Tales of Two Undefeateds Completely Different in AGMVC Poll

Where would you put Rutgers? A team tied for the top of the second best conference?

Oh, and all three of the people that voted Boise State 15th or lower had Rutgers ranked ahead of them. One of them had Rutgers ranked tenth. TENTH! After getting smoked by Cinci-freaking-natti.

But Asaff- you stated many times that we have to look at SOS. Boise State is terrible, worse than Texas at 110.

You do have to take SOS into consideration. That's why they're undefeated, and I still ranked them outside the top ten. But for even a schedule that bad (and they're MUCH worse than UT at 110, UT is in the 40s - yet another stupid comparison from a stupid Big East homer) it's completely ridiculous to rank a team outside the top 14 when they're 11-0. That's just spiteful. If you've done the best you can with the schedule you have, that needs to be taken into consideration. I'm not saying they should be top 5 or anything, just pointing out that number 17 is overboard.

Rutgers SOS is now in the fifties....soon it will be the same as UT.

And I'm still struggling to understand what relevance that has to anything other than childishly taunting me.

I'm not trying to taunt you, I'm trying to point out that the BE has some pretty good teams this year. I'm also trying to point out that Rutgers maybe isn't the best team but they are one of the better teams this year and after WV will have a decent SOS. To be honest you know much more about college football than I do, you have followed it much more closely. I am just trying to understand more how it works and how the rankings actually work. It seems to me based on my limited knowledge that it is VERY subjective and everyone has this built in bias based on historical powerhouses. And many people on this board including you sometimes seem very dismissive of BE teams in general. I really do think that the BE has a great shot at two BCS games and will not be embarrassed in any of the bowl games.

I am dismissive of the Big East, but it's not because of traditional powerhouse bias. It's because of what I've seen in the Big East this year and in the last few years. I see teams with stellar offenses, but defenses that are really lacking. They also do not yet seem to have the "it" you need to win on a higher level.

As far as the bias in favor of traditional powerhouses, that's somewhat true. But it should not be regarded so flippantly. There's a lot that goes into it. Traditional powerhouses are traditional powerhouses for a reason. There's a certain level at which they can generally be expected to play. They tend to draw the best players and the best coaches. They tend to have the strongest fan bases and the most money. Obviously, teams rise from out of nothing sometimes to become a national power. But, once a team becomes a national power, it's rare that they fall from that stage. You do see some teams being ranked too high on a regular basis (Kansas State and Virginia Tech a few years ago always come to mind), but in general, you can expect a certain level of play from the Ohio States, the Texases, the Michigans, the USCs, etc.

So yeah, it's based a little on that. It's based a little on what they did last year, what the coach has done in years past, and what kind of recruiting classes they're getting. There's absolutely some subjectivity in it. But that doesn't mean that guys are just mindlessly plugging the same 10 teams into the tops of their rankings.

That's pretty messed up. Is there a way we can get that corrected?

That explains why FP had 26... sorry about that. If someone wants they can go through and add in those points. I gots no time.

Sorry, I occasionally can't decide so I copy and paste someone's ballot, normally that doesn't happen