
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Blogpoll ballot</title>
	<atom:link href="http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot</link>
	<description>Analysis and strategy by Chris.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:51:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1470</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:40:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1470</guid>
		<description>Chris, When are we gonna see a breakdown/film study of Jim McElwain&#039;s offense at Alabama? They&#039;ve changed a lot from last years grind it out pro style run-run-run style of play. McElwain added the pistol and a lot more vertical passing. They&#039;ve also run a few plays out of a double wingback pistol set. I&#039;m curious as to your take on the new offense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris, When are we gonna see a breakdown/film study of Jim McElwain&#8217;s offense at Alabama? They&#8217;ve changed a lot from last years grind it out pro style run-run-run style of play. McElwain added the pistol and a lot more vertical passing. They&#8217;ve also run a few plays out of a double wingback pistol set. I&#8217;m curious as to your take on the new offense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MJRuffalo1</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1466</link>
		<dc:creator>MJRuffalo1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1466</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s take USC and Miami for example.  You have them 9 and 10 in your poll.
   USC loses on the road to UW by a last second FG, and Miami loses on the road to a better team in Virginia Tech, but were beaten badly all game long.  In your opinion which is the worse loss?


   Though I would like to add, that too many people seem to focus more on who a team lost to as opposed to who a team beat.  In the end who you beat counts for more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s take USC and Miami for example.  You have them 9 and 10 in your poll.<br />
   USC loses on the road to UW by a last second FG, and Miami loses on the road to a better team in Virginia Tech, but were beaten badly all game long.  In your opinion which is the worse loss?</p>
<p>   Though I would like to add, that too many people seem to focus more on who a team lost to as opposed to who a team beat.  In the end who you beat counts for more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1461</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:07:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1461</guid>
		<description>MJRuffalo: I&#039;m not sure it can be so easily equated. Depends also what a &quot;not so good team&quot; is. UTEP is worse than not so good, so that hurt Houston a lot. It&#039;s hard to say otherwise without specifics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MJRuffalo: I&#8217;m not sure it can be so easily equated. Depends also what a &#8220;not so good team&#8221; is. UTEP is worse than not so good, so that hurt Houston a lot. It&#8217;s hard to say otherwise without specifics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MJRuffalo1</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1454</link>
		<dc:creator>MJRuffalo1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:44:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1454</guid>
		<description>Question.  Which is a worse loss in your mind.  Losing a very close game to a not so good team, or getting destroyed by a very good team?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Question.  Which is a worse loss in your mind.  Losing a very close game to a not so good team, or getting destroyed by a very good team?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linus</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1453</link>
		<dc:creator>Linus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:34:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1453</guid>
		<description>The difference between Auburn&#039;s and LSU&#039;s rankings are 100% based on their results from last year. Because they have the same record this year, and Auburn has looked way better than LSU. But pollsters look at last year, see 5-7, and think &quot;how could Malzahn possibly be getting THAT much more out of what is basically the same crew&quot; and assume they&#039;ll fall back to earth.

What&#039;s that? Chizik is the head coach at Auburn? Huh. Well, that&#039;s embarrassing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The difference between Auburn&#8217;s and LSU&#8217;s rankings are 100% based on their results from last year. Because they have the same record this year, and Auburn has looked way better than LSU. But pollsters look at last year, see 5-7, and think &#8220;how could Malzahn possibly be getting THAT much more out of what is basically the same crew&#8221; and assume they&#8217;ll fall back to earth.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s that? Chizik is the head coach at Auburn? Huh. Well, that&#8217;s embarrassing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fourth</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1452</link>
		<dc:creator>Fourth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1452</guid>
		<description>headsigh:

That loss to Georgia isn&#039;t looking so great after Houston beating OkSt, then UTEP beating Houston. Not to mention Georgia picking up another loss to LSU.

That said, South Carolina should probably be ahead of Ole Miss.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>headsigh:</p>
<p>That loss to Georgia isn&#8217;t looking so great after Houston beating OkSt, then UTEP beating Houston. Not to mention Georgia picking up another loss to LSU.</p>
<p>That said, South Carolina should probably be ahead of Ole Miss.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fourth</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1451</link>
		<dc:creator>Fourth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1451</guid>
		<description>Chris, thanks for your defense of subjectivity in balloting.  I&#039;m just going to have to refer people here when I get in these silly resume ranking arguments online or irl.  

If I were you though I would find a spot for Oklahoma (sidenote: not an OU fan).  You said you considered Tebow&#039;s injury in dropping Florida; did you consider Bradford&#039;s (likely) return?  Also note that if Oklahoma had Penn State&#039;s or Missouri&#039;s OOC schedule they would be undefeated.  The Sooners lost a neutral site game to your number 19 and a road game to your number 9 by one point each, and they did it without their Heisman qb who should be returning this week or next. I would drop Missou this week, then Missou can just replace Nebraska next week if they win that game.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris, thanks for your defense of subjectivity in balloting.  I&#8217;m just going to have to refer people here when I get in these silly resume ranking arguments online or irl.  </p>
<p>If I were you though I would find a spot for Oklahoma (sidenote: not an OU fan).  You said you considered Tebow&#8217;s injury in dropping Florida; did you consider Bradford&#8217;s (likely) return?  Also note that if Oklahoma had Penn State&#8217;s or Missouri&#8217;s OOC schedule they would be undefeated.  The Sooners lost a neutral site game to your number 19 and a road game to your number 9 by one point each, and they did it without their Heisman qb who should be returning this week or next. I would drop Missou this week, then Missou can just replace Nebraska next week if they win that game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: headsigh</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1450</link>
		<dc:creator>headsigh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:23:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1450</guid>
		<description>I still don&#039;t get how South Carolina is only 25. But that&#039;s just me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still don&#8217;t get how South Carolina is only 25. But that&#8217;s just me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JC</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1441</link>
		<dc:creator>JC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:28:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1441</guid>
		<description>On Wisconsin!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Wisconsin!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://smartfootball.com/blogpoll/new-blogpoll-ballot/comment-page-1#comment-1437</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:56:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smartfootball.com/?p=546#comment-1437</guid>
		<description>Wisconsin is #21.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wisconsin is #21.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.269 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-08 17:06:09 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->
