Comments on: Smart Football’s blogpoll entry

By: Manny

Manny — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:50:02 +0000

Oregon may have lost much on their O-line but 1 guy is a returning starter another a starter a year ago but out because of injury and another had significant experience due to injuries last year including a couple of starts. Now that being said those 3 make up the interior 3 which puts new people at the ends. In a spread the point of attack in the run game is generally between the guard and tackle or off tackle. Cal on the other hand is looking for better QB play to pull off their upset of USC and is solid on D and very powerful when running the ball. So who should be higher I generally agree Cal should be but Oregon has an edge historically in depth. But Oregon along with Cal are supposed to be just this side of knocking USC off the hill and OSU being a nice little dark horse in the conference. Nevada and ND being so high is quite surprising especially considering the poor coaching and performances of the Irish against UNC, Syracuse and Navy last year bad to ok teams last year. Nevada is a nice pick to put in but I would generally associate them with a 25-30 ranking from their comparative lack of talent allowing for a FSU or Oregon State to slip in.

By: John N

John N — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:29:53 +0000

Thank you thank you thank you for ranking TCU above Boise St. Every damn outlet in the country has Boise at least 2 spots above TCU, even though TCU beat them in the Poinsettia Bowl last season. True TCU is losing defensive starters, but their offense should be as stout (or more likely better) than last year’s. It just irks me that they are being overlooked in such a fundamental way (head-to-head) just because Boise is a media darling.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:24:31 +0000

I have to agree about Oregon, they lost a lot on both lines. And maybe because I’m a Cal homer, it seems like they should be higher and at least ahead of Oregon.

By: big ten speed

big ten speed — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:29:42 +0000

Cool stuff going on: Oregon #10, Nebraska appearance, Pitt appearance, Nevada appearance. Nice call on not ranking Iowa.

By: Tractor

Tractor — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:17:42 +0000

Agree with Joe about Oregon, way too high. Looks like you felt a need to balance your picks geographically. Think you have to weight the SEC quite a bit heavier than you already are, the football they play down there really is that much better than everywhere else (spoken from the heartland of Big 10).
Pittsburgh?? Come on. South Carolina or Kentucky would crush that squad.

By: Two Man Rush

Two Man Rush — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:24:56 +0000

Alabama, LSU and Ole Miss all in the Top 11 and in the SEC West.

Somethins gotta give.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:21:27 +0000

New to the site… Why is Oregon getting so much love? They were gutted by huge losses all over the defense and OL. I’ve had limited views of the replacements, but they don’t look like ‘reloads’… Oregon ’09 is getting the ASU ’08 treatment, it seems.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:33:07 +0000

I like FSU but I kind of just crowded them out. It’s a preseason poll — not the most sensible of things. I wanted to include some darkhorse teams that I thought could make a run. FSU could very well surge ahead and wind up in a BCS bowl (I agree about their line and run game), but we’ll see. It really wasn’t meant as a disrespect to FSU, just kind of a crowding out and maybe a bit of equal opportunity (I said it was a “gestalt” approach; it’s not science.) They were basically 26th for me.

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:04:15 +0000

I hope you’re ready to put Michigan in the top 25 when they beat Notre Dame.

By: BigWorm

BigWorm — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:27:02 +0000

Yeah, you’ve got some explaining to do for not having FSU in the top 25. Love your stuff bro, but not having them on here is a little ridiculous.