Ballot Type: Human
Submitted: Sept. 6, 2016, 11:51 p.m.
Rank | Team | Reason |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
... |
2 |
![]() |
This is tough, but watching Clemson - Auburn and FSU - Ole Miss, I would take that second half FSU to beat whole game Clemson. |
3 |
![]() |
See above. Place holder ranking. Think they may have more tools than FSU, but didn't prove that on Saturday. |
4 |
![]() |
Poor competition, but played so well that it looked like it wouldn't have mattered. Gave no reason to be moved down. Old school powerhouse on cupcake beatdown. |
5 |
![]() |
Same reason as UM. |
6 |
![]() |
Better opponent than many ranked, and while not stellar, did a solid job, and McCaffrey looked to be enough to carry them against many teams. |
7 |
![]() |
Outclassed a very good opponent, but not necessarily sold on pure talent v talent match-up with the afore-ranked teams. |
8 |
![]() |
Looked very good against an apparently pretty good team in ND. Holding off a comeback from a talented team goes a long way. Not sold that they're completely "back," though. |
9 |
![]() |
Chubb is a powerful x-factor. Beat a good team in skillful fashion. Cut it a little too close. |
10 |
![]() |
|
11 |
![]() |
More convincing in their win than any below them. Really like the quarterback. |
12 |
![]() |
I'm not punishing too much for cutting it close, first week is given to work out kinks, just the teams ahead of them straight up looked better. Could be hugely talented, could be hugely over-hyped, honestly still have no clue, this is basically a placeholder ranking until they prove something one way or the other. On thin ice next week.  |
13 |
![]() |
Lost, but didn't do terribly against a potential top five Houston team. Played kind of sloppy in a way that came across as rust, giving the benefit of the doubt that they vastly improve. SUPER thin ice next week, not just in if they win, but how they win. |
14 |
![]() |
Very, very rusty, but the potential is there. Again, first week placeholder ranking. |
15 |
![]() |
Defense wins championships and oh boy, theirs needs some work. |
16 |
![]() |
Opponent not as weak as others ranked, and they won solidly, but still didn't do enough to make a huge impression when I'm already not massively high on individual talent level. Not that it's bad, but it's the difference between them and teams like Michigan and OSU, for example. |
17 |
![]() |
While I don't think LSU played well, no matter how you look at it, stopping Fournette is difficult, and they did that. Kind of ugly game, but their win did't look like an accident. |
18 |
![]() |
Lost, but played very well in the second half against a very good looking team. Placeholder ranking, once again, on thin ice. |
19 |
![]() |
When they were on, offense looked unstoppable. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it can be replicated throughout the season, but on thin ice, though not as thin as others. |
20 |
![]() |
May be most irrational pick for me, but they just have too much raw talent to rank any lower, unless they lose again in the near future. Disgustingly volatile potential, might lose to G5 team, might beat top 5 team, but deficiency at QB keeps them low. |
21 |
![]() |
Played super well against FCS(?) team. Enough to pass teams that struggled. |
22 |
![]() |
Lightly Struggled against poor team, nothing to worry about, first week ut no reason to rank them high than anyone ahead of them, besides maybe LSU, but I would pick LSU head-to-head without hesitation. |
23 |
![]() |
High talent level, beat ranked (inb4 LOL preseason rankings) team, played well enough to move into the limelight. |
24 |
![]() |
SUPER unsure about this team following tumultuous off-season, but played well enough to stymie doubts. |
25 |
![]() |
Passed Florida, played team of similar caliber but dominated where Florida tripped a little. New coach works in favor in a team with this type of raw talent. |
Teams Ranked:
Rank | Team | Unusualness |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
0.00 |
2 |
![]() |
0.00 |
3 |
![]() |
0.00 |
4 |
![]() |
0.00 |
5 |
![]() |
0.00 |
6 |
![]() |
0.00 |
7 |
![]() |
0.00 |
8 |
![]() |
0.32 |
9 |
![]() |
0.00 |
10 |
![]() |
0.00 |
11 |
![]() |
0.00 |
12 |
![]() |
0.64 |
13 |
![]() |
0.08 |
14 |
![]() |
0.00 |
15 |
![]() |
0.00 |
16 |
![]() |
0.00 |
17 |
![]() |
-0.29 |
18 |
![]() |
0.00 |
19 |
![]() |
0.00 |
20 |
![]() |
0.00 |
21 |
![]() |
0.00 |
22 |
![]() |
0.00 |
23 |
![]() |
-0.29 |
24 |
![]() |
0.00 |
25 |
![]() |
0.00 |
No major omissions.
Total Score: 1.62