Bloody Weekend for top ranked teams...

[PDog]

So WVU loses to an undefeated USF team on the road that is ranked in the top 5 now and dropped out of the top 10 to 12/13 (depends on the poll). USC loses at home to a Stanford team that had been killed by PAC-10 teams and yet they are still ranked in the top 10 (#7 in the Coaches...#7!!!). I wish I could say i'm shocked by this but i'm not. Just another reason that the polls are bs.

[ledzepp8]

So WVU loses to an undefeated USF team on the road that is ranked in the top 5 now and dropped out of the top 10 to 12/13 (depends on the poll). USC loses at home to a Stanford team that had been killed by PAC-10 teams and yet they are still ranked in the top 10 (#7 in the Coaches...#7!!!). I wish I could say i'm shocked by this but i'm not. Just another reason that the polls are bs.

Yep, it's complete BS. USC and LSU were the darlings in the preseason and the writers are going to do everything they can to keep them there.

[Sports Guy]

The polls are bs but it is also bs that a team loses one game and drops far.

USC is ranked where they should be IMO.

Now, WV got dropped too low.

I mean, does anyone think there are even 7 teams better than USC, much less teams like BC and USF?

[mweb]

The polls are bs but it is also bs that a team loses one game and drops far.

USC is ranked where they should be IMO.

Now, WV got dropped too low.

I mean, does anyone think there are even 7 teams better than USC, much less teams like BC and USF?

Yeah, the rankings are BS, and as you suggest, don't really seem to be about who are the best teams in order, often more based on record and pre-season ranking. USC would be favored over BC or USF on a neutral field, and there are plenty of other examples like that.

[PDog]

Here's something else pretty funny about the coaches poll. Oregon last week was ranked 13th. They had a bye this week and jumped up...wait for it...to #8. That is one spot higher then WVU who they were ranked behind last week and WVU played and killed Syracuse.

I guess Oregon impressed the coaches with their poise during the bye week after their loss the week before.

[ledzepp8]

The polls are bs but it is also bs that a team loses one game and drops far.

USC is ranked where they should be IMO.

Now, WV got dropped too low.

I mean, does anyone think there are even 7 teams better than USC, much less teams like BC and USF?

This I agree with, but if you're going to drop WVU 8/9 spots for losing to a team that you're now calling the 5th best team in the nation then USC needs to drop a lot farther than that for losing to a 1-3 team at home that was a 40 some point underdog. The pollsters are just that idiotic and obvious about their biases.

[Sports Guy]

This I agree with, but if you're going to drop WVU 8/9 spots for losing to a team that you're now calling the 5th best team in the nation then USC needs to drop a lot farther than that for losing to a 1-3 team at home that was a 40 some point underdog. The pollsters are just that idiotic and obvious about their biases.

Well what that tells you is that they think USC is a superior team to WVU and that they shouldn't drop as far...However, you say WVU dropped 8 or 9 spots...Well, so did USC. They were just ranked higher to begin with.

[geschinger]

Well what that tells you is that they think USC is a superior team to WVU and that they shouldn't drop as far...However, you say WVU dropped 8 or 9 spots...Well, so did USC. They were just ranked higher to begin with.

The AP Poll isn't too bad, it is somewhat defensible (USC @10). However only dropping 6 spots (USC is 7 Coaches Poll) as USC did when losing at home to an unranked team is not.

What it tells me is that the coaches or SIDs or whomever is handling the voting for the coaches are not up to the task.

[ledzepp8]

Well what that tells you is that they think USC is a superior team to WVU and that they shouldn't drop as far...However, you say WVU dropped 8 or 9 spots...Well, so did USC. They were just ranked higher to begin with.

The point was that USC lost to a far inferior team in Stanford, than USF was to WVU or anyone in college football. I understand that they think they are superior and I can almost buy that, but at least try not to let your biases show. Someone said it best in this thread I believe, the pollsters don't drop the teams they want in the NC as far, like USC, FL, OK, etc, because they want to make it easier and less sketchy to get them back in the title hunt.

[geschinger]

Yeah, the rankings are BS, and as you suggest, don't really seem to be about who are the best teams in order, often more based on record and pre-season ranking. USC would be favored over BC or USF on a neutral field, and there are plenty of other examples like that.

If they eliminated preseason rankings and waited until when the BCS rankings start to release 'em we might have a much better system. Preseason polls when noone has seen any of the teams have way too much impact. And as we've seen w/teams like Michigan and (sadly) Louisville voters really have no clue.

[RShack]

there's definitely a bias towards the SEC and all of the big name schools like USC, OK, Ohio St, Michigan, ND, etc. These teams are always pushed down our throats as NC contenders no matter how good they really are.

My personal ties are to the ACC, but I live in SEC-land. And, say what you want, I think the SEC is typically a pretty good BS-filter. As a rule, nobody gets through an SEC season without multiple serious tests. Since I am more familiar with the SEC, I am less concerned about favoritism boosting SEC teams unfairly, especially by the end of the season. This is not to defend poll-BS... only that teams in some conferences typically have much harder rows to hoe than in other conferences. SEC teams tend to do a good job of knocking each other out of contention. Any SEC team that ends up at or near the top of the BCS mess by the end of the season, IMO they've pretty much earned it.

[mweb]

If they eliminated preseason rankings and waited until when the BCS rankings start to release 'em we might have a much better system. Preseason polls when noone has seen any of the teams have way too much impact. And as we've seen w/teams like Michigan and (sadly) Louisville voters really have no clue.

Yes, preseason polls do have too much impact, however, the lack of rankings for the first couple months or so would hurt interest in the sport imo. The voters would still basically have preseason rankings in their heads anyway. BTW, Michigan is pretty good, they just can't defend the spread offense, I know, a pretty big flaw, but it's not like their Louisville.

[geschinger]

Yes, preseason polls do have too much impact, however, the lack of rankings for the first couple months or so would hurt interest in the sport imo. The voters would still basically have preseason rankings in their heads anyway. BTW, Michigan is pretty good, they just can't defend the spread offense, I know, a pretty big flaw, but it's not like their Louisville.

I'm not sure how much impact it would have on interest so that might be a factor. While voters have an idea of where they'd rank teams in the preseason if they waited they wouldn't be stuck working from such a flawed framework.

Louisville is pretty good, they just can't defend anyone. Although that too is a pretty big flaw.

[Birds of B'more]

Don't look now, but Ohio St has very quietly manuevered themselves into excellent position for another shot at the title. If they can get through a challenging last 4 games (@ PSU, vs Wis, vs Ill, @ Mich) then look for them to be playing in New Orleans on Jan 7.

[Birds of B'more]

So WVU loses to an undefeated USF team on the road that is ranked in the top 5 now and dropped out of the top 10 to 12/13 (depends on the poll). USC loses at home to a Stanford team that had been killed by PAC-10 teams and yet they are still ranked in the top 10 (#7 in the Coaches...#7!!!). I wish I could say i'm shocked by this but i'm not. Just another reason that the polls are bs.

Part of the problem I think is the difference in exposure those two games had. The WV/USF game was nationally televised and there were no other games played that night, so all eyes were on them. And while WV still kept it close, the six turnovers probably soured a lot of voters. Meanwhile, very few people probably saw the USC/Stanford game and were left to draw their own conclusions as to what happened.......and, USC being USC, they likely just chalked it up to one of those flukey games that happen from time to time.