2013 Preseason and regular polls

[TooTall]

He is a moron.

However - taking my homer glasses off - I can not justify Ohio State being anything higher than 3 right now.

We are winning but we are also unproven and don't have much of an identity. We don't have a solid plan for our QB situation, who knows who will be starting at RB come conference play, and our Defense still struggles with fundamentals.

The biggest positive we have is that we have extremely talented players riding the bench as proven back ups. If someone goes down, we know the team won't miss a step.

I think 3/4 is respectable and should keep the team hungry.

What other team in the nation has a backup QB that can step in and score on a game-winning drive. Or goes 8 deep at RB...

I have no problem with where these asshats rank the Buckeyes, or any one for that matter because their poll is irrelevant.

 

[MaxBuck]

Not a poll, but related. E-spin is trying to garner their idea of a "dream match up." Go figure thy want a flashy Oregon and a SEC team. They leave out conservative teams like Ohio State and Stanford.

Please, BCS, give us the dream finale

If I take my Buckeye hat off, the idea of a matchup between Oregon and Alabama I find extremely appealing as a generic football fan.

Also, there's nothing about the 2013 Buckeyes that justifies calling it a "conservative team."

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

If you take your contrarian hat off, the idea of ESPN lobbying for who should be in the championship game should disgust you. This is a "news" entity that has a direct influence on the opinion of the very people who decide who "deserves" to be in the NCG.

 

[MaxBuck]

If you take your contrarian hat off, the idea of ESPN lobbying for who should be in the championship game should disgust you. This is a "news" entity that has a direct influence on the opinion of the very people who decide who "deserves" to be in the NCG.

They're not a news entity, they're an entertainment network.

And all I said was I think Oregon-Alabama would be a hell of a lot of fun to watch. Do you seriously disagree?

 

[rock454]

If I take my Buckeye hat off, the idea of a matchup between Oregon and Alabama I find extremely appealing as a generic football fan.

Also, there's nothing about the 2013 Buckeyes that justifies calling it a "conservative team."

Agreed, without being a homer, Oregon vs. Alabama is what people have been hoping would happen for a few years. I think it's the "unstoppable force (oregon offense) versus immovable object ('bama defense)" matchup that intrigues people. I don't know if Alabama has the defense that it did last year though so it may lose some appeal.

Even though tOSU is far from conservative now, I think that's always going to be a stigma of B1G teams because we're from the midwest. I think people just assume that its going to be fundamentally sound football without a lot of flash. Meyer may overcome this eventually. Stanford gets the same stereotype by being a "smart kid" school.

 

[Drubuck]

ESPN wants Oregon/Bama in the Natl Title and they will get it. They also want to see Ohio St/Clemson or L'ville and will most likely get it. I would like to see Ohio St/Oregon rematch for the Natl Title but it's not going to happen as at the end of the Cal game the announcers were debating who between the 4 (oregon, tOSU, Clemson and L'ville) as to which one would be facing the SEC champ in the Natl Title. It's already set in stone that the SEC will be in the title game no matter the record of the SEC champ. This system is fucking pathetic.

 

[matcar]

They're not a news entity, they're an entertainment network.

And all I said was I think Oregon-Alabama would be a hell of a lot of fun to watch. Do you seriously disagree?

I think it's amusing that people think that a news organization shouldn't have an opinion. You may be right that ESPN is an entertainment network, but even if they were a news network, they should be expected to have an opinion. When I read The Economist, I expect there to be an editorial. When I read my local paper, my favorite section is always the Perspectives/Editorial section. Honestly, what serious news agency doesn't have perspective and opinion?

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

I think it's amusing that people think that a news organization shouldn't have an opinion. You may be right that ESPN is an entertainment network, but even if they were a news network, they should be expected to have an opinion. When I read The Economist, I expect there to be an editorial. When I read my local paper, my favorite section is always the Perspectives/Editorial section. Honestly, what serious news agency doesn't have perspective and opinion?

True, but those are in the "Opinion" section, not the "News" section. You don't see any conflict of interest in them having the ability to both influence an outcome and profit from a certain result?

EDIT - Wouldn't you take that opinion piece from The Economist with a massive grain of salt if you knew that the author of the piece stood to profit immensely from writing it?

EDIT II - Also, the author of that opinion piece for The Economist? The only evidence that he is an expert on the field he is writing about is the fact that he is employed by The Economist.

 

[BayBuck]

I think it's amusing that people think that a news organization shouldn't have an opinion. You may be right that ESPN is an entertainment network, but even if they were a news network, they should be expected to have an opinion. When I read The Economist, I expect there to be an editorial. When I read my local paper, my favorite section is always the Perspectives/Editorial section. Honestly, what serious news agency doesn't have perspective and opinion?

I'm okay with opinions. It's an agenda that is a real concern for a news organization.

There's saying a particular matchup would be great, and then there's openly lobbying for that to actually happen.

 

[muffler dragon]

When Oregon gets a defense that can stop a solid offense, then I'll say that they should be in the NC again. Until then...

 

[matcar]

True, but those are in the "Opinion" section, not the "News" section. You don't see any conflict of interest in them having the ability to both influence an outcome and profit from a certain result?

EDIT - Wouldn't you take that opinion piece from The Economist with a massive grain of salt if you knew that the author of the piece stood to profit immensely from writing it?

I take opinion sections from any agency reporting it seriously but always evaluate its source. Opinion sectio s are not "truth", but some vision of it. I'm ok with that.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

I take opinion sections from any agency reporting it seriously but always evaluate its source. Opinion sectio s are not "truth", but some vision of it. I'm ok with that.

So am I -- as long as they keep those pieces in the op-ed section rather than letting the bias & agenda seep into the "real" news.

I think I am losing any argument where I am pointing to the mainstream media as a source for how journalism is supposed to work.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

They're not a news entity, they're an entertainment network.

And all I said was I think Oregon-Alabama would be a hell of a lot of fun to watch. Do you seriously disagree?

I don't......but that's not the point of why somebody should object to ESPN laying the groundwork for who they want in the title game while we're in week 3.

There's a difference between you saying it once in a thread where maybe a couple hundred people see it if BP is lucky vs ESPN pumping it into every voters minds starting in week 3. You can check Deadspin's article about how they manufactured a story about Kaepernick to see exactly what they're going to be doing with their dream matchup.

 

[MaxBuck]

I guess one man's "Wouldn't it be fun?" is another man's "laying the groundwork." Each to his own perspective.

 

[Dryden]

Alabama has to beat LSU and presumably Georgia/Florida/South Carolina. Oregon will have to beat Stanford twice, along with Washington.

Way too early to give a shit about the narrative being written on Sept 16th.