2024 CFB polls/rankings - Texas #3/ #2 /#2 (CFP/AP/Coaches)

[ztejas 43741]

2 minutes ago, Pimphand said:

Was referencing him taking the same position at another school but honestly Texas & LSU are pretty evenly matched with a slight edge to Texas.  Trajectory going fowards? Seems to be big edge Texas now.

Right. Same position at what will be a worse program moving forward. Why I wouldn't call it lateral.

If he was their DC or some such then it would be an understandable move. Then again he is an LSU alum and that shit always factors in. I don't spite him for making the move he did but he chose poorly from a career standpoint. 

[Wishbone 4839]

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

LSU is not a lateral move. It was a better program from 2010-2021 but that's really it looking at the history of both programs. I guess they had a better run from '46-'58 if that is at all relevant. 

Post NIL and Texas to the SEC and with BK at the helm it is back to being a non-blue-blood, 2nd tier program.

LSU  has never been a “blue blood” program. They, and a few others have orbited that designation but never been “anointed”.

[WelfareBuysMyWeed 5642]

Georgia above bama in the rankings is grade A regarded but after the polls fucked texas hard for years under colt, im a-ok with other sec teams tasting the boot.

[WelfareBuysMyWeed 5642]

Just now, Wishbone said:

LSU  has never been a “blue blood” program. They, and a few others have orbited that designation but never been “anointed”.

There are 8 bluebloods: texas, oklahoma, usc, notre dame, alabama, ohio state, michigan, usc, and nebraska. Any other team with a winning history is a new blood. Lsu is a new blood. Fsu is a new blood. Clemson is a new blood. You cannot "become" a bluebood, it something you had to do 100 years ago.

[Macklemore 2881]

10 minutes ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Even stranger, Cunt Bowels retired.

No he didn’t he’s at the Houston Chronicle now.

[Hank_Hill 18994]

2 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

Georgia above bama in the rankings is grade A regarded but after the polls fucked texas hard for years under colt, im a-ok with other sec teams tasting the boot.

So would you still have Bama top 5 after losing to an unranked Vanderbilt? Or should Georgia have dropped from 2 to 8 for losing to #4? No great solution there

[WelfareBuysMyWeed 5642]

1 minute ago, Hank_Hill said:

So would you still have Bama top 5 after losing to an unranked Vanderbilt? Or should Georgia have dropped from 2 to 8 for losing to #4? No great solution there

Drop georgia below bama. There is no fucking way georgia is a better team than bama right now, a week after being fucking destroyed by them. On field results matter. Sorry if georgia doesnt like being dropped because their "best loss" is not very good anymore. If they are so torn up about it, they should have won the game instead of being blown out.

Edited October 6 by WelfareBuysMyWeed

[ztejas 43741]

1 minute ago, Hank_Hill said:

So would you still have Bama top 5 after losing to an unranked Vanderbilt? Or should Georgia have dropped from 2 to 8 for losing to #4? No great solution there

Georgia almost lost to UK. I'd figure out what you think of Bama then put Georgia right behind them. 

[troph 24923]

3 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

There are 8 bluebloods: texas, oklahoma, usc, notre dame, alabama, ohio state, michigan, usc, and nebraska. Any other team with a winning history is a new blood. Lsu is a new blood. Fsu is a new blood. Clemson is a new blood. You cannot "become" a bluebood, it something you had to do 100 years ago.

100 years ago? I guess that explains why the blood is blue...

[ztejas 43741]

4 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

it something you had to do 100 years ago

Advantage aggy.

[Hank_Hill 18994]

3 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

Drop georgia below bama. There is no fucking way georgia is a better team than bama right now, a week after being fucking destroyed by them. On field results matter. Sorry if georgia doesnt like being dropped because their "best loss" is not very good anymore. If they are so torn up about it, they should have won the game instead of being blown out.

 

3 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Georgia almost lost to UK. I'd figure out what you think of Bama then put Georgia right behind them. 

I mean this just isn’t ever how week to week polls are going to work. It’s a good support for delaying all rankings until midseason for sure though.

[ztejas 43741]

Just now, Hank_Hill said:

 

I mean this just isn’t ever how week to week polls are going to work. It’s a good support for delaying all rankings until midseason for sure though.

I'm not bitching about it I'm just sharing what I'd do if I was a voter. 

[WBT 20735]

7 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

So would you still have Bama top 5 after losing to an unranked Vanderbilt? Or should Georgia have dropped from 2 to 8 for losing to #4? No great solution there

the latter

[Wulaw Horn 19231]

Bama won a one possession game at home over Georgia then shit the bed and lost to a mediocre (congrats to Vandy from moving from putrid to mediocre) Vandy team the next week. It’s perfectly justifiable to have Bama behind Georgia, though I personally believe neither of them are all that good. 

Edited October 7 by Wulaw Horn

[Billy Pilgrim 1991]

I’ve got no love for OU but I’d prefer they be ranked as high as possible when we play them. Feels like they are being harshly ranked for their only loss being to Tennessee. Granted they looked like shit in most of their games but so had mizzou, Miami, Penn state, LSU, Utah, K state. I thought they be about 12-14.

[Valmy77 13431]

24 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

Georgia above bama in the rankings is grade A regarded but after the polls fucked texas hard for years under colt, im a-ok with other sec teams tasting the boot.

What the hell is this take? Bama lost to an unranked team that had previously lost to Georgia State. How is it grade A regarded to drop a lot after that? And it is early on in the season, Bama has plenty of chances to get some wins and pass Georgia later.

And comparing that to losing on the road to an undefeated top 10 team, like what 2008 Texas did, is what is grade A regarded here.

[Modessit 5624]

So would you still have Bama top 5 after losing to an unranked Vanderbilt? Or should Georgia have dropped from 2 to 8 for losing to #4? No great solution there

As I posted earlier before polls came out. Bama #5 Georgia #6 Miami #7

[Valmy77 13431]

3 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

I’ve got no love for OU but I’d prefer they be ranked as high as possible when we play them. Feels like they are being harshly ranked for their only loss being to Tennessee. Granted they looked like shit in most of their games but so had mizzou, Miami, Penn state, LSU, Utah, K state. I thought they be about 12-14.

Well it is painfully obvious to the voters that OU sucks. It is nice they finally realized that after all this time.

[Slacks 6916]

20 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

 

I mean this just isn’t ever how week to week polls are going to work. It’s a good support for delaying all rankings until midseason for sure though.

I am 100% for not having rankings until 6 games have been played by all.

[Modessit 5624]

What the hell is this take? Bama lost to an unranked team that had previously lost to Georgia State.

And Georgia lost to Bama that lost to an unranked team that previously lost to Georgia State.

What's your point here?

[ztejas 43741]

2 minutes ago, Slacks said:

I am 100% for not having rankings until 6 games have been played by all.

Well that's how the official rankings work.

[Valmy77 13431]

2 minutes ago, Modessit said:

 

 

And Georgia lost to Bama that lost to an unranked team that previously lost to Georgia State.

What's your point here?

 

My point is that when you have a bad loss you drop. You are not entitled to stay above every single team you beat the whole damn season. That is stupid.

But my other point is that this is not a big deal at all. If we get to the end of the season and Georgia and Bama have the same record and one is going to get a playoff spot it will most likely go to Bama because of the head to head. But Bama has to redeem themselves.

And now the rankings are just for prestige and bragging rights. They don't really mean anything substantial anymore anyway. No BCS standings are going to be dictated by the AP Poll.

Edited October 6 by Valmy77

[AeroHorn 781]

39 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

There are 8 bluebloods: texas, oklahoma, usc, notre dame, alabama, ohio state, michigan, usc, and nebraska. Any other team with a winning history is a new blood. Lsu is a new blood. Fsu is a new blood. Clemson is a new blood. You cannot "become" a bluebood, it something you had to do 100 years ago.

I made this graph at the end of last season where I plotted the teams that either rank in the top 20 for number of top 25 appearances or rank in the top 20 for number of top 5 appearances. There is almost perfect overlap, with 19 teams appearing in both. The only teams that appear only in one category are aggy (top 20 in top 25 appearances only) and MSU (top 20 in top 5 appearances only).

The top 8 teams stand out from the rest, and are highlighted in blue. The rest of the recent successful programs such as Georgia do not have the same history. Having said that, we need to step up, especially in being top 5. The recent top 5 rankings help.

 

Edited October 6 by AeroHorn

[Modessit 5624]

My point is that when you have a bad loss you drop. You are not entitled to stay above every single team you beat the whole damn season. That is stupid.
But my other point is that this is not a big deal at all. If we get to the end of the season and Georgia and Bama have the same record and one is going to get a playoff spot it will most likely go to Bama because of the head to head. But Bama has to redeem themselves.
And now the rankings are just for prestige and bragging rights. They don't really mean anything substantial anymore anyway. No BCS standings are going to be dictated by the AP Poll.

You don't need to stay above every team you beat, especially if you have more losses, but when you have the exact same record and you JUST BEAT THAT TEAM LAST WEEK then you should be at least one spot in front of them. They shouldn't get extra credit for beating shitty Auburn. Put Bama 5 and Georgia at 6. Wait for either one of them to either get another loss or a quality win before you decide one is improving or failing enough to separate.

Next week Bama plays 3-2 USCe and Georgia plays 1-4 Miss St. If they both win, is Bama's win better? Do they go in front of Georgia? Bama has a bye the week Georgia gets their ass kicked by us, so Georgia will only be in front of them for 2 weeks, but it's stupid to do it now.

[Wishbone 4839]

37 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

There are 8 bluebloods: texas, oklahoma, usc, notre dame, alabama, ohio state, michigan, usc, and nebraska. Any other team with a winning history is a new blood. Lsu is a new blood. Fsu is a new blood. Clemson is a new blood. You cannot "become" a bluebood, it something you had to do 100 years ago.

This is correct. 

[jimmyjazz 46470]

51 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

Drop georgia below bama. There is no fucking way georgia is a better team than bama right now, a week after being fucking destroyed by them.

LMAO what?  Did you watch the game?  Holy shit dude, less weed.   Georgia lost a nailbiter to 'bama in Tuscaloosa, 'bama got beat by Vandy.  UGA > 'bama by anyone  with a functioning brain stem.

[satyanash 14769]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO what?  Did you watch the game?  Holy shit dude, less weed.   blOU lost a nailbiter to Texas in Dallas, Texas got beat by Tech.  blOU > Texas by anyone with a functioning brain stem.

this is the backwards logic that got blOU to KC in 2008. What is the point of playing games if you ignore head-to-head results?

[jimmyjazz 46470]

3 minutes ago, satyanash said:

this is the backwards logic that got blOU to KC in 2008. What is the point of playing games if you ignore head-to-head results?

Because 'bama lost to fucking Vandy.

And stop editing my posts in your "quotes", asshole.  Neg rep.

Edited October 6 by jimmyjazz

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

1 hour ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

Drop georgia below bama. There is no fucking way georgia is a better team than bama right now, a week after being fucking destroyed by them. On field results matter. Sorry if georgia doesnt like being dropped because their "best loss" is not very good anymore. If they are so torn up about it, they should have won the game instead of being blown out.

Where “destroyed” means won on a late game TD to a freak receiver, of course. 

[TrashMaster G 17719]

1 hour ago, DanTheHorn said:

That was the start of a crappy decade with one decent year sprinkled in there in 1990. This time it be the start of a dominate decade!

Dominant.

Jfc.

[TreatyOak 16749]

Reason #1147 to be grateful for Sark.

Remember how excited we were that Kai Money was finally put on scholarship?  

[ztejas 43741]

1 minute ago, TreatyOak said:

Remember how excited we were that Kai Money was finally put on scholarship?  

Um. No?

[Handcruser 2805]

1 hour ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

Drop georgia below bama. There is no fucking way georgia is a better team than bama right now, a week after being fucking destroyed by them. On field results matter. Sorry if georgia doesnt like being dropped because their "best loss" is not very good anymore. If they are so torn up about it, they should have won the game instead of being blown out.

So Vanderbilt at what?  4?  
 

Be consistent.  

[billfromlaketravis 11601]

I’m mildly surprised fOSU didn’t get more first place votes in the AP. Only 9 to Texas’ 52. I thought they’d get something in the mid 20s to make it interesting.

Really no issues with the poll. Only moving Miami up 2 is the best case scenario in my opinion. 
 

I don’t love Game Day skipping the Cotton Bowl, but they have to go to a No. 2 vs 3 game. 

[pacman 7426]

Attempting to rationalize college football polls...

[Hank_Hill 18994]

42 minutes ago, satyanash said:

this is the backwards logic that got blOU to KC in 2008. What is the point of playing games if you ignore head-to-head results?

I guess if you think losing to 08 tech and 24 Vandy are the same. 

[Hank_Hill 18994]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Bama won a one possession game at home over Georgia then shit the bed and lost to a mediocre (congrats to Vandy from moving from putrid to mediocre) Vandy team the next week. It’s perfectly justifiable to have Bama behind Florida, though I personally believe neither of them are all that good. 

Woah

[TheAuditor 1040]

2 hours ago, jetsfan76 said:

If we win on Saturday, we'll be officially bowl eligible!! Soak it in, boys!

Remember when this was a thing?   I remember.   Dark days.  

[satyanash 14769]

44 minutes ago, TheAuditor said:

Remember when this was a thing?   I remember.   Dark days.  

 

[Wulaw Horn 19231]

1 hour ago, Hank_Hill said:

Woah

Florida- Georgia, potato- potahtoe 

[texifornia 57224]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I’m mildly surprised fOSU didn’t get more first place votes in the AP. Only 9 to Texas’ 52. I thought they’d get something in the mid 20s to make it interesting.

Really no issues with the poll. Only moving Miami up 2 is the best case scenario in my opinion. 
 

I don’t love Game Day skipping the Cotton Bowl, but they have to go to a No. 2 vs 3 game. 

We're probably getting it the week after for the UGA game combined with all the cross promotion for F1 on ESPN. No complaints - we get it most years for Red River.

[Valmy77 13431]

1 hour ago, TheAuditor said:

Remember when this was a thing?   I remember.   Dark days.  

It's alright coach, we will be bowl eligible next season.

[runthebone 8131]

2 hours ago, AeroHorn said:

I made this graph at the end of last season where I plotted the teams that either rank in the top 20 for number of top 25 appearances or rank in the top 20 for number of top 5 appearances. There is almost perfect overlap, with 19 teams appearing in both. The only teams that appear only in one category are aggy (top 20 in top 25 appearances only) and MSU (top 20 in top 5 appearances only).

The top 8 teams stand out from the rest, and are highlighted in blue. The rest of the recent successful programs such as Georgia do not have the same history. Having said that, we need to step up, especially in being top 5. The recent top 5 rankings help.

 

Ahh, I have seen this before.

The only difference is that the x-axis was "fuck around," and the y-axis was "find out."

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2646]

52 minutes ago, satyanash said:

i'm hoping to bump that post next saturday 

[Not a cat 5735]

3 hours ago, AeroHorn said:

I made this graph at the end of last season where I plotted the teams that either rank in the top 20 for number of top 25 appearances or rank in the top 20 for number of top 5 appearances. There is almost perfect overlap, with 19 teams appearing in both. The only teams that appear only in one category are aggy (top 20 in top 25 appearances only) and MSU (top 20 in top 5 appearances only).

The top 8 teams stand out from the rest, and are highlighted in blue. The rest of the recent successful programs such as Georgia do not have the same history. Having said that, we need to step up, especially in being top 5. The recent top 5 rankings help.

 

And about 5:30 on Saturday we will have scoreboard over the other 7 schools in that blue circle.  

[TrashMaster G 17719]

3 hours ago, Hank_Hill said:

 

I mean this just isn’t ever how week to week polls are going to work. It’s a good support for delaying all rankings until midseason for sure though.

 

2 hours ago, Slacks said:

I am 100% for not having rankings until 6 games have been played by all.

What does it matter? Those polls have no practical impact.

[Ignatius 4080]

3 hours ago, Hank_Hill said:

 

I mean this just isn’t ever how week to week polls are going to work. It’s a good support for delaying all rankings until midseason for sure though.

Why does it matter when these polls come out? They don’t mean shit.

2 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

 

What does it matter? Those polls have no practical impact.

Lol

[elfenix 34385]

4 hours ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

There are 8 bluebloods: texas, oklahoma, usc, notre dame, alabama, ohio state, michigan, usc, and nebraska. Any other team with a winning history is a new blood. Lsu is a new blood. Fsu is a new blood. Clemson is a new blood. You cannot "become" a bluebood, it something you had to do when baby boomers were young

ftfy

[WelfareBuysMyWeed 5642]

26 minutes ago, elfenix said:

ftfy

Baby boomers were young in the 50s, like 40 years after most of the blue bloods had already established their dominant positions in their respective regions. If you were coming up when baby boomers were young, you're literally LSU and such, aka newbloods. Blue Bloods don't mean you started winning big a long time ago, being a blue blood means you have *always* been the dominant team in your region going back to the very beginning. The ones the bowls were created for in the first place, to get teams like Texas and Alabama playing in the 40s, because back then they were already dominant brands. The youngest blue blood in terms of being a national power is Nebraska, who was already producing seasons where they'd outscore opponents 164-0 in the 19-aughts well before they were winning titles.

The 8 bluebloods account for more than half of all MNCs ever in college football, and 75% of all AP top 25 rankings throughout history. The blue bloods have history on top of history on top of history. It's not just about having a lot of championships. You can't buy or retroactively win your way to being a blue blood, you have to have done it since the beginning.

Edited October 7 by WelfareBuysMyWeed

[Hank_Hill 18994]

1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

 

What does it matter? Those polls have no practical impact.

Yet here we all are