|
On September 16 2008 21:53 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2008 15:03 Jibba wrote:On September 14 2008 17:09 Hot_Bid wrote:On September 14 2008 14:07 OrderlyChaos wrote:On September 14 2008 12:34 Mindcrime wrote:
Todd Boeckman should never be allowed to touch a football again.
ffs I would rather see motherfucking Steve Bellisari taking snaps again than this douche. Agreed. Why the hell did our true freshman look better against them than the 6 year senior? >.< because pryor doesnt have to look downfield past 1 read and can just worry about evading rush when your o-line is outmatched like osu's was, a qb that only has designed runs has a much, much easier time than a standard dropback qb I'm going to enjoy it so much when Pryor begins to understand the offense he committed to at OSU compared to what RR is trying to install. We may suck right now, but when he's a junior we'll be running a system that could utilize him to the fullest where as OSU will still be running draw, handoff, sneak, screen. Pryor wasn't exactly recruited for his intelligence though :-/ Look forward to seeing UM in 011 
He's another garbage run first QB. He's going to be great in college, and terrible in the pros.
By the way, apparently the officials got the BYU-Washington call correct. BYU's coach is a total douchebag, though. "'They are to teach principles of class and integrity," Mendenhall said. "Sometimes young men in the heat of the moment get overexuberant and the rules are in place to try to keep the game intact and hold on to what is most important in the game and that's the team element.'" What kind of douche says something like that? Seriously? He tossed the ball over his shoulder. He didn't do anything bad. I want to slap this guy in the mouth for saying that.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3575847
|
^^^^
Yeah, that was horseshit.
I was so happy with the OSU result, that was coming from a mile away. Talk about over fucking rated. Pretty good team? Yeah. Anywhere near top 10? Hellllll no. Their conference has been a cakewalk for the last 3-4 years with Michigan in the dumps.
I was in Boston for the game, and for some reason, there was a huge group of OSU fans there. GOd, I had so much fun talking shit to them.
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=1144&CID=851790
Why the hell is there controversy over this? The tripple team wasn't illegal?
|
On September 18 2008 23:51 Hawk wrote:^^^^ Yeah, that was horseshit. I was so happy with the OSU result, that was coming from a mile away. Talk about over fucking rated. Pretty good team? Yeah. Anywhere near top 10? Hellllll no. Their conference has been a cakewalk for the last 3-4 years with Michigan in the dumps. I was in Boston for the game, and for some reason, there was a huge group of OSU fans there. GOd, I had so much fun talking shit to them. http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=1144&CID=851790Why the hell is there controversy over this? The tripple team wasn't illegal?
I guess the controversy is over the fact that there was scuffling before the play where he twisted his ankle. Triple teaming a defensive linemen (as far as I know) isn't illegal. It would be illegal if one of the offensive linemen was engaged with blocking this guy and another offensive player came in for a chop block. However, the article didn't really make it come out sounding like it was such, just straight normal pad on pad blocking.
Edit: And down in the dumps conference? Hmmm... Let's see here:
2007:
(#1) Ohio State 24 < 38 LSU (#2)
(#18) Wisconsin 17 < 21 Tennessee (#16)
Michigan 41 > 35 Florida (#9!!!!!!)
Congrats, you won the "closely" ranked games and lost a major upset...
2006:
(#1) Ohio State 14 < 41 Florida (#2)
Penn State 20 > 10 Tennessee (#17)
(#6) Wisconsin 17 > 14 Arkansas (#12)
So what do we see over the past two years from SEC vs. Big 10 bowl game play? Well, they are dead even at 3-3. OSU (who has never shown up obviously) accounts for two of those losses. Wisky is 1-1. Michigan and Penn State have pulled upsets of ranked teams. So when the teams were:
In favor of Big Ten (a rank spread of +5): 1-0
Equal (+/- 5): 1-2
In favor of SEC (-5): 2-0
Hmm... Granted it's not really conclusive evidence to truly say that SEC=Big 10, but obviously the two conference are nearing equal depth. And of course, let's not forget that all of these matches (with the exception of the OSU-LSU game) were played in the Southeast.
Of course, this year I'm beginning to doubt OSU making a BCS bowl game, since Penn State should be able to go undefeated with the talent they have. Wisconsin also looks decently strong.
Edit 2: For more about what I was talking about (and much better written out as well), follow this link to read Kevin HD of Black Shoe Diaries report of how the Big 10 fares in bowl games:
http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2008/8/13/591751/a-bowl-record-like-a-bad-j
|
Yeah, they said it looked like he punched him? I saw that three times this morning and didn't see it. I think people are just making a big deal cuz he was being a jerkoff the previous play and knocked a lineman on his ass when he jumped offsides (it was obviously a pretty intentional fuck you, we're winning)
|
hasuprotoss why don't you give the complete statistics? I couldn't find complete statistics any further back than this, but it doesn't really matter. Obviously the Big10 has sucked lately, yet OSU still gets to go to the title game on their perfect records playing shit teams all year. Should I also mention that the SEC plays an extra game that almost requires two top 10 teams to play each other on the last day of the season, every season?
Title winners:
03-04: LSU - SEC
04-05: USC - Pac10
05-06: Texas - Big12
06-07: Florida - SEC
07-08: LSU - SEC
07-08
SEC: 7-2
Big10: 3-5
Pac10: 4-2
06-07:
SEC: 6-3
Big10: 2-5
Pac10: 3-3
05-06:
SEC: 3-3
Big10:3-4
Pac10:3-2
04-05:
SEC:3-3
Big10:3-3
Pac10:3-2
|
I'm not going to deny the fact that the SEC is the best conference right now. However, I don't get why people put them so far ahead of every other conference. This year I give props to the Pac 10 for actually scheduling people that have some strength around them (Oregon St @ Penn St, USC vs. OSU, Arizona St. vs. UGA, Washington vs. BYU/Oklahoma).
The SEC gets a lot of extra hype, and I say that most of it is unwarranted. Yeah, so they pummeled OSU two years in a row. Good job. I think USC showed that OSU just shits a brick when faced with tough competition.
Florida (in an essential home game) got beat by a Michigan team that lost to the same style of offense BY A FCS TEAM! And Florida couldn't beat them with (essentially) the same spread offense run by a speedy QB? Hmm...
Of course, this year is a new year. OSU probably won't return to the National Championship game, and we will probably see Penn St or Wisky being the only Big 10 teams in the BCS (and probably only one will go). So we might actually get some "fair" matchups in the lesser bowls (Since, you know, the Capital One Bowl is supposed to be the second best team in both the Big 10 and SEC square off, etc., I can honestly say that that has not been the case the past few years).
|
On September 19 2008 02:17 hasuprotoss wrote:
I'm not going to deny the fact that the SEC is the best conference right now. However, I don't get why people put them so far ahead of every other conference. This year I give props to the Pac 10 for actually scheduling people that have some strength around them (Oregon St @ Penn St, USC vs. OSU, Arizona St. vs. UGA, Washington vs. BYU/Oklahoma).
In fact, the Pac 10 almost always has the most difficult nonconference schedule, because USC and the other top teams still play nonconference games against "Big 6" opponents. USC tries to play two Big 6 teams plus their annual rivalry game with Notre Dame. In other conferences, it's usually just the bottom teams that actually play decent opposition. This season, Baylor is actually going to face three nonconference teams from other Big 6 conferences, but Missouri, Texas, and Texas Tech are facing at least three garbage teams each. The flip side is that the Pac 10's bowl tie-ins are the easiest.
The opposite is true of the SEC, and I think that is where a lot of their respect comes from. Last season they went 7-2 in bowl games despite the fact that they're usually playing higher seeds from other conferences. (ie, Missouri was the #3 seed from the Big 12 while Arkansas was something like #5 in the SEC) They play these cupcake schedules in part because going through their conference is so tough - of the 4 SEC teams who have won BCS championships, only 98 Tennessee was unbeaten in conference play.
This season, though, we've got Tennessee vs UCLA, Georgia vs Arizona State/Georgia Tech, Alabama vs Clemson, Arkansas vs Texas, and Florida vs Miami/Florida State. Even some lowlies like Kentucky vs Louisville, Miss State vs Georgia Tech, Mississippi vs Wake Forest, South Carolina vs NC State which are good games for those teams to be playing. (LSU and Auburn play really weak nonconference games though)
|
Conference strengths are not that hard to figure out:
1) SEC
2) Big10
3) Pac10
4) Big12
5-??) Everyone else
If you really want me to go into complete depth I can, but just for now I'll say that coming out of your conference with 3 or less losses qualifies you to be a legitimate team that year. The SEC produces more teams in this position than any other. Will you ever see an undefeated team in the SEC? Very rarely. There is a reason the SEC despises the BCS system. There is also a reason the Pac10 has to schedule tough out of conference games. If your conference sucks, and you play weak out of conference, how can you convince the voters you belong in the title game?
The SEC could play all SEC teams every year and still have a title shot.
I'll give some statistical analysis instead of overreaching here:
*** Dashing below the 20 loss mark ***
*** Trying not to list any team with more than 30 losses (under .500~) ***
03-07 SEC stats:
LSU = 62 games played, 10 losses (9 SEC)
Auburn = 60 games played, 14 losses (9 SEC)
Georgia = 62 games played, 14 losses (13 SEC)
Florida = 61 games played, 18 losses (13 SEC)
Tennessee = 62 games played, 18 losses (15 SEC)
---
Arkansas = 59 games played, 26 losses (21 SEC)
South Carolina = 56 games played, 28 losses (23 SEC)
Alabama = 59 games played, 30 losses (23 SEC)
03-07 Pac10 stats:
USC = 60 games played, 6 losses (5 Pac10)
---
Cal = 62 games played, 21 losses (16 Pac10)
Oregon = 60 games played, 23 losses (17 Pac10)
Oregon State = 58 games played, 24 losses (18 Pac10)
Az. St = 58 games played, 24 losses (20 Pac10)
UCLA = 61 games played, 26 losses (18 Pac10)
Washington State = 57 games played, 28 losses (25 Pac10)
03-07 Big10 stats:
OSU = 61 games played, 11 losses (8 big10)
Michigan = 57 games played, 14 losses (8 big10)
Wisconson = 61 games played, 17 losses (13 big10)
---
Iowa = 60 games played, 23 losses (17 big10)
Penn State = 56 games played, 24 losses (21 big10)
Purdue = 56 games played, 24 losses (19 big10)
MSU = 56 games played, 30 losses (25 big10)
Minnesota = 57 games played, 30 losses (25 big10)
===============================================
Elite teams from these 3 conferences in recent historical/statistical analysis:
SEC --> LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee
Pac10 --> USC
Big10 --> OSU, Michigan, Wisconson
Number of teams in these conferences with <=30 losses:
SEC --> 8
Pac10 --> 7
Big10 --> 8
Out of conference losses by elite teams in each conference:
SEC --> 14 (over 5 teams)
Pac10 --> 1 (over 1 team)
Big10 --> 13 (over 3 teams)
Out of conference losses by ALL listed teams in each conference:
SEC --> 31 : 8 teams
Pac10 --> 33 : 7 teams
Big10 --> 39 : 8 teams
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowl history is a few posts up, but I'll just OSU is 0-9 against SEC all time. USC on the other hand is 17-10-1 against the SEC all time.
As far as I'm concerned, college football every season comes down to:
Top 3 SEC teams
USC
One team from the Big 12 (it changes every year)
Big 10 sucks
ACC sucks
Other conferences suck
|
A few more points:
The SEC ended up with 5 teams ranked in the AP final Top-15 [including both #1 LSU and #2 Georgia (amazing in itself)]; the Big Ten – 1 team in the top 15 -- (OSU).
LSU played (and beat) 4 teams that ended up in the Final AP Top-15; Ohio State played 0 (not a typo – zero).
In 2007, the SEC led all conferences with 9 bowl teams and 7 bowl wins (an all-time record). Including last year's bowl results, the SEC went 13-5 in bowl games (leading all conferences); the Big Ten went 5-10.
Each of the past two years the SEC led all conferences with 47-10 non-conference records (including bowl games). This past year, the Big Ten went 38-14 in non-conference games and 4 of those wins came courtesy of hapless Notre Dame.
The SEC's Tim Tebow (Florida QB) was the first sophomore to ever win the Heisman Trophy. Yet, consider that his team finished 3rd in the East Division of the SEC.
|
Wow, that's way more comprehensive than I would ever go through haha.
|
I'm a mathematics/english major at LSU. What do you expect?
|
=p
very nice though. I will even props when due to LSU people =]
|
Let's see... teams with 3 losses or less in 2007.
Big 12: Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas.
SEC: LSU, Georgia
Am I doing this right?
LSU loses to Arkansas late in the season and gets a pass to the national championship. MU loses late in the season to Oklahoma and gets a pass to playing Arkansas and no BCS bowl. MU thrashes Arkansas. I'm looking at LSU's schedule and I don't see a tough out of conference schedule, all I see is a lot of matchups against in conference opponents. Maybe I'm just crazy (okay, the VT Tech game, that's one out of 4?).
Also ESPN does internal rankings on Heisman candidates. Tebow is still #2 despite with like a quarter of the first place votes despite his numbers (and the better numbers everyone else is producing), and it's not like he's played teams that are significantly tougher than anyone. Florida was severely overhyped all of last year, and they still are this year only it's showing through sooner this year.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/heisman08/index
All I hear is "SEC, SEC, blah blah blah, SEC." Honestly, the conference as a whole is strong, but I would wager the top 3-4 teams of the Big 12 could hang with the SEC's top 3-4 teams this year. Would they win? I don't know, but it's a lot closer than people make it seem like.
|
I very much agree with you zer0das. I think the Big12 and SEC are the strongest conferences THIS YEAR, excluding USC. But, in the historical data I was going over, its not even close. The Big12 simply don't have the numbers to compare.
And YES, other conferences are fielding stronger and stronger teams each year. This year will not be a good year for the SEC. The talent drain from the SEC over the last two years has been tremendous.. check this out:
The last two drafts have had combined 16 SEC players in the first round out of 64 picks.
25% SEC -- 5 of those from LSU (12 total players drafted from LSU alone)
-- even though we have an amazing recruiting class every year, it takes some punishment (especially since we lost our decent QB to disciplinary bullshit.. our 3rd string QB has no snaps yet so he isn't ready.. won't be until next year for him).
Edit: Also one other decent point.. although I don't put a lot of strength into it some people argue this:
Teams less than .500 by conference:
SEC = 2
PAC10 = 6
Big12 = 5
Big 10 = 1
|
On September 19 2008 04:32 FzeroXx wrote:
In 2007, the SEC led all conferences with 9 bowl teams and 7 bowl wins (an all-time record).
What does that prove? Either you schedule tough out of conference games and made it or not. Let's look here: the cut-off for the bowl tie-ins is the record of 6-6. That means that you could have had 9 mediocre teams or 9 great teams. 7 bowl wins is impressive.
Looking at last years BCS vs. BCS list of out of conference SEC opponents:
UGA>Oklahoma State
Auburn > Kansas State
Tennessee < Cal
Ole Miss < Mizzou
Auburn < South Florida
LSU > VT
Kentucky > Louisville
South Carolina > North Carolina
West Virginia > Mississippi State
UGA > GT (T_T!)
Florida > FSU
South Carolina < Clemson
That's not including bowls, as you have already touched on those. The rest of the OOC games were against cupcakes. Surely, not every other conference is going to be much different, but are you seriously going to parade around a strong conference while only proving it in bowl games? Most of those wins were supposed to happen (UGA-Ok St, USC-UNC, UGA-GT, UF-FSU) and there were a couple of close wins for the SEC (well... ok maybe really only LSU-VT), and some upsets (AU-USF). I'll give MSU a pass on WVU because, well, WVU was supposed to win that game. Really, you see a lot of beating up on weaker BCS teams in the SEC. Meanwhile, other conferences (like the Pac 10 this year) are going out and scheduling opponents like OSU (who can't show up at big games, ever), Oklahoma, and BYU (twice). (And before you jump on me saying BYU isn't a BCS team, I know. However, the SEC didn't schedule that real quality mid-conference team last year).
Of course, you can argue that the SEC is the greatest conference head-and-shoulders over the rest. But all you can rely on is some bowl game stats. Sure most of your teams can make it to bowl games and win them, but during the course of the season, you guys didn't play anybody spectacular last year (with the exception of LSU-VT).
Finally, I feel that this should be my last post on the subject, but since I did begin the argument I guess I shouldn't be angry that it begin. However, my thoughts are that it's rather inconclusive to judge conferences side-by-side. (And rankings are a really bogus way of looking at it, since they judge subjectively.)
Edit: I do enjoy reading this debate; it's just that it'll never end with countless statistics being thrown back and forth. While that'll continuously bump this thread and give it more advertising [which is great since college football is an amazing sport (and imo, much, much, much, much better than the professional counterpart)], I don't think that's what the mass of posts should be about.
|
03-07 Big 12 stats:
Texas: 64 games played, 10 losses (7 Big 12)
Oklahoma: 67 games played, 13 losses (6 Big 12)
---
Texas Tech: 63 games played, 21 losses (17 Big 12)
Missouri: 63 games played, 23 losses (19 Big 12)
Kansas: 61 games played, 26 losses (22 Big 12)
Nebraska: 62 games played, 27 losses (21 Big 12)
Oklahoma State: 62 games played, 28 losses (23 Big 12)
Texas A&M: 63 games played, 29 losses (21 Big 12)
Kansas State: 63 games played, 30 losses (23 Big 12)
Note that these 9 teams are all above .500, whereas some teams with <=30 losses (like Minnesota) actually had losing records but played less than 60 games.
Elite teams:
Texas, Oklahoma
Number of teams with <= 30 losses:
9
Out of conference losses by elite teams:
10 (over 2 teams)
Out of conference losses by ALL listed teams:
48 (9 teams)
In the last two seasons, the conference has gone 8-8 in bowl games.
As a bonus, Texas is the only team who has finished in the top 25 at the end of every season during the entire BCS era. Since Pete Carroll took over in 2001, the Big 12 is the only "Big Six" conference to get any wins against USC (Texas 1-0, Kansas State 2-0). The Trojans also lost to Notre Dame and Utah in 2001.
Not as good as the SEC, but I don't see how they are worse than the Big 10 or Pac 10.
|
I really don't like looking at the numbers exactly like that as they are incomplete (granted, so is most of the information I provide, but that's arguing for you ^_^); however, they do provide a different perspective and one that is definitely intriguing.
And wow, I didn't even realize the first column was games played, I thought it was wins o.O. (I know, I need better reading comprehension...  ).
|
On September 19 2008 02:17 hasuprotoss wrote:
I'm not going to deny the fact that the SEC is the best conference right now. However, I don't get why people put them so far ahead of every other conference. This year I give props to the Pac 10 for actually scheduling people that have some strength around them (Oregon St @ Penn St, USC vs. OSU, Arizona St. vs. UGA, Washington vs. BYU/Oklahoma).
The SEC gets a lot of extra hype, and I say that most of it is unwarranted. Yeah, so they pummeled OSU two years in a row. Good job. I think USC showed that OSU just shits a brick when faced with tough competition.
Florida (in an essential home game) got beat by a Michigan team that lost to the same style of offense BY A FCS TEAM! And Florida couldn't beat them with (essentially) the same spread offense run by a speedy QB? Hmm...
Of course, this year is a new year. OSU probably won't return to the National Championship game, and we will probably see Penn St or Wisky being the only Big 10 teams in the BCS (and probably only one will go). So we might actually get some "fair" matchups in the lesser bowls (Since, you know, the Capital One Bowl is supposed to be the second best team in both the Big 10 and SEC square off, etc., I can honestly say that that has not been the case the past few years).
Teebow isnt fast.
I called that victory bTw....
if i only remembered nero and I were supposed to bet on it 
also the big 10 just hasnt been that good lately, not many dominant teams besides OSU and Michigan Constantly underachieving. Its just a cycle, the SEC might have a lot of good teams now but it doesnt stay like that.
And just the Nat Championship games dont mean that a conference is better. The SEC nat title winners beat OSU and Oklahoma who both have struggled in bowls lately (except when OSU crushed ND who constantly sucks)
|
Haha, I remember you calling that game.
And well yeah, Tebow might not be quite Armanti Edwards or Dennis Dixon fast, but he's still a scrambler at heart.
Either way, I agree with your statement about cycles. That's probably one of the few things about conference strengths that most people could agree upon.
|
On September 19 2008 08:44 hasuprotoss wrote:
I really don't like looking at the numbers exactly like that as they are incomplete (granted, so is most of the information I provide, but that's arguing for you ^_^); however, they do provide a different perspective and one that is definitely intriguing.
Yeah, I agree. I was mostly responding to FzeroXx's claim that But, in the historical data I was going over, its not even close. The Big12 simply don't have the numbers to compare.
A few years ago I looked at the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 10 conferences from I think 1993-2004 -- 1993 being the year the Big 10 added Penn State, which was a pretty big deal in bolstering the strength of that conference. (Big 12 was formed in 1996, so their data started then) I was looking at final rankings (#1's, top 5's, top 10's, top 15, top 25), bowl records, non-conference records, etc. The SEC did have a lead, but the rest were almost indistinguishable over that amount of time. Didn't compare the ACC and Big East because that was right after BC, Miami, and VT left, so it's not meaningful. It definitely does go in cycles and over time things balance out.
Now if Nebraska returns to the level they were at for the 70s-90s or if Missouri stays good beyond the Chase Daniel years, we could see the Big 12 start to establish itself alongside the SEC. But that is a really big "if."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
