New Ranking are out

[tm3308]

"great" teams don't lose two in a row, to anyone
FSU is a 8- or 9-win ACC squad, nothing more

Without their starting QB? That's pretty impressive. I'd say nearly taking down Oklahoma and then hanging with Clemson in Death Valley (NEVER a place you want to be as an opposing team) without Manuel warrants serious props.

We lost two in a row without Stanzi in 2009, and to teams that weren't as good as Oklahoma and Clemson. Yet we won 11 games.

 

[gohawkz]

Also, I think there should be no official preseason rankings...wait until week one is done, at least.

They should at least wait until about 6 weeks into the season. I can't see any other reason for this.

We all know that several seasons when we finished the year in the top ten most thought we would suck. And unfortunately some years people thought we'd be decent and we stunk it up.

No matter how much homework you try to do with college football you just don't know until you get out there and play. The first few weeks of play involve so many cupcakes that you really need to wait a month or two. These early season polls are a complete joke.

 

[VintageHawkeye]

Without their starting QB? That's pretty impressive. I'd say nearly taking down Oklahoma and then hanging with Clemson in Death Valley (NEVER a place you want to be as an opposing team) without Manuel warrants serious props.

We lost two in a row without Stanzi in 2009, and to teams that weren't as good as Oklahoma and Clemson. Yet we won 11 games.

FL St didn't "nearly take down" OU. That game wasn't close. OK rolled.
And playing at Clemson is nothing. Clemson hasn't been competitive (or relevant) in 20 years or more.
FSU is 2-2. *yawn*

 

[tm3308]

FL St didn't "nearly take down" OU. That game wasn't close. OK rolled.
And playing at Clemson is nothing. Clemson hasn't been competitive (or relevant) in 20 years or more.
FSU is 2-2. *yawn*

Wrong. They haven't FINISHED relevant in some time. But much like their basketball program this decade, they do tend to start fast. And when they're playing at the level that they typically reserve for the first half of the season, they can play with just about anyone. What they do after mid-October is just as predictable as what they do before it.

Florida State is still a very talented team, and deserve to be in the top-25. Who would you put in for them? The next five teams receiving votes in the AP: Michigan State (LOL), Houston (yawn), Auburn (won't win more than 7 games), Iowa State (doubt you'd agree to that one lol), and Ohio State (that team has looked pretty pathetic without Herron, Posey, and Adams).

There is not one team who should be ranked and isn't, in place of Florida State.

 

[NewMexHawk]

There should be NO official rankings until at least the 5th game of the season. That way the pollsters would have to be objective (I can hardly ever see that happening though) and rank teams according to how their preseason went.

The rankings should be based on solid criteria instead of pollsters ranking teams because those teams are ALWAYS ranked high or are pollsters sweetheart teams. The problem with rankings is that some teams are ALWAYS ranked high before the season, which gives them a decided edge for the BCS bowl games. Or some teams are ALWAYS ranked high just because of WHO they are, not necessarily how well they have played. This also gives THOSE teams a decided edge. Perhaps they start out with a young team but will develop into a good team...They get an edge over another team, who may have a good team throughout the year but because they were not ranked or ranked lowly, cannot jump enough teams in the rankings to reach the big games.

Rankings should be based on who and where teams played. For instance, if a team played four patsies at home they should be rewarded accordingly (regardless of the scores). If a team played a difficult schedule, they would be ranked accordingly, if supposedly equal to the team that played an easy schedule, they would get ranked higher.

For instance, if teams were ranked after next week instead of the preseason, Alabama and Oklahoma would be in the top two or three, whereas Wisconsin would be ranked much lower regardless of their scores, simply because they have played no one and have played all games at home. Other teams who have played tough schedules and have done well would be ranked higher than Wisconsin. This type of ranking also would force teams to play a tougher schedule to get ready for that first ranking.

Ranking after the 4th or 5th game of the season also would generate HUGE interest in college football. Teams that were expected to be very good but played so so, would not be ranked artificially like today's rankings. If a Boise St or Fresno St played a very tough preseason schedule and won, they would be ranked much higher than a Wisconsin for instance.