(09-27-2015 09:18 AM)polkhigh Wrote:  I've always believed the end of the season rankings should carry over to pre season rankings. A team should keep their rank until someone knocks them off it.
Memphis was top 25 at the end of the season and undefeated so far this year and unranked. If they didn't rank SEC teams that went 7-5 last year you'd see others rise up.

As if the polls aren't weighted enough by reputation.

That's not viable because a team could more or less lose its entire roster from one season to another. What if the UAB situation was just a severe reduction of scholarships and after finishing in the top ten, they started there this year? Sure they'd likely fall quickly but if nothing else you're denying another team publicity and prestige and under the old system, a shot at the national title.

(09-27-2015 08:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  Writers are stupid. Coaches have to lobby to get them to pay attention.
Texas did win its bowl game and Cal lost its. Cal's whining didn't look very intelligent.

Beilema was lobbying for the SEC. His lobbying didn't look very intelligent a couple of weeks later.

Success in the post-season doesn't validate pre-selection. Neither George Mason or VCU deserved the chance to make their Final Four runs even if they both proved more than capable.

Well, there was no way Oregon was going to be able to sustain their success long term. UCLA is getting it's mojo back and USC is now in the first year off their sanctions.

(09-27-2015 04:51 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  It doesn't change that Mack Brown openly lobbied for the spot.

but it really didn't matter. Cal playing like **** vs So Miss is why Cal didn't go to the Rose Bowl- not anything that Mack Brown did. Also the fact that Cal's WR got hurt late in the So Miss game and was out in the bowl game didn't help Cal's case at all.

(09-27-2015 01:54 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Georgia State is a work in progress, no way should put up 28 on Oregon (garbage time points included or not).

Score was 47-28 at end of 3rdQ.

Wow, it's worse then. I didn't watch it, so its very obvious Oregon was very overrated.

Someone who follows recruting numbers help me out here.

Was Nike U dominating west coast recruiting as much as I thought in the Chip Kelly era? USC down because of sanctions and sanctions hangover, nobody else really shining in the PAC except STanford.

Now UCLA is on a run, Washington has Petersen, USC is back (or will be soon, being drunk and losing games means Sark is gone), Arizona is coming off a BCS bowl.

(09-27-2015 10:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 09:18 AM)polkhigh Wrote:  I've always believed the end of the season rankings should carry over to pre season rankings. A team should keep their rank until someone knocks them off it.
Memphis was top 25 at the end of the season and undefeated so far this year and unranked. If they didn't rank SEC teams that went 7-5 last year you'd see others rise up.

As if the polls aren't weighted enough by reputation.

That's not viable because a team could more or less lose its entire roster from one season to another. What if the UAB situation was just a severe reduction of scholarships and after finishing in the top ten, they started there this year? Sure they'd likely fall quickly but if nothing else you're denying another team publicity and prestige and under the old system, a shot at the national title.

Rankings should be earned and lost on the field. Memphis hasn't lost yet and they've been denied a chance to climb because somebody thought for some reason Arkansas and Tennessee were going to be good. Same for Marshall, they should of kept their rank until the Ohio loss. Its nothing more than protecting the old guard.

(09-27-2015 11:36 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Wow, its worse then. I didn't watch it, so its very obvious Oregon was very overrated.

We see this every season. The pundits are high on certain programs, which quickly fall off the map. They rely on reputation and name brands to make their picks, and don't really research all the teams.

But considering how coaches restrict media access these days, it's really not all that surprising that this is so.

(09-28-2015 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Someone who follows recruting numbers help me out here.

Was Nike U dominating west coast recruiting as much as I thought in the Chip Kelly era? USC down because of sanctions and sanctions hangover, nobody else really shining in the PAC except STanford.

Now UCLA is on a run, Washington has Petersen, USC is back (or will be soon, being drunk and losing games means Sark is gone), Arizona is coming off a BCS bowl.

No. He was an amazing schematic head coach at the college level. In the NFL where talent can overcome getting out schemed, he doesn't have the "smarts" advantage like he had in college.

The NFL is a brutal league and can humble the very best head coaches that the college game has ever produced.

I think though there's something to Oregon getting some guys that maybe in the past would have been able to go to USC.

(09-28-2015 10:12 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 11:36 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Wow, its worse then. I didn't watch it, so its very obvious Oregon was very overrated.

We see this every season. The pundits are high on certain programs, which quickly fall off the map. They rely on reputation and name brands to make their picks, and don't really research all the teams.

But considering how coaches restrict media access these days, it's really not all that surprising that this is so.

Apparently, Oregon is still in the center of the map. After that humiliation at home, they're still somehow ranked and after not having a single good win (let alone performance) they can point their finger to?

Memphis has 3 solid wins (even Bowling Green, who has two Big 10 wins). Bowling Green is also 2-2 but with a tougher schedule than Oregon and didn't get humiliated at home. Rank them if you're gonna rank Oregon. The following teams should be ranked ahead of somehow-still-ranked Oregon (all with a better best win and no bad losses):

Temple
Toledo
Houston
East Carolina (forget VT, almost won at Florida)
BYU (if you rank Oregon after the last game, why not BYU still?)
Miami
Nebraska
Indiana (even if they could have lost all of their easy games so far)
Minnesota (only loss by less than a TD to TCU)
Texas Tech (ditto and by luck)
Memphis
Navy
Boston College
Tennessee
Pitt
Syracuse
North Carolina
K-State
NC State
Duke
Western Ky.
Marshall
Air Force
Kentucky

All of those teams AT LEAST should be ranked ahead of Oregon.


And speaking of reputation blinding voters, how is Ohio State still number 1?

(09-28-2015 02:51 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  All of those teams AT LEAST should be ranked ahead of Oregon.

And speaking of reputation blinding voters, how is Ohio State still number 1?

The real issue that you're referring to is different ways of deciding how to rank teams.

(Granted, there are many voters who have questionable rankings becauss they are just too lazy to pay attention, but let's leave that issue aside for now.)

There are two primary ways poll voters use, although many or most actually blur the lines between these two:

(1) Ranking teams based purely on W-L record and/or the voter's subjective view of the team's resume.

(2) Ranking teams based on who the voter thinks would win a game between two teams, i.e., you rank a team #17 if you think they're likely to beat everyone from #18 on down and likely to lose to everyone from #16 on up.

It's criteria (2) that answers both of your questions there. A lot of voters think that Ohio State would still manage to beat almost everyone in a hypothetical matchup, and a lot of voters think that Oregon would beat most of the teams in your long list above. If Oregon played Indiana or Toledo next week, almost everyone who isn't a homer or a hater, and who had to bet a lot of his own money one way or the other, would bet on Oregon.

It's fair to question whether poll voters should use this reasoning in ranking teams, but many of them do.

(09-28-2015 02:45 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The NFL is a brutal league and can humble the very best head coaches that the college game has ever produced.

All true. Although I'd wager that most NFL head coaches would struggle if they suddenly found themselves running an FBS program. Being responsible for 90 18-22 year olds is not something that everyone can handle.

(09-28-2015 03:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's criteria (2) that answers both of your questions there. A lot of voters think that Ohio State would still manage to beat almost everyone in a hypothetical matchup, and a lot of voters think that Oregon would beat most of the teams in your long list above. If Oregon played Indiana or Toledo next week, almost everyone who isn't a homer or a hater, and who had to bet a lot of his own money one way or the other, would bet on Oregon.

It's fair to question whether poll voters should use this reasoning in ranking teams, but many of them do.

Not true at all. I would have said that before seeing Oregon get demolished on their home field but not after that and them struggling to put away EWU, Ga. State and losing to Michigan State. They're clearly not playing to their level of talent if FCS level teams can hang with them and there are other teams that have earned it so far and deserve recognition.

I'll say it again that thank goodness the polls don't matter anymore.

(09-28-2015 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Someone who follows recruting numbers help me out here.

Was Nike U dominating west coast recruiting as much as I thought in the Chip Kelly era? USC down because of sanctions and sanctions hangover, nobody else really shining in the PAC except STanford.

Now UCLA is on a run, Washington has Petersen, USC is back (or will be soon, being drunk and losing games means Sark is gone), Arizona is coming off a BCS bowl.

Here is the thing.

Oregon never dominated in recruiting even when Kelly was there. Here is how Oregon's rise to fame started. They got a few gem in the rough type recruits who turned out to be excellent athletes. And they made noise in the Holiday bowl one year against Texas I think?

The sanctions began to hit us and recruits that we would have gotten started going elsewhere. And Oregon beat us on a few recruits because of the sanctions. But even so Oregon was still picking up a lot of 2-3 star recruits.

And here we are today. Oregon has a lot of great individual talent but the majority of their team is 2-3 star talent. You will see them string together good seasons every now and then but you can now see the effects of not having 4-5 star players in skill positions.

(09-28-2015 08:46 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 03:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's criteria (2) that answers both of your questions there. A lot of voters think that Ohio State would still manage to beat almost everyone in a hypothetical matchup, and a lot of voters think that Oregon would beat most of the teams in your long list above. If Oregon played Indiana or Toledo next week, almost everyone who isn't a homer or a hater, and who had to bet a lot of his own money one way or the other, would bet on Oregon.

It's fair to question whether poll voters should use this reasoning in ranking teams, but many of them do.

Not true at all. I would have said that before seeing Oregon get demolished on their home field but not after that and them struggling to put away EWU, Ga. State and losing to Michigan State. They're clearly not playing to their level of talent if FCS level teams can hang with them and there are other teams that have earned it so far and deserve recognition.

I'll say it again that thank goodness the polls don't matter anymore.

Ehhh. You're not going to put your own money on Indiana, who has to get lucky to beat an FCS team or a bad G5 team, and you're not going to put your own money on Toledo, whose only accomplishments are beating the worst team in the SEC West and the worst team in the Big 12. The sportswriters wouldn't put their money there, either, which is why those teams are not ranked.

(09-28-2015 09:23 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Someone who follows recruting numbers help me out here.

Was Nike U dominating west coast recruiting as much as I thought in the Chip Kelly era? USC down because of sanctions and sanctions hangover, nobody else really shining in the PAC except STanford.

Now UCLA is on a run, Washington has Petersen, USC is back (or will be soon, being drunk and losing games means Sark is gone), Arizona is coming off a BCS bowl.

Here is the thing.

Oregon never dominated in recruiting even when Kelly was there. Here is how Oregon's rise to fame started. They got a few gem in the rough type recruits who turned out to be excellent athletes. And they made noise in the Holiday bowl one year against Texas I think?

The sanctions began to hit us and recruits that we would have gotten started going elsewhere. And Oregon beat us on a few recruits because of the sanctions. But even so Oregon was still picking up a lot of 2-3 star recruits.

And here we are today. Oregon has a lot of great individual talent but the majority of their team is 2-3 star talent. You will see them string together good seasons every now and then but you can now see the effects of not having 4-5 star players in skill positions.

That's not accurate. The majority of Oregon (and by majority, I mean nearly every scholarship player) is 3-star and 4-star, with some 5-stars sprinkled in. Going back to 2011 - which would comprise most of their current roster - their recruiting classes have been in the Top 20 each year, and as high as 13. Oregon is now an "it" program. Sure, the rest of the Pac-12 is now catching up, but Oregon has the infrastructure (facilities, buzz, etc) in place to be successful for the foreseeable future. For the record, I live in Portland. I'd love to see Oregon fail miserably and get smashed by the Beavs each year, but it's tough to deny their success and the fact that they're well set for the long haul.

I may very well be slightly incorrect but I would like to see the math on your claim. I just checked rivals and the numbers support my statement not yours.

The majority of Oregons team going back to 2012 is 2-3 star recruits.

(09-28-2015 10:45 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I may very well be slightly incorrect but I would like to see the math on your claim. I just checked rivals and the numbers support my statement not yours.

The majority of Oregons team going back to 2012 is 2-3 star recruits.

More than slightly incorrect. I'm not sure what you're looking at. Whether on Rivals or Scout, they rarely offer a scholarship to a 2-star, and at approximately half of each year's recruits are 4- or 5-star. They're among the best recruiting teams in the nation. Numbers below. I just wasted 10 minutes typing these, and I hope the Ducks fail miserably in the future.

2011
Scout - 22 out of 23 are 3-star and better. 11 4-star, 1 5-star 1 2-star
Rivals - 21 our of 23 are 3-star and better.

2012
Scout - 20 out of 21 are 3-star and better. 10 4-star, 1 5-star, 1 2 star
Rivals - 19 or 21 are 3-star and better.

2013
Scout - 18 out of 19 are 3-star and better. 8 4-star, 1 5-star, 1 2-star
Rivals - 15 or 19 are 3-star and better.

2014
Scout - 19 out of 20 3-star and better.
Rivals - 18 out of 20 3-star and better.

2015
Scout - All 22 3-star and better.
Rivals - All 22 3-star and better.

(09-28-2015 10:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Ehhh. You're not going to put your own money on Indiana, who has to get lucky to beat an FCS team or a bad G5 team, and you're not going to put your own money on Toledo, whose only accomplishments are beating the worst team in the SEC West and the worst team in the Big 12. The sportswriters wouldn't put their money there, either, which is why those teams are not ranked.

I'm well aware of Indiana's struggles and in the "best 0-3 team ever" thread about Louisville, I suggested Indiana may be the worst 3-0 (at the time) major conference team ever. But the fact is that they've won all of their games and thus we have to give credit where credit is due, as sports polls have always done with undefeated teams, especially from major conferences.

Toledo has to be given more of a chance to prove themselves, and at least to us that pay close attention, they will if they make it through what appears to be a very legit MAC.