247 Projects AP Preseason Top 25

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Shut up, stupid. You're a crying little 2 year old.

I'm not crying. Why are you so angry?

Are you suggesting that pre-season polls don't have a long history of impacting final rankings?

 

[Red_Alert]

I'm not crying. Why are you so angry?

Are you suggesting that pre-season polls don't have a long history of impacting final rankings?

You are to crying like a 2 year old, you flaming idiot.

BOO HOO NEBRASKA IN 1997 BOO HOOOOOOOO. WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

You are to crying like a 2 year old, you flaming idiot.

BOO HOO NEBRASKA IN 1997 BOO HOOOOOOOO. WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

I hope your day gets better man.

 

[Red_Alert]

I hope your day gets better man.

You mean you might DIAF?

Sweet!!!

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

You mean you might DIAF?

Sweet!!!

You have some issues.

 

[Fatsquirrel]

Lol what the fuck?

 

[rmilia1]

Not really. The committee has shown that they're not that concerned with the polls based on where they place teams.

Yeah it's probably just coincidence that the 2 non conference winning teams to make the playoffs were both preseason top 5 and the most debated team to make it ( 2017 Bama ) was preseason number 1 lol

 

[rmilia1]

How is that?

It's inherent . It has to be .

Preseason rankings impact everything the first half of the season.

Teams start out high and lose early they don't drop all the way out while the team who beats them makes a huge jump .

Then 2 weeks later the team who won that game loses and they don't drop out ( even if the team they beat to get ranked has lost again since ) and the team who beat them makes a huge jump

And on and on

Then at the end of the year 8-4 SEC team who started number 5 ends up 18th even though they beat 4 OOC scrubs and lost all 4 of their tough leagues games but , because they're 18th ( because they started 5th ) , they're used as a "quality win" by the committee .

Etc etc

It's perpetuating and self fulfilling . 8 teams from a league starts out in the Top 25 preseason and we hear " they best each other up , look at all those ranked teams !!" even though 3 of the 8 end up 8-4/7-5 and have no business being ranked .

It impacts everything all year long. And there's no point . Preseason rankings aren't necessary in a sport where they COULD impact the final results and they're certainly harmful when they DO

 

[Red_Alert]

It's inherent . It has to be .

Preseason rankings impact everything the first half of the season.

Teams start out high and lose early they don't drop all the way out while the team who beats them makes a huge jump .

Then 2 weeks later the team who won that game loses and they don't drop out ( even if the team they beat to get ranked has lost again since ) and the team who beat them makes a huge jump

And on and on

Then at the end of the year 8-4 SEC team who started number 5 ends up 18th even though they beat 4 OOC scrubs and lost all 4 of their tough leagues games but , because they're 18th ( because they started 5th ) , they're used as a "quality win" by the committee .

Etc etc

It's perpetuating and self fulfilling . 8 teams from a league starts out in the Top 25 preseason and we hear " they best each other up , look at all those ranked teams !!" even though 3 of the 8 end up 8-4/7-5 and have no business being ranked .

It impacts everything all year long. And there's no point . Preseason rankings aren't necessary in a sport where they COULD impact the final results and they're certainly harmful when they DO

I agree with that. That's why the SEC typically schedules a bye AND an FCS opponent in November. They know late season losses will knock them down in the rankings and out of the CFP.

They've been doing it for a decade now.

 

[Across The Field]

Yeah it's probably just coincidence that the 2 non conference winning teams to make the playoffs were both preseason top 5 and the most debated team to make it ( 2017 Bama ) was preseason number 1 lol

It's a false equivalency. Your argument is basically that Bama is only in the playoff because of rankings, when in fact it's because they've earned it throughout the years. Same with Ohio State. Both teams had 1 loss - OSU's was a flukey loss on the road to a top 10 team, but they themselves had 3 top 10 wins that season, so that's a damn good resume. They could've started 15th that year, if you go 11-1 with 3 top 10 wins and only a flukey loss on the road to a top 10 team, that's a top 4-level resume.

 

[rmilia1]

It's a false equivalency. Your argument is basically that Bama is only in the playoff because of rankings, when in fact it's because they've earned it throughout the years. Same with Ohio State. Both teams had 1 loss - OSU's was a flukey loss on the road to a top 10 team, but they themselves had 3 top 10 wins that season, so that's a damn good resume. They could've started 15th that year, if you go 11-1 with 3 top 10 wins and only a flukey loss on the road to a top 10 team, that's a top 4-level resume.

It's the same argument . Preseason rankings always favor the teams who have " earned it throughout the years ". The point is that prior years aren't supposed to impact the next season . Prior season conference strength isn't supposed to impact conference perception the next year . It's how you end up with perpetuating self fulfilling "predictions ". Do you think , in 2017, that if Miss St had gone 11-1 with the exact same results as Bama that they'd have gone to the playoffs ahead of OSU ? Do you think , in 2016 , that if NW had gone 11-1 with the exact same results as OSU that they'd have been chosen ahead of Penn St?

Of course you don't

And you'd be right

 

[Across The Field]

It's the same argument . Preseason rankings always favor the teams who have " earned it throughout the years ". The point is that prior years aren't supposed to impact the next season . Prior season conference strength isn't supposed to impact conference perception the next year . It's how you end up with perpetuating self fulfilling "predictions ". Do you think , in 2017, that if Miss St had gone 11-1 with the exact same results as Bama that they'd have gone to the playoffs ahead of OSU ? Do you think , in 2016 , that if NW had gone 11-1 with the exact same results as OSU that they'd have been chosen ahead of Penn St?

Of course you don't

And you'd be right

In the case of NW, yeah I 100% do. Do you know how rare it is to end a season with 3 top 10 wins, especially with one of them being an OOC P5 conference winner?

In the case of Miss St, probably not, but I think earned clout if 100% fair. When you've proven year in, year out that you're one of the very top teams in the nation, you deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Red_Alert]

It's a false equivalency. Your argument is basically that Bama is only in the playoff because of rankings, when in fact it's because they've earned it throughout the years. Same with Ohio State. Both teams had 1 loss - OSU's was a flukey loss on the road to a top 10 team, but they themselves had 3 top 10 wins that season, so that's a damn good resume. They could've started 15th that year, if you go 11-1 with 3 top 10 wins and only a flukey loss on the road to a top 10 team, that's a top 4-level resume.

'When' you get that loss can have an effect though.

Get it early in the season you can climb back in the polls as others lose. Get it late and there's little time to climb back into it.

I do agree the committee is not just following the polls though.

 

[rmilia1]

'When' you get that loss can have an effect though.

Get it early in the season you can climb back in the polls as others lose. Get it late and there's little time to climb back into it.

I do agree the committee is not just following the polls though.

Yeah I didn't mean to imply they're just directly following the polls but they're still human . They see the polls . It influences them. There's no way around it

 

[outofyourmind]

So, did 1997 Nebraska get a #1 ranking at the end of the season because they started high, or because they were "gifted" #1 because Osborne was retiring.


I'm confused now.
Which one is it.

 

[OregonDucks]

13. Washington Huskies

I still get a kick out of knowing I took a piss in that lake.

 

[OregonDucks]

Just went back and re-read this thread. It is super cute to see Nebraska trying to get things heated with another Big Ten team like they belong in the Big Ten.

Hey Nebraska, you'll always be a Big Ten outsider.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

You didn't have to "choose mid-season"

The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition in 1992 which was formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.
The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition which was still in place in 1993 and formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.
The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition which was still in place in 1994 and formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.

The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Alliance in 1995 which was formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.
The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition which was still in place in 1996 and formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.
The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition which was still in place in 1997 and formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.

You had 6 fucking years of January's to join. Not "Mid-season".

The Big 10 did not want to join those agreements meant to pit #1 vs #2 because they figured their chances of winning a national title were better against lesser opponents in the Rose Bowl.
i.e The last minute 21-16 win over #8 Washington St. while Nebraska was destroying Peyton Mannings #3 Tennessee 42-17.

Bowl Coalition - Wikipedia
Bowl Alliance - Wikipedia

It has nothing to do with their chances of winning a title. The Rose Bowl has too much tradition for each of those two conferences to abandon it.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

You didn't have to "choose mid-season"

The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition in 1992 which was formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.
The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition which was still in place in 1993 and formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.
The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition which was still in place in 1994 and formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.

The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Alliance in 1995 which was formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.
The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition which was still in place in 1996 and formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.
The Big 10 could have chosen to join the Bowl Coalition which was still in place in 1997 and formed to match #1 vs #2 at the end of the season.

You had 6 fucking years of January's to join. Not "Mid-season".

The Big 10 did not want to join those agreements meant to pit #1 vs #2 because they figured their chances of winning a national title were better against lesser opponents in the Rose Bowl.
i.e The last minute 21-16 win over #8 Washington St. while Nebraska was destroying Peyton Mannings #3 Tennessee 42-17.

Bowl Coalition - Wikipedia
Bowl Alliance - Wikipedia

Nebraska fans don't understand what the Rose Bowl means to the B1G and the PAC nor do I expect them to understand. That bowl game has more tradition than the rest of the bowl games put together.

 

[Red_Alert]

It has nothing to do with their chances of winning a title. The Rose Bowl has too much tradition for each of those two conferences to abandon it.

Nebraska fans don't understand what the Rose Bowl means to the B1G and the PAC nor do I expect them to understand. That bowl game has more tradition than the rest of the bowl games put together.

Because they put flowers on fucking floats?