Attention AP Poll Voters

Wisconsin over USC is dubious to me, but c'est la vie, that's just the way it goes.

 

Worth about 600 points in scrabble....if the board is wide enough.

 

Yeah, because in the final poll, we're comparing season-long accomplishments. Boise State did what it needed to do, ran the table and beat the Big 12 champions to cap it.

LSU and USC might have more talent, more quality wins than Boise State. Check that, actually, they do. But LSU lost 7-3 at Auburn one Saturday afternoon (Auburn also lost Saturday afternoon home games by 17 and 22 points), while USC lost at Oregon State (a team Boise State beat) and UCLA (mediocre team, at best).

They might be great teams, they will produce way more NFL players than Boise State ever will, but Boise State deserved the benefit of the doubt here.

 

BYU ??

 

You still have to have some sort of internal consistency with your polls, though. If you think USC is better than Boise State in early December, then you have to have a reason to boost Boise in early January. A perfect season is nice and all, but they were undefeated before that game as well. And for as media-friendly as Boise's win was, USC and LSU had more impressive performances.

Does Boise State actually deserve the benefit of the doubt, or are they getting it here because we gravitate towards the David vs. Goliath storyline (see also: Big East football, MVC basketball)?

 

Perhaps the win over Oklahoma was affirmation that it could play with a major team from a BCS conference, thuis justifying the move up?

 

As slappy mentioned, you have to take into account the fact that Boise State beat the Big 12 champion. The argument to keep Boise State lower in the rankings is that it would get smoked by the big boys. Except that didn't happen.

Yeah, USC and LSU looked more impressive. But Michigan struggled to stop anyone through the air two months (Ball State opened that wound and allowed others to expose it even more), while LSU whipped a Notre Dame team that we all know never should have been there to begin with. But the Notre Dame brand name was good enough for a BCS berth.

Bottom line, if USC and LSU were one-loss teams, I might buy into the argument. With two losses, forget about it. Boise State did what every team hopes to do when the season starts and deserved the benefit of the doubt here.

 

Yo, slappy. Ditch the sig and go bathe in lye soap before the M Club disowns you forever.

And the one place where dye has a point is that USC > LSU. The Tigahs come into every game with a touchdown handicap in the coaching department.

 

Except that Boise proably deserved the spot they had based on what they did to that point. If the Fiesta Bowl was an affirmation and not a revelation -- and history aside, the two teams were next to each other in the polls -- then it shouldn't provide THAT much of a boost. If Boise was 18th and beating Oklahoma, then yes, I see it. But -- and God help me for giving into the catchphrase -- Boise State was who we thought it was. They probably got a lot more support from the average fan, who couldn't tell Boise State apart from Bowie State if you didn't mention the Smurf field, but most of the pollsters had a handle on what kind of team the Broncos had, and an overtime win over Oklahoma, for all its movie-grade twists and turns and happy endings, wasn't going to make THAT much impact.

 

So should we just vote all non-BCS champs 10th every year, because they would be the weakest team of the 10 that go to the title game/BCS bowls, regardless of how they do in theirs?

I love the underdogs, I'll be flat out honest about that when making this argument. Boise State beat a BCS team to help vindicate its place in the BCS, like Utah, which in 2004 finished fourth in the AP poll and fifth with the coaches -- in both cases, ranked ahead of every two-loss team in the nation.

I don't see why Boise State should be treated any different than that Utah team with respect to final rankings.

 

Championship by poll is the problem here. It's a noisy gong, signifying nothing. Don't let yourselves lose sleep over it.

It's subjective, and it always will be, and the arguments will go on ...

 

Where in HELL do you read that from what I posted? All I'm doing is making the point that Boise beat a team that was on their level -- if anything, I think I show them legitimacy by not acting like their win was the greatest upset ever because I already thought they were good. I'd probably have them fifth myself.

I don't remember who the two-loss teams of that year were, but I'd be willing to wager that USC was better than them all, and perhaps LSU as well. Besides, it makes no sense to compare seasons as though they directly impact each other -- a two-loss team one year can be national champion one year and in the Holiday or Chick-Fil-A bowls the next.