| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
5-7* 10-2* #5 8-4 9-3 #23 5-7 2-11 7-5 0-12 8-4 #21 5-7 6-6* 4-8 Opponents win percentage: 48-60 (44.4%) Conference 21-15 (58.3%) Out of Conference 69-75(47.9%) Total ------------------------- FL 7-6* 7-5* 5-7 8-4 5-7 7-5 #4 6-6 9-3 #6 6-6 7-5 #25 4-8* 8-4* #20 12-1 #1 Opponents win percentage: 65-44 (59.6%) Conference 26-23 (53.1%) Out of Conference 91-67 (57.6%) Total | ||
|
TheMusiC
United States1054 Posts
On December 08 2008 07:06 MCMcEmcee wrote: lol "dominated by TT" lol OU offense is pretty ridiculous though. As much as I hate that they edged out UT to go to the Big 12 championship, it would be cool to see them not implode/choke/suck in a bowl game for once. That said, their defense could use some improvement. Oh well, a shootout game would be cool too. you don't think UT's d got dominated by tech? 39-33 is close, sure, but i watched that entire game and i was surprised that TT needed that last second touchdown to win. TT put up 579 yards against the UT defense and got nearly twice as many first downs, that sounds pretty dominating to me. and don't even say i'm biased or anything, i go to UT ;/. if i'm biased against anyone it'd be against OU, but they're playing great football now and have rolled everyone they've faced since their loss in dallas so i can't say much. tbh i'd be lying if i thought that UT was a better overall team and deserved to play for the NC more than OU, but at the same time i don't think that it's completely undisputed that OU should be placed over UT. | ||
LosingID8
CA10828 Posts
On December 08 2008 08:17 FzeroXx wrote: USC 5-7* 10-2* #5 8-4 9-3 #23 5-7 2-11 7-5 0-12 8-4 #21 5-7 6-6* 4-8 Opponents win percentage: 48-60 (44.4%) Conference 21-15 (58.3%) Out of Conference 69-75(47.9%) Total ------------------------- FL 7-6* 7-5* 5-7 8-4 5-7 7-5 #4 6-6 9-3 #6 6-6 7-5 #25 4-8* 8-4* #20 12-1 #1 Opponents win percentage: 65-44 (59.6%) Conference 26-23 (53.1%) Out of Conference 91-67 (57.6%) Total those stats are skewed because of UW and WSU this year, two of the worst teams in all of college football. and we blew both of them out of the water, 10000000-0. plus every pac-10 team has to play each other during the regular season. also, the SEC likes scheduling teams from non-BCS conferences and FCS schools. all SEC teams essentially start out 3-0 or so automatically because of their lame OOC scheduling. oh except for georgia and tennessee. georgia beat up on a horrible ASU team, and tennessee lost to a very mediocre UCLA. | ||
|
LosingID8
CA10828 Posts
i'm fairly sure nearly every SEC team schedules an FCS opponent, along with the worst FBS teams. and like i said earlier, there is no dodging a good PAC-10 opponent. you must play every other team without the benefit of a conference championship game. the SEC has strong teams that manage to avoid each other all regular season, further helping their records. this is why you can't compare PAC-10 overall records vs SEC overall records. oh i found updated stats on USC's defense: USC defense: While Penn State's offense surely will test the Trojans' D in the Rose Bowl, it's too bad this unit won't get a shot at the fancy-pants offenses of Florida, Oklahoma or Texas, because such a strength-on-strength matchup would be a big draw. After holding UCLA to 157 total yards and seven first downs, USC finished the season No. 1 in scoring, passing and total defense (No. 5 vs. the run). Eight of 12 opponents scored a single TD or less. The Trojans yielded only 11 TDs the entire season, and their opponents' 3.38-yard average per play was 0.4 better than any other team. | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
Ohio State vs. Texas - Hahahaha Penn State vs. USC - Hahahaha Ole Miss vs. Texas Tech - Hahahaha Florida v Oklahoma - Good game.. only one. | ||
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
wow. Poor TT.... they went from probably BCS against Bama/UF to playing Ole Miss... god already I foresee someone saying next year "TT beat Ole Miss in who beat Florida, therefor TT rapes FL!" or something of the sort.... All you Florida haters can hate on my Gators all you want, but I can't think of a better matchup for the BCS than Florida vs Oklahoma. | ||
|
tiffany
3664 Posts
besides head-to-head, strength of schedule is the best indicator when comparing teams. this is just fact. LosingID8, just because USC's opponents all look good on paper and are all in-conference or BCS conference does not make them the better team. truth is, all of USC's opponents this season sucked, a lot. there is nothing skewed about it, that is exactly what strength of schedule means - how good your opponents were. based on USC's SOS it's obvious why their defense is perceived to be amazing, and it's also obvious why many don't think they deserve to be among the national championship contenders. at the same time, nobody can definitively say OU and UF are better than USC. that is why we need a playoff. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14899 Posts
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/081202 TMQ is always well written, if extremely opinionated | ||
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On December 08 2008 08:12 SpiralArchitect wrote: The BCS is a joke. A computer cannot watch football, therefore it fails. There are no other professional or collegiate level sports which use such a ridiculously unstable system to decide a national champion. NBA: Playoffs NCAA B-Ball: Playoffs NFL: PLayoffs MLB: PLayoffs. If the BCS if fine why dont any of the other college sports adopt a similar system. Need I remind you that the press decides one third of the voting from polls. The BCS is engineered to make the most amount of money possible, they dont care if there is a dark horse team out there. it's not a joke and the system is fine as it is. like i said, it's not perfect and it has its flaws - computer system is one of them, i suppose. if there were playoffs for college football, i wouldn't give a give a shit about weekly matches because they don't really matter. there's no intensity the matches create every week, because the whole idea of "every week can change the season" doesn't apply anymore. upsets would hardly carry any significance. do you not see how awful college football would be? did you just ask why other sports don't use BCS if it's perfectly fine? look at the logistics, dude. having playoffs would mean you have to drastically shorten the regular season, which nobody would want. either that or the season has to be extended whole a lot. how often would games have to be played? it takes away what college football lives off of: the weekly dramas filled with intensity. because if college football had playoffs, things wouldn't matter until playoffs. wanna know why college basketball regular season gets no attention? that's right, playoffs. | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
| ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On December 08 2008 10:02 LosingID8 wrote: also pac-10 teams actually schedule legitimate (at least on preseason paper) opponents. i think only two teams scheduled non-FBS opponents. plus the other teams are other BCS or strong teams. even our worst team (UW) scheduled oklahoma and BYU. i'm fairly sure nearly every SEC team schedules an FCS opponent, along with the worst FBS teams. and like i said earlier, there is no dodging a good PAC-10 opponent. you must play every other team without the benefit of a conference championship game. the SEC has strong teams that manage to avoid each other all regular season, further helping their records. this is why you can't compare PAC-10 overall records vs SEC overall records. <hr> oh i found updated stats on USC's defense: i stopped reading the defense article after seeing "after holding UCLA to 157 yards..." well i am glad USC defense can stop the worst offense in the country. (i know usc has good defense, but giving them credit for holding down ucla is wtf haha) | ||
|
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
On December 08 2008 15:28 OneOther wrote: it's not a joke and the system is fine as it is. like i said, it's not perfect and it has its flaws - computer system is one of them, i suppose. if there were playoffs for college football, i wouldn't give a give a shit about weekly matches because they don't really matter. there's no intensity the matches create every week, because the whole idea of "every week can change the season" doesn't apply anymore. upsets would hardly carry any significance. do you not see how awful college football would be? did you just ask why other sports don't use BCS if it's perfectly fine? look at the logistics, dude. having playoffs would mean you have to drastically shorten the regular season, which nobody would want. either that or the season has to be extended whole a lot. how often would games have to be played? it takes away what college football lives off of: the weekly dramas filled with intensity. because if college football had playoffs, things wouldn't matter until playoffs. wanna know why college basketball regular season gets no attention? that's right, playoffs. You really think that the BCS provides more drama than a playoff system would? There is still week to week drama in a playoff system, in fact I think that there would be much much more as it would make people focus much more on conference games rather than how they look in the computer rankings. The BCS maps the entire season to whoever is statistically the best team and the number two team go to the national championship therefore there are never big upsets or dark horse teams in the national championship. Unless the BCS lets a team slip by and when it does its never because a team played hard all season its because they slaughtered some highly ranked team in a fluke season. As for shortening the season most people are in favor of taking three weeks of the regular season to allow for the playoffs. If your team is good it would make up those three weeks in the playoffs or conference championship games and there would hardly be any loss of games. The only teams that would lose major playing time are the ones that dont deserve to be on the field. The BCS can do its job (like this year) but when it messes up it really makes the entire year seem pointless. How can anyone be satisfied with a computer deciding a national champion? The team that plays the hardest and gives the most effort during the season and can then live throughout a playoff scenario deserves to be national champion, not whoever is statistically the best. | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On December 08 2008 16:30 SpiralArchitect wrote: You really think that the BCS provides more drama than a playoff system would? There is still week to week drama in a playoff system, in fact I think that there would be much much more as it would make people focus much more on conference games rather than how they look in the computer rankings. The BCS maps the entire season to whoever is statistically the best team and the number two team go to the national championship therefore there are never big upsets or dark horse teams in the national championship. Unless the BCS lets a team slip by and when it does its never because a team played hard all season its because they slaughtered some highly ranked team in a fluke season. As for shortening the season most people are in favor of taking three weeks of the regular season to allow for the playoffs. If your team is good it would make up those three weeks in the playoffs or conference championship games and there would hardly be any loss of games. The only teams that would lose major playing time are the ones that dont deserve to be on the field. The BCS can do its job (like this year) but when it messes up it really makes the entire year seem pointless. How can anyone be satisfied with a computer deciding a national champion? The team that plays the hardest and gives the most effort during the season and can then live throughout a playoff scenario deserves to be national champion, not whoever is statistically the best. you really think playoffs system would create more drama than BCS? perhaps i am arguing with the wrong person, because i have always thought you didn't follow college football too much, but that's just not true. please don't take offense to that. either way, the entire concept that college football promotes is "every week can change the season." losing to your rival, or an incredible upset directly affects the winning and losing team much more than the playoff system would. who cares if you lose to ole miss, florida doesn't have to prove anything because it can just play hard in the playoffs, right? BCS system pushes a team to step it up whole another level, because they know every week, every game can make a difference in where they end up. your argument of people looking at conference games rather than computer system doesn't even make sense. people focus more on regular season games because they know it can make a huge difference in the BCS standings. the goal of BCS is to really give the college teams a strong incentive to work their ass off very week, which playoffs wouldn't be able to do. like i said, sometimes it stirs up controversy. but the fun, drama, and motivation it creates outweighs all that. BCS seldomly lets a fluke team play. in fact, that's the whole idea behind the system. yes, it lets the two best teams (with best stats, best wins, most acceptable losses) play in the national championship. you are contradicting yourself. you say that the hardest working teams deserve to play in the championship, yet you are also saying that a team that gets lucky in the playoffs should advance over a team that went undefeated? how are you rewarding the teams that show the best performance during the regular season? _every week and every game should matter_ and actually no, taking three weeks would be a huge loss of games. college football will not work with a playoff system, period. | ||
|
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
On December 08 2008 17:18 OneOther wrote: you really think playoffs system would create more weekly drama than BCS? perhaps i am arguing with the wrong person, because i have always thought you didn't follow college football too much, but that's just not true. please don't take offense to that. either way, the entire concept that college football promotes is "every week can change the season." losing to your rival, or an incredible upset directly affects the winning and losing team much more than the playoff system would. who cares if you lose to ole miss, florida doesn't have to prove anything because it can just play hard in the playoffs, right? BCS system pushes a team to step it up whole another level, because they know every week, every game can make a difference in where they end up. your argument of people looking at conference games rather than computer system doesn't even make sense. people focus more on regular season games because they know it can make a huge difference in the BCS standings. the goal of BCS is to really give the college teams a strong incentive to work their ass off very week, which playoffs wouldn't be able to do. like i said, sometimes it stirs up controversy. but the fun, drama, and motivation it creates outweighs all that. BCS seldomly lets a fluke team play. in fact, that's the whole idea behind the system. yes, it lets the two best teams (with best stats, best wins, most acceptable losses) play in the national championship. you are contradicting yourself. you say that the hardest working teams deserve to play in the championship, yet you are also saying that a team that gets lucky in the playoffs should advance over a team that went undefeated? how are you rewarding the teams that show the best performance during the regular season? _every week and every game should matter_ and actually no, taking three weeks would be a huge loss of games. college football will not work with a playoff system, period. You do realize you would have to qualify for the playoffs correct? The BCS top ten can be determined weeks ahead of time, though those ten teams could probably move up and down as they did after the SEC championship and the Big 12 championship. I dont see how there is any less intensity from week to week when you have to win to qualify for the playoffs, maybe you have never watched college basketball but it is plenty intense to me. Also, I am not contradicting myself since a dark horse team would have to work harder than any other team to win a national championship which means the team that gave it there all for the whole season and the playoffs wins the NC. Three weeks off of the schedule includes the by week so you would only have to miss out on two games per team, ten games per season rather than 12. Not to mention teams that qualified and made it to quarters/semis would play more games than they would during the current organization. Ever since college football became organized by the NCAA either the polls or the BCS have dominated its national championship format. Since when do the press get to decide who is the best in the nation in any other sport. The BCS/polls were engineered to provide the most profitable and satisfying games for the most established football schools. Look at Utah. They are undefeated in a conference which is undoubtedly more competitive than the PAC-10, the defeated their PAC-10 opponents this year who were projected to be above them in the rankings at this time and they have defeated two BCS ranked teams (BYU and TCU). Despite all that they still dont get a better position than USC, a team which won their out of conference games and walked all over their ridiculously weak conference. BTW, do you watch college football? Non-Conference games are much more hyped and anticipated than conference games simply because most of the time your non-conference opponents are the ones to beat to get a good BCS standing. This leaves tons of conferences who are not traditionally strong miles behind others (MWC, WAC). A playoff system would make conference standings matter much more while leaving non-conference games just as important since your record affects your playoff seed. + Show Spoiler + btw asking you if you have ever watched college football was a rhetorical question and a bit of satire on how silly I think it is to ask that question. I obviously watch college football and you cant say how much week to week drama a playoff system would provide when there has never been one and the format which it would be in is not even known. For all you know it would be a thousand times more intense, the BCS providing more drama is merely your opinion and not a fact. | ||
|
TheMusiC
United States1054 Posts
| ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
haha i don't watch college basketball? dude, please. college basketball gets zero media attention until march madness rolls around. (except for huge rivalries like duke vs unc, obviously) BCS standings is intense because a #1 team like Missouri last year can be upset by Oklahoma on the last of week of regular season. or maybe because the top 5 can change every week. you are so damn wrong about top 10 BCS being determined weeks ahead of time I am starting to feel more like I am wasting my time. let me just tell you this: college football thrives from upsets and the constantly changing BCS. you missed the entire point of my argument. obviously you have to qualify for the playoffs, but every week and every game does not matter nearly as much anymore. you can drop a couple games, but who cares! you just have to make the playoffs and do well there. BCS does not allow that. it wants the team to do its absolute best each and every week. and yes, you are contradicting yourself because a #1 seeded team who went undefeated can have a bad day and lose to the lowest seeded team. that is not awarding the team that worked the hardest and played the best during the regular season. USC is ranked one spot above Utah, so what? Utah will play Alabama, and USC will play Penn State. they are both playing in awesome bowl games against good opponents. one could argue that USC thwarting Ohio State (California, Oregon) is more impressive than what Utah has done. can you explain to me how USC is in a "better position?" i am not biased when it comes to utah and usc because i am not a fan of either of them, but the ranking is justified. even if it's not, it makes no difference. | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On November 21 2008 15:13 SpiralArchitect wrote: Oklahoma just hasnt played with the same burst late season as they did earlier this season. I was hoping to see the Sooners hit top three or somewhere along those lines but with how they have been playing recently I am not so sure. I guess its not a shoe in for TT but I think they are heavily favored over Oklahoma at this point. everyone tells you that you are wrong: On November 21 2008 16:25 SpiralArchitect wrote: I have only watched the highlights for their games the past few weeks. I just dont think they are playing with the spirit or drive that Texas Tech has, I'm not a huge Sooners or TT fan so I guess I cant really say what I dislike about them. I just dont think they are as good as Texas. | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
| ||
|
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
On December 08 2008 17:59 OneOther wrote: now i actually don't think you know anything about college football. you were the guy who claimed oklahoma was playing subpar leading up to the texas tech, right? (lol @ that) there is no fucking way that non-conference games are more anticipated than conference games. let's look at the potential most-hyped up games and rivalries that we can have. florida vs georgia, conference. ohio state vs michigan, conference. red river rivalry (texas vs oklahoma), conference. lsu vs alabama, conference. you just lost your entire credibility right there by claiming non-conference games are "much more hyped and anticipated than conference games." non-conference opponents are the ones you have to get a good BCS ranking? really? well considering non-conference games come beginning of the year and often very mismatched, that doesn't sound like it would work. did you not watch florida vs alabama? how about texas vs texas tech, texas tech vs oklahoma, and oklahoma vs texas? notice the trend: they are furious battles for a better BCS ranking, and they are all conference games. haha i don't watch college basketball? dude, please. college basketball gets zero media attention until march madness rolls around. (except for huge rivalries like duke vs unc, obviously) BCS standings is intense because a #1 team like Missouri last year can be upset by Oklahoma on the last of week of regular season. or maybe because the top 5 can change every week. you are so damn wrong about top 10 BCS being determined weeks ahead of time I am starting to feel more like I am wasting my time. let me just tell you this: college football thrives from upsets and the constantly changing BCS. you missed the entire point of my argument. obviously you have to qualify for the playoffs, but every week and every game does not matter nearly as much anymore. you can drop a couple games, but who cares! you just have to make the playoffs and do well there. BCS does not allow that. it wants the team to do its absolute best each and every week. and yes, you are contradicting yourself because a #1 seeded team who went undefeated can have a bad day and lose to the lowest seeded team. that is not awarding the team that worked the hardest and played the best during the regular season. USC is ranked one spot above Utah, so what? Utah will play Alabama, and USC will play Penn State. they are both playing in awesome bowl games against good opponents. one could argue that USC thwarting Ohio State (California, Oregon) is more impressive than what Utah has done. can you explain to me how USC is in a "better position?" i am not biased when it comes to utah and usc because i am not a fan of either of them, but the ranking is justified. even if it's not, it makes no difference. Wow I wonder if its a coincidence that everyone of those rivalries are inside the SEC, Big 12 or another well established conference. Of course those teams care more about their in conference games because they are inside the best conferences in the nation. I am talking about teams which are not in an established conference, which is actually a larger portion of the nation. I can see why you are so happy with the BCS being a Oklahoma fan, a team which is practically guaranteed a top spot in the BCS due to their enormous funding coming in from being in the Big 12 rather than some smaller conference. The BCS completely eliminates the rest of the nation from competition and puts a small amount of conferences into the running. If I am not mistaken Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, Florida and Texas Tech are all from the SEC/Big 12 which are the two big money conferences in the nation. How is that fair? Quit saying I dont watch college football man. Of course I dont watch all the games because there are literally hundreds of them and I love my teams, not yours. Do you know what is going on in the MWC? Have you watched the big rivalries out there? How bout the WAC or PAC-10? Of course you dont know those as well as the Big 12 or the SEC because your team doesnt play out there. I think you and I are just watching college football from two different positions, you coming from a team which gets a chance at the NC every year and me coming from a team which will never get a chance at a championship under the BCS. How does that mean that I dont watch college football? Those two quotes are ridiculous, I clearly stated my opinion on Oklahoma which I was wrong about, sorry for being wrong. Next time I will only talk about teams I know everything about and have watched every one of their games. Do you think that the NBA and NFL get no attention till it is time for playoffs? Come on man that is a very weak argument saying that the BCS provides for more excitement and a more competitive atmosphere. There would be just as much competition in a playoff format in my opinion. If you look at any other professional sport out there they use a playoff system, now why would college football consider itself smarter than the NFL? Because with the BCS the top teams in the nation hardly ever change since smaller teams cant earn a berth in the BCS without doing ridiculously well (Utah, Boise State). Even after that they dont earn as much money outside the BCS and cant pay the players that are big, which means its even harder to compete in the next year. We obviously have conflicting opinions here but I dont see where you get off telling me I dont watch college football. Just because I dont pay as much attention to your all important Big 12 and SEC southern conferences, and I dont think that the same fucking teams should come back to the NC every damn year doesnt mean I dont watch college football. It means I dont look at it the same way you do. Clearly I am biased since my favorite teams arent given a fucking snowballs chance in hell to ever win a national championship, the BCS rewards the schools with the most money who can recruit the best players and offer them a better chance at hitting the NFL while it punishes teams who dont have that money and makes it impossible for them to catch up. It also isnt fair for a team to play hard all season long and go 11-0 only to lose a fluke game to a terrible team due to injuries or some other unforseen problem. Imagine if Oklahoma had lost to Mizzou on saturday, do you know how fucked Oklahoma would have gotten? They are definitely a national championship caliber team and if they had lost to Mizzou they would have been put way back in the BCS rankings from one loss. On another level of unfairness is how badly unknown teams get fucked over. Take my favorite team, BYU, for example. Their only losses were to #11 TCU and # 6 Utah, they had victories over UCLA (59-0 btw) and Washington. Yet they remain way behind in the BCS rankings because they didnt have a strong enough schedule? Come on the MWC conference was way more competitive than the PAC-10 this year and last year too. Still BYU gets ignored for what, two losses to a #11 and #6 team. Floridas only loss came at the hands of #25 Mississippi and USC lost to an unranked team... But BYU gets screwed because they have no weight in the polls, they arent a big conference team and they didnt go undefeated. Wow that sucks for us, oh well better luck next year as we try to get better players with the same amount of funding to back our program. Yeah thats totally fair. Edit: Made this post before I read your apology. I take back what I said about attacking me and what not. I think we have differing opinions due to our different views on college football, nonetheless I think this argument has been fun :D | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[BSL 2025] Weekly
BSL Team Wars
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
