College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Their losses are all against good teams though - Cincinnati, USC, and Arizona - and a win over Stanford, so they definitely deserve a spot somewhere in the top 25.

Agreed.

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Oregon State is interesting, as the computers love them, at #18, while the voters don't, at #28.

Really, I'm not sure anyone has a huge argument that they should be ahead of these teams. And in the pantheon of college football injustices, this'd be way down the list.

I'm not looking at it as an injustice of any sort and BCS rankings that far down are rather stupid since they don't mean much of anything for the BCS picture on the whole. 3-loss teams getting credit for being mediocre is more my ax to grind.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

I'm not looking at it as an injustice of any sort and BCS rankings that far down are rather stupid since they don't mean much of anything for the BCS picture on the whole. 3-loss teams getting credit for being mediocre is more my ax to grind.

This is the kind of thinking that drives people nuts about the polls. If you've got three 'good' losses - by close margins to good teams - is that really worse than a team with 2 losses?

I'm not saying they're worthy, but summarily dismissing them simply because they have three losses is short sighted.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

I'm not looking at it as an injustice of any sort and BCS rankings that far down are rather stupid since they don't mean much of anything for the BCS picture on the whole. 3-loss teams getting credit for being mediocre is more my ax to grind.

I remember when the polls were only for the top 20 teams. Then they expanded it to 25, and I always thought that it was really pointless, only making five decent teams feel a little better.

I'm just not sure if having 3 losses is such a defining factor, as both these teams played tougher nonconference schedules than a lot of other top 25 teams. So, I guess it'd be ok if Oregon State had scheduled the directional school of choice, instead of Cincinnati, thus making them a 2-loss team and more worthy? Such is the nonsense that prevails in college football.

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

I remember when the polls were only for the top 20 teams. Then they expanded it to 25, and I always thought that it was really pointless, only making five decent teams feel a little better.

I'm just not sure if having 3 losses is such a defining factor, as both these teams played tougher nonconference schedules than a lot of other top 25 teams. So, I guess it'd be ok if Oregon State had scheduled the directional school of choice, instead of Cincinnati, thus making them a 2-loss team and more worthy? Such is the nonsense that prevails in college football.

Nonsense prevailing is a good reason why as years go by I'm finding it harder and harder to give a crap about college football. It's such a bogus system all around.

And no, Oregon State's case with their losses seems to be OK. VaTech though... They lost to Alabama the first week (#5 at the time), Georgia Tech on 10/17 (#19 at the time) and North Carolina two weeks ago. Oops. Their good wins were against Miami (#9 then) a then #19 Nebraska.... and that's it.

And they're above Oregon State in the BCS. Their remaining schedule is a crock. @Maryland, vs. NC State, @Virginia and then the ACC Title game.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

And they're above Oregon State in the BCS. Their remaining schedule is a crock. @Maryland, vs. NC State, @Virginia <s>and then the ACC Title game.</s>

That ain't happening.

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

That ain't happening.

Praise be to Jebus!