S.E.C. Power Poll Ballot Submitted
Like Doug Gillett, I am a voter both in the BlogPoll and in Garnet and Black Attack’s S.E.C. Power Poll. Unlike Doug, I lack the ruthless efficiency to cast both ballots in one fell swoop. Accordingly, here is my . . .
1. Georgia: You were expecting someone else?
2. Florida: While the Gators’ win over Hawaii was a mite less impressive than the final score made it look, U.F. still looks like the chief challenger for Bulldog supremacy in the Eastern Division, if not the league as a whole.
3. Louisiana State: The top three programs in the S.E.C. in the 21st century remain the top three teams in the S.E.C. this week, as the Bayou Bengals looked tougher than I expected in their opening game.
4. Auburn: The Plainsmen lacked their anticipated punch offensively, which caused them to drop slightly, but the Tigers remain scary.
5. Alabama: The Crimson Tide are No. 5 with a bullet. If Nick Saban’s squad handles its post-Clemson success by cruising smoothly to an easy victory over Tulane, the Red Elephants could move up a notch or two.
6. Tennessee: The gap between fifth and sixth on my ballot is huge and the only reason the Volunteers didn’t fall farther is the weakness of the teams below them. No excuses: U.T. just plain got beat on Monday night, and I don’t want to hear cross-country travel used as an excuse. Southern California and Fresno State managed to make transcontinental treks without losing a step.
7. Ole Miss: Beating Memphis only counts for so much, but, when the Rebels posted a victory by a convincing margin over an out-of-conference rival from whom Mississippi regularly gets a good game, they earned a spot on the cusp of the top six.
8. Vanderbilt: The Commodores went on the road and beat a M.A.C. team handily. It ain’t much, but it’s something.
9. Kentucky: The Wildcats appeared, at best, only intermittently other than awful against an opponent that looked utterly horrible in a contest confirming Louisville’s complete fall off of the college football map. The final score is a testament not to U.K.’s competence but to U. of L.’s absolute lack thereof.
10. South Carolina: The Gamecocks struggled mightily for more than a half before a tired, whipped N.C. State defense gave up and allowed the East Coast U.S.C. to tack on additional points and make the final margin look more lopsided than it was.
11. Arkansas: Bobby Petrino’s inaugural outing as the head man in Fayetteville only narrowly avoided an awkward veer into Texas A&M territory. Where have you gone, Houston Nutt? Hog Nation turns its lonely eyes to you, woo woo woo. . . .
12. Mississippi State: Sylvester Croom, you have just been Dooleyed.
That, in a nutshell, is how it looks from where I sit. Feel free to take issue with any or all of the foregoing in the comments below.
Go ‘Dawgs!
0 recs |
6
comments
Read Related
Comments
You have a blind hatred for Steve Spurrier...
… which I find charming. I just posted a response to the “Don’t Bet On It” entry in which I placed Ole Miss in the S.E.C. hierarchy. Then I read this, so I thought I’d remark further. I won’t post my whole list, but I will say that ranking South Carolina below Ole Miss defies the recent history of those teams. It’s possible (and I’m hopeful) that, by year’s end, you may be proven right. But I couldn’t argue right now that I’d feel confident taking the Rebels over the Gamecocks on a neutral field.
I imagine your body having a physical reaction to the name Steve Spurrier that is akin to that guy in the Taco Bell commercial breathing fire and smoke after eating the Volcano Taco (or whatever the new red-food-dyed taco is called). And every time you argue that there is no logical reason why he should be given credit for what he’s done in Columbia because he took a team that won 6 or 7 games before he came has merely continued to win 6 or 7 games, I agree. But Ole Miss’ recent record is even more humbling, and while I think Nutt will make great strides for the program but I’m not sure they’re there yet.
by rebelcraig on Sep 3, 2008 6:12 PM EDT 0 recs
Yeah...
I understand that Georgia fans hate Spurrier. Based on the history, that’s your right, I suppose. But you can’t rank South Carolina 10th for any reason other than your Spurrier hate. I’m not saying we’ll be great this year; obviously, this team has a lot of questions. But based on overall talent, recent history, etc., there is reason to believe that this team will be better than Ole Miss, Kentucky, and Vandy. Kentucky’s performance last week was a joke. There is also good reason to believe we’ll be better than the Vols, who may have finally run out of lucky charms.
By the way, why did you rank Vanderbilt ahead of us but pick us to beat them on the road in “Don’t Bet on It!”?
Go Cocks!
by Gamecock Man on Sep 3, 2008 10:41 PM EDT 0 recs
I picked South Carolina to beat Vanderbilt . . .
. . . because I believe the Gamecocks are the better team.
I ranked Vanderbilt ahead of South Carolina because the Commodores turned in by far the better week one performance.
You presume too much regarding my hatred of Steve Spurrier; I hated him when he was running up scores on my team. Now that he loses to my team regularly and wins, when he wins, defensive struggles, I don’t hold him nearly in the same contempt.
I ranked South Carolina as low as I did because South Carolina played a genuinely crappy game of football last Thursday night. N.C. State just flat got worn out and gave up, which is why the backup quarterback looked as good as he did. (Had the ‘Cocks started Smelley and sent in Beecher, the roles would have been reversed; Smelley’s success was a function of the weakness of his tired, demoralized opponent, pure and simple.)
34-0 does not remotely tell the story of that game. Had it ended at 13-0, the score would have reflected much more accurately the way that game actually went.
I don’t think South Carolina will suck—-in fact, I fully expect the same tough, bruising contest the Gamecocks always give the ’Dawgs in Columbia—-but, yeah, in the first game, South Carolina sucked. My ballot reflects that suckage.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 3, 2008 11:30 PM EDT 0 recs
Well...
Fair enough. Thanks for replying.
Go Cocks!
by Gamecock Man on Sep 4, 2008 8:50 AM EDT 0 recs
So, um, yeah . . .
. . . I blew the call on the South-Carolina-beating-Vandy pick, but I’m feeling pretty good about saying Smelley was a product of a tired Wolfpack D and that the Gamecocks turned in a clunker of a performance in week one.
I can only hope that the demoralized looks I saw on the faces of the Carolina players will carry over to next Saturday, because now I’m worried Georgia will overlook an opponent that always plays the ’Dawgs tough, particularly in Columbia.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 4, 2008 11:51 PM EDT 0 recs
I take it all back ...
Ole Miss is probably a good deal better than South Carolina. But maybe not better than Vanderbilt.
I understand your philosophy as a resume ranker and why that led you to rank the teams in the order you did (prior to last night’s game). I was taking into account the records of the last 3 to 4 years when comparing the programs, and factoring in my superstitious hesitance to get too excited too early about Houston Nutt in Oxford. Last night was another reminder that South Carolina is a weird team, and their win/loss record does not tell the full story of a team that beat Georgia last year but has lost back-to-back games against Vanderbilt. While the Dawgs should be favored and I’ll be rooting for them, there are any number of outcomes to next weekend’s UGA/S.C. matchup that would not surprise me at this point.
by rebelcraig on Sep 5, 2008 3:25 PM EDT 0 recs





