In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 463
Online now 493 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Am I the only one that find the rankings a joke this year? Here is what I see.
The SEC has 4 teams in the top 6. Alabama is the only team to play another school ranked in the top 25. SEC has two other teams in the top 25. Florida has beat a top 25 team also. So why are they 11th?
Pac 12 has two in the top 10. Stanford beat the #2 team but is ranked 8th. Oregon destroyed Arizona and is 2nd which I'm good with.
Big 12 has KState ranked 7th. Kstate beat the #6 team. So why are 3 SEC teams ahead of them when none of them have even played a top 50 team? WVU is at 9.
Rounding out the top ten is ND. I will agree with this also. I dislike the Irish with a passion but they are theonly team to play and win against 2 top 25 teams. So why are they ranked only tenth?
To me this year is looking to be another SEC only championship game. I really question the SEC Strength of schedule and what merits their teams having four out of the top 6this year. Their top 4 as of now has not played 1 team currently in the top 25. Are we supposed to take ESPN's word for how good they are when they play no one out of conference until a bowl game?
The Big ten maybe down do to so many coaching changes but at least the Big Ten teams have played a decent OOC schedule for the most part.
You must not have seen Vanderbilt use that SEC speed to destroy Northwestern earlier this season, as is always the case whenever an SEC team plays a B1G team.
The thing is though, the Big 12, and the Pac 12 are the only conferences this year who perception wise can actually end up in the championship game. A decent OOC schedule would have done the Big 10 good if we actually won the games that were all over TV. Otherwise right now its hurting the perception, and that's what hurts the Big 10. Besides before this year, everybody was talking how weak the PAC 12 was, only to be shocked in the first few weeks. The preseason rankings are what's a joke, the rankings now are accurate off of those.
yea just no way to compete with the sespeed, so sick of hearin that crap
Umm obviously you havent heard of Florida State
Unfortunately alot of where people are currently ranked is dependent on the pre-season polls. As long as they dont lose, they maintain their positioning. They may get jumped by a team hear or there that had a big upset of a much higher ranked team, but until they lose they will remain relative to where they started the season.
Isn't it funny how whenever a B1G team beats an SEC team, or another team that's perceived to be "fast," you don't hear anything about it, or it's immediately rationalized for whatever reason?
LOL...you guys didn't know that SEC 4.4 speed is faster than B1G 4.4 speed?
Its the speed of the SEC DL's and LB's that set them apart. They get after the QB and run sideline to sideline. They take away the edge with the DE's and OLB's and do a great job of stopping the middle with their DT's and MLB's. Right now they deserve to have that many in the top 10. Until somebody beats them....other than someone in their conference then shut up. They have proved it year after year after year, when it comes down to it they beat up OOC opponents for the most part.
"Those Who Stay...Will be Champions"
The top of the SEC does traditionally fare well against OOC opponents, yes. But based on current perception, you'd think the entire conference is basically the ninth division of the NFL. Arkansas, Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, etc regularly prove otherwise.
As for the speed thing, there are so many factors that play a key role in who wins or loses a game. Speed is one of them, but I disagree with those that say that that's the only difference. I never played in a game, and at the end of it, thought that we won or lost because we were faster or slower. There's just so much more that goes into it that I think it's an insult to the game when people act like that's the determining factor. The SEC is clearly better, but I don't think it's just because of an advantage in speed.
Also, what is speed? Is it 40 yard dash times? 100 times? Short bursts? Change of direction? Using the term speed is incredibly vague, because there are so many different components of it. All of those are important in football, and most players are much stronger in one area than in another.
Lastly, if there is a speed advantage among the defensive front seven's in the SEC compared to the B1G, a big reason why is the teams they play against, not that the players in that region are simply faster. The B1G has traditionally played old school football, where a defensive lineman is required to change the line of scrimmage on every play, and a linebacker needs to be able to pack a serious punch when taking on blocks from a fullback. In conferences that don't feature downhill running and/or a fullback nearly as much, it makes sense that the physicality of their players isn't as big of a priority. Therefore, they can afford to be a little lighter, which makes it easier to move around.
I agree with "speed" is not the only thing, but I also don't want Michigan to just be good enough to beat the lower tier teams in teh SEC and lose 41-14 to Bama or LSU. Yes, there are so many variables that go into winning and losing. But having that elite speed and athleticism all around does help make up for missed assignments and errors. The speed can make up for it sometimes. All I'm saying is that the SEC has speed at the positions that the rest of the conferences don't for the most part. Every conference has burners at WR, RB, CB, even QB now.... but the difference is LB and more especially DL. It's just really evident to me I guess.
I agree the preseason and rankings are a joke. It will carry through out this season though. If Oregon or FSU slip we will be stuck with another all SEC championship game.
I'm not sure how teams are ranked for preseason but the SEC bias is what is the joke. Georgia and USCe are ranked 5 and 6. These are two teams that to me have not proven anything to be ranked were they are. Georgia lost at home basically, in the bowl game last year. Outside of Michigan, has the SEC played anyone besides themselves this year?
I don't have a huge problem with the rankings at this point in the season. I certainly think LSU and Bama deserve their spot, and no one can really argue differently. So really, it's just a matter of whether they deserve 2 of the next 8 spots.
I see no one from our Conference that deserves it, I see no one from the Big East that deserves it. It's not like there's a great depth in the Big 12, Pac, or ACC to push Georigia and South Carolina out.
And maybe they are over rated, I don't really know. But until more football is played, I'll tip my cap to the conference that has won the last I don't know how many national championships.
oh absolutely, everyone that comes to the B1G automatically loses .3 on their 40 time and is just a slow plodder that can't compete with the big boys. If by some craziness they do then obviously there must have been somethin the sec team did wrong. Just didn't utilize all their amazing speed the right way or something, complete joke how the media protrays it.
I agree. I was joking on another board about 2013 safety Antonio Allen. He's from Indianapolis, he's a great kid and I've gotten pretty close with him. He originally committed to Ole Miss, so even though he's from the Midwest, he suddenly became fast. But he later flipped to Indiana, so now he's slow again. Oh well.
So much of the rankings is based on perception. And right now the perception is that the SEC is great. IMO, that's appropriate...but usually only for a couple teams. It's frustrating when people simply apply that perception to the entire conference. They justify it by pointing to one or two games where a bad team (e.g. Tennessee) plays a good team close. It's really a self-perpetuating cycle. At this point, the only thing that can break it is someone else winning the MNC...that's the first step.
Too bad they won't let anyone else even try to win it.
I agree with you all the way around here.
yea that figures, if a kid commits to the sec their 40 time is .3 faster and they're awesome
Will North Western be ranked after this week?
Whats up with LSU? Towson really? Where is Towson anyway?
I believe Towson is in the Baltimore area.
It'll be interesting to see how the pollsters handle Northwestern. Today's win in itself probably won't really impress many voters. But it adds yet another notch to their body of work, so maybe it'll be enough to push them into the top 25.
I think A&M deserves to be on the lower end of the top 25 after this week, Sumlin has had us rolling.
Go Blue & Gig Em'!
A&M is definitely playing well right now. It may not get much hype, but that upcoming matchup with Louisiana Tech on October 13 won't be easy. LT has already beaten Illinois and Virginia on the road, and that game will be in Shreveport. If LT can find a way to beat A&M, an undefeated season is a very real possibility for them. In other words, that game will be a very good team's super bowl. On the other hand, A&M plays at Ole Miss next week, and plays LSU immediately after the LT game. It'll be interesting to see how well A&M plays against LT.
I've had a generally cynical view of college football rankings, BCS system, etc. for a little while. Only been compounded by finishing the book "Death to the BCS" tonight.
I've got so many issues with polls that I could go on for a while. First, I hate that the human polls start before the season. It's obvious to everyone that human polls are affected by preseason rankings. People are resistant to changing their preconceived perceptions of teams, so if Team A is ranked high to begin with, they get a lot more benefit of the doubt. And the people rarely watch all these teams play.
The computer polls are just ludicrous. Even the guys who run them criticize them (Sagarin, for one). Just so many issues with those and the fact that the NCAA and BCS themselves don't even know how they're calculated is unacceptable.
Frankly, I'm a stats guy and I've been thinking about a crude ranking system for a while (not enough spare time to put it into motion, though). I think that in general, teams can be ranked relatively accurately using stats. Just think that the computers now do it very poorly.
Would you mind sharing your rankings system, or at least the basic ideas behind it? I'd be very interested in learning more about it.
Well, first of all, it has to use margin of victory (which the BCS apparently says that the computers CAN'T use). Second, it would put a significant value on turnovers.
Basically, the general idea behind it is that turnovers combined with margin of victory can be used to show how teams compare to each other.
For example, looking at LSU's victory last year over Oregon. Margin of victory was 13, with LSU being +3 in turnovers. The ranking I'm imagining would calculate Oregon's average points per possession (maybe adjusting for possessions that result in turnovers), then add in three times that value (because of the 3 extra turnovers for LSU). Essentially, it would adjust the score if neither team had had a turnover. If the score comes out relatively even, then the teams are close in terms of talent and coaching.
There's a lot of little things I'd add in (home vs. away; possibly include missed FG's as turnovers; also give bonus points to teams that consistently manage to get turnovers, etc.).
Another example (that may ingratiate me to this board): Michigan's recent game against ND. Winning by 7 points with +4 in turnover margin indicates to me that Michigan is overall a better team without turnovers (especially given that it's an away game). When you add in four times the average points per possession, that could/should put the score in favor of UM. Compare that to ND's win over Michigan State, where they won by 17 (away), while MSU was only -1 in turnover margin. Given that the average points per possession won't make up that differential, it tells me that ND is better than MSU.
Mathematically, though, there is an inherent problem with making this an entirely relative scale (i.e. it's all comparison of teams, which means I need some sort of absolute numbers to end up with a numerical ranking). Just something I've tossed around in my head.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports