11/20/2006
BLOGPOLL BALLOT, WEEK 12/2006
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio State | — |
| 2 | Michigan | — |
| 3 | Florida | — |
| 4 | Arkansas | — |
| 5 | Southern Cal |  1 |
| 6 | Notre Dame | 1 |
| 7 | Rutgers |  2 |
| 8 | Wisconsin | — |
| 9 | Boise State | 1 |
| 10 | West Virginia | 1 |
| 11 | LSU | 1 |
| 12 | Louisville | 3 |
| 13 | Auburn | — |
| 14 | Texas | — |
| 15 | Virginia Tech | 3 |
| 16 | Georgia Tech | — |
| 17 | Wake Forest | 6 |
| 18 | Boston College | 4 |
| 19 | Oklahoma | — |
| 20 | California | 3 |
| 21 | Clemson | 2 |
| 22 | Nebraska | 2 |
| 23 | Central Michigan | 2 |
| 24 | Hawaii | 2 |
| 25 | Maryland | 5 |
Dropped Out: Brigham Young (#21).
As usual, what did I screw up/miss?
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Not having Tennessee in there is unconscionable.
Comment by DTT — 11/21/2006 @ 1:22 pm
Let’s look at two three-loss teams–Clemson and Nebraska–in my ballot. Clemson’s there because of the Georgia Tech win, which I take as better than UT’s Cal win. At a certain point, a loss is a loss, even if it is to a highly-ranked team. I don’t see a quality win on UT’s resume; I see one on Clemson’s. I could maybe justify putting UT in Nebraska’s place, but I can’t see any compelling reason to do so.
My revised ballot from earlier today has two other three-loss teams–Cal and Maryland–on it. Now, bear in mind that I do not subscribe to the “if team A beats team B, then team A must always be ranked ahead of team B if their records are equal” philosophy. You know and I know that Cal’s defense played like triple-distilled landfill runoff in that game, and it was the first game of the season. Cal is 2-2 against ranked teams this year. UT is 2-3. For me, that’s enough to say that UT doesn’t necessarily go ahead of Cal, even though their records are the same and UT has the head-to-head win.
So that leaves us with Maryland, my #25 team. That’s the only one I could consider replacing with UT. Do you think I should?
Comment by Mark — 11/21/2006 @ 1:50 pm