"Spend a few minutes reading College Football Resource" - Whit Watson, Sun Sports

"Maybe you should start your own blog" - Bruce Feldman, ESPN

"[An] Excellent resource for all things college football. It’s blog index is the definitive listing of the CFB blogosphere ... [A] must-read for fans." - Sports Illustrated (On Campus)

"The big daddy of them all, the nerve center of this twisted college football blogsphere" - The House Rock Built

"Unsurprisingly, College Football Resource has generated some discussion" -Dawg Sports

Top Teams 2008

After Week Seven

  1. Alabama
  2. Penn State
  3. Texas
  4. Oklahoma
  5. Florida
  6. USC
  7. Georgia
  8. LSU
  9. BYU
  10. Missouri
  11. Ohio State
  12. Oklahoma State
  13. Texas Tech
  14. Utah
  15. Kansas
  16. USF
  17. North Carolina
  18. Miami
  19. Boise State
  20. Georgia Tech
Display
RSS
Search CFR
Submission Corner
« Mind Games? | Main | Email Dump »
Monday
Nov062006

CFR's Top Teams List: Week Ten

  1. Ohio State---Illinois?
  2. Michigan---Ball State?
  3. California---Thomas DeCoud
  4. Florida---Vanderbilt?
  5. Tennessee---Oops
  6. Louisville---Happy day
  7. West Virginia---Sad day
  8. Auburn---Quiet day
  9. USC---Rough Stretch, eh?
  10. Texas---Colt .45
  11. LSU---Yay
  12. Arkansas---Good enough
  13. Notre Dame---Defense?
  14. Rutgers---Bye
  15. Oklahoma---Gutsy

Lurking
Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Boise State 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (14)

Sticking by my Arky assessment. That game with South Carolina wasn't nearly as close as the score. They're good. They have the best (healthy) back in America. They give him the ball. Hell, they've even tried to be innovative on offense, sort of. The Michael Grant injury hurts though.
November 6, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCody
Are you doing this to get a rise out of me? I mean tennessee loses at home to lsu..a team auburn beat. Florida struggles with freakin vanderbilt..auburn beat florida btw...and you keep arkansas at 12..either you are a complete joke or a complete idiot..maybe both. Then you keep wva..with such a retarded defense...that game was a TERRIBLE display of football. WVA plays one team ranked in your top 15 and they lose...auburn has beaten two in your top 10. Thanks for the laugh.
November 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterpatrick's crow feast
This time last week you did articles on how the top teams struggled...then your glorious michigan and ohio st. struggle...terrible game between wva and louisville...yet nothing said..just keep tennessee up there with 2 losses..idiot.
November 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterpatrick's crow feast
btw florida also struggeld with a horrible uga team..but keep bumping them up..i though you based your rankings on how each team is playing
November 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterpatrick's crow feast
Tennessee almost beat LSU with a redshirt freshman quarterback and the crappiest of its three tailbacks.

They lost that game in the last minute.

That's a very good football team.

WVU and Louisville demonstrated that in a game that matters, against a live opponent, their offenses are nearly unstoppable. That counts for something.

Florida was pounding that UGA team and then tried to pack it in, which was a stupid decision. Next time that happens they won't be satisfied to sit on the ball with a three touchdown lead. Lesson learned.

Patrick, my rankings are not meant as a lemming-like effort to slot teams as they win or lose and get all these incongruous final rankings as happens every year.

I sit down every weekend, watch an inordinate amount of games and gauge how good these teams are right now relative to everyone else.

In my mind's eye, most teams are going to lose a few times. But a loss doesn't 100% dictate what that team is, how good it is.

Take a look at the Florida/Auburn game. Auburn needed that tail-whipping from Arkansas and a home crowd to get itself to play that well. If that had been the usual saturday afternoon SEC game on CBS the Gators win that one. They're a better football team than Auburn best I can tell---they play defense better, don't get pushed around as much, have a better quarterback and extra weapons on offense that Auburn simply doesn't have.

Auburn won the head-to-head, but under more normal conditions they probably lose based on the composition of these teams.

We can't get caught up in these Oregon State>USC>Arkansas>Auburn>Florida games. It's a giant mess and I refuse to rank that way. Upsets happen, bad days happen, teams improve, teams decline and we get to see that play out during the course of the season.

My rankings are meant to measure, based on my viewing of the games, talking to people about these teams, etc. where these teams are right now relative to one another.

So is Oregon State better than USC? No, even though they beat the Trojans.

And they're not better than Florida, but by that victory chain and that silly and simplistic so and so beat so and so logic, it SAYS they are. But that's not reality.

I felt West Virginia was better than Louisville, but the way Louisville played, it made me change my mind. They had been disappointing earlier but it was clear they could get things together for a big game. But Auburn hasn't gotten things together for all their big games. So-so against South Carolina, Ole Miss, etc., went nuts against Florida yet it was still a very narrow victory, but also got whipped by Arkansas. They're not as strong as I felt they would be before the season.

Several weeks after Auburn's win over Florida, I'm less convinced the Tigers are better than the Gators. So be it.
November 7, 2006 | Registered CommenterCFR
But Patick, as you well know, Auburn cannot be ranked any higher than two spots below USC. Why, you might ask? Well because head to head determines who the best teams are, as you so eloquently stated previously.

So wherever USC is, Arkansas has to be ranked at least one spot lower. And let's not forget, Arkansas beat Auburn, so Auburn must be at least two spots behind SC. Oh, and Oregon State has to be in front of USC, because afterall, Oregon State won the head ot head matchup and so must be the better team, so Auburn has to be ranked lower than them as well. Same with Cal, because Cal beat Oregon State. And so did Boise State. And Washington State beat Oregon State as well, so I guess Auburn must be behind them too. But wait, USC beat Washington State. Now I'm confused. Maybe Washington State, USC, and Oregon State should be tied, all ahead of Arkansas, and then of course, ahead of Auburn as well because Arkansas beat Auburn head to head. But Auburn has to be ahead of Florida, because they beat Florida. So that means we have a ranking that looks something like:

1. Ohio State
2. UM
3. Lousiville?
4. Cal
5. Boise State
t6. USC
t6. WSU
t6. Oregon State
8. Arkansas
9. Auburn
10. Florida
11. LSU
12. Tenn

But hold on, Tenn beat Cal, so that doesn't work. I think we're just going to have to have a 114 way tie for 4th and call it a day.
November 7, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJabba
So Florida plays better defense and has a more potent offense than Auburn? Strange statement considering Auburn Allows fewer points a game and scores more points a game then Florida...
November 7, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterThor
You can't do the who beat who >thing> late in the season, but it can be a helpful measuring stick or at least a part of the argument (esp. when trying to sort through 2-3 teams that appear similarly rankable). I don't understand the Tenn love:
-UF beat Tenn head to head on the road;
-UF beat (what is now believed to be a bad) Bama at home relatively comfortably, Tenn struggled to beat bad Bama at home.
-UF beat LSU at home relatively comfortably, but Tenn. lost to LSU at home.
-The only argument that Tenn. would be better than UF is the relative results vs. Georgia, but that can't outweigh the facts inherent in all of the previously mentioned matchups. Every team deals with injuries/suspensions, etc.
Tenn may "look" better on the field at this point in time, but that can't be the basis of a polling system.
I'm not arguing that Florida is a great team (or their relative positioning as to Auburn), but only that the voluminous *objective evidence on hand indicates that Florida should be ranked higher than Tenn.
Opposing viewpoints encouraged.
November 7, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterLtrain
I think all the bloggers who really like Cal are going to be surprised when Arizona plays Cal really close this weekend. Arizona has a great chance to upset the Bears. USC will take care of business against Oregon then demolish Cal. The demise of Troy has been greatly exaggerated.
November 8, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJae
"Tennessee almost beat LSU with a redshirt freshman quarterback and the crappiest of its three tailbacks."

but they didn't win. They lost.


November 8, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterpatrick's crow feast
in fact..tennessee has lost at home to two teams auburn beat..and auburn has a better record, but they are obviously better than auburn..hell so is the whole nation for that matter..especially lsu and florida..because it doesn't matter who won the head to head. Lsu and florida are clearly better than auburn, even though auburn beat them...that makes much more sense than "who beat who." I can see why wva is ranked higer..i mean they played one ranked team and lost...but they really beat up some crappy teams.
November 8, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterpatrick's crow feast
I's all about those Tigers!!!!! Auburn has more potential!
July 27, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbee
Has anyone had troubles emailing college football resource using their posted email address? collegefootballresource-AT-hotmail.com? For some reason I cannot get outlook express to send my email and would like to contact them... Any ideas?
July 28, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterhelp
LSU should be #1 NC this year.
August 8, 2007 | Unregistered Commentergyhjdfgdjhgk

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.