This Website / Blog belongs to Dora M. Dominguez-Carey 2005: Background Template by Dora D. Carey 2014: Dominguez Generations, Inc. 2005;
Online Media Contributor: theEXaminer 2007; Online Media Contributor: SB Nation 2007
WELCOME to MY SPORT'S BLOG! WHERE I WILL RANT and RAVE ABOUT ANYTHING SPORTS-RELATED!
I HOPE YOU ENJOY MY POSTS and that YOU SHARE the SAME AFFINITY for the "WIDE WORLD of SPORTS" LIKE ME!

Sunday, October 18, 2009

The college football polls: are they getting too political?

The 2009 college football polls finally get it right for week #8...some of them did anyway. The AP Poll ranked Tech #21 but this blogger strongly disagrees with that ranking and says Tech should have been # 15th, 16th or 17th.
Last year Tech suffered some ups and downs. The team saw themselves ranked #12 as 2008 began, then they earned # 2 spot during week # 11 and kept it as such for weeks # 12 & 13. Then came the awful nightmare of a game versus OU (the one I am not so sure Coach Leach may not have "given away"; the very game when he lost his manhood to his former boss, Bob Stoops) then Tech fell to the # 7th spot, that was week # 14. Tech then remained at # 7 thru weeks # 15 & # 16. Rankings by the end of the regular season (post season) had Tech ranked as such: BCS @ #7, AP @ #12, USA Today @ #12, Harris @ #8.
My "beef" this season is why Tech was dissed by the polls and began 2009 not even ranked. Many sport's pundits (idiots) said it was due to Tech's loss in the Cotton Bowl to Ole Miss. Well, as much as I hated Tech losing that game, they lost to a very formidable opponent who was ranked # 25 in the BCS at the end of 2008. Matter of fact, Ole Miss started this year ranked # 8 or 10 depending on which poll you prefer, but they were top 10. Please someone tell me how Tech could be forgotten like that when other ranked teams who have lost more important games to unranked teams manage to stay ranked? Tech did not have a weak schedule either. It was the same as UT, OU and other ranked teams across the country.
Other sport's pundits said Tech was omitted from rankings because of losing Graham Harrell and Michael Crabtree. What a stupid reason. Did those pundits (idiots) not see the caliber players who remained on the Tech team after Harrell graduated and Crabtree elected to leave. These same idiots who deem Tech as a "system's team" the ones who say they don't like Tech's spread offense and instead of respecting them slightly for it, they say it is too gimmicky and too showy. These idiots say that week in and week out and if that is really their stupid opinion, then fine, but by them saying that they should admit that Tech can then "plug and play" any player into any position and win. So what is my point? That Tech's "system" thus allowing them to "plug and play" does not miss nor need Harrell or Crabtree to keep winning. Although we love, respect and will always honor Harrell & Crabtree; Tech can continue to keep winning without them and all the other awesome players they lost from last season. The time to stop dismissing Tech via the polls has arrived. Tech is still for real. I especially want the sport's pundits (idiots), the ones who continue to also dis Tech, to just shut up.
Tech will earn more respect as the 2009 season progresses; it holds its own destiny in their own hands to earn much respect and better rankings. So AGAIN the reason I am not happy or satisfied with Tech being ranked #21 this week is because they should be ranked better. You don't dismiss a team like Tech who ended up ranked # 12 on the BCS poll last year for any reason.
The rankings for 2009 came in being very bogus; unjustly placing several other teams on the polls that should not have been there at all. Tech should have at least come in @ # 20 thru 25 and been allowed to determine how they would proceed through-out the year. Most fans say they don't care about rankings (yea, right?)...they are liars if they don't care. Besides rankings through-out the season determine championships and how much money each university will make. Don't tell me that rankings don't matter.

No comments: