College Football Rankings 2011: 12 Teams Motivated by Coaches Poll Snub

The hubbub surrounding the release of the USA Today preseason top 25 poll last week reminds us that the polls have a huge impact on the great game of college football.

Whether you agree with the polling system or not and regardless of its validity, it’s hard to argue that the rankings don’t have—at the very least—a moderate influence on the game itself.

Yes, coaches downplay the polls (as they should) but you simply can’t deny the stress of playing with a No. 1 or No. 2 painted on your back and, on the flip side, you can’t refute the fact that when you are a quality team that (for whatever reason) is left out of the rankings, you are motivated to prove everybody wrong.

And the accuracy of the rankings does nothing but add fuel to this very real flame.

For example, did you know that of the 25 teams ranked in the 2010 USA Today preseason coaches’ poll a full 11 (or 44 percent) weren’t ranked in the final edition of the same poll?

What is even more provocative is the fact that, of the 11 teams that somehow snuck into the rankings at the end of the season (the ones who received zero preseason mention in the poll), three of these programs didn’t even receive a single vote in the preseason rankings (UCF, Maryland and North Carolina State).

The following slideshow identifies 12 programs that aren’t in USA Today preseason poll but who will be most motivated to prove the pollsters wrong (once again).

Utah

You have to figure that Utah’s historic move from the Mountain West to the new Pac-12 is at least partially responsible for the pollsters' hesitance to include it among the preseason top 25.

The Utes did receive 50 votes in the debut rankings and though that puts them technically at No. 28, their vote count represents a stiff drop off from the No. 26 and No. 27 finishers, Arizona State and West Virginia, with 158 and 149 votes respectively.

Utah returns 12 starters and 52 lettermen in 2011 (from a team that went 10-3 in 2010), and with one of the easier schedules in the conference it has a chance to make a serious move in the new South Division.

The Utes' dizzying array of reasons to be motivated in 2011 are endless (and don’t consist of just another preseason ranking snub), while Boise State, TCU and BYU will spend yet another year trying to prove that they “belong,” Utah is finally, at long last, in a position to play football with the same prizes at the end of a winning season as the big boys.

Air Force

I’m not really sure that Air Force expected to be ranked in the preseason polls, but you have to think that it at least looked at the rankings this year with more curiosity than it has in the past.

The Falcons return 14 starters and 58 lettermen (they lose only 17 lettermen) from their 2010 team that went 9-4, a record that includes a near miss (24-27) to No. 7 Oklahoma in Norman and a five-point defeat to then-No. 8 Utah (the other two loses were at TCU and to a very good San Diego State team).

Perhaps Air Force is overlooked (again) due to the fact that Boise State has joined the MWC (though Utah and BYU have both jumped ship), or maybe it’s because it is just a service academy team—something that’s worth honoring and respecting, but come on, man…

Statistical-savvy Phil Steele rates Air Force’s schedule the No. 99 toughest in the country (which means it’s the 21st easiest) and the fly boys have the second most experienced team in the conference (behind Boise State).

Air Force received a minimal 15 votes in the early coaches' rankings but the Falcons are in a position to realistically deserve a ranking either just in or just out of the top 25.

The Falcons could and should use their snub by the college football popularity contest to prove that they are way more than just the third best team in the MWC; these guys are legitimate contenders to win both the conference and then spark off what would be the biggest bust in the history of the BCS.

Pittsburgh

Pitt might be relieved that it isn't saddled with the high expectations it garnered coming into the 2010 season, but that doesn’t mean it won’t utilize its exclusion from the rankings for motivational purposes.

The Panthers were ranked No. 15 in the 2010 preseason coaches' poll, and in 2011 they barely even made the “honorable mention” section, receiving a paltry three votes from the less-than-generous constituents.

Pitt returns 13 starters and only 44 lettermen from its 2010 product that disappointed with an 8-5 finish, and this puts Pitt at about the middle of the pack in the Big East in terms of depth.

The Panthers' schedule is doable, and let’s all remember they’re playing a conference that truly has no front-runner and they have the unknown of a new coach thrown into the equation.

Yes, Todd Graham (fresh off getting Tulsa into the final AP rankings for the first time in 20 years) is the new head guy in the city of many rivers, which brings up an interesting point.

If new leadership is a “minus” for teams like Pitt, Michigan, Miami (OH) and Tulsa, why is it a “minimal factor” for teams like Stanford, Florida and Ohio State (who are still in the top 25 despite coaching turnover) when they really have less reason to be there?

Pitt is flying perfectly under the radar, which might be a very good thing, but that doesn’t mean it won’t look at the rankings and say, “Hey, we’re better than that!” and go out and hit a little harder and beat some people up, proving itself along the way.

Clemson

Clemson seems to have fallen off the big map of college football recently but don’t forget the Tigers' sub-.500 finish in 2010 is the first time they’ve ended a season with a lopsided record since going 3-8 under Tommy West in 1998.

The Tigers return 14 starters and only 46 lettermen in 2011, but it’s worth mentioning that this is a team that lost (often narrowly) to seven quality teams last season (at Auburn by three points in overtime, Miami, at UNC, at BC, at Florida State by three, South Carolina and USF by five).

Clemson’s 2011 schedule is tricky (Auburn, Florida State and at Virginia Tech in a three-game stretch, plus the closer against South Carolina is a road game), but what happens in the ACC Atlantic if Florida State falters and doesn’t live up to the hype?

I’m not saying Clemson should be in the top 15 but its seven votes in the coaches’ poll has a great possibility of being one of the blunders and missteps we end up reviewing in January.

Clemson has a thousand reasons to be motivated going into 2011 (its head coach’s job security being one of them) and being overlooked by the electors can’t do anything but amp this up even further.

Southern Miss

As is the case with Air Force and a couple of other programs on this list, I don’t think it’s realistic to assert that Southern Miss anticipated being ranked in the preseason top 25.

The Golden Eagles did receive six votes, which at least puts them on the radar, but let’s remember that this is a team that hasn’t finished a season ranked in the top 25 since 1999 when it went 9-3 and won the C-USA crown, earning the No. 13 spot.

But putting all factual, logical data aside, Southern Mississippi’s 2011 campaign sets up almost like the perfect storm: 14 key starters return, it plays one of the easiest schedules in the country and it is completely flying under the radar (everyone else is talking about Houston, Tulsa, SMU and UCF).

The Golden Eagles could be last season’s UCF (11-3), Northern Illinois (11-3), Tulsa (10-3) or Miami OH (10-4) and, scarily, they could be better (i.e. they could win 12 games for the first time in program history).

Now, does leaving Southern Miss out of the preseason top 25 really motivate them?  Well, you could make less of an argument for the Golden Eagles than some of the others but it’s still just another jab (albeit a slight one) that reminds them that they pitch their tent squarely in the “have not,” “are not” and “cannot” camp.

USF

USF is a young pup in terms of major college football age and it’s easy to forget (especially since it plays in a BCS conference) that the Bulls have only been hitting the gridiron since 1997 and have only been playing FBS (or Division IA) ball since 2001.

Yes, the fountain of youth is still alive and well in Tampa, which is a locale that may well be on the verge of a major college football breakthrough in the very near future.

South Florida returns only 11 starters in 2011 but it returns 45 lettermen (second in the Big East) and lose only 15 (the fewest in the conference) and plays a manageable schedule.

The Bulls received a mere nine votes in the preseason vote-a-thon but they are well positioned to be one of the dozen teams that begin the season out of the graces of the pollsters and go on to finish as a ranked team (something they have never, ever done as an FBS team).

 So, does it motivate them to have been overlooked? 

Well, since they’ve never been “in” you have to figure it won’t have the effect that it would on teams like Michigan, Clemson and Pitt but still it’s just one more “first” hurdle for the adolescent Bulls to deliciously overcome, an advantage that youth has over maturity.

Maryland

The Terrapins have to wonder what they’ve done to deserve the cold-shoulder of the pollsters; they weren’t ranked in the coaches’ preseason poll in 2010 (in fact, they received zero votes) and they went on to finish 9-4 and ranked No. 24 in the country.

In 2011 they return 14 starters, 47 lettermen and play a fairly tough schedule (No. 37 overall according to the wizard-like Phil Steele) but they (again) didn’t receive one single vote in the 2011 USA Today preseason extravaganza.

Zero, zilch, zip.

We’re not talking about the Terrapins winning the ACC or even their division (even though they finished tied for second in the Atlantic last season), we’re talking about whether or not they are one of the best 50 teams in the country (that’s how many programs received a vote).

Yes, they have a new coach, but—like I mentioned in the Pitt slide—why is this approach applied sparingly, making the loss of a leader surmountable for some (Stanford and Florida) but not for others (Michigan and Pitt)?

Maryland is a team that continues to, for one reason or another, get the shaft and if that won’t motivate it I don’t know what will.

BYU

If a handful of other teams had boldly declared gridiron independence (i.e. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Nebraska, Georgia, USC, etc.) it would have been one of the biggest stories in the history of college football.

They would have received automatic qualifying provisions from the BCS (a la Notre Dame) and they would have certainly been preseason ranked and expected to tear into their “freedom” schedule like a pregnant woman ripping through a box of Moon Pies.

But get a hold of yourself, lady; this is just BYU. No need for alarm.

Yes, it is merely BYU most recently from the Mountain West, BYU who has gone 56-21 in coach Bronco Mendenhall’s six seasons, BYU who has won 10 or more games four out of the last five seasons, BYU who is 4-1 in bowl games since 2006 and BYU who finished the season ranked in the top 25 for four consecutive seasons (2006-09) until last season’s rebuilding effort produced a very off 7-6 record.

Now the Cougars are the independent version of BYU, playing with no guarantees, but with 15 returning starters and a mind-boggling 60 returning lettermen (they lose only 17 letter earners) at the end of the day these guys might deserve more than a nod.

Yes, Phil Steele has them ranked as the No. 11 team nationally in experience with the 25th easiest schedule in the land.

And this mountain of logic has netted the Cougars a whopping five votes in the infallible (sarcasm inserted here) coaches’ poll.

BYU might be one of the best candidates in the country to start the season unranked and finish with 10 or more wins.

And seriously, who needs more motivation than that? Oh yeah, and these guys might be looking to hook up with a BCS conference in which case a bunch of wins is every bit as attractive as a really short skirt and a good marketing campaign.

Miami

Being left out of the preseason top 25 might be just what the doctor ordered for the once mighty Hurricanes.

In 2010 Miami was ranked No. 13 in the preseason coaches’ poll, and by the time the dust settled it didn’t even receive a single vote in the final balloting.

Looking further back, the 2009 Hurricanes did finish the season ranked but that was also the last time they were left out of the preseason dance (though they did receive 46 votes in the initial coaches’ poll).

Miami returns 14 starters and 46 lettermen in 2011 and its schedule is no picnic (actually, it’s one of the hardest in the nation) and managing it successfully will take all the gumption incoming coach Al Golden and friends can muster.

But this is a team that could very conceivably play lights out and be a top 25 squad and, frankly speaking, this is a program that expects to be ranked; in fact, the rankings look wrong without “Miami” there, and when the absence is noted by the dutiful fan (on the national level) he or she most likely thinks, “Oh, I guess they’ll suck again.”

And, my friend, that sentiment would motivate me to take a sledge hammer to the nearest wall and then go out, beat up on some folks and win a bunch of football games, all the while screaming “RANK ME, YOU IDIOTS, RANK ME!”

Northwestern

I’m not sure if Northwestern has ever entered a season ranked in the top 25 but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t want to be, doesn’t deserve to be and isn'r highly motivated to be mentioned among the 25 best teams in our great football nation.

The last time the Wildcats finished the season ranked was in 1996 when they went 9-3 and captured a piece of the Big Ten title, lost in the Citrus Bowl to Tennessee (28-48) and wound up No. 15 in the final AP poll.

The 2011 Wildcats return 16 starters (including what looks to be a healthy quarterback Dan Persa) and 56 lettermen, which makes them the most overall experienced team in the Big Ten and (according to the accurate Phil Steele) the No. 2 team in the country in terms of depth.

Northwestern’s schedule isn’t a cake walk but it’s a slate that could, if it could get a few breaks, produce double-digit wins for the first time since 1995.

Does being left behind (again) bother the Wildcats?  Probably not to the degree it does to others, but you have to think Pat Fitzgerald (who is the only coach with a winning record at Northwestern since Ara Parseghian) is firing up his troops with this fact along with wide variety of others.

Northwestern absolutely can’t win the Big Ten Legends Division—right?

NC State

After finishing 2010 9-4 (a record that included a wins at Georgia Tech, versus Florida State and against West Virginia in the Champs Sports Bowl) and coming in tied for second in the ACC Atlantic, the Wolfpack reap very little love from the pollsters, receiving a trifling four votes in the coaches’ preseason ballot.

A lot of this may have to do with the fact that quarterback Russell Wilson is using his final year of eligibility at Wisconsin and the very low return rate team-wide (which puts NC State in the bottom quarter of the nation), but this is still a solid team that also has the bonus of facing an easier schedule coming into 2011.

The loss at quarterback is substantial but, yet again, why are key losses deemed manageable at programs like Alabama, Arkansas, TCU, Ohio State, Virginia Tech and Missouri (all who lost a very prolific staring quarterback) who are all still ranked but not so much at whistle stops like NC State, Iowa, Nevada and Clemson?

I know that the bigger picture includes depth all over the field, but still, you have to admit that some losses seem easier to take than others (and the teams with more media allure get more leeway than do other, less marketable teams).

So, is NC State’s exclusion from the top 25 (and really from the top 43) a reason for it to be motivated in 2011?

Absolutely.

Michigan

To me the Wolverines' unwelcome reception by most of the college football brain trust almost defies logic.

Though I don’t see Michigan in the top 15 or even 20 it seems it has a legit case to be ranked in the 20 to 25 range (especially when you see Texas and Florida hanging out there).

The Wolverines return 16 starters and 54 letterman from their 2010 product that went 7-6, but this is a team with a fresh outlook (via the coaching turnover) and the six losses from last season were all to ranked teams (plus Penn State).

Michigan’s schedule certainly isn’t a breeze but it brings back the third most experienced team in the Big Ten and really, how good are Nebraska, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa (their foes from the new Legends Division)?

Yes, if they begin to falter, then where is Michigan?

Since so many other “big-time” programs get the benefit of the doubt and find themselves in preseason top 25s regardless of the logic, why not Michigan?

As far as I’m concerned, the snub by the coaches' poll (which bestowed the Wolverines with a mere 19 votes) is in reality just another log to add to what is a roaring fire in Ann Arbor.