CFR Week Two Top Teams List
Sunday, September 11, 2005 at 07:38PM I'm disappointed in basically every non-USC team in college football right now. I wish this list could be more like a #1, followed by #11,12,13, etc. Maybe next week will be better and teams will start playing like they're actually top ten worthy.
That said, this kind of plays into my belief that early-season is a tough time for the elite teams in college football. They're basically on par with "lesser" opponents, because defenses are usually ahead of offenses, everyone's playing nontraditional OOC foes, and the smart coaches tend to prepare their teams to "peak", being at their best the last few weeks of the season. Many others don't though, and we'll begin to notice who went the more expedient, safe route around the middle of October stretching to late November. The pundits will be piling on, wondering "what happened? These guys are overrated!" when in fact their coaches had them in Superman mode in week two, something hard to sustain for an entire season.
Anyway, here are the rankings-
Week Two Top Team List (9/11/2005):
- USC-Nobody's close. I'm actually surprised by this fact, but USC's 21-week run at #1 is now tied with Miami (Fl) of 2001-2002 for the longest-ever. Next up: Arkansas.
- Louisville-I'm not sure they can hold this #2 spot forever. But, I do think the Cardinal is perhaps the most likely non Pac-10 team to dethrone the Trojans.
- Florida-The Gators continue to grow under Urban Meyer. This offense is still in coccoon phase, waiting for its beautiful butterfly to emerge, grow fangs, spin twisty webs and make like a deranged Mothra to the college football landscape. CFR thinks that two years from now, freshman quarterback Josh Portis will become the Matt Leinart to Chris Leak's Carson Palmer.
- Virginia Tech-Let's see how the early ACC tests go. Little faith in Marcus Vick, but hard to argue with much else. Great defense. Snap! CFR likes defense. Can't be...Shhhhhhh.
- California-Joe Ayoob can throw the football. It just took 15 attempts to figure that out. Four first-half touchdowns later, it's clear he's the man. The defense is highly suspect right now, though, surrendering over 300 passing yards to Washington's can't-throw QB, Isaiah Stanback. To be fair, 100 came on two strange busted plays. Marshawn Lynch injured his hand, but had another 9 YPC performance before leaving the game.
- Texas-A very nice football team. One problem---they're one dimensional. That tends to catch up with you. Outlasted a gutty but overmatched Ohio State team on the road. Now the schedule eases up... a LOT.
- Arizona State-Two miraculous special-teams mistakes turned touchdowns doomed the Sun Devils, who badly outplayed LSU. The Tigers' secondary made Sam Keller look better than he is (which is pretty good).
- Michigan-Lost a game they should have won. But we've seen this from Michigan before. They're kind of like a baseball pitcher who has to give up that first-inning solo shot before he calms down and works a 7-inning gem. I hunch the Notre Dame performance was an aberration for Chad Henne. If not... down they go.
- Georgia-Like Michigan, it's up one week, down the next. Looks like Mark Richt used up all his offensive ammunition last week. There's really no excuse for playing so efficiently on offense on week, and flat the next. That makes CFR nervous. That said, DJ Shockley has a great confidence on the field. Now, about those interceptions... The defense continues to impress against great offensive coordinators. Time to take the show on the road, though. The Dawgs benefited greatly from two tough opening games in noisy, friendly confines. The great ones find ways to make impressive wins on the road. We're watching.
- Auburn-As a friend said..."Auburn's fine now that they're returned to the SEC." Quite true. Brandon Cox will very likely throw for the most touchdowns and yards in Auburn history this year. The rush offense is still shaky, and manned by a committee. Hopefully that fixes itself. Five straight home games against nobodies should fatten the Tigers nicely.
Booted:
- Iowa-There's a chance for their return. Who knew the offense would collapse after Drew Tate went down? They've always been good for a 10-7 win in that type of game. Guess not this time. CFR probation until further notice.
- Tennessee-Another CFR probation. Again, there's a shot they return to this list.
- LSU-Arizona State exposed a shaky secondary, some knuckleheaded play, and an over-reliance on miraculous, heroic finishes. It was, however, their first game and CFR has been known to be fairly forgiving of early-season foibles when teams show a return on their promise.
- Boise State-The offense is beginning to show life, but as B.B. King (I believe?) says, "the thrill is gone."
Other Teams to Consider:
- Bowling Green-Can't beat 'em if you can't outscore 'em. Not many teams are capable/comfortable of ratcheting up their offenses to 40+ PPG.
- Notre Dame-This is a nervous addition. I think Chad Henne just had a major brain fart against them, and they also completely went into shutdown mode on offense after reaching 17 points. Nine times out of ten, Michigan likely wins that game. Credit for the win, but this is a Notre Dame team that, like many recent Irish squads, may have to over-rely on special teams miracles, a suddenly shaky opponent, and the usual Irish magic.
- Michigan State-Highly productive offense so far. Showtime begins this weekend at South Bend against Notre Dame.
- UCLA-Tough call between them and Oregon. Karl Dorrell runs this ship, so they'll never play to expectations, but hovering around the top 15 is a continued possibility. So far Maurice Drew and Marcedes Lewis have been unstoppable. Can Oklahoma right its ship fast enough to overcome these Bruins? Scary thought---Oklahoma could not stop the Tulsa tight end last weekend. Marcedes Lewis is FAR better. HP had singled out that matchup many months ago, noting Oklahoma's inflexibility in defending tight ends and backs in exotic formations.
Some things to keep in mind---
In theory I could add teams like Florida State, Miami and Ohio State, but I just don't see them going anywhere. Middling teams really don't get ones hopes up, and are kind of just holding ground until someone moves them. I tend to take that extra step and just ignore them (in rankings) unless something changes for the better.
I also said last week that I tend to be a little forgiving for early foibles. So although I have strong hunches about several "elite" teams in CFB, I haven't chased all of them from my top teams list. It's also very likely at least a few teams will recover nicely (I'm guessing Michigan, for starters) and many critics feel stupid later on for piling on.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (49)
Auburn's offensive output, of course, was considerably less yards than they managed against a pretty good Georgia Tech D that is one of the best in the ACC. It seems their O struggled a little more against a weak SEC D than against a good ACC D.
So how is it that "Auburn is fine now that they've returned to the SEC"? Your friend's line might be poignant to you, but it has little basis in reality.
It was far and out Louisville's game at the half but 28 and 50 are a little ways apart. Regardless, do you really think Louisville could play within 20 of USC?
Putting words in my mouth saying "Auburns O is the real deal". I think they're running a system that the SEC has yet to catch up to, yes. It appears they're slowing down, but it may just be the transition to a new quarterback and less skilled backs. It's week two, the answer will reveal itself in time.
USC just shows no signs of ever scoring less than 20 so its up to an opponent to 1)keep them below 35 and 2)find a way to 30 themselves.
To me, the most obvious choices on option #2 are California and Louisville. #1 is far more difficult to predict.
Louisville reminds me a lot of California: Great quarterback, great offensive system, not loaded in talent or depth, but certain spots are tough matchups, such as QB, TB (Mike Bush), the fleet WRs.
Their defense also has an edge in that it goes up against their own offense daily, so its not like they're going to be all that confused by anything USC did.
The SEC will 'catch up' with Borges' scheme this year--but it's because their talent is gone, not because it blew their minds last year.
My belief is that Auburn's success last year was a perfect storm--the conference as a whole was down, their schedule was perfect for them (getting LSU and Georgia, probably the two best opponents in the conference, at home), and they hired Borges and Chizik, who did wonders with the considerable talent they inherited.
This season, they have lost Chizik, along with all the talent in their backfield. They also have to play LSU and Georgia on the road. So, it's back to 8-3 or 7-4 for Auburn, I'd guess.
i.e. Boise State/UGA.
you're rankings are getting better, but they're still a self-apologetic joke.
I put all of that into consideration.
And no, I don't agree that LSU was a different team from the third quarter on. They still looked sloppy on offense, and couldn't stop ASU on defense.
Notre Dame also beat Michigan, right? And who do I have ranked higher? Michigan.
I think the polls are fundamentally flawed, in that people "slot" teams based on records, and not on WHO IS BEST. Watching that game, ASU kicked LSU's butt, but gave up 14 points on boneheaded special teams plays that you'll never see happen again, and then a miraculous 41 yard touchdown. They still almost came back and won with just over 1:00 left.
ASU looks BETTER. Circumstances dictated they lose that game, but 9/10 they win, just like Michigan over Notre Dame.
I've also warned everyone, this is week two, teams can change. Right now, I see LSU as very leaky, they've got to plug a lot of holes. I worry about your guys' credibility if you can't see all the problems the Tigers have.
What have I said about the power of the Pac-10?
The only thing I've said is that on the whole, the Pac-10 is the most competitive conference, year in year out. And, they have the most amount of teams running the more modern offensive systems that are difficult to defend and play against.
I think the Pac-10 gets a bad rap, thanks often to misguided notions by fans like yourself, and I speak up for the conference from time to time.
Certain conferences, namely the B12 and SEC, also get an unfair rap, being credited for being greater than they really are.
Of course, this often becomes construed as some Pac-10 vs. SEC argument when in reality its just a condemnation of FALSE national perceptions of certain regional superiorities. It hurts the game.
You know not what you're talking about.
Offensive balance is NOT having similar amounts of rushing and passing yards. Thats a retarded notion.
Texas does not run a spread offense. Besides, I'm not in love with the spread, I'm trusting of a handful of offenses that show true balance, dictate on the offensive side of the ball, make use of the entire field, etc. That's what I'm looking at, not "X teams uses a little motion, goes 5 wide empty backfield once in a while". That's not an elite offense, its a gimmick.
As for the Ohio State performance. Texas netted most of their rush yards in the first quarter before Ohio State adjusted to Vince Young. Did you notice that Texas' other backs did close to nothing on their carries (17 for 39, long of 12, coming on their second to last carry of the game)? The Buckeyes basically sold out to stop the run, and there were Longhorns WIDE open all over the field.
Vince Young was throwing to open receivers the entire game and still Texas wanted to run (37 carries to 29 pass attempts).
Any good passing offense, and particularly any balanced offense, would have picked the Ohio State secondary apart and cruised to a 20-point victory. In other words, Texas' passing game, even in the most favorable conditions, pretty much didn't do a whole lot. They couldn't dictate/enforce their will through the air (2 TD, 2 INT).
I do give the Longhorns credit for finding a way to win even as Ohio State stopped their impressive run attack. I factored that in, because it looks like the Horns are like VT, scrappy, capable of making due with their limited passing attack, doing just enough for a close road win.
You talk about 3 players with 40+ receiving yards... It's called surprise. Think about how a lot of option teams' (and teams who basically run all the time, like Texas) receivers average 17-20 YPC where more standard attacks have their receivers at 11-13 YPC.
When they are open, secondarys aren't expecting a pass (in general), and passes usually go for a long gain. Texas' Billy Pittman is a great example. He's slow as molasses, but with Vince Young running around he found spots in Ohio State's coverage, and continued to get open, usually about 25 yards downfield.
Look at Alabama's receivers against Southern Miss: Prothro 7/134/19.1
Hall 5/130/26.0
Alabama can't throw very well, so when they do its a surprise, and their average receivers eat up chunks of yards.
The opposite is true, as well.
Look at Texas Tech, a team that basically passes until it can't pass anymore, then runs just to keep people off balance.
This weekend, Taurean Henderson had 8 carries/67 yards (8.4 average). He's not really a guy who is going to average 8.4 and 80 yards on a more traditional team, but because his team is 1-dimensional, the numbers get skewed. Even his backups went 7/44/6.3 and 6/42/7.0
Point is, Texas isn't a balanced offense, and they don't run a very sophisticated attack.
I still have them in my top 10, I liked how they found a way to win a game where their one dimension was taken away, and I credited them for all of that. That's all factored into the ranking.
When two teams play each other, you get to find out WHO IS THE BEST. Speculating on which team would win 9 out of 10 times is purely hypothetical and subjective. While you might *think* that Arizona State is a better team than LSU, LSU won the game 35-31 Saturday night. That is an objective fact. By choosing to base your rankings on subjective hypotheticals instead of objective reality, you lose all credence and your biases are exposed.
As for the game, I agree with you that Arizona State played better than LSU. But let's consider the facts (rather than speculate on who would win a fictional 10 game series). ASU had a game under their belt. LSU was playing their opening game on the road against a Top 15 opponent. LSU was starting 2 brand new corners and playing a new defensive scheme (a crappy one at that) for the first time against one of the better passing schemes in the nation. LSU was without it's best wide receiver (Dwayne Bowe) for the whole game and was without its 2nd best wide receiver (Craig Davis) in the 2nd half. On top of all that, the LSU players were dealing with the fact that their home state has been decimated by the worst natural disaster in American history.
And they still won the game.
Arizona State is a great team. Keller is a poised and accurate QB and his receivers are very talented. Their MLB (#44) may be the best linebacker in CFB that nobody's heard of. The Sun Devils are going to make a lot of noise in the PAC10. But they aren't as good as LSU. The Tigers proved that on the field last Saturday night...
That's the reality.
Certain games are have inherent matchup issues. USC is better than California, but year in year out, the Bears either beat them or come as close as humanly possible.
If USC's the best team in the land, they're the best team in the land, period. Certain teams just know what they're doing and can steal a victory or two here or there. Would it be accurate, in that context to place Cal #1 in my rankings if that happened?
Absolutely not.
See the point? These rankings aren't just based on pure head-to-head, but collective strength, like a power ranking.
Let's pretend Tennessee was the best team in America, and they beat the whole SEC, but lost to UAB. Do we put UAB ahead of them? No. They're not better than Tennessee.
That's the flaw with the polls, and its where everyone gets crossed up.
Again, I have Michigan higher than ND but nobody's disputing that... which to me is hypocritical if you're gonna take on ASU/LSU, and reveals bias.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bluegraysky/112646865445613586/#82092
"Offensive balance is NOT having similar amounts of rushing and passing yards. Thats a retarded notion."
I know that you and your mentor like to think outside the box, and that you think that you have created new paridigms that are revolutionary, but that statement is simply silly. What is offensive balance, then, exactly? Is it some sophisticated concept that is beyond the grasp of everyone in the history of CFB save for 2 revolutionary geniuses?
Also, I understand what you are attempting to convey about how good teams are rather than simply slotting them, but it seems a bit infantile to completely ignore results. By your logic USC would have won been Nat'l Champs with 2 losses 3 years ago, because they were playing the best ball at the end of the year. Your application of your theory seems more suited for a theoretical world where games are played on paper and actual results do not count. Do you consider Jake Plummer's ASU team as 97 Nat'l Champs even though they actually lost the Rose Bowl to OSU? Are you saying that style and how good you play are more important than winning, and that how teams look should be the measure at the exclusion of Ws & Ls? CFB and sports history would be very different under your application of your theory. I agree with you that simply slotting in and of itself is wrong, but you have to at least concede that actual results ahould be weighed in there as well.
Lastly, I know that you and HP are completely enamored with offense, but you have a tendency to ignore both defense and special teams, which arguably are 2/3 of the game. LSU's D may have struggled, but they saved themselves with superior special teams play and good offensive execution in the 2nd half. It is a shame that you cannot at least concede that while also advancing your theories.
Your "collective strength" argument holds no merit because you are simply ranking teams by extrapolating your subjective perceptions of them rather than looking at what they have done on the field.
ASU is 1-1. They have beaten Temple and lost to LSU. Where is the "collective strength" there? Your rankings are based on the purely fictional and subjective perceptions of your Pac10-centric mind.
As for the "fluke win" statement, special teams are a part of the game. Did you see that ineffective punting scheme that Arizona State used? That wound up costing them the game.
A win is a win, even if its ugly and "leaky".
By any measure, Texas is not a balanced offense. They were forced to pass, and grudgingly, did, with decent success, against Ohio State and their secondary, which had no help as they sold out to stop the run.
But every Texas game the last two + seasons, they've sold out to the run. Every game. That's not balance. Its beyond obvious that they're unbalanced.
Cal is balanced, USC is balanced, Louisville is balanced, Boise, although flawed, is balanced, Michigan is balanced, etc. Its not some big six only thing.
Balance becomes a factor because right now there's a team at #1, and a handful of others teams that are starting to play similarly, that absolutely crush unbalanced opponents.
As for USC 3 years ago... no. But I wouldn't have had them at #4 (behind UGA and Miami), either. That brings up something interesting---I really don't think Ohio State was the best team in 2003, but they beat the one top ten team they were capable of beating, in Miami. Again, that's a matchup issue, where in reality one teams' better but draws the opponent who has the machinery to beat them.
And no, Jake Plummer's team would not have been #1 in my book. They lost in a very close game to a very evenly matched team. I don't think that was as much of a matchup game as a USC/Cal or Miami/Ohio state where the inferior for whatever reason, has all the answers to match the superior.
Winning is winning, and particularly late in the year, concessions are made to that (putting Ohio State over Miami in final rankings). But slotting is absolutely 100% bunk, also. If we weren't slotting early, we might have a much more diverse, and realistic top 10 at the end of the year, thus creating a different situation more realistic to actual team strength.
"but you have to at least concede that actual results ahould be weighed in there as well"
I am weighing actual events. Again, its week two. I haven't locked these teams in, I cannot repeat that enough. I am observing how all these teams grow, if they fix errors, what new flaws emerge, etc. That's ALL weighed in.
Think about it---I brought up the USC example to point out teams can return from the depths early if they show signs of improvement, of life and competitiveness within the top 5-10 teams rankings. The regular season will continue to aide us all in figuring that all out.
In the meantime, most of the arguments here are basically, "you're not acting like the polls". Well then stick with the polls. I think they're wrong and horribly flawed, and do my rankings somewhat as a corrective exercise.
Have an open mind to a different process. This isnt revolutionary, only different. The BlogPoll TRIED to be different, but then its rules were basically to have everyone behave like the polls. Guess what---the BlogPoll looks just like the polls it was trying to counter!
Its followers also almost unanimously subscribe to ranking teams like the polls, and therefore a reform idea ends contributing close to nothing.
Lastly, I pay a lot of attention to special teams and defense---but there are some fundamental principles I'll get to later on about how uniform most defenses are, how most defenses perform remarkably similar, etc.
I noted VT's and Georgia's defense this week, right? If I weren't paying attention to UGA's defense, I would have them out of the top 10 because their offense is sending out all kinds of warning flags already with its inconsistency.
You guys claim I'm not giving defense enough credit, but I'm also not given any kind of credit when I make it known that I am giving credit to defense. Its ignored.