In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2675
Online now 2323 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
You see it every year before the season starts, and it's time that voters and the college football world get on the same page about it.
"Team X (let's just call them Ohio State for now) has a really navigable schedule this year, so we like them here at the number 2 spot."
Since when should you be rewarded in a RANKING for testing yourself LESS than other teams. I understand that teams do not have total control over their schedules (so I'm not trying to call them out for that), and I have no problem with Ohio State being number 1 or 2 if it's because someone with a vote thinks, given all that they know, that they are the first or second best team heading into the season. But if it was supposed to be a PROJECTION, wouldn't they call it that? RANKING implies power ranking. Who are the best teams in order, in your opinion? Should they write that on the top of the ballot? Maybe I should define the word.
Google's number one hit gives us: "A position in a scale of achievement or status; a classification."
Given that it's a preseason ranking and no one has actually achieved anything, I understand the reason for ambiguity and variance of interpretation. But if no one has acheived anything, wouldn't that be even more reason NOT to reward someone ahead of time for the lack of opportunities that they will have to impress?
Let's not forget that in the middle and at the end of seasons, others (and probably in some cases the same people) who watch the games in the season will punish the teams with the weakest schedules for "playing nobody" or "beating nobody." It doesn't ever seem to stop them from, nine months later or three months earlier, projecting the same teams near the top of the polls because they don't think anyone on their schedule will pose much of a challenge.
Three W's In My Life: Ward, Weinke, and Winston
When the people making the rankings don't want to look like idiots at the end of the year...
If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.
Easiest schedule = bama
Hardest schedule = USC
Haven't you learned anything in the thread earlier
Bama doesn't even play teams from the SEC. Where has that dude been?
Just wait for the meltdown when Louisville goes undefeated..their toughest game is Rutgers
Preseason predictions of SOS don't mean sh*t anymore. ND was supposed to have a tough schedule last year, with the likely hood of a 7, maybe 8 win season if lucky. They go 12-0, and suddenly they played the sisters of the poor every week. These 'experts' doing the predicting don't know sh*t. They should wait til week 4 or 5 before they start ranking teams in the polls.
3 time POTW
The BCS does wait until week 6 I believe to release anything. Pre-season polls are useless for predicting SOS and last year's ND schedule is a great example. It was justifiable to believe ND was going to play a tough schedule:
1 - USC
4 - OU
8 - Michigan
13 - MSU
21 - Stanford
Post season records:
USC - 6-7
OU - 10 - 3
Michigan - 8-5
MSU - 7-6
Stanford - 12-2
You start the season with 4 teams on your schedule in the top 13. You finish the regular season having only played 1 team ranked in the top 15 in the final polls. Sometimes that;s just how it plays out.
Teams lose games that are far from their toughest every single season
Texas A&M wasn't Bama toughest game
Louisville lost to UConn and Syracuse last year for christ sake, in back to back weeks
FSU lost to NC State
Florida lost to Lousiville
Miami lost to UVA lol
Every year we see this, with just about every single team in america
Yet every year we have anime watching morons like you who think teams only lose in their hardest games
fsufsu said... I've got about 10 great stories on Lane but all you need to know is he will never be a loser, that's for sure.
Agreed. ND lost to Bama
I think it is interesting how people rank "schedules". The universal measure seems to make an average of opponents across the board. So outside of playing 10 Top 15 teams, the most logical way to rig your schedule to appear really difficult is to play a couple Top 15 teams, 7 teams that end up going 8-4 and a few teams that go 6-6. In that realm, you didn't play anyone "terrible" and you had a lot of tests................
What I don't understand is why 4 games against 7-5 teams that in all likelihood are going to lose to a Top 5 type team 9 of 10 times are weighted more heavily than 1 game on the road against a Top 5 team. The chances of losing that one game are much more than the chances of losing any of the 4 games against the middle of the road team. If I'm looking to go undefeated I'd rather trade @ Ohio State, UAB, FAU, Rice for Ole Miss, @ Arizona State, @ Purdue, Syracuse any day of the week in terms of likelihood to win all my games.............but the majority of people would say the 2nd group of games is much harder than the first.
This post was edited by Brian Henry 11 months ago
They don't have the balls to play 4 out of the top 8. If lsu loses just 1 game, auto to the natty
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports