Week Four BlogPoll Ballot Explained
by T Kyle King
on Sep 25, 2006 12:00 AM EDT
in Football
Earlier this evening, I published my latest BlogPoll ballot, with the promise than an explanation would follow.
Here now, I give you the rationale for my rankings, with each team's poll position on last week's ballot provided in parentheses:
1. Ohio State (3)---Sometimes, what the eyes see and what the ears hear are two different things. (Viewers who saw the 1960 presidential debates on television tended to think John Kennedy prevailed, whereas listeners who heard the candidates' give-and-take on radio awarded the victory to Richard Nixon.) I heard the better part of the second half of this game on the radio on my way back from Athens and, after the Buckeyes put the go-ahead points on the board in the third quarter, there was no point at which it seemed anything other than abundantly clear that Ohio State was going to win handily . . . which it did. That allowed the Buckeyes to ascend to the top spot anew.
2. Auburn (2)---Kenny Irons didn't play and Brandon Cox attempted 10 passes. The Plainsmen still won 38-7. Auburn is a well-oiled machine on autopilot.
I hate Auburn.
3. Southern California (1)---The Trojans beat Arizona 20-3. The Bayou Bengals beat Arizona 45-3. So much for the idea that S.E.C. squads can't score and Pac-10 teams can't play defense. Perhaps more so than any serious national title contender, U.S.C. failed to put away an overmatched opponent, which caused the Men of Troy to drop on my ballot.
4. Michigan (6)---After being tied at halftime, the Wolverines put away a respectable Wisconsin team in a gritty Big Ten contest. While the win was hardly overwhelming, it was better than most of the unbeatens managed on Saturday, which accounts for the Maize and Blue's rise in the rankings.
5. Oregon (5)---The Ducks didn't play, so the Ducks stayed put on my ballot.
6. Louisville (4)---The Cardinals and the Wolverines swapped spots because Michigan performed well, whereas U. of L. was sluggish in putting away Kansas State. The Wildcats are products of a has-been program that briefly attained undeserved celebrity by getting fat off of shamefully weak scheduling and a legitimate national title contender ought to do better against the likes of K-State.
7. Texas (8)---The eyes of college football ought to be upon Texas, as the Longhorns are continuing to play well and, as a result, the defending national champions have inched up on my ballot ever so slightly.
This man is smiling for a reason. (Photograph from Mack Brown Texas Football.)
8. Louisiana State (11)---Yes, it was just Tulane, but, when you beat your in-state rival 49-7, you get credit for it. The Bayou Bengals look daunting; that, coupled with other teams' shows of weakness, earned L.S.U. a return to the top 10.
9. Clemson (17)---Is there an A.C.C. squad you'd less rather play right now than the Tigers of Lake Hartwell?
10. Florida (7)---When you find yourself leading Kentucky by a 12-7 margin at the half while playing at home, you lose ground in the poll, period.
11. Texas Christian (13)---The Horned Frogs picked a good Saturday to have an open date. With virtually everyone else deserving a demotion, T.C.U. rose through attrition.
12. Virginia Tech (9)---The Hokies were down 13-12 heading into the fourth quarter. That sluggish performance cost V.P.I. its spot in the top 10.
13. Iowa (N.R.)---Omitting the Hawkeyes from last week's ballot was an oversight on my part. They haven't really done anything to earn their way into the top 10, but a top 15 ranking seems appropriate at this point.
14. West Virginia (12)---The Mountaineers were docked one spot in the rankings for playing at East Carolina and an additional spot was deducted due to W.V.U.'s failure to dominate once they got there.
15. Tennessee (19)---Marshall is a pesky opponent that has been known to give good teams a hard time and the Volunteers no doubt came into the week dejected after their loss to the Gators. Nevertheless, the Big Orange won handily, so U.T. vaulted back into the top 15.
16. Georgia (10)---I don't believe it's fair to say that Saturday's game against Colorado was in any way reminiscent of the Sugar Bowl or that it in any way resembled a game from the Ray Goff or Jim Donnan eras or that you should burn the clothes you were wearing while you watched the game. The Buffaloes generally, and Dan Hawkins specifically, deserve a tremendous amount of credit for devising and executing an effective game plan to take advantage of the Classic City Canines' ordinarily useful tendencies. The first quarter of the Sugar Bowl had a lot to do with the 'Dawgs being unprepared; the first three quarters of Saturday's game had more to do with the Buffs being well-prepared. While the scare convinced me that the Red and Black are not deserving of a top 10 ranking, this team is just about there . . . it's just not there quite yet.
I would hasten to remind everyone else in the Dawgosphere that, um, we won. (Photograph from Sports Illustrated.)
17. Nebraska (21)---Given the scares the Trojans recently put into Florida State and Georgia Tech, the fact that the Cornhuskers manhandled Troy counts for quite a bit.
18. Notre Dame (16)---Let's be clear here; the Fighting Irish didn't win that game, the Spartans lost it. If any other Division I-A college football team had held a 31-14 lead over the Golden Domers at the break, it would have been a rout. The complete incompetence that is inherently a part of Michigan State football is the only reason Charlie Weis's squad isn't saddled with two losses right now. It somehow seems fitting that, on the night when the squads from South Bend and East Lansing commemorated the 40th anniversary of the historic display of gutlessness that was the 1966 "Game of the Century"---a game which should have eliminated both teams from national title contention---coaching directed by fear rather than by boldness proved decisive. As I have already begun receiving critical comments, please note that, since Notre Dame was given credit by the pollsters for a "quality loss" against U.S.C. last year, it is only reasonable to deduct points from Coach Weis's team for an undeserved win. Furthermore, I dropped seven other teams for unimpressive victories and I didn't drop the Irish anywhere near as far as I dropped my own team, so the Golden Domers should consider themselves lucky . . . again.
19. Florida State (20)---All right, so it was Rice. At least the Seminoles showed some signs of life offensively.
20. California (25)---Honestly, I didn't think the Golden Bears had it in them, but Cal got my attention by chewing up the Sun Devils and spitting them right out of the poll. Jeff Tedford's bunch was overrated at the outset of the season, but the Bears remain a top 20 team.
21. Rutgers (22)---I'm not at all convinced that the Scarlet Knights don't deserve to be ranked a little higher, but I'm reserving judgment until the State University of New Jersey takes on a team tougher than Howard.
Rutgers alumna Kristin Davis is intent on seeing her alma mater make it into the top 20. (Photograph from Aftonbladet.)
22. Oklahoma (N.R.)---I remain unconvinced that the Sooners are all that good, but somebody had to be No. 22 and O.U. did beat Middle Tennessee 59-0.
23. Missouri (N.R.)---Trust me; I don't feel any better about this than you do, but the Tigers are 4-0. What can I tell you?
24. Wake Forest (N.R.)---The Demon Deacons are saving the A.C.C.'s reputation in out-of-conference contests and L.D. thinks they could be 9-0 heading into the Florida State game. Let's give some credit to Wake Forest while we still can.
25. Washington (N.R.)---I picked the Huskies to beat the Bruins, so you'll have to forgive me for giving U.W. the final spot in the rankings after the squad from Seattle beat U.C.L.A.
Dropping out of the poll: No. 14 Arizona State, No. 15 Boston College, No. 18 Boise State, No. 23 Navy, and No. 24 Wisconsin.
Boston College lost to whom? (Photograph from Scout.com.)
Others receiving consideration: Army, Georgia Tech, and Washington State.
Others within striking distance of receiving consideration: Arkansas and Purdue.
Team that will never, under any circumstances, emergency or otherwise, ever again receive even the barest hint of consideration: Michigan State.
Games to which I paid attention in some manner while they were occurring: On Thursday night, I watched those portions of Georgia Tech-Virginia that did not conflict with the season premiere of "Grey's Anatomy" and, on Friday, I watched the surprisingly entertaining Nevada-Northwestern game. On Saturday, I attended the Georgia-Colorado game, listened to Ohio State-Penn State on the radio during the trip home, and caught the end of Alabama-Arkansas before settling in for an evening of flipping back and forth between Michigan State-Notre Dame, Florida-Kentucky, and Boston College-N.C. State, in that order of priority.
As always, your views upon the topic at hand are welcomed.
Go 'Dawgs!
0 recs |
10
comments
Email
PrintComments
Fight on Arny Team
by Blogger who came in from the cold on Sep 25, 2006 9:22 AM EDT 0 recs
I don't intend this to come off as defensive, but.
- Did you think that Georgia was well-prepared to play Colorado, motivated to play Colorado, and did you think that the clock management of the Georgia coaching staff was adequate?
- Do you believe that poor preparation, poor motivation, and poor clock management is a proper description of many games played by Georgia under Coaches Donnan and Goff?
1999 vs. Central Florida
1998 vs. Wyoming
1996 vs. Southern Miss
I'm not on suicide watch or anything, and I thought we did make adjustments during the game that made the difference (unlike during the Donnan years). But for 45 minutes we definitely looked like a team from our unfortunate past, rather than the glorious past we've been comparable to over most of the last 4 years.
And really, two TOs burned with the clock stopped while trailing? Clock management errors should've been put to sleep after the first Richt season.
by LD on Sep 25, 2006 1:02 PM EDT 0 recs
Edits.
by LD on Sep 25, 2006 1:03 PM EDT 0 recs
To be fair ...
However, I do agree with you Kyle in that this game was an aberration. Games like this happen all the time and the most important thing is that the Bulldogs won. Any comparison to the Donnan or Goff eras is foolish and shortsighted, in my humble opinion.
So LD I have to disagree with you to regarding things like clock mismanagement and the like. These things happen sometimes during long seasons, particularly considering Georgia has played three quarterbacks extensively in four games. It's going to take a while to get rhythm and pace down, and it doesn't happen overnight.
by Jmac on Sep 25, 2006 1:25 PM EDT 0 recs
This game was an aberration...and that's the point
But the Colorado game was comparable to dozens of games we all saw during the last two coaches' terms. Georgia came out flat, unmotivated and underprepared. That was the case in plenty of games throughout the 1990s.
If it's shortsighted, that's because the comparison is addressing only a single game. I'm not reading anything more into it. I don't think Georgia all of a sudden will revert to mediocrity. I have no reason to think that we'll play the same way next weekend (though I do worry about playing Florida if we play as far off the ball against them on D). But the Colorado game, when looked at in isolation, didn't look like a Richt-coached game. It looked like a Donnan-coached game. That's all I've been trying to say.
My comparison was only this game. If it's an unfair comparison, tell me how the comparison doesn't work. Did you see a motivated team wearing red on Saturday (at least for the first three quarters)? Or do you think we were regularly motivated well under the former coaches? Do you think Georgia was well-prepared on Saturday? Or did you think Georgia under Donnan or Goff were typically well-prepared? I don't think I'd answer any of those questions with a yes, so there's the comparison. If my comparison doesn't work, you either have to defend the performance of Georgia on Saturday, or defend the tenures of Goff and Donnan.
As for clock mismanagement, I have to disagree with you entirely. Managing the clock should be second nature as to making those decisions. When you are trailing, you preserve timeouts to maximize their use at slowing the game down. Georgia used two with the clock stopped. The timeout on the extra point was an elementary-school level mistake. I don't like missed tackles, or failing to get rid of the ball, or fumbles, but at least those are physical mistakes by amateur kids, so I have no problem giving kind of a pass. Mental mistakes by the coaching staff I personally don't feel should be given a pass. If I can see something in section 325, I like to think the coaching staff should be able to see it. But the reasons given for the use of both of those TOs in the second half were poor (and Richt admitted to making mistakes).
by LD on Sep 25, 2006 1:48 PM EDT 0 recs
Another Opinion
Regarding preparation and motivation, I did not think our defense was flying to the ball like they normally do. At the same time, we continue to over-pursue like we did against McFadden, Aromashadu, Pat White and Slaton last year. I am not sure how to square not hustling with over-pursuit, but I think I saw both in the first half.
The BIGGEST problem we had on defense was that our ends were sprinting on a beeline path at the QB and he was quick enough to side-step them, then he could roll out unmolested and create another 3-4 seconds to find a man - usually a tight end. If Q and Charles would have taken containment angles and broken down as they closed in on the QB, he would have had to pay attention to them even if they weren't sacking him. Instead, their pass rush was wasted the instant that he side-stepped them (like 15 times) and rolled into the empty space to create lots and lots of time. I think it says a lot about our coverage that most of the completions were underneath even after 4,5,6 seconds. Our ends need to adjust their technique for QBs with this type of quickness. Leake has it, Pat White had it. I don't think Ainge and Cox have it, but they have dangerous arms.
Offensively, the problems were multitudinous. Poor run blocking. Poor play calling. And the biggest problem for Stafford was holding the ball too long. He has over-corrected his mistakes from S. Carolina when he forced throws into coverage and now he simply needs to figure out when to throw it into the cheap seats (which actually aren't really cheap.) He needs to develop that timing in his head of when he needs to get rid of the ball whether he sees/feels the pressure or not. He also threw some lasers behind slanting receivers which are nearly impossible to catch unless your name is Calvin. If he hit them in stride like some of his throws in the SC game, we get some nice gainers in the first half and give our defense a rest and time to make adjustments. Our inability to get first downs in the first half certainly contributed to our defensive issues.
Stafford probably learned a lot from these mistakes. As they say, success is a poor teacher. He will be fine in the long haul. However, now Joe Cox has clearly earned the right to get some quality game snaps based on his clutch performance. It seems appropriate to let him start at Oxford. I don't see how a credible argument can be made that any other QB "gives us the best chance to win" at this point. But, as always, I will trust CMR.
Lastly, the running game. I think we should take a page out of Al Borges's playbook from when he inherited Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams, and shockingly, put both studs on the field at the same time! We did a little of this against SC. I don't recall seeing it Saturday. But, I would like to see Ware in there with either Brown or Lumpkin (who showed a shitload of determination on his touches). Ware is a great receiver out of the backfield. He has a knack for slipping out of the backfield unnoticed and has reliable hands. I think if we threw the ball out of this two back set a few times, it would soften up the middle for the running attack. It is a Spurrier-like strategy of creating the run by passing, but with our currently sluggish running game,how could it hurt?
The good news is that we have one more week to try to get better before we get UT at home. Then we have two more weeks to get even better before Florida. Our schedule could not be more advantageous for a young team trying to find a running game and a quarterback.
Anyway, that is what I think. I could be wrong.
GATA.
by Hamp at HunkerDownDawg on Sep 25, 2006 6:46 PM EDT 0 recs
I generally agree with Hamp
What I saw on Saturday was something quite different. I saw a true freshman quarterback playing in just his third game of significant action facing a defense that did some unconventional things. Even the best 18-year-olds sometimes play like 18-year-olds; better against Colorado than against Florida or Auburn.
Defensively, I didn't see a lack of effort; I think the Buffaloes were successful because of the Bulldogs' effort. C.U. made no attempt to preserve a pocket. The Buffs' quarterback rolled out virtually on every play, inviting overpursuit from an aggressive defense.
Last September, when Georgia held Dan Hawkins's offense to 13 points and sealed the deal with crucial stops and takeaways, we sang the Bulldogs' praises. This September, when Georgia held Dan Hawkins's offense to 13 points and sealed the deal with crucial stops and takeaways, we criticized them. I believe the difference largely is one of perception.
When Tennessee beat Air Force by one point, Paul Westerdawg put the near-miss in perspective by pointing out that the Falcons run an offense the Volunteers see once every three or four years. Sure enough, U.T. turned right around and played toe-to-toe with Florida, losing by one point. Unless you're prepared to claim that Air Force and Florida are approximately equally good football teams, you have to concede that Paul Westerdawg was right.
I believe that exactly the same thing happened in Sanford Stadium on Saturday. I give all the credit to Coach Hawkins and Colorado and lay little of the blame on Coach Richt and Georgia.
The clock snafus may have been mistakes, but, at the end of the day, they were harmless errors at worst . . . and there is something to be said for scoring the game-winning touchdown with 46 seconds to go, so that the opposing team has no time left in which to come back. Mason Crosby is a good placekicker; I'm glad the Buffaloes didn't have additional time to try to get back into field goal range.
If I sounded unfairly critical of L.D., Jmac, or any of the rest of my colleagues in the Dawgosphere, I apologize. I believe both teams and each coaching staff deserve credit for what was done well by the Bulldogs and the Buffaloes alike.
Even if the close shave was attributable to Georgia playing poorly (rather than Colorado playing well), I wouldn't analogize any Mark Richt coaching performance to any Ray Goff or Jim Donnan performance.
I attended all three of the games L.D. mentioned and I don't believe Saturday's effort was even remotely that lackluster. This weekend, Georgia was confused by Colorado's scheme; in the 1996 season opener, Georgia was confused by Georgia's scheme. Against Central Florida, the 'Dawgs held on and got lucky; against the Buffaloes, the Red and Black came back and earned the win.
That's the difference between a bad game under Mark Richt and a bad game under Ray Goff or Jim Donnan; when Coach Richt has a bad game, Georgia still has a chance to win.
by T Kyle King on Sep 25, 2006 8:52 PM EDT 0 recs
For what it's worth . . .
by T Kyle King on Sep 26, 2006 12:16 AM EDT 0 recs
TOs
Regarding the fact that we held both Hawkins-coached teams to 13, I think the difference is we came out ready to play and shut BSU down early and jumped on them and they were playing catch up. Colorado jumped on us in this game and were marching down the field at will until a block and some help, kept them from putting us in a 14-0 hole early. As noted, the defense did make adjustment and stop them in the second half, but you have to admit, for a while it was looking very bad for the Dogs.
by fotodog on Sep 26, 2006 12:01 PM EDT 0 recs
Yes, it looked bad for a while . . .
In that respect, while I otherwise think you make some good points, I must take issue with the term "the Richt error." Time management issues persist, although they aren't as bad as they were in the 2001 Auburn game and the Music City Bowl, but Mark Richt is winning at a clip that literally is unprecedented in Georgia football history.
If Mark Richt's tenure is an "error," then our whole football heritage is a mistake.
by T Kyle King on Sep 26, 2006 12:38 PM EDT 0 recs
New FanPost
