forums

Prediction: Miami will be ranked in the preseason top 25

Advertisement
Preseason rankings are the worst. I feel like they should rank after 2-3 weeks
 
Peter Ariz said:
Preseason rankings are the worst. I feel like they should rank after 2-3 weeks
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. And unfortunately it hurts a lot of teams who AREN'T ranked in the preseason top 25 and end up having good seasons because in a sense they are playing "catch up"
 
I don't want to be ranked until we prove we can stay there. just my two cents.
 
Pre-Season rankings are a joke, a lot of teams that are rated high sh*t the bed, but if you beat them early that can give you a quality win, whereas if a sleeper team starts off slow but finished in the top 10 an early season win against them won't mean as much. All reasons why the BCS is a joke.
 
Advertisement
Peter Ariz said:
Preseason rankings are the worst. I feel like they should rank after 2-3 weeks
Click to expand...

Righto, Petey.

Only you didn't go far enough. They should scrap that **** till week 8.

What do you really know after week 2 that you didn't already? Not much.
 
Llike Texas the past few years for example. ALWAYS ranked in the preseason top 25. and they lose a couple games however they are 5-3 and ranked 22 because they started out there
 
Peter Ariz said:
Preseason rankings are the worst. I feel like they should rank after 2-3 weeks
Click to expand...

people say this but in reality it makes no sense. the preseason rankings are a starting point. you can't have a poll with no starting point. is it perfect? no, but it relies on things like players returning, schedule, coaching changes, etc.

if you didn't have a preseason poll then exactly how do you propose ranking 120 teams with no starting point? then you would have even more of the 'eye test' bias in rankings. for example should the loser of uf-miami be ranked behind a team that's 2-0 with dominating wins over mid majors? how do you tell with no early indicators (which is what polls are) of the team's potential level of success? nobody is going to agree on stuff like that. that type of discussion would be even more rampant than it is today with even more bias considering people would have to come up with arbitrary starting points. the problem is what we have isn't perfect...but nothing is, continuing to change the sport won't make it so. same with all this playoff ****, before you know it it'll be 60 teams, just watch.
 
Advertisement
killa1storm said:
Peter Ariz said:
Preseason rankings are the worst. I feel like they should rank after 2-3 weeks
Click to expand...

people say this but in reality it makes no sense. the preseason rankings are a starting point. you can't have a poll with no starting point. is it perfect? no, but it relies on things like players returning, schedule, coaching changes, etc.

if you didn't have a preseason poll then exactly how do you propose ranking 120 teams with no starting point? then you would have even more of the 'eye test' bias in rankings. for example should the loser of uf-miami be ranked behind a team that's 2-0 with dominating wins over mid majors? how do you tell with no early indicators (which is what polls are) of the team's potential level of success? nobody is going to agree on stuff like that. that type of discussion would be even more rampant than it is today with even more bias considering people would have to come up with arbitrary starting points. the problem is what we have isn't perfect...but nothing is, continuing to change the sport won't make it so. same with all this playoff ****, before you know it it'll be 60 teams, just watch.
Click to expand...

a starting point makes no sense. you shouldnt have a top 25 based on purely projection and what a team did last year.
 
pcitycane said:
killa1storm said:
Peter Ariz said:
Preseason rankings are the worst. I feel like they should rank after 2-3 weeks
Click to expand...

people say this but in reality it makes no sense. the preseason rankings are a starting point. you can't have a poll with no starting point. is it perfect? no, but it relies on things like players returning, schedule, coaching changes, etc.

if you didn't have a preseason poll then exactly how do you propose ranking 120 teams with no starting point? then you would have even more of the 'eye test' bias in rankings. for example should the loser of uf-miami be ranked behind a team that's 2-0 with dominating wins over mid majors? how do you tell with no early indicators (which is what polls are) of the team's potential level of success? nobody is going to agree on stuff like that. that type of discussion would be even more rampant than it is today with even more bias considering people would have to come up with arbitrary starting points. the problem is what we have isn't perfect...but nothing is, continuing to change the sport won't make it so. same with all this playoff ****, before you know it it'll be 60 teams, just watch.
Click to expand...

a starting point makes no sense. you shouldnt have a top 25 based on purely projection and what a team did last year.
Click to expand...

yea it kinda does. what else would you base a projection on? it's an indicator of what to expect from teams, you guys act as if its set in stone. past success/failure is the best way to project...once again its not perfect. but if you're not using past results along with some other indicators (schedule, possible impact freshmen, coaching changes) etc. then what are you gonna use? the arbitrary judge of who 'looks' better after a few weeks? without taking into account schedules among other things? that would lead to even more bias and arbitrary rankings than what people complain about now.

the rankings change weekly anyway so i'm not sure what the big deal is. the good teams always show themselves regardless of where they're ranked and the same for the bad teams. can anyone think of one team who got shafted out of playing for a title because of where they started in the preseason? the only case is auburn in 04-05' but #1 and #2 never lost and usc spanked them handidly the year prior. auburn in 10' started unranked and won the title...it works itself out.
 
Except under your idea and with the bcs formula preseason top 10 teams are given an unfair inside track to the bcs title game. And considering that polls are just an opinion it has led to the SEC getting much more credit than some teams deserve, thus minimizing losses to those teams , which allows them to not drop as much in the rankings. Case in point, LSU, they are a perfect example, no freaking way they were a top 10 team, yet there they were constantly, or with 2 losses they make it to a bcs title game due to the perceived strength of the SEC.

I am not saying they are not the best football conference, but the perception of how superior is I believe overblown. This then gives them a huge advantage in these preseason opinion polls, and gives them a big advantage in the bcs formula.

After week 5 you have a true assessment of who are the best teams and it would
also encourage better scheduling as well.

I believe
 
Advertisement
I'd like to see an analysis of how many teams either win the title or finish in the top three and where they were ranked pre-season.
A team like Louisville will benefit greatly from a high pre-season ranking considering how soft their schedule is. They would never get very high with out a high early ranking.
 
killa1storm said:
pcitycane said:
killa1storm said:
Peter Ariz said:
Preseason rankings are the worst. I feel like they should rank after 2-3 weeks
Click to expand...

people say this but in reality it makes no sense. the preseason rankings are a starting point. you can't have a poll with no starting point. is it perfect? no, but it relies on things like players returning, schedule, coaching changes, etc.

if you didn't have a preseason poll then exactly how do you propose ranking 120 teams with no starting point? then you would have even more of the 'eye test' bias in rankings. for example should the loser of uf-miami be ranked behind a team that's 2-0 with dominating wins over mid majors? how do you tell with no early indicators (which is what polls are) of the team's potential level of success? nobody is going to agree on stuff like that. that type of discussion would be even more rampant than it is today with even more bias considering people would have to come up with arbitrary starting points. the problem is what we have isn't perfect...but nothing is, continuing to change the sport won't make it so. same with all this playoff ****, before you know it it'll be 60 teams, just watch.
Click to expand...

a starting point makes no sense. you shouldnt have a top 25 based on purely projection and what a team did last year.
Click to expand...

yea it kinda does. what else would you base a projection on? it's an indicator of what to expect from teams, you guys act as if its set in stone. past success/failure is the best way to project...once again its not perfect. but if you're not using past results along with some other indicators (schedule, possible impact freshmen, coaching changes) etc. then what are you gonna use? the arbitrary judge of who 'looks' better after a few weeks? without taking into account schedules among other things? that would lead to even more bias and arbitrary rankings than what people complain about now.

the rankings change weekly anyway so i'm not sure what the big deal is. the good teams always show themselves regardless of where they're ranked and the same for the bad teams. can anyone think of one team who got shafted out of playing for a title because of where they started in the preseason? the only case is auburn in 04-05' but #1 and #2 never lost and usc spanked them handidly the year prior. auburn in 10' started unranked and won the title...it works itself out.
Click to expand...

I think a starting point 2-3 weeks into the season makes much more sense. It can take into account what the pre-season polls do already, as well as some data to work with on the current team. And the rankings rarely work themselves out. With the exception of ND and an SEC team, it's almost impossible for a team outside the top-25 to start the year to make it to the NC.
 
Fzac75 said:
Except under your idea and with the bcs formula preseason top 10 teams are given an unfair inside track to the bcs title game. And considering that polls are just an opinion it has led to the SEC getting much more credit than some teams deserve, thus minimizing losses to those teams , which allows them to not drop as much in the rankings. Case in point, LSU, they are a perfect example, no freaking way they were a top 10 team, yet there they were constantly, or with 2 losses they make it to a bcs title game due to the perceived strength of the SEC.

I am not saying they are not the best football conference, but the perception of how superior is I believe overblown. This then gives them a huge advantage in these preseason opinion polls, and gives them a big advantage in the bcs formula.

After week 5 you have a true assessment of who are the best teams and it would
also encourage better scheduling as well.

I believe
Click to expand...

generally speaking, the polls work themselves out.

in your lsu example, that had nothing to do with preseason polls really. teams in front of them lost allowing them to get in (west virginia, ohio state, and a few others i believe). i do not believe the polls give any conference an advantage over the other. people complain about sec teams getting in with the same records as others a few times but never mention that it took other teams losing to allow them in. that was the case in 06' with uf, 07' with lsu, and 11' bama off the top of my head. the same was true last year with oregon and k. state losing which allowed bama to get back in the picture.
 
Advertisement
would rather be unranked.......we haven't done anything to deserve a ranking. let's earn it and climb as the season progresses.
 
killa1storm said:
Fzac75 said:
Except under your idea and with the bcs formula preseason top 10 teams are given an unfair inside track to the bcs title game. And considering that polls are just an opinion it has led to the SEC getting much more credit than some teams deserve, thus minimizing losses to those teams , which allows them to not drop as much in the rankings. Case in point, LSU, they are a perfect example, no freaking way they were a top 10 team, yet there they were constantly, or with 2 losses they make it to a bcs title game due to the perceived strength of the SEC.

I am not saying they are not the best football conference, but the perception of how superior is I believe overblown. This then gives them a huge advantage in these preseason opinion polls, and gives them a big advantage in the bcs formula.

After week 5 you have a true assessment of who are the best teams and it would
also encourage better scheduling as well.

I believe
Click to expand...

generally speaking, the polls work themselves out.

in your lsu example, that had nothing to do with preseason polls really. teams in front of them lost allowing them to get in (west virginia, ohio state, and a few others i believe). i do not believe the polls give any conference an advantage over the other. people complain about sec teams getting in with the same records as others a few times but never mention that it took other teams losing to allow them in. that was the case in 06' with uf, 07' with lsu, and 11' bama off the top of my head. the same was true last year with oregon and k. state losing which allowed bama to get back in the picture.
Click to expand...

Look man, stop arguing this. You're wrong. If Miami starts out ranked 25th every team above us has a built in advantage. No team should be ranked until at least week 4-6. If 8 teams ranked ahead of us in the initial poll only lose one game, and we lose one game. then how do we get into the BCS title game? The teams ahead of us would be considered long before us based mostly on where they started. They changed the formula so that the human polls make up 2/3 of the BCS standings. **** even with the 4 team playoff in 2014 we would prob get screwed.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top