Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Blogpoll ballot Week 1

I've had a slight change in philosophy. In past years, I would always try to be consistent week to week on voting. If a team looked bad but won, they usually held their spot on my ballot. Not so this week (and maybe this year). Instead I will use a subjective mix of resume ranking and power ranking (meaning do I think they are the best team right now regardless of record). I grouped a bunch of the ACC teams together, since I think they are all in the same boat. Despite BC's hohum effort, I kept them ranked based on potential. Maryland is probably the biggest surprise. I know they barely won, but I think they are much improved and I think Navy will serve as a quality win for them. And as I said on Twitter last night, I am still not a believer in Boise State.

Games I watched

BC vs Weber State 100% (twice)
Michigan vs UConn 50%
LSU vs UNC 50%
Virginia Tech vs Boise State 100%
Tulsa vs East Carolina 50%
Notre Dame vs Purdue 20%
USC vs Hawaii 50%
South Carolina vs Southern Miss 50%
Florida vs Miami (OH) 25%


Canada Eagle said...

Maryland??? Are you kidding. A very bogus choice.

Maryland gave up over 400 yards rushing to Navy. On offense they were able to muster a grand total of 11 yards passing. 11 yards, that is it. Hardly rankable material (but nice stats for a BC opponent)

CMondo1 said...

The above is one of the strangest polls i've ever seen.

Boise St went 14-0 last season, beating TCU in the Fiesta Bowl. They returned a ton of starters, have already beaten a good VA tech team, and you have them 7 spots behind TCU.

Dropping VA tech 22 spots to #25 for losing in the final two minutes to that same Boise State team is also downright confusing.

Putting BC in the rankings (above VA tech) after that Weber game and based on "potential" is also Very suspect. If Weber showed anything it was the potential for "worst case" . . .

ATL_eagle said...


After all these years of doing it, I think it is clear that the entire effort is pointless. I continue to participate because I enjoy the connection with other bloggers, it logs where I stand on things and because it shows how absurd it is to decide champions by subjective votes. How should Boise's performance over the past few years influence this year? It shouldn't. Oregon lost a bunch of players but looked awesome. Michigan looked good too. Does last year matter for them. VT handed Boise that game and now they will coast through their joke of a season. That doesn't mean they are the best team in college football.

CMondo1 said...


I am averse to polls, generally. Just found myself particularly averse to this week's poll.

I also don't believe Boise is the best team in college football, but my major gripe is that I think they deserve/earned a spot in the top 5 (at least for now) until better teams show through over the next couple months.

Darius said...

When talking about what team deserves what ranking, it's tough to avoid circular arguments. Rankings in large part hinge on the rankings that precede them, and that'll never go away. But that's a problem because sports are ephemeral: This year's Boise State is not last year's. Nor is this year's VT team. However, the only way to really know what you're looking at is to LOOK at it.

After watching that Boise-VT game, I have no problem with AtlEagle dumping Virginia Tech all the way to 25. They confirmed a few folks' suspicions coming in to this year, and shattered the lofty expectations of those ranking them based on last year, by basically sucking out there on the field. Their line play was awful. They have no kicker. Their quarterback, despite playing the game of his life, still showed himself to be one-dimensional, and not an accurate passer.

AtlEagle was generous bumping that small-conference team all the way up to #12. They squeaked past a not-very-good team. If they should be #5 or better, let them keep winning for the next three months to earn it. *Placing* them in the top 5 right up front makes no more or less sense than placing Florida. Or Florida State. Or ND or BC.