Week Five BlogPoll Ballot Draft
I apologize for my delay in posting yesterday’s postgame wrap-up, but it wound up being a busy weekend. My wife had a family get-together at her parents’ home on the north side of town on Saturday, which meant that my brother-in-law, Craig, and I left Sanford Stadium after the game and headed (or tried to head; traffic management was less than optimal) to the side of Atlanta to which I am unaccustomed to traveling. In short, it took us three and a half hours to sit in the stands and watch the game, but it took us four hours to get back from the game.
Needless to say, that threw off the schedule more than a little, which was why I was late getting a recap up on the internet (and I still have not read any other weblogs, the open comment thread, or any news reports more in-depth than a box score), but I have had time to compile my latest BlogPoll ballot.
This is closer to being a resume-based ballot than my previous efforts, so the arrows are apt to indicate a fair degree of movement; this is because I paid no attention whatsoever to last week’s ballot when assembling this week’s ballot.
I pulled out a legal pad and put three headings at the top of four sheets of paper: "5-0," "4-0," "4-1," and "3-1." I listed all the teams with those records under the proper heading, then went through and listed the teams each had beaten and (where applicable) the teams to which each had lost. I then ranked all the 5-0 teams in order, all the 4-0 teams in order, et al. I eliminated some teams (e.g., Pitt and Texas A&M), then I input the eight 5-0 teams on my ballot, followed by the three 4-0 teams, etc., before making appropriate adjustments. Here is the result:
![]() | ||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | |
| 2 | Florida | 1 |
| 3 | Texas | 1 |
| 4 | Boise State | 3 |
| 5 | LSU | 6 |
| 6 | Southern Cal | 1 |
| 7 | Virginia Tech | 3 |
| 8 | Oregon | 2 |
| 9 | Miami (Florida) | 8 |
| 10 | Cincinnati | 3 |
| 11 | Iowa | 1 |
| 12 | Auburn | |
| 13 | TCU | 4 |
| 14 | Wisconsin | 10 |
| 15 | South Florida | |
| 16 | Brigham Young | 5 |
| 17 | South Carolina | 6 |
| 18 | Ohio State | 12 |
| 19 | Georgia Tech | |
| 20 | Penn State | |
| 21 | Notre Dame | |
| 22 | Boston College | |
| 23 | Michigan | 2 |
| 24 | Houston | 6 |
| 25 | Stanford | |
| Last week's ballot | ||
I also gave consideration to ranking the Mississippi Rebels, the Oklahoma St. Cowboys, the UCLA Bruins, and the West Virginia Mountaineers, although what I mean by "I gave consideration" is, of course, "I did not dismiss out of hand." (I did not look at, but I might be willing to look at, a two-loss team.) I watched the Colorado-West Virginia game on Thursday, I watched the Pitt-Louisville game on Friday, and I attended the Georgia-LSU game on Saturday.
While there is a heavy resume component to this ballot, it is not a pure resume ballot in any sense that would obtain the Matt Hinton seal of approval. I used resumes as the first, but not the sole, factor in assembling the top 25 because there is a point at which human judgment comes into play.
The only part of this ballot that strikes me as truly weird is the fact that the Notre Dame Fighting Irish are ranked higher than the Michigan Wolverines, even though both have identical 4-1 records and the lower-ranked team beat the higher-ranked team. The problem is that the Maize and Blue have done nothing else of note except eking out a four-point win over the Golden Domers at home; Michigan’s other victims were directional MAC schools and an Indiana Hoosiers outfit that fell in the Big House by a three-point margin before being beaten 33-14 by the Ohio St. Buckeyes in Bloomington. Notre Dame has at least partially respectable wins over the Nevada Wolf Pack and the Washington Huskies, as well as a victory over the selfsame Michigan St. Spartans who just beat the Wolverines.
As always, your feedback is appreciated. Your questions, comments, and corrections are most welcome in the comments below. The deadline for submitting final ballots is not until early Wednesday morning, so I have time to make changes in the event sufficiently persuasive cases are made.
Go ‘Dawgs!
0 recs |
9 comments
|
Comments
Big 12 hatin'?
Think most of the poll makes sense save for dropping Nebraska from #16 to completely out of the poll. I understand the last poll was pretty much a dartboard effort, but the Huskers have only lost to Virgina Tech, a game they could/should have won (by 1 pt @ VT) a team who killed Miami…
by TigerPaw on Oct 5, 2009 12:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's a point . . .
. . . but the problem I had was with the fact that Nebraska has beaten no one of note. The Cornhuskers’ wins are over Florida Atlantic, Arkansas State, and Louisiana-Lafayette.
By contrast, Stanford (my No. 25 team) has beaten both Washington and UCLA, both of which are a good deal better than anyone Nebraska has beaten.
Obviously, that math will change considerably if the ‘Huskers beat Missouri on Thursday night. Until then, though, I think they’re good, but they’ve done nothing to prove that yet.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Oct 5, 2009 7:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Undefeated vs 1 loss
So based on this method, there is no way for a 1 loss team to be ranked ahead of an undefeated team?
by SG Standard on Oct 5, 2009 9:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No, it's possible
For instance, Texas Christian is ranked below some once-beaten teams.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Oct 5, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok then
This has nothing to do with sour grapes, but even from a resume standpoint, I think LSU is too high. I can’t see justification for keeping them over VT, Miami, and Iowa, at the very least, even though VT and the U have a loss. Virginia Tech has a reasonable loss to the #1 team, but has a win over your #9 team, which is vastly more impressive than any of LSU’s scalps. Miami has a loss to the #7 team, but a win over #22 and just knocked what was the #8 team out of the rankings. Iowa has the same win/loss record, but their best win is over the current #20 team whereas LSU’s is over an unranked team that was formerly #22. I’m no big proponent of resume ranking, but that’s the way I see it.
by SG Standard on Oct 5, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All good points
This is exactly why Brian has us post our ballot drafts before the deadline.
I didn’t feel good about ranking LSU so high—-as you know, I’ve generally dropped the Bayou Bengals, even though they were winning—-but they had a series of moderately impressive scalps (Washington, Mississippi State, and Georgia, all on the road), but no really good ones.
I’ll definitely take that into consideration. Thanks for the input. Sometimes, when you’re the one filling out the ballot, you can’t see the forest for the trees, which clearly was the error I made here.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Oct 5, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm an SEC booster
but I think Auburn and South Carolina are little too high.
Auburn wasn’t overly impressive versus either West Virginia or Tennessee, and their defense seems suspect at best. The only stops against the Mountaineers were due to self inflicted gunshot wounds turnovers, and the Plainsmen are the first team in recent memory to make Crompton look like an adequate QB for entire possessions. I see them as a team in the 20’s at this point.
South Carolina has a couple of wins that might be decent at NC State and versus Ole Miss, but it is also possible both teams are mediocrities. Until they either dominate a middle of the pack team like UK, or show some friskiness against Alabama in two weeks, I would cap the Gamecocks around 20 as well.
For all my previous UCLA skepticism, I think Stanford may be better than #25 right now. I can’t figure out the ACC at all. I think Wake Forest is better than BC, but the Eagles have that home win in OT. At this point, it’s kind of sad that an Atlantic division team will play for a conference title in front of hundreds of fans and ones of thousands more watching from home.
Feel free to disregard everything though. After the SEC critiques, I looked through the rest of your draft and could find only one team I would definitely move up, so you might be right on the money.
by GwinnettGamecock on Oct 5, 2009 4:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Break the Boise St. Bandwagon
I really like your approach this week, but Boise St. is too high in the polls, sucked-in by gravitational pull of a “big” upset and undefeated schedule. Give ‘em props for the win over Oregon, but they will avoid any other real tests for the rest of the season. IMHO, small conference teams should not be in the top 10 until a 8-0 or maybe quality 7-1 record to be compared to big conference team standings (who by then have been tested beyond early season cupcake games). You have TCU about right, and I’d put the Broncos just in front of them.
Run Lindsay Run!
by ausdawg85 on Oct 5, 2009 7:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nebraska this Thursday
Watch for Wilcox County’s own Alphozo Dennard at corner for the Huskers. He shoulda been in the game when Va Tech had the long pass play (but he wasn’t – Coach Pellini’s mistake).
Actually, he should be starting at corner for the Dawgs (but isn’t – Coach Richt/Garner’s recruiting mistake ).
It's a gas, gas, gas.
by Keith Richards on Oct 6, 2009 11:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 

1
1 









