Friday, January 8, 2010

Final Blogpoll ballot

Here it is, the year's last Blogpoll ballot. I am supposed to have this up more or less today with the final due Monday, so you have the weekend to help fix it. No sciency stuff was applied, just gut feelings mostly, and I attempted to make sure that nobody is below someone they beat. The regular polls are rife with silly mistakes like that - for example, Mississippi is below LSU for some reason. If I missed anything along those lines, definitely jump all over it.

2Florida 5
3Texas 1
4Boise State 1
5TCU 2
6Ohio State 3
7Iowa 3
8Cincinnati 4
9Georgia Tech 1
10Penn State 1
11Oregon 5
12Virginia Tech
13Nebraska 5
14Wisconsin 3
15Pittsburgh 1
16Miami (Florida) 3
18Brigham Young 5
19LSU 1
21Central Michigan 1
22Oklahoma State 3
24Clemson 1
25West Virginia 4
Last week's ballot

Dropped Out: Arizona (#15), Oregon State (#16), Stanford (#24).

Couple thoughts:

- I don't like to give the SEC the satisfaction, and I like Texas quite a bit, but there's no real reason to keep Texas above Florida. Just because they were in the BCS CG? Look at it like this: Both were decisively beaten by Alabama, so look at their most recent non-Bama games. UT squeeeezed past Nebraska and needed a little friendliness from the clock operator to do it; Florida crapped on a previously unbeaten team.

- Anyone, media members who whine about wanting a playoff especially, who 1) complain that a playoff is unfair to undefeated teams like Boise State, and 2) ranked Boise State anywhere below third, is a raging hypocrite, and disingenuous at that. If Boise State really is this year's poster child for Screwed-Over Teams That Deserved A Playoff, why would you rank them so low? Probably because complaining that Florida got screwed over doesn't resonate with the gimme-playoff masses that want that little mid-major hero to rally around. That they were fourth - not even third the way Auburn was in '04 - in the rankings is evidence enough to me that they weren't actually screwed over; after all, a fourth-place ranking means there were plenty of voters who must have ranked them even lower.

No comments: