What is the point of this? The bottom line is that they don't play in the same division, so there is no reason to be in the same poll. And the quote, "The poll was always intended to measure teams that compete against each other, regardless of division, based solely on on-field performance. It was that way long before Division I was divided into I-A and I-AA in 1978," doesn't make sense to me. Of course there was one poll for all Division I teams before they were divided, at which point they split the poll as well. What else would you do? Here's a question, if Division II Lenoir-Rhyne beats Appalachian State this weekend, are we going to have to do this again so they can get votes, too?
On any given Saturday on college gridirons across the nation young men don their helmets and pads and prep for battle while other men both young and not so down their drink's and dial their phone's to place their wagers on the aforementioneds sweat and blood that is the hype of the top 25 who was the the biggest winner last Saturday Applachian State will be remembered the bookmakers season is MADE.
If a Division I-AA team is good enough to get a poll vote, it would be bogus to exclude them. (Though at the same time, any I-AA team that good should upgrade facilities and join I-A.)
I think it's a knee-jerk reaction, obviously some voters wanted to vote for Appalachian State after their win against Michigan but I still wouldn't say they're one of the top 25 teams in the nation. Yes they beat the number five team, but upsets happen in sports. If Appalachian State were to play in the same conference as the SEC, Big Ten, or the Big 12 I don't think they would be poll worthy. Yes there are teams in Division I that are worse than Appalachian State. Hell, Appalachian State could probably win the Sun Belt on a consistant basis. That doesn't make them better than almost 100 other teams though. Even if they do crack the Top 25, their schedule doesn't have enough meat to warrant them staying there.
Consistency against Division I schools might get a deserved sniff. But I don't think that a win over a Michigan team that probably didn't correctly prepare and didn't seem to have any answers for what they were facing is going to get the needed love from the writers. And if everyone get's votes, what is the BCS for anyway?
This situation shows just how ridiculous the pre-season polls are. Michigan was rated in the top 5 for NO OTHER REASON than their name is Michigan. The need for rumour mongers and hangers-on to sell magazines and fill air time on radio is the only reason polls exist in September. Some clown on ESPN even suggested that Michigan should remain in the top 25. The early season polls do a grave injustice in that teams that prove themselves during the season but because of their NAME or last season performance don't start high enough in the early polls can't climb high enough to land in the big-money bowl games... Let's hold off on the polls until October 1st or 31st.
I think that teams like Appalachian State beating teams like Michigan is bad for college football. Is it fun to watch? Absolutely. All it can do in the long run is; A) Entice quality players to go to smaller colleges, and B) Delay the switch to some sort of playoff system. A) The same amount of highly talented players playing for more teams will just lower the lever of play. Bad news for the sport. B) Any switch to a playoff style season would reduce the number of games quality teams would be willing to play smaller market teams. Playoffs make every top team a contender. Playing a lot of top notch competitors all season gets experience under your belt, and ultimately gives you a better chance of winning the whole thing. Teams like Michigan would rather play a "good" team, get the experience and lose, then play Appalachian State and win, but gain nothing from it. (Granted App St won this one, but it's not like that's someting that happens very often.)
Michigan was rated in the top 5 for NO OTHER REASON than their name is Michigan. Going 11-2 with a Rose Bowl berth the previous year, along with returning their senior quarterback and running back (who is still a Heisman candidate) had nothing to do with it I'm sure.
I have another idea, instead of bringing 1-AA teams into the dysfunctional world of polls why don't they introduce the 1-A schools to the logic and straightforward closure of a playoff system?
Last year don't mean squat... A new defense and numerous changes in the offense means they need to prove something before being rated. You can kick a bush outside any stadium and returning quarterbacks with talent run in every direction.
I don't see why this is such a bad idea. I say, so what if 1-AA powerhouses crack the top 25. Are they taking away valuable revenue and recognition from slightly above .500 Division 1 football factories? Go Harvard!
I think they should be in the rakings. I read the comments about quality players going to smaller schools, thats because they get to play more, possible be a starter than bench warmer. As for other polls, you have the coaches poll, bcs,and ap poll that are looked at, they are suppose to rake teams. Teams can go undefeted and be bypassed for bowl games. It is a bad system. It would be great to have a true playoff system, that is based not on the size of your staduim but on your record on the field. So I say "WAY TO GO APPALACHIAN STATE!!!!! GO LUCK ON YOUR SEASON."
The same amount of highly talented players playing for more teams will just lower the lever of play. Bad news for the sport. Overall level of play is too abstract a notion for anyone to notice. The big schools like Michigan will still have a huge advantage because of prep stars who want to go with a winner. I don't see any downside to App State's upset of Michigan. College football has been blessed with some shocking games to end last season and begin this one. That's got to be good for ratings.
Holy shit. Michigan is so fucking bad.
Last year don't mean squat Then how do you propose rating the teams before the season? Don't you have to factor in last year's performance, to some extent?
I don't think they should rank them at all until about week 6. Voters are too unwilling to make drastic changes. The #1 team stays #1 as long as it doesn't, despite more impressive performances from a team that wasn't expected before the season to be great.
Case in point, LSU has been the most impressive team thus far, but they can't get past USC because the Trojans didn't even play Saturday, let alone lose. Granted, for teams ranked that highly to begin with, it will work itself out by the end of the season anyway, but a few years ago when Auburn got screwed out of the NC game, a big part of that was that they started so low in the preseason polls and had a long way to work themselves up. I agree completely on waiting until October to put out the first polls.
