CFB national polls

RememberMurray

Active member
generous.
I hear what you're saying, but wins and losses do matter... and there are only 21 teams with a 3-0 record.

The quality of the teams you defeated to get to 3-0 matters, of course... but not as much as the fact that you did, in fact, beat them.

And I'm beginning to buy in to the school of thought that says SDSU, Fresno State and Georgia Southern are all well-coached teams with championship expectations within their conferences. Those wins might be more impressive than we first thought.

I also think it's significant that the Gophers got more votes in the Coaches Poll. Might we assume that coaches are a little more knowledgeable?
 
Last edited:

Urbandale

Active member
I hear what you're saying, but wins and losses do matter... and there are only 21 teams with a 3-0 record.

The quality of the teams you defeated to get to 3-0 matters, of course... but not as much as the fact that you did, in fact, beat them.

And I'm beginning to buy in to the school of thought that says SDSU, Fresno State and Georgia Southern are all well-coached teams with championship expectations within their conferences. Those wins might be more impressive than we first thought.

I also think it's significant that the Gophers got more votes in the Coaches Poll. Might we assume that coaches are a little more knowledgeable?
I agree with everything you're saying except for the last line. I think the most knowledgeable people about college football are those who follow it for a living - the writers. That doesn't mean they're always right, of course. And I think it's fairly common knowledge that the vast majority of ballots cast in the coaches poll are cast by someone other than the coach - the SID, or an intern, or the Schwann's delivery guy, etc.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Active member
IMO coach's poll tends to be a bit "traditional" and IMO wonky / Ws biased.

That's not necessarily wrong or bad, but it is what it is.
 

RememberMurray

Active member
I agree with everything you're saying except for the last line. I think the most knowledgeable people about college football are those who follow it for a living - the writers. That doesn't mean they're always right, of course. And I think it's fairly common knowledge that the vast majority of ballots cast in the coaches poll are cast by someone other than the coach - the SID, or an intern, or the Schwann's delivery guy, etc.
I had not heard that rumor, about the interns and delivery people.

As far as writers being more knowledgeable... hmmmm. I'm a little skeptical.

Serious question: Do you think the Strib Gopher beat person is up on all of college football? Does she watch film on other teams, the way coaches do?
 

Urbandale

Active member
Serious question: Do you think the Strib Gopher beat person is up on all of college football? Does she watch film on other teams, the way coaches do?
I'm 100% confident that coaches watch film on upcoming opponents. I'm also 100% confident that they waste no time watching film on anybody else.
 

Catechol

Member
I had not heard that rumor, about the interns and delivery people.

As far as writers being more knowledgeable... hmmmm. I'm a little skeptical.

Serious question: Do you think the Strib Gopher beat person is up on all of college football? Does she watch film on other teams, the way coaches do?
Coaches probably don’t watch much of any other teams they don’t play. Coaches watch much less college football in real time than any of us.
 

HoustonTXGopher

Active member
Coaches probably don’t watch much of any other teams they don’t play. Coaches watch much less college football in real time than any of us.
To your point, I and many others on GH understand the eye test. We know when we are watching a poor to average to great team. We played three teams that elite college football teams would have left no question as to the outcome of the game by the end of the third quarter.

When you see what LSU did to GSU (disclaimer, LSU looks like one of the best 8 teams in college football), the Gophers have a long way to go to reach the status of elite. That being said, I believe Wisconsin to be the only team on our schedule that is truly a top 10 national program.

If Gophers mature quickly, they can still win 10 game this year. If they play like the first three games, gophers may only win 3-4 more games.
 

MGGopher

Active member
To your point, I and many others on GH understand the eye test. We know when we are watching a poor to average to great team. We played three teams that elite college football teams would have left no question as to the outcome of the game by the end of the third quarter.

When you see what LSU did to GSU (disclaimer, LSU looks like one of the best 8 teams in college football), the Gophers have a long way to go to reach the status of elite. That being said, I believe Wisconsin to be the only team on our schedule that is truly a top 10 national program.

If Gophers mature quickly, they can still win 10 game this year. If they play like the first three games, gophers may only win 3-4 more games.
This is so spot on.
 

RememberMurray

Active member
Coaches probably don’t watch much of any other teams they don’t play. Coaches watch much less college football in real time than any of us.
Hmmm... but if they do serious film study of each team they play, doesn't that mean they're watching at least 12 teams per year? And by extension, they are seeing — on that game film — the teams that those teams are playing against as well.

If we're comparing the relative validity of writer's polls vs. coaches polls, I'm still skeptical of the original premise by another poster that (and I quote): "the most knowledgeable people about college football are those who follow it for a living - the writers".

I doubt that writers watch much film at all. I think they read other writers, and set up interviews, and do sports talk radio on the side, and worry about deadlines, instead of watching film.

If it's coaches vs. writers in a battle of football knowledge, I'm still going with coaches over writers.
 
Last edited:

GopherinPhilly

Active member
IDC what the polls say. We win enough and we win the West and play for a Big Ten Title...polls wont have anything to do with that and I am glad.
 

RememberMurray

Active member
To your point, I and many others on GH understand the eye test. We know when we are watching a poor to average to great team. We played three teams that elite college football teams would have left no question as to the outcome of the game by the end of the third quarter.

When you see what LSU did to GSU (disclaimer, LSU looks like one of the best 8 teams in college football), the Gophers have a long way to go to reach the status of elite. That being said, I believe Wisconsin to be the only team on our schedule that is truly a top 10 national program.

If Gophers mature quickly, they can still win 10 game this year. If they play like the first three games, gophers may only win 3-4 more games.
If Wisconsin is a Top 10 team, they must have improved dramatically from the team the Gophers demolished 10 months ago.
 

Urbandale

Active member
Hmmm... but if they do serious film study of each team they play, doesn't that mean they're watching at least 12 teams per year? And by extension, they are seeing — on that game film — the teams that those teams are playing against as well.

If we're comparing the relative validity of writer's polls vs. coaches polls, I'm still skeptical of the original premise by another poster that (and I quote): "the most knowledgeable people about college football are those who follow it for a living - the writers".

I doubt that writers watch much film at all. I think they read other writers, and set up interviews, and do sports talk radio on the side, and worry about deadlines, instead of watching film.

If it's coaches vs. writers in a battle of football knowledge, I'm still going with coaches over writers.
Not to belabor the point, but media members watch a much broader breadth of football games than anybody. They have to - it's what they do for a living. Pat Forde, Stewart Mandel, Andy Staples, Bruce Feldman - these guys do nothing but watch games, which makes them as knowledgeable as anyone to evaluate the big picture.

Coaches, on the other hand, do what you like to term "watching film" of next week's opponent. But looking for offensive line tendencies or defensive rotations isn't particularly helpful in evaluating the big picture. I'm going to wager a guess that Nick Saban hasn't watched any game action from 80% of the Top 25.

Besides, I'm telling you, with the possible exception of the first coaches poll of the season, most coaches aren't filling out their own ballots. They don't have the time, they don't have the knowledge, they don't have the interest.
 

RememberMurray

Active member
Not to belabor the point, but media members watch a much broader breadth of football games than anybody. They have to - it's what they do for a living. Pat Forde, Stewart Mandel, Andy Staples, Bruce Feldman - these guys do nothing but watch games, which makes them as knowledgeable as anyone to evaluate the big picture.

Coaches, on the other hand, do what you like to term "watching film" of next week's opponent. But looking for offensive line tendencies or defensive rotations isn't particularly helpful in evaluating the big picture. I'm going to wager a guess that Nick Saban hasn't watched any game action from 80% of the Top 25.

Besides, I'm telling you, with the possible exception of the first coaches poll of the season, most coaches aren't filling out their own ballots. They don't have the time, they don't have the knowledge, they don't have the interest.
Yeah, yeah... the pizza delivery guy fills out the coach's ballots. And writers watch more football.

Okay... I think I've finally got it. And I think we're done here.
 

Urbandale

Active member
Yeah, yeah... the pizza delivery guy fills out the coach's ballots. And writers watch more football.

Okay... I think I've finally got it. And I think we're done here.
Nice condescension, genius. I was trying to have a productive conversation. And if you think coaches are actually watching more college football teams than professional college football writers, I can't help you.
 

Urbandale

Active member
And if you think writers know more about college football than college football coaches, we're never going to see eye to eye.
You're completely missing the point. Coaches know what coaches are supposed to know - the minutiae of football, the strategy, the Xs and Os. Writers aren't qualified to coach a football team, and don't try. It's ridiculous for you to twist my words into saying that writers know more about football than coaches. That's nonsense.

But coaches aren't qualified to make big-picture judgments of teams because there's absolutely no way in any kind of living hell that they've actually watched the great majority of those teams play. Football head coaches live in an insular world. Do you think Swinney or Saban know even the slightest thing about Kansas State or Iowa or Michigan or Utah? Not a chance.
 

RememberMurray

Active member
You're completely missing the point. Coaches know what coaches are supposed to know - the minutiae of football, the strategy, the Xs and Os. Writers aren't qualified to coach a football team, and don't try. It's ridiculous for you to twist my words into saying that writers know more about football than coaches. That's nonsense.

But coaches aren't qualified to make big-picture judgments of teams because there's absolutely no way in any kind of living hell that they've actually watched the great majority of those teams play. Football head coaches live in an insular world. Do you think Swinney or Saban know even the slightest thing about Kansas State or Iowa or Michigan or Utah? Not a chance.
Do you think the Star Tribune college football beat writer watches lots and lots of film... or that she does anything at all that makes her an expert on other teams? Does she follow Washington State, or Boise, or whomever? Do any writers follow closely any teams except the team they cover for their paper?

I think writers come up with ideas for stories, and then do the legwork needed to write those stories: they set up interviews, do a little internet research. Then they write and craft their story as best they can in order to make their deadlines. In the meantime, they do a little sports talk radio and so forth.

As far as coaches go, they see film on opponents and film on the teams opponents play. They recruit players, and they watch film of those players as high schoolers — many times those kids end up on other teams. So the coaches have that background on those players as well. Do you think writers do anything approaching that? Or, do you really think that that doesn't come under the heading of having knowledge of other teams?

You and I simply need to agree to disagree on this. I'm comfortable with that. Are you?
 
Last edited:

Urbandale

Active member
Do you think the Star Tribune college football beat writer watches lots and lots of film... or that she does anything at all that makes her an expert on other teams? Does she follow Washington State, or Boise, or whomever? Do any writers?

I think they come up with ideas for stories and then do the legwork to write those stories: set up interviews, do a little internet research. Then they craft their story as best they can in order to make their deadlines. In the meantime, they do a little sports talk radio and so forth.

As far as coaches go, they see film on opponents and film on the teams opponents play. They recruit players who end up on other teams, and they watch film of those players as high schoolers — most times those kids end up on other teams. So the coaches have that background on those players. Do you think writers do anything approaching that? Or, do you really think that that doesn't come under the heading of having knowledge of other teams?

You and I simply need to agree to disagree on this. I'm comfortable with that. Are you?
I think you have an unfortunate and misguided view of how and what media members do, if I'm remembering a previous thread in which you complained bitterly about how little work radio hosts do. There's a reason it's the Baseball Writers' Association of America that votes for the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the group of 48 writers and broadcasters who vote on the Football Hall of Fame, and the writers who vote on the MVP awards in all the major sports, and the 870 media members (along with previous winners and one collective fan vote) who decide the Heisman. Why do you think that is?

So yes, I'm very comfortable with my position.
 

RememberMurray

Active member
Okay. so the media votes on the baseball Hall of Fame, and the football Hall of Fame. You have proved your point; you won. Thanks for straightening me out; I assure you I'm no longer 'misguided' now. I've seen the light. I give. Uncle!
 
Last edited:

Face The Facts

Fleck Superfan
Okay. so the media votes on the baseball Hall of Fame. You have proved your point; you won. Thanks for straightening me out; I assure you I'm no longer 'misguided' now. I've seen the light. I give. Uncle!
RememberMurray,
Very mature of you to admit you were wrong. We don't see frequent posts of people changing their position once new info is learned. Well done.
 

Otis

Active member
I remember in the nineties an NCAA coach got in trouble for having listeners make his top 25 on his radio show.

Dan Lebatard did the same thing for his Baseball Hall of Fame votes and then lost the privilege of being a voter.
 
Top