Half of the BlogPoll Draft Ballot Now Open for Debate, Week 10

by cocknfire on Nov 9, 2009 2:34 AM EST in Football Comment 18 comments

Bpbweek10_medium This might not have been the best week to move Texas to No. 1, but the slow start by Alabama gave me enough justification to move the two teams. Arguments accepted below.

1 Texas
2 Alabama
3 Florida
4 TCU
5 Cincinnati

The other controversial move might be putting TCU ahead of Cincinnati. Those two are pretty much tied in my mind as the fourth- and fifth-best teams for now, with the chance to become No. 3 if one of the other teams loses or after the SEC Championship Game.

6 Georgia Tech
7 Oregon
8 Boise State
9 Iowa
10 Miami

Yes, Boise State still gets no respect from me, particularly after they were in a game with Louisiana Tech this year. Had it been last season, that might not bother me too much. But it's 2009 and Louisiana Tech is not very good. Georgia Tech zooms up as the best one-loss team and Oregon doesn't fall too much despite losing to Stanford. Iowa loses some more ground with its first actual loss.

11 Pittsburgh
12 LSU
13 Clemson
14 Virginia Tech
15 Southern Cal

That might be a bit harsh for LSU, but they haven't really impressed in either of their games against Top 5 opponents. I'm still open to putting them at No. 11 instead of No. 12, so argue away if you think that the Bengals are better than the Panthers. I hate Clemson. Virginia Tech and Southern Cal switch places after the Trojans' underwhelm against Arizona State.

16 Houston
17 Ohio State
18 Arizona
19 Oklahoma State
20 Oregon State

Houston's one-point win against Tulsa weakened their resume quite a bit, but Ohio State's win over Penn State wasn't quite enough for me to move the Buckeyes into the Top 15. Or 16, for that matter. Arizona has started to look pretty impressive, and don't forget Oklahoma State. Oregon State shows up as the Pac-10 looks strong.

21 Stanford
22 Auburn
23 Penn State
24 North Carolina
25 Wisconsin

The Cardinal deserve some respect after putting together a decent season so far. Auburn finds a way back in the poll simply by demolishing Furman. Penn State's loss to Ohio State nearly sends the Nittany Lions out of the Top 25 entirely. North Carolina and Wisconsin round things out.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

YOU have to be kidding me

What do you base your Polls on? Its pretty clear to me, you dont plan on ranking Florida at number one unless Texas and Bama lose. So I’ll save my breath on that arguement.

You have Oregon at number 7!? You do realize the Boise State team you refuse to respect beat Oregon right?
Oregon loses to the #7 team, and a unranked team. You ranked them 7? Haha a team that you refuse to respect, beats Oregon but you still have them at 7!?
LSU loses to the #1 team(Gators), and to the #3 team Bama. You ranked them 12…

There is some fuzzy math going on here.

by Hook85 on Nov 9, 2009 3:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I base my poll on the entire season

Boise State’s win against Oregon was only one game. For them to stay ahead of Oregon would have required them to play better football against a consistently better schedule over the entire season. They haven’t done that. Head-to-head wins are not the deciding factor in my book. Otherwise, I’d have to rank Washington for having defeated Southern Cal.

As far as LSU goes, you can’t just look at who a team lost to. You also have to consider who they’ve defeated. Make an argument that LSU’s resume is stronger than Oregon’s which is more than "SEC > Pac-10." Coincidentally, Florida is my No. 3 team and Alabama is my No. 2 team. Since I come up with my own rankings, I don’t follow the AP or ESPN polls and don’t use them. Though I would point out that the Stanford team that defeated Oregon is now ranked by the AP. So whose rankings are you using?

And Florida will be No. 1 when they earn it. Because this is not a power poll, you have to prove that you’re the No. 1 team on the field and in the results. Where has Florida done that?

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Nov 9, 2009 7:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Regarding Boise

And I’m not questioning your placement – just curious about your thoughts.

Is there any consideration for: (a) that they cannot control the quality of in-conference opponents; (b) that they have been unsuccessful in their attempts to move to a better conference; and (cee) that, according to Boise State, most schools of any significance are flat-out unwilling to play them in the regular season?

by Hooper on Nov 9, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, a little.

I see the argument that they can’t control the quality of their conference, but you can’t really give them a “bonus” because of that. If a team like Bowling green did what Boise’s done this season, they’d probably be in the “Other Receiving Votes” category. Perhaps the problem with BSU’s offer is that it’s so soon. It’s my impression that a lot of schools already have the non-conference slate for 2011 fairly hammered down. Maybe I’m wrong about that, though.

by dxf04 on Nov 9, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two years in advance is usually locked solid for all but a few 1-AA gimmes.

Nebraska still has an open date that lines up with one with Boise, but I doubt that’ll happen. The Big 12 has had enough troubles with the MWC, much less Boise.

Boise does, however, have a very nice slate for 2010, including a neutral field matchup with Virginia Tech to open the season. Why they’re playing in Maryland, I don’t know, but there you go. They also have Toledo, Wyoming, and Oregon State. So, 2 respectable BCS teams, which should be quite enough for anybody’s consideration. I’m not sure how you could manage more when so many BCS teams won’t give them the time of day in the first place.

by Hooper on Nov 9, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Would Nebraska be the kind of game they’re looking for? It kind of seems like they’re looking to play someone like USC, Texas, ‘Bama, Florida, ect, not a middling (and especially not unranked) Big Six foe. Personally, I kind of wish my Hogs would schedule BSU for that 2011 game, just because I wish we would stop playing I-AA teams and multiple Sunbelt teams per season. Although, I don’t think Arkansas is the kind of game they’re looking for, either.

by dxf04 on Nov 9, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nebraska may be the best they can do.

Texas, USC, etc. won’t play them. Period.

by Hooper on Nov 9, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like Tennessee to play them.

The problem is that UT’s OOC slate in 2011 is North Texas, Cincinnati, North Carolina, and MTSU. Boise’s open date is during the North Texas slot. While that would be an outrageously awesome schedule on the year, I just don’t see it happening.

Oh, and in 2011, UT plays Alabama, Arkansas, and LSU for their Western division slate.

by Hooper on Nov 9, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

I know that sounds cold, but the fact of the matter is that Boise has only played the schedule they’ve played. I can’t give them credit for something they haven’t done. The one thing Boise can control is they can demolish the weaker teams on their schedule, something they’ve failed to do too often this season.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Nov 9, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's cold, certainly.

Boise is a team that breaks the system. Ranking is supposed to account for the teams you’ve played in addition to how you did against them, but it gets tough when you can’t get the games scheduled in the first place. And when they do embarrass a top team (Oregon), all that does is discourage other top teams from playing them. It makes a conundrum: do you continue ranking as before, or do you find an exception to the rule? It’s a judgment call.

Boise is pariah. They threaten the BCS conference’s bowl money from the BCS games by taking at-large slots. They’re not a cupcake team, and the high rollers can make just as much money by scheduling Alberta Polytechnic School of Snowmobile Repair. They don’t count toward a conference championship, but they can mess up a bowl slot later on. Winning against Boise provides only a minor SOS bump because the rest of the WAC is weak. Losing gets you the laugh track. The PAC-10 won’t take them, and neither will the Big 12. The MWC appears to be willing to take them once the timing is right for BCS AQ consideration, but that time hasn’t happened yet.

If they run up the score, they look like bullies. If they don’t, they’ve underachieved. Every team in their conference banks their entire season on how well they play against Boise, and the WAC coaches have been trying to break Peterson’s schemes for years.

In short, if any team has a successful lawsuit waiting to happen against the BCS, it’s Boise More so than any MWC team, it is quite impossible for Boise to play for a NC, no matter how well they do.

by Hooper on Nov 9, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To an extent, I'm sympathetic

But I vote based on a team’s resume, not my sympathy. The flip side of that which no one seems to consider would be to allow Boise to play a WAC schedule with one or two tough games (Oregon and maybe Nevada) in ahead of a team like Alabama, which scheduled a tough OOC game against Virginia Tech (so it seemed) to begin the year and has to go through the SEC unscathed. Where’s the fairness in that?

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Nov 9, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If Boise had any option, there would be no fairness in that.

That’s where my conundrum lies. Boise has not had the chance to create a comparable schedule despite active efforts to do so. When they do get BCS teams, they’re 4-1 in the last four years and 5-5 in the last 9. Of those losses, the worst was in Seattle against Washington in ’07, who finished 4-9 (having had a 13th game for playing Hawaii). Washington appears headed for another 4-win season this year, including one against USC. Other than that, the losses include 2 to Oregon State and two roadies to Arkansas and Georgia, when both SEC teams were playing better than today.

But the system is patently unfair as it stands – to both Alabama and Boise. Which is why there is no good answer when it comes to ranking Boise.

by Hooper on Nov 9, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No one is forcing Boise State to stay in their conference

by CraigT on Nov 9, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True, but going independent is worse than staying in the WAC.

They have openly expressed interest in the PAC-10, the Big 12, and the MWC. Outside of those three, no other conference makes sense. The only other option is indie, and doing so would give up the bowl tie-ins they already have, and it’d be even harder for them to fill out a 12-game series than it already is. It wouldn’t help their scheduling problems to leave the WAC unless they land in a better conference.

by Hooper on Nov 9, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the only rankings that matter, the BCS

Washington beat USC, but I would not put them ahead of USC because they have several more lossed then USC, Washington has proven they got lucky against a young USC. Boise State beat Oregon and the only thing to going against Boise is SOS. If Boise lost to a unranked teams, or lost period i could understand the position, but to not respect them just because of SOS…Thats not fair to Boise, its not thier fault they are in the a weak conference. They are doing everything they can control, Oregon is not.

basically you stress to much on SOS.

by Hook85 on Nov 10, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry to be so late to respond

But let’s put it this way to try to reframe the argument: Do you really believe that Oregon would not have defeated all the other teams on Boise’s schedule by a much larger margin than Boise? It’s not just SOS, but it’s how you perform in relation to tha SOS. If Boise were annihilating every team on their schedule, it would be different. But they’re not.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Nov 12, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I dont know

They lost to stanford, and I imagined them annihilating them.
But I see what you are saying. I guess well find out soon, if Boise gets a BCS nod.

by Hook85 on Nov 12, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's probably a good time to restate that I'm not disagreeing.

I’m merely picking at your methodology to tease out the logic. I’m curious how people are handling Boise / Oregon and, since you’re one of the most Oregon-aggressive voters out there, it’s easiest to do that by counterpoint. I do appreciate the responses.

And, for my money, the MWC will offer Boise in summer 2011. That way they’re a part of the MWC when the BCS re-evaluates the automatic qualifiers, and the MWC may very well have enough juice to pull it off. If they could jettison a bad team in the process (say, New Mexico), they’d be almost a shoe-in for it. But well down the line.

by Hooper on Nov 9, 2009 11:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs