2007 Blogpoll - Bruins Nation's Preseason Ballot (DRAFT)

by Nestor on Aug 17, 2007 2:22 PM PDT in Football Comment 18 comments

It's that time of the year again. Time to get ready to cast our ballot in the 3rd edition of blogpoll. If you discovered this place on the internets in the recent months and have no idea what "blogpoll" is all about here is the 411 courtesy of MGoBlog.

We have been partaking in this exercise ever since we launched more than two years ago.

So here is the deal. The first blogpoll of 2007 is going to released on the 22nd (next Wedensday). Then there is going to be a second one based on feedback from bloggers all over the sphere that will come out on the 29th.

Here is the current draft ballot for the BN vote.

Rank	Team	Delta
1	West Virginia	25
2	Southern Cal	24
3	Texas	23
4	LSU	22
5	Florida	21
6	Michigan	20
7	UCLA	19
8	Louisville	18
9	Virginia Tech	17
10	Wisconsin	16
11	California	15
12	Ohio State	14
13	Oklahoma	13
14	Georgia	12
15	Tennessee	11
16	Penn State	10
17	Auburn	9
18	Oregon	8
19	Florida State	7
20	TCU	6
21	Oregon State	5
22	Arizona State	4
23	Texas A&M	3
24	Arkansas	2
25	Arizona	1

Dropped Out:

I have already submitted these rankings. However, I can change them based on your feedback anytime up to Wednesday.

So take a look at this ballot. Let me know what you think.

As lot of the veterans will attest I do my best to take in all the suggestions and adjust our vote so that it reflects as a true community exercise.

One thing though. I am not going to put Southern Cal at number 1. I am sorry I don't care how much hype they are getting, I am not going to put them at the 1 spot.

First there was this. They are not even the number 1 team in Los Angeles:

Photo credit: Ruth Lozano at Flickr via LAist

How can you respect a team that blew it against a Dorrell coached football team with a national championship game on the line.

I know the whole world (including the blogosphere) are going nuts over the gang of (alleged) criminals and thugs from cross-town, but color me unimpressed. I don't think Reggie Carter has any respect for the Trojan "Heisman" contender.

AP Photo

So why should we?

And to tack on to that those guys lost Steve Smith or Dwayne Jarrett. Their running game despite all the talent didn't amount to much last season.

Plus they are not very deep at the OL. IIRC they are replacing three guys at the OL, including an AA at the Center.

Uhm may be Sarkisian will be do a better job this year now that he doesn't have to be in that weird Co-OC set up with Kiffin. But me thinks they are still going to miss Chow.

Anyways, I am not saying Southern Cal is not going to be a contender. They are going to compete. But I think those guys will lose 2-3 games, and will not be the invincible team that everyone is making them out to be. Besides, Kyle over at Dawg Sports seems to be on the same page with me on this. (If you want to see how others are voting you can also check out the ballots of MGoBlog, Maize n Brew, Roll 'Bama Roll, and Black Shoe Diaries)

So I am going with West Virginia, who I believe is going to run the table with the tandem of Pat White and Steve Slaton.

Other than that I am going to open this up for discussion. As for the rest of the top-10 I am little unsure about Virgina Tech at number 9. Perhaps they are ranked too high? And no I don't think I am over-rating our Bruins. Based on the talent, experience, and a favorable schedule, we expect UCLA to have the kind of season that will merit at least a top-10 season.

I'd really like to hear your take specially with the teams ranked from 11-25. The teams that I considered but did not include in the top-25 list are Notre Dame, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Georgia Tech.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

7 seems fair to me

This is the kind of ranking that we must have and maintain if KD is going to keep his job.

by Tydides on Aug 17, 2007 2:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i agree with the 7 spot

theoretically, this is the first time a dorrell coached team will have decent production from both sides of the ball...

solid defense, no offense
gaping holes in our D, won games on heart and special teams, and occasionally a productive (Tom Cable) led offense
too many newcomers on D, including the Ok. St. disaster where Spencer Havner (who didn't make the NFL) had to make 16 tackles..., an emerging offense with the 2LiveDrew plus Marcedes
A solid defense with the Ball brothers, Leisle, Boschetti, Chillar and Ware, but not much offense, and a QB controversy

i think it's the first time since 2002 where we can honestly say we SHOULD be okay on both sides of the ball...

anyways as far as the rankings, i think Wisconsin should be higher. when all is said and done, i think that they will be in the national championship picture...

also, i don't believe Oregon St. is a top 25 team with a new QB and an AWOL Sammie Stroughter

and finally, Arizona hasn't won anything yet and doesn't deserve a top 25 spot either...i'd put Hawaii in here and maybe ND, only because of Charlie Weis...

matsumoto class of '05

by matsumoto720 on Aug 17, 2007 2:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

fyi

Spencer Havner had one tackle for Green Bay against Pittsburgh last weekend. But that doesn't necessarily mean he'll make the team.

by WoodenLegend on Aug 17, 2007 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

forgot to add

Good luck Spencer!

by WoodenLegend on Aug 17, 2007 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good stuff

I think I will take Oregon State out and put Hawaii in.

I put Arizona in because I thought they showed some signs of life towards the end of last season. I can see them having a decent season, and I gave them the edge over Nebraska because of having a returning starting QB.

ND/Weiss factor makes sense.

by Nestor on Aug 18, 2007 4:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My head says one thing but my heart says another

I was so positive that we would be crushed by justsc last year that I had to be taken outside and slapped in the face a few times. And I have to say it worked. I actually believed we could win that game.

My head says that we will not have a particularly good year. (I keep hearing the word "Dorrell" over and over.) My head says that Dorrell will cost us some games as he always does.

But my heart is now saying things like, "What if the installation of all the moves has turned the corner," or whatever his load of gibberish is. What if Ben finally understands the nuances of the Theory of Relativity, aka, Mr. Dorrell's version of the WCAO (the "A" being for "alleged.")

So my heart is telling me things like, "Why not us? Why not now?" Hey - that's a good line. We should put it on T-shirts.

by Fox 71 on Aug 17, 2007 2:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

As was the case with the major upsets...

during lavin's tenure, I think last year's sc game was won by the players DESPITE the coaching. Dorrell didn't win that game, the players did. You could see how badly they wanted.

This year, as always, I remain optimistic. However, that doesn't mean I have to leave my common sense at the door and unfortunately, I expect a lot more ND type losses this season.

by UCngLA on Aug 17, 2007 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

Players get themselves motivated and amped up for a rivalry game. That was most certainly the case for the SUC game. Factor in the raucous RB environment, the superhuman defensive performance, SUCs lackluster game plan, and a little luck and there's 13-9. The only credit I give KD is not effin' it up.

Good coaches can motivate players to play the Washington States and Wyomings of the world, when it's much more difficult for these kids to really get amped up. That's why some of these games (@ Stanford, @ Utah, @ WSU, @ Arizona) are going to be more difficult for us than they should. It's hard for me to imagine CCK (Cardboard Cutout Karl) getting the players up for these games.

"..you've got to abide by the rules sometimes" -Reggie Bush

by godblesstyus95 on Aug 18, 2007 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup, besides our guys being really motivated,

'SC just wasn't all that ready for us. They had their win streak and three whuppins on KD going for them, had it in their heads the game would be a cake walk on their way to playing for the BCS title, and already had played 3 tough games prior to facing us.

I really don't like to see us that highly rated without having us played a game. With all the hype about this being the "Breakout Year", it could really be easy to take a team like Stanford for granted. SURE, we should win big. How many times have we seen this setup, only to struggle in a tight game to win, or be embarrassed by losing a game to a conference cellar dweller.

I'd much rather see us ranked low and motivated to work our way up to top 10 by end of season, not before a game has been played.

by bruinhawk on Aug 18, 2007 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry I really disagree with this

This is what is so wrong with our football program:

hawk not to pick on you b/c I think your heart is in the right place. But comeon man.

You don't like seeing us highly rated. Now think about our basketball program. Can you find one person who doesn't like seeing our hoops program highly rated? We should have the mindset of expecting, wanting our program to be ranked that high and then our coaches expecting to maintain that ranking. This is Dorrell's show me season. In a show me season we should expect to go into a season with high rankings and then finish according to those goals. After four long years how much more fucking motivation this program needs?

by Nestor on Aug 18, 2007 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, you've got me there, it's just that I 'm

cynical based on historical evidence. Bruin basketball under Howland has mostly lived up or surpassed its preseason rankings. The football team too often hasn't. When I've seen Bruin football highly rated early in the season, since the Donahue era, it has too often stumbled and fallen by the end of the season more often then its moved up from low ratings and ended on a high. Thanks to its coaching rarely has the Bruin football squad ever maintained and kept a high ranking into the bowl season.

Maybe it is just KD. The players have earned a pre-season high ranking, but I don't believe KD has. This one is for the players. KD will have to EARN it.

by bruinhawk on Aug 19, 2007 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

On the academic side

U.S. News' 2008 College Rankings are out. We're 25th among national universities, and to no one's surprise, USC is 27th. All is right with the world...except our head football coach.

by JWongUCLA on Aug 17, 2007 2:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm suprised

I would have rated them 72nd.

by Nars on Aug 17, 2007 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd have

LSU #1. They've got a shot at going undefeaed in a super-tough SEC and I think even with Russell leaving they'll be holding the national title trophy in New Orleans. I'd put both Hawaii and Nebraska in the top 25 as well. Both in the 20-25 range, but I'm high on Hawaii this year and I like Nebraska as well. With such a bad Big XII North, they can certainly win it.

by ryebreadraz on Aug 17, 2007 8:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Some WAC love

I would have to give Hawaii and/or Boise State a shot to at least be in the Top 25. And I think Virginia Tech is going to be pretty strong and maybe a title contender.

Unfortunately for Boise State, after their dream season last year, they have nowhere to go but down. But if they can beat Washington and Hawaii (both big "ifs" and both road games for Boise), at the end of the year, they will be ranked highly again.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the WAC, but if a smaller conference team runs the table, you can't knock them too much. They did what they were supposed to do--win.

by Barnes2JJ on Aug 18, 2007 7:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Colt Brennan

he is a beast, and June Jones' Run and Shoot offense is worth all the hype. These are things that I know for sure about Hawaii. The other thing I know is that they do not typically play well on the road. If they can break that trend this year, they could make a run. How high? That I do not know.

by Tydides on Aug 18, 2007 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rutgers Anyone?

How come you guys didn't put Rutgers anywhere in the Top 25? I think last year they proved themselves as a formidable team. They might even beat West Virginia at home this year.

by edoggy11021 on Aug 18, 2007 2:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My rankings (and explanations)

1 West Virginia - speeeeeed!
2 Southern Cal - only at the start
3 Michigan - nearly same team as last year, great schedule
4 LSU
5 Wisconsin
6 Texas
7 Florida
8 Louisville
9 UCLA
10 Virginia Tech
11 Wisconsin
12 California
13 Oklahoma
14 Ohio State
15 Auburn - always solid, good coach
16 Georgia
17 Florida State - only if offense gets better (no, the bowl game is no indication)
18 Arkansas - 1 stud = many wins
19 Oregon
20 Rutgers - guess we're just not used to thinking about them in the preseason!
21 TCU - I expect them to move up
22 Nebraska - Keller has looked great at practice
23 Tennessee - I see them fading away, actually
24 Oregon State - Matt Moore was often a liability, actually
25* Hawaii - shoot'em up!
25* Penn State - not much confidence in this team

Also, we shouldn't forget about Butch Davis at UNC, and O'Brien at NC State. Those teams are definitely in transition but if there is misused talent there, those coaches can work with them. Amazing that no one even mentions Miami anymore! And Notre Dame's offense won't be working very well until maybe mid-season.

I think eventually it'll be Michigan vs. LSU in the championship. U$C will lose a couple of games. Michigan should run the table as long as Carr doesn't choke again against Ohio State. WVa has to beat Louisville and Rutgers, doable but tough.

Eh, what do I know. I can't wait for the season to start! Though I'll be in friggin' Turkey on the opening weekend. Thank goodness for Tivo.

by tasser10 on Aug 21, 2007 7:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs