I didn’t see one started in preseason or after last week. Buffs at 37 in the coaches poll after yesterday’s W.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Official Weekly Rankings Thread
- Thread starter The Alabaster Yak
- Start date
Wilner liking him some CU
After the first 2 weekends looks like there's a dropoff after the top 6. Wisconsin might be an overlooked team although their competition has been poor, will be interesting when they host Michigan in 2 weeks.
Klatt is so spot on here. There will always be a little preconceived bias involved, even if there were no official rankings done prior to like week 5 or 6, but it would be interesting to see how things might be different if they stopped doing preseason rankings
Some of the comments are wild. SEC fans claiming that the Buckeyes and Sooners are only successful due to their SEC transfer QBs, so those teams having success just bolsters the SEC dominance claims.
He’s sort of right.
But he gets what he wants, actually. The only rank that counts for anything is CFP. We don’t see that until the season is 2/3 done.
AP & Coaches are just polls for entertainment purposes that mean nothing. All they really do is help networks promote games for better ratings while giving guys like Klatt something to talk about. They may also have some influence on recruiting, which is the one thing that could matter a bit.
Anyway, this is much ado about nothing.
I think you’re lying to yourself if you don’t believe the initial CFP rankings are heavily influenced by the preconceived biases stemming from the AP/Coaches polls.
They are, but by the time those rankings come out, those biases have worked themselves out. The only time those biases are a real issue is with the preseason polls and maybe one or two weeks into the season.
The biases never really work themselves out unless the teams lose. Clemson has not looked close to a top 5 team so far this year, relative to many other teams, yet they remain in the top 2. Why is Bama ranked #1 and Clemson #2 over tOSU, Auburn, UGA or Wisconsin?
What difference does it make? At least three of those six teams will have one loss at the end of the year.
Yeah, cause there’s never any kind of controversy surrounding the final CFP rankings...
They always have controversy, but preseason polling biases aren’t part of the equation in December. There could be a regional (cough- SEC) bias, but if Alabama were to lose twice between now and then, they’re out. By the time December rolls around, either those preseason biases are proven correct or they’re not.
There are always biases built in to the final rankings. Alabama and Clemson will get the botd assuming same number of losses.
Which year(s) did they get it wrong? Not trying to flame, just wondering what others thing. With the exception of last year (I would have chosen UGA) I think they got it right each year of CFP.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Actually they haven't IMO. I don't have a problem with putting ND in there last year and watching them get boatraced by Clemson.