East Region Fan Poll

[pg04]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

[Jonny Utah]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

Do you think Alfred could beat Springfield on the road? How about Montclair?

The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher.  I probably wont see Alfred or Montclair live this year.  In fact, I will probably only see 2 non-nefc/nescac games live this year.  So comparative scores is all someone like me has to go on.  (and Im assuming most people in this poll will be the same)

[SJFF82]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher. 

That statement (by Utah) is rather 'circular' in logic and otherwise makes no sense at all...isnt it presumed that if a team "deserves to be ranked higher" that they are better?   

[pg04]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

Do you think Alfred could beat Springfield on the road? How about Montclair?

The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher.  I probably wont see Alfred or Montclair live this year.  In fact, I will probably only see 2 non-nefc/nescac games live this year.  So comparative scores is all someone like me has to go on.  (and Im assuming most people in this poll will be the same)

You aren't saying who is better or not?  I sure as hell thought that was the point.  Fine since Carnegie Mellon the road beat U of R by more points than Fisher did, I guess CMU would probably beat Fisher and if in the East would be Ranked higher than Fisher, right? 

[Jonny Utah]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher. 

That statement (by Utah) is rather 'circular' in logic and otherwise makes no sense at all...isnt it presumed that if a team "deserves to be ranked higher" that they are better?   

Not always.  Sometimes teams have bad games, or luck doesnt go their way.  Thats why appalachian st wasnt ranked ahead of michigan after week 1.

[pg04]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher. 

That statement (by Utah) is rather 'circular' in logic and otherwise makes no sense at all...isnt it presumed that if a team "deserves to be ranked higher" that they are better?   

I think it is circular...but we all have opinions on how to pick our top 10.  It's good that we have a variety of thoughts...

[Jonny Utah]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

Do you think Alfred could beat Springfield on the road? How about Montclair?

The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher.  I probably wont see Alfred or Montclair live this year.  In fact, I will probably only see 2 non-nefc/nescac games live this year.  So comparative scores is all someone like me has to go on.  (and Im assuming most people in this poll will be the same)

You aren't saying who is better or not?  I sure as hell thought that was the point.  Fine since Carnegie Mellon the road beat U of R by more points than Fisher did, I guess CMU would probably beat Fisher and if in the East would be Ranked higher than Fisher, right? 

comparative scores dont always work out, but they should be considered more often than they are sometimes.  Especially early in the season when you dont have that much to go by.

[SJFF82]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher. 

That statement (by Utah) is rather 'circular' in logic and otherwise makes no sense at all...isnt it presumed that if a team "deserves to be ranked higher" that they are better?   

Not always.  Sometimes teams have bad games, or luck doesnt go their way.  Thats why appalachian st wasnt ranked ahead of michigan after week 1.

  Huh, App St was not ranked higher tahn Michigan because they are neither better nor did they deserve to be ranked higher!

[Jonny Utah]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

Huh, App. St wasnt ranked ahead of Michigan because they are neither better nor did they deserve a higher ranking



The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher. 

That statement (by Utah) is rather 'circular' in logic and otherwise makes no sense at all...isnt it presumed that if a team "deserves to be ranked higher" that they are better?   

Not always.  Sometimes teams have bad games, or luck doesnt go their way.  Thats why appalachian st wasnt ranked ahead of michigan after week 1.

Ok.  Tell me why App St. wasnt ranked ahead of Michigan after week 1?

[pg04]

Don't get sucked into the trap answer...

[pg04]

Anyway, as for OUR poll. It looks like we may be sticking with this same top 5 for a while, as the challenges start to come again near the end of the season...

[SJFF82]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

Huh, App. St wasnt ranked ahead of Michigan because they are neither better nor did they deserve a higher ranking



The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher. 

That statement (by Utah) is rather 'circular' in logic and otherwise makes no sense at all...isnt it presumed that if a team "deserves to be ranked higher" that they are better?   

Not always.  Sometimes teams have bad games, or luck doesnt go their way.  Thats why appalachian st wasnt ranked ahead of michigan after week 1.

Ok.  Tell me why App St. wasnt ranked ahead of Michigan after week 1?

Because it was a fluke, however your statement suggested that teams deserve to be ranked higher not because of their strength, but perhaps because of them "deserving it"  Then I pose the same question to you under your faulty logic:  Why wasnt App St ranked higher than Michigan after beating them?

[Jonny Utah]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

Huh, App. St wasnt ranked ahead of Michigan because they are neither better nor did they deserve a higher ranking



The thing about these polls is that you arent really saying who is better or not.  But its who deserves to be ranked higher. 

That statement (by Utah) is rather 'circular' in logic and otherwise makes no sense at all...isnt it presumed that if a team "deserves to be ranked higher" that they are better?   

Not always.  Sometimes teams have bad games, or luck doesnt go their way.  Thats why appalachian st wasnt ranked ahead of michigan after week 1.

Ok.  Tell me why App St. wasnt ranked ahead of Michigan after week 1?

Because it was a fluke, however your statement suggested that teams deserve to be ranked higher not because of their strength, but perhaps because of them "deserving it"  Then I pose the same question to you under your faulty logic:  Why wasnt App St ranked higher than Michigan after beating them?

Well thats why I used the horribly worded phrase "arent really".  What my whole point is that sometimes a head to head competition is what really matters.  App. St isnt really a great example in the long run, because they dont play a schedule even close to what Michigan does.  But if they both went 9-1 and were the last two teams left to go to "bowl A" (And app st was d1), I would say App St deserved to go, (or be ranked higher) because they beat Michigan head to head.  Even though you and I know Michigan is better than App St., App St beat them and would deserve to get a spot over them if they both contended for one.

[Pat Coleman]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

Do you think Alfred could beat Springfield on the road? How about Montclair?

Is it Alfred's third straight week on the road in your scenario, like it was for Springfield?

[Jonny Utah]

If we want to use the "neutral field" cliche...

I think Montclair would beat Alfred on a neutral field.  Should Montclair Fall or Alfred impress in the upcoming weeks, I may change my tune. 

Do you think Alfred could beat Springfield on the road? How about Montclair?

Is it Alfred's third straight week on the road in your scenario, like it was for Springfield?

Sure, but I dont think that matters.  Its not like they had to stay in Alfred Station all week.