• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2007 Preseason and Regular season Polls

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
stowfan;959130; said:
I hate to say it but, I believe if we put in a better showing in the title game we wouldn't end up hearing a lot of shit we are going to hear.
Click to expand...
captain%20obvious.jpg
 
Upvote 0
There's been discussions lately over people's opinions on what the rankings should mean. Many people think that the rankings should reflect the results of the games. Others think that it should be rankings should reflect which teams would win in head-to-head match-ups.

Obviously, the easy answer is "both." You can't simply rank teams based on who've they've beated, because there's always situations of "Team A beat Team B, Team B beat Team C, and Team C beat Team A." In that case, how do you rank the three teams? Also, you can't keep LSU #1 at this point, because they lost to Kentucky. But if the kicker had made that field goal at the end of regulation, does that change the LSU team at all? They'd still be #1 at this point. The LSU that makes that field goal is no different from the LSU that missed that field goal, so how can they be ranked differently?

So my question is this: which is more important, in your opinion: the rankings reflect the results of the games played, or they reflect who you think would win in head-to-head matchups?
 
Upvote 0
BrutusBobcat;959142; said:
Being a disrespected #1 is good. Let the talking heads bash the Bucks all day long while holding the top spot in the polls. It's excellent motivation.
Click to expand...
True.

Part of the problem last year, IMO, was the fact that we were essentially unquestioned as #1. Because of that, we saw treatment of the scUM game as if it were for the national title. There was a huge feeling of accomplishment after that game (and rightfully so), and it seemed that we lost focus after that point (wrongfully so). In our minds, we beat the only team who may have deserved that #1 ranking, after all.

Fortunately, we're being doubted this year (and rightfully so). As an added bonus, although our remaining schedule is tough, none of these games will be mistaken for NC games this time around ... meaning that we should keep that hunger going as the season moves towards its close. It's a real opportunity for this team to grow, stay within itself, remember the pain of last year's NC game, and still have an inside track to the NC game this year.

You could hardly ask for more.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp;959164; said:
There's been discussions lately over people's opinions on what the rankings should mean. Many people think that the rankings should reflect the results of the games. Others think that it should be rankings should reflect which teams would win in head-to-head match-ups.

Obviously, the easy answer is "both." You can't simply rank teams based on who've they've beated, because there's always situations of "Team A beat Team B, Team B beat Team C, and Team C beat Team A." In that case, how do you rank the three teams? Also, you can't keep LSU #1 at this point, because they lost to Kentucky. But if the kicker had made that field goal at the end of regulation, does that change the LSU team at all? They'd still be #1 at this point. The LSU that makes that field goal is no different from the LSU that missed that field goal, so how can they be ranked differently?

So my question is this: which is more important, in your opinion: the rankings reflect the results of the games played, or they reflect who you think would win in head-to-head matchups?
Click to expand...

It's a good question. Fowler asked it on Gameday Final last night, and Corso diverted the topic to pander to the Oklahoma crowd.

However, I would like to complicate the discussion by adding a third method of voting, due to the BCS world we live in. That method is, when comparing two teams, if they both would win out, which team would be more deserving of a BCS Title shot? It's about time to consider that question when deciding where to place Arizona State and Kansas, undefeated teams from 'BCS Conferences' that didn't enter the rankings until recently.

Personally, I don't go for the "belief of who would win head-to-head" thing - I think it's swayed by preconceptions, media hype, etc.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp;959164; said:
Also, you can't keep LSU #1 at this point, because they lost to Kentucky. But if the kicker had made that field goal at the end of regulation, does that change the LSU team at all? They'd still be #1 at this point. The LSU that makes that field goal is no different from the LSU that missed that field goal, so how can they be ranked differently?
Click to expand...

Bottom line: LSU didn't make that field goal, and they didn't win that game. There's a big difference between having a 0 in the loss column and having a 1 there.

Consider this:

Against Washington, a UW special teams player missed a blocking assignment and we blocked that field goal. That completely turned the momentum of the game, and we ended up blowing them out. Did the missed blocking assignment have *anything* to do with our ability? Nope. It was essentially something serendipitous that went in our favor, and it turned the entire game in our favor, and it may have set the tone for the entire season.

A lot of "little" things happen in sports, but teams are defined by these "little" things and how well they respond to them. LSU missed a field goal, but had equal opportunity to close out the game in OT. They failed to do so. That's got to hurt their confidence, it's gotta hurt their feeling of invincibility, and accordingly, it's gotta hurt their ranking.

For missing that field goal, LSU is indeed a very different team.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp;959164; said:
Also, you can't keep LSU #1 at this point, because they lost to Kentucky. But if the kicker had made that field goal at the end of regulation, does that change the LSU team at all? They'd still be #1 at this point. The LSU that makes that field goal is no different from the LSU that missed that field goal, so how can they be ranked differently?
Click to expand...
You could also add Oregon (losing the game by fumbling the tying TD out of the end zone) and Cal (losing a winnable game due to the brain-lock of a RS Frosh QB in his first ever game).

That's what makes football great!

I don't think it matters this week, but in about three weeks, once BC loses (to Va Tech?) and Kansas, USF, and ASU lose (to someone legit), there will be a lot of hand-wringing over whose loss was "more fluky" than anyone elses.
 
Upvote 0
milkman21;959206; said:
Bottom line: LSU didn't make that field goal, and they didn't win that game. There's a big difference between having a 0 in the loss column and having a 1 there.

LSU missed a field goal, but had equal opportunity to close out the game in OT. They failed to do so. That's got to hurt their confidence, it's gotta hurt their feeling of invincibility, and accordingly, it's gotta hurt their ranking.

For missing that field goal, LSU is indeed a very different team.
Click to expand...

First, I wasn't arguing that having a 1 in the "L" column shouldn't hurt a ranking. I was merely giving the side of the argument that the rankings should be based on who you think would win head-to-head. I think that most people would agree that Team A would beat Team B, even though Team A just lost to Team C. The game between Team A and Team C really has very little to do with the game between Team A and Team B. Even if Team C is a terrible team, Team B still has to go out and "get it done" against Team A. From that point of view, Team A should remain ranked higher than Team B. And if everyone agrees that Team A should beat everyone else on the field, they'll remain #1.

However, I agree that you can't keep that one, sole, mindset. Otherwise, you might keep LSU #1 this week. And then in another couple of weeks, they lose another game to a tough team, by a last-second field goal. And maybe they stay #1, for the same reason. And maybe another loss. Can you imagine a 3-loss team ranked number one over several other undefeated teams?

So I agree that LSU's ranking should drop. However, there's the part of me that thinks that the ranking is ranking the teams from best to worst. If I seriously believe that LSU is the best team in the country, by this argument, I have to keep them #1.

So, like I said, between the two schools of thought, the easy answer is to keep both in mind. But I can't figure out which carries more weight, with me.
 
Upvote 0
New Coaches Poll

USATODAY.com

USA/Coaches Today Poll

1. Ohio State (56) 7-0 1,495
2. Boston College (1) 7-0 1,383
3. South Florida (3) 6-0 1,320
4. Oklahoma 6-1 1,288
5. LSU 6-1 1,173
6. Oregon 5-1 1,077
7. West Virginia 5-1 1,007
8. South Carolina 6-1 997
9. California 5-1 983
9. USC 5-1 983
11. Virginia Tech 6-1 982
12. Arizona State 7-0 936
13. Kentucky 6-1 874
14. Florida 4-2 726
15. Kansas 6-0 705
16. Hawaii 7-0 558
17. Missouri 5-1 519
18. Texas 5-2 396
19. Auburn 5-2 372
20. Georgia 5-2 282
21. Texas Tech 6-1 232
22. Tennessee 4-2 193
23. Cincinnati 6-1 192
24. Virginia 6-1 184
25. Penn State 5-2 128
Others Receiving Votes
Michigan 127, Wisconsin 82, Boise State 61, Illinois 59, Kansas State 42, Rutgers 25, Purdue 19, Florida State 16, Maryland 15, Alabama 13, Wake Forest 12, Louisville 9, Clemson 9, Brigham Young 8, Michigan State 8, Connecticut 7, Fresno State 2, Wyoming 1.

--------------------------------
AP

1. Ohio State (50) 7-0 1,599
2. South Florida (11) 6-0 1,503
3. Boston College (1) 7-0 1,448
4. Oklahoma (1) 6-1 1,399
5. LSU (1) 6-1 1,331
6. South Carolina 6-1 1,247
7. Oregon 5-1 1,177
8. Kentucky 6-1 1,098
9. West Virginia 5-1 1,090
10. California 5-1 1,065
11. Virginia Tech 6-1 951
12. Arizona State (1) 7-0 948
13. USC 5-1 932
14. Florida 4-2 865
15. Kansas 6-0 664
15. Missouri 5-1 664
17. Hawaii 7-0 551
18. Auburn 5-2 488
19. Texas 5-2 348
20. Tennessee 4-2 339
21. Georgia 5-2 279
22. Texas Tech 6-1 241
23. Cincinnati 6-1 194
24. Michigan 5-2 189
25. Kansas State 4-2 107
Others Receiving Votes
Penn State 95, Virginia 85, Illinois 75, Boise State 37, Alabama 27, Wake Forest 18, Wisconsin 18, Rutgers 18, Clemson 9, Connecticut 7, Florida State 6, Maryland 6, Air Force 4, Brigham Young 2, TROY 1.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
OSUBuckeye4Life;959252; said:
USATODAY.com

#1 Ohio State (56)
#2 Boston College (1)
#3 South Florida (3)
#4 Oklahoma
#5 LSU
#6 Oregon
#7 West Virginia
#8 South Carolina
T-#9 Southern Cal and Cal

--------------------------------

AP Poll

1. Ohio State
2. Boston College
3. South Florida
4. Oklahoma
5. West Virginia
6. Oregon
7. LSU
8. South Carolina
9. Kentucky
10. USC
11. California
Click to expand...

Perfect illustration that how the polls work is bullshit. Cal beat Oregon--at Oregon--just last week and has the same record as Oregon, and yet they're ranked below Oregon simply because they lost yesterday and Oregon didn't. Now, you may argue that Cal losing at home to Oregon State is wrose than Oregon losing at home to Cal, but common sense dictates that when you have the same record and same relative schedule, you go head-to-head to determine who's better, not on timing of the losses and where they're ranked at the time.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top