SportsHoopla Preseason Top 25 discussion thread

[Smart]

Thats what a lot of people think. To me that makes no damn sense. A preseason Top 25 should be how good you think teams will do this year. Otherwise you should just rank them exactly where they finished last year. I can promise you no one has seen any meaningful football in order to change last years season end rankings so if you are not basing it off of where you think teams will finish then what the hell are you basing it on??

- Record/Rank last year
- Returning Starters
- Coaching Track Record

The problem is that there is an anchoring effect. For example, I think Marshall will go 11-1 this year. That will likely have them finishing around 20 or so. But the thing is, if Marshall started at 20, then they would finish #12 because voters are reluctant to jump teams if neither suffers a loss.

You need to rank them not by how good you think they will do, but by how good you think they will be. While some posters may not fall for the trap, the reality is that this is the only way to avoid rewarding teams for a weak schedule.

 

[4down20]

- Record/Rank last year
- Returning Starters
- Coaching Track Record

The problem is that there is an anchoring effect. For example, I think Marshall will go 11-1 this year. That will likely have them finishing around 20 or so. But the thing is, if Marshall started at 20, then they would finish #12 because voters are reluctant to jump teams if neither suffers a loss.

You need to rank them not by how good you think they will do, but by how good you think they will be. While some posters may not fall for the trap, the reality is that this is the only way to avoid rewarding teams for a weak schedule.

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

- Record/Rank last year
- Returning Starters
- Coaching Track Record

The problem is that there is an anchoring effect. For example, I think Marshall will go 11-1 this year. That will likely have them finishing around 20 or so. But the thing is, if Marshall started at 20, then they would finish #12 because voters are reluctant to jump teams if neither suffers a loss.

You need to rank them not by how good you think they will do, but by how good you think they will be. While some posters may not fall for the trap, the reality is that this is the only way to avoid rewarding teams for a weak schedule.

This doesn't happen that much, Fresno State and Northern Illinois started near the top 25 and both barely got in the top 15 when they were undefeated, and Marshall's schedule is worse than either Fresno State or NIU's schedules from last year.

 

[Smart]

This doesn't happen that much, Fresno State and Northern Illinois started near the top 25 and both barely got in the top 15 when they were undefeated, and Marshall's schedule is worse than either Fresno State or NIU's schedules from last year.

Fresno and NIU were ranked 31 and 38 in the preseason. That wasn't some projection of where people thought they would finish. Fresno was favored in all 12 games (Boise was a Pick'Em preseason, but Fresno gets the tie because they were favored after Week 1). NIU was favored in 11, with the only exception being 1 point underdogs to Iowa.

If everyone thought how you did, Fresno would have been ranked in the top 10 in the preseason. NIU would have been around #20. Do I think Fresno would have been #13 at 10-0 if they started at #10? Hell no.

 

[4down20]

Fresno and NIU were ranked 31 and 38 in the preseason. That wasn't some projection of where people thought they would finish. Fresno was favored in all 12 games (Boise was a Pick'Em preseason, but Fresno gets the tie because they were favored after Week 1). NIU was favored in 11, with the only exception being 1 point underdogs to Iowa.

If everyone thought how you did, Fresno would have been ranked in the top 10 in the preseason. NIU would have been around #20. Do I think Fresno would have been #13 at 10-0 if they started at #10? Hell no.

You have no clue on how the polls and such work.

 

[Smart]

You have no clue on how the polls and such work.

So Fresno was favored in every game and the voters put them at #31 preseason because they thought that's where they would end up? Even though when Fresno was 10-0, they were ranked #13?

You make no sense.

 

[4down20]

So Fresno was favored in every game and the voters put them at #31 preseason because they thought that's where they would end up? Even though when Fresno was 10-0, they were ranked #13?

You make no sense.

Fresno St was not favored in every game to start the season. And if they had been favored in every game to start the season, they would have been ranked much higher.

If Fresno St had finished the season undefeated, then #13 would have been justified. If all the voters thought the same exact things about how they ranked teams, there wouldn't be a need for more than 1 voter.

At any rate, the notion that you need to start teams lower in order to give them room to rise is just dumb and not at all how anyone votes. The reason such teams don't often start ranked so early in the season is because they are often times up and down a good bit because such teams usually have 1 good season because of seniors that have built up and then the next season they have to start rebuilding. And they don't have name brand recognition like Alabama, Texas, Michigan, Florida, etc that brings them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Smart]

Fresno St was not favored in every game to start the season. And if they had been favored in every game to start the season, they would have been ranked much higher.

If Fresno St had finished the season undefeated, then #13 would have been justified. If all the voters thought the same exact things about how they ranked teams, there wouldn't be a need for more than 1 voter.

At any rate, the notion that you need to start teams lower in order to give them room to rise is just dumb and not at all how anyone votes. The reason such teams don't often start ranked so early in the season is because they are often times up and down a good bit because such teams usually have 1 good season because of seniors that have built up and then the next season they have to start rebuilding. And they don't have name brand recognition like Alabama, Texas, Michigan, Florida, etc that brings them the benefit of the doubt.

You don't "start teams lower in order to give them room to rise." I'm not even sure what that means. You rank teams based on projected TALENT. Not projected FINISH. Projected TALENT.

The big difference, of course, is that talent does not consider schedule. And that is absolutely the best way to operate on a system which is supposed to be based on MERIT. Seriously, why would you reward a team for playing a weak schedule? How does that make any sense?

And lastly, Fresno WAS favored in all 12 games after week 1. That's a fact. Yet, they were ranked #29. Under your views, Fresno shouldn't have gone up. After all, they were favored to win every week, and they did that (usually in unimpressive ways). Of course, though, they did go up. They were #13 when they finally lost. They passed 16 teams despite performing exactly how they were expected to. If rankings were based on expectation alone, how do you explain that?

You can't. It disproves your theory. Do some voters consider schedule? Sure. I think that explains our preseason rank and have said as much. Do most? Hell no. If they did, Fresno would have opened in the top 25 and risen much higher once it was clear Boise (their only expected loss, who they were +3 against preseason) was down.

 

[douggie]

I'll put my poll in here, based on how teams look preseason, not based on my predictions


1. Florida State- Winston back, along with others.
2. Auburn - more starters back than Bama from a very good team, road schedule will probably prevent a repeat title bit, but schedule doesn't effect these rankings
3. Oklahoma- assuming Knight's performance against Bama wasn't a fluke, Oklahoma is back to title contention.
4. Alabama- Alabama will have a great running game, is Coker really as good as hyped to be, he hasn't takent the field yet.
5. Oregon - Mariota back, so is the high flying offense.
6. Baylor- Returns Petty, still has great recievers, injuries at RB showed us the news guys are ready to step up.
7. UCLA
8. Michigan State
9. Ohio State
10. Stanford
11. Wisconsin
12. South Carolina- where I put them every preseason
13. Kansas State- Snyder will have a good team this year
14. Georgia
15. Mississippi
16. Arizona State
17. Nebraska
18. Notre Dame
19. Washington
20. Clemson- lost Boyd, Watkins, is the reason so low, Swinney and the defense is why they're ranked.
21. USC- good starters, depth concerns though
22. LSU- lost a lot, means low preseason ranking
23. Duke
24. Cincinnati
25. Bowling Green-homer vote

Dammit BoiseStateFan, I don't want anybody voting Duke in the Top 25 Preseason. I want the Blue Devils to fly under everyone's radar again this season. Stop that shit!

 

[4down20]

You don't "start teams lower in order to give them room to rise." I'm not even sure what that means. You rank teams based on projected TALENT. Not projected FINISH. Projected TALENT.

You on this same exact page:

- Record/Rank last year
- Returning Starters
- Coaching Track Record

The problem is that there is an anchoring effect. For example, I think Marshall will go 11-1 this year. That will likely have them finishing around 20 or so. But the thing is, if Marshall started at 20, then they would finish #12 because voters are reluctant to jump teams if neither suffers a loss.

You need to rank them not by how good you think they will do, but by how good you think they will be. While some posters may not fall for the trap, the reality is that this is the only way to avoid rewarding teams for a weak schedule.

ok then.

The big difference, of course, is that talent does not consider schedule. And that is absolutely the best way to operate on a system which is supposed to be based on MERIT. Seriously, why would you reward a team for playing a weak schedule? How does that make any sense?

But that is exactly what you are saying when you don't take schedule into account. Unless you are purposely ranking them lower, like with Fresno St in your quoted example. So which is it?

And lastly, Fresno WAS favored in all 12 games after week 1. That's a fact. Yet, they were ranked #29. Under your views, Fresno shouldn't have gone up. After all, they were favored to win every week, and they did that (usually in unimpressive ways). Of course, though, they did go up. They were #13 when they finally lost. They passed 16 teams despite performing exactly how they were expected to. If rankings were based on expectation alone, how do you explain that?

You can't. It disproves your theory. Do some voters consider schedule? Sure. I think that explains our preseason rank and have said as much. Do most? Hell no. If they did, Fresno would have opened in the top 25 and risen much higher once it was clear Boise (their only expected loss, who they were +3 against preseason) was down.

I like how it's now changed from preseason to week1. The significant thing there is Boise St losing badly in week 1. Still, even after that point, the best spread had Fresno St as 3.5 point favorites, while some still had Boise St winning. And that was the week of the game.

Boise St started the season ranked and dropped out after that first loss. Funny huh? And then right before Fresno St played Boise St - Fresno St ranked #25(AP) They moved up to #23 after the win, and into the top25 in the coaches as well.

Why did they move up to #13 before losing? Probably because San Jose St was an upset and they were expected to win out.

So what is that I need to explain again? Please tell me more about how not considering schedule at all somehow keeps people from rewarding teams who play weak schedules. That is funny stuff.

 

[occupant]

Dammit BoiseStateFan, I don't want anybody voting Duke in the Top 25 Preseason. I want the Blue Devils to fly under everyone's radar again this season. Stop that shit!

1 Florida State
2 Auburn
3 Oklahoma
4 Clemson
5 Alabama
6 Ohio State
7 Michigan State
8 Stanford
9 Baylor
10 Oregon
11 South Carolina
12 Southern Cal
13 LSU
14 Duke
15 UCLA
16 Nebraska
17 Oklahoma State
18 Georgia
19 Wisconsin
20 Washington
21 Mississippi
22 Notre Dame
23 Missouri
24 Texas A&M
t-25 Central Florida
t-25 Arizona State
t-25 Texas Tech

Sorry Charlie.

 

[douggie]

Sorry Charlie.

You are killing me.

 

[Smart]

You on this same exact page:



ok then.

But that is exactly what you are saying when you don't take schedule into account. Unless you are purposely ranking them lower, like with Fresno St in your quoted example. So which is it?

I like how it's now changed from preseason to week1. The significant thing there is Boise St losing badly in week 1. Still, even after that point, the best spread had Fresno St as 3.5 point favorites, while some still had Boise St winning. And that was the week of the game.

Boise St started the season ranked and dropped out after that first loss. Funny huh? And then right before Fresno St played Boise St - Fresno St ranked #25(AP) They moved up to #23 after the win, and into the top25 in the coaches as well.

Why did they move up to #13 before losing? Probably because San Jose St was an upset and they were expected to win out.

So what is that I need to explain again? Please tell me more about how not considering schedule at all somehow keeps people from rewarding teams who play weak schedules. That is funny stuff.

You quote me saying that I rank teams based on "how good (I) think they will be" based on the three variables which affect my ranking: last years record/rank, returning starters, and coaching track record. That's how you judge returning talent. You ask how good were they in the past, how much of that good is back, and do we have any reason to think they were developed well. When you combine the three, you get a decent read on talent.

On the exact same page, I made the exact same idea! Shocker!

As for the second half, it's incredible how badly my point is going over your head. Yes, Boise losing affected the projections for Fresno. THAT TOTALLY SUPPORTS MY POINT AND NEGATES YOURS. Because in your view, Fresno should have risen a ton. Their best opponent was worse than expected. This made them more likely to go undefeated, and more likely to have a better record. Thus, if the projected finish was everything, Boise going down in rank would lead to Fresno going up. But they didn't. They didn't go from 31 to 15 because they suddenly looked like they were going undefeated. Instead, they went from 31 to 29.

You say future finishes affect current ranking, yet you seem to completely misunderstand the corollary of that point. If a team was projected to go undefeated, and we are ranking based on projections, then they shouldn't rise when they actually win. Your talk of Fresno rising to #13 tells me you still don't get this. The San Jose State upset happens after they rose in the rankings. The issue is why did they rise if they were favored anyways?

And no, the spread of the Boise game wasn't even on gameweek. Every single spread on gameweek as between Fresno -2.5 and Fresno -4.

And when did I say I ranked Fresno lower because of schedule? I AM THE ONE SAYING SCHEDULE DOESN'T MATTER IN MY RANKINGS. THAT'S MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT. YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING SCHEDULE SHOULD MATTER (ie Wisconsin might not be the 6th best team, but they are likely to finish in the top 6 because of their schedule). How could you not see this as rewarding weak schedules?

Also, it's not "funny" that Boise fell. My point was that polls are done based on merit and talent. And considering Boise lost by 30+, it's fair to say that they were less meritorious and talented than expected. Where do you see me saying losses don't matter? Seriously, that's not supported by my position at all.

I think I went through every paragraph here. You see to misunderstand what I am saying here. This isn't one of my "your argument is stupid" posts. I'm saying your arguments don't actually apply to my positions at all. That's not some diss. I legitimately just don't think you get what I am saying.

 

[Smart]

To make it more clear what I saying,let's do a hypothetical. Let's say that Mississippi State suddenly moves to the Sun Belt. Let's pretend that Mississippi State would go 5-7 in the SEC but 11-1 in the Sun Belt. Based on past experiences, we know a team that goes 11-1 in the Sun Belt will end the year ranked #20. We know that a 5-7 SEC team won't be ranked.

Under your view, Mississippi State would be ranked #20 now that they moved, but would have been unranked in the SEC. Under my view, they are ranked what they are. If they are the 25th best team, I will rank them #25, whether they play in the SEC and Sun Belt. You view rewards the weak schedule. Mine doesn't.

Maybe this isn't what you are arguing. I don't know. I responded to R., and that is what he has argued. How do I know that? He's said (paraphrasing) "Iowa will clearly win at least 10 and B1G teams who win that many are always ranked." He didn't say "Iowa should be ranked highly because they are a talented team." He explicitly brought in record.

If you disagree with my disagreement with R., that's fine, but as of right now, you don't seem to understand what I am saying.

 

[4down20]

You quote me saying that I rank teams based on "how good (I) think they will be" based on the three variables which affect my ranking: last years record/rank, returning starters, and coaching track record. That's how you judge returning talent. You ask how good were they in the past, how much of that good is back, and do we have any reason to think they were developed well. When you combine the three, you get a decent read on talent.

On the exact same page, I made the exact same idea! Shocker!

As for the second half, it's incredible how badly my point is going over your head. Yes, Boise losing affected the projections for Fresno. THAT TOTALLY SUPPORTS MY POINT AND NEGATES YOURS. Because in your view, Fresno should have risen a ton. Their best opponent was worse than expected. This made them more likely to go undefeated, and more likely to have a better record. Thus, if the projected finish was everything, Boise going down in rank would lead to Fresno going up. But they didn't. They didn't go from 31 to 15 because they suddenly looked like they were going undefeated. Instead, they went from 31 to 29.

You say future finishes affect current ranking, yet you seem to completely misunderstand the corollary of that point. If a team was projected to go undefeated, and we are ranking based on projections, then they shouldn't rise when they actually win. Your talk of Fresno rising to #13 tells me you still don't get this. The San Jose State upset happens after they rose in the rankings. The issue is why did they rise if they were favored anyways?

And no, the spread of the Boise game wasn't even on gameweek. Every single spread on gameweek as between Fresno -2.5 and Fresno -4.

And when did I say I ranked Fresno lower because of schedule? I AM THE ONE SAYING SCHEDULE DOESN'T MATTER IN MY RANKINGS. THAT'S MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT. YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING SCHEDULE SHOULD MATTER (ie Wisconsin might not be the 6th best team, but they are likely to finish in the top 6 because of their schedule). How could you not see this as rewarding weak schedules?

Also, it's not "funny" that Boise fell. My point was that polls are done based on merit and talent. And considering Boise lost by 30+, it's fair to say that they were less meritorious and talented than expected. Where do you see me saying losses don't matter? Seriously, that's not supported by my position at all.

I think I went through every paragraph here. You see to misunderstand what I am saying here. This isn't one of my "your argument is stupid" posts. I'm saying your arguments don't actually apply to my positions at all. That's not some diss. I legitimately just don't think you get what I am saying.

You are talking in circles.

Of course team strength matters, where did anyone say otherwise? You use that strength to project how you believe the schedule will go. Obviously at the start of the year people thought Boise St would beat Fresno St. Thus yes, people thought Boise St was a more powerful team than Fresno. The 2 things go hand and hand. The games are the adjustments to the perceptions.

Looking at the schedule and the record they will go is just applying the strength to it. However, the polls themselves are not saying anything directly. 1 guy thinks this team is more powerful and would beat this other team, and this other guy thinks the opposite. And you get an average from it. It's not like it's a 1 method thing for all voters. It's a variety.

So when you keep saying things like so and so team is favored and so on, I think it's odd that you believe it's going to be some huge extreme among voters with that variety. At any rate, even when they were ranked #13 or whatever, they were undefeated and still not top10. Why? SoS - which is how you don't reward a weak schedule. That is 1 factor. Another factor is they weren't a proven team, which puts more individual doubt on how legit they are among voters. That pulls it down but can climb if they prove themselves more. Then you have other teams who are adjusting in the other direction. Teams drop every week, that makes room for teams that are undefeated.

Btw where do you get this information that Fresno St was favored the rest of the year after week 1? I've just went with it just to debate it as if it's true, but I don't actually see that anywhere in a quick check. Usually what is listed is the final line right before the game started, not immediately after week 1.

 

[4down20]

To make it more clear what I saying,let's do a hypothetical. Let's say that Mississippi State suddenly moves to the Sun Belt. Let's pretend that Mississippi State would go 5-7 in the SEC but 11-1 in the Sun Belt. Based on past experiences, we know a team that goes 11-1 in the Sun Belt will end the year ranked #20. We know that a 5-7 SEC team won't be ranked.

Under your view, Mississippi State would be ranked #20 now that they moved, but would have been unranked in the SEC. Under my view, they are ranked what they are. If they are the 25th best team, I will rank them #25, whether they play in the SEC and Sun Belt. You view rewards the weak schedule. Mine doesn't.

But you are just making up strengths and such to come to the conclusion you want here. How do you know a 5-7 SEC team will go 11-1 in the Sun Belt? I don't believe that is true, that's 7 SEC losses minimum, which means they only beat 1 SEC team. And that is close to best case, as if they went 5-7 in the SEC and 4 of those losses were out of conference, then that's about like if the SEC had the strength of the Sun Belt. If it was 4 good out of conference teams that they lost to, then it kind of negates the reason to include conferences. So lets say basically best case is 7 SEC losses, 1 SEC win. And that 1 SEC win is likely either the best team in the conference(Iowa St etc) or the worst, Vandy just beat Kentucky(or Tennessee did last year).

Truth is, the 11-1 Sun Belt team is likely better than the 5-7 SEC team.

Maybe this isn't what you are arguing. I don't know. I responded to R., and that is what he has argued. How do I know that? He's said (paraphrasing) "Iowa will clearly win at least 10 and B1G teams who win that many are always ranked." He didn't say "Iowa should be ranked highly because they are a talented team." He explicitly brought in record.

If you disagree with my disagreement with R., that's fine, but as of right now, you don't seem to understand what I am saying.

I have no idea what anyone else was arguing. I got tired of you trying to claim everyone else was somehow fooled into ignorance for looking at the schedule which you did multiple times.

 

[The Crimson King]

Thats what a lot of people think. To me that makes no damn sense. A preseason Top 25 should be how good you think teams will do this year. Otherwise you should just rank them exactly where they finished last year. I can promise you no one has seen any meaningful football in order to change last years season end rankings so if you are not basing it off of where you think teams will finish then what the hell are you basing it on??

So teams don't change in the offseason?

 

[Smart]

You are talking in circles.

Of course team strength matters, where did anyone say otherwise? You use that strength to project how you believe the schedule will go. Obviously at the start of the year people thought Boise St would beat Fresno St. Thus yes, people thought Boise St was a more powerful team than Fresno. The 2 things go hand and hand. The games are the adjustments to the perceptions.

Btw where do you get this information that Fresno St was favored the rest of the year after week 1? I've just went with it just to debate it as if it's true, but I don't actually see that anywhere in a quick check. Usually what is listed is the final line right before the game started, not immediately after week 1.

You still are missing the fact that Fresno's ranking didn't rise exponentially when it was clear Boise was down. People thought Boise was better than Fresno in the preseason. After they got walloped, that changed. People thought Fresno was better than Boise and everyone else on their schedule. They were favored to go undefeated. If you project out based on schedule, how do you explain a team that was projected by most to go 12-0 being unranked? You still can't.

Here are Fresno's projected preseason spreads. As you can see, they are favored in 11 games. And as for Boise, they didn't lose between Week 1 and the Fresno game. Fresno played one game, a 16 point win over an FCS team. Boise beat UT Martin by 49 and Air Force by 20. We know that Fresno was -3.5 on gameday. Unless you are saying Boise was favored after losing to Washington, but Fresno's win over Cal Poly pushed them up 4 points compared to Boise's bigger wins over better teams (which is obviously ridiculous), Fresno was favored.

 

[starbigd]

Err....I base any poll on where the teams are, in my perspective, at the time I make the poll. Right now my basis is the last half of the 2013 season with emphasis on the bowl game and personnel/coaching changes.

I couldn't with any certainty make an assumption on where they will end up, today is as close as I can get. But if today's trend continues to the end of the season I would imagine that the final poll would look like this...with the information I'm working with.

I can't extrapolate numbers from shit that hasn't happened yet.

Maybe instead of calling yours a poll you should call it a prognostication?

This is what I find interesting.

So Texas Tech, that lost their last 5 games and QB, is higher ranked in your poll than a Texas team, that nearly won the conference?

The lack of consistency in your train of thought is amazing.

 

[rmilia1]

So teams don't change in the offseason?

Of course they do BUT if you are going to "predict" how those changes effect a teams talent then you can certainly "predict" how that will change their season ending record. I base my rankings off of where I think teams will finish based on returning starters, added talent, coaching changes, schedule and results the prior year. See people are OK saying " Hey we added 5 5 star guys so we will be WAYYY better" as a basis for moving a team up but are not OK with me looking at a teams schedule and hypothesizing how that team wil do... Its dumb.