Fanblogs.com: Final Grades: A look back at the preseason AP poll
Gator_Babe812
· 9 months ago
:-)
Gator_Babe812
· 9 months ago
I agree that you shouldn't re-poll until at least week four but a well thought out preseason poll is a good thing, it takes into account everything that happens in the offseason as far as recruiting and spring practice. Its always interesting to see how differently things shake up at the end of the season as opposed to what was expected of teams.
GoCougs!
· 9 months ago
They need to audit different preseason polls to see which one is most accurate year in year out.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
I really don't know if the initial polls are designed to predict how they will finish. They're merely a starting point. You have to start with the primer, then add the base coat and clear before you evaluate the whole paint job. Looking at any single stage by itself doesn't do anyone any good.
I would be for waiting a month in before the first poll comes out, however...
GoCougs!
· 9 months ago
good point, I've never thought about it like that, but extending your metaphor we are led to see the rankings as judgments of the application of primer and that a team starting un-ranked begins without a very nice primer but then makes up for it with the application of the different coats (games). My only question is how you view the effect that media and hype has on the judgment of the primer? In other words are there teams that are consistently overrated or is it that the coaches/teams consistently do less with what they've got?
vtmechE
· 9 months ago
the bottom 5 of the top 25 usually gets a lot of turnover over the course of the season, so im not so surprised about all the P-NR's in there, what i am surprised about are the darkhorses that came out of nowhere in the F-top 10, utah, alabama, tcu, and penn st (p-22, so i'd say that was a strong jump), especially of course utah and tcu, and if you look at the schedules they played, there was consistency on the defensive side of the ball, that allowed that particular team to help vault itself into the top 25, and into the final top 10, tcu would have been ranked higher with a better offense, and possibly even a mwc title
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
I'd have to say that Auburn was the biggest bust, by far. Top 10 pre-season and missed a bowl and failed to finish anywhere near the top 25.
Next would probably be Wisconsin, Clemson and LSU. LSU had a pretty tough schedule though, a lot harder than the aforementioned teams...
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
"LSU had a pretty tough schedule though, a lot harder than the aforementioned teams..."
I'd like to know how you think that to be true. I only checked 2 sources, Sagarin and TeamRankings.com, but Clemson ranks above LSU in both.
They had 3 common opponents in Alabama, Georgia Tech, and South Carolina. Florida is certainly better than any team on Clemson's schedule. Clemson had Alabama and S. Carolina on the OOC schedule, whereas LSU counters with Troy and Tulane. Also, I believe that with Wake beating Ole Miss, and the bottom of the ACC ranking well nationally, Clemson makes up the ground overall.
LSU was certainly a better team than Clemson this season. Clemson's fall from #10 preseason to out of the top 25 was monumentally pathetic. I just wanted to defend our schedule.
Now this season's schedule is a different story... We have replaced Alabama with Idaho...ouch. At least the outcome will be different.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
Good point, but notice that your superior OOC slate is just the usual SEC fare for LSU. Clemson got destroyed by Alabama and edged by GT. LSU got edged by Bama and destroyed GT. They edged SC at home while you destroyed them.
Computers are computers, but I would have rather faced UNC, FSU and BC this past season than Florida, Georgia and Alabama...
Do you think anyone can sneak a potato gun into Death Valley this fall to shoot at the Idaho players?
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
"Do you think anyone can sneak a potato gun into Death Valley this fall to shoot at the Idaho players?"
LOL! I'm not sure but it might be worth the try. That game certainly should be a culture shock to the Vandal players.
Your first paragraph proves that LSU was the better team. That's not exactly relevant with the SOS. Regardless of how you look at it, Clemson and LSU faced 3 of the same opponents this season. So, when looking at SOS, those 3 are a wash. Sure, anyone would've rather faced FSU, and BC (we didn't play UNC this season) over Florida, and Georgia (you can't use Alabama b/c we played them too.) Clemson makes up the difference by only having 2 patsies on the schedule (SC State, The Citadel) whereas LSU had 3 (Tulane, North Texas, App State). As shown by the rankings, the schedules are close, but the edge goes to the Tigers from South Carolina this time. Next season probably won't have the same outcome.
Note: App State is a good team D1-AA team, but this wasn't the same Mountaineer squad that took down Michigan in the Big House. This year, no respectable D-1A program should have had any trouble with the D1-AA counterparts, and they didn't.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
In a pinch, Joe, you can just throw the potatos. They heave pretty well. Sneak a whole 10-lb bag in for you and your friends. On sale at Publix this week, I believe...
It's so much more classy and geographically specific than hurling a liquor bottle...
Ramblin' Gator
· 9 months ago
I may be the only person who wasn't surprised by LSU's performance this year. I just didn't see how they could bounce back so quickly after a MNC season and many players jumping to the NFL. Of course, they did manage to rebound to winning form by bowl season. :-(
Auburn was definitely a surprise to me as was Georgia Tech (my expectations for a first year coach with a new [old?] - and relatively untrusted - offenseive scheme were pretty low).
My 2008 preseason prediction for which teams would play for the MNC was tOSU and UGA. They both appeared to have all the necessary components and momentum to win. I guess this means I shouldn't predict UF or GT will play for the title in 2009. ;-)
Ben Prather
· 9 months ago
Michigan gives Auburn a run for the money here.
Zac
· 9 months ago
Maybe you're right, Ben. They only won half as many games as I expected them to, and I even expected them to go bowling. That'll change, however; just watch.
Zac
· 9 months ago
As these "polls" rank the teams, pre-season, mid-season, post-season, whatever, so should the polls themselves be ranked. Lets face it; some are better than others; some aren't even as biased as others. Therefore, those are the ones to which any credence should be given.
Personally, I like the polls, pre-season or otherwise. As War-Eagle has already stated, it's a great place to start...I'll add, the debating. Consider all we have talked about in the pre-season, based upon polls alone. Without a doubt, we'd miss out on some lively debates (especially between TC & OU Ron, or TE & BC, among others).
As for disappointments, if you guys will remember, I was real leery over WVU's pre-season ranking on the basis of the new personnel on defense. As it was, the defense turned out to be a pleasant surprise. It was the offense which turned out to be disappointing, especially the veteran offensive line. Go figure.
The point is, while I would have liked for them to have done better, they still did well for having started 1-2. It would have been all too easy for a coach to lose a team at that point. Instead, they finished out with 9 wins and won their 4th consecutive bowl. No, it's not a National Championship; yes, I would like to see them win one in my life-time. But, if 9-4 is a "disappointing" season, given I attended school there during the pre-Nehlan years, I'd be a fool not to take it.
Regan
· 9 months ago
The issue of whether or not the poll should wait until week 4 deals only with one issue - keeping higher pre-season ranked teams ahead of lower- and unranked teams when it comes to the end of the season.
This has been mitigated in the past few years simply due to the fact that increased pairity is keeping the pre-season top 2 teams stumbling at least once, thus keeping the "stranglehold" from taking root and allowing lower-ranked teams to have a legit shot.
Take Alabama for example - they went from NR to #1, and they are hardly an anomoly.
Either way, pre-season polls are (let's face it) something we all want come August...I mean we are frothing at the mouth for anything at that point...
U.of S.C.1978
· 9 months ago
I will begrudgingly admit that they do make good fodder for conversation. The AP got 14 of the top 25 on their list. I suspect there are some here who could do at least as well.
AUtigerman
· 9 months ago
Well they did get one right. USC did finish 3rd. Time for some new pollsters id say.
How can anyone think that preseason polls arent suppose to be a prediction of who will be ranked where at the end of the season?
That doesnt even make any since.
Thats the problem with college football. We allow a bunch of writers to dictate who will play for a championship. Lord help us when they do happen to pick a couple teams preseason 1&2 and they go undefeated. Then anyone else with an undefeated record can be shut out.
The_Observer
· 9 months ago
LOL at the last paragraph! That was a nice one AUtigerman!
Lets not forget the Coaches poll b/c that is the one that the BCS uses. As you can see they put in 13 teams that did not finished ranked. A 52% accuracy. It appears that the AP was a little better.
TEAM FINAL RANKING PRESEASON Georgia 10 1 USC 2 2 Ohio St 11 3 Oklahoma 5 4 Florida 1 5 LSU NR 6 Missouri 16 7 West Virginia NR 8 Clemson NR 9 Texas 3 10 Auburn NR 11 Wisconsin NR 12 Kansas NR 13 Texas Tech 12 14 Virginia Tech 14 15 Arizona St NR 16 BYU 21 17 Tennessee NR 18 Illinois NR 19 Oregon 9 20 South Florida NR 21 Penn St 8 22 Wake Forest NR 23 Michigan NR 24 Fresno St NR 25
VTBobb
· 9 months ago
QUESTIONS: 1. Should the pre-season polls be a predictor of how a team will do for the season, or how good a team they are at that point of time?
2. Should the final regular season poll rank a teams current abilities, or rate the entire season? What a bout the final polls?
It seems to me every college sport with a PLAYOFF (i.e. every other sport, and can you believe this is the first use of that word on this thread?) uses a teams current ability based on conference tournaments, with the overall season results being used to determine worthy at-large teams. One of my issues with the whole "Polling for Dollars" BCS system is pollsters can't seem to seperate the two. Because only 2 teams get to play for the NC, the final reagular season poll should be based only on the current ability of a particular team, not a rating of the entire season.
Tom22
· 9 months ago
It would be nice for them to state whether they are ranking their assesment of how good the teams are at the time of the poll, how good of a season they Have had, or how good of a season they Will have.
Sometimes you look at a team thats 7 and 0 and you see their next 5 games and you really suspect they'll have 2 or 3 losses out of those remaining games... similarly you can see a team that is 5 -2 losing to a couple of top teams and you figure they'll win out the rest of their softer schedule.
Its hard to rank a 5-2 team higher than a 7 - 0 team but, if you had money on the line you might chose the team with the worst schedule to finish with a better record even with even money.
When Penn was undefeated and Florida had one loss around week 7 or 8 I'd have put my money on Florida any day.
Really, I think the preseason and early polls probably come closer to people giving their opinions on the strength of a team and the longer the season goes on , the more pollsters feel they need to rank teams with undefeated records higher than teams they'd bet on in a head to head matchup.
All Comments
I would be for waiting a month in before the first poll comes out, however...
Next would probably be Wisconsin, Clemson and LSU. LSU had a pretty tough schedule though, a lot harder than the aforementioned teams...
I'd like to know how you think that to be true. I only checked 2 sources, Sagarin and TeamRankings.com, but Clemson ranks above LSU in both.
Team / Sagarin / TeamRankings.com
Clemson / 29 / 14
LSU / 33 / 26
They had 3 common opponents in Alabama, Georgia Tech, and South Carolina. Florida is certainly better than any team on Clemson's schedule. Clemson had Alabama and S. Carolina on the OOC schedule, whereas LSU counters with Troy and Tulane. Also, I believe that with Wake beating Ole Miss, and the bottom of the ACC ranking well nationally, Clemson makes up the ground overall.
LSU was certainly a better team than Clemson this season. Clemson's fall from #10 preseason to out of the top 25 was monumentally pathetic. I just wanted to defend our schedule.
Now this season's schedule is a different story...
We have replaced Alabama with Idaho...ouch. At least the outcome will be different.
Computers are computers, but I would have rather faced UNC, FSU and BC this past season than Florida, Georgia and Alabama...
Do you think anyone can sneak a potato gun into Death Valley this fall to shoot at the Idaho players?
LOL! I'm not sure but it might be worth the try. That game certainly should be a culture shock to the Vandal players.
Your first paragraph proves that LSU was the better team. That's not exactly relevant with the SOS. Regardless of how you look at it, Clemson and LSU faced 3 of the same opponents this season. So, when looking at SOS, those 3 are a wash. Sure, anyone would've rather faced FSU, and BC (we didn't play UNC this season) over Florida, and Georgia (you can't use Alabama b/c we played them too.) Clemson makes up the difference by only having 2 patsies on the schedule (SC State, The Citadel) whereas LSU had 3 (Tulane, North Texas, App State). As shown by the rankings, the schedules are close, but the edge goes to the Tigers from South Carolina this time. Next season probably won't have the same outcome.
Note: App State is a good team D1-AA team, but this wasn't the same Mountaineer squad that took down Michigan in the Big House. This year, no respectable D-1A program should have had any trouble with the D1-AA counterparts, and they didn't.
It's so much more classy and geographically specific than hurling a liquor bottle...
Auburn was definitely a surprise to me as was Georgia Tech (my expectations for a first year coach with a new [old?] - and relatively untrusted - offenseive scheme were pretty low).
My 2008 preseason prediction for which teams would play for the MNC was tOSU and UGA. They both appeared to have all the necessary components and momentum to win. I guess this means I shouldn't predict UF or GT will play for the title in 2009. ;-)
Personally, I like the polls, pre-season or otherwise. As War-Eagle has already stated, it's a great place to start...I'll add, the debating. Consider all we have talked about in the pre-season, based upon polls alone. Without a doubt, we'd miss out on some lively debates (especially between TC & OU Ron, or TE & BC, among others).
As for disappointments, if you guys will remember, I was real leery over WVU's pre-season ranking on the basis of the new personnel on defense. As it was, the defense turned out to be a pleasant surprise. It was the offense which turned out to be disappointing, especially the veteran offensive line. Go figure.
The point is, while I would have liked for them to have done better, they still did well for having started 1-2. It would have been all too easy for a coach to lose a team at that point. Instead, they finished out with 9 wins and won their 4th consecutive bowl. No, it's not a National Championship; yes, I would like to see them win one in my life-time. But, if 9-4 is a "disappointing" season, given I attended school there during the pre-Nehlan years, I'd be a fool not to take it.
This has been mitigated in the past few years simply due to the fact that increased pairity is keeping the pre-season top 2 teams stumbling at least once, thus keeping the "stranglehold" from taking root and allowing lower-ranked teams to have a legit shot.
Take Alabama for example - they went from NR to #1, and they are hardly an anomoly.
Either way, pre-season polls are (let's face it) something we all want come August...I mean we are frothing at the mouth for anything at that point...
How can anyone think that preseason polls arent suppose to be a prediction of who will be ranked where at the end of the season?
That doesnt even make any since.
Thats the problem with college football. We allow a bunch of writers to dictate who will play for a championship. Lord help us when they do happen to pick a couple teams preseason 1&2 and they go undefeated. Then anyone else with an undefeated record can be shut out.
It can help you win a lot of arguments...
As you can see they put in 13 teams that did not finished ranked. A 52% accuracy.
It appears that the AP was a little better.
TEAM FINAL RANKING PRESEASON
Georgia 10 1
USC 2 2
Ohio St 11 3
Oklahoma 5 4
Florida 1 5
LSU NR 6
Missouri 16 7
West Virginia NR 8
Clemson NR 9
Texas 3 10
Auburn NR 11
Wisconsin NR 12
Kansas NR 13
Texas Tech 12 14
Virginia Tech 14 15
Arizona St NR 16
BYU 21 17
Tennessee NR 18
Illinois NR 19
Oregon 9 20
South Florida NR 21
Penn St 8 22
Wake Forest NR 23
Michigan NR 24
Fresno St NR 25
1. Should the pre-season polls be a predictor of how a team will do for the season, or how good a team they are at that point of time?
2. Should the final regular season poll rank a teams current abilities, or rate the entire season? What a bout the final polls?
It seems to me every college sport with a PLAYOFF (i.e. every other sport, and can you believe this is the first use of that word on this thread?) uses a teams current ability based on conference tournaments, with the overall season results being used to determine worthy at-large teams. One of my issues with the whole "Polling for Dollars" BCS system is pollsters can't seem to seperate the two. Because only 2 teams get to play for the NC, the final reagular season poll should be based only on the current ability of a particular team, not a rating of the entire season.
Sometimes you look at a team thats 7 and 0 and you see their next 5 games and you really suspect they'll have 2 or 3 losses out of those remaining games... similarly you can see a team that is 5 -2 losing to a couple of top teams and you figure they'll win out the rest of their softer schedule.
Its hard to rank a 5-2 team higher than a 7 - 0 team but, if you had money on the line you might chose the team with the worst schedule to finish with a better record even with even money.
When Penn was undefeated and Florida had one loss around week 7 or 8 I'd have put my money on Florida any day.
Really, I think the preseason and early polls probably come closer to people giving their opinions on the strength of a team and the longer the season goes on , the more pollsters feel they need to rank teams with undefeated records higher than teams they'd bet on in a head to head matchup.