Dodd shows his bias again

[BamaGrad03 0]

Every year he does something to prove he has an Anti-Bama and anti-SEC bias.

Paired with his article about the Bama/Clemson drumming...he has his Top 25 poll. In said poll, Bama is UNRANKED, yet Clemson is 24th.

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/10955325/rss

What a joke.

[TitanTiger 20,521]

Yeah, that's pretty jacked up. I'd have jumped you guys at least to 15th.

[RunInRed 16,497]

I want to see the Georgia game before I'm convinced UA is a top 15 team. That said, I would have put them some where 20-25.

[BamaGrad03 0]

The thing is, Dodd has made public statements (sorry no link) about his blatant anti-Bama bias. Especially back when we fired Shula. The guy has made no bones about his extreme slant against us.

Yet he still remains an AP voter (I think)...and definitely still remains CBS's main sports writer/pundit on the web.

What a joke. As much as Auburn is my principal rival, I still rank them fairly (sometimes ahead of AP voters) in my weekly fanspoll top 25.

And they say a fan poll wouldn't work because of the bias in fans...that's funny.

[AUHansel 0]

The thing is, Dodd has made public statements (sorry no link) about his blatant anti-Bama bias. Especially back when we fired Shula. The guy has made no bones about his extreme slant against us.

Yet he still remains an AP voter (I think)...and definitely still remains CBS's main sports writer/pundit on the web.

What a joke. As much as Auburn is my principal rival, I still rank them fairly (sometimes ahead of AP voters) in my weekly fanspoll top 25.

And they say a fan poll wouldn't work because of the bias in fans...that's funny.

well there's that kool-aid drinker from the Al media that votes in the AP poll and didn't have Tenn or Auburn ranked in his 25.

[BamaGrad03 0]

well there's that kool-aid drinker from the Al media that votes in the AP poll and didn't have Tenn or Auburn ranked in his 25.

And he shouldn't be a voter either.

I want to see the Georgia game before I'm convinced UA is a top 15 team. That said, I would have put them some where 20-25.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if he didn't have us in the top 25...but to have Clemson ranked ahead of us?

[AE 91 0]

I cant think of one logical reason to have Clemson ahead of UAT at this time of the season. Alabama's offensive and defensive lines manhandled them.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

Yeah, this game did very little to change my opinion of Bama, but it did a lot to change my opinion of Clemson. Sadly, they may still win the ACC, but to say they are poorly coached is a massive understatement.

If I were ranking teams (off the top of my head) I'd have Bama around 22 or 23, and I don't think I'd have a single team from the ACC in the top 25. Regardless of how they looked against Clemson's oline, I've seen most of the guys on Bama's dline play in the SEC. I know Deaderick isn't a great pass rusher (the way Clemson made him look). I know there isn't a lot of depth (especially experienced depth).

That said, Bama just won a game against a team with more talent overall (Bama doesn't have a guy like Davis or Spiller... both are going to be 1st to 3rd round draft picks). That's a great job by $aban and the coaches and the players to come in ready to roll, playing loose and aggressive. I'd still say they have 4 more games against team clearly ahead in terms of talent (UGA, UT, LSU, and AU). Great start to the season for the Tide.

[BamaGrad03 0]

But you can agree, having Clemson ranked ahead of Bama would have to indicate a severe bias...

[FootballFanatic 4]

Rankings are absolutely not determined based on which team is better than another. They are based on how many wins that team will end the season.

Looking at the ACC clemson has a good shot at still winning it and going to a BCS game. Alabama has a much tougher ride to the SEC champ game so predictive analysis on end result would leave Clemson above bama for the total games won category.

All that is until Clemson drops another game or Alabama beats an SEC team on the upper half of the conference. The SEC plastered almost every team they have played this weekend by large numbers. Only croom failed the SEC this weekend in showing very well.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Rankings are absolutely not determined based on which team is better than another. They are based on how many wins that team will end the season.

Then explain Hawaii's final season ranking. They finished ranked 19th with a 12-1 record.

[Tigermike 3,061]

But you can agree, having Clemson ranked ahead of Bama would have to indicate a severe bias...

Just playing devils advocate for a minute. Is this the first time a team in the top 10 has lost to a lower ranked or unranked team and the team that lost, drops but is still ranked higher than the team they lost to?

I don't see the problem. If Bama continues to win they will move up in the rankings. In fact there may even be a later jump that seems to be unwarranted.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Just playing devils advocate for a minute. Is this the first time a team in the top 10 has lost to a lower ranked or unranked team and the team that lost, drops but is still ranked higher than the team they lost to?

I don't see the problem. If Bama continues to win they will move up in the rankings. In fact there may even be a later jump that seems to be unwarranted.

No. But that normally happens during the year. If he thinks Clemson is the 24th best team in the country...and they OBVIOUSLY have no business being on the same field with Alabama...I'd say it is a SHAME to have them ranked ahead of Alabama.

There's no getting around it. You can't give me that crap about "if Bama continues to win"...that has NOTHING to do with how Clemson and Bama compare to one another.

Bottom line, if you rank Clemson ahead of Alabama after game one, you have a SEVERE bias. If neither are in your top 25...fine. That could be argued both ways. But to say that you think Clemson is a better team than Alabama is a freaking joke. To say Clemson DESERVES (as you indicated) to be ahead of Alabama in the top 25...is a freaking joke.

[Justin5 20]

All rankings are crap. Why we still rely on this outdated system is sad.

Give me playoffs or nothing will ever truly be determined.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

Yes BG I'm with you on this. That ranking is absurd.

[AU Cav 0]

Of course rankings are biased. They always have been. No need to look further back than 2004 to know that. Funny that Alabama is complaining about it now since they've been on the good side of bias for a very long time.

And complaints about bias from Alabama falls on deaf ears in my house. Alabama is one of the biggest obstacles to going to a playoff system. The AD likes the system the way it and openly opposes a playoff.

So you get what you asked for and you live with one pollster lowering you for one week in one season. It's not like it hasn't been compensated by many other voters out there anyway.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on voters casting their ballots with bias. Call up your school and ask them why they don't favor a playoff if you are upset about one pollster.

[rtftiger 40]

Of course rankings are biased. They always have been. No need to look further back than 2004 to know that. Funny that Alabama is complaining about it now since they've been on the good side of bias for a very long time.

And complaints about bias from Alabama falls on deaf ears in my house. Alabama is one of the biggest obstacles to going to a playoff system. The AD likes the system the way it and openly opposes a playoff.

So you get what you asked for and you live with one pollster lowering you for one week in one season. It's not like it hasn't been compensated by many other voters out there anyway.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on voters casting their ballots with bias. Call up your school and ask them why they don't favor a playoff if you are upset about one pollster.

Great post. I agree. Bammers calling bias is hollow. Welcome to how Auburn is treated by many media folks within its own state.

Get over it. It's the first week of the season. Come see us when you're undefeated and get ranked fourth by an in-state guy. That would never happen to Alabama.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think some of you completely missed the point.

[AUHansel 0]

I think some of you completely missed the point.

Obviously Bama beat Clemson. Clemson was ranked #9 and has a good team. Regardless of how they looked on Saturday, they have a good team. Their coach is terrible. Should Bama be ranked higher after the win, probably. Do they deserve to be higher? I'm not sure. Preseason rankings and the rankings in the first couple of weeks are never right on. The voters either don't move them enough or move them way too much. When a top 10 team loses to a top 25 team they normally don't rank the them that won higher than the other team. I don't understand it but thats what happens.

Say Clemson drops 7 spots to #16. Does that mean bama should move up to #15(9 spots)? There has to be some consistency in the rankings. Yes I would say that right now, bama has the better team. But the problem is that you can't drastically change the rankings after one game. If Clemson were to somehow fall all the way to say, #20, then yes, Bama will be ranked higher.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Obviously Bama beat Clemson. Clemson was ranked #9 and has a good team. Regardless of how they looked on Saturday, they have a good team. Their coach is terrible. Should Bama be ranked higher after the win, probably. Do they deserve to be higher? I'm not sure. Preseason rankings and the rankings in the first couple of weeks are never right on. The voters either don't move them enough or move them way too much. When a top 10 team loses to a top 25 team they normally don't rank the them that won higher than the other team. I don't understand it but thats what happens.

Say Clemson drops 7 spots to #16. Does that mean bama should move up to #15(9 spots)? There has to be some consistency in the rankings. Yes I would say that right now, bama has the better team. But the problem is that you can't drastically change the rankings after one game. If Clemson were to somehow fall all the way to say, #20, then yes, Bama will be ranked higher.

What you just said means that basically, the PRESEASON rankings that are based on pure speculation matter more than what actually happens on the field the first few weeks of the season.

And that speculation that said Clemson is better than Bama means more to the pollsters than the fact that UA beat Clemson by 24 points on a neutral site.

That's pretty sad.

But the converse could be said. If you are basing things on that #9 preseason ranking...and they remain in the top 25 based SOLELY on the fact that they started out so high, then you have to take into consideration that Bama beat that #9 team...and at least put them in the top 25.

Either way I think it's an indefensible position to maintain...

[AU Cav 0]

Obviously Bama beat Clemson. Clemson was ranked #9 and has a good team. Regardless of how they looked on Saturday, they have a good team. Their coach is terrible. Should Bama be ranked higher after the win, probably. Do they deserve to be higher? I'm not sure. Preseason rankings and the rankings in the first couple of weeks are never right on. The voters either don't move them enough or move them way too much. When a top 10 team loses to a top 25 team they normally don't rank the them that won higher than the other team. I don't understand it but thats what happens.

Say Clemson drops 7 spots to #16. Does that mean bama should move up to #15(9 spots)? There has to be some consistency in the rankings. Yes I would say that right now, bama has the better team. But the problem is that you can't drastically change the rankings after one game. If Clemson were to somehow fall all the way to say, #20, then yes, Bama will be ranked higher.

What you just said means that basically, the PRESEASON rankings that are based on pure speculation matter more than what actually happens on the field the first few weeks of the season.

And that speculation that said Clemson is better than Bama means more to the pollsters than the fact that UA beat Clemson by 24 points on a neutral site.

That's pretty sad.

But the converse could be said. If you are basing things on that #9 preseason ranking...and they remain in the top 25 based SOLELY on the fact that they started out so high, then you have to take into consideration that Bama beat that #9 team...and at least put them in the top 25.

Either way I think it's an indefensible position to maintain...

You must be new to this polling system. No one is saying that it is right, just how it is and how it has been for quite some time. There is nothing new here. What I find unusual is the timing of your query. This polling system has been erratic for as long as I've been alive. Yes, you beat a team the first game of the season and they were voted higher than you. Stuff like that happens. A LOT. Welcome to the world where people have agendas that affect you. Sorry to see you finally on the wrong side of it. I guess you should ask yourself what your school did to the pollster to make him hate you.

Did you post in the thread condemning the Bama fan from DC who left Auburn out of his poll while the rest of the nation clearly thought they were top 10?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Did you post in the thread condemning the Bama fan from DC who left Auburn out of his poll while the rest of the nation clearly thought they were top 10?

I don't know if I posted there or not. But I do remember telling a friend of mine last week that the dude should lose his AP voter status.

I guess you should ask yourself what your school did to the pollster to make him hate you.

I hope you realize the hilarity of this comment.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

I completely disagree with whoever said there needs to be consistency in the polls. There does not (and probably should not) be consistency in the polls early in the season. Why? The preseason polls (which shouldn't exist) are based on guesses. Educated guesses maybe, but guesses none the less. The in-season polls are based on results. We know the results of this one. Maybe Bama and Clemson work to prove this result wrong (Bama by losing multiple times and Clemson by winning), but until then, you have to trust what just actually happened. Why else would we play the games?

[AUHansel 0]

I completely disagree with whoever said there needs to be consistency in the polls. There does not (and probably should not) be consistency in the polls early in the season. Why? The preseason polls (which shouldn't exist) are based on guesses. Educated guesses maybe, but guesses none the less. The in-season polls are based on results. We know the results of this one. Maybe Bama and Clemson work to prove this result wrong (Bama by losing multiple times and Clemson by winning), but until then, you have to trust what just actually happened. Why else would we play the games?

Alright, I know what I said sounded like after I read it. I said that there needs to be consistency. You're taking my point another way. I'm saying that if a bama beats a clemson does bama deserve to jump all the teams ahead of it? Bama was they only team to beat a top ten team so do they now deserve to be in the top 10? I'm not a fan of preseason polls. I don't believe they are very good and there are always huge differences in the final polls which tells you how much they are worth. This is a new season and I think that if teams win big games they should move up. If they lose they should move down. I'm just saying that you have to be able to justify moving the team that won up all those spots ahead of teams that also won in the current polls we have. It doesn't matter how much you like the polls or not, that is what they go by.

[mattd 3]

I'm still confused as to why Clemson was so high ranked to begin with...a NEW offensive line...3 NEW linbackers and one of your top wide receivers gone and start the season off in the top 10? The O line is too important to overlook...it proves you can have good backs but without a line it doesn't matter