But take a closer look at the Wisconsin/Northwestern series, the last time the home team lost in that series was 2000. Past results don't ensure future results and all that, but the safe bet is on Wisconsin because it's at Camp Randall (if it were at Ryan Field, then Northwestern would be the safe bet).
Okie State is a historic power and coached by a legend (John Smith). But that's one addition to a rather short list of non-B1G wrestling power houses.
There's a lot of empty middle of nowhere type of suck in the 330 as well (I'm from that portion).
At least according to these sources he did not do so on the regular, so this could be where some confusion is coming into play:
I could be wrong, but I thought that was one of their TEs; making it even more impressive.
Lee is an animal that was all over the field. Can't wait to see what he's able to do next year.
Absolutely. Tyvis had a nice game, but for my money Lee was the Defensive MVP of the National Championship Game.
because it's clear they were hiring the demeanor more than anything - the "Anti-Bo," if you will,
Will it back fire? Who knows. Personally I believe he will maintain the level of success Bo had, but not be able to surpass it. However, that will be tolerable for Nebraska because Riley won't make waves (like Bo did on the regular).
I can't believe that wasn't reviewed. Not sure it would have actually been overturned, but NONE of the angles they had showed the ball touching the ground.
There's a decent number of us out in SD (though I'm current visiting family in the heart of it all), a large number of Californians are transplants.
Indiana's offense most certainly would have been a challenge before Sudfeld (their starting QB) went down for the season. Without him (and with Roberson and Coffman transferring; the other 2 QBs that played for Indiana last year), they've been starting a true freshman at QB and he's been terri-bad in Sudfeld's stead. The game against Rutgers was the first time he's cracked the 75 yard mark since taking over the starting spot at QB.
Coleman is good, particularly given that he still manages to get yards even now that Sudfeld and any semblance of a decent passing game is gone. But Indiana's Offense will likely make Minnesota's look incredibly dynamic and multi-faceted.
All that said, Cobb and Coleman are both good warm-ups for Gordon (though Gordon is better than those 2, and Wisconsin has a passing attack that's slightly better than Minnesota or Indiana's, but thankfully not much better).
They're currently down 10 with 7 and change to play…hopefully Kansas can hold on.
So freaking frustrating. If they beat Illinois (seriously, Illinois), then their only loss would be to TCU (albeit getting clobbered by TCU on the road) and they would be around the 17 - 22 rank.
Sadly due to how thoroughly mediocre the B1G has been this year (at least the teams on our schedule), a victory over Minnesota will likely be our 2nd best regular season win (even if they lose out, which is a possibility, a W over Minnesota will probably be better than a W over Maryland).
It's not like we dropped over 550 yards and nearly 50 points on a statistically dominant defense in their own backyard.
Oh ESPN, you're so terribly predictable. But seriously "outlasts?"
Quite possibly the best game of his career. He played angry. I hope he keeps that up the rest of the season.
It's crazy to think that Sparty was +2 in the turnover margin, at home, in not great weather, and still lost by 2 scores.
I knew this team was super talented, but I thought the youth would bite them in the ass a good bit. It did, but it didn't matter. If OSU plays like this, they have a shot at beating anybody.
They did absolutely curb stomp Iowa. While Iowa is not a good team, they typically don't get their doors blown off either. Maybe that's enough to get Minny to crack the top 25, but I doubt it. Had Minny not shit the bed against Illinois (seriously, Illinois?), they'd only have 1 loss (to TCU), and would be in the top 25, possibly even creeping higher than that. But they did, so they'll likely just be in the "others receiving votes category."
Now if Minnesota was in the SEC East, with that record, I'm sure they'd be in the top 15. *dismissive wanking motion*
Though we should really strike the Nebraska game during his freshman year from his losses. I mean, we can't since he was the starter, but that game was in the bag until Brax went down and Bauserman aided Nebraska's largest comeback victory ever.
People say that, but all of us from that small town (Orrville) didn't think he had the chops to play QB at OSU.
He's a nice kid and had a good arm, but that state championship was largely won in spite of him rather than because of him. The running back/DB on that team also won the 100 M dash that year and was 2nd or 3rd the year before (he won the 110 M hurdles one of those years as well); that kid could flat out ball. There were a number of other kids on the O and D that played college ball at smaller schools (e.g. Youngstown St., Mt. Union, etc.). Quite simply, it was far from a 1 man team, and there were a number of games where they had to overcome costly turnovers thrown by an easily rattled QB (to be fair he was a freshman).
Absolutely people want polls and topics to discuss (or shout mindlessly into their series of internet tubes about). And I'm fine with preseason and early season polls existing, if they didn't matter or influence polls that actually matter. But they do. It's not going to change, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
And you're also right that things tend to work themselves out by the end of the season for the most part; I think that goes back to my sample size comment. Our sample size will always suck, but obviously an n of 12 is much better than an n of 3, or an n of 1, or an n of 0. So as a result, you tend to have a better of idea where teams fall, at least in a general grouping sense (e.g. teams A - E are the next 5 best teams). But the devil is in the details, and seemingly small ranking differences due to some early poll bias could potentially have much larger implications now that we have a playoff. Though even without that, that preseason bias could muck up a few minor things come season's end. And that's a shame, because what we think we know about a team before we've actually seen them play a game shouldn't have any influence on how we view them at or near the end of the season. I know as humans it will be difficult for any of us to check our expectations and/or biases about a team at the door, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do so (even if in vain).
You know what, you do have some valid points.
Here's what it is for me: we just don't really have enough data to know where most teams really stand. Part of that will always be the case in CFB as there are 120+ teams and only a VERY limited number of games played by each team. The fact that there isn't all that much cross-over between leagues further compounds this problem (even the teams that do a nice job of trying to have a good out of conference schedule will only play 2 or 3 half decent teams from a P5 conference, at the most). So our sample size will always suck.
But on top of that, preseason rankings bias everything way more than it should. An easy example from this season is Wisconsin vs LSU. Both top 15 teams when they met. Close game that sees Wisconsin supposedly piss down their leg and lose (or the Hat pull another win out of his magic grass filled hat, if that's your fancy). So LSU moves up because they beat the #14 (preseason) team. But it turns out Wisconsin is 1-dimensional and probably not that good this year (their running game is nice, but aside from that their D is OK, while their passing game will make you claw your eyes out rather than watch it). So is that really a good win for LSU? Should they really have been a top 10 team when Miss St. played them?
The answer is I don't really know. But in all reality, it's probably a no to both questions.
What I do know is that we shouldn't rank teams until about the 4th or 5th week to eliminate any bias of what people project about a particular team.
I certainly think that's where some of the backlash against the SEC is coming from; having so many teams that likely didn't deserve their preseason ranking (e.g. USC, LSU, Mizzou). The catch is, no one deserves their preseason ranking because preseason ranking is a stupid endeavor that only biases people to those irrelevant thoughts about how good a team should be, which often reverberates through the season.
But those early rankings can color the rest of the season. TAMU has 1 "good" win over USC (the same team that beat Georgia and ECU, but also lost to Mizzou and UK; talk about a schizophrenic team), and another over Arkansas (who knows what to think of them). Then 3 "good" loses (whatever that means, particularly when they weren't all that competitive in any of them, especially against the Tide). So how good is TAMU then? Ignore rankings and really try to parse that out--when you do that, it all becomes a big mess. A wonderful, beautiful mess that is the college football regular season.
TL;DR: Preseason ranking is bullshit and needs to go away.
There is a member of the Wu-Tang Clan called Raekwon the Chef; that's where it comes from.
Exactly. While the tidbit that's been making the rounds about Miss St. beating 3 top 10 opponents in 3 weeks, 2 of those were LSU (now unranked) and TAMU (who as you mentioned was ranked so high based on 1 win). So while they were nice wins, they shouldn't really be thought of amongst historically great accomplishments. LSU beat a 1-dimensional Wisconsin team to earn it's top 10 billing (the same Wisconsin team that lost to Northwestern, and only beat Illinois by 10). While TAMU waxed a mediocre South Carolina team (the same team that lost to Mizzou and Kentucky) to earn it's top 10 spot.
Both LSU and TAMU are young and talented teams, but neither looks consistent enough to ever sniff the top 10 this year (honestly, LSU will be lucky to finish in the top 25 this year, let alone the top 10).
If memory serves, that Iowa game was really a tale of two halves. We looked thoroughly mediocre in the 1st half, then just blew their doors off in the 2nd. That doesn't happen without some well informed adjustments.
Darrell Hazell had 1 year of head coaching experience, and finished with a 5-7 record. Why is he the head coach at Purdue?
Hazell actually coached 2 years at Kent State, and his second year they finished 11-3, won the MAC East, and made it to a bowl game. This was one of the most successful seasons Kent State has ever had in their entire history. That's why he was hired by Purdue. It may not have been a good hire, but the rationale is much better when you realize that he coached for 2 years at KSU and what he was able to do in year 2.
If I recall correctly, he was disappointing across the board in the offseason (and I think lack of effort was often cited, sort of a catch-all). Hopefully this year serves as a wake up call so he works hard to improve the obvious talent he possesses.