Discussion from Coastal's board

[SuperJon]

We've been discussing this on Coastal's board tonight, and I wanted to get other people's opinions.

First, let me state that I am not arguing for a team, nor against a team. This discussion is over a certain logic and line of reasoning.

Our debate has been over this: A team wins a conference/national championship. Are they automatically the #1 team going into the next season regardless of what they lost or what other teams have gained?

I argue that by saying that a team that won is automatically the favorites for the next year negates things such as coaching changes, graduation/free agency, other teams developing and getting better, and a multitude of other things.

The people on the other side of the argument say that until they're knocked off, they should be the favorites no matter what.

What is your opinion on this? You can bring in teams as references, but please let's not turn this into a Team A is better than Team B debate.

[JALMOND]

We've been discussing this on Coastal's board tonight, and I wanted to get other people's opinions.

First, let me state that I am not arguing for a team, nor against a team. This discussion is over a certain logic and line of reasoning.

Our debate has been over this: A team wins a conference/national championship. Are they automatically the #1 team going into the next season regardless of what they lost or what other teams have gained?

I argue that by saying that a team that won is automatically the favorites for the next year negates things such as coaching changes, graduation/free agency, other teams developing and getting better, and a multitude of other things.

The people on the other side of the argument say that until they're knocked off, they should be the favorites no matter what.

What is your opinion on this? You can bring in teams as references, but please let's not turn this into a Team A is better than Team B debate.

Don't know if this is what you're looking for, but I want to use this year's Oregon State baseball team as an example. For what they lost from last year's championship team, no one in their right mind would/should have picked them to win it all this year. Yet the few who would have picked them would (it was proven) have been right all along. A break here and a break there and you win the championship. Should you then automatically be given the #1 spot next year? I say no. How about in the various conferences. Should a team like S Illinois get the nod over Northern Iowa due to how both finished last year? Too many variables that can impact a season occur from the end of one season to the beginning of another. Many publications last year had Oklahoma as the team to beat in the FBS. Then Bomar is forced to transfer and the Sooners were not the same team. The defending champions should be just as scrutinized as other teams before placing them as #1, my opinion.

[McNeese75]

I generally favor ranking the prior year champion at the top if there is a quality team returning. However, if you have a team that loses most of it's starters or has a coaching change that will result in a complete change in the schemes, etc I probably would not vote that team #1.

Hummm, sounds like fence walking to me xlolx

[TheValleyRaider]

Automatically, certainly not. It really all depends on weighing factors like returning pieces and schedule strength. For example, had UMass won the title, I still wouldn't have put them at Preseason #1, losing key members of the team like they did and having to get back to the playoffs by going through the A-10, now CAA gauntlet again. Similarly, ASU returns a good number of players, including some important ones, and I feel more comfortable putting them right there for now.

I realize that the last 4 preseason polls have had the defending champs as #1, but each time I think it was reasonable to look at them coming in and say they were in good position to repeat (and as it turned out, one of them did).

It's harder sometimes, I think, at this level to go with someone different, mostly because experience in an important factor to winning in the playoffs and we value the experience gained in winning a title very highly. There are of course questions with each team coming in, and the nature of the playoff system makes it difficult to predict a winner in the summer.

[SuperJon]

I'm ok with ranking a team that finished first on top for the next year if, and only if, you take into consideration all of the evidence and make your decision from that. I just don't like the blind logic of, "They won last year, they're automatically #1 next year."

[boonedocks]

I agree, I think you should almost start from scratch. Evaluate the teams and make your choices then. I don't think a team should be ranked #1 the following year purely based on last years success. And it can go the other way as well IMO. If a team had some injuries, and other things that can happen, doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered for even a relatively high ranking based on the prospects for the upcoming season. All the while, I say that preseason rankings are speculation for the most part anyway.

[Lionsrking]

We've been discussing this on Coastal's board tonight, and I wanted to get other people's opinions.

First, let me state that I am not arguing for a team, nor against a team. This discussion is over a certain logic and line of reasoning.

Our debate has been over this: A team wins a conference/national championship. Are they automatically the #1 team going into the next season regardless of what they lost or what other teams have gained?

I argue that by saying that a team that won is automatically the favorites for the next year negates things such as coaching changes, graduation/free agency, other teams developing and getting better, and a multitude of other things.

The people on the other side of the argument say that until they're knocked off, they should be the favorites no matter what.

What is your opinion on this? You can bring in teams as references, but please let's not turn this into a Team A is better than Team B debate.

Thankfully, in the FCS, it doesn't matter who's ranked No. 1 to start the season. If forced to really care one way or the other, I guess it makes sense to start the year with the previous year's champion as the No. 1 team since it's all a crapshoot anyway.

[tarmac]

To be the man you got to beat the man WHOOOO!!!

[boonedocks]

To be the man you got to beat the man WHOOOO!!!

xlolx xlolx xlolx

Nice!

xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[813Jag]

Unless that team losses all 22 starters, then I think you have to give them consideration on being the top team. But it's only preseason so it really doesn't matter much.

[SuperJon]

Hey, stop saying polls mean nothing. I know they do, but you guys are ruining a perfectly good debate that's going to get me through class this morning.

[BigApp]

To be the man you got to beat the man WHOOOO!!!

http://planetsmilies.net/not-tagged-smiley-11724.gif

[proasu89]

We've been discussing this on Coastal's board tonight, and I wanted to get other people's opinions.

First, let me state that I am not arguing for a team, nor against a team. This discussion is over a certain logic and line of reasoning.

Our debate has been over this: A team wins a conference/national championship. Are they automatically the #1 team going into the next season regardless of what they lost or what other teams have gained?

I argue that by saying that a team that won is automatically the favorites for the next year negates things such as coaching changes, graduation/free agency, other teams developing and getting better, and a multitude of other things.

The people on the other side of the argument say that until they're knocked off, they should be the favorites no matter what.

What is your opinion on this? You can bring in teams as references, but please let's not turn this into a Team A is better than Team B debate.

I have a hard time believing this is even debatable. Last year is in the past. We are fortunate to have won last year and still be considered the best this year. It rarely happens this way. The point is moot because we're all tied right now anywayxwhistlex

[walliver]

I believe that EVERY team in FCS is currently 0-0 and has an equal opportunity at winning the National Championship*

I also believe that ASU is more likely to win it than VMI.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that the top team has to be knocked from its perch before anyone else can be #1. I remember a number of years where the #1 team in the FCS polls stayed at or near the top spot even when few voters felt they were the best team in the land, only to fall precipitously after losing to a BCS team.



* This only applies to teams in the blessed conferences however:D