College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

No, I totally agree.

Just saying there are games on there that may not jump out at a neutral as tough, but that as a Wisconsin fan make me nervous. Back in '04, went into @MSU 9-0, lost 49-14. '07, went into @Illinois 5-0, lost 31-26, things like that.

Frankly, last year's loss to TCU (wherein Chryst refused to believe the umors that UW is capable of playing really good power football until the 4th quarter) falls into the same category to me. Maybe this is the season they finally don't overlook an opponent?

In the meantime, I feel like I still have 5 days to enjoy the way Nebraska got obliter-raped.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

How the hell does Michigan jump from 19th to 12th in the AP and 19th to 11th in the Coaches polls? You beat one of the worst teams in D-1 and D-1AA and you move up eight spots? I know voters are stupid but seriously? This is a completely new level of stupidity...

 

[bronconick]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

How the hell does Michigan jump from 19th to 12th in the AP and 19th to 11th in the Coaches polls? You beat one of the worst teams in D-1 and D-1AA and you move up eight spots? I know voters are stupid but seriously? This is a completely new level of stupidity...

 

[Alton]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

How the hell does Michigan jump from 19th to 12th in the AP and 19th to 11th in the Coaches polls? You beat one of the worst teams in D-1 and D-1AA and you move up eight spots? I know voters are stupid but seriously? This is a completely new level of stupidity...

Michigan didn't move up because they won, they moved up because they didn't lose. All 7 teams that they passed (Nebraska, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, Florida, Texas A&M, Baylor, South Florida) lost last week.

Unfortunately, the polls have become ritualized to the point that every team that loses, whether that loss was expected or not, is dropped a set number of spots and every team that doesn't lose maintains their spot no matter what. It's silly, but that's how it works, and everybody who votes more or less seems to agree that this is how it should work. If you go back to the '40s and the '50s, you can see instances of a team losing but moving up in the polls. You can see instances of the #1 team winning a game but dropping all of the way to #8 (!) the next week. Polls used to reflect writers' shifting opinions of who the best teams were. Now they are a ritual, with many unwritten rules that people become very upset about when they are not followed.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

Polls are useless. I hate that they help determine the BCS formula.

Although I think most can agree that LSU right now looks like the best team in the nation. So at least they are getting something right.

 

[J.D.]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

Polls are useless. I hate that they help determine the BCS formula.

Although I think most can agree that LSU right now looks like the best team in the nation. So at least they are getting something right.

I'd give a slight edge to Alabama, but that will be decided on the field anyway.

 

[Kepler]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

If you go back to the '40s and the '50s, you can see instances of a team losing but moving up in the polls. You can see instances of the #1 team winning a game but dropping all of the way to #8 (!) the next week. Polls used to reflect writers' shifting opinions of who the best teams were. Now they are a ritual, with many unwritten rules that people become very upset about when they are not followed.

I agree with your overall sentiment, but I suspect this was also because in the 40's and 50's the voters rarely got to see more than a couple ranked teams play in a month, so there was probably a grapevine where a few opinion makers (Grantland Rice, Fred Russell) were able to amplify their views.

 

[Alton]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

I agree with your overall sentiment, but I suspect this was also because in the 40's and 50's the voters rarely got to see more than a couple ranked teams play in a month, so there was probably a grapevine where a few opinion makers (Grantland Rice, Fred Russell) were able to amplify their views.

I would argue that "opinion makers" (like Grantland Rice in 1950 or Sports Illustrated in 1980 or ESPN in 2010) had much less influence 60 years ago than they do today.

Here is an AP poll from October 1950, about 4 weeks into the season:
http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=122

Note that 13 different schools, including 3 with 1 loss, receive first-place votes. Just about any poll from the first 20 years of the AP voting will have a surprisingly large number of teams getting first-place votes. Some of that is a function of having 200 voters instead of 65, but much of that is the fact that the voters are simply not paying any attention at all to a national consensus, but looking at the results and voting their own opinions and biases. That doesn't happen any more--many voters feel tied to tradition, like the fake rules "teams shouldn't drop if they win" or "teams should always drop if they lose."

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

Looks like Arizona State might with the Pac 12 South Division by default, as USC is ineligible (and already lost to ASU), while Utah, the most likely competition, is 0-2 in the Pac, with an visit from ASU coming next weekend. Arizona and Colorado aren't competitive, so that leaves UCLA at 1-1 as a possibility, though I don't think they've done much this year to make one expect a run at the division title.

 

[MadTownSioux]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

I had to quit watching that game. I don't want to keep hearing the announcers verbally skull **** Russell Wilson.

Well, uh, he was pretty good.

 

[bronconick]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

Well, uh, he was pretty good.

I'm not really sure that's the right...verb? to explain an announcing crew waxing poetic about how a player is playing, either.

 

[J.D.]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

Looks like Arizona State might with the Pac 12 South Division by default, as USC is ineligible (and already lost to ASU), while Utah, the most likely competition, is 0-2 in the Pac, with an visit from ASU coming next weekend. Arizona and Colorado aren't competitive, so that leaves UCLA at 1-1 as a possibility, though I don't think they've done much this year to make one expect a run at the division title.

So what you're saying is ASU will be the sacrificial lamb to Stanford or Oregon?

 

[alfablue]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

Looks like Arizona State might with the Pac 12 South Division by default, as USC is ineligible (and already lost to ASU), while Utah, the most likely competition, is 0-2 in the Pac, with an visit from ASU coming next weekend. Arizona and Colorado aren't competitive, so that leaves UCLA at 1-1 as a possibility, though I don't think they've done much this year to make one expect a run at the division title.

There are a whole bunch of people up in Moscow who really hope that doesn't happen. Grudges last a long time.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

I would argue that "opinion makers" (like Grantland Rice in 1950 or Sports Illustrated in 1980 or ESPN in 2010) had much less influence 60 years ago than they do today.

Here is an AP poll from October 1950, about 4 weeks into the season:
http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=122

Note that 13 different schools, including 3 with 1 loss, receive first-place votes. Just about any poll from the first 20 years of the AP voting will have a surprisingly large number of teams getting first-place votes. Some of that is a function of having 200 voters instead of 65, but much of that is the fact that the voters are simply not paying any attention at all to a national consensus, but looking at the results and voting their own opinions and biases. That doesn't happen any more--many voters feel tied to tradition, like the fake rules "teams shouldn't drop if they win" or "teams should always drop if they lose."

Just scrolling the season final polls on that site I noticed that Oklahoma outscored Ok. State 317-26 from '51-'58

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

@OSU and @MSU in back to back weeks, @Illinois in November, then probably Nebraska again in the B1G Championship game if they get that far. Not the walkover some are making it out to be, I don't think.

Still feels like Wisconsin has set itself up to only lose a game they don't get up for or underestimate an opponent.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

Still feels like Wisconsin has set itself up to only lose a game they don't get up for or underestimate an opponent.

The University of Wisconsin could send the squad from Whitewater out there and still have plenty to take down the mighty Gophers.

 

[MavHockey14]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

Wisconsin's toughest remaining game will be at Michigan State.

In the Legends divison, Michigan, Iowa, Michigan State, and Nebraska are all in the mix for winning it. That division is gonna be a fun race to watch. I don't know that anyone can beat Wisconsin in Big Ten play.

 

[unofan]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

I would argue that "opinion makers" (like Grantland Rice in 1950 or Sports Illustrated in 1980 or ESPN in 2010) had much less influence 60 years ago than they do today.

Here is an AP poll from October 1950, about 4 weeks into the season:
http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=122

Note that 13 different schools, including 3 with 1 loss, receive first-place votes. Just about any poll from the first 20 years of the AP voting will have a surprisingly large number of teams getting first-place votes. Some of that is a function of having 200 voters instead of 65, but much of that is the fact that the voters are simply not paying any attention at all to a national consensus, but looking at the results and voting their own opinions and biases. That doesn't happen any more--many voters feel tied to tradition, like the fake rules "teams shouldn't drop if they win" or "teams should always drop if they lose."

I doubt we'll ever see a finish like 1971, when Nebraska was #1 (unbeaten), Oklahoma #2 (only loss to Nebraska in the Game of the Century), and Colorado #3 (only losses to #'s 1 and 2). Colorado finished ahead of five 11-1 teams. An unbeaten Toledo finished 14th, by the way.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

So what you're saying is ASU will be the sacrificial lamb to Stanford or Oregon?

That's a possibility. Of course last season an inferior ASU team played both down to the wire, and easily could have won both games, so I'd expect ASU to be an underdog in any title matchup that could happen, but have a shot at it nevertheless.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2011: Enough of realignment and scandals. Gimme Footbaw!

There are a whole bunch of people up in Moscow who really hope that doesn't happen. Grudges last a long time.

I didn't know there even was a whole bunch of people up in Moscow!