their own based upon observations of their own. But you can take a good stab at it if you watch enough football and spend the time to learn about how things are supposed to work. For example, there is a difference between completing a lot of passes because nobody is covered and competing passes even though receivers are covered because the ball is delivered right on the money. There is a way to figure out if an OL is letting in rushers because they are busy double teaming one guy while another roams free versus simply being over-powered one on one. But this takes doing a lot of homework.

U$C has a bit of both by the way. They have some fantastic athletes. Their lines both were strong at the start of the game. But, they made lots of bone-headed plays (look at all those illegal motion penalties) and they seemed to wear out pretty badly in the second half - either physically, emotionally, or both.

[stupac2]

The problem is that with 2-3 games played you can't possibly rank in a sensible manner. Sure, Wilner's rankings are stupid, but right now every ranking is stupid! It's absolutely pointless to try to rank when most teams haven't played any conference games.

[stupac2]

The problem is that with 2-3 games played you can't possibly rank in a sensible manner. Sure, Wilner's rankings are stupid, but right now every ranking is stupid! It's absolutely pointless to try to rank when most teams haven't played any conference games.

[BostonCard]

The problem is that with 2-3 games played you can't possibly rank in a sensible manner. Sure, Wilner's rankings are stupid, but right now every ranking is stupid! It's absolutely pointless to try to rank when most teams haven't played any conference games.

I agree with you; my problem is that Wilner makes a big show about ranking by results... and then doesn't.  There is no logical reason to push Michigan State up as much as he did.  If you go by results, they beat a Notre Dame who is 1-2, with one win over a G5 team (Nevada) and two losses against P5 teams (Michigan State and Texas).  Michigan State's only other win was over Furman, and Texas, of course lost to a mediocre Cal team.  Based solely on results, you can say Michigan State doesn't suck, but there is no justification for putting them in the Top-10, unless you continue to harbor the view that Notre Dame is a good team, contra to evidence.

Stanford may not have a great case to be in the top-10, but it's hard to make a case for having MSU leapfrog us.  Stanford has two P5 wins.  Kansas State's other game was a blowout over FAU.  USC's other two games include a loss at the hands of Alabama, and a win over Utah State.  Notre Dame may well wind up a a better team than USC or Kansas State, but you can't say that based on results.

BC

[BostonCard]

The problem is that with 2-3 games played you can't possibly rank in a sensible manner. Sure, Wilner's rankings are stupid, but right now every ranking is stupid! It's absolutely pointless to try to rank when most teams haven't played any conference games.

I agree with you; my problem is that Wilner makes a big show about ranking by results... and then doesn't.  There is no logical reason to push Michigan State up as much as he did.  If you go by results, they beat a Notre Dame who is 1-2, with one win over a G5 team (Nevada) and two losses against P5 teams (Michigan State and Texas).  Michigan State's only other win was over Furman, and Texas, of course lost to a mediocre Cal team.  Based solely on results, you can say Michigan State doesn't suck, but there is no justification for putting them in the Top-10, unless you continue to harbor the view that Notre Dame is a good team, contra to evidence.

Stanford may not have a great case to be in the top-10, but it's hard to make a case for having MSU leapfrog us.  Stanford has two P5 wins.  Kansas State's other game was a blowout over FAU.  USC's other two games include a loss at the hands of Alabama, and a win over Utah State.  Notre Dame may well wind up a a better team than USC or Kansas State, but you can't say that based on results.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

My big annoyance is that people are still using "conference strength" as a meaningful analytical tool. The lesson of GREATEST NONCONFERENCE SCHEDULE EVER, ultimately, is -- this year, at least* -- the conferences are pretty close! Given that that's the case, you ought to assess teams as teams, not as conference-members.

* (In fact I have a sneaking suspicion that conferences were always pretty close! They simply didn't play frequently enough to establish it.)

[washingtonismoney]

My big annoyance is that people are still using "conference strength" as a meaningful analytical tool. The lesson of GREATEST NONCONFERENCE SCHEDULE EVER, ultimately, is -- this year, at least* -- the conferences are pretty close! Given that that's the case, you ought to assess teams as teams, not as conference-members.

* (In fact I have a sneaking suspicion that conferences were always pretty close! They simply didn't play frequently enough to establish it.)

[BostonCard]

FWIW, Sagarin rates the SEC-West #1, and the Pac-12 North #2.  The P12S is #4.

Also, we are ranked third in Sagarin's team ratings.

BC

[BostonCard]

FWIW, Sagarin rates the SEC-West #1, and the Pac-12 North #2.  The P12S is #4.

Also, we are ranked third in Sagarin's team ratings.

BC

[fullmetal]

That is a *lot* of faith in the P12S.  Surely the Big10 is better (at least one division), and at least one half of the ACC needs to be represented ahead of the P12S.

Notre Shame played Stanford very close last year, and they presumably didn't fall off a cliff.  Their losses to Texas and MSU show that they've slipped a bit, but they're still a P5-caliber team, albeit a losing one.  MSU's win over USB, plus MSU's performance last season, tells me that Sparty is doing okay.

[fullmetal]

That is a *lot* of faith in the P12S.  Surely the Big10 is better (at least one division), and at least one half of the ACC needs to be represented ahead of the P12S.

Notre Shame played Stanford very close last year, and they presumably didn't fall off a cliff.  Their losses to Texas and MSU show that they've slipped a bit, but they're still a P5-caliber team, albeit a losing one.  MSU's win over USB, plus MSU's performance last season, tells me that Sparty is doing okay.