clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Blog Poll Roundtable No. 1

So the first blogpoll of this season came out earlier this week. And as usual after the release of the first poll, all the bloggers casting their votes are participating in a little round-table over at House Rock Built. Thanks to all of you who chimed in with yours thoughts re. some of these questions. Here are the responses from BN:

What's the biggest ripoff in this preseason poll? Either pick a team that's offensively over or underrated, or you can rag on a particular voter's bad pick (hey, we're all adults here, we can handle it).

I don't really have a lot of complaint about the first blogpoll. I have to say I was a bit surprised to see how high Michigan was ranked (at no. 14). Given all the reservations I have seen in Michigan blogosphere about Coach Carr and the job he has done over last few years, I would have thought the Wolverines would be ranked a little lower. We ranked them at no. 17 and I thought we were being a bit generous. And, yes, I will say that at least one more Pac-10 team (ether UCLA or ASU) deserved to be in the top-25. Guess that's what happens when we don't have many bloggers from the West being represented in this poll. Oh well, we are use the East Coast Bias! (that was for Kyle over at Dawg Sports).

What should a preseason poll measure? Specifically, should it be a predictor of end-of-season standing (meaning that a team's schedule should be taken into account when determining a ranking), or should it merely be a barometer of talent/hype/expectations?

I am with my fellow Bruin antipimp on this one:

Preseason polls should measure nothing, and should not be taken seriously.  They're used to justify pre-decided seedings for important bowl games at the end of the year.  If they're going to happen, they should be treated like hype meters and ridiculed as soon as they're proven wrong, not used to predict that a team will turn it around or be better than it was at the beginning of the season.
I have always considered Pre-season polls fairly worthless. And this goes for both football and hoops. I have never gotten worked up over a team being over/under ranked in pre-season polls. It really doesn't matter to me all that much. Now perhaps a good idea would be to get rid of pre-season polls all together, and release the first season poll, at the end of the 4th weekend in college football, which will taken into account rankings of the previous season plus the records of first quarter from the early season.

What is your biggest stretch in your preseason ballot? That is to say, which team has the best chance of making you look like an idiot for overrating them?

Louisville.  I am falling for the Louisville hype again. I like their high powered offense a lot and love the job Coach Petrino has done with the program. But I have this feeling they are not worthy of a top-10 ranking. This could be one of those teams that will have a decent regular season because they are playing a shitty major conference and then get exposed against one of the quality teams from the Big-10, SEC, ACC.  I think I took a fairly big leap in ranking them in the top-10. My gut tells me they should be more in the top 15-20 category. Then again I LOVE flashy offenses.

What do you see as the biggest flaw in the polling system (both wire service and blogpolling)? Is polling an integral part of the great game of college football, or is it an outdated system that needs to be replaced? If you say the latter, enlighten us with your new plan.

Well I think majority of reporters working in the traditional media are bunch of no talent ass clowns. Think about it. Majority of reporters in America's traditional media are bunch of press-release cut and pasting monkeys, and sports reporters are supposed to be dumbest of all journalists. So the fact so much stock gets put into these wire service polls based on opinions of these hacks who often have no clue what is going on beyond the 50 mile radius of their respective towns (and that's being generous when you think in today's sports journalism communities "respected" members include conniving, dishonest liars like Plaschke), it creates a lot of cynicism around these polls. But I guess all that is part of the fun. It creates controversy, generates passionate discussion all across the nation. It's part of the tradition. Whatever. I have stopped paying attention to the blowhards on WWL a long time ago.

As for the blogpolling system, honestly I am not too concerned about finding flaws in this system. I look at this as something fun. I truly believe all of us are having fun with this. Commenting on our teams, while learning about others. Calling each other out while not taking ourselves too seriously. Holding each other accountable. Perhaps we are going to find ways to further refine this process we have developed over last year or so. But honestly how can anyone really complain about what just one guy, Brian from MGoBlog has put this polling process together all on his own. Not too shabby. He has made this thing fun while doing a pretty amazing job. Big ups to him.

You're Scott Bakula, and you have the opportunity to "Quantum Leap" back in time and change any single moment in your team's history. It can be a play on the field, a hiring decision, or your school's founders deciding to build the campus in Northern Indiana, of all godforsaken places. What do you do?

Lot of interesting responses from our readers in repose to this question. Check them out here, here, and here. My pick is pretty simple. I will say it on behalf of the Bruins Nation: Melsby was down. Sorry to bring this nightmare up again but that Melsby call sticks out to me just like Bill Buckner haunted the Red Sox Nation reversed until couple of years. We still need to exorcise the demons of December 5, 1998:

AP Photo: Poli Dixon, who also fumbled earlier, looks on
as the Bruins crash and burn in Miami on 12/5/98

Yes, had those *&^%$$ zebras from on the night of December 5, 1998, made the obvious right call, and called Bruin flanker Brad Melsby down, instead of calling the fumble, the history of college football in the following years would be different. UCLA would have continued to dominate the scene of college football in LA. Sure they would have gotten tripped by some off field scandals, but given how the traditional media has given USC a pass despite th unmatched, unprecedented, surreal level of off-field problems during Pom Pom's tenure, perhaps the media would have given the Bruins the same break they are now giving USC. And things would have been different. I said perhaps.

So there you have it. If you don't agree with them or have thoughts, opinions, please by all means, fire away in the comment threads.