College Football Average Poll Rankings

[zak52]

http://www.nationalchamps.net/2003/NCS/index.htm

This is the average of 11 preseason polls all are listed in the link above.

1. Oklahoma (1.73)
2. Ohio State (2.27)
3. Miami FL (3.45)
4. Texas (5.36)
5. Auburn (5.82)
6. Kansas State (7.36)
7. Michigan (7.64)
8. Virginia Tech (9.18)
9. Southern Cal (9.82)
10. Pittsburgh (10.45)
11. Georgia (11.18)
12. Maryland (14.09)
13. North Carolina State (14.91)
14. Tennessee (15.82)
14. Washington (15.82)
16. Florida State (16.64)
17. Virginia (17.00)
18. Louisiana State (18.27)
19. Notre Dame (19.64)
20. Purdue (22.27)
21. Arizona State (22.36)
22. Wisconsin (23.45)
23. Alabama (24.73)
24. Colorado State (25.64)
25. TCU (26.36)

[zak52]

I like the Terps #12 ranking. I think that's around where they'll be once the real polls come out.

[Red Dog]

If polls are going to be used in the BCS, the official polls should not be conducted until mid-October (same time the first BCS poll comes out). Why should the teams at the top get an automatic head start?

[twikoff]

sporting news
phil steele

avg ranking of #5.. not bad.. definitly worries me though


and bama in at 23

[zak52]

Originally posted by Red Dog
If polls are going to be used in the BCS, the official polls should not be conducted until mid-October (same time the first BCS poll comes out). Why should the teams at the top get an automatic head start?

I agree with you and I think most other people would too. It is an unfair advantage for some teams but I do think it works itself out for the most part.

[twikoff]

Originally posted by zak52
I agree with you and I think most other people would too. It is an unfair advantage for some teams but I do think it works itself out for the most part.

yea.. it normally works itself out for the most part
you still have to win your games
if you have a real schedule and win all your games, you will play for the championship in almost all scenarios

i wouldnt exactly say that the preseason rankings give any team any unfair advantage or head start.. their reputation gives them this 'head start'.. the same teams will always be ranked high to start a season.. and the same teams will always be given more respect in equal situations late in a season.

[zak52]

I think the unfair part comes when a team is ranked ahead of you it's hard to leap frog them unless they lose. If they don't lose then chances are you will stay ranked behind them. The only reason they were ranked higher is because that's were they were ranked in the preseason.

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by twikoff
yea.. it normally works itself out for the most part
you still have to win your games
if you have a real schedule and win all your games, you will play for the championship in almost all scenarios

i wouldnt exactly say that the preseason rankings give any team any unfair advantage or head start.. their reputation gives them this 'head start'.. the same teams will always be ranked high to start a season.. and the same teams will always be given more respect in equal situations late in a season.

Yes but I remember when Va Tech almost got screwed in 1999 because they were unranked in the preseason polls.

Schools shouldn't be ranked on reputation. They should be ranked according to performance on the field during the season in question. If pollsters could objectively rank teams each week (like a computer does) and not employ the slide-up/slide-down method based on the most recent performance, I would not really have a problem with it.

[twikoff]

thats true..
but even if no rankings were released until the 6th, 7th, or even 8th weeks

the same biases would always be there.. i think the same teams will always be given the advantage in similar situations.. and if thats really the case.. we might as well have rankings all season long to bitch and brag about

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by twikoff
thats true..
but even if no rankings were released until the 6th, 7th, or even 8th weeks

the same biases would always be there.. i think the same teams will always be given the advantage in similar situations.. and if thats really the case.. we might as well have rankings all season long to bitch and brag about

Yes - some bias will remain but at least it will be lessened.

I know they will never change it though because TV would object to it - they can't promote matchups as well without the rankings.

[Pharoh]

Guess I'm with twikoff on this one. I like having the polls, and though they are not perfect and might give an unfair advantage to some, I think they usually work themselves out.

Plus I think most pollsters did a good job this year.

[twikoff]

plus isnt the arguements over unfair rankings and bowls/playoffs part of the reasons why its so much fun to talk college football?

[zak52]

Originally posted by twikoff
plus isnt the arguements over unfair rankings and bowls/playoffs part of the reasons why its so much fun to talk college football?

[B.A.]

I love a college football pole that doesn't include Nebraska anywhere in it.

[dvds4u]

Speaking of Nebraska not being in the polls. These idiots have underrated the Big 12...3 schools in top 9, none in the rest of the top 25. Look for Missouri, Colorado and TAMU to all be in the top 25

[nchhabra]

Originally posted by twikoff
sporting news
phil steele

avg ranking of #5.. not bad.. definitly worries me though


and bama in at 23

lots of expectations for the tigers this year.

bama in it 23 confuses me. i don't exactly understand why they would be ranked in the preseason polls considering their losses though graduation, controversy in the offseason, and scholarship restrictions. they are going to be hurting this year.

[Phuzbox]

Damn_it, college football needs to start already. One of my favorite pictures...

[Red Dog]

So if there is poll similar to this one in 2005, do I get to say how great the new ACC is with 6 of the top-17 teams like c-man does with the Big 12? Do I also have carte blanche to root for all of these schools.

[Three Day Delay]

Originally posted by Red Dog
So if there is poll similar to this one in 2005, do I get to say how great the new ACC is with 6 of the top-17 teams like c-man does with the Big 12? Do I also have carte blanche to root for all of these schools.

I suggest that you seek professional help for your unhealthy obsession with the Big 12.

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by Three Day Delay
I suggest that you seek professional help for your unhealthy obsession with the Big 12.

An obsession which paid off handsomely in the bowl season of Dec '01/Jan '02. Thanks to people such as yourself who were trumpeting the Big-12 the whole year (when all the teams had done was beaten each other), I cleaned up betting against the Big-12 teams in that bowl season. I never had a better month gambling than that one. Many thanks.

[Three Day Delay]

Originally posted by Red Dog
An obsession which paid off handsomely in the bowl season of Dec '01/Jan '02. Thanks to people such as yourself who were trumpeting the Big-12 the whole year (when all the teams had done was beaten each other), I cleaned up betting against the Big-12 teams in that bowl season. I never had a better month gambling than that one. Many thanks.

This conversation seems oddly familiar.