• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

west Virginia #1 - Recruiting Officially Irrelevant

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
crazybuckfan40 said:
A good team doesnt go up 28 and just hold on. They might give up a score or two but they don't let the other team right back in the game.

I am not saying dont give WVU credit for wins, but you have to look at the opponents b4 giving them credit.

Louisville isnt ranked if they play in a different conference.

It is not a combination, but just a concept. There is no way WVU deserves to play in a NC if they go undefeated and beat up on the big East and we lose one game to a top 10 team early in the season at their place. I don't care how the rest of the games went. I would feel the same way about a team in the SEC or maybe the ACC too. If Florida lost to say a top 10 team early and then win out, I would take them over WVU.

I guess we are going to agree to disagree, b/c I hate it when people ranks teams on the fact that their schedule sucks. Much like Purdon't this year.

They had no business being as high as they were, people were even saying they were going to win the big ten.:!
Click to expand...

Again, your Louisville comment is based on pure speculation.

Purdue, if my understanding is correct, was ranked because they brought back everyone on the defensive side of the ball.....a defense that was quite good. They were picked to win the Big 10 by many because of the schedule, not ranked high because of it.
 
Upvote 0
OSUBuckeye4Life said:
Again, your Louisville comment is based on pure speculation.

Purdue, if my understanding is correct, was ranked because they brought back everyone on the defensive side of the ball.....a defense that was quite good. They were picked to win the Big 10 by many because of the schedule, not ranked high because of it.
Click to expand...

That last statement about Purdue sounds like double-speak. You are mixing individual opinion and collective opinion.

Those individuals who picked Purdue to win the Big 10 were by definition NOT dunning them with a lowly ranking.

The general pre-season rankings derived from the collective votes of writers and coaches respectively had them with an overall sub-20 ranking because opinions about Purdue's strength of squad and ability to run the table differed widely.

As it happens, those who thought less of Purdue's squad and abilities were closer to the money than the individuals who had Purdue winning the Big 10.
 
Upvote 0
sandgk said:
That last statement about Purdue sounds like double-speak. You are mixing individual opinion and collective opinion.

Those individuals who picked Purdue to win the Big 10 were by definition NOT dunning them with a lowly ranking.

The general pre-season rankings derived from the collective votes of writers and coaches respectively had them with an overall sub-20 ranking because opinions about Purdue's strength of squad and ability to run the table differed widely.

As it happens, those who thought less of Purdue's squad and abilities were closer to the money than the individuals who had Purdue winning the Big 10.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does that discredit what I put.

They were RANKED becasue of who they brought back [talent] and they were picked to win the Big 10 because of strength of schedule [for those that picked them.] I thought that was pretty much common knowledge.
 
Upvote 0
I would jump for joy if the actual preseason rankings this fall are exactly as Forde has them today. Think about it. Being #2 in the human polls is just about as good as being #1. After all, you only have to get to #2 in the Final BCS poll to earn a spot in the Championship Game anyway. If tOSU is the preseason #2 and we go undefeated and the team at #1 in the human polls is West Virginia I can almost guarantee you that the Buckeyes will be #1 in the BCS. Remember the BCS as the computer polls in which a large component of many of them is SOS. WV will not have a strong SOS in 2006. The Buckeyes will be way ahead of them in the computer polls. I don't think WV will be a unanimous #1 anyway and the BCS awards human poll points by votes received now anyway. I think it's more important to be ahead of ND in the polls because as we all have seen, they can lose and not drop and they will lose games next year! Please please please let next years human polls start out exactly the way ESPN has them today. If that is the case, all the Bucks have to do is take care of business on the field and it's back to Tempe!
 
Upvote 0
OSUBuckeye4Life said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does that discredit what I put.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to discredit what you wrote. It is in fact one of the ways in which some individuals explained their projections for Purdue's finish pre-2005 season - returning starters, surely the offense will click with Kirsch at the helm, no scUM, no tOSU - their projected result; success for Purdue, top of the Big 10. Part of my thesis is, not everyone agreed with that position. And, this lack of agreement had more to do with their ranking in the pre-season polls than an individual writer trying to balance two contradictory notions simultaneously.

So I say, segregate those winning projections for Purdue in the Big 10 from their pre-season ranking in the coaches and writers polls. The former are expressions of individual opinion. The latter are expressions of collective wisdom (or idiocy when looked at in retrospect).

Put another way - if you, as an individual voter, felt Purdue was favored to win the Big 10 then the pre-season projection that you would accord them should be higher than ~ 20th. Somewhere closer to 10-15 at worst would seem appropriate.

The relatively lowly poll rankings pre-season for Purdue speak strongly that others disagreed with certain individuals projecting them to have a top Big 10 finish. Coupling one with the other is in fact a mixing of individual and collective opinion.

Moreover, regardless of this point, Purdue's pre-season ranking is probably as good an example of the frailty of such polls and rankings as any out there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
sandgk said:
I am not trying to discredit what you wrote. It is in fact one of the ways in which some individuals explained their projections for Purdue's finish pre-2005 season - returning starters, surely the offense will click with Kirsch at the helm, no scUM, no tOSU - their projected result; success for Purdue, top of the Big 10. Part of my thesis is, not everyone agreed with that position. And, this lack of agreement had more to do with their ranking in the pre-season polls than an individual writer trying to balance two contradictory notions simultaneously.

So I say, segregate those winning projections for Purdue in the Big 10 from their pre-season ranking in the coaches and writers polls. The former are expressions of individual opinion. The latter are expressions of collective wisdom (or idiocy when looked at in retrospect).

Put another way - if you, as an individual voter, felt Purdue was favored to win the Big 10 then the pre-season projection that you would accord them should be higher than ~ 20th. Somewhere closer to 10-15 at worst would seem appropriate.

The relatively lowly poll rankings pre-season for Purdue speak strongly that others disagreed with certain individuals projecting them to have a top Big 10 finish. Coupling one with the other is in fact a mixing of individual and collective opinion.

Moreover, regardless of this point, Purdue's pre-season ranking is probably as good an example of the frailty of such polls and rankings as any out there.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, I see what you are getting at. I agree for the most part.
 
Upvote 0
mississippi was 3-8 last year. Orgeron was highly touted, but 1 decent class probably will not remedy their recent woes (4 wins in 04, tho they had 10 in 03). I honestly have not followed them enough to know.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeKid789 said:
They did have an impressive showing against Alabama. Then again, Alabama has no offense.
Click to expand...
offensively, not much different than these teams:

<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="oddrow"><td width="43">09/03</td><td width="170"><nobr>M Tenn St</nobr></td><td width="125">W 26-7</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td width="43">09/10</td><td width="170"><nobr>So Miss</nobr></td><td width="125">W 30-21</td></tr><tr class="oddrow"><td width="43">09/17</td><td width="170"><nobr>at S Carolina</nobr></td><td width="125">W 37-14</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td width="43">09/24</td><td width="170"><nobr>Arkansas</nobr></td><td width="125">W 24-13</td></tr><tr class="evenrow"><td width="43">10/15</td><td width="170"><nobr>at Ole Miss</nobr></td><td width="125">W 13-10</td></tr></tbody></table>
 
Upvote 0
OSUBuckeye4Life said:
Again, your Louisville comment is based on pure speculation.

Purdue, if my understanding is correct, was ranked because they brought back everyone on the defensive side of the ball.....a defense that was quite good. They were picked to win the Big 10 by many because of the schedule, not ranked high because of it.
Click to expand...

So is ranking WVU high.

Much like a reason why WVU is going to be ranked high b/c of their schedule, which is what I don't like.

I don't think you are getting my point. In no way am I trying to discredit WVU, I am just saying that rankings based on weak schedules are weak rankings to me.

You sound like you know a little about WVU, I honestly do not know a whole lot about them, all I know is they have a qb and rb that are good, and they play in a very weak conference. I don't think they have the talent level to be ranked a top 5 team let alone number 1. As OhcH said it is very hard to have a team of unhighly ranked recruits be that good. Much like people tried to put Iowa up there this year, b/c they had a couple nice years and a good recruiting class last year.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top