2008 sj.com college football poll -- (1/9) Final Poll, Page 118

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

well. That's specific.

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

Seeing KU drop 10 or more spots in so many polls (I dropped them two spots to 16th), I'll be curious to see where they're at this week after winning on the road, in the conference.

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

In that case, my belief that the defending champ deserves to be number one until they lose. You don't have to agree with that, but if you win a title, you deserve that respect. I did that with Florida last year and am doing that with LSU this year. I don't understand why people want to rag on voting done based what's happened this year and not a guesstimate of what will happen a month from now. It's like we have to vote on the top 25 for Dec 13 on the first week of October. When you do that, schools get shortchanged. So I'll vote Vanderbilt and Northwestern high because they don't have losses. My top 10-15 is consistent to almost everybody else that votes. If you want to vote Michigan State 22nd while I go with Minnesota, have at it. It's not like I have Ball State at five.

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

Here are my specific examples:

- You say preseason means nothing and you completely re-ranked to start the season, but you are dead set on keeping LSU at No. 1 till they lose since they won it last year.
- Week 1 debuting Bammy at No. 3 (page 18 and 19)
- You put ECU in at 7 (24), kept Kentucky in the poll
- You considered dropping LSU for not playing a game, but decided not to since it was a hurricane and not the way the schedule worked out (25). Said the same thing about Florida, minus the hurricane (33)
- You were surprised Vandy wasn’t ranked after beating Rice by 17 (37)
- You said you wanted to rank UCONN after they beat 1-Aas and Virginia, though you make the point it’s completely about who you beat
- You would pick an undefeated team over a more deserving one- or two-loss team simply because it was undefeated (40) in week 4.
- Your week 4 ballot moves: dropping ECU out of the poll from No. 7 because of one loss; Oregon out of the poll from somewhere in your top 15; Wisconsin moved up 6 without playing.
- Week 5 or 6, you say you won’t move undefeated teams ahead of USC because of the quality of the loss, completely contradicting what you say earlier (45).
- You move Texas Tech up from 15 to 7 on a bye week (47).
- You knock teams down after winning by decent margins but keep Bammy high up because it “was a classic letdown game” (52).
- This post: http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/2089967/

I wouldn't have a problem with some of the crazy rankings if you used the same logic throughout, but you don't. You have a pattern of changing your reasoning, therefore your rankings make no sense.

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

suck it, pole keeper.

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

Soooory, but your wife is the pole keeper... How's that freezer treating you?

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

Here's what Slappy got this week from me ...

1. Oklahoma
2. LSU
3. Missouri
4. Texas
5. USC
6. Alabama
7. Penn State
8. Florida
9. Georgia
10. Vanderbilt
11. BYU
12. Utah
13. Ohio State
14. Kansas
15. Texas Tech
16. Virginia Tech
17. Boise State
18. Illinois
19. Oklahoma State
20. Tulsa
21. Michigan State
22. South Florida
23. Wake Forest
24. Auburn
25. Wisconsin

Welcome: No. 19 Oklahoma State, No. 20 Tulsa, No. 21 Michigan State
Swept out like the Cubs: ex-No. 21 Fresno State, ex-No. 22 Oregon, ex-No. 24 Maryland
Last team out: Northwestern (couldn't put them in by default when they were idle) & Ball State (not until they're 8-0)
Simmering: (no particular order) TCU, Cincinnati, Ball State, Pitt, Connecticut, Northwestern, Notre Dame, North Carolina, California, Arizona, Oregon, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Boston College, Minnesota, Kentucky, South Carolina, Navy, Fresno State.

"Leapfrogged": (winning teams that leapfrogged other winning teams from the previous week's poll)

-- USC over Alabama (unimpressive at home against UK)

-- Vanderbilt over five schools. That's a message game for the 'Dores. Say what you want about Auburn's offense, but Auburn's defense is not easy to beat.

-- BYU over Utah (the Utes were lucky to escape Oregon State).

-- Ohio State over Kansas (road win at Madison is more impressive than road escape at Ames, even without the UW band).

BYH Memorial Fraud Alert: I think the No. 21 team in my poll has lost every week, so expect Sparty to get dumped by Northwestern on Saturday. Like there's any doubt, Sparty is in the Fraud Hall of Fame.

Alabama moved back on to the fraud list after a close shave against Kentucky. I've been wary of the Tide from the beginning and they're due for a fall, though it won't come this week as they're off. Can't believe they're No. 2 nationally.

As ever, Texas Tech remains on the list, though I actually moved them up a few spots this week, primarily due to losses above them. I fully expect them to hammer their next few opponents, but they will get predictably bitch-slapped when their schedule gets rough in late October.

Random Former Football-Playing School: Cal State-Fullerton

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

No I didn't. All I got was the poll. I didn't get the fanboi jinx explanation for not putting in Ball State and stuff...

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

Everybody gets that!

And it's no fanboi jinx. They don't deserve it yet. Not with a win against Indiana and a bunch of mediocre MAC teams. Fanboi has nothing to do with it.

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

- You say preseason means nothing and you completely re-ranked to start the season, but you are dead set on keeping LSU at No. 1 till they lose since they won it last year.

Preseaosn means nothing but if we're going to have a poll that determines the top two teams that "play each other" for a national title, I give the defending champ the chance to do so.


- Week 1 debuting Bammy at No. 3 (page 18 and 19)

There was one game to base the poll on, they way the won against what is supposed to be an upper escholon BCS team dserves to be rewarded than playing the Little Sisters of the poor.

- You put ECU in at 7 (24), kept Kentucky in the poll

ECU had victories over Va. tech and West Virginia, two BCS-quality teams. They were the only two games to go on. Why Kentucky should be knocked out at that point I'm not sure. They had defeated Louisville.

- You considered dropping LSU for not playing a game, but decided not to since it was a hurricane and not the way the schedule worked out (25). Said the same thing about Florida, minus the hurricane (33)

I didn't say anything about considering dropping LSU. Someone asked why I dropped Fresno for not playing but not LSU. I said I didn't drop them because they are my number one for the reason stated above. I did say that there would be a difference between not having a game scheduled and having one postponed by a hurricane. As for Florida the next week, the way the teams behind them played in such close games didn't negate moving them down. If Auburn had won by 40 instead of 3-2, they would have moved up, etc. But the difference in those games wasn't big enough to overcome.


- You were surprised Vandy wasn’t ranked after beating Rice by 17 (37)

Vandy missed making the poll by 12 points. They were 3-0 with a win over S. Carolina while Arizona State had lost to UNLV that week.

- You said you wanted to rank UCONN after they beat 1-Aas and Virginia, though you make the point it’s completely about who you beat

I through about the UConn comment after they beat Baylor because they were a. undefeated and b. beating teams from BCS conferences except these teams were bottom feeders and the wins were too close for my liking.

- You would pick an undefeated team over a more deserving one- or two-loss team simply because it was undefeated (40) in week 4.

I never said that. All I said was the following: "It's only week four and we're getting dangerously close to not having 25 undefeated teams to chose from. As we sit right now, the most there could be after tonight is 27." Right now I have one loss teams ahead of undefeateds. I have a two-loss team in the poll whil there are one loss teams left out.


- Your week 4 ballot moves: dropping ECU out of the poll from No. 7 because of one loss; Oregon out of the poll from somewhere in your top 15; Wisconsin moved up 6 without playing.

I dropped ECU out because they lost to a 1-2 team and by that time West Virginia had lost again, showing they weren't as good as they were as well as the struggle with Tulane. Oregon dropped because they lost Boise, who I did not have ranked yet. Up to that point they struggled to beat Purdue and had wins over Utah State and Washington -- not a great resume. Wisconsin moved up because people in front of them lost and the people behind them weren't impressive enough to leapfrog.

- Week 5 or 6, you say you won’t move undefeated teams ahead of USC because of the quality of the loss, completely contradicting what you say earlier (45).

I am confused on this point. Therefore I will not try to dispute.

- You move Texas Tech up from 15 to 7 on a bye week (47).

I moved Tech up because Southern Cal, Georgia, Florida, Wisconsin, Wake Forest all lost.

- You knock teams down after winning by decent margins but keep Bammy high up because it “was a classic letdown game” (52).

The reason behind that is the resume. You have a wins by large margin over Clemson Georgia, et al, then I wasn't going to bump them down in favor of a Texas or Texas Tech whose non-conference/early season slate is worse than Bamas.

I'm not one of those people who starts somebody in a spot and then if they don't lose they can't drop and if someone in front of them loses, then they move up accordingly. You can lose and move up based on what happens around the country, you can win and drop based on what happens around the country. The stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

It's the same fanboi superstition that Oz had last year with the BBOC....

 

Re: 2008 SportsJournalists.com college football poll -- WEEK 5 (9/29), Page 50

Della: I appreciate you explaining your decisions and admire you for doing so. I disagree with your reasoning -- and still do -- but want you to know this isn't a personal thing. I just really disagree with your methods.