No I-AA team has ever beaten a ranked I-A team in the AP Poll.

It doesn't prove anything, but it does raise questions when one of the top Big Ten (11) teams goes down so hard.

 

But that begs the question: what made/makes Michigan a top Big T(elev)EN team? I just reject the premise/assumption at this point. If you want to argue that the whole Big Ten hasn't looked strong, fair enough. The same could be said about many of the big conferences. Everyone has had some teams struggle to win (USC struggled against Idaho; Auburn was beaten by South Florida; Ohio State did not exactly overpower Akron; Wisconsin survived at UNLV; Texas had to eek out a win against Arkansas State).

If Michigan wins the conference championship, then either (1) The conference is very weak, (2) Michigan's first two games were aberrations (of a gargantuan proportion), or (3) Michigan improved drastically. There are more options than just one. Mind you, I'm no Big T(eleve)EN proponent. I only modestly like one or two schools in the conference and think the conference is behind the times (See last year's National Championship game). I am not one of those who has consumed large quantites of the KoolAid for the conference. But I'm not ready to throw the conference under the bus just because Michigan was apparently grossly overhyped to start the season.

 

I threw the conference under the bus after the bowl games last year.

OSU and UM got thrashed. Wisconsin got lucky--No kicker for Ark, McFadden wasn't full-steam, and Arkansas just can't seem to win bowl games. No excuses, though, for Arkansas' performance. I think if Wisconsin had drawn another SEC team, they would have lost.

 

You forgot to add that Arkansas hasn't had more than a junior high-type passing attacking after Clint Stoerner graduated.

 

Oh I didn't forget. I just try to avoid mentioning it because if I mention it I get all hot under the collar.

ARRGH It's all Nutt's fault!!

 

No question the Big T(elev)en was over-hyped last year. But that was last year. Remember, if we judge teams just by one game, then Arkansas would have gotten no credit after last year's rout at the hands of USC. Tennessee would'v been a top 5 team after walloping Cal in game 1.

If you want to say that you project that the Big T(elev)en will be over-hyped this year, I'll agree. But I can't say that they are yet. There's an awful lot of football left to be played. And again, you cannot judge a whole conference by the fate of one team. But no question the Big T(elev)en is a notch or two below the likes of the SEC, et.al.

 

I'd like to know how it's possible to rank college football teams before they play so much as one down of football. Clearly, Michigan should never have been ranked as high as they were, so how did they get there in the first place? Add the preseason rankings as another thing that needs to be fixed in college football.

 

The same thing happens in all other sports, yet no one complains.

Voters are not locked into keeping teams where they are. If they lay an egg, vote them out. Notre Dame gets vaulted several spots at a time. Other teams get dropped just as easily. Michigan lost 20-22 spots in one week. It's possible to have a team be #1 and then be unranked. It's also possible to have a team be #25 one week and #1 the next. There is no floor on how far you can fall as , nor a limit on how far you can rise. The pundits like to blame pre-season polls as a problem, but many of these are voters in the polls. It's dishonest.

Besides, teams can fall after the 3rd week/5th week/whenever you start voting. You can start 4-0 and wind up 4-8.

However, one should not quibble with Michigan being ranked too high. Of course they were. But the pollsters did the right thing. Had they thumped Oregon, we probably would've seen Michigan re-ranked.