Around the SEC Blogs: Thursday AM edition

As I prepare for what promises to be another glorious day of backbreaking drudgery, I think I'll take a few seconds to look at some of the good stuff around the SEC blogs this morning. I'll start with some of the blogs who thoughtfully linked us in the last day or so:

Diezba at Star & Stripe apparently misread the SEC Power Poll ballot of Garnet and Black Attack as the actual compiled vote of the SEC bloggers submitting ballots, and visited a little scorn on them in an earlier post. He has since recognized his confusion, and is pleased to see Vanderbilt isn't in the pollster's basement after all:

Well, to be perfectly honest, we were quite upset that it was the conference vote-tally that put us there. One of our eagle-eyed regulars spotted the error on our part (i.e., that it was the South Carolina people, not the Conference in aggregate, who ranked us 11th), and so we humbly retract our general derision of the Conference as a whole; instead, we redirect it solely at the Carolina blogs ('cause they were the culprits who put us in at 11th).

Henry Gomez at Saurian Sagacity looks somewhat askance at Heisman Pundit's most recent straw poll regarding Tim Tebow:

The Heisman Pundit sends a mixed message in this post where he omits Tebow on the list of six players he characterizes as having "the best chance at actually winning" but then making Tebow the number 2 vote-getter if the vote were held today.

Here at Best of the SEC Blogs, notable Kentucky fans that we are, we feel Henry's pain. HP also tends to think that André Woodson isn't really in the race, yet notes he winds up 5th in the balloting this week.

However, we tend to agree with HP. The Heisman is a very political award, and history demonstrates nothing if not that the committee is hostile to the idea of awarding it to underclassmen. Despite HP's assertion that it doesn't seem to be a huge concern, it is our opinion that this is so only so long as the Gators do not lose. As soon as they do, Tebow's fortunes are likely to take a much more significant turn for the worse than might otherwise be the case.

Even though we would like to believe that Kentucky's Woodson belongs in the discussion, the odds against a UK season better than 8-4 are overwhelming. Kentucky is a powerful offensive team, but isn't without exploitable weaknesses there, and with the Galactus of LSU's defense looming down the schedule, and Florida also there, a loss seems inevitable. If Kentucky were to go 10-2, I think Woodson would have about a 25% shot. Less than that, and he is merely invited.

What I just said about Woodson goes double for Tebow, primarily because of his underclassman status and the fact that he is 70% of Florida's offense right now. Even though Henry argues persuasively that he shouldn't fall under the "Andre Ware rule", it will be an argument that is harder and harder to make if the offense doesn't become more balanced at UF.

Erik at DeepSouthSports decides he has just about had enough of Ohio State fans. This post is great because it has lots of words not in the English language, i.e. "douchebaggery", "turdulent", and even the dreaded "jort" makes an appearance. What's more? There's video!

Senator Blutarsky at Get The Picture sees Georgia's next game against Ole Miss as a classic "trap" game. I think he might be right.

Joel at Rocky Top Talk directs us to this post at AOL Fanhouse, judging the temperatures of various SEC coach's derrières. The usual suspects are on the spit, including Fulmer and Nutt, but the author also makes note of Ed Orgeron, Sylvester Croom and Tommy Tuberville. Our take -- Fulmer, followed by Nutt and Tuberville. If Tuberville loses to Saban, we could see Plainsmen with pitchforks.

Finally, Richard Pitman of Geaux Tuscaloosa takes a long look at college football polls, and concludes they suck worse than black holes:

So, you have a situation where teams are initially ranked based on factors that have little to do with actual football ability, yet those initial rankings won't change in the face of additional evidence unless a team either loses or looks really really bad. Looking merely bad, like Auburn did after during its Week 1 win against Kansas State, won't make you move down. Looking really good won't make you move up unless a team ahead of you does something to look really bad.

It's an indefensible system. And yet, talking heads defend it all the time. Well, maybe they don't "defend" it exactly, but they often spout the indefensible assumptions as if they are gospel. You'll frequently hear something said like, "I'll vote them #1 until someone beats them," or "USC proved it was #1 last night by beating up on Nebraska." In a sport where not all teams play each other and rankings are determined by vote, voters are expected to exercise discretion and use judgment, but they don't. They pretty much just apply a generally agreed-upon set of rules that don't make a whole lot of sense when you really think about them.

While I truly feel Richard's pain, and we all claim not to pay attention to polls, the truth is that polls are like a train wreck happening right in front of you. No matter how gruesome it gets, you can't ignore it.

That's all for now, folks.