We Can Talk All the Polls We Want, So Long As We Keep Winning
by PaulSF on Oct 7, 2010 9:00 AM PDT
in Oregon Ducks Football
Email
PrintThe AP Top 25. The USA Today coaches' poll. The BCS. The Harris poll. The SB Nation BlogPoll. The Power 16. The Bottom 10. The Average 8.
It seems all anyone wants to talk about this week are polls.
After the dust settled following the Ducks' primetime, nationally televised outburst in a 52-31 win over Stanford at Autzen Stadium last Saturday, College Football Nation woke to the news that Oregon had jumped perennial BCS martyr and then-No. 3 Boise State in both the AP and USA Today coaches' polls.
And predictably the debate ensued.
Maybe it was too soon to write off the Broncos after they took care of business against subpar competition. Or maybe Oregon should have jumped Ohio State, too, after the Buckeyes' lackluster performance against Illinois. And wait a minute, whatever happened to TCU?
With the initial BCS poll due out in 10 days, everyone has an opinion. Including me.
That is, everyone except Chip Kelly.
"We have not talked about the polls. I say that every day. We've never talk about a poll ... Because it means nothing."
And maybe Chip’s onto something. After all, this isn't the first time Kelly's denounced the polls.
"I think if you start wasting your time and energy on where you are in the polls and all those other things, you've lost sight of what you're supposed to be doing."
The Ducks, in Kelly's second year, clearly haven't lost sight. They're scoring nearly a point a minute. They're leading the country in scoring offense, total offense, and yards per game, not to mention they've outscored their opponents 114-7 in the second half through five games.
And while we sit around and speculate on who deserves the eventually irrelevant No. 3 spot in this week's polls, Kelly's preaching to his team to finish, keep improving, and win the day.
Of course, Kelly's attitude still won't stop us from speculating. But he won't buy into it. When asked by Jay Crawford on ESPN's First Take earlier this week whether the pollsters got the top 5 right, Kelly shot back wittily with a question of his own:
"I have no idea, and I don't care to be honest with you. It's nice that people talk about you but it's the second week of October. I'll quiz you right now, Jay: Who was ranked No. 3 in the country the second week of October last year?"
That'd be Alabama, Chipper.
Yeah, I think I like speculating about polls.
123 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Indeed
Polls are nice and all but unless we take care of these last 7 games as we did the first 5, they don’t matter so much.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
I'm glad Chip has the attitude he has
And I’m glad the players have bought into it. It’s great that they don’t worry about that stuff. The less distractions for them, the better.
And the truth is we worry about it enough for them. I think it’s a lot of fun to debate polls, and resumes, and SOS, and the value of road wins, and all that stuff. It’s interesting.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
That's why we do it, right?
Now, if we had lives, we could worry about more important things.
But we don’t. ATQ is our life. ;-)
Addicted To Quack. If you’re not into the whole brevity thing.
All work and no ATQ makes MCD a dull boy.
In the Yell-O corner, with a 2009 conference record of 8 wins, 1 loss. The REIGNING, DEFENDING, UNDISPUTED Champions of the PAC 10. The Oregon Ducks!
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 7, 2010 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Never mind the human polls..
I’m waiting for the outcry over how we’re being disrespected by the computers.
Five of the six BCS computer polls are out.. and none of them has Oregon higher than #6.
Anderson-Hester: 10th
Colley Matrix: 11th
Kenneth Massey: 11th
Billingsley: 6th
Sagarin: 6th
The Wolfe ratings — the final computer component of the BCS — don’t come out until next week.
Note that most of these ratings have two models — a “real” model that includes MOV, and a “BCS” model that doesn’t.
Interesting, but ultimately, meaningless — our SOS will improve as the year goes on, and this will improve the computer scores.
Assuming we win. If we don’t win, it doesn’t matter.
The computer polls are skewed towards SOS, which explains it, I guess.
She's a Cougar; he's a Duck.
Both agree: The Huskies Suck.
I read something the other day but can't find confirmation:
If both human polls agree on #1 and #2, the computers are disregarded.
Confirm/deny/link?
My name is Cliff Harris, and I’m here to lock shit down.
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Clarification: at the end of the season.
My name is Cliff Harris, and I’m here to lock shit down.
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think so either.
I think that was true in previous years, but once they threw out the AP poll, it’s no longer the case. I might be wrong…
Addicted To Quack. If you’re not into the whole brevity thing.
That was never the case
Or 2001 Oregon and 2003 USC would have been in the BCS title game. But the post-2005 BCS rankings are so heavily weighted to the human polls that it’s almost impossible for the computers to get someone in or out of the title game if the polls agree on #1 and #2 . I mean, you can mathematically show that it’s possible (particularly if #3 is very close to #2 in the polls, and #1 in the computer rankings), but it’s very unlikley.
I was just about to say this. This is the thing that infuriated me the most in 2001. We were #2 in the human polls but missed out on the National Championship game to F’ing Nebraska, who not only didn’t win their conference, they didn’t even QUALIFY FOR THEIR CONFERENCE TITLE GAME.
My lasting image of that National Championship Game is Bellotti on the pregame show (or halftime, not sure exactly) wearing a Nebraska hat hoping that we could win the AP National Championship Game trophy. People usually use Auburn getting held out a few years ago while undefeated as a good example of when the BCS got the wrong 2 teams, but in that situation someone who was undefeated was getting left out. In 2001, Nebraska had no business being in that game. How can you be National Champions if you didn’t even make your own Conference Championship game?
And what makes it even worse, if that’s possible, is that we then go out and DECIMATE the same Colorado team who beat Nebraska 62-36 in Nebraska’s last game. How the hell can a team be #2 in the country, get dominated like that, and still go to the title game without playing another game? Can you imagine the outcry if this scenario happened this year? …cry me a river Boise State.
In the Yell-O corner, with a 2009 conference record of 8 wins, 1 loss. The REIGNING, DEFENDING, UNDISPUTED Champions of the PAC 10. The Oregon Ducks!
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 7, 2010 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
…hoping that we could win the AP National Championship Game trophy
…hoping that we could win the AP National Championship Game trophy.
Fixed. I was getting a little TOO worked up there!
In the Yell-O corner, with a 2009 conference record of 8 wins, 1 loss. The REIGNING, DEFENDING, UNDISPUTED Champions of the PAC 10. The Oregon Ducks!
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 7, 2010 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I was plenty worked up that year, too
I wish I could remember where I had read that yesterday; iirc it said the BCS formula changed after 2001 to more or less ensure the human polls’ weight made the computer polls insignificant. More or less what drothgery is saying up above. So in essence, the computers now serve almost no purpose in the BCS equation at all.
My name is Cliff Harris, and I’m here to lock shit down.
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2010 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
It wasn’t after 2001, because USC got screwed in 2003 when they were left out of the BCS Championship game despite being #1 in BOTH polls.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I remember a lot of things from that season – chanting “O-VER-RA-TED” at Tuiasosopo and UW, several nerve-wracking finishes, the Stanford heartbreak, the Civil War in a monsoon…but right up there is watching Colorado absolutely dismantle Nebraska the day after Thanksgiving and thinking “We’re going to the National Championship Game!”
Defending maligned chants since 2009
…but right up there is watching Colorado absolutely dismantle Nebraska the day after Thanksgiving and thinking "We’re going to the National Championship Game!"
So you’re saying that you made Juju mad with your O-VER-RA-TED chant, so he punished you by saying your Ducks are overrated in the human polls and making the computers override them? So this is all YOUR fault, Gorby?
In the Yell-O corner, with a 2009 conference record of 8 wins, 1 loss. The REIGNING, DEFENDING, UNDISPUTED Champions of the PAC 10. The Oregon Ducks!
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 7, 2010 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow
That was a PAINFUL thing, when we were passed over for the championship game. And now, 9 years later, we find out it was all Gorby’s fault? And he’s been here, pretending to be our friend all this time! Stunning revelation. This is going to be a Lifetime movie of the week for sure.
ATQ's #1 Matt Daddy fan
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-S-N-I-C-E"
Juju recognizes and respects the truth, and the truth was that UW was over-rated. We were only declaiming that, loudly and repeatedly. Juju backs me up on the over-rated chant.
Also, Juju is not happy that you referred to __ as “he.”
Defending maligned chants since 2009
The real test would be
whether or not Juju can do math. Then we’d know for sure.
ATQ's #1 Matt Daddy fan
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-S-N-I-C-E"
JuJu is clearly a woman.
JonathanPDX's #5 Benzduck fan.
by Bill Musgrave on Oct 7, 2010 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions
except we didn't play UW that year
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
OHHHH SNAP
In the Yell-O corner, with a 2009 conference record of 8 wins, 1 loss. The REIGNING, DEFENDING, UNDISPUTED Champions of the PAC 10. The Oregon Ducks!
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 7, 2010 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions
They kept fussing with the BCS formula every year until 2005
When they started with the 1/3 coaches, 1/3 AP (later Harris), 1/3 computer average; polls are percentage of ranking points, not absolute ranking numbers formula. Prior to that the computers were much more heavily weighted, and there were various other oddball statistical factors which meant strength of schedule tended to be about quadruple-counted.
Where are the BCS offices located? Just askin'.........
if you know the answer to that question, does that give you any possible answers to whether or not the computers or the ‘humans’ figger out who is going to play in the NC game?
"If you can't copy 'em, don't imitate ''em."
YOGI BERRA
Essentially, the humans do. Sometimes retroactively, though.
LSU Football: See the cat? See the cradle?
I’m a huge Nebraska fan (just not quite as huge as Oregon), and even I knew NU getting into that title game was a travesty. I hate the BCS system passionately. I hate it for Oregon, and for Cal, and USC, and LSU, and Utah and even for Boise State. It spoils the best sport on the planet.
fBCS
In Chip I trust. In Nick, not so much.
On need only to look at LSU's collective ranking on these polls
to see there is something missing when the human element is not present.
I heart taxes.
It’s not “the human element.” It’s “everything but wins and losses.” If you let the computers use the scores, things change drastically.
In other words, these polls use exactly the same amount of information that is used to, say, declare a Pac-10 champion.
LSU Football: See the cat? See the cradle?
Humans put the datum into the computers...gigo
"If you can't copy 'em, don't imitate ''em."
YOGI BERRA
I think they factor in quite a bit of other information.
Also, the Pac-10 formulation works, because the cohort is so small.
I heart taxes.
They don’t. BCS mathematical rankings can’t take anything as input besides “Who beat whom?”
LSU Football: See the cat? See the cradle?
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 7, 2010 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Did anyone see Stewart Mandel's take?
I can’t argue with that. If the voters who once thought Boise was the third-best team in the country now deem the Broncos the fourth-best team in the country, that’s their prerogative. My question: What did the Broncos do to change their opinion? Nothing but go out and beat a bottom-feeder (New Mexico State) 59-0. No question, Oregon looked darn good against Stanford, but generally a team doesn’t pass a team above it unless that team loses or looks bad in victory. I guarantee you, if a brand-name team — say Oklahoma — had been No. 3 as of last week, and Oklahoma had beaten New Mexico State 59-0, Oregon would still be No. 4 right now.
Obviously, the Ducks will play a far better schedule over the course of the season than the Broncos. At some point, if they kept winning, they would pass them. I just don’t see the justification for it happening already when, as I pointed out on Monday, Boise has to this point played a tougher schedule than Oregon. As this Boise State blogger suggested, perhaps the pollsters should just go ahead and ranked the teams based on inevitability.
I heart taxes.
generally a team doesn’t pass a team above it unless that team loses or looks bad in victory.
I really, really hate this attitude. This is why preseason polls are generally crap.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I understand, and I don't disagree.
I just thought it was interesting to see a guy like Mandel, who I think is abou the most professional guy in the biz, take the position.
On the other hand, his replacement SI pollster, Andy Staples, does not share Mandel’s opinion.
“Staples”: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/10/05/power-rankings1/index.html
I heart taxes.
I just though about it for a minute, and I want to recant the above somewhat, at the risk of beating the dead horse.
Obviously, everyone has put some thought into this recently, and I think this is my best take on the situation in a boiled down form.
Present situation aside, I think in general to have one team pass another, when both looked relatively good in the transition week’s play, requires something special to happen.
I am torn on whether or not I think this happened here, but I think in general it requires that:
1) There is a blatantly obvious differential in the new evidence, or
2) The pollster realizes, and probably concedes to, some oversight or mistake he or she made the previous week.
I heart taxes.
I think that for one team to pass another in the polls, they need to have accomplished more on the season.
I mean, I had Oregon above BSU last week. At what point does actual on the field results trump this idea of inertia. I think that every poll after week one should adhere to this.
Even if voters dropped BSU based on their future schedule or lack of recognition (which I don’t think is the case because Oklahoma didn’t jump them after beating Texas), I’m just fine with that. I see any significant movements in a poll as a good thing, as it shows that voters are actually paying attention to some degree.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I don’t know, I’ve always thought him to be….meh. He’s like the George Schroeder of the national landscape. But this comment is ridiculous:
What did the Broncos do to change their opinion?
Uhh, nothing. Oregon just did substantially more. It’s actually a good thing to use all available data, and THEN make an informed decision. Sticking to your previous opinions stubbornly when new information becomes available is simply asinine.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I don't know.
I think we fundamentally disagree. I do see where you’re coming from, though. And since it’s a poll of multiple people, I guess it’s hard to argue with the results. They are what they are.
I still feel like Boise State was slighted for a schedule they haven’t played. But whatever. It was inevitable.
In the meantime, ALABAMA WAS NO. 3 THIS SAME WEEK LAST YEAR! ;-)
Addicted To Quack. If you’re not into the whole brevity thing.
Paul are you telling me that OREGON IS A LOCK TO WIN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP??!?
If so, I’ve got time off from work to arrange and plane tickets to Arizona to buy!!
ATQ's #1 Matt Daddy fan
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Wait, that’s what CHIP is saying. He said polls don’t matter. Then he used the rhetorical question “Who was ranked No. 3 last year at this time?” to refute that they matter. And it turns out it was the eventual champ ’Bama.
Read between the lines, people. Chipper knows what he’s doing, and what he’s saying is we’re going to win it all!!!
Addicted To Quack. If you’re not into the whole brevity thing.
In Chip we trust!
Sweet! It’s so much cheaper to buy plane tickets for January RIGHT NOW than waiting for the first week of December! I’ve got calls to make, people!!
ATQ's #1 Matt Daddy fan
Arizona? I’m sorry, Daisy, but the National Championship is in Pullman.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-L-I-K-E-P-I-C-K-I-N-G-Y-O-U-R-N-O-S-E"
"I’ll give it my best shot, but you know I’m a signature ho." - daisyduck
Just think of where the initial rankings for the season came from... thin air.
Based on old data and unknown rosters. Does anyone know the off season conditioning programs for all the teams? Does anyone know when the “light goes on” for sophs and juniors and they step up? Does anyone know if freshmen are going to be a factor? …
How can the pre-season polls be used as an argument for rankings 5 weeks into a season?
Speed Endurance Talent is how Track Town USA plays football. Win The Day
I hate it too, Jared. It makes the assumption that everything the voters thought was true at the time they shook their magic 8 ball did their pre-season rankings, actually was true. It’s almost like you shouldn’t do it because then you are admitting that your initial poll was wrong. Well, who cares if your initial poll was wrong? You made it with extremely limited information.
It seems like a lot of people get hung up on this idea that a team has to do something wrong to deserve to be dropped. However, the limited criteria that the AP poll puts out even says this isn’t the case:
* Base your vote on performance, not reputation or preseason speculation.
If Oregon were to go out this week and beat WSU 59-0, but Boise State (or even Oklahoma) beat Nebraska by 3 touchdowns, I wouldn’t have a problem with the poll changing yet again and being ranked behind that team. I am really happy that the voters have taken to this philosophy more over the past few years.
And this is yet another example, in my opinion, of how waiting until week 5 to release the first polls would work out. If this week’s poll had been the first poll all year, I think most of the people who have a problem with it right now wouldn’t have nearly as much of a problem with it. Most of the arguments I’ve seen aren’t that Boise State has done more so far THIS season than the Ducks have, but rather that Boise State was already ranked higher and therefore shouldn’t be jumped until they lose or come close to losing.
In the Yell-O corner, with a 2009 conference record of 8 wins, 1 loss. The REIGNING, DEFENDING, UNDISPUTED Champions of the PAC 10. The Oregon Ducks!
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 7, 2010 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
IMHO preseason polls should be thrown out the window
I think that people wanted to believe in the Ducks before the season began, and I think that if we didn’t run into the legal trouble that we did in the off season, losing a few good players, we would have been ranked higher initially. Everything that I read about the ducks in the off season was about how athletic they were, how experienced and how they were returning 17 or 18 starters. The one big question mark? Quarterback. If you remember, just before the final pre-season rankings came out and after JM was sent packing, Oregon dropped 5-6 places in the polls.
Since then Oregon has answered it’s critics in a big way. DT is very possibly a better QB than JM. While he doesn’t run quite as well he is a passer not a thrower and that opens up the offense in ways JM never could.
I look at it this way, Of all the teams in the top 4 I am going to put my team up against one of them in a winner take all matchup. I get to choose who I play on a neutral field. A truly neutral field, like in Siberia neutral, not against TCU in Dallas… I’ll look at the top 4 as pretty consensus Alabama, Oregon, tOSU, and BSU in no particular order. Now I want to have the best chance to win with my generic team X. I’d either play OSU or BSU and of those two I’d play OSU because I feel that they are the weakest team. I’d actually probably want to play Alabama before Oregon because it’s not going to be a shoot out, the score is likely to be closer at the end of the game due to defense and not a lot of offense. With Oregon, if you get into a shootout 9 times out of 10 you lose because they are prolific.
The other thing I see is this, Alabama: Great Defensive team, Average offense. Their offense can be average because they know their Defense is going to keep them in games. Oregon: Great Offensive team, Average Defense. Not the popular opinoion with some people here but while fast, our defense can give up big plays and a lot of yards, our advantage comes in playing against our offense so we are well conditioned far into the game. Still The defense can be average because our Offense is going to keep us in games. BSU and OSU: I don’t see either of these teams with a GREAT side of the ball. Both sides are a bit above average but neither are going to blow you away.
Just because a team is ranked in the pre-season, doesn’t mean that we should show them any respect 5 weeks into the season. Texas was ranked in the top 10. Virginia was ranked in the top 10. as was Florida and Iowa. Two of those teams are no longer ranked. Of the top 25 ranked in the AP preseason poll almost half (10) are no longer ranked. I think that the pollsters looked at Oregon’s impressive win against a top 10 opponent, how they responded to being down big time and how it never phased them.
I think that what the pollsters are saying really is that, if Oregon and BSU played today, Oregon has the better chance of coming out on top. Go ahead and rage about the last two years, i’ll wait.
Ok, BSU won two years in a row. Did you know that UCLA at one point beat USC 6 years in a row. Washington has beaten the Ducks 6 times in a row, on three different occasions. You know what their record is in the last 6 years? 0-6. That doesn’t mean we’ll beat them this year. Texas beat Oregon 4 times in a row, that didn’t stop us from winning in 2000. Oklahoma had beaten Oregon 6 times in a row, In 2006 Oregon broke that streak and beat them again in 2008.
My point is The past is exactly that, water under the bridge. This year, would BSU beat Oregon? It’s absolutly possible, in fact I think that 4 times out of 10 they do. However, I still think that the ducks are a better all around team, and I think the ducks can still improve and will. Because of that I would rank Oregon over BSU and IMHO over tOSU as well. Where a team ranked last week would not have bearing in my poll and especially where they ranked in the pre-season poll.
BSU was in the top 10 preseason because they are the popular choice and there’s a lot of discussion around them. See: Texas.
/rant
Quack Quack Bitches.
egads.
What does UCLA bating USC 6 years in a row have to do with anything?
Mandel’s question is: how could the pollsters think in week 4 that BSU would win, and then in Week 5 think that Oregon would win? What do results, over the course of 6 years, that are years and years ago, have to do with the week 4 to week 5 treatment of Oregon and BSU.
I heart taxes.
Mandel’s question is: how could the pollsters think in week 4 that BSU would win, and then in Week 5 think that Oregon would win?
To my knowledge, this isn’t what the pollsters are being asked. It isn’t spelled out in the criteria either way, but I don’t think they are being asked to straight up determine who would win on a neutral field. They are being asked to base their vote on “performance, not reputation or preseason speculation.”
This is where yet another issue comes in: there is no truly clear definition of the voting. Each voter could use a different set of criteria because the base criteria provided to them is almost non-existent. I’ve always thought that voters are voting each team based on what they’ve proven, on the field, up to that point.
Let’s say you are voting based on that criteria…that they are voting based on “who would win”. Let’s say that McElroy [sic] missed the 2nd half of their next game, and was severely hobbled in the game after that. Let’s say they lose both of those game. Then let’s say they have a bye and McElroy get’s completely healthy and they win every game left on their schedule by 3+ TD’s, and finish 11-2 after they win the SEC Championship game. At the same time, Oregon and Ohio State both go 12-0 with a bunch of really close games, and everyone agrees that Bama is that team who nobody wants to play because they are clearly the best team right now. Alabama would probably be favored against both of the 12-0 teams, but Alabama most certainly wouldn’t be in the National Championship Game.
I know this is a “what-if” scenario that’s pretty unlikely, but I’m bringing it up to see what you think about it. USC was actually in this situation several times, they just lost a game they shouldn’t but were clearly playing some of the best football at the end of the season. It didn’t matter though because their resume didn’t match up. I think that voters probably use “who do I think would win on a neutral field” as a tie-breaker when deciding between two really close teams, but I just don’t think that people are voting purely on “who would win” or USC probably wouldn’t have been ranked even before last week.
In the Yell-O corner, with a 2009 conference record of 8 wins, 1 loss. The REIGNING, DEFENDING, UNDISPUTED Champions of the PAC 10. The Oregon Ducks!
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 7, 2010 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
I think you are right. I suppose it is fair to put record first, and then move up and down based on a who-would-win element (as an example).
I still don’t see what the relevance of the USC v. UCLA example was.
I heart taxes.
It was a reference to BSU fans saying they should be ranked higher because they’ve beaten us two years in a row. I was trying to say, even if you’ve beaten us six times in a row, this year is a new year, and you can’t look at the past to make your argument. Different players, different experiences, a different way the ball bounces or the wind blows… There’s just too many variables.
Quack Quack Bitches.
Does anyone have the Cliff Notes for this post?
ATQ's #1 Matt Daddy fan
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-S-N-I-C-E"
Daisy, did you just tl;dr?
…or was it a “Cool story, bro”?
"Hey, can you give us a little respect?" --Chip Kelly, during an interview with Erin Andrews
It was a tl;dr. I wanted to read it but then it almost seared my retinas to a crisp.
ATQ's #1 Matt Daddy fan
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-S-N-I-C-E"
Wall of text crits you for 50,000 HPs.
Wait, is this the World of Warcraft message board?
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Not enough mage tears.
So, no.
My name is Cliff Harris, and I’m here to lock shit down.
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2010 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Mage tears? Seriously? Did they get nerfed or something? Last I checked it was priests that were bitching and moaning, but I haven’t played in over a year.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Not sure there is a class that didn't bitch constantly.
But I have been away a while, too.
My name is Cliff Harris, and I’m here to lock shit down.
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2010 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
You work?
Loser.
My name is Cliff Harris, and I’m here to lock shit down.
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
You all know I totally had to google that, right?
But then I also had to google my son’s 5th grade math assignment the other night so I could help him. Clearly I’m a sharp one.
ATQ's #1 Matt Daddy fan
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-S-N-I-C-E"
Don't worry, Daisy:
My name is Cliff Harris, and I’m here to lock shit down.
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 7, 2010 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
OP scores a +1 to retina damage!
"Hey, can you give us a little respect?" --Chip Kelly, during an interview with Erin Andrews
I completely agree.
I made this point following the VT/BSU game. Someone was making a case for Boise in that they just beat the #10 team in the nation. I replied that it was a #10 preseason ranking and didn’t mean anything. My comment really pissed some people off. I got nothing but shit for saying that, especially from a guy who I think is named quinn.
My opinion is that rankings shouldn’t come out until the non-conference schedules are winding down, say week 3 or 4. Of course, the non-aq teams live or die by their preseason ranking, so they’d have something else to bitch about. But to rank a team before a single snap is played just seems ridiculous to me, only surpassed by the idiocy that is placing weight in those rankings.
Procrastinators Unite Tomorrow.
I think that preseason rankings are perfectly fine. We’re all jonesing for some football and we get to talk about “Do you really think Team A is better than Team B?”
Voting as a measure of seeding a “2-team playoff” is fairly ridiculous. Voting as a measure of seeding a “1-team playoff,” as has been most of college football’s tradition, it really, really dumb.
LSU Football: See the cat? See the cradle?
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 7, 2010 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Can’t you hold that “team A is better than team B” discussion with out a formal preseason poll?
It’s just one of the less than perfect aspects of the way this sport is set up. A cog in the BCS wheel.
Procrastinators Unite Tomorrow.
by Oregonfan_03 on Oct 7, 2010 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, you can. But “you don’t need preseason polls for that” isn’t an argument that preseason polls are bad. I’m just saying that preseason polls are fine, though hardly necessary, and the only problem is that the polls, at any time of year, mean a great deal.
Baseball, for example, will have preseason polls, and nothing bad will come of it because no one has the moronic idea of taking just the top two teams at the end of the season and having them square off, and baseball hasn’t had a history of the even more moronic idea of taking just the top-ranked team at season’s end and calling them “champion.”
LSU Football: See the cat? See the cradle?
This is undoubtedly true:
Sticking to your previous opinions stubbornly when new information becomes available is simply asinine.
I heart taxes.
You forgot a few polls:
North Pole
Ski Pole
Stripper Pole
Pope John Paul II
Barbershop Pole – (which has us ranked 2nd btw)
Hoover: They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!
by DamienS on Oct 7, 2010 12:09 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Two Poles walk into a bar...
"Hey, can you give us a little respect?" --Chip Kelly, during an interview with Erin Andrews
A few others I left off...
Flag Pole
Foul Pole
Polio
Pole Position
Addicted To Quack. If you’re not into the whole brevity thing.
Jabari Brown!!!
Life is about growth. People are not perfect when they're 21 years old. - Bill Walton
ranked 22nd overall in the class. SG. bitches.
Life is about growth. People are not perfect when they're 21 years old. - Bill Walton
by NEP on Oct 7, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
btw, just committed to Oregon on ESPNU.
Life is about growth. People are not perfect when they're 21 years old. - Bill Walton
by NEP on Oct 7, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
http://oregon.247sports.com/Article/SG-Brown-commits-to-Oregon-2458
Life is about growth. People are not perfect when they're 21 years old. - Bill Walton
by NEP on Oct 7, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
That Dana Altman...he's so hot right now!
"Hey, can you give us a little respect?" --Chip Kelly, during an interview with Erin Andrews
Has anyone told these recruits what our record was the last two years?
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-L-I-K-E-F-O-R-G-I-V-I-N-G-D-A-I-S-Y"
Dude, SHUT UP!!!!!
S-H-U-F-E-L-T-L-I-K-E-S-P-O-I-L-I-N-G-I-T-?
Hey Daisy, git me anudder one!
Addicted to Quack
I heard Brown can't go left...and he actually has only one look, er, move.
"Hey, can you give us a little respect?" --Chip Kelly, during an interview with Erin Andrews
even if this is true
that can be fixed with good coaching. His talent level is off the charts for what we were expecting for the next few years.
Quack Quack Bitches.
I thought Chris Farley died...
I fucking hate you Mariners
Uh, that was a joke...
I was sticking with the Zoolander theme.
"Hey, can you give us a little respect?" --Chip Kelly, during an interview with Erin Andrews
This is true...one move, one direction. TO THE HOLE!!
"If you can't copy 'em, don't imitate ''em."
YOGI BERRA
I don't like polls
"(Kelly's) got a veteran team that is the favorite to win the Pac-10. His choice of Thomas reflects only one belief: He’s our best QB today."-Ted Miller
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Oct 7, 2010 7:20 PM PDT reply actions
I don't like tolls...
"Hey, can you give us a little respect?" --Chip Kelly, during an interview with Erin Andrews
Tennessee has no toll roads. Fact.
"(Kelly's) got a veteran team that is the favorite to win the Pac-10. His choice of Thomas reflects only one belief: He’s our best QB today."-Ted Miller
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Oct 7, 2010 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Oregon has no rolled toads. Fact.
"Hey, can you give us a little respect?" --Chip Kelly, during an interview with Erin Andrews
I don't think Oregon has any toll roads either
none that I know of. Though the new Columbia river bridge will likely be toll, if they ever actually build it.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Let's all roll a toad and mellow this harsh.
JonathanPDX's #5 Benzduck fan.
by Bill Musgrave on Oct 8, 2010 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions
All this talk about poll positions and rankings got me thinking
If BSU is pissed now because they got jumped by another undefeated team, what will happen if teams in front of them lose and late in the year they get jumped by a team with 1 loss. Especially if it’s near the end of the season when they’re that close to playing in a National Championship game.
I think we’ve only just begun to see the bitching out of Boise.
Hey Daisy, git me anudder one!
Addicted to Quack
Maybe if Boise bitches enough, we will get a playoff.
ha ha ha ha ha
Speed Endurance Talent is how Track Town USA plays football. Win The Day
If they don't get into at least the Rose as an undefeated
I’m going to avoid potatoes for a few months.
It's already slated: TCU vs. BSU in the 2011 Tostidos Fiesta Bowl.
Unless Utah manages to beat TCU, or Nevada manages to pull off the miracle.
Procrastinators Unite Tomorrow.
by Oregonfan_03 on Oct 7, 2010 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Where's the Quack Fix?
And, I haven’t seen it posted anywhere else so here’s EDSBS’, The Alphabetical, Week 5:
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2010/10/4/1729557/the-alphabetical-week-6-tennessee-vs-lsu-college-football-recap
J is for JDAM. Oregon had 31 first downs and 626 yards of offense on Saturday. Which Saturday? Oh, any of them at this point. At this point Chip Kelly’s offense has become like the Joint Direct Attack Munition: strap it to anything and it instantly becomes a well-targeted piece of weaponry. Oregon remains on pace to smash Oklahoma’s 2008 scoring record after their 52-31 victory over Stanford despite losing their starting quarterback to off-the-field nonsense in the offseason and having nothing you would define as a go-to receiver in their offense. (Don’t even tell me, non-Oregon fan, that you could pull “Jeff Maehl” from your pocket before reading this. You didn’t and couldn’t.)
They are to offense right now what Alabama is to defense: a system whose composite parts make up a greater whole no matter the parts. The running back will have at least 200 yards, the quarterback will pass for 200 and run for 100, and as a defense your best plan is to pray someone fumbles once and gives you a stop.
"If you can't copy 'em, don't imitate ''em."
YOGI BERRA
I want Kelly to recruit a player named Omar
just for the bounty of quotes we would have.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Addicted To Quack
Related FanShots on Addicted To Quack
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
