Welcome to the penultimate edition of the Cross Poll. Once the bowls are all played out I will unveil the final Cross Poll standings, ranking all 120 teams from the BCS winner to those that should continue moving back to D-1AA. But for now, you'll have to satisfy yourself with the usual Top 30.
Virginia Tech is just not a great football team. They are special teams & defense wonders. Beamer Ball, but their offense is bad. Like #100 in total yards for the FBS bad. Don't be fooled by their beating up on a weak conference. Kansas could and should whoop them if Reesing doesn't turn it over.
For the love of all things why is ASU so low in public opinion? Losses to 10-2 USC and pre-Dixon injury Oregon are the most impressive losses outside of Missouri's pair to OU. I just don't get it.
USC is much better than #10. They were decimated by injuries in the middle of the season, something which gets no play in the media. At one point somewhere around 11 regulars were out including two or three on the O-line and their QB.
Bowl season should open a lot of eyes. Unfortunately the SEC draws 3 games against the sucky Big Ten which I'm sure will lead to them beating their chest at doing what teams not even in the FBS have already done.
You'll see the ACC get beaten up pretty good too. BC beats Michigan State of course, but Maryland (Oregon State) Wake (Connecticut) Georgia Tech (Fresno State) FSU (Kentucky) Clemson (Auburn) and Virginia (Texas Tech) could all lose.
Woodson & Harrell will light up those D's.
How does the SEC manage to get 5 bowl games against the ACC & Big Ten - the two worst conferences?
I'll support Norcal's point with...ASU is top 25 in the country on both offense and defense. In fact they allowed only 2 touchdowns in the 4th quarter all year. They lead the nation in time of possesion and thats with a patchwork offensive line and starting tailback out since the 6th week of the season. They deserved the Fiesta bowl but because of revenue considerations they weren't invited.
USC is also way better than a #10 rating, especially now that they are healthy.
The SEC has five games against teams ranked in the top 20 with 3 of them against top 10 teams. Have fun playing the Mountain West and the highlight of playing the 13th ranked, 2nd best team in the Big 10.
I'm curious about your ranking system...what's it based upon? How does Hawaii go undefeated, wins it's last game, and yet slips back from #6 to #8, when everyone else in the top 10 basically #### around all year with losses to lame teams?
lol...I'm from Big 10 country so I feel safe in saying that if any one of those schools runs into a team with a gear higher than a plowhorse they'll get whipped like a plowhorse. Perhaps they should play everybody in their conference and see how the records roll out.
roll - Um first of all ... LOUISIANA-MONROE. Are you seriously going to argue with me after that debacle?
The SEC played what teams in the current top 20 exactly? I'm using the AP because it isn't filled with people like Stoops who totally skew their ballot to fit their needs.
You can't use the ranking when they played, or Oregon beat #5.
I have the SEC beating #5 VaTech (LSU) and losing to #23 South Florida (Auburn) unless I've missed one which is possible this is just off the top of my head.
The Pac-10 has a win over #16 Tennessee (Cal) #19 BYU (UCLA) and #24 Boise State (UW) with losses to #1 Ohio State (UW) #10 Hawaii (UW) #18 Wisconsin (WSU) #19 BYU (Arizona) #20 Cincinnati (OSU).
So in summary the SEC is 1-1 against the CURRENT top 25 and the Pac-10 is 3-5. No I don't count beating each other up so please save that argument for someone else.
Notice how the Pac-10 has 4x the games despite having 2 fewer teams? Maybe this impacts the winning record a bit compared to a league scheduling Troy 3x?
P.S. - The bowl matchups are predetermined by #### commissioners which is why the SEC/Big Ten get locked up along with the Pac10/Mt.West. It is about getting butts in the seats and the teams have no control over this.
Last edited by Norcalfella on December 5th at 1:59 PM.
Cygnus - I also dropped Hawaii slightly (although I had them higher than everyone all year) and the reason is that they fell behind 21-0 to the Pac-10's worst team. If you saw the game which I doubt since it was on so late you'd know that after finally going up 35-28 it took UW only 2 plays to get on their doorstep before Locker's bad throw was picked off. Against a 4-8 team that just doesn't cut it at this point in the season.
realbigten - See above re: winning records. When you schedule dog #### in OOC it is a lot easier to win games. The Big Ten can't even beat non-FBS teams so why would you even bring this up?
norcal, you're grasping at straws of justification when you blame a team for falling behind. How many times did LSU or OSU fall behind on times? Winning is the ultimate grade. Also, in this poll Kansas with 1 loss and one of the worst SOS is ranked above undefeated Hawaii, whose SOS is much better.
Cygnus - How many times did they fall behind 21 points? Try ZERO. Going down 14-7 or 17-14 isn't the same thing. They also didn't do it against a team who finished in last place.
Terrible argument from you as usual.
Whatever SOS shows, no one in their right mind thinks the WAC schedule is easier than the Big XII.
Thanks for all the comments everyone. Nice to see the arguments going without needing to be in them.
As for USC: No one complained about #10 being too low last week. They didn't fall and they weren't jumped by anyone. What changed for them? What is it about beating UCLA that makes them deserve to move up? The only teams above them that lost were Missouri and West Virginia. A loss versus Stanford is worse than either loss against Oklahoma, so USC shouldn't be ahead of Missouri. If you want to make the argument that USC should be 9 and WVU 10, I won't put up much of a fight. But other than that, who should USC be ranked ahead of, and why?
As for Hawaii: I can't win for trying. Rank them #6, people complain about it being too high. Rank them #8, people complain about it being too low. Guess I should have split the difference and made them #7. Why does Hawaii deserve to be higher? Who did they, with the #117 ranked schedule, beat exactly? Their signature wins were, as Norcalfella said, the worst team in the Pac-10 and a Boise State team who lost to that same Pac-10 team. They had to have overtime to beat Louisiana Tech and San Diego State. They came within two points of losing to Nevada. What on their resume, outside of going undefeated against one of the easiest schedules in the FBS and hanging 60+ points on Northern Colorado and Charleston Southern, justifies a Top 5 ranking for them? At this point, Hawaii fans should feel fortunate to have a Top 10 ranking and stop complaining.
I find it mildly amusing that no one complains that Kansas fell or that Georgia got passed by two teams. I guess everyone can blame my East Coast Bias for those too.
Of the top 10 or 12 teams in college football this year, fans for any of these teams could make a good argument as to why their team would beat any of the other. Let's not pretend that Ohio St., LSU, Oklahoma, USC, etc would run the table against the rest of the top 10. The final rankings should be based solely on the body of work over the entire year. LSU clearly deserves to be in the top 2 (as much as it pains me to say that), and Ohio St is in by default for having the best record of the BCS conference champs. But you have to ask yourself this - would you bet $100 on the Buckeyes if they were playing Hawaii? Or if $100 isn't a lot to you, would you bet $1,000?? Even though I think Ohio St. is a better team, I wouldn't make that bet. There's too much parity this year, and now more than ever we need an 8-team playoff! Imagine how exciting it would be if Ohio St, LSU, OU, VT, USC, WVU, Georgia, and Hawaii were in such a playoff!!
Arizona State didn't get invited to the Fiesta Bowl because the Rose, Orange, and Sugar bowls decided to invite teams based entirely on tradition, and there were only three at-large bids. Had Hawaii lost against UW, insert ASU in the Fiesta and WVU in the Sugar.
The Coach's poll is a joke (see Bob Stoops' top 10), but the AP poll has a lot of bias as well. A writer in LA is more likely to vote USC very high, while a writer in Atlanta is going to kiss the SEC's tail. Let's not pretend any of the polls (other than the computers, which aren't reliable either) are not biased. Even the Las Vegas Sports Consul
1.) I agree with the fella's argument earlier about the Big 10 and SEC. These bowls are geared for these two conferences. The Big 10 has 4 teams in big, big money games, while the SEC has 6. Illinois in the BCS is a joke, and Wisconsin in the Outback isn't much better. Again, these games are only about tradition, and as long as the sport hangs on to tradition so tightly, it will never make progress. How convenient though that we get to watch another Big 10-SEC challenge in the bowl season. Give me last year's Fiesta Bowl again, that was awesome.
jd - The thing about USC is that they are now healthy and were dominant on defense. UCLA is still a bowl eligible team and they held them to 0 third down conversions. That's hard to do against ANYONE and I can tell you because I read every top team box score weekly looking for that statistic.
You meant San Jose State not San Diego State for Hawaii which proves the point. No one even knows who they have beaten! What people argue is that their schedule isn't that much different in SOS than a Kansas, but I will argue that it is if you look at the human factor. In Hawaii's defense they tried to schedule teams, but it seems like no one wants them - especially on the island.
Everyone talks about OOC games and ignores the overall schedule, which is beyond me.
Facts are facts, and my beef with the Pac Ten being up there in some minds is it doesn't reflect reality.
Right now, UCLA, Oregon, and California couldn't buy a win with all the money Reggie Bush got while he was at USC.
USC beat two teams all year that have a winning record at year's end.
People say "USC is healthy now". I say "so?" They haven't played anyone save for two teams. It's easy to look good when YOU DON'T PLAY ANYONE?
As someone else said, let Oregon play Michigan right now, or Cal play Tennessee. We'll see some butt whippings, and it'll be the Pretend Ten with the sore arse.
UCLA is headed for a rematch with BYU. Does anyone want to bet the house on the Bruins to win? Thought not.
Right now, as I write this, the Pac Ten is headed for a losing bowl record.
Period.
Last edited by therealbigten on December 7th at 10:16 AM.
realbigten - That's a dense argument. Cal lost their quarterback (his ankle still isn't right) so did USC & Oregon. If you take Tebow off Florida a LOT of teams could beat them. Heck, they might have a losing record.
People talk about OOC because it shows what kind of guts each conference has and it is the only way to compare.
Here's a look at the 2008 schedule highlights for the Pac-10 (I don't have Arizona or Washington State):
Georgia @ Arizona State
Tennessee @ UCLA
Boise State @ Oregon
Oregon @ Purdue
Hawaii @ Oregon State
BYU @ Washington
Oklahoma @ Washington
Michigan State @ Cal
Cal @ Maryland
USC @ Virginia
Ohio State @ USC
It's amazing to me people want to ignore Cal's victory over Tennessee, however, the first word out of peoples mouth when USC is mentioned is that they lost to Stanford (week 7). You just can't have both ways.
loan - Of course they want to forget Cal beat Tennessee.
They also ignore how tough the Pac-10's OOC is. Not to mention they all play each other which in itself means 9 BCS games.
2008 OOC
Georgia @ Arizona State
Tennessee @ UCLA
Boise State @ Oregon
Oregon @ Purdue
Hawaii @ Oregon State
BYU @ Washington
Oklahoma @ Washington
Michigan State @ Cal
Cal @ Maryland
USC @ Virginia
Ohio State @ USC
8/10 teams (can't find AZ or WSU)
4 conference champs
3 legit national title contenders
7 teams who finished top 3 in their conference
Norcalfella,
True, UCLA is a bowl team. But so are Florida Atlantic and Maryland. Is anyone bragging about beating either of those teams? UCLA lost all credibility when they lost to Notre Dame.
I will admit that USC should maybe be higher than #10. But come on, #1, which is where you have them ranked? What justification can you have for that? Okay, sure, they were beat up earlier in the season. But they lost to Stanford, at home. They lost at home to Stanford's backup quarterback. And you're going to tell me they're the best team in the nation?
As far as schedules go, you can't bring up "they all play each other which in itself means 9 BCS games." Any fan of any BCS conference can make basically the same argument. So the Pac-10 plays one more conference game. They don't have a conference championship.
And it's a giant red herring to bring up the 2008 schedule. That has no relevance in a discussion of the 2007 season.
And I never forgot that Tennessee lost to Cal. Nor did I forget that Oregon State lost to Cincinnati 34-3, or that UCLA lost to Utah 44-6, or that UCLA lost to Notre Dame 20-6.
Every argument about one conference being better than any other conference can be turned around on itself.
The fact of the matter is that every conference was weak this year. We have never seen parity like this in college football. Most teams were pretty evenly matched and there were a ton of upsets. There is no clearly superior conference, just as there is no clear national championship. I mean, honestly, would you be fully satisfied with anyone being crowned the national champion this season? Without a playoff? There are arguments to be made for and against every team in the top 10-12.
ramblineer,
Very good points. I wouldn't bet money on OSU over Hawaii. I would say that OSU wins that game 9 times out of 10, but in the back of my mind is always the Illinois loss.
There is no objectivity in polls. Period. Why? Because objectivity is contrary to human nature. Regardless of what scientists or journalists will tell you, it is nearly impossible to remove personal bias.
It took two miracle throws for Stanford to beat USC who was playing with an injured Booty throwing 4 interceptions. The final was 24-23. I just don't see how this loss to a 4-8 team is perceived so dramatically worse than OU losing to 6-6 Colorado or LSU losing to 7-5 Kentucky. If the 'Cats had any tough OOC games they might be 5-7 for crying out loud. That team lost 31-14 to Mississippi State!
UCLA was also playing with a backup when they lost to Notre Dame. It sucks, yeah, fine. They also beat BYU who went undefeated in the Mountain West and were coming off a shutout of Oregon.
I can justify USC #1 because I have nuts. They are playing the best RIGHT NOW. The national title game is coming up, not two months ago. It is unprecedeneted in CFB history to have two teams who lost home games in the final month to be playing for a title.
Let's not forget, for all the ripping on USC's schedule they won 7 times by 17+ points. How about LSU in the SEC? They won by 7, lost, 17 over winless Ole Miss, 7, 6, loss, and 12. Skated by.
Ohio State won the worst BCS conference. Do I have to bring up that the entire Big Ten won ZERO games against BCS teams who were bowl eligible? The "big one" was Wisconsin beating 5-7 (8th place) Wazzu.
Norcalfella,
Good. Now you're making an argument. You can't really use the Booty excuse though, because Stanford was using a backup quarterback.
The USC loss is worse than OU losing to Colorado because of two things: 1. The loss came on the road, not at home; 2. Colorado is at least bowl eligible.
As for the LSU loss to Kentucky, the same things apply. And remember that Kentucky was one of the hottest teams in the nation there. And it took three overtimes for LSU to lose.
No argument from me that the Big Ten was a weak conference. I just don't think anyone can make a perfectly sound argument that anyone is hands-down the best team in the nation this year. Nuts or not. Every team has at least one reason why they shouldn't be in the title game.
USC is a very good football team, and they probably will be every year Pete Carroll is there. They are one of only two teams to have appeared in five or more straight January bowl games (I bet you can't guess the other one). In fact, I wouldn't want my team playing them in a bowl game, esp not out in California. However, let's not forget that they greatly benefited from Oregon losing Dixon, and one could make the argument that this is the only reason USC is in the BCS. If Dixon doesn't get hurt like that, I'm inclined to think they win the Pac-10 outright. Then again, this is all speculation, and makes for good debate. But its debate like this that keeps fans so interested and gives fuel to the chaotic mess that is the B(C)S. Meanwhile the 1-AA (or FCS or whatever its called these days) playoffs are down to the semi-finals, and Appy St. will play for their 3rd consecutive national title. But no one cares.
BTW JD, sorry about Shepherd, I was pulling for them.
Well actually some of your points make my argument for me.
Sanchez wouldn't have made those picks. Stanford's backup was at least healthy. The coaching staff admitted he shouldn't have been in there. His injury caused the picks. But whatever.
The 41 point underdog thing just shows how highly regarded USC was/is.
3 OT makes it WORSE because their defense kept getting shredded. Hot or not Kentucky is a 7-5 team at the end of the day. Florida killed them too.
Yes, NO ONE is deserving and that's the truth. Oklahoma had the strongest case if they hadn't blown the 24-7 lead @Colorado. The thing about them is that was their only trip outside of TX/OK other than to play 3-9 Iowa State who they beat by a whopping 17-7.
I could argue for a lot of the teams and in many cases QB injuries hurt them (OU, WV & USC) along with Oregon & even Cal both of whom melted down completely when their guys went out.
ramblineer,
Let me guess: the other is West Virginia.
I agree that if Dixon doesn't get hurt, Oregon likely wins the Pac-10, but guesses like this, as you said, are no more than speculation. Just like claiming that if Sanchez wouldn't have thrown four picks against Stanford -- only speculation.
And thanks for the Shepherd love. They keep coming closer and closer. Some of my students who are on the team said the school they lost to, California PA, is full of D-1 transfers. Ah well, maybe next year.
Norcalfella,
You can speculate that Sanchez wouldn't make those picks, but you can't say for sure that they would have won if he had been in rather than Booty. And even if they would have, that means they got out-coached because Carroll should have put him in.
You can't argue that "hot or not Kentucky is a 7-5 team" and argue that the USC loss against Oregon with Dixon is different than a loss to Oregon now. At the end of the day, Oregon is an unranked 8-4 team. You can't have things both ways.
And you're right that while we can make arguments against every team being in the game, you can also make arguments for every team. When it comes right down to it, USC is just as deserving as Ohio State or LSU. I mean, come on! LSU had every chance in the world to be the #1 team in the nation, and they blew every chance. But at the same time, strong arguments can be made for Oklahoma and Georgia, especially if we're talking about the best team right now. Would you like to go up against USC, Oklahoma, or Georgia on neutral turf right now?
Essentially, I think we agree. We're just using different arguments to say the same thing.
It bears repeating here that USC still only won two games against teams that had a winning record at year's end.
And Oklahoma played only two teams ranked at year's end, although it did beat one of them twice (Mizzou).
LSU, on the other hand, is the only conference champion with a win over the champion of another conference. In addition, the Tigers played seven teams ranked in the top 25 at year's end and beat five of them.
As far as Ohio State, they were in the BCS title game just last year, so perhaps voters remembered that.
I do not think LSU will blow out OSU, I expect the Buckeyes to give a good account of themselves.
I just want the best team to win, and I think the best two teams are indeed playing for all the marbles.
Look, all of this requires a little bit of speculation.
Are you seriously going to tell me that if Woodson goes down they beat Vandy? (27-20 win) If not they're even worse at 6-6. Oregon was 8-1 with their starting QB. That's fact. Their backup threw the ball RIGHT AT the best CB (he won the award after all) on like his third throw for a pick 6.
They lost the OSU game on a brain dead coaching move (not spiking the ball prior to the FG).
If you're saying KY is better than Oregon if both are healthy then that's just dumb. No one will give you any credibility if that is your claim. So just drop that portion of the discussion.
realbigten - Well, actually they beat 4. Or don't you consider teams who finished 6-5 + losing to USC as teams with winning records against the rest of CFB? I do. Why punish them for putting a team at 6-6? If they tied them those teams would have had winning records, would that be better?
OU beat Texas. Man that proves how weak your arguments are. You can't even remember the biggest rivalry in the Big XII!!!!! They also would have beaten Kansas, it's not their fault Mizzou took them out.
LSU did NOT play 7 teams who finished in the top 25.
VaTech, Tennessee, Florida (loss) Auburn, Arkansas (loss). That's five. The 'Hogs are only ranked because they beat LSU by the way so it's really 4 with a 2-2 record. Sheesh.
Norcalfella,
I don't always agree with you, but I respect you. However, I expect the same in return. Do NOT read into my argument and then call me dumb for your misinterpretation of it.
My point was that you downplayed USC's loss to Oregon, who are now an unranked team so it looks worse than it did at the time, yet you say it doesn't matter that when LSU lost to Kentucky the Wildcats were one of the hotest teams in the nation. When it's convenient for you, you want us to consider how good the team was at that point. And when that's not convenient for you, you want us to consider how good the team is now. You can't have things both ways. We either have to consider every team as they are now or every team as they were at the time they played another team.
"If you're saying KY is better than Oregon if both are healthy then that's just dumb".
First of all, notice the word "if" and second of all that's attacking your argument. Re-read the sentence.
Oregon's not ranked because voters are idiots. They want it both ways. They won't pump up USC for playing much better NOW, but they'll forget Oregon pummeled Michigan 39-7, beat USC & beat ASU.
I downplayed USC's road loss in Oregon because it came with Sanchez at QB. When OU played Texas Tech with Bradford ... they lost. Pat White hurt? Lost twice!
Kentucky was never good, let's get that straight. Woodson is inconsistent & overrated. You're basing them being "hot" on them losing 38-23 to sucky South Carolina in their previous game right? Or beating the likes of Eastern Kentucky, Kent State, and Lousville (40-34)? Their only other decent win of the ENTIRE SEASON is over Arkansas. Come on now, get serious.
jd, you must hate USC (or jealous of them), West Virginia ahead of them? They 'just' lost to Pitt.
USC lost to Stanford yes, but that was in week 7.
Not too many teams are playing better than them "right now".
