Coaches rank Ohio State No. 1 and Texas No. 2

It dosn't. I'm just mentioning that they're going to meet.

 

I still get angry about that. I went off on that for 5 minutes straight about a month ago at a bar when somebody brought up the '97 Michigan team. I was pounding my fist on the table and yelling and shit.

 

How about Penn State at No. 17? That seems like a favor to Joe Pa.

Now, as a fan I'm pleased but I also live in the real world. Their schedule is a complete 180 of what it was last season. Penn State's first seven games include road games against Notre Dame, Ohio State, Minnesota, and a home tilt with Michigan. Brutal.

Throwing in my two cents, I think Alabama struggles this season without a steady signal caller. I'd bet on Iowa to finish in the top five. And I also am ready to believe in Nebraska again especially with 13 starters back.

 

What, no Missouri? :'(

 

Yeah, they've never done that before.

 

Good job, Mr. Unbiased.

 

I'm no longer a Michigan fan, in fact, you could say I hate Michigan, but that was bullshit. Any way you wanna slice it.

 

I've always taken it to be an interpretation of how they finished last year, with a sprinkle of thought (but not terribly much, see Texas, No. 2) about who they lost. In other words, guesswork. But unfortunately influential guesswork, b/c if you don't start in the top 10 it's pretty damn hard to get into the top two.
I know it'll never happen, but am I the only one who thinks they should do away with polls until, say, the first week of October?

 

The coaches' rationale was wrong . . . but Nebraska was a better team than Michigan.

Oddsmakers would have had the Huskers a 7-point favorite had the teams met for the title.

 

Chad Moller is just one man.

Speaking of Mizzou media relations, whatever happened to Sam Fleury?

 

No. I've been writing columns saying that for years. That's how AP did it when its poll made its debut in the 1930s.