OT: If you hadn't lost all respect for Craig James yet...
Link to Article Criticizing Craig James' Voting in the Polls This Week
EDIT: Actual Link to his Voting this week
I found this unnerving considering how close our BCS chances come down to these fools who vote. Apparently watching football as a job does not make you smart at ranking teams. Shock.
Side bet: How many times will there a be a SMU/Hooker meme in this thread?
Over/Under: 6.5
December 1st, 2011 at 10:52 PM ^
#FireCraigJames
December 1st, 2011 at 10:54 PM ^
Did he rank Michigan in the top 14?
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:10 AM ^
Yes. Yes he did. This negates the respect I would've lost for him, so I still hate him as much as when I opened this thread.
December 1st, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
So, I know we all hate Craig James
But he put us at #14
http://www.pollspeak.com/component/option,com_psreport/Itemid,155/t1,55/task,singleteamr/
Hookers?
December 1st, 2011 at 11:32 PM ^
Then I thought maybe he's not all that bad even though he (allegedly) killed 5 hookers.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
If he had put Michigan in the Top 10, would we be able to justify the rumored killing of the hookers?
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
This just came home yesterday:
If a train leaves Cleveland at 3:00pm traveling westbound at 60mph and a second train leaves Chicago at 2:30pm traveling eastbound at 70mph, how many hookers does Craig James kill?
If the answer is 5, she still needs to show her work so I need a formula here. The extra credit to this problem is also answering "How many tattoos Pryor did not pay for", I am stumped on that one as well.
December 1st, 2011 at 10:58 PM ^
His reasoning for Arkansas? "Well they've only lost to the 1 and 2 teams in the country."
December 1st, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^
Well, that's actually not terrible logic. I think you could find many other things to pick at first
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:23 AM ^
Except that prevailing logic when Ohio State beat Michigan was something along the lines of, "Well Michigan had their shot" and "Nobody wants to see a rematch of those two teams" and "Everyone knows that the Big 10 is just the SEC's bitches" or something to that effect.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^
And hey, logic prevailed.
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^
But I guess my counter is who else did they play? They were curb-stomped by LSU and Alabama (and yes, both were on the road), but their next best win was against South Carolina, which has a great defense but not much else. They struggled to beat Ole Miss and Vandy on the road, and while they definitely are a good team, I don't see how they are any different than UM, MSU, Wiscy, Boise St., Stanford, Oregon, and a whole bunch of other two- or one-loss teams ranked below them.
December 1st, 2011 at 10:58 PM ^
Is there anyway we can find his entire list of rankings? This is horrible. Fire this man.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:09 PM ^
Thank you, kind sir.
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^
ESPN loves controversy. The more asinine James is, the more stubborn his opinions, and the more people hate him, the more people pay attention to ESPN. If you want him off the air, say you'll stop watching games that he broadcasts and don't say anything else.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:00 PM ^
The AP poll isn't part of the BCS, so at least this bit of ridiculousness doesn't hurt Michigan. I can't say the same about the coaches' poll, which is sometimes filled out by SID's or other members of the football program, since it's not like the coaches have time to watch all of the other games anyway. Of course, some of the computers have Baylor at #7, so maybe everyone is dumb.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
Nah, its just evidence of the computers' virtual hard-on for the Big 12.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:02 PM ^
Because his rankings reflect the use of paint thinner in some capacity.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
They play a schedule that allows them to get in National Championship contention by beating cream puffs. If people allow that, then they should also be nailed for losing to a cream puff.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^
59 other voters disagreed.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:31 PM ^
I just think its crap that they always get the benefit of the doubt. "If Boise St played better teams they could would win against them". However, they lose to a middle/lower tier team every regular season. Why do they automatically get the benefit. Use reverse logic and you could say Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern could have played Boise State's schedule and came out with 1 loss as well. Why not give them the benefit of doubt and just put everybody in the top ten. Voters are afraid to hammer Boise St for their crap schedule. If Boise St played Houston's same schedule and had Houston's current record, they would be #3 without a doubt, just because they are the mythical Boise St .... in summary ... F Boise St
December 1st, 2011 at 11:47 PM ^
BSU lost to a good TCU team that still has a nonzero chance of getting into a big time bowl game. They at least beat Georgia in their own backyard and still have a statistically better SOS than VT, Houston (111th!?!?), Michigan St, and Wisconsin. Overrated? Sure. But they are definitely Top 15 material.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:03 AM ^
Im just a Boise Hater I guess. I would compare it to Michigan playing like 11 OOC pushovers & Sparty. If that was our schedule every year we'd never leave the National Championship picture.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:21 AM ^
Yes BSU beat up on UGA but keep in mind that BSU has esscentially one game to get hyped up for. They have all spring and summer to gameplan for that one game. Same thing last year when they beat VT. Put them in a real confrence and they are a 4 or 5 loss team. Want proof of that? Utah (who has been in about the same boat as BSU) is now 7-5 and just lost at home to Colorado YES I said Colorado. The same Colorado team that had lost 23 road games in a row. UGA on the other hand had another ranked team to play the very next week. Care to guess how many other teams BSU played that had a little number beside their name? 0.
December 2nd, 2011 at 6:25 AM ^
There is a lot of truth in that. Boise State doesn't have to show much on film or get beat up against big bruising teams.
December 2nd, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
In the last 4 years they have beaten Goergia, Virginia Tech, Oregon (twice), and TCU. Bottom line is that they beat whomever signs up to play them, typically the big boys of the major conferences if they can get a game out of them. Nobody wants to play them for fear of getting beat. Furthermore, these games are all either away or on neutral fields. I think it's time we give credit where credit is due.
December 2nd, 2011 at 6:49 AM ^
I don't buy that BSU has a tougher schedule than MSU. Sure MSU played 3 horrendous OOC cupcakes and Indiana, but...
MSU played Wisconsin, Wisconsin again, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Iowa, Northwestern.
BSU played a Georgia (GA has zero wins over currently ranked teams), TCU, Air Force, SDSU, Tulsa....
By the end of the season I'd bet that:
MSU will have played 5-6 games against teams that finish ranked.
BSU will have played 2-3 games against teams that finish ranked.
Consider this, if you had to bet your entire 401K: BSU will have an 11-1 record, but if they had to play MSU's schedule...would you take BSU to still have an 11-1 record or better?
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
But voters tend to overrate B10 teams. Let's face it. B10 teams get the benefit of the doubt just because they're "traditional powers."
December 2nd, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
Well...if you still think MSU's schedule is overrated let's rack it up side by side.
Do you think playing Wisconsin twice is tougher than playing Georgia once?
Do you think Nebraska is similar to playing TCU (keep in mind that this TCU team isn't as good as last years)?
Playing Michigan is certainly tougher than SDSU...as Michigan blew out SDSU.
Playing Notre Dame is certainly tougher than Air Force...as Notre Dame blew out Air Force.
Is Playing Iowa and Ohio State (on the road) is tougher than playing Tulsa?
Hands down MSU has a tougher schedule than BSU.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:03 AM ^
Benefit of the doubt? You really, really don't know what you're talking about. They've proven themselves over and over again and have moved into the MWC. If you think TCU and Utah suck too, then you're just plain ole' stupid.
2011: Boise State has one loss this year, to a soon-to-be 10-2 TCU team. TCU has a 2-point loss to Baylor on the road and an OT loss to SMU at home. Is that really lower-tier to you?
2010: One loss to Nevada, the 19th ranked team in the country according to the BCS. Nevada was 13-1 with a loss to Hawaii and wins against big-conference teams such as Boston College and California.
2008 and 2009: Undefeated except for a bowl game loss to TCU in '08.
2007: 10-3 with road losses to Washington and Hawaii, as well as a bowl-game loss to ECU. None of these teams were exceptionally good (Washington was pretty bad) but Hawaii did make the Sugar Bowl (though they got destroyed against Georgia).
2006: Undefeated.
I'm not even going to go into their wins because they speak for themselves against 'higher' competition. I'm tired of people not understanding sports, especially football. Any team can beat anybody if they play it right and the other team plays it wrong. It doesn't matter if Boise State plays the worse schedule in history, if they can continuously beat the big dogs, that's fine to me. A tougher schedule tests your team and forces them to get better, but it's not necessary to win or even to be the best. In the end, it's a game and Boise State is damn good at it.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:15 AM ^
They beat one big dog a year? How is that consistent. MWC isn't good anymore. Utah and BYU are gone and TCU is gone next year.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^
How is that consistent? That's the definition of consistent! They beat a great team every year, seems consistent to me.
Just because they go about it a different way, doesn't mean they are somehow 'bad'. If they beat all these teams who are going through these tough schedules, than maybe Boise State is doing it right and other teams are doing it wrong.
Also, they joined the MWC before other teams started leaving. That's not their fault and I'm sure they'll try to move to a better conference but I'm willing to bet that they're non-football sports (not to mention academics) are holding them back. It's not like they aren't trying here. They moved to a better conference and have a great OOC usually...
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:17 AM ^
They may consistently beat a good team every year, but they also have a massive meltdown loss every year. My logic is that I you're going to let one big win validate them, then one meltdown loss should invalidate them. A one loss Boise St. team should be in the 15-25 range, not top 10.
December 2nd, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
Boise State has proved absolutely nothing. They've beat one good team a year? Wow. Color me completely unimpressed. All that means is that they have one game a year they have to really prepare for. TCU is not that great this year either. Please don't point to their record and say that they are. TCU plays no one either. TCU lost Andy Dalton and they are an average team again. Fact is, when all you have is one big game a year to prepare for, you have a much better chance of winning that game than the team that has 8 big games to prepare for. Until you get a clue in your head that Boise is worth nothing until they join a better conference, please stop talking.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:31 AM ^
So how do you explain away Utah basically dominating in the same fashion as BSU joining the PAC12 and going 7-5? Not a terrible season, but certainly not in BCS Bowl talks. Any team can win any day against any team but to do it against real competition week after week after week, is something different. LSU has done that. That is why they are number 1. Let me see BSU join a real confrence and go through the grind of a tough season playing ranked team after ranked team and I will buy in.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:55 AM ^
Who says that Utah was even suppose to be good this year? I honestly have no idea, but there is a reason that they weren't ranked from the start. Also, it's a completely different set of schools so they'll have to adjust to new competition with scouting and knowing their opponents.
Why does Boise State have to join a real conference though? Who says they have to? Rankings are all opinion of dumbasses like Craig James who don't know nearly enough to make a solid rankings of the top 25 schools from a group of 120. If Boise State was undefeated and beat LSU in the championship game, would you consider them the national champs? If yes, they're obviously doing something right because they didn't have the advantage of having tough competition testing and pushing them, yet they still won.
Also, you don't have to buy in, it just shows that you have an unrational hatred for them. They've beaten Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Oregon, TCU, Oregon State, Georgia, etc. (only ones I can think of off the top of my head).
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:19 AM ^
I live in Utah. It was pretty common knowledge around here (I work with quite a few Utah grads and season ticket holders) that 8 wins was going to be the ceiling this year. 6 or 7 wins was pretty much expected this year to anyone who follows the team closely. The defense was supposed to be good but the offense was going to be piss poor no matter if they played in the Mountain West, the Pac 12, or played high school teams all year.
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:29 AM ^
I think any top 25 team could beat LSU in a one game National Championship. The struggle isn't winning 1 NC game, or 1 BCS game. The struggle is proving you deserve to be in that game. That's the reason for the regular season. No team should be in the top 10 without beating at least 2 top 25 teams. Whether those teams were ranked at the time they played, or at the last poll of the regular season. Minimum 2 top 25 wins.
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:19 AM ^
Wouldn't that put Virginia Tech, at 11-1, out of the top 10?
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^
That's fine with me. They would have two losses if they played any Big Ten team's schedule.
December 2nd, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
Every team that has tried to beat LSU has failed miserably so far, with the exception of Alabama which had a close failure. The "anyone has a chance to win" argument is bad because most teams that try, do not win. Winning those big games each year is more than most teams would do in their place.
As for the one stupid loss argument, did all those USC teams 2006-2008 suck because they had one stupid conference loss each year?
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:42 AM ^
Having 1 or 2 key wins doesn't make a team great, when the other 10 wins are against teams that are IU type bad. You become legitimate by having a few key wins and several mediocre wins. It's parity that makes the major conference teams legitimate. If you slip up one week and bring yourself down to a mediocre level, you can lose to a Purdue, or Iowa State, or Northwestern, or whichever SEC team you want to pick. Michigan could play miserable and beat 10 teams on Boise's schedule. The next best team in their conference is barely above mediocre. What they've done in past years doesn't validate a high ranking and weak schedule this year and in future years. They get their ranking for their reputation and that's it. They shouldn't be top 10. You don't think teams below them could play their schedule and come out undefeated or with 1 loss to freaking TCU? How'd Baylor look against TCU?
December 2nd, 2011 at 1:06 AM ^
Their reputation comes from somewhere and it's consistently beating these 'BCS teams'. If those teams stopped losing, your problem would be solved. Who says a team has to have more than a couple key wins to become great? That doesn't make any sense to me. If Michael Jordan beat the utter shit out of the NBA D-Leage, he'd still be a great player. Your competition doesn't make you great, the way you play does.
Alabama is supposedly so great this year, yet they've played four teams with winning records (not counting FCS). Penn State, LSU, Auburn, and Arkansas. Georgia Southern gave them a good game until the end of the third and had 300+ yards rushing against the Tide. Their schedule wasn't exactly difficult, though not as easy as Boise's...
TCU didn't look great, but they also played on the road and only had 8 returning starters on both sides of the ball. Eight. That's all. They should have never been ranked to begin with yet they've improved to a solid team over the year (much like us). In the end, they still only loss by two with that 4th quarter comeback.
I don't think Boise is particularly great this year, but the disrespect is laughable, year after year. Keep doubting them because it won't matter, they'll keep beating those 'great' teams. That's until Peterson leaves of course (which might happen soon actually).
December 2nd, 2011 at 2:09 AM ^
Still though, the fact is that they only play one BCS school a year. They have to play well for one or two games and then can just coast and get by on being better than the schools in their weak conference. If they have a bad game or two, so what, the team they are playing sucks and they still win (minus their annual derp). They only have to play at their best for a few games per year. If they are in a good conference those bad games suddenly turn into losses ie Michigan vs Iowa and MSU. It would be like Michigan playing 'Bama and then finishing out the year with a MAC schedule. Guarenteed 11-1 with a chance at an undefeated 12-0.
December 2nd, 2011 at 12:45 AM ^
I'm not saying Boise State is a top 10 team. They aren't, not when they lose to Nevada (in 2010 and I don't really care that they were ranked) and an Andy Dalton-less TCU (in 2011). However, I highly doubt that Ron Zook's Illinois, NW, or Iowa are better than Boise State, in talent or coaching. In all seriousness, I would take BSU over those mid-lower level Big Ten teams 100 times out of 100.
On to your second point, the problem with that logic is that Boise actually earns the "benifit of the doubt" by beating the good teams they face. While I think they get a huge push from people who gush for the underdog story and for a playoff system, you can't sit there and say that they haven't beaten anybody when they have beaten almost every good team they've played in the last half decade. 11 win Oklahoma (2007), two 10 win Oregon teams (2008,2009), an 11 win VA Tech (2010), and a 10-11 win Georgia (2011). Being undefeated against those established programs is nothing to scoff at. Plus, it's hard to take the "Little Sisters of the Poor" arguement at face value when Ohio played against Akron, Toledo, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue this year. Hell, even Alabama played against Kent State, North Texas, Vanderbilt, and Georgia Southern. My point is that while the rest of these team schedules are against Good-Great opponents, they still chalk up an easy 4-6 wins against cupcakes and then have the balls to say, "Let's be serious here, BSU ain't shit. I mean, look who they play!!"
Either way, this discussion will hopefully be moot when/if they move to the Big East. I'm sure they won't get a shot next year because MSU is going to struggle with a bunch of new starters on Offense and no DT to throat punch innocent bystanders, ergo, no signature win to impress the voters.
December 2nd, 2011 at 8:52 AM ^
is that Boise doesn't play ANY middle of the road teams. For example, Purdue, Illinois & Vanderbilt would all be the 3rd best team on Boise's schedule; yet they are some of the worst on Ohio/Alabama's schedules.
December 2nd, 2011 at 7:56 AM ^
Everyone disagreed!
December 1st, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^
If Arkansas is #3, I'm the f'n Pope's uncle.
December 1st, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^
Do you think you could get me a few hours in the archives?