Absurd poll!

[Yeofoot]

I just hope all the people that gripe about rankings, will one day get off their lazy arses and do something about it. That's what we did, we griped all the time last year, then put together our own poll. And now we can do something about it.

[bama_girl]

what if...........the only thing that having our own poll accomplishes is................... getting cussed out by people who think we are crazy and biased and out of touch with reality!?!?!?!?!??!!

[Spence]

Then we will have succeeded.

[billybud]

LOL...very true...nice comeback, Spence..

[colorado_loves_football]

Ohio State didn't do badly against Wolfe in the first quarter. That was the only quarter the first team played together. Ohio State played their whole 2 deep on both sides of the ball and every DB on the squad. Over 60 guys from Ohio State played in the game.

The first team offense only played a little over a quarter. They scored 28 points on NIU in 15:05 minutes.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting Ohio St wasn't 'prepared', just that Wolfe maybe exposed a 'vulnerability'.

That said, Ohio State clearly doesn't deserve a #1 ranking because Ohio State doesn't have the defense to get it done this year. At least not early, when they need to be good. I don't see us beating Texas because of that and I don't know about Penn St. or Iowa either. That wasn't my point. My point was that if Northern Illinois beat Ohio State then it would be more likely that Ohio State was over-rated then Northern Illinois was under-rated. If you beat the #1 team in the country after 4 or 5 weeks in means a lot more then if you beat them the first game. Because the preseason rankings are pure speculation. Just an educated guess. Some would argue that they aren't even that. (Derek?)

I'm not sure I agree with you. I'm not 'picking' on Ohio St, here.
Same argument applies, regardless of which team you use.
But, if a team like N. Illinois beats a #1 team in their own backyard, that's likely 'evidence' of their being top-25 material (if not higher).
They didn't, obviously, and Garrett Wolfe's numbers were 'padded' by playing against Ohio St's 2nd team defense. Nevertheless, I think it 'counts' the same as if it happened 5-6 weeks later.
Referring again to 1984, Michigan upset #1 Miami, FL after Miami, FL upset #1 Auburn, to begin their season. Had Michigan beaten BYU, end-of-season (they nearly did), they might have had a legitimate claim on the national title, as strange as that may seem.

[Spence]

Yes, but Miami wasn't the only "good" team Michigan beat. Miami also went on to have a good season. That matters.

If Northern Illinois beats #1 Ohio State and Ohio State goes on to beat everyone else on their schedule, then perhaps NIU is a good team.

If Ohio State were to lose three or four more games then NIU didn't prove anything by beating them. It would only prove Ohio State is over rated. Rankings at the beginning of the year only matter for positioning. They have nothing to do with how good teams really are until some games have been played. Then you can see for yourself how big an upset is or how it really wasn't a big deal.

Northern Illinois didn't have to expose a weakness on Ohio State's defense, anyone who had been paying attention to Ohio State football could have known about the weakness. Garrett Wolfe just took advantage of the Ohio State weakness.

That isn't a shot on Wolfe, he is a good player, but I guarantee you he wouldn't have gotten 100 yards last season on the Buckeye D.

[colorado_loves_football]

Yes, but Miami wasn't the only "good" team Michigan beat. Miami also went on to have a good season. That matters.

Sure, but they weren't NC material. So the argument remains, what 'constitues' NC? if you throw out rankings, its next to impossible to select a 'concensus' national champion, my point all along.
If we reference 1984, you have to consider the 'facts' before drawing a conclusion. No, Pittsburgh wasn't NC material, neither was Michigan, but had they both beaten Brigham Young (among other teams) they clearly are. So, if rankings don't matter, what does? #1 vs. #2 isn't 'sufficient.

If Northern Illinois beats #1 Ohio State and Ohio State goes on to beat everyone else on their schedule, then perhaps NIU is a good team.

N. Illinois, clearly wasn't in Ohio st's league. So, we can 'discard' that hypothetical. But Montana St, clearly was. So, what can we ascertain by the results? Does Colorado 'suck'? Are they transitioning? Or is it evidence of something entirely different? If rankings don't matter, then why are we talking about a 'hypothetical' NC in week #2?

If Ohio State were to lose three or four more games then NIU didn't prove anything by beating them. It would only prove Ohio State is over rated. Rankings at the beginning of the year only matter for positioning. They have nothing to do with how good teams really are until some games have been played. Then you can see for yourself how big an upset is or how it really wasn't a big deal.

I dont think Ohio St is over-rated, but I think W. Virginia in all probability is (sorry Mountaineer fans). Still, I give them credit (W. Va) for playing well. Rankings, should be objective and fair, if they are to have any 'role' in selecting a national champion. If they are simply a 'hypothetical' arrangment of teams, they clearly aren't worth applying. If they don't mean anything now, why should they matter at season's end?

Northern Illinois didn't have to expose a weakness on Ohio State's defense, anyone who had been paying attention to Ohio State football could have known about the weakness. Garrett Wolfe just took advantage of the Ohio State weakness.

Honestly, I didn't watch the game. Ohio St was beating them so badly I quit watching, I just found it interesting their defense nearly surrendered 200 yards (167).

That isn't a shot on Wolfe, he is a good player, but I guarantee you he wouldn't have gotten 100 yards last season on the Buckeye D.

I don't think he should have, anyway, tha'ts why I mentioned it, and it might explain why Ohio St dropped in 'our' poll. I like Ohio St, I want them to be #1 end-of-season, but they need to play better on defense if they want to be in the BCS Championship.

[Spence]

Ohio State won't be #1 at the end of the season. They won't play in the champioship game. The defense is simply not national championship caliber. No one wishes it was more then me, but they aren't.

Sure, but they weren't NC material. So the argument remains, what 'constitues' NC? if you throw out rankings, its next to impossible to select a 'concensus' national champion, my point all along.
If we reference 1984, you have to consider the 'facts' before drawing a conclusion. No, Pittsburgh wasn't NC material, neither was Michigan, but had they both beaten Brigham Young (among other teams) they clearly are. So, if rankings don't matter, what does? #1 vs. #2 isn't 'sufficient.

Huh!

Rankings do matter. It is just that where you are at the beginning of the season doesn't matter.(except for positioning) Rankings at the end of the season are the rankings that matter. If you beat a team that finishes in the top 10, then you are likely very good. If you beat a team that starts out highly ranked and finishes in the top 20 - 40, then that team really wasn't a top 10 team, because they were over-rated in the early poll. That isn't rocket science.

N. Illinois, clearly wasn't in Ohio st's league. So, we can 'discard' that hypothetical. But Montana St, clearly was. So, what can we ascertain by the results? Does Colorado 'suck'? Are they transitioning? Or is it evidence of something entirely different? If rankings don't matter, then why are we talking about a 'hypothetical' NC in week #2?

Montana State isn't in Ohio State league either. Colorado may be a team in transition, they maybe a team without the players to run Hawkins system (like Nebraska was). It doesn't change the fact that they aren't very good. I don't think you would find a Nebraska fan who thought that they had a good team in the last few years either.

Dropping Ohio State last week because of their defensive play is a pretty tough standard considering that they only allowed two field goals until the last few minutes of the game. If that is your standard that is fine, but you should be consistant in applying that standard the whole season to every team.

[billybud]

I didn't watch the whole OSU game....I did notice that NIU turned in a respectable YPC stat...but NIU ain't chopped liver either...

And...how many non starters did Tressel put in to gain experience?

Its not like OSU was playing their "A" team all game once it seemed in hand.

[Spence]

Everyone on the defense without a redshirt played. 7 guys on the O-line. 3 Tbs. 2QBs. 7 WRs. We got in several.

Our first team defense is very suspect. Linebackers couldn't get off their blocks. DBs taking bad angles and very, very poor tackling. I look for them to improve a lot in this game, but the coaches didn't even drive them hard this week. No reason to because they were giving good effort, they just need experience. Too much thinking going on instead of reacting. Driving them hard this week would make that worse. We will just have to go with the growing pains and hope the offense is picture perfect and we get a couple over turnovers.

[Derek]

I just hope all the people that gripe about rankings, will one day get off their lazy arses and do something about it. That's what we did, we griped all the time last year, then put together our own poll. And now we can do something about it.

Yep. And I would trust our poll more than others.

[colorado_loves_football]

Ohio State won't be #1 at the end of the season. They won't play in the champioship game. The defense is simply not national championship caliber. No one wishes it was more then me, but they aren't.

Nobody knows for sure what will happen, that's why they play the game, after all! That being said, if Ohio St can beat Texas (which I admit is a big assumption) they clearly are in the driver's seat, and for good reason. As far as the N. Illinois game is concerned, I dont' think Ohio St has anything to apologize for. I appreciate how Jim Tressell played hard for 1/2, didn't play so hard when the outcome was no longer in doubt, that's the sign of a coach who has some 'class'. You don't win 'brownie' points (or at least shouldn't) by 'burying' your opponent after they've already lost steam (are you listening Bill Callahan?). It's one mark of a good program, IMO.

Huh!

Rankings do matter. It is just that where you are at the beginning of the season doesn't matter.(except for positioning) Rankings at the end of the season are the rankings that matter. If you beat a team that finishes in the top 10, then you are likely very good. If you beat a team that starts out highly ranked and finishes in the top 20 - 40, then that team really wasn't a top 10 team, because they were over-rated in the early poll. That isn't rocket science.

If rankings are the 'be-all', 'end-all' they wouldn't need to schedule a season. You could simply 'pair' #1 and #2 together, and let that decide your national champion. Clearly, i'm being trite, but isn't that what the BCS does, just in a different way?

Who's to say besides Texas & USC there wasn't a 'wildcard'. I'm not saying there was, but W. Virginia appeared to have a lot of momentum, as did Penn St (and Ohio st, albeit to a lesser degree). And that's just the 'majors'. Who knows for sure, that TCU and/or Tulsa weren't championship material? I'm not saying they were, but the results speak for themselves. (Tulsa beat Fresno St, who nearly upset USC). It's time the BCS considered a 'fresh' approach that doesn't discriminate, but I will acknowledge, the % were clearly in the Longhorns' favor.

Montana State isn't in Ohio State league either. Colorado may be a team in transition, they maybe a team without the players to run Hawkins system (like Nebraska was). It doesn't change the fact that they aren't very good. I don't think you would find a Nebraska fan who thought that they had a good team in the last few years either.

I think it remains to be seen, just how 'good' or 'bad' Colorado is. Losing to Montana St, certainly doesn't do much for those who live and die by how Colorado fares, on Saturday. If they can beat CSU, they'll be back on track, if they can't it will be a long season, a very long season.

Dropping Ohio State last week because of their defensive play is a pretty tough standard considering that they only allowed two field goals until the last few minutes of the game. If that is your standard that is fine, but you should be consistant in applying that standard the whole season to every team.

I didn't drop Ohio St, I actually 'boosted' them, but I didn't have them ranked very high, initially.
I think the 'mark' of a good poll, is it's 'staying' power, if adjustments have to be made to 'validate 'it, it lacks credibility. 'Our' group poll seems pretty consistent.

[mountainman]

Nice effort, HuskerMoon .....

[Spence]

didn't drop Ohio St, I actually 'boosted' them, but I didn't have them ranked very high, initially.
I think the 'mark' of a good poll, is it's 'staying' power, if adjustments have to be made to 'validate 'it, it lacks credibility. 'Our' group poll seems pretty consistent.

Then you didn't do as I instructed and use the model. So you are making our poll inconsistent. So don't go bashing others for their poll being inconsistent with their model. Know maybe you know why I said that the preseason models should be used in the weekly polls and they should be a progression of the preseason poll. Consistency, you are bashing something that you yourself condoned by doing your poll a different way then you were told. I kept telling you that it was important to try and get the preseason poll right. You kept telling me it doesn't matter. You can see now that is does matter.

[colorado_loves_football]

This reminds me of that old legendary argument.

Remember the 1865 Battle Between Union State and Dixie University?

Actually, I wasnt' around back then, so no. But if the point you are making is that there is 'disagreement' based on geography, then I guess I understand where you are coming from. We each carry a certain amount of 'bias' into our mindset. A little bit of that is healthy.

Then you didn't do as I instructed and use the model. So you are making our poll inconsistent. So don't go bashing others for their poll being inconsistent with their model. Know maybe you know why I said that the preseason models should be used in the weekly polls and they should be a progression of the preseason poll. Consistency, you are bashing something that you yourself condoned by doing your poll a different way then you were told. I kept telling you that it was important to try and get the preseason poll right. You kept telling me it doesn't matter. You can see now that is does matter.

You said we could each 'vote' separately and you would 'average' them into one poll. Don't single me out, for following your initial suggestion, only to 'replace' it with something that makes your job (as voter) a lot easier. I never agreed on the 'model'. Both Irish88 and I are on the same page, here. You stated 'majority' rules. Well the 'majority' has spoken. But, as voter you can 'ignore' us altogether, that's your prerogative. (but don't expect me to like it).
What 'model' is there? Teams win & lose, every week. No model is going to hold up, no matter how well thought out.
My conscious decision to 'boost' Ohio st was well thought-out. I recommend you follow suit. The preseaon poll was 'exceptional', IMO.
The 2nd week poll clearly lacks objectivity. WV#2? On which planet?