October 4, 2005
Fanblogs XIV Poll: Week 6
Poll of the Fanblogs.com authors & contributors for games played through October 4, 2005:
First place votes in parenthesis. Weighted ballot points appear beside team name. Teams are ranked on likelyhood to beat lower ranked teams on a neutral field, rather than a forecast of final season rankings.
1. Southern California (8) 164
2. Texas (4) 160
3. Virginia Tech 141
4. Georgia 118
5. Florida St. 114
6. Ohio St. 95
7. Alabama 83
8. Miami (Fla.) 75
9. Tennessee 72
10. California 50
11. Notre Dame 43
12. LSU 36
13. Wisconsin 28
14. Texas Tech 20
Others Receiving Votes:
Arizona St. 17, Florida 17, Penn St. 9, Purdue 7, Michigan St. 6, UCLA 4, Boston College 1
How They Voted:
Kevin Donahue:1) Southern California, 2) Texas, 3) Virginia Tech, 4) Florida St., 5) Georgia, 6) Miami (Fla.), 7) Ohio St., 8) Alabama, 9) Notre Dame, 10) Tennessee, 11) California, 12) Wisconsin, 13) Michigan St., 14) Florida
Pete Holiday:1) Texas, 2) Southern California, 3) Ohio St., 4) Virginia Tech, 5) Georgia, 6) Arizona St., 7) Alabama, 8) Florida, 9) Notre Dame, 10) Tennessee, 11) Florida St., 12) LSU, 13) California, 14) Miami (Fla.)
Dave Frey:1) Southern California, 2) Texas, 3) Virginia Tech, 4) Ohio St., 5) Florida St., 6) Alabama, 7) Georgia, 8) Miami (Fla.), 9) Tennessee, 10) Notre Dame, 11) LSU, 12) Arizona St., 13) Penn St., 14) Florida
Jeff Quinton:1) Texas, 2) Southern California, 3) Virginia Tech, 4) Florida St., 5) Miami (Fla.), 6) Georgia, 7) Ohio St., 8) Purdue, 9) Tennessee, 10) Notre Dame, 11) California, 12) LSU, 13) Alabama, 14) Wisconsin
John Ludwig:1) Southern California, 2) Texas, 3) Virginia Tech, 4) Ohio St., 5) Florida St., 6) Tennessee, 7) LSU, 8) Georgia, 9) Miami (Fla.), 10) Wisconsin, 11) California, 12) Alabama, 13) Florida, 14) Boston College
Mike Boone:1) Southern California, 2) Texas, 3) Virginia Tech, 4) Florida St., 5) Georgia, 6) Ohio St., 7) Alabama, 8) Miami (Fla.), 9) Texas Tech, 10) Arizona St., 11) LSU, 12) Michigan St., 13) California, 14) Tennessee
Josh McClain:1) Southern California, 2) Texas, 3) Virginia Tech, 4) Georgia, 5) Wisconsin, 6) Florida St., 7) Alabama, 8) Texas Tech, 9) California, 10) Miami (Fla.), 11) UCLA, 12) Ohio St., 13) Tennessee, 14) Penn St.
Dave:1) Southern California, 2) Texas, 3) Georgia, 4) Virginia Tech, 5) Florida St., 6) Alabama, 7) Tennessee, 8) Ohio St., 9) Notre Dame, 10) Miami (Fla.), 11) LSU, 12) Florida, 13) Wisconsin, 14) California
Robert Knodell:1) Texas, 2) Southern California, 3) Florida St., 4) Virginia Tech, 5) Georgia, 6) Alabama, 7) California, 8) Ohio St., 9) Miami (Fla.), 10) Tennessee, 11) LSU, 12) Notre Dame, 13) Texas Tech, 14) Penn St.
Michael Hickerson:1) Texas, 2) Southern California, 3) Virginia Tech, 4) Alabama, 5) Tennessee, 6) Georgia, 7) California, 8) Florida St., 9) Wisconsin, 10) Penn St., 11) Miami (Fla.), 12) Texas Tech, 13) Notre Dame, 14) LSU
Aaron White:1) Southern California, 2) Texas, 3) Virginia Tech, 4) Georgia, 5) Ohio St., 6) Florida St., 7) Tennessee, 8) Miami (Fla.), 9) California, 10) Alabama, 11) Notre Dame, 12) LSU, 13) Texas Tech, 14) Wisconsin
MisterIrrelevant.com:1) Southern California, 2) Texas, 3) Virginia Tech, 4) Georgia, 5) Florida St., 6) Ohio St., 7) Miami (Fla.), 8) Tennessee, 9) Notre Dame, 10) California, 11) Alabama, 12) Florida, 13) LSU, 14) Michigan St.
Comments:
PACMan said:
posted on October 4, 2005 4:50 PM — 68.10.109.29 — link — abuse?
What's the explanation for the swap from SC to UT for those voters that jumped ship this week? Apparently you felt SC's showing was one of weakness, rather than one of of showing they can beat a quality team with one half tied behind their backs..I could see both views..but what gave here?
I'd be interested in the reasoning process, and would a beatdown of lowly Arizona by SC, and a squeaker by UT over OU this week mean anything to you?
posted on October 4, 2005 5:07 PM — link — abuse?Jeff Quinton said:
PACMan,
Go back at last week and you'll notice that there are 2 more voters (12) this week than last week (10), so nobody really jumped ship over this week's games.I voted for TX in the poll before last week, didn't vote last week because of confusion about the deadline on my part, and voted again this week. I didn't go far enough back on the other person who voted this week and not last week, but I imagine it would be the same situation.
posted on October 4, 2005 8:34 PM — link — abuse?
Yeah, someone's always gonna accuse me of hatin', Big Dave. But - you know me - I'm an equal opportunity offender!
Aaron said:
posted on October 4, 2005 9:00 PM — 67.183.232.99 — link — abuse?
Props for putting an Arizona State team with TWO losses as the #6 team in the nation? Props to a team who disappeared in the 2nd half of a game and self-imploded? That is the most ridiculous ranking I've seen, Pete. Please, tell me that was a mistake.
posted on October 5, 2005 11:27 AM — 156.56.81.56 — link — abuse?
I jumped the SC ship for two reasons
1) USC allowed one half to be tied behind their backs... that ploy will not work against a team much better than ASU, and
2) We're not allowed to vote ties, which is what I'd do with UT/USC until I can get a better feel for Texas.I'm not sure anything short of a UT loss to OU would cause me to flip back this week... USC isn't going to prove much vs. Arizona, and UT/OU is such a rivalry that I expect a close game in that one regardless of talent level of the teams.
As for ASU, Aaron, have you been watching football this year? They nearly beat USC despite throwing five INTs. They all but beat LSU. Arizona State is for real... and one of these days they're going to stop shooting themselves in the foot. They have two losses because they've played a demanding schedule to this point... 1) I'm not one to penalize a team for that and 2) Our polling guidelines stipulate that we're to vote based on who would win more often than not playing on a neutral field... not based on wins and losses.So who do I have ranked below ASU that would beat them more often than not on a neutral field?
Aaron said:
posted on October 5, 2005 3:26 PM — 67.183.232.99 — link — abuse?
Pete, what I don't understand is how you can say that ASU would beat those teams ranked below them more often than not. There has been NO proof that ASU can beat better teams. Sure, they can hang, but a close loss to a great team is still a close loss. I'm not saying you should rank solely on record because I don't either. I still think Ohio State is a Top 5 team, but they have one loss, not two.
There are "ifs" for every single team in the poll. If Michigan hadn't shot themselves in the foot, they'd be undefeated and a Top 5 team right now, too. So tell me, where is the difference?
posted on October 5, 2005 4:39 PM — 156.56.81.231 — link — abuse?
Ahh... avoidance of the important question: Who would beat ASU more often than not?
If you can't answer that question then you actually, for all intents and purposes, agree with my assertion.
The difference between ASU and Michigan is that Michigan didn't just lose to Notre Dame, they were man-handled. Two of Michigan's three wins are against minor conferences, and the remaining one of them was an overtime win, and a fairly unconvincing one at that.
And, really, you are saying to rank by record... you're saying that one loss can be ignored in the ratings, but two losses can't, which is fairly ridiculous because you can make the same point about the second loss as the first.
So let's get back to the substantive issue at hand, which teams, that I have ranked below ASU, would beat the Sun Devils more often than not on a neutral field?
Aaron said:
posted on October 5, 2005 5:33 PM — 67.183.232.99 — link — abuse?
Manhandled!? If it weren't for a couple of turnovers in the red zone Michigan would have won easily. And they were a few plays away from beating Wisconsin, as well. There is no difference. Sam Keller through FIVE interceptions against a banged up USC defense. Even Arkansas' offense didn't turn the ball over like that.
Alabama, Florida State, possibly Miami... they could beat Arizona State. And perhaps California, too.
The point is you have a team with 2 losses ranked #6. No matter what you think might happen on a neutral field, you can't just ignore what actually did happen. But you are choosing to do so.
I don't agree. Plain and simple, but that's just my .02. You've made up your mind and have your own reasoning so I'll just accept that.
posted on October 5, 2005 6:31 PM — 156.56.81.88 — link — abuse?
I disagree with your assessment of the ND/Michigan game. ND owned the Wolverines. It took Michigan more than 55 minutes to score a touchdown, Henne was 19/44 passing (ND had the same number of completions on 14 fewer passes), and almost half of Michigan's rushing yards came on two plays, but regardless...
Not only can we ignore what teams' records are at this point in the season, the poll requires it. Not what happens in the games, but the records themselves are fairly irrlelvant.
Case in point: had OSU lost a close one to Texas and then a close one to USC would that require dropping them out of the top 6? If not, why not? Your logic doesn't hold here.
Alabama has a big question to answer: can they play inspired again and secondly, can they do so with one of the biggest playmakers in college football sitting on the sidelines? If they make a statement against Ole Miss and/or beat Tennessee, I imagine they'll jump ASU on my ballot.
I'm not buying the FSU or Miami hype just yet. They both have near-misses aginst lower-top-25 teams. ASU is battle tested and while both of those battles resulted in losses, they were mostly solid performances. The exception, of course, is that the losses were caused by, or at least helped along, by the Sun Devils themselves (though USC does get a lot of credit in the most recent win). I think ASU did a lot less beating themselves against USC than LSU and that means they're improving. USC should give them some good game film to review and shore up some weaknesses.
Bottom line, for me, is that I think ASU becomes a better team on the other side of the USC loss, not a worse one... so they move up. After all, as per last week's ballot, they were supposed to lose to USC. So if a team was supposed to lose a game, but they almost won it, why move them down? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either.
I'm not concerned with the W/L outcome of the game to nearly the degree I am with the play itself. Call me crazy, but I think how teams play from week to week has a lot more impact on how they're going to play this coming week than their current record does.
(I find it interesting that you don't list LSU as a team that would beat ASU more often than not... considering they already have. Wonder what that means... maybe that the two-loss ASU team is actually better than the one-loss LSU team? Hmmm...)
PACMan said:
posted on October 7, 2005 4:00 PM — 68.10.109.29 — link — abuse?
Just how many PAC-10 games have you actually seen this year? Not many, considering the in depth reasonign you provided which led to your assumptions...While I disagree with most of what PH posts, at least he composes it with some semblance of a logic behind his conclusions...And run your goddamn spellcheck..though I'll give you credit for spelling ASU & UCLA correctly..PIMPDADDY!!
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
dave frey said:
posted on October 4, 2005 4:36 PM — 66.186.235.209 — link — abuse?Daaaamn, Kevin. You...you.... HATA!!!