First Regular Season BlogPoll Ballot
As correctly noted by astute commenter Tom, the problem with preseason polls is that they are expressions of perceptions based only on presumptions. Hence, they produce the sorts of loopy theoretical constructs embodied in the names of Phaeton and Oedipus; such seemingly sensible convictions, stated as firmly yet as baselessly as Karl Marx's or Marshall McLuhan's, are pretty abstractions unencumbered by presently relevant realities.
This is how conscientious webloggers from the Midwest can look at the Bulldogs' question marks along the line of scrimmage and conclude that "[t]he Big Ten hates them some Georgia" just before the Red and Black beat Oklahoma State by a 35-14 margin. Prior to last Saturday's season opener between the hedges, no less an authority than Sunday Morning Quarterback wrote:
(In SMQ's defense, the rest of his analysis was pretty spot-on: "The Bulldogs are loaded with skill talent, too, against a traditionally bad defense that happens to be rebuilding - all four defensive line starters will be new - in exactly the position that UGA is most vulnerable (offensive line). It's just as likely a coming-out party for 'team leader' Matt Stafford as a sophomore as it is for OSU's frightening contingent, and Georgia has fared well in this sort of game under Mark Richt (besides being 6-0 in openers, Richt's teams have beaten comparable Clemson teams in 2002 and 2003 and rocked the aforementioned Boise State upstart in 2005). If the Dogs can run to control the clock, which Oklahoma State's youth and traditional generosity up front suggests they can, UGA has to be the pick at home.") August expectations rooted in notions give way to September statistics proven by Knowshon.

Yes, I know that was contrived, but it was either that or working the first syllable of our starting quarterback's last name into a rewriting of the 23rd Psalm.
That is the best excuse I can give for why I ranked Michigan No. 1. Well, that, and the fact that I have never pretended to be a knowledgeable football fan.
Where, though, does that leave me as a zealous advocate of resume ranking? Because there were so few good games this past weekend, I tended to leave teams in place, at least relative to one another, unless I was given a good reason to move a squad up or down.
Boise State, Florida, Louisville, and Ohio State all defeated Division I-AA or (in the case of Western Kentucky) "provisional" Division I-A opponents, which counted for next to nothing in my mind, so all four of those teams remained exactly where they were before.
Florida State, Michigan, Oklahoma State, and Tennessee all started out 0-1. Although I believe all four will work their way back into the top 25 before the season is over, we have a very small data set upon which to base our current conclusions, and it simply is a fact that 1-0 is objectively better than 0-1, so all winless teams were booted from the poll altogether.
Here is how my ballot looked:
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Southern Cal | 1 |
| 2 | West Virginia | 2 |
| 3 | California | 16 |
| 4 | Wisconsin | 3 |
| 5 | LSU | -- |
| 6 | Boise State | -- |
| 7 | UCLA | 2 |
| 8 | Oklahoma | 3 |
| 9 | TCU | 4 |
| 10 | Louisville | -- |
| 11 | Georgia | 3 |
| 12 | Texas | 9 |
| 13 | Virginia Tech | 5 |
| 14 | Auburn | 2 |
| 15 | Florida | -- |
| 16 | Oregon | 1 |
| 17 | Penn State | 3 |
| 18 | Ohio State | -- |
| 19 | Rutgers | 3 |
| 20 | Georgia Tech | 6 |
| 21 | Nebraska | 5 |
| 22 | Clemson | -- |
| 23 | Oregon State | 3 |
| 24 | Brigham Young | 2 |
| 25 | Washington | 1 |
Southern California got the top spot by default; the Trojans didn't look that good against Idaho, but, quite frankly, no one looks like the No. 1 team in the nation right now. The Mountaineers rose by attrition and ability, and, while I am not a believer in the Golden Bears, Cal registered the weekend's most impressive win.
The Badgers doubled up a B.C.S. conference opponent, which vaulted Wisconsin over an L.S.U. team that won the most competitive 45-0 game you will ever see. Yes, I know it was just Stanford, but the Bruins hammered a conference opponent in their opener, whereas the Sooners had the best opening day of any Big 12 team.
The Longhorns, by contrast, simply didn't look good against lowly Arkansas State, so they dropped behind T.C.U. after the Horned Frogs posted a shutout win over a B.C.S. conference opponent. The 'Dawgs likewise recorded a solid victory over a team from a top-tier league and, no matter how hard the Worldwide Leader hyped the Hokies' emotional day, V.P.I. put up an underwhelming win.
The Plainsmen fell because they needed a furious rally to beat Kansas State, the Ducks beat a solid Conference USA team, and, although the Nittany Lions only beat Florida International, they still thrashed them. I hated to drop the Scarlet Knights, but other squads were more impressive.

Rutgers alumna Kristin Davis was disappointed that the State University of New Jersey descended on the Dawg Sports BlogPoll ballot following a convincing Scarlet Knight victory.
Clemson and Florida State were ranked 22nd and 24th, respectively, on my most recent previous ballot, so it seemed only fitting that the winner be rewarded with the higher of the two teams' rankings, particularly since I was pretty sure one or the other of them was overrated, anyway. (By the way, which is the more enigmatically euphemistic major, F.S.U.'s "undergraduate studies" or Clemson's "workforce studies"?)
My No. 25 squad, South Carolina, struggled more than the Gamecocks should have to beat Louisiana-Lafayette, so the Palmetto State Poultry were ousted in favor of teams whose achievements last weekend exceeded those of the Big Chickens.
New entrants into the poll include the Yellow Jackets (who beat Notre Dame by 30 points in South Bend, as I predicted they would), the Cornhuskers (who soundly trounced a decent mid-major team), the Beavers (who also soundly trounced a decent mid-major team), the Cougars (who posted a good win against a B.C.S. conference team), and the Huskies (who convincingly beat a B.C.S. conference opponent on the road).

Washington checks in at No. 25, which should enable the Notre Dame faithful to believe that the absence of the Irish from my BlogPoll ballot is all Tyrone Willingham's fault.
Also receiving consideration for inclusion were Arizona State, Boston College, Miami (Florida), and Missouri, but, to be quite frank, I need to see more from the Sun Devils, the Eagles, the Hurricanes, and the Tigers before I'm prepared to believe in any of them. Although arguments might have been mounted for taking looks at Cincinnati, Hawaii, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech, none of those squads have yet done anything deserving of my attention.
I watched Clemson-Florida State, Louisiana State-Mississippi State, Southern Methodist-Texas Tech, and Syracuse-Washington on television, as well as portions of Appalachian State-Michigan, Boston College-Wake Forest, Georgia Tech-Notre Dame, and Washington State-Wisconsin. Inasmuch as I have not missed a Georgia home opener since 1986---a streak I have kept alive by leaving wedding receptions early and changing clothes in the car---it should go without saying that I was in attendance in Sanford Stadium to see the Bulldogs beat the Cowboys between the hedges.
There will be more movement on next week's ballot, after essentially every noteworthy team has played at least one other legitimate opponent (loosely defined, of course). In the meantime, your comments on my daffy decisionmaking on poll placement are welcome.
Go 'Dawgs!
4 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Seems entirely reasonable to me.
I'm not sure "resume ranking"....
You may be a zealous advocate for "resume ranking", but in this regard (and I'm certain only in this regard), you do not practice what you preach. Was Boise State's thumping of Weber State really that much more impressive than, say, Georgia's victory over OSU or Hawaii's victory over Northern Colorado? If not, why are they ranked above Georgia and Hawaii?
Based strictly on resume, I'd have to rank Appalachian State first, UC-Berkeley second, etc.... Or to put it differently, resume ranking makes no sense early in the season.
Some questions on resume ranking
1) If Cal delivered the most impressive win of the weekend, shouldn't that put them on top in a resume ranking? They obviously took a huge leap in your poll, but if in your opinion they played the best game of any team in the nation Saturday, doesn't that, in a resume ranking system, automatically make them #1?
You say "no team looked like the #1 team"; I'm not sure what you mean by that. Did you intend to mean "I can't tell which one played the best game this weekend" or "No team looks like it could, potentially, be the best team in the nation"? In my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the latter question is, from a resume perspective, misguided. It just appears to me that you're trying to do a power poll and a resume rank at the same time. Which may be the only way to do it at this point in the season, but won't resume ranking be just as hard as the season goes on and more variables are added to the equation?
2) In the same vein, shouldn't Georgia' performance on Saturday at least nudge them into the top ten?
Anyways, a #1 ranking for Cal might not make sense, but it depends on which question you're asking. If resume ranking asks "Who has performed the best over the course of the season thus far?" then I think Cal is a perfectly acceptable answer.
Which, now that I think about it, leads me to a question: what is the point of the Blogpoll? Is it a descriptor given determine where any team in the country stands at any given moment, or is it a predictive tool to determine who will win any given game? Resume ranking makes sense for the first one, while power polling makes sense for the second.
Currently it seems like the Blogpoll tries to do little bit of both. Michigan could conceivably go 11-1 through the rest of the season, and yet all the Blogpollers I've seen have dropped them from their ballots--a resume ranking. Meanwhile, USC and LSU played a merely decent games this weekend, but since they have the potential to go 12-0 they stay near the top of most polls--a holistic/potential ranking.
Anyway, the Third Week BP has yet to come out so who knows how it will end up this week. But it seems to me that since the BP has no bearing on any post-season match-ups (although we can hope for the future!), then Blogpollers should be completely focused on providing a rational, resume-based ranking system to determine who the best-performing team in the nation is over the course of the season. If it's just another power poll, what's the point? We've got plenty of those.
Thoughts?
by ifmercyfalls on Sep 4, 2007 11:54 AM EDT reply actions
34hawk, ifmercyfalls, you both . . .
None is O.K., because you can base your picks on idle speculation and supposition. Complete information enables you to draw articulate, intelligent comparisons, even if they are open to debate. A little knowledge, though, is a dangerous thing.
I agree that you cannot faithfully rank teams by resumes, at least not completely, after only one week. Had I done so, I believe my BlogPoll ballot would have begun as follows:
- California
- Georgia
- Clemson
However, there must be some degree of projection forward this early in the season and I could not argue with a straight face that I thought these three would turn out to be the top three teams in the country over the course of the 2007 campaign.
My rankings will become less prospective and more retrospective with each passing week hereafter, until, by the time of the final poll (when all of the games have been played that are going to be played; whether more should be played is a separate subject), my rankings will be based entirely on what has happened on the field, not on who would (in my opinion) beat whom on a neutral field the following Saturday.
Accordingly, for the moment, I treated the teams that beat Division I-AA teams (of which I continue to treat Western Kentucky as one) as if they had not played a game at all and left them where they were. Michigan plummeted straight out of the poll, obviously, but the rest of the teams remained essentially in the same sequence unless they were particularly impressive or especially unimpressive.
I thought about wildly reconfiguring my ballot, but, based upon last weekend's performances, I have a clearer idea of how good Georgia and California are, but how am I to compare, say, the respective achievements of Boise State, Florida, and Ohio State?
I gave points for beating a B.C.S. conference opponent or a good non-B.C.S. conference opponent. I gave few or no points for beating a lower-tier team. I relied upon previous presumptions where no meaningful additional evidence was provided.
This is an imperfect approach, even if we accept the validity of poll rankings as a given (which I know many conscientious and thoughtful college football fans do not). However, as the season goes on, evidence mounts, and comparisons become more credible, it is possible to articulate a reasoned (though not uncontroversial) rationale for one's rankings, as I tried to do in my final 2006 BlogPoll ballot.
It's not a perfect system, but, then, what is? Given next weekend's slate of games (Boise State-Washington, B.Y.U.-U.C.L.A., Georgia-South Carolina, L.S.U.-Virginia Tech, Miami-Oklahoma, Michigan-Oregon, Navy-Rutgers, Notre Dame-Penn State, T.C.U.-Texas), we should have a slightly less muddled picture next Monday, at which time I expect to make wholesale changes to my ballot, which, as always, will be submitted for your comments, corrections, and constructive criticisms.

by
1
9















