|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 13, 2017 23:59:08 GMT
I agree that the performances of the RETURNING players from the prior season’s team should be a major factor in the PRESEASON polls. I cannot, as you have suggested with UCF, agree that the performances of teams from previous seasons should be a factor in the polls this deep into the season. I'm only addressing preseason polling, not current polls. That would almost be reasonable, if you were only considering the performances of returning players rather than the performances of prior teams. However, you did suggest that the records of UCF teams in 2015 and 2016 could be the reason why the Knights are ranked so low now. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 14, 2017 0:08:13 GMT
Do keep in mind that no one has yet explained why this standard didn’t apply to 1999 Marshall, which had a 37-4 record over the previous 3 seasons. The consensus of the 1999 preseason polls was that Marshall would go undefeated and be a top-10 team, which it did.
Unlike 2017 UCF, 1999 Marshall was dominating in all phases of the game: top-7 in both offense and defense (#1 in scoring defense), and exceptional special teams. Marshall’s defense held Clemson and high scoring BYU to a combined 13 points.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 14, 2017 0:40:34 GMT
I'm only addressing preseason polling, not current polls. That would almost be reasonable, if you were only considering the performances of returning players rather than the performances of prior teams. However, you did suggest that the records of UCF teams in 2015 and 2016 could be the reason why the Knights are ranked so low now. Nope, here's my quote from earlier in the thread: |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 14, 2017 2:32:19 GMT
That would almost be reasonable, if you were only considering the performances of returning players rather than the performances of prior teams. However, you did suggest that the records of UCF teams in 2015 and 2016 could be the reason why the Knights are ranked so low now. Nope, here's my quote from earlier in the thread: It's pointless dude. He knows what you said.. he's just playing games, to get under your skin. CLASSIC troll behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 14, 2017 9:16:22 GMT
That would almost be reasonable, if you were only considering the performances of returning players rather than the performances of prior teams. However, you did suggest that the records of UCF teams in 2015 and 2016 could be the reason why the Knights are ranked so low now. Nope, here's my quote from earlier in the thread: Thanks. I had recalled that incorrectly. I know that you are most almost certainly correct, but I disagree with the idea that the past performances of players who are no longer members of the current team should in any way affect the preseason rankings. That still doesn’t explain why that standard didn’t apply to 1999 Marshall. It gives the appearance that it is a standard that is applied only when convenient. Would it be fair to call it a double standard? It sure looks like a duck. As you pointed out, there wasn’t much to suggest that UCF would end the 2017 regular season undefeated and AAC champion. Phil Steele had UCF on his list of most improved teams and predicted that the Knights would be in contention for the AAC East title going into the final 2 games. He projected UCF v. BYU in the St. Petersburg Bowl. To say that Steele saw an undefeated regular season coming would be a stretch, but he did foresee a possible 8-4 record. Steele has always been a straight shooter, and I believe him to be head and shoulders above all other so-called college football “experts”. Although he was optimistic about 2017 UCF, even his forecast couldn’t justify a preseason top-25 vote, much less a top-25 ranking. In contrast, the preseason journals, including Steele’s, were uniformly high on 1999 Marshall. Most, as I recall, projected Marshall to go undefeated and ranked in the top-10 by the end of the season. Yet, Marshall still started the 1999 season unranked, despite a 37-4 record over the previous 3 years. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 14, 2017 9:26:40 GMT
Nope, here's my quote from earlier in the thread: It's pointless dude. He knows what you said.. he's just playing games, to get under your skin. CLASSIC troll behavior. It has been sad to watch you devolve into a one-trick pony, Bevo. I remember a time when you were actually able to construct respectable and cogent arguments. Now, it seems that you are capable of little more than personal insults and attacks, and name-calling. You seem to have no idea that your obsession with me diminishes you. |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 14, 2017 12:40:44 GMT
Nope, here's my quote from earlier in the thread: Thanks. I had recalled that incorrectly. I know that you are most almost certainly correct, but I disagree with the idea that the past performances of players who are no longer members of the current team should in any way affect the preseason rankings. That still doesn’t explain why that standard didn’t apply to 1999 Marshall. It gives the appearance that it is a standard that is applied only when convenient. Would it be fair to call it a double standard? It sure looks like a duck. As you pointed out, there wasn’t much to suggest that UCF would end the 2017 regular season undefeated and AAC champion. Phil Steele had UCF on his list of most improved teams and predicted that the Knights would be in contention for the AAC East title going into the final 2 games. He projected UCF v. BYU in the St. Petersburg Bowl. To say that Steele saw an undefeated regular season coming would be a stretch, but he did foresee a possible 8-4 record. Steele has always been a straight shooter, and I believe him to be head and shoulders above all other so-called college football “experts”. Although he was optimistic about 2017 UCF, even his forecast couldn’t justify a preseason top-25 vote, much less a top-25 ranking. In contrast, the preseason journals, including Steele’s, were uniformly high on 1999 Marshall. Most, as I recall, projected Marshall to go undefeated and ranked in the top-10 by the end of the season. Yet, Marshall still started the 1999 season unranked, despite a 37-4 record over the previous 3 years. It certainly could be a double standard. We simply don't have enough evidence to know. Poll voter votes are not public, IIRC. Could be location and size bias. Outside of the sportswriters in the midAtlantic, WV/OH local area probably had little to no knowledge about Marshall? Probably a combination of factors, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 14, 2017 13:16:37 GMT
I think that you are correct. It is unthinkable that a voter in the polls would ever admit such bias, and that would be the only way to know for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 14, 2017 14:05:19 GMT
It has been sad to watch you devolve into a one-trick pony, The feeling is mutual. You have devolved into a hot mess of repetition, cliché, and needless antipathy. You drag all of us into your constant maelstrom of division. There was a time when I looked forward to reading your posts. Now, I am considering just blocking all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 14, 2017 17:43:11 GMT
It has been sad to watch you devolve into a one-trick pony, The feeling is mutual. You have devolved into a hot mess of repetition, cliché, and needless antipathy. You drag all of us into your constant maelstrom of division. There was a time when I looked forward to reading your posts. Now, I am considering just blocking all of them. No need. For your own good, I am out of here. I realize that I have pushed you over the cliff. I didn’t want that to happen. Best wishes to you and your family for a blessed and merry Christmas. |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 15, 2017 0:36:27 GMT
I think that you are correct. It is unthinkable that a voter in the polls would ever admit such bias, and that would be the only way to know for sure. It may not be intentional on the AP writer's part...I'm not sure the local AP writer in Huntington knows very much detail on SDSU either...IMO, I just wouldn't go so far as saying it's intentional or with malice...
|
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Dec 15, 2017 22:32:24 GMT
"out oh here" meaning the thread only, I hope. You guys just take a little break from each other. This dwindling but astute board needs both of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 20, 2017 21:43:12 GMT
No need. For your own good, I am out of here. I realize that I have pushed you over the cliff. I didn’t want that to happen. Best wishes to you and your family for a blessed and merry Christmas. Oh puh-lease.... Do what you want, but don't blame it on me. I'm over no cliff. I'm just over discussing anything political with you. When you get home from your extended Christmas vacation, do come back and tell us more about how badly '99 Marshall was screwed. I fear we might forget without your assistance. |
|
