The College Football Thread 2006

[MRT144]

what the hell drake!

[Eroberer]

Originally posted by DanS
My top 10 hasn't had much upheaval. Certainly not compared to some of you.

My votes.

1. OSU
2. Michigan
3. USC (tough competition gets the props) +1
4. Notre Dame (tough choice between ND and Fla) + 2
5. Florida
6. Wisconsin + 4
7. Rutgers (New)
8. Cal -5 (tough competition gets the props)
9. West Virginia (New)
10. Arkansas (New, weak competition)

It obviously helps to be consistently very bad.

A 2-loss Cal team that lost to a crappy Arizona team, ahead of Arkansas, who only lost to your "#3" team in the first week? Anyway, let me redo my rankings now that I've seen the light of DanS's systems:

1) Stanford, 2) USC, 3) Washington, 4) Cal , 5) Arizona, 6) WSU , 7) UCLA, 8) UNC, 9) Minnesota , 10) Oregon.

UNC and Minnesota are the only ones outside of the Pac-10 that ever plays anybody!

[Eroberer]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
My rankings...

1. Ohio State
2. Texas
3. Louisville
4. USC
5. LSU
6. California
7. West Virginia
8. BYU
9. Michigan
10. Clemson

LoL, disqualified! We can't count these rankings. You'll have to resubmit. We all got a good laugh, now give us your real rankings.

[Drake Tungsten]

what the hell drake!

Why are you yelling at me? DanS has USC one spot higher than I do...

[MRT144]

i feel like im looking at week 2 rankings!

[Guynemer]

Drake, are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

1. OSU
2. Michigan
3. Florida
4. Notre Dame
5. USC
6. Arkansas
7. Rutgers
8. Wisconsin
9. Louisville
10. LSU



Thus far:

1. Ohio State (8) 80
2. Michigan 65
3. USC 46
4. Arkansas 44
5. Rutgers 40
6. Florida 38
7. Notre Dame 28
8. Wisconsin 24
9. West Virginia 20
10. Louisville 19

ARV: Texas 11, LSU 9, Cal 8, BYU 3, Clemson 1.

[Drake Tungsten]

My rankings make a lot more sense if you look at the teams based on overall talent and potential to win rather than the results so far.

[Guynemer]

...all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Eroberer]

nm.

I think you're rating BYU a little high, and Michigan a little low if you're really going by talent. edit: Also, California has no defense, like we've discovered, and Clemson blows. They don't have the mindset to win any real games.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Eroberer
A 2-loss Cal team that lost to a crappy Arizona team, ahead of Arkansas, who only lost to your "#3" team in the first week?

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point out Arkansas/SEC fanboyism.

Arkansas has the #81 toughest schedule so far. In other words, not much better than a I-AA schedule. Cal has the #4 toughest schedule.

Arkansas has tougher games coming up (LSU, probably Fla), so has the chance of working itself into the mix. But I refuse to reward a team for something that it has not yet done.

[Drake Tungsten]

Arkansas is not even in my top-20...

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
My rankings make a lot more sense if you look at the teams based on overall talent and potential to win rather than the results so far.

thats such a danS move it disgusts me

[DanS]

No, that's completely opposite of my approach. But at least Drake has a rationale for these rankings which makes sense, even though I don't agree with it.

Most of the people posting in this thread are given to homerism and praying at the altar of ESPN commentary. Given this, Drake's approach is refreshing.

[MRT144]

what does it say that your approach is easily confused with his?

[Drake Tungsten]

Most of the people posting in this thread are given to homerism and praying at the altar of ESPN commentary. Given this, Drake's approach is refreshing.

Thank you. I also find your prinicipled and logical approach to these rankings refreshing.