SportsHoopla Top 25 Week 6 discussion

[4down20]

1. Northwestern has beaten Stanford, Duke and Minnesota. If you compare Alabamas schedule (in games they won) to Northwesterns schedule, Northwesterns is better.

According to the S&P Alabama has played the 14th toughest schedule thus far. Northwestern doesn't even rank in the top50.

2. They held Stanford to 6 points (they're averaging 36 more than that against teams not named Northwestern). You're an Alabama fan, I would expect you of all people to appreciate a good defense.

I'm also a Stanford fan and I know Stanford did not play a good game that week and if they had played the way they played against USC that week they would have won. So as a fan of defense, I'll let you know when I see it and think it needs rewarding. That game was more about Stanford not being able to get things together than it was great defense.

Right now only the Northwestern passing defense is seen as anything special, and that's highly biased at the moment due to Stanford not being able to get things going + an easy schedule.

3. Never once did I even pretend to say Northwestern was a contender. We've been over this, it's not a projection or power ranking. This is a top 25 poll vote.

So you rank teams #1 knowing they aren't contenders. That's pretty much my point.

4. I'm probably a little high on Iowa, but the teams behind them have played even weaker, sucker schedules. I'm not rewarding teams for scheduling and losing games. Anyone can do that.

Iowa's SoS so far is even worse than Northwesterns. Not even in the top70.

5. I've already mentioned the issues with SoS.

I probably ignored it because I don't read your posts 99% of the time.

6. Your perception is that stats or name brand or history shows that certain teams are better when reality showed they didn't win the game. I value wins that occur in reality not on paper. I think beating good teams shows the quality of teams you could beat and losing games shows that you can be beaten.

When comparing Iowa to Alabama:
They both are capable of beating Wisconsin, and other average teams.
Alabama lost to Ole Miss, and Iowa has not yet had the opportunity to show would lose the game.

If I were to do a power rankings, Alabama and Southern Cal and Clemson would be top 5 teams. But, that is not how this works.

If Iowa played Wisconsin again tomorrow I'd pick Wisconsin to win again and Wisconsin would be the favorites for the game. Just as if Alabama played Ole Miss again tommorow, I'd pick Alabama to win and Alabama would also be the favorites for the game. The best team does not always win. The win/loss matters a great deal when it comes to ranking a season, but to make it the end all for the strength of teams is ignorant and the entire reason the NCAA SoS rankings are trash.

If Alabama played the Iowa schedule they would be the #1 team in the country in all polls. And there are likely a minimum of 20 other teams that could be undefeated on the Iowa schedule with the only real obstacle being Wisconsin - who turned the ball over 4 times for Iowa.

It's the same shit every year. Fans of teams who don't normally do shit always come in talking about how great their teams are, how they are undefeated and all that. I did that shit too - when I was 12 and didn't know better. Of course, back then being in the top25 actually meant something and was important if you ever wanted to watch your team play.

Come November most of them won't be voting, most of them won't be around and those teams will be right back where most people knew they belonged the entire time.

 

[Deep Creek]

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

Yep. People like to rag Baylor (including me) for their crappy OOC. Their AD claims those were scheduled when they were crappy. I don't buy it. They could get out of them if they wanted to.

But, when you look at it closer, some think 1 P5 team and 3 just like Baylor's opponents seem to make it okay. In fairness, USC and tOSU are playing their P5s on the road every other year.

Baylor OOC
SMU
Lamar
Rice

USC OOC
Arkansas State
Idaho
Notre Dame

Bama OOC
Wisky
Middle Tennessee
ULM
Charleston Southern

tOSU OOC
Va Tech
Hawaii
Northern Illinois
Western Michigan

or to stay in the state

A&M OOC
ASU
Ball State
Nevada
Western Carolina

 

[uncfan103]

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, not all 4-1 teams are created equally. I try to factor that into my rankings when I just rank my teams, but I use that more for when I'm comparing wins. A win over a 4-1 Georgia is better than a win over a 4-1 Indiana. But, that being said if someone is only using results from this year, then there really is absolutely no way for someone to conclude that based on this year and the games that have been played that Georgia is a better win than Indiana.

Indiana has wins over two FCS caliber teams, then a bottom of the barrel Power 5 conference team, and a top tier group of five time.

Georgia has wins over two FCS caliber teams (so far, they're even with Indiana), a bottom of the barrel Power 5 conference team (still even) and then another bottom of the barrel Power 5 team.

So, two crap teams even out
Western Kentucky and Vanderbilt even out
South Carolina and Wake Forest even out

Indiana has a loss to Ohio State and Georgia has a loss to Alabama.

And you can see how people using this years results can say that not all 4-1 teams are created equally, but could still value Indiana the same as Georgia.


That being said, I still use the eye test when I try to value wins, because I think a loss to Alabama is better than a loss to someone like Iowa, but doing my rankings I believe Iowa is more deserving of a ranking based on their games so far. I also believe if Iowa and Alabama were to win out, Alabama would be ahead of Iowa without a doubt, but right now I don't have it that way.


I'm not saying my way is right, because there is no right or wrong way to do this. I am just trying to offer insight into how people can get to such different results.

 

[Deep Creek]

According to the S&P Alabama has played the 14th toughest schedule thus far. Northwestern doesn't even rank in the top50.




I'm also a Stanford fan and I know Stanford did not play a good game that week and if they had played the way they played against USC that week they would have won. So as a fan of defense, I'll let you know when I see it and think it needs rewarding. That game was more about Stanford not being able to get things together than it was great defense.

Right now only the Northwestern passing defense is seen as anything special, and that's highly biased at the moment due to Stanford not being able to get things going + an easy schedule.



So you rank teams #1 knowing they aren't contenders. That's pretty much my point.



Iowa's SoS so far is even worse than Northwesterns. Not even in the top70.



I probably ignored it because I don't read your posts 99% of the time.



If Iowa played Wisconsin again tomorrow I'd pick Wisconsin to win again and Wisconsin would be the favorites for the game. Just as if Alabama played Ole Miss again tommorow, I'd pick Alabama to win and Alabama would also be the favorites for the game. The best team does not always win. The win/loss matters a great deal when it comes to ranking a season, but to make it the end all for the strength of teams is ignorant and the entire reason the NCAA SoS rankings are trash.

If Alabama played the Iowa schedule they would be the #1 team in the country in all polls. And there are likely a minimum of 20 other teams that could be undefeated on the Iowa schedule with the only real obstacle being Wisconsin - who turned the ball over 4 times for Iowa.

It's the same shit every year. Fans of teams who don't normally do shit always come in talking about how great their teams are, how they are undefeated and all that. I did that shit too - when I was 12 and didn't know better. Of course, back then being in the top25 actually meant something and was important if you ever wanted to watch your team play.

Come November most of them won't be voting, most of them won't be around and those teams will be right back where most people knew they belonged the entire time.

Damn 4D20...sure are a lot of big "if" in there.

 

[rmilia1]

Damn 4D20...sure are a lot of big "if" in there.

4D uses a projection ranking or more appropriately a power ranking. His poll isn't based on just results do far but his projections on what he believes will happen. All that is cool. Where I take issue with him is he doesn't penalize for losses if he thinks the "better" team lost. It's like the game never happened.

 

[uncfan103]

According to the S&P Alabama has played the 14th toughest schedule thus far. Northwestern doesn't even rank in the top50.

Ill compare schedules and underline the better win
Stanford - Georgia
Duke - Wisconsin
Minnesota - trash
trash - trash <-- both meaningless in terms of strength of schedule, in my opinion.

I don't see why we should be factoring in the loss that Alabama had, it's very easy to lose to good teams and that shouldn't be a benefit unless we're comparing losses or the wins are not good. I'm not rewarding teams for that.

I'm also a Stanford fan and I know Stanford did not play a good game that week and if they had played the way they played against USC that week they would have won. So as a fan of defense, I'll let you know when I see it and think it needs rewarding. That game was more about Stanford not being able to get things together than it was great defense.

Right now only the Northwestern passing defense is seen as anything special, and that's highly biased at the moment due to Stanford not being able to get things going + an easy schedule.

Based on what? There's no real reason to assume that Northwestern didn't contribute to the lack of offense on Stanford's end. Northwestern has held everyone in check and until they slip up I have no reason to believe that they're worse than Stanford. You're assuming the game was a fluke, I'm waiting for more information that leads me to believe it was a fluke.



So you rank teams #1 knowing they aren't contenders. That's pretty much my point.

I rank teams #1 that have earned it based on their performance on the field this year. It's the best way I have found to do it and I know no other way. I am not doing a power rankings as has been mentioned several times. I am voting on merit and rewarding teams for their play on the field rather how their team does on paper. I like games to be important because of the outcome. I believe it should be relevant if you win or lose so I'm rewarding teams for that.


Iowa's SoS so far is even worse than Northwesterns. Not even in the top70.

Wisconsin, Georgia, Bye Week, Bye Week or Wisconsin, Pitt, Bye week, Bye week. To say that Georgia (3-1 UGA with no wins is a significantly better win than 3-1 Pittsburgh with no wins is enough to offset a loss that they both would've had (Ole Miss) I disagree. I think we know Alabama lost, we don't know, for certain, that Iowa would lose).

I probably ignored it because I don't read your posts 99% of the time.



If Iowa played Wisconsin again tomorrow I'd pick Wisconsin to win again and Wisconsin would be the favorites for the game. Just as if Alabama played Ole Miss again tommorow, I'd pick Alabama to win and Alabama would also be the favorites for the game. The best team does not always win. The win/loss matters a great deal when it comes to ranking a season, but to make it the end all for the strength of teams is ignorant and the entire reason the NCAA SoS rankings are trash.

If Alabama played the Iowa schedule they would be the #1 team in the country in all polls. And there are likely a minimum of 20 other teams that could be undefeated on the Iowa schedule with the only real obstacle being Wisconsin - who turned the ball over 4 times for Iowa.

It's the same shit every year. Fans of teams who don't normally do shit always come in talking about how great their teams are, how they are undefeated and all that. I did that shit too - when I was 12 and didn't know better. Of course, back then being in the top25 actually meant something and was important if you ever wanted to watch your team play.

Come November most of them won't be voting, most of them won't be around and those teams will be right back where most people knew they belonged the entire time.

I would pick Wisconsin as well. But, the outcome of the games are important. When you were 12 it mattered who won the game but when you grew up you started believing that in National Championships were played on paper? Alabama never won a national championship because they were the best team, on paper. They had to earn it on the field. I believe teams should have to earn their rankings on the field. If you're looking for me to try to guess the final rankings then find the thread that's asking for that and see what we thought then. But, I'm all about rewarding wins, and penalizing losses. I'm not ranking teams with the most wins, I'm looking at the body of work this year, and ranking teams based on that. I'm not saying Iowa is a better team than Alabama, I am saying they have earned a higher rating, as of now because Alabama hasn't done shit. They've lost to a good team, they've beaten two decent teams. They're 2-1. That's not deserving of a top 5 ranking even if they're the best team in the country. Because IF they're the best team in the country they WILL win games and be rewarded and work themselves into the top 5. Simple as that.

Sorry, for bolding my responses. It was simpler than trying to figure out how to break it out like you did.

 

[rmilia1]

Lol. 4D compares schedules are proves my point. Stanford has had a better season than UGA, Duke has had a better season than Wisconsin and Minnesota is better than anyone else Bama has beaten.. oh yeah and Bama lost too. Priceless

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

after looking at the points Rmila and 4D20 made I'm actually wondering how I voted Northwestern lower than Alabama

Northwestern does have better wins and Alabama has lost

 

[SEC Official]

The entire ranking thing is off because they do a preseason ranking. So everyone is arguing moving up and down form a baseline that was never right to begin with. Why OSU is hanging in the #1 spot? Just because they were #1 to start the season and haven't lost. The polls are terrible until the last few weeks of the season when they actually matter for putting teams where they belong.

If there was NO preseason poll, how different would the rankings look today? I think very. Start with a blank piece of paper and stop using the previous ranking for justification.

We had to tolerate ND ranked in the early weeks for so many years through the 2000's just because of that equity they had when they were good. It took a solid 5-6 years for people to start ranking them where they should be in preseason. Same with Tenn as they fell from grace in the 2000's.

And the opposite holds true. A team who has been terrible for years always gets the short end of the stick in a year when they are actually good because of history.

just my opinion...

 

[SEC Official]

Still think rankings shouldn't even come out til week 6..

Amen sister... See, the Florida people get it? Whats wrong with "you people"

 

[4down20]

after looking at the points Rmila and 4D20 made I'm actually wondering how I voted Northwestern lower than Alabama

Northwestern does have better wins and Alabama has lost

I'd say there is always next week, but there probably isn't.

 

[4down20]

The entire ranking thing is off because they do a preseason ranking. So everyone is arguing moving up and down form a baseline that was never right to begin with. Why OSU is hanging in the #1 spot? Just because they were #1 to start the season and haven't lost. The polls are terrible until the last few weeks of the season when they actually matter for putting teams where they belong.

If there was NO preseason poll, how different would the rankings look today? I think very. Start with a blank piece of paper and stop using the previous ranking for justification.

We had to tolerate ND ranked in the early weeks for so many years through the 2000's just because of that equity they had when they were good. It took a solid 5-6 years for people to start ranking them where they should be in preseason. Same with Tenn as they fell from grace in the 2000's.

And the opposite holds true. A team who has been terrible for years always gets the short end of the stick in a year when they are actually good because of history.

just my opinion...

They wouldn't look any different at all.

 

[uncfan103]

Lol. 4D compares schedules are proves my point. Stanford has had a better season than UGA, Duke has had a better season than Wisconsin and Minnesota is better than anyone else Bama has beaten.. oh yeah and Bama lost too. Priceless

The bolded stuff were my points that I wrote in response to him. It says that I was quoting him, but I added my stuff to his quote (in the bolded print) because I couldn't figure out how to split his quote up

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

I'd say there is always next week, but there probably isn't.

perhaps not as they have a really difficult game

 

[ericd7633]

I agree, not all 4-1 teams are created equally. I try to factor that into my rankings when I just rank my teams, but I use that more for when I'm comparing wins. A win over a 4-1 Georgia is better than a win over a 4-1 Indiana. But, that being said if someone is only using results from this year, then there really is absolutely no way for someone to conclude that based on this year and the games that have been played that Georgia is a better win than Indiana.

Indiana has wins over two FCS caliber teams, then a bottom of the barrel Power 5 conference team, and a top tier group of five time.

Georgia has wins over two FCS caliber teams (so far, they're even with Indiana), a bottom of the barrel Power 5 conference team (still even) and then another bottom of the barrel Power 5 team.

So, two crap teams even out
Western Kentucky and Vanderbilt even out
South Carolina and Wake Forest even out

Indiana has a loss to Ohio State and Georgia has a loss to Alabama.

And you can see how people using this years results can say that not all 4-1 teams are created equally, but could still value Indiana the same as Georgia.


That being said, I still use the eye test when I try to value wins, because I think a loss to Alabama is better than a loss to someone like Iowa, but doing my rankings I believe Iowa is more deserving of a ranking based on their games so far. I also believe if Iowa and Alabama were to win out, Alabama would be ahead of Iowa without a doubt, but right now I don't have it that way.


I'm not saying my way is right, because there is no right or wrong way to do this. I am just trying to offer insight into how people can get to such different results.

I'll agree that the schedules for Indiana and UGA are about the same(I'd still give the edge to UGA slightly). But Indiana didn't look impressive in any of their wins against the same competition, whereas UGA looked really impressive.

 

[uncfan103]

I'll agree that the schedules for Indiana and UGA are about the same(I'd still give the edge to UGA slightly). But Indiana didn't look impressive in any of their wins against the same competition, whereas UGA looked really impressive.

Several teams beat up on little sisters of the poor and then don't have great seasons. I think things can be said about struggling, which is why I don't think Indiana is a good football team. But, I also don't care about how good teams look against crap opponents. I have seen far too many times good football teams look "great" because they beat up on really awful teams.

 

[4down20]

Ill compare schedules and underline the better win
Stanford - Georgia
Duke - Wisconsin
Minnesota - trash
trash - trash <-- both meaningless in terms of strength of schedule, in my opinion.

I don't see why we should be factoring in the loss that Alabama had, it's very easy to lose to good teams and that shouldn't be a benefit unless we're comparing losses or the wins are not good. I'm not rewarding teams for that.

I already gave you the difference in schedule strength, it's huge in favor of Alabama. 14th vs not in the top50. And that was games played, not the entire schedule.

And thinking trash = trash is just stupid. As if MTSU or LA Monroe are anywhere near as cupcake as an FCS team. But of course, you ignorantly put them as equal.

Hell Minnesota ranks WAY worse than MTSU in power rankings, not even in the top75. But there you go acting like they aren't trash, but the ones Alabama played aren't.

Again, just dumb.

Based on what? There's no real reason to assume that Northwestern didn't contribute to the lack of offense on Stanford's end. Northwestern has held everyone in check and until they slip up I have no reason to believe that they're worse than Stanford. You're assuming the game was a fluke, I'm waiting for more information that leads me to believe it was a fluke.

Based on being a fan of the team and watching them play. The same way when everyone was saying the Alabama dynasty was over after the Ole Miss loss and straight up laughed at me for saying that despite the win - I actually DOWNGRADED Ole Miss after the Alabama game(ranked them higher than Alabama for the win, but understood they weren't that good of a team). And low and behold what happened? Ole Miss got blown out by Florida and Alabama goes on to blow out Georgia.

You probably think Tennessee wasn't a quality win for Oklahoma due to their record. Probably mark them as "trash", and yet they are actually a very good opponent who's just played a tough schedule.

I rank teams #1 that have earned it based on their performance on the field this year. It's the best way I have found to do it and I know no other way. I am not doing a power rankings as has been mentioned several times. I am voting on merit and rewarding teams for their play on the field rather how their team does on paper. I like games to be important because of the outcome. I believe it should be relevant if you win or lose so I'm rewarding teams for that.

I'm not doing a power ranking either. Power rankings are just what you use to determine the value of the opponent because win/loss records are a TERRIBLE METRIC for such things due to the differences in SoS. Again, for the same reason the NCAA SoS using win% is trash. Just because 2 teams have the same record doesn't mean they are equal teams.

Wisconsin, Georgia, Bye Week, Bye Week or Wisconsin, Pitt, Bye week, Bye week. To say that Georgia (3-1 UGA with no wins is a significantly better win than 3-1 Pittsburgh with no wins is enough to offset a loss that they both would've had (Ole Miss) I disagree. I think we know Alabama lost, we don't know, for certain, that Iowa would lose).

Wtf are you talking about bye weeks? That you believe anyone not in the top25 is equal only goes to highlight your ignorance.

Georgia could very well lose to Tennessee this weekend.

I would pick Wisconsin as well. But, the outcome of the games are important. When you were 12 it mattered who won the game but when you grew up you started believing that in National Championships were played on paper? Alabama never won a national championship because they were the best team, on paper. They had to earn it on the field. I believe teams should have to earn their rankings on the field. If you're looking for me to try to guess the final rankings then find the thread that's asking for that and see what we thought then. But, I'm all about rewarding wins, and penalizing losses. I'm not ranking teams with the most wins, I'm looking at the body of work this year, and ranking teams based on that. I'm not saying Iowa is a better team than Alabama, I am saying they have earned a higher rating, as of now because Alabama hasn't done shit. They've lost to a good team, they've beaten two decent teams. They're 2-1. That's not deserving of a top 5 ranking even if they're the best team in the country. Because IF they're the best team in the country they WILL win games and be rewarded and work themselves into the top 5. Simple as that.

Sorry, for bolding my responses. It was simpler than trying to figure out how to break it out like you did.

@24seven had been doing rankings based solely on who they played back in the day and I always defended his rankings. He only counted the performance of the teams for that season when he ranked them. If you played nothing but cupcakes, his rankings would show it.

Now why would I defend his rankings all those years when he got lots of flak for his rankings, but yet don't defend yours or others?

Simple: He actually rated the power of the opponents realistically rather than this stupid bullshit you and a few others do where you pretend like every year is "fresh" and "all teams are equal". College football NEVER starts a fresh new year, it's always either building or declining off the previous year. It is not "biased" for any fool to understand that based on previous years performances what general area a team is likely to be. It IS not only biased, but extremely ignorant to knowingly punish teams and move teams around where you openly admit you know better. But that's what you do.

All because of some stupid fucking "image" of being "unbiased". While in fact having the most biased piece of shit polls possible because you purposely ignore the reality. To which you even admit.

 

[USCDoom]

Yep. People like to rag Baylor (including me) for their crappy OOC. Their AD claims those were scheduled when they were crappy. I don't buy it. They could get out of them if they wanted to.

But, when you look at it closer, some think 1 P5 team and 3 just like Baylor's opponents seem to make it okay. In fairness, USC and tOSU are playing their P5s on the road every other year.

Baylor OOC
SMU
Lamar
Rice

USC OOC
Arkansas State
Idaho
Notre Dame

Bama OOC
Wisky
Middle Tennessee
ULM
Charleston Southern

tOSU OOC
Va Tech
Hawaii
Northern Illinois
Western Michigan

or to stay in the state

A&M OOC
ASU
Ball State
Nevada
Western Carolina

You also forgot USCs OOC for 2015 is the FIRST time since 1999 they have not played 2 schools from a major conference and or Notre Dame. Also Texas A&M chickened out of a Home and Home with USC this year.
00
Penn State At East Rutherford, NJ
Colorado
ND
01
Kansas State
At ND
02
Auburn
At Kansas State
At Colorado
ND
03
At Auburn
At ND
04
Virginia Tech At Landover, Washington DC
ND
05
Arkansas
At ND
06
At Arkansas
Nebraska
ND
07
At Nebraska
At ND
08
At Virginia
Ohio State
ND
09
At Ohio State
At ND
10
Virginia
At Minnesota
ND
11
Minnesota
Syracuse
At ND
12
Syracuse At East Rutherford, NJ
ND
13
Boston College
At ND
14
At Boston College
ND

That said no excuse for USC to play this weak of an OOC.

 

[rmilia1]

The bolded stuff were my points that I wrote in response to him. It says that I was quoting him, but I added my stuff to his quote (in the bolded print) because I couldn't figure out how to split his quote up

Yeah I know. I just agreed with you lol

 

[uncfan103]

I already gave you the difference in schedule strength, it's huge in favor of Alabama. 14th vs not in the top50. And that was games played, not the entire schedule.

And thinking trash = trash is just stupid. As if MTSU or LA Monroe are anywhere near as cupcake as an FCS team. But of course, you ignorantly put them as equal.

Hell Minnesota ranks WAY worse than MTSU in power rankings, not even in the top75. But there you go acting like they aren't trash, but the ones Alabama played aren't.

Again, just dumb.



Based on being a fan of the team and watching them play. The same way when everyone was saying the Alabama dynasty was over after the Ole Miss loss and straight up laughed at me for saying that despite the win - I actually DOWNGRADED Ole Miss after the Alabama game(ranked them higher than Alabama for the win, but understood they weren't that good of a team). And low and behold what happened? Ole Miss got blown out by Florida and Alabama goes on to blow out Georgia.

You probably think Tennessee wasn't a quality win for Oklahoma due to their record. Probably mark them as "trash", and yet they are actually a very good opponent who's just played a tough schedule.




I'm not doing a power ranking either. Power rankings are just what you use to determine the value of the opponent because win/loss records are a TERRIBLE METRIC for such things due to the differences in SoS. Again, for the same reason the NCAA SoS using win% is trash. Just because 2 teams have the same record doesn't mean they are equal teams.



Wtf are you talking about bye weeks? That you believe anyone not in the top25 is equal only goes to highlight your ignorance.

Georgia could very well lose to Tennessee this weekend.



@24seven had been doing rankings based solely on who they played back in the day and I always defended his rankings. He only counted the performance of the teams for that season when he ranked them. If you played nothing but cupcakes, his rankings would show it.

Now why would I defend his rankings all those years when he got lots of flak for his rankings, but yet don't defend yours or others?

Simple: He actually rated the power of the opponents realistically rather than this stupid bullshit you and a few others do where you pretend like every year is "fresh" and "all teams are equal". College football NEVER starts a fresh new year, it's always either building or declining off the previous year. It is not "biased" for any fool to understand that based on previous years performances what general area a team is likely to be. It IS not only biased, but extremely ignorant to knowingly punish teams and move teams around where you openly admit you know better. But that's what you do.

All because of some stupid fucking "image" of being "unbiased". While in fact having the most biased piece of shit polls possible because you purposely ignore the reality. To which you even admit.

I think for a top 25 team that ULM is an easy win, just as is Middle Tennessee State. I think Minnesota, unlike Kansas and Iowa State and MTSU and Army are games where you could lose. When I judge wins, it's based on the eye test. I think Tennessee is a much better win than Minnesota. I don't pretend teams of all records are equal.

Players come and go, and to say that a team that lost over half of their starters, and an OC and was right around the middle of the top 25 one year should be preseason top 25 the next, is ridiculous. I rank teams based on their performance, plain and simple. I admit that I don't make my polls based on who the best teams are, but instead based on how the season has gone and who has performed the best on the field.