ap top 25 poll out

[miketheidiot]

RK TEAM RECORD PTS
1 Florida (56) 1-0 1493
2 Texas (2) 1-0 1424
3 USC 1-0 1355
4 Alabama (2) 1-0 1331
5 Oklahoma State 1-0 1201
6 Mississippi 1-0 1095
7 Penn State 1-0 1082
8 Ohio State 1-0 985
9 Brigham Young 1-0 984
10 California 1-0 971
11 LSU 1-0 890
12 Boise State 1-0 882
13 Oklahoma 0-1 782
14 Virginia Tech 0-1 652
15 Georgia Tech 1-0 630
16 TCU 0-0 523
17 Utah 1-0 404
18 Notre Dame 1-0 383
19 North Carolina 1-0 338
20 Miami (FL) 1-0 315
21 Georgia 0-1 294
22 Nebraska 1-0 266
23 Cincinnati 1-0 248
24 Kansas 1-0 196
25 Missouri 1-0 126

* Dropped from rankings: Oregon 16, Florida State 18, Iowa 22

* Others receiving votes: Oregon State 113, Michigan State 83, Pittsburgh 82, Texas Tech 53, Oregon 47, Clemson 40, Florida State 39, West Virginia 32, Tennessee 30, Iowa 24, Michigan 18, UCLA 18, Baylor 17, Boston College 14, Arizona 12, East Carolina 6, Air Force 4, Auburn 4, Colorado State 4, Arkansas 3, South Carolina 3, South Florida 1, Southern Miss 1, Houston 1, Tulsa 1

Text

i'm pretty surprised to see florida state drop out of the polls entirely after a close loss to now #20 miami. Also after barely beating Oklahoma BYU is now #9?

 

[dullard]

Polls are truely meaningless before 6 weeks have passed. They are interesting to talk about, but don't complain about positions this early on.

 

[zebano]

I can't believe Iowa actually won their game on Saturday. I'm glad they dropped in the ranking though.

 

[Train]

meh. IMO they shouldnt even have polls this early in the season. I think it puts too much weight into expectations. Some teams are surprises, some are busts. Shouldnt penalize the unranked preseason teams by making them "work thier way up the ladder" all season long. Should let the first 4 or 5 weeks happen before publishing any polls at all.

 

[nakedfrog]

Oh, this is a sports thread. I'll just move along then.

 

[ElFenix]

way to get a bunch of teams in the poll, big least.


srsly, can't we kick them out and invite the mountain west?

 

[Fingolfin269]

I've always found polls to be fascinating when similarly ranked opponents play one another, the higher ranked opponent wins (expected), and the lower ranked opponent ends up dropping.

Seriously, if #5 (Bama) beats #7 (VT) should #7 drop to #14? If #9 (OK State) beats #13 (Georgia) should #13 drop to #21? What we expected to happen actually happened... but you must still be punished!!!

Oh and OK State jumped up to #5 to boot. Did I mention that I think college polls are stupid?

 

[HardcoreRobot]

rankings are stupid. if wanted judges id watch gymnastics or diving.

i will continue to have a love/hate relationship with college football until conferences become divisions that send one winner to a bracketed playoff system at the end of the year to determine a true champion.

 

[chuckywang]

Keep in mind the AP poll is not being used to determine BCS rankings.

 

[Queasy]

Meaningless but it's still fun to watch the polls shake up as the season starts. It will shake up more next week when OSU and USC meet. It looks like the voters are trying to adjust their expectations prior to the first games with what they actually saw in the first week's of games. Georgia looked bad offensively while OK St looked good offensively and defensively. VT looked like they didn't have an offense. I'm not sure why Florida State would drop all the way out. They still looked good last night despite the loss. They at least looked better than Oregon who got more 'others receiving votes' than FSU.

Glad to see my Tide get 2 first place votes though. They looked kind of rusty through most of the game but poured it on at the end.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
rankings are stupid. if wanted judges id watch gymnastics or diving.

i will continue to have a love/hate relationship with college football until conferences become divisions that send one winner to a bracketed playoff system at the end of the year to determine a true champion.

I'm pretty much the same. I couldn't care less if every conference is directly represented (like basketball) but more for something along the lines of:

1) ACC winner
2) Big East winner
3) Big 10 winner
4) Big 12 winner
5) PAC 10 winner
6) SEC winner
7) At large
8) At large

Seedings would be 1-6 for the conference winners (in order of BCS rank) and the at large teams would be 7&8 and ranked by BCS standings UNLESS it would result in them playing someone from their conference. At large could be any other team (including one from the "major" conferences) although some stipulations would need to be put in to help protect the non-major conference teams. You've got a "true" champion in 3 weeks and no one can really cry about the unfairness of it all.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

#10 - Go Bears!

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Keep in mind the AP poll is not being used to determine BCS rankings.

but humans do, and humans read these polls, so they are influential

 

[Queasy]

Here is the Coach's poll btw. Less meaningful (because coaches don't watch games and have assistants fill out their polls for them) but more relevant since it affects the BCS.

Rank Team (first-place votes) Record Points Preseason rank
1.Florida (56) 1-0 1,472 1
2.Texas (2) 1-0 1,407 2
3.Southern California (1) 1-0 1,352 4
4.Alabama 1-0 1,299 5
5.Penn State 1-0 1,145 8
6.Oklahoma State 1-0 1,114 11
7.Ohio State 1-0 1,106 6
8.Mississippi 1-0 1,006 10
9.LSU 1-0 977 9
10.California 1-0 935 12
11.Boise State 1-0 803 16
12.Brigham Young 1-0 755 24
13.Georgia Tech 1-0 685 15
14.Oklahoma 0-1 682 3
15.Virginia Tech 0-1 633 7
16.TCU 0-0 543 17
17.Utah 1-0 503 18
18.Nebraska 1-0 360 22
19.North Carolina 1-0 358 20
20.Notre Dame 1-0 335 23
21.Georgia 0-1 304 13
22.Miami (Fla.) 1-0 276 NR
23.Cincinnati 1-0 187 NR
24.Oregon State 1-0 169 25
25.Kansas 1-0 139 NR

Dropped out
No. 14 Oregon (0-1, lost to then-No. 16 Boise State 19-8), No. 19 Florida State (0-1, lost to then-unranked Miami, Fla., 38-34), No. 21 Iowa (1-0, beat Northern Iowa 17-16).
Others receiving votes
Michigan State 133; Missouri 97; Iowa 70; Florida State 62; Texas Tech 53; Oregon 50; Pittsburgh 26; Clemson 24; South Carolina 23; Tennessee 21; Auburn 13; West Virginia 13; South Florida 12; Kentucky 8; Arizona 5; Michigan 4; Northwestern 4; Boston College 3; Arkansas 2; Baylor 2; UCLA 2; Colorado State 1; Minnesota 1; Tulsa 1.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Also after barely beating Oklahoma BYU is now #9?

What's the problem with that?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
something along the lines of:...

I've been preaching that for years (even the two at large teams). Make all conferences have conference championship games. Make all conference champions play each other in the minor bowl games. The final games are played in the major bowl games. It is so simple, yet it is so far from ever being a reality.

 

[SonnyDaze]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Oh, this is a sports thread. I'll just move along then.

Hold on, I'll come with you.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
rankings are stupid. if wanted judges id watch gymnastics or diving.

i will continue to have a love/hate relationship with college football until conferences become divisions that send one winner to a bracketed playoff system at the end of the year to determine a true champion.

I'm pretty much the same. I couldn't care less if every conference is directly represented (like basketball) but more for something along the lines of:

1) ACC winner
2) Big East winner
3) Big 10 winner
4) Big 12 winner
5) PAC 10 winner
6) SEC winner
7) At large
8) At large

Seedings would be 1-6 for the conference winners (in order of BCS rank) and the at large teams would be 7&8 and ranked by BCS standings UNLESS it would result in them playing someone from their conference. At large could be any other team (including one from the "major" conferences) although some stipulations would need to be put in to help protect the non-major conference teams. You've got a "true" champion in 3 weeks and no one can really cry about the unfairness of it all.

why would you punish the #1 and #2 teams by having them play good at large teams instead of whatever creampuff the big least or all cupcake conference vomits out that year?

Originally posted by: Queasy
Here is the Coach's poll btw. Less meaningful (because coaches don't watch games and have assistants fill out their polls for them) but more relevant since it affects the BCS.

what if the assistants watch the games? they might even be better than the writers if they've played football at a decent level.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Queasy
Here is the Coach's poll btw. Less meaningful (because coaches don't watch games and have assistants fill out their polls for them) but more relevant since it affects the BCS.

what if the assistants watch the games? they might even be better than the writers if they've played football at a decent level.

It depends. From what I understand, it's not even a coaching assistant but one of the office staff members like a Director of Football Operations.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
rankings are stupid. if wanted judges id watch gymnastics or diving.

i will continue to have a love/hate relationship with college football until conferences become divisions that send one winner to a bracketed playoff system at the end of the year to determine a true champion.

I'm pretty much the same. I couldn't care less if every conference is directly represented (like basketball) but more for something along the lines of:

1) ACC winner
2) Big East winner
3) Big 10 winner
4) Big 12 winner
5) PAC 10 winner
6) SEC winner
7) At large
8) At large

Seedings would be 1-6 for the conference winners (in order of BCS rank) and the at large teams would be 7&8 and ranked by BCS standings UNLESS it would result in them playing someone from their conference. At large could be any other team (including one from the "major" conferences) although some stipulations would need to be put in to help protect the non-major conference teams. You've got a "true" champion in 3 weeks and no one can really cry about the unfairness of it all.

why would you punish the #1 and #2 teams by having them play good at large teams instead of whatever creampuff the big least or all cupcake conference vomits out that year?

Originally posted by: Queasy
Here is the Coach's poll btw. Less meaningful (because coaches don't watch games and have assistants fill out their polls for them) but more relevant since it affects the BCS.

what if the assistants watch the games? they might even be better than the writers if they've played football at a decent level.

Good point. And if that's the only issue you have with it then I think we're in business.

 

[grohl]

I was at the OU/BYU game. OU looked like shite BEFORE Bradford got hurt.

Could be a long season.

Miami would definitely beat the team I saw on Saturday the way they played last night.

 

[eplebnista]

I sure hope Auburn has a better season than last years.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: eplebnista
I sure hope Auburn has a better season than last years.

Unfortunately, no matter how well auburn does, they will still not win a national title. I'm convinced they are cursed.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: eplebnista
I sure hope Auburn has a better season than last years.

We're going to make some noise this year. Regardless of this past Saturday's result, I haven't seen an Auburn team compete for 60 minutes like that around 2004-2005.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: eplebnista
I sure hope Auburn has a better season than last years.

Unfortunately, no matter how well auburn does, they will still not win a national title. I'm convinced they are cursed.

Until there's some type of playoff system, I'll take a year like 2004 over losing a game and still winning a MNC.