BLOGPOLL, WEEK FIVE: PARKING ON THE DANCEFLOOR
We recommend the playing of the following YouTube clip during your perusal of the BlogPoll. Midnight Star never got enough play. Plus our dad’s in the clip in the white outfit. Or at least we wish our dad had that kind of fashion sense.
And now, our latest stab at a Blogpoll. Notes and clarifications follow:
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio State | — |
| 2 | Auburn | — |
| 3 | Southern Cal | — |
| 4 | Michigan | — |
| 5 | Louisville | — |
| 6 | Florida | — |
| 7 | Iowa | — |
| 8 | West Virginia | — |
| 9 | Oregon | — |
| 10 | Texas | — |
| 11 | Louisiana State | — |
| 12 | Virginia Tech |  1 |
| 13 | Tennessee | 6 |
| 14 | Cal | 10 |
| 15 | TCU |  1 |
| 16 | Notre Dame | 1 |
| 17 | Georgia | 5 |
| 18 | Nebraska | 8 |
| 19 | Clemson | 2 |
| 20 | Rutgers | — |
| 21 | Oklahoma | 5 |
| 22 | Georgia Tech | 4 |
| 23 | Wake Forest | 3 |
| 24 | Boston College | 6 |
| 25 | Washington | 1 |
Notes, clarifications, and errata:
1. No games of shocking upset, clear emergence from mediocrity, or serious entry into decline resulted from this week’s competition. Thus, we have complete and total parking on the dancefloor this week in the upper ranks. Therefore there’s zero movement in spots 1-11. What’s cracked there remains cracked this week.
2. New foolishness lurks below the once, however. Cal, after weeks of mistrust, earns their way back into the fold by shattering the remaining fragments of Rudy Carpenter’s ego and beating Arizona State, who appears well on their way to another bowl game with an improbably sponsor.
3. Virginia Tech goes up a spot because Jenkins told us to put them up a spot.
4. Tennessee, apparently the second best team in the east, appears to be in form. Bacon-flavored donuts for all!
5. Notre Dame goes down one spot simply for being close to the contagion that is the Michigan State football program. Panic not, for their succulent mid-year schedule promises an upward trajectory in the polls.
6. TCU jumps just because, as we keep repeating, their real mascot can fire blood from his eyeballs. Has “www.givesuperfrogeyesthatsquirtblood” been claimed yet? If not, that bitch is ours.
7. Georgia falls because they’re plummeting into qb controversy and Colorado knocked them around stank-nasty last Saturday. Their O-line and their WRs may be more of a problem in the long run, since neither seems to have a proper understanding of what they’re supposed to be doing on the field. We’ll be happy to hoist them high with a sound Orgeron-ning of the Orgeron this weekend, but until then their turmoil on the offensive side of the ball scares us off them.
8. Rutgers over Oklahoma. Why, you ask? Well, I got me a movie, wah ha ha ha, slicing up eyeballs, wa ha ha ha….
Every poll needs a little surrealism. Well, there you go.
9. Wake Forest: run for cover, motherfuckers!
10. Clemson’s just stupid fast on the ground, and should–should–pave their way through the majority of the ACC schedule. This being a Tommy Bowden team, they will fail to do this, and drop one to three dumb games they should not lose for reasons that film study and hours of quiet contemplation will not elucidate.
11. In conclusion: everything after 11 is fiction backed up with whimsy, an occasional reference to a stat, and pure bullshitting guesswork. Please contribute outrage, questions, concerns, and well-crafted emoticons below.
Loading ...
51
jonsi says:
ND would beat UM if they played them again? Michigan pulled in the reins in the second half and played conservative because the beat down was in full effect. (ndnation bloggers claim Michigan was running up the score. I don’t understand that).
There was more to that game than turnovers. I don’t even think we need to get into how Michigan’s d-line manhandled ND front 7. The game would surely be closer if they played again, but to proclaim a beating after such a thorough beat down…that’s like saying Arkansas would have beaten USC if McFadden wasn’t injured.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:19 am
52
oc phil says:
Captain electric: I hope by BCS hopes you are talking about the Sugar bowl, because if you think ND could go to the championship game with the Michigan thrashing and a loss to USC, then you need to put down the bong.
I think it will matter very much who the other teams are and what the potential matchups are. If tOSU is the last undefeated, a rematch with a one loss Texas would trump a remach of the beatdown in last year’s Fiesta Bowl.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:34 am
53
captaineclectic says:
OC Phil, I was absolutely referring to the Sugar Bowl (although a win over USC has a small chance of vaulting us to the title game.)
I also agree that a 1-loss Texas would make the title game over a 1-loss Notre Dame, but my personal guess is the neither ND nor Texas will be a 1-loss team at season’s end.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
54
atepesm says:
jonsi,
howabout this, put the shoe on the other foot and have UM spot ND 5 turnovers (and the 24 points that came on those 5 short field turnovers), do you really think ND would lose that game?
Go catch the that short yellow bus, bc you just missed your ride.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
55
Lazer says:
Kevin – check out this picture;
http://mb19.scout.com/fnebraska13914frm1.showMessage?topicID=52301.topic
September 27th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
56
oc phil says:
Turnovers are part of the game. If you throw interceptions and give up fumbles that counts too.
It is like saying that Cal would beat Tenn if Cal were spotted two easy touchdowns because the conerback went for interceptions rather than covering his man.
What happened happened. You need to face reality.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
57
Brad says:
atepesm,
As jonsi pointed out, ND’s offensive line was/is terrible. And the D line isn’t anything great either. Take away the turnovers and there’s still no way ND wins that game getting owned in the trenches like they were.
So how about this – all points removed scored off of turnovers. Result: UM 23, ND 14. Still looks about right.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
58
crazy tom says:
jonsi- I suggest you look up the difference between the words “would” and “could”, when used in terms of describing a hypothetical future event.
As to other replies, yes, turnovers count, and ND played terribly, giving up 5 of them. That’s what’s known as an aberration, as the last time ND had a -4 turnover game was… hell, I’m not bothering to look it up, but I’d guess not in about 20+ years. Maybe Faust did it. And, in a hypothetical future game with UM, I find an approximately even turnover battle with an approximately even final score (1-7 points one way or the other) much more likely than a carbon copy of the game that was actually played.
September 27th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
59
jonsi says:
I’ll give you Brady Quinn’s fluke fumble and split the kickoff return/1st interception, leaving ND with 3 forced turnovers. The picks were legitimately caused by a great d-line, pressure, and excellent coverage.
I agree, the game would have been closer without the turnovers, but Notre Dame got whooped. ND was slower. ND was less physical. And Notre Dame was less creative and aggressive than Michigan in that game.
Accept your loss. The score might not indicate that Notre Dame is that bad or Michigan that good, and it would probably be a good, close game if they were to play again.
Michigan pulled in the reigns. If we are playing the what if game, what it…The teams split INT touchdowns. 40-14. The kickoff fumble recovery? 33-14. Second interception, Michigan played conservative in the redzone and settled for a field goal. They didn’t try for an TD. 30-14. The 3rd int? Nothing. Michigan didn’t try. Conservative. No points (great catch though). The last fumble, 23-14. Let’s take away the junk touchdown right before half when Michigan played a Jim Hermanesqe bend don’t break defense, but add a field goal. 23-10. Let’s assume that Notre Dame would have scored another touchdown — after all, minus the swapped INT, they scored on 1/4 of other possessions — so presumably they would have scored on one of those series. 23-17. But Michigan TOO would likely have scored again had they not been conservative, and likely would have scored on one of the possessions that didn’t result in a ND turnover, so make it 30-17. Sounds about right to me without turnovers and comparing total yards, 3rd down conversions, and rush yards/attempt, and watching the game.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
60
jonsi says:
“yes michigan had their way with us (5 turnovers helped) but we could beat them if we played them again. Let’s lay off the hating till the bowl invites get handed out.”
It’s pretty clear wooderson is saying ND WOULD beat Michigan minus the turnovers, not suggesting a close game. He’s not saying “ND has the talent to beat Michigan. It would probably be a close game in a rematch.”
In truth I WOULD expect a close game. And if Michigan turned it over -4 times, ND WOULD likely win. However, Michigan FORCED 3 of those turnovers, if not directly, indirectly due to a dominant line and great coverage. I don’t think ND’s defense could force that many against Michigan, and Mike Hart hasn’t fumbled in 500+ touches, so good luck there.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
61
crazy tom says:
Yes, that’s exactly what he was saying. If ND played UM again, it would be 49-3 ND. That’s his position. Oh, wait, he’s not Marco.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
62
captaineclectic says:
Let’s all settle down about ND-Michigan. It’s over, Michigan won, good for them. No one from ND is arguing that it shouldn’t count.
What is, however, a fair point is that ND had two flukey turnovers right away, got into a big hole, and had to play catchup. That, to a greater or lesser extent, effects–not the outcome–but the predictive value of ND’s loss.
It’s like ND in 2002. We won our first 8 games, including a blowout over Florida State, and were ranked #4. But the predictive value of those wins–especially the blowout of FSU–was low–Chris turned the ball over three times in the FSU redzone, and ND scored a flukey touchdown on a stretch-the-field bomb on the first play (a play that worked three times in about 20 Carlyle Holiday starts). FSU beat themselves more than ND beat them, a fact made READILY apparent when ND played NC State later in the season and got blown out.
Anyway, the point is simple–ND doesn’t necessarily suck worse than Vanderbilt because Vandy played Michigan closer.
September 27th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
63
Joe says:
Notre Dame fans, give it a rest already. IF Notre Dame goes 11-1, there is still the likely undefeated winner of Louisville-WVU, Ohio State, a possible undefeated Florida or Auburn., and then some one loss teams who didn’t get killed at home by 4 scores (Texas for one). Notre Dame is a long, long shot, and it makes zero difference what would happen against Michigan because you aren’t playing them again.
Jesus.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:21 am