Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on September 07, 2011, 09:30:36 PM
-
Boo-yah.
Bitches.
http://www.cfrc.com/Ratings_2011/WK_1.htm
1. LSU
2. Auburn
3. Boise State
4. Oklahoma
5. Oregon
-
I'm definitely not complaining but...
What the FUCK does that computer see in us at this point in the season?
It's got to be taking last year into effect, which is kind of bullshit. I guess at this point you've got to go off of something other than just one game...
Every computer really needs to release their formulas if they're going to be used in the BCS.
-
It's all arbitrary at this point anyway.
The SEC Network should hype up this week's game as #17 Miss State at #2 Auburn.
-
Boo-yah.
Bitches.
http://www.cfrc.com/Ratings_2011/WK_1.htm
1. LSU
2. Auburn
3. Boise State
4. Oklahoma
5. Oregon
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Roflcopter.gif)
-
We were number 1 last week according to the "Then" tab.
-
What the FUCK does that computer see in us at this point in the season?
It's got to be taking last year into effect, which is kind of bullshit.
Wait, what?
I seem to remember other sentiments...
So apparently, being the defending National Champion (last year) with the longest winning streak in the FBS (mostly comprised of games from last year) is not enough to get you ranked.
So, is it okay to rely upon last year for rankings, or is it bullshit?
Hmm, Chad? Hmm?
-
Exactly who's side are you on?
-
Exactly who's side are you on?
The right side.
-
The right side.
(http://kentuckysportsradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/dooley.jpg)
-
Wait, what?
I seem to remember other sentiments...
So, is it okay to rely upon last year for rankings, or is it bullshit?
Hmm, Chad? Hmm?
It's an element called common sense.
The previous rant was the extreme position of not considering Auburn's past accomplishments and current streak whatsoever in the polls. To the extreme point that we are now completely unranked despite being the defending National Champions, and continuing our win streak, remaining undefeated at this point in the season.
This rant is what separates me from the WarTims ( :wartim: ) or Prowlers ( :we: )of the world. They have gone to the other extreme and apparently value last season considerably more than this season. Oregon still in the Top 5 after a LOSS? That is beyond absurd.
-
(http://kentuckysportsradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/dooley.jpg)
Derek Dooley seems to have slight wood.
-
Derek Dooley seems to have slight wood.
You seem to have not-so-slight ghey.
-
You seem to have not-so-slight ghey.
:bugs:
It's the Orange pants. It just stuck out - pun intended.
-
It's the Orange pants. It just stuck out - pun intended.
It's the pleats. It's actually an optical illusion. It's the pattern on the pants. It's not flattering in the crotchal region. I'm actually taking them back right now. Taking them back to the pants store. Well I'm gonna go walk it off. Don't act like you're not impressed!
-
It's an element called common sense having your cake and eating it too.
Fixt.
The previous rant was the extreme position of not considering Auburn's past accomplishments and current streak whatsoever in the polls. To the extreme point that we are now completely unranked despite being the defending National Champions, and continuing our win streak, remaining undefeated at this point in the season.
From 23rd to unranked? Not that extreme...
But my ultimate point was that you either consider last year's performance for this year's ranking or you don't. You're saying that, as the defending national champion with the longest winning streak, we deserve to remain ranked because of last year even if we barely beat shitty teams this year. Yet, at the same time, you're saying that it's absurd to rely upon last year's performance to rank Auburn highly.
So, it's okay to rely upon last year if it keeps you in the top 25, but it's not okay to rely upon last year if it puts you in the top 5?
This rant is what separates me from the WarTims ( :wartim: ) or Prowlers ( :we: )of the world. They have gone to the other extreme and apparently value last season considerably more than this season. Oregon still in the Top 5 after a LOSS? That is beyond absurd.
You do realize that A) Oregon is not in the top 5 according to any poll, other than this silly computer and CBS, and B) Oregon lost to the #4 ranked team in the nation, and as a result dropped 12-13 spots, depending upon the poll you look at.
Meanwhile, Auburn barely won against unranked Utah State, a team that went 4-8 overall and 2-6 in the WAC in 2010. And what happens to them? They essentially drop 4 spots, as they had the second most number of votes for teams not appearing in the top 25, at least on the AP poll.
So, what's more absurd? Dropping 12 spots because you lost to a team ranked 3 spots below you, or dropping 4 spots because you barely beat an abysmal team?
-
Fixt.
From 23rd to unranked? Not that extreme...
But my ultimate point was that you either consider last year's performance for this year's ranking or you don't. You're saying that, as the defending national champion with the longest winning streak, we deserve to remain ranked because of last year even if we barely beat shitty teams this year. Yet, at the same time, you're saying that it's absurd to rely upon last year's performance to rank Auburn highly.
So, it's okay to rely upon last year if it keeps you in the top 25, but it's not okay to rely upon last year if it puts you in the top 5?
Common sense. Sometimes you don't has it.
I'd be all for Auburn being ranked second. I'm just saying it's obviously stupid. Yeah, we struggled against a shit team. So we should in no way be considered the 2nd best team in college football right now. However, we did win our game, so we should be ranked above any team that didn't. And we are the returning national champions, so we should at least be given the benefit of the doubt that we're good enough to have a number by our name until we actually lose. If for nothing else, for consistency, as that has been the case for every other college football team in history. We're the only returning national champions to be bumped from the 25 after week one despite winning a game ever. That is the opposite extreme.
You do realize that A) Oregon is not in the top 5 according to any poll, other than this silly computer and CBS, and B) Oregon lost to the #4 ranked team in the nation, and as a result dropped 12-13 spots, depending upon the poll you look at.
I'm sorry, I thought this silly computer poll was what we were talking about. Never saw the CBS Poll, but now that you mention it (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings), LOL. Oregon & TCU both are treated like they won their game or something.
Meanwhile, Auburn barely won against unranked Utah State, a team that went 4-8 overall and 2-6 in the WAC in 2010. And what happens to them? They essentially drop 4 spots, as they had the second most number of votes for teams not appearing in the top 25, at least on the AP poll.
So, what's more absurd? Dropping 12 spots because you lost to a team ranked 3 spots below you, or dropping 4 spots because you barely beat an abysmal team?
The polls should be more fluid than that. First of all, preseason polls are flawed from the start. But once the season has taken off, you have more to go by. No team with zero wins and a loss should be ranked over any team with zero losses and a win. Period. Again, if anything this just highlights that Auburn should not have been hanging around in the dregs of the Top 25 to begin with in the preseason poll.
-
I'd be all for Auburn being ranked second. I'm just saying it's obviously stupid.
The result is that it's obviously stupid. The reason for the result is because the computer (presumably) took last season into account. Thus, obviously stupid = taking last season into account.
Unless, of course, your stance is taken, which is that last season should be taken into account only somewhat. Then it's only somewhat stupid.
However, we did win our game, so we should be ranked above any team that didn't.
So you're one of these people who thinks that an unbeaten Hawaii, TCU, or Boise State should go to the national championship before a one loss LSU, Oklahoma, or SoCal?
I'm personally of the opinion that the margin of the win/loss and the quality of the opponent should be taken into consideration.
And we are the returning national champions, so we should at least be given the benefit of the doubt that we're good enough to have a number by our name until we actually lose.
Maybe in your world, but that's not how the polls work. If they did, then Auburn wouldn't have been 23rd in the preseason poll.
These polls take into account players lost, coaches lost, players gained, coaches gained, etc. Essentially, they attempt to predict what you should be able to do this year. They don't just assume that you're as good (or as bad) as you were last year.
And it would certainly make no sense whatsoever to continue to give a team the "benefit of the doubt" based upon last season after they turn in a poor performance in the new season. Why continue to speculate as to a team's quality based upon last season when you have results from this season?
If for nothing else, for consistency, as that has been the case for every other college football team in history. We're the only returning national champions to be bumped from the 25 after week one despite winning a game ever. That is the opposite extreme.
History lesson.
No defending BCS national champion has ever won its first game against such a shitty school by such a small margin.
1999 - UT 42, Wyoming 17
2000 - Fl. St. 29, BYU 3
2001 - OK 41, NC 27
2002 - Mia 63, FL A&M 17
2003 - Oh. St. 28, Wash. 9
2004 - LSU 22, OR St. 21
2005 - USC 63, Hawaii 17
2006 - Texas 56, N. Tex. 7
2007 - Florida 49, W. KY 3
2008 - LSU 41, App. St. 13
2009 - Florida 62, Charleston S. 3
2010 - Bama 48, San Jose St. 3
The only one that is close is the 2004 matchup between LSU and #23 Oregon State, a team that was 8-5 the previous season. And LSU dropped two spots for beating a ranked opponent. Had LSU not been ranked as highly in the preseason polls, and had the opponent been on par with Utah State, then you bet they would have fallen out of the top 25. There's your consistency: Barely beat a shitty team and you will suffer the consequences.
I'm sorry, I thought this silly computer poll was what we were talking about.
You were talking about it. And then I pointed out the inconsistencies between your stances regarding this poll and the AP poll. Wherefore, premises considered, both polls became the topic of the discussion.
-
Yeah but did Oregon State have an all Samoan offensive line? Don't think so.
Point Auburn.
-
Yeah but did Oregon State have an all Samoan offensive line? Don't think so.
Point Auburn.
True that.
(http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2007/08/31/va1237264740888/Samona-man-with-tattoos-5634637.jpg)
-
Anecdotal evidence alert!!
I seem to recall every football season in my addled memory beginning with the following statement (or a variation thereof):
The defending national champ is #1 until somebody beats them.
Not arguing the point one way or the other...just throwing logs on the conflagration.
-
Anecdotal evidence alert!!
I seem to recall every football season in my addled memory beginning with the following statement (or a variation thereof):
The defending national champ is #1 until somebody beats them.
Not arguing the point one way or the other...just throwing logs on the conflagration.
I heard it like five thousand times in 1999.
-
Anecdotal evidence alert!!
I seem to recall every football season in my addled memory beginning with the following statement (or a variation thereof):
The defending national champ is #1 until somebody beats them.
Not arguing the point one way or the other...just throwing logs on the conflagration.
Whoever said that may staunchly believe it, and it may be one way of doing it for preseason polls, but currently the polls (both preseason and regular season) have not embraced that motto, nor should they in my opinion. UT was #2 in 1999, FL St. was #2 in 2000, OK was #3 in 2001, etc. In fact, of the 13 BCS champions, only 4 started out ranked #1 in the preseason polls for the season after their championships.
Granted, none started as low as #23. But, as mentioned previously, I'd dare say that Auburn lost more talent and was left with more younger, inexperienced players than these other national champions. That's a complete guess, but given the other teams' abilities to blow out their opening day opponents (aside from LSU in 2004), it would appear on its face to be true.
-
This thread's full of win.
-
Anecdotal evidence alert!!
I seem to recall every football season in my addled memory beginning with the following statement (or a variation thereof):
The defending national champ is #1 until somebody beats them.
Not arguing the point one way or the other...just throwing logs on the conflagration.
Yes, but, Auburn is only the defending National Champs until the hammer falls. Chizik didn't win Coach of the Year, and a Tennis Player beat Cam for Athlete of the year. That means everybody knows, and Danny Sheraton even knows the bag man. So, those that really know default us back to last year's pre-season rank, and since we barely beat a lowly Utah State team, like a normal Auburn team would because we're a perennial 6-6 team, we are therefor, no longer ranked and never should be.