SportsHoopla Top 25 Week 6 discussion

[ericd7633]

Here's more of what I'm speaking to. Last week at this time MANY people had Bama,in the top 15 some even in the top 10. Why you ask? Well my only guess is that those people valued a neutral site win over Wisconsin enough that they considered it able to at least partially negate a home loss to Ole Miss. I mean at that time there was nothing else to really go off of as all the Tides other wins were pretty irrelevant. Flash forward a week and many many of those same posters do not have Iowa in the top 15... hmm that's strange. If a neutral site win over Wisconsin can Pati ally negate a home loss you'd think a road win over Wisconsin would be more than enough to vault a team with NO losses into the top 15... maybe a win over Wisconsin isn't that great? But if it's not then why is Bama still receiving credit for it when it appears Iowa isnt? Strange... until you realize one of those 2 teams is a traditional power

Maybe if Iowa wouldn't have gotten blown the fuck out in their bowl game, finished 7-6, lost to a 2 win Iowa State team, and didn't have an average recruiting ranking the last 4 seasons in the mid 50's they would actually have some respect nationally. Alabama has lost 6 games in the past 4 years, Iowa lost 6 games last year alone. And yes I know you don't want to go back to last year, but the same reason why Iowa was unranked heading into this season, was the very same reason why Iowa was a preseason top 10 team back in 2010. Its not like Iowa has beaten any good teams anyways.

Iowa also looked like shit against Wisconsin. Neither of those teams are top 25 teams right now IMO. Bama was playing back ups in the 3rd quarter. Bama also beat the shit out of UGA.

 

[7Samurai13]

Maybe if Iowa wouldn't have gotten blown the fuck out in their bowl game, finished 7-6, lost to a 2 win Iowa State team, and didn't have an average recruiting ranking the last 4 seasons in the mid 50's they would actually have some respect nationally. Alabama has lost 6 games in the past 4 years, Iowa lost 6 games last year alone. And yes I know you don't want to go back to last year, but the same reason why Iowa was unranked heading into this season, was the very same reason why Iowa was a preseason top 10 team back in 2010. Its not like Iowa has beaten any good teams anyways.

Iowa also looked like shit against Wisconsin. Neither of those teams are top 25 teams right now IMO. Bama was playing back ups in the 3rd quarter. Bama also beat the shit out of UGA.

So you want to give Bama bonus points because Georgia has played a schedule that would make Art Briles proud?

 

[rmilia1]

Maybe if Iowa wouldn't have gotten blown the fuck out in their bowl game, finished 7-6, lost to a 2 win Iowa State team, and didn't have an average recruiting ranking the last 4 seasons in the mid 50's they would actually have some respect nationally. Alabama has lost 6 games in the past 4 years, Iowa lost 6 games last year alone. And yes I know you don't want to go back to last year, but the same reason why Iowa was unranked heading into this season, was the very same reason why Iowa was a preseason top 10 team back in 2010. Its not like Iowa has beaten any good teams anyways.

Iowa also looked like shit against Wisconsin. Neither of those teams are top 25 teams right now IMO. Bama was playing back ups in the 3rd quarter. Bama also beat the shit out of UGA.

Good rant Eric and all great points to not rank iowa.. 2014 iowa. In CFB past seasons are irrelevant because teams,lose players every year and others gain experience. Yes Bama beat Wisconsin by more. Bama also lost to Ole Miss. I'd assume since you appear to be a proponent of examining how,teans fare against common opponents you also then have Ole Miss ranked ahead of Bama due to their head to head victory?

 

[rmilia1]

So you want to give Bama bonus points because Georgia has played a schedule that would make Art Briles proud?

It's because they're Georgia.... georgia. UGA

 

[rmilia1]

I swear if some here had their way we wouldn't even need the season. Just a 12 or 16 team playoff played by the same teams evert year lol

 

[ericd7633]

So you want to give Bama bonus points because Georgia has played a schedule that would make Art Briles proud?

Bonus points, benefit of the doubt whatever you want to call it. Beating UGA, who returned 15 starters, in Athens is a good win. Regardless if UGA hasn't played great competition outside of Bama. Its no different than my stance on Michigan State. They haven't played anybody this season with Oregon being down and have looked pedestrian against those bad teams. Yet they're in everybody's top 10 and even top 5. Why? Because they have good players, and have the history(last two years) of being really good.

Bama should be in everybody's top 12 at worst. There aren't 12 teams better than them. Hell there isn't 7/8 teams better than them. Yet some people have them unranked and at the same time have fucking temple/Toledo/navy/Memphis ranked ahead of them. Dumb.

 

[The Oldtimer]

It's because they're Georgia.... georgia. UGA

And IMO, they are overrated this year.

 

[rmilia1]

And IMO, they are overrated this year.

But they're Geoegia?? Lol

 

[fordman84]

Week 8 polls should be good. Either A&M isn't going to get credit because we beat an overrated Bama, or Bama isn't going to get credit for beating an overrated A&M. Haters will just say that some win over a 2 win B1G team is more impressive than the winner in that game.

 

[ericd7633]

Good rant Eric and all great points to not rank iowa.. 2014 iowa. In CFB past seasons are irrelevant because teams,lose players every year and others gain experience. Yes Bama beat Wisconsin by more. Bama also lost to Ole Miss. I'd assume since you appear to be a proponent of examining how,teans fare against common opponents you also then have Ole Miss ranked ahead of Bama due to their head to head victory?

What you've done the previous season actually is relevant for the early part of the next season. Along with who returns, and recruiting. Which is why Iowa shitting the bed last year, is relevant for the early stages of this year. Especially when Iowa has played an FCS team, Iowa State, North Texas and Pitt. OOC. I get it, ranking teams based on resume, and I try and do that too, if they actually have a resume worth ranking, that was expected to be bad, for example Northwestern. Which is why I have them in the top 12.

And no I don't have Ole Miss ahead of Bama. Obviously I had Ole Miss substantially ahead before last week. We've received more info so I adjust accordingly.

 

[rmilia1]

What you've done the previous season actually is relevant for the early part of the next season. Along with who returns, and recruiting. Which is why Iowa shitting the bed last year, is relevant for the early stages of this year. Especially when Iowa has played an FCS team, Iowa State, North Texas and Pitt. OOC. I get it, ranking teams based on resume, and I try and do that too, if they actually have a resume worth ranking, that was expected to be bad, for example Northwestern. Which is why I have them in the top 12.

And no I don't have Ole Miss ahead of Bama. Obviously I had Ole Miss substantially ahead before last week. We've received more info so I adjust accordingly.

Id agree that the previous season is relevant to preseason rankings ( shouldn't have preseason rankings at all but that's a different debate ) however we are now past the point where previous years results are germane. It's ridiculous to assert otherwise and it's how we end up with Ohio State ranked number 1 when neither their results or performance warrants that ranking. At what point in your opinion is it ok yo just focus on this year? Clearly 4 or 5 games in is still too early yet you somehow don't think that same amount of time is too early to judge which teams will have good seasons since you are aleady writing off 4-1 teams as "not worth a shit"... seems strange

 

[rmilia1]

Week 8 polls should be good. Either A&M isn't going to get credit because we beat an overrated Bama, or Bama isn't going to get credit for beating an overrated A&M. Haters will just say that some win over a 2 win B1G team is more impressive than the winner in that game.

Lol at the thought of Bama not getting credit for something. In all honesty that game will be interesting. College Station can be tough and TAMU plays the style,that Bama has their most trouble with

 

[Deep Creek]

So you want to give Bama bonus points because Georgia has played a schedule that would make Art Briles proud?

Wait a minute. Georgia's played Vandy and USCe. Art wouldn't do that.

Oh wait, even Art HAS to play the conference teams. Carry on.

 

[Deep Creek]

Week 8 polls should be good. Either A&M isn't going to get credit because we beat an overrated Bama, or Bama isn't going to get credit for beating an overrated A&M. Haters will just say that some win over a 2 win B1G team is more impressive than the winner in that game.

Polls will be polls. I don't think we'll know anything until Bama, LSU, Ole Miss and A&M have all played each other. And Florida looks to have the most favorable schedule of the SEC teams that are in the mix.

 

[Deep Creek]

We've received more info so I adjust accordingly.

This is why polls should wait until the end of this month.

 

[Deep Creek]

Id agree that the previous season is relevant to preseason rankings ( shouldn't have preseason rankings at all but that's a different debate ) however we are now past the point where previous years results are germane. It's ridiculous to assert otherwise and it's how we end up with Ohio State ranked number 1 when neither their results or performance warrants that ranking. At what point in your opinion is it ok yo just focus on this year? Clearly 4 or 5 games in is still too early yet you somehow don't think that same amount of time is too early to judge which teams will have good seasons since you are aleady writing off 4-1 teams as "not worth a shit"... seems strange

4 or 5 games wouldn't be too early if everyone played teams worth a damn in those 4 or 5 games. But that's another topic for debate.

 

[ericd7633]

Id agree that the previous season is relevant to preseason rankings ( shouldn't have preseason rankings at all but that's a different debate ) however we are now past the point where previous years results are germane. It's ridiculous to assert otherwise and it's how we end up with Ohio State ranked number 1 when neither their results or performance warrants that ranking. At what point in your opinion is it ok yo just focus on this year? Clearly 4 or 5 games in is still too early yet you somehow don't think that same amount of time is too early to judge which teams will have good seasons since you are aleady writing off 4-1 teams as "not worth a shit"... seems strange

The biggest thing I take issue with is that you automatically have to have a team that is undefeated ranked ahead of a team with 1 loss already. It makes no sense to me to have Temple, Navy, Houston etc ahead of Bama, ND, Ole Miss etc. I still think its too early to rank based SOLELY on just resume, because you then run into an undefeated team being ranked ahead of 1 loss teams.

And not all 4-1 teams are created equal. Indiana, and Illinois are 4-1 teams that I think are shit. 4-1 teams like Bama, Ole Miss, ND and Michigan are 4-1 teams that I think are good. If I turn out to be wrong and Indiana goes 11-1 I'll adjust accordingly. How a team looks is important to me this early in the season. Indiana has 4 close wins over teams who aren't any good.

 

[rmilia1]

4 or 5 games wouldn't be too early if everyone played teams worth a damn in those 4 or 5 games. But that's another topic for debate.

True but according to a lot of posters here there are only like 5 teams worth a damn. That makes scheduling tough I guess lol

 

[ericd7633]

This is why polls should wait until the end of this month.

I agree with that. I like that the committee does it that way. 7/8 games is enough info to have a truly good ranking. 4/5 isn't when teams play 4 crap OOC games.

 

[rmilia1]

The biggest thing I take issue with is that you automatically have to have a team that is undefeated ranked ahead of a team with 1 loss already. It makes no sense to me to have Temple, Navy, Houston etc ahead of Bama, ND, Ole Miss etc. I still think its too early to rank based SOLELY on just resume, because you then run into an undefeated team being ranked ahead of 1 loss teams.

And not all 4-1 teams are created equal. Indiana, and Illinois are 4-1 teams that I think are shit. 4-1 teams like Bama, Ole Miss, ND and Michigan are 4-1 teams that I think are good. If I turn out to be wrong and Indiana goes 11-1 I'll adjust accordingly. How a team looks is important to me this early in the season. Indiana has 4 close wins over teams who aren't any good.

I agree actually. I've said all along that eventually a teams quality of wins will overcome a loss or 2. I simply don't dismiss losses as quickly as some here do because that's why you play, to win. That said you are 100 percent right that if ND, Bama, USC etc end up with 1 loss they will be light years ahead of an unbeaten Toledo, Temple, Memphis etc but at 4 or 5 games in there just aren't many 1 loss teams that deserved to be ranked ahead of unbeaten because most 1 loss teams haven't had enough good wins to make up for losing