"We're No. 1!" = "I Am Spartacus!"

by T Kyle King on Jun 29, 2006 2:28 PM EDT in Football

The good people of Bulldog Nation were asked which college football team would win the 2006 national championship and Dawg Sports readers responded with their votes.

There can be little doubt that shameless homerism accounted for the fact that Georgia finished in the top spot, receiving 27 per cent of the first-place votes cast. A more realistic second-place finisher was found in the form of defending national champion Texas, as the Longhorns received 13 per cent of the vote as a good bet to repeat.

When not looking at the world through red-and-black-colored glasses, Dawg Sports readers believe college football fans are likely to see this scene repeated next January.

The third-leading vote-getter was the ever-popular "none of the above," which will look mighty funny hoisting the crystal football, but this unnamed competitor garnered 12 per cent of the ballots. Given the nine teams I listed by name, I can only presume that these votes were cast in favor of L.S.U., but I don't know that for sure and I would welcome comments from any of the voters who chose this option, so that I might have their thinking explained for the good of the order.

Ohio State came in fourth with 11 per cent and there was a two-way tie for fifth place between Notre Dame and Oklahoma. The Fighting Irish and the Sooners each received nine per cent of the popular vote, with the Golden Domers making a strong late push after not being ranked No. 1 by any of the first 58 or 59 voters.

Auburn (7%), Florida (5%), and West Virginia (4%) trailed behind the squads from Norman and South Bend, with Southern California (3%) rounding out the field in last place among likely national title contenders.

One of the Trojans' three votes allegedly was cast by Matt Leinart, who still thinks U.S.C. is the better team. (Photograph courtesy Sports Illustrated.)

Discounting the local groundswell of support for the Red and Black (which I hope is correct but believe to be wishful thinking), it seems clear that the 2006 national championship race is wide open, which ought to make for an interesting season.

As always, I thank those who participated by voting and I invite your observations and opinions in the comments below or in the diaries available on the right-hand sidebar.

Go 'Dawgs!

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I voted "None of the Above"

I would have voted for Georgia Tech if I could. You could call it "wishful thinking," but I'll readily admit it's not even that, it's just showing support through feigned faith.

I do think Tech has a remote shot of a title, not that it's a realistic one. Even the implausible 1990 season was preceded by a very strong finish to the '89 campaign. Obviously 2005 featured no such strong finish.

To be realistic, I see Tech entering the bowls ranked and 9-3 if we beat Notre Dame. Otherwise, I dunno.

by Jeff on Jun 29, 2006 3:28 PM EDT reply actions

Right now, everyone is undefeated

Jeff, there's nothing in the world wrong with allowing hope to determine belief, particularly in a preseason in which the field is so obviously wide open.

Although the 1989 Yellow Jackets finished stronger than the 2005 Yellow Jackets, expectations for Georgia Tech are higher in 2006 (when the Ramblin' Wreck is expected to be good) than they were at the start of the 1990 campaign (when the Institute was on no one's radar screen).

Furthermore, the Yellow Jackets' comparatively weak finish in 2005 was due to the fact that, last year, Georgia Tech lost to Georgia and lost a bowl game. It is difficult to compare the Golden Tornado's 2005 postseason debacle to the 1989 campaign, since, as we know, the bowl bids went out early in those days and, as a result, Georgia Tech had no opportunity to compete in a bowl game.

As for the different outcomes of the in-state showdown, I believe it was a much more impressive feat for the 2005 Yellow Jackets to play a very even contest against a Bulldog squad that would win 10 games and capture a conference championship than it was for the 1989 Yellow Jackets to pummel the first Red and Black team since 1977 not to have finished above .500 for the year.

In sum, although Georgia Tech's 2006 slate is substantially more daunting than what turned out to be a very weak 1990 schedule, there's no shame in being a homer at this stage. I believe it was Orel Hershiser who used to say, "The past is history; the future is perfect."

Good luck . . . until you get to that last game, of course.

by T Kyle King on Jun 29, 2006 4:13 PM EDT reply actions

Shameless?

Homerism isn't shameful, it's the sign of a true believer!!

GO DAWGS!!!

by AAADawg on Jun 29, 2006 5:47 PM EDT reply actions

For the record...

I did not vote USC. even I'm not that stupid.

Fight On!

by Paragon SC on Jun 29, 2006 7:00 PM EDT reply actions

Terrific

I assure you that the Burnt Orange readers that I so often urge to come read your terrific work undoubtedly helped push us to the top of the non-Georgia list...

With that said, we're gonna repeat. For sure! :)

by HornsFan @ Dawg Sports on Jun 29, 2006 8:25 PM EDT reply actions