College Football - Week 1 (Sept. 4th)

[Flames24Rulz]

Michigan is the top "Also Receiving Votes" team in the AP? Wow.

 

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Weren't they in the top 25 after beating ND last year?

[Tracer Bullet]

they went from 0 to 71 votes after beating a mediocre UConn team? Denard Robinson looked really good against a team that couldn't figure out a system to stop his running of the exact same play 20 times. But their entire defense was terrible. If UConn had even 2 guys that could catch a ball, they could have won that game. Michigan's D-line got run over.

[Andy]

Michigan is the top "Also Receiving Votes" team in the AP? Wow.

 

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Weren't they in the top 25 after beating ND last year?

How good people thought ND were at the time (18th ranked coming off a 35-0 opening-week win) vs how good people thought UConn was a week ago + 1 year of Michigan starting hot and ending up being bad = surprise.

[Andy]

ND is still behind 3 teams that lost last week (Pitt, Oregon St and UNC). So much for "the pollsters are desperate to rank ND as soon as they do anything".

 

ETA: I agree with it, except maybe in the case of Oregon St.

[Flames24Rulz]

they went from 0 to 71 votes after beating a mediocre UConn team? Denard Robinson looked really good against a team that couldn't figure out a system to stop his running of the exact same play 20 times. But their entire defense was terrible. If UConn had even 2 guys that could catch a ball, they could have won that game. Michigan's D-line got run over.

 

I'm not saying I agree with it at all - I'm just not surprised by it.

[E.J.]

they went from 0 to 71 votes after beating a mediocre UConn team? Denard Robinson looked really good against a team that couldn't figure out a system to stop his running of the exact same play 20 times. But their entire defense was terrible. If UConn had even 2 guys that could catch a ball, they could have won that game. Michigan's D-line got run over.

 

It's amazing that many people picked Uconn to be near the top of the Big East and having a breakout season after returning 16 starters, but now they're just a mediocre team because they got beat my Michigan. I also fail to see how 138 yards given up means Michigan's D-line "got run over." I do agree that Michigan's season will come down to how badly the defense plays.

[Tracer Bullet]

they went from 0 to 71 votes after beating a mediocre UConn team? Denard Robinson looked really good against a team that couldn't figure out a system to stop his running of the exact same play 20 times. But their entire defense was terrible. If UConn had even 2 guys that could catch a ball, they could have won that game. Michigan's D-line got run over.

 

It's amazing that many people picked Uconn to be near the top of the Big East and having a breakout season after returning 16 starters, but now they're just a mediocre team because they got beat my Michigan. I also fail to see how 138 yards given up means Michigan's D-line "got run over." I do agree that Michigan's season will come down to how badly the defense plays.

 

I don't know who you're talking about, but I didn't say UConn would be near the top of the BE (and I'm not sure what that's really saying this year). But if someone thought they should be good and then watched the game, they could easily determine that their preseason thoughts on UConn were wrong. The QB play wasn't great (flustered easily and a couple of bad throws), but their receivers really killed them by dropping several open passes. Add in two FGs blocked (one partially and still squeaked in), a 5-yard punt, and a fumble inside UM's 5? Not a very good team.

 

Michigan's D-Line got pushed off the line pretty regularly by UConn. A couple of hurries, but no sacks that I saw (Frazer ain't exactly mobile). And UConn converted several 3rd/4th and short. Several times Michigan players (including Martin and Roh) had hands on a guy in the backfield but couldn't make the tackle. Just not what I expected since I've heard a bit about how Michigan's D-Line is solid.

 

Robinson looked really good running between the tackles 25 times, but I can't believe any writer that actually watched that game would say "I didn't think Michigan deserved a vote going into the season, but now I'm convinced that they're a top 25 team."

[E.J.]

they went from 0 to 71 votes after beating a mediocre UConn team? Denard Robinson looked really good against a team that couldn't figure out a system to stop his running of the exact same play 20 times. But their entire defense was terrible. If UConn had even 2 guys that could catch a ball, they could have won that game. Michigan's D-line got run over.

 

It's amazing that many people picked Uconn to be near the top of the Big East and having a breakout season after returning 16 starters, but now they're just a mediocre team because they got beat my Michigan. I also fail to see how 138 yards given up means Michigan's D-line "got run over." I do agree that Michigan's season will come down to how badly the defense plays.

 

I don't know who you're talking about, but I didn't say UConn would be near the top of the BE (and I'm not sure what that's really saying this year). But if someone thought they should be good and then watched the game, they could easily determine that their preseason thoughts on UConn were wrong. The QB play wasn't great (flustered easily and a couple of bad throws), but their receivers really killed them by dropping several open passes. Add in two FGs blocked (one partially and still squeaked in), a 5-yard punt, and a fumble inside UM's 5? Not a very good team.

 

Michigan's D-Line got pushed off the line pretty regularly by UConn. A couple of hurries, but no sacks that I saw (Frazer ain't exactly mobile). And UConn converted several 3rd/4th and short. Several times Michigan players (including Martin and Roh) had hands on a guy in the backfield but couldn't make the tackle. Just not what I expected since I've heard a bit about how Michigan's D-Line is solid.

 

Robinson looked really good running between the tackles 25 times, but I can't believe any writer that actually watched that game would say "I didn't think Michigan deserved a vote going into the season, but now I'm convinced that they're a top 25 team."

 

I agree with you. I think Michigan is on the way back, but they don't deserve a top 25 ranking right now. It just gets old watching ND fans take every opportunity to trash Michigan. I think this weekend is going to be a good game with a lot of points scored. It should be interesting.

[jersey cubs fan]

Michigan isn't in the top 25, so what's the problem? Even if they were, who cares? Being 23rd or whatever is hardly an accomplishment.

[SouthSideRyan]

Being 23rd or whatever is hardly an accomplishment.

 

It is for Michigan. It's not like we're talking about TCU here.

[Tracer Bullet]

they went from 0 to 71 votes after beating a mediocre UConn team? Denard Robinson looked really good against a team that couldn't figure out a system to stop his running of the exact same play 20 times. But their entire defense was terrible. If UConn had even 2 guys that could catch a ball, they could have won that game. Michigan's D-line got run over.

 

It's amazing that many people picked Uconn to be near the top of the Big East and having a breakout season after returning 16 starters, but now they're just a mediocre team because they got beat my Michigan. I also fail to see how 138 yards given up means Michigan's D-line "got run over." I do agree that Michigan's season will come down to how badly the defense plays.

 

I don't know who you're talking about, but I didn't say UConn would be near the top of the BE (and I'm not sure what that's really saying this year). But if someone thought they should be good and then watched the game, they could easily determine that their preseason thoughts on UConn were wrong. The QB play wasn't great (flustered easily and a couple of bad throws), but their receivers really killed them by dropping several open passes. Add in two FGs blocked (one partially and still squeaked in), a 5-yard punt, and a fumble inside UM's 5? Not a very good team.

 

Michigan's D-Line got pushed off the line pretty regularly by UConn. A couple of hurries, but no sacks that I saw (Frazer ain't exactly mobile). And UConn converted several 3rd/4th and short. Several times Michigan players (including Martin and Roh) had hands on a guy in the backfield but couldn't make the tackle. Just not what I expected since I've heard a bit about how Michigan's D-Line is solid.

 

Robinson looked really good running between the tackles 25 times, but I can't believe any writer that actually watched that game would say "I didn't think Michigan deserved a vote going into the season, but now I'm convinced that they're a top 25 team."

 

I agree with you. I think Michigan is on the way back, but they don't deserve a top 25 ranking right now. It just gets old watching ND fans take every opportunity to trash Michigan. I think this weekend is going to be a good game with a lot of points scored. It should be interesting.

 

agreed. I don't think we learned much about either team after week 1. not sure how much we'll know after week 2, but it should be a fun game to watch.

[Banedon]

Late to the party since I was out of town, but WOO! Go Boise State!

 

They need to not just win these WAC games though...they need to win big. No squeakers.

[Banedon]

ESPN's 6.8 overnight rating for the game (Boise St- Va Tech) was up 21% from last year's Miami- Florida State game on Labor Day.

 

It was the network's highest prime-time rating since it began airing college football on Labor Day in 2003.

[TruffleShuffle]

ND is still behind 3 teams that lost last week (Pitt, Oregon St and UNC). So much for "the pollsters are desperate to rank ND as soon as they do anything".

 

ETA: I agree with it, except maybe in the case of Oregon St.

 

oregon st played a very good tcu team tough and only lost by 9 on the road. there is no reason to rank notre dame (who beat a lousy purdue team) ahead of them.

[TruffleShuffle]

ESPN's 6.8 overnight rating for the game (Boise St- Va Tech) was up 21% from last year's Miami- Florida State game on Labor Day.

 

It was the network's highest prime-time rating since it began airing college football on Labor Day in 2003.

 

not too surprising. boise st may not have that many fans but they do pique people's interest. everyone wants to see what they can do against the traditional powers (so hey maybe the bcs will give them another chance against a bcs team instead of making them go play in the corner with tcu or utah)

[Guest]

ND is still behind 3 teams that lost last week (Pitt, Oregon St and UNC). So much for "the pollsters are desperate to rank ND as soon as they do anything".

 

ETA: I agree with it, except maybe in the case of Oregon St.

 

oregon st played a very good tcu team tough and only lost by 9 on the road. there is no reason to rank notre dame (who beat a lousy purdue team) ahead of them.

 

Yes there is, although I like the resume ballot personally. Like Doc Saturday's for example.

[hawkeyecub]

ND is still behind 3 teams that lost last week (Pitt, Oregon St and UNC). So much for "the pollsters are desperate to rank ND as soon as they do anything".

 

ETA: I agree with it, except maybe in the case of Oregon St.

 

oregon st played a very good tcu team tough and only lost by 9 on the road. there is no reason to rank notre dame (who beat a lousy purdue team) ahead of them.

 

Yes there is, although I like the resume ballot personally. Like Doc Saturday's for example.

 

Well that's just a big waste of time.

Here's my top 25 this week. It will be different in almost every way possible a week from now just because of the criteria I set. But for a few days, enjoy seeing terrible teams ranked highly because they beat a bad FBS team ugly instead of destroying a bottom feeding FBS team or FCS squad. I'm not going to pay attention to preseason rankings because I want to avoid biases, but instead I'm going to focus only on how good they were last year, even though they may have lost all of their good players. It requires no thought or analysis whatsoever.

[TruffleShuffle]

ND is still behind 3 teams that lost last week (Pitt, Oregon St and UNC). So much for "the pollsters are desperate to rank ND as soon as they do anything".

 

ETA: I agree with it, except maybe in the case of Oregon St.

 

oregon st played a very good tcu team tough and only lost by 9 on the road. there is no reason to rank notre dame (who beat a lousy purdue team) ahead of them.

 

Yes there is, although I like the resume ballot personally. Like Doc Saturday's for example.

 

Well that's just a big waste of time.

Here's my top 25 this week. It will be different in almost every way possible a week from now just because of the criteria I set. But for a few days, enjoy seeing terrible teams ranked highly because they beat a bad FBS team ugly instead of destroying a bottom feeding FBS team or FCS squad. I'm not going to pay attention to preseason rankings because I want to avoid biases, but instead I'm going to focus only on how good they were last year, even though they may have lost all of their good players. It requires no thought or analysis whatsoever.

 

not to mention that teams like boise st (#1) and utah (#4) are ranked way ahead of teams that very easily could have beaten them (va tech #22, pitt #23). i mean, how on earth is texas tech beating smu by 8 at home, or troy beating bowling green on a last second field goal, more impressive than pitt taking "number 4" utah to overtime in salt lake city?

[Guest]

Because they won. It's not a power ranking, it's a reflection of how good your season has been.

[TruffleShuffle]

well i guess texas tech should just keep playing lousy teams at home, they'll have a great season then

[Guest]

well i guess texas tech should just keep playing lousy teams at home, they'll have a great season then

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

This isn't hard to grasp. We only have a 1 game season to go on right now, so everyone who won their game has done more than those who lost. As the season progresses you have more teams with losses and a strength of schedule component becomes a greater and greater part of your resume(even in Doc Saturday's Week 1 poll, he gave top billing to those who beat BCS conference teams last week). If Texas Tech plays SMU and Abilene Tech the whole year then they aren't going to have a better resume than other undefeated teams, several teams with 1 loss, and maybe even some teams with 2 losses.

[Banedon]

well i guess texas tech should just keep playing lousy teams at home, they'll have a great season then

 

It doesn't ignore SOS.

[TruffleShuffle]

well i guess texas tech should just keep playing lousy teams at home, they'll have a great season then

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

This isn't hard to grasp. We only have a 1 game season to go on right now, so everyone who won their game has done more than those who lost. As the season progresses you have more teams with losses and a strength of schedule component becomes a greater and greater part of your resume(even in Doc Saturday's Week 1 poll, he gave top billing to those who beat BCS conference teams last week). If Texas Tech plays SMU and Abilene Tech the whole year then they aren't going to have a better resume than other undefeated teams, several teams with 1 loss, and maybe even some teams with 2 losses.

 

it just seems arbitrary to me. he refuses to rank texas because they played a perennial doormat (that happened to go 10-3 two years ago), but then he ranks troy for beating bowling green and texas tech for beating usually-terrible smu. and if every team that won their game has done more than a team that has lost, why are teams with losses ranked ahead of teams that won games in the first week, even if they were against bad i-a programs or against i-aa programs?

 

it seems to me that if you're ranking a team like utah #4 for beating a team that he thinks is good (pitt), then you don't put pitt down beneath teams that beat crappy MAC and WAC teams when they took a good MWC team to overtime on the road. and this statement is absurd:

 

That leaves Boise State, an edge-of-your-seat winner Monday night against Virginia Tech, and TCU, fresh from a borderline dominant effort over Oregon State, as the clear winners of the weekend, ambitious upstarts who took on ranked outfits on neutral ground and came away with the marquee,

 

yes TCU playing on the neutral ground of irving, texas, a grueling 15 miles from campus.

 

he then goes on to say that texas a&m beat youngstown state. the entire thing is just riddled with errors and inconsistencies. it's a really poor piece of work.

[Tracer Bullet]

ND is still behind 3 teams that lost last week (Pitt, Oregon St and UNC). So much for "the pollsters are desperate to rank ND as soon as they do anything".

 

ETA: I agree with it, except maybe in the case of Oregon St.

 

oregon st played a very good tcu team tough and only lost by 9 on the road. there is no reason to rank notre dame (who beat a lousy purdue team) ahead of them.

 

Yes there is, although I like the resume ballot personally. Like Doc Saturday's for example.

 

I think those are pretty dumb at least at this point. If you want to do a resume ranking, I think you have to wait several weeks, maybe even until the half-way point. Why rank teams not based on how good they are, but how good their season has been after 1 or 2 games where unbalanced schedules are their most unbalanced?

 

Oh, that's right, b/c Brian Cook likes to see Michigan ranked somewhere.

[hawkeyecub]

it's a reflection of how good your season has been.

 

No it's not even that. It's mostly a collection of teams who don't have good wins but they fit his subjective opinion of being a better cupcake than others. All teams who beat non bottom feeder 1-A teams at home are ranked ahead of teams who almost beat a top 5 team away from home. Their season has not been better.