SportsHoopla's 2019 Week 2 Discussion Thread

[Eco]

I don’t have a problem with your poll as a whole. But, i will say that having Washington in the top 20 and Cal unranked is an absolute head scratcher, and there’s a lot of people that did it. Two games of data and people are already ignoring the two games of data that we have. If we didn’t have preseason polls there’s no way we’d have that.

Thats not a shot at you, but just something Im throwing out because I was curious about all the Washington rankings and then saw your post.

Yeah -I probably should add Cal, so that's a fair complaint.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

I honestly thought mine was pretty spot on and honest.

It's not too bad and I wasn't referring to yours, but not to sound homerish, but...It's hard to see how LSU is #3 if Texas is #24. You might be correct on Texas, but then it's hard to see how you are correct on LSU.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

I don’t have a problem with your poll as a whole. But, i will say that having Washington in the top 20 and Cal unranked is an absolute head scratcher, and there’s a lot of people that did it. Two games of data and people are already ignoring the two games of data that we have. If we didn’t have preseason polls there’s no way we’d have that.

Thats not a shot at you, but just something Im throwing out because I was curious about all the Washington rankings and then saw your post.

It's more placing logic over a single result into your polls. Peterson has earned some respect and benefit of the doubt. Who would you bet ends up with a better record at the end of the year, Cal or Washington? Upsets happen in every single sport but only football requires us to place that single result on a pedestal. Now if Washington continues to put out lackluster results we should adjust obviously.

 

[Eco]

It's not too bad and I wasn't referring to yours, but not to sound homerish, but...It's hard to see how LSU is #3 if Texas is #24. You might be correct on Texas, but then it's hard to see how you are correct on LSU.

For me with Texas, is that I think they are so dependent on their QB, that it worries me a bit. LSU also have a good QB, but typically that defense is electric and winning in Austin is no small feat.

If I was being on more a power ranking model, I'd like have Texas in the top 10-13, and have teams like Michigan closer to 25-30

 

[uncfan103]

It's more placing logic over a single result into your polls. Peterson has earned some respect and benefit of the doubt. Who would you bet ends up with a better record at the end of the year, Cal or Washington? Upsets happen in every single sport but only football requires us to place that single result on a pedestal. Now if Washington continues to put out lackluster results we should adjust obviously.

Well, based on the first two games of the season i would imagine Cal finishes better. If I’m ignoring that, then I think Washington finishes better.

But, this is the week 2 poll. We’re ranking the 25 best teams based on the first two weeks. Not ranking the 25 teams we think will finish in the top 25. Cal has proven more during the first two weeks than Washington. But Washington has the rest of the year to jump Cal and the rankings will reflect your projections if your projections are correct

 

[Gatorchip]

We’re ranking the 25 best teams based on the first two weeks. Not ranking the 25 teams we think will finish in the top 25.

That's always been the question though right? There are no set rules.

 

[rmilia1]

It's more placing logic over a single result into your polls. Peterson has earned some respect and benefit of the doubt. Who would you bet ends up with a better record at the end of the year, Cal or Washington? Upsets happen in every single sport but only football requires us to place that single result on a pedestal. Now if Washington continues to put out lackluster results we should adjust obviously.

I agree with you post in theory but in practice CFB is also the only sport where a tiny % of teams have a chance to win a national title, where conference champions aren't always guaranteed a chance to compete for said title and where the polls directly impact the teams that do. In other words it's irrelevant where you rank teams in other sports because the polls are meaningless . In CFB the polls are important. By choosing to place so much importance on the polls football demands it's pollsters value results more than opinion . The good news is it's week 2 so it doesnt really matter right now

 

[kburjr]

It's not too bad and I wasn't referring to yours, but not to sound homerish, but...It's hard to see how LSU is #3 if Texas is #24. You might be correct on Texas, but then it's hard to see how you are correct on LSU.

My logic on ranking Michigan and Army. If you still rank Michigan, the Army has to be the next team. Losing on the road in 2 OTs means you are just as good but home field advantage got you. Teams that play to a one-score game are not that far apart.

 

[Gatorchip]

I agree with you post in theory but in practice CFB is also the only sport where a tiny % of teams have a chance to win a national title, where conference champions aren't always guaranteed a chance to compete for said title and where the polls directly impact the teams that do. In other words it's irrelevant where you rank teams in other sports because the polls are meaningless . In CFB the polls are important. By choosing to place so much importance on the polls football demands it's pollsters value results more than opinion . The good news is it's week 2 so it doesnt really matter right now

I agree to a point. P5 schools make up half of the teams. While some have an an advantage over others, it's unlikely that an undefeated P5 team will not be invited to the playoffs.

 

[rmilia1]

I agree to a point. P5 schools make up half of the teams. While some have an an advantage over others, it's unlikely that an undefeated P5 team will not be invited to the playoffs.

For sure and most of this stuff figured itself out . The good thing is we've got the committee now so the polls mean less although the committee is still made up of humans who see the polls every week and become naturally biased even if they try not to

 

[uncfan103]

That's always been the question though right? There are no set rules.

You’re correct. No set rules. I did mine based on what they’ve done this year, and how i expect them to do.

Otherwise, if it’s just this year Clemson, unc and Hawaii are top 5 teams. But, i think what happens on the field should hold more weight than what we think should have happened on the field.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Well, based on the first two games of the season i would imagine Cal finishes better. If I’m ignoring that, then I think Washington finishes better.

But, this is the week 2 poll. We’re ranking the 25 best teams based on the first two weeks. Not ranking the 25 teams we think will finish in the top 25. Cal has proven more during the first two weeks than Washington. But Washington has the rest of the year to jump Cal and the rankings will reflect your projections if your projections are correct

Well, then I guess UNC should be top 10 then right? Along with Maryland. Yet, neither appear in your poll anywhere near the top 10. Interesting...

 

[Hook'Em0608]

For me with Texas, is that I think they are so dependent on their QB, that it worries me a bit. LSU also have a good QB, but typically that defense is electric and winning in Austin is no small feat.

If I was being on more a power ranking model, I'd like have Texas in the top 10-13, and have teams like Michigan closer to 25-30

Ed O literally said they don't have anybody to run their offense if Burrow goes down. Very few teams could lose their starting QB and just continue to roll. That crap Ohio St pulled a few years back is the exception, not the rule. It's also why a relatively unknown Tom Herman became a head coach.

So I'm not sure I follow your logic on Texas when the same logic applies to the team you have at 3 when the teams appeared pretty evenly matched. LSU was just a tad better on defense. Specifically the secondary.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

I agree with you post in theory but in practice CFB is also the only sport where a tiny % of teams have a chance to win a national title, where conference champions aren't always guaranteed a chance to compete for said title and where the polls directly impact the teams that do. In other words it's irrelevant where you rank teams in other sports because the polls are meaningless . In CFB the polls are important. By choosing to place so much importance on the polls football demands it's pollsters value results more than opinion . The good news is it's week 2 so it doesnt really matter right now

How do the polls have any effect whatsoever in the playoff era of college football?

 

[Hook'Em0608]

My logic on ranking Michigan and Army. If you still rank Michigan, the Army has to be the next team. Losing on the road in 2 OTs means you are just as good but home field advantage got you. Teams that play to a one-score game are not that far apart.

Exactly. Texas might not be that good, but that means LSU isn't that good either. They were a 3rd and 17 defensive stop away from probably losing that game.

 

[rmilia1]

How do the polls have any effect whatsoever in the playoff era of college football?

Human bias is inevitable . Even if the committee members know they're not supposed to look at the polls they still will. They'll still get excited to see "top 10 showdowns " or "top 25 matchups ". They're human . As stated earlier the polls aren't as meaningful now but they still impact perception . It would be impossible for them not to as long as people are running the committee as opposed to machines

 

[LionsWhyMe]

Exactly. Texas might not be that good, but that means LSU isn't that good either. They were a 3rd and 17 defensive stop away from probably losing that game.

Texas two back-2-back 4th down blunders early in the game could've been a whole another story.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Human bias is inevitable . Even if the committee members know they're not supposed to look at the polls they still will. They'll still get excited to see "top 10 showdowns " or "top 25 matchups ". They're human . As stated earlier the polls aren't as meaningful now but they still impact perception . It would be impossible for them not to as long as people are running the committee as opposed to machines

It's seemed to me they've taken great pleasure in disagreeing with the polls so far.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Texas two back-2-back 4th down blunders early in the game could've been a whole another story.

I still think being unable to make a stop on 3rd and 17 was the reason we lost. We were only getting 7 points out of those 2 4th down showings anyway. The reason we were in position for the second was because we failed on the 1st. It was early enough in the game for LSU to adjust. We get that stop on 3rd and 17 and we milk the clock and score most likely. LSU's D was done.

 

[Eco]

Ed O literally said they don't have anybody to run their offense if Burrow goes down. Very few teams could lose their starting QB and just continue to roll. That crap Ohio St pulled a few years back is the exception, not the rule. It's also why a relatively unknown Tom Herman became a head coach.

So I'm not sure I follow your logic on Texas when the same logic applies to the team you have at 3 when the teams appeared pretty evenly matched. LSU was just a tad better on defense. Specifically the secondary.

I think as a whole, LSU defense is one of the best in the nation, that just got worn down by a high flying Texas team in the 3rd/4th.

I just feel like it was a bad day for their defense, whereas it was probably what we should expect from Texas.