please tell me this is a joke! Anyone glance at the AP poll this week? 17. Colorado (0-1) 456 points previous rank: #7 Last week: Lost to Colorado State 19-14 This week: vs. San Diego State (0-1) 19. Colorado State (2-0) 437 points previous rank: NR Last week: Def. Colorado 19-14 This week: at UCLA (0-0) unfreaking believable! How are the Buffaloes, with their only game played and loss to the Rams, ranked 2 spots ahead of them? How can anyone logically explain this ranking? And the BCS uses these polls to determine a national championship game? Ugh, gimme a playoff system, NOW!
I don't see a problem here. If Texas had lost to North Texas, I don't think anyone would expect North Texas to be ranked higher than UT either. Or more realistically, if Iowa State had beaten Florida State, that doesn't mean ISU should have been ranked higher yet. Those teams that weren't expected to be great have to prove themselves over the long run first. The polls are supposed to estimate how good people think the teams are. I think most people still believe Colorado is a better team in the long run than Colorado State.
If this victory happened in the middle of the season, when CU was, say 7-1, and CSU was, say 4-3, I'd understand. but after playing one game and having a direct defeat of another team, how can you not be ranked higher than the team you defeated? How not? Well it goes back to the nonsense of preseason rankings... i think the fact that polls are started before a single snap is played is ridiculous... i don't think the first polls should be released until mid-October... this would be sufficient time for people to judge teams and their talent... a team that starts out with a preseason ranking of #25 has virtually no chance to climb up the ladder... but if the first poll comes out in mid-October and that team is undefeated, they may be ranked at #15 and have a chance to sneak into the top 10 or BCS if they go undefeated... i'm just down on the poll system as a whole.
Inertia. It takes a lot to push a team out of the polls, or up in the polls as the case might be. Even if they shouldn't have been nearly that high, or low, to being with.
i don't think the first polls should be released until mid-October... this would be sufficient time for people to judge teams and their talent... I agree with that - these initial September polls are really useless except to give people something to talk about. I used to also think that an unranked team had no shot of really getting ranked where they should be simply because they wouldn't move up unless other teams lost. But then OU 2000 happened - they went from something like 20th to 1st in 3 weeks after beating UT, NU, and KSU (deservedly so). I think if CSU wins a couple of more games to prove their status, they'll shoot up faster than CU, but I dunno.
I think the networks would pitch a fit if the polls were pushed out that far. They love being able to sell a game as "#9 Washington at #10 Michigan!".
They just don't make any sense at all....JUST GO W/ THE DAMN PLAYOFF FORMAT AND NOT THIS COACH/NEWSPAPER/TV RANKING CRAP!
It has become PAINFULLY clear that the polls are not a good measure of who the best team is...and the BCS is s small, yet irritating mitigating factor. Last year there were 4 teams who had LEGITIMATE claims to be in the title game. Out of those...Oregon REALLY got screwed over. It showed FINALLY that not even the mighty BCS gives us the 2 best teams in the title game. The only way to settle this is a 16 team tourny ON THE FIELD. You could have 1 round per week...during the 4 weeks of Christmas break. Everybody joins a conference...estimated 12 conference winners and 4 at large bids (which could be based on BCS). Teams not good enough for the tourny could still have some traditional bowl games so that their fans have something to look forward to...hell basketball has the NIT so why not?
Last year there were 4 teams who had LEGITIMATE claims to be in the title game. Out of those...Oregon REALLY got screwed over. It showed FINALLY that not even the mighty BCS gives us the 2 best teams in the title game. I assume the 4 teams you're referring to are Miami, Oregon, Nebraska, and Colorado. In this case, I disagree that the BCS / Polls didn't work. There's a problem with the system in that only 2 teams can compete for a national title, certainly, and a playoff would be better. But given that we don't have that, the Polls / BCS job is to pick 2 out of those 4 teams, and there's no "right" answer. The only team with a legitimate case was Miami - they went undefeated and did their job. All the other teams stumbled once (twice in the case of Colorado) and have no claim to deserving a chance to compete for the title. One of them gets it because someone has to go, but all of those teams deservedly lost control of their own destiny when they lost a game. At that point, they left it up to the polls and computers. No matter who was picked to face Miami, someone would think it's wrong - that's the weakness of the system. However, that's not really a weakness of the polls or the BCS.
There was no need for a "national title game" last year. You had Miami, and several teams with pretty weak claims to being the "rightful" challenger. Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Oregon-- you name the team, there was a damned good reason they didn't deserve a "shot" at the national title.
Thank you for making my point. This is an inherently flawed system. They had heralded the system as giving us the absolute best game for the national title every year. It was supposed to take the guess work out of it. That obviously is impossible to do...so decide it on the field. In what other sport does losing 1 game disqualify you from title hopes? NONE!!! Not even the NFL!!!! It is that mentality that gives us games like Florida vs. The Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind. There is too much to lose to schedule teams that would provide an actual (gasp) exciting college football game.
If I had my way, I would have a six team playoff. the top two teams would have byes, while team 3 plays 6, and team 4 plays 5. the winner of 3 and 6 would play 2 and the winner of 4 and 5 play team 1 and then so on and so on. Five games right there in three weeks.
Thank you for making my point. This is an inherently flawed system. They had heralded the system as giving us the absolute best game for the national title every year. It was supposed to take the guess work out of it. That obviously is impossible to do...so decide it on the field. The BCS title game was designed to try to avoid the possibility of a split national championship. Before that game, the top teams in the nation did not play each other. If the best two teams were Big 12 and PAC 10, then one would play in the Fiesta Bowl and the other would play in the Rose Bowl. This solves that problem if there are two clear top teams. If there are MORE than two clear top teams, there is no solution outside of a playoff. Of course that would be a better option, but the point of the BCS was to provide something better than what we had, given that there was not going to be a playoff system. It was a result of things like Penn State going undefeated and not winning a national title, or Michigan & Nebraska splitting a national title. I think it's certainly done that - we have had a single champion each of the past 4 or 5 or whatever years. In what other sport does losing 1 game disqualify you from title hopes? NONE!!! Not even the NFL!!!! It is that mentality that gives us games like Florida vs. The Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind. There is too much to lose to schedule teams that would provide an actual (gasp) exciting college football game. 1 loss doesn't disqualify you here, either. Nebraska wasn't disqualified last year. In fact, Colorado (with 2 losses) almost had a shot as well. However, each loss does reduce your chances. That's no different than any other sport where it lowers your playoff seeding or your likelihood of making the playoffs. It's just that college football's playoff only includes 2 teams in a much larger league, so the margin of error is smaller. As for scheduling good games, most of the top teams play some good opponents. Texas played top-15 teams like Virginia, Notre Dame, UCLA and Colorado (pre-big 12) in the 90's. They'll be playing Ohio State in a few years. OU plays Alabama this year. Miami is playing Tennessee and Florida. Florida / Florida State. VaTech is playing A&M. Washington and Michigan. Most of the top teams are starting to play at least one (out of 3) high-quality non-conference opponents now because it helps their strength of schedule more -- having SOS matter is one huge benefit of the BCS system.
wow, we don't agree about Iraq or college football! IMO that's the beauty of college football. Thaty's why we DON'T have Florida v. Sisters of Mercy this weekend, why we have Florida vs. Miami this weekend, Texas v. OU next month, Florida v. Miami next month, Florida v. FSU in November. It's the only regular season, outside of the English Premiership, that matters. When was the last time the whole country was pumped about a regular season college basketball game?
My point is simple. If FSU had lost to Iowa State, FSU fans would be saying thins like: "There goes the season." What??? You've played ONE GAME!!!! They'd be acting like the rest of the season was MEANINGLESS. You can't possibly be in favor of generating that sentiment.
I do like the tension, teams manage to go undefeated despite it all anyway. THat never happens in any other sport.
My point is simple. If FSU had lost to Iowa State, FSU fans would be saying thins like: "There goes the season." What??? You've played ONE GAME!!!! They'd be acting like the rest of the season was MEANINGLESS. You can't possibly be in favor of generating that sentiment. The fans could say that, but they'd be wrong. (just as us UT fans were last year after the OU game) Personally, I love the fact that Texas vs. OU actually means so much. That's what makes the game so much fun. If the outcome really didn't matter, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting.
You could enact a 16 team playoff next season and the Texas-OU game will still mean so much due to 1) pride and 2) position in the Big XII South. It could be the difference between getting to the Big XII title game and then the playoffs or sitting at home come December.
