Well the 2008 season is going to begin at the end of this month so everyone what are your predictions for the year and the hopes of your team?
Personally there is a lot of positive buzz around Michigan State that our new coach is turning things around and this year should be a good indicator if the program can maintain a positive slide upwards. Im hoping they can reach the upper 4-5 teams this year.
As for the national level I really do not want to see Ohio State in the NC game unless they can at least make a game of it =\ Everyone seems to be hyping Georgia this year and a lot of the SEC teams like LSU are looking to rebound from big losses in key positions so ive mostly heard about Florida and Georgia as being the two to compete for the conferance crown. Out in Pac-10 land its mostly about USC again t.t other then that im not quite sure, I know MSU plays @ Cal their 1st game and im excited to see what they can do vs the usually solid Cal team.
I'm still really fucking pissed that USC got #1 over UGA in the rivals rankings. And even more pissed that stupid ass OSU is anywhere above top 10. Even if they go undefeated, they should be blocked from the title game, just because they got their dicks kicked in so hard the last two years.
God I hate the BCS.
And as much as I like UGA, they aren't going undefeated. The SEC is way too good. Maybe a 1 loss team, but that would all depend on when it happens.
My team, Texas, will probably see their streak of 7 straight 10+ wins seasons come to an end. The top half of the Big 12 is sick this season now that Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Tech are all good at the same time, and Texas plays all of those teams (plus Oklahoma, obv).
Never thought I'd see Mizzou as a title contender. The didn't get OU or Tech on their schedule either, so they've got a good chance of rolling into the conference championship with a BCS title game spot on the line.
I'm sick of seeing Ohio State cruise through the Big Ten and then get pasted in the title game. But they play a road game at USC in September. If they win that and go undefeated, they'll have definitely earned a top 2 spot. Winner of that game probably deserves the early-season #1 ranking.
Yeah it was Mizzou. Kansas finished with a better record, but that's because Mizzou lost to Oklahoma twice and Kansas never played OU.
Mizzou was actually ranked higher than 5 teams who were in the BCS, and they had beaten both Kansas and Illinois during the regular season. (as well has having a better record than Illinois)
Really, it's the stupid 2 teams per conference rule. I can't argue with Kansas being in the BCS when they finish 12-1 and win their bowl game. But it was obvious that Mizzou was way better than Hawaii and Illinois. At least the Sugar can say they were forced to take Hawaii... wtf was the Rose Bowl thinking? With the picking order they could have had USC vs West Virginia or Missouri which would have been epic games. Instead it was a blowout snoozer.
Aug. 30, 2008 Youngstown St. (Big Ten Network) 12:00 pm ET Sept. 6, 2008 Ohio 12:00 pm ET Sept. 13, 2008 at USC (ABC) 8:00 pm ET Sept. 20, 2008 Troy (Big Ten Network) 12:00 pm ET Sept. 27, 2008 Minnesota TBA Oct. 4, 2008 at Wisconsin 8:00 pm ET Oct. 11, 2008 Purdue TBA Oct. 18, 2008 at Michigan State TBA Oct. 25, 2008 Penn State 8:00 pm ET Nov. 8, 2008 at Northwestern TBA Nov. 15, 2008 at Illinois TBA Nov. 22, 2008 Michigan TBA
That schedule's a joke. USC is the only game that people will expect OSU to have any trouble with. Wisconson, PSU, and maybe Michigan and Mich State are potential upsets. The Big 10 isn't anything great this year again, but, as always, the winners will be heralded as gods just because of the conference's illustrious history.
I agree Signet, it's really gonna be tough for us this year. Not only because of our schedule but because we lost our explosive RB and TE. But I think we still have a shot. We won't know until the season starts how we actually play, but I keep following them closely and Mack and coaches say they're keeping the same strict practices and same position security (i.e. if you aren't playing your best you lose your starting role) as they had before the bowl game last year. And after losing to some mediocre teams like A&M and K St you could really see the difference in the way we stomped a good Arizona St team. Plus we got the proven defensive coach, Muschamp, from the SEC and I hear only good things about him. So here's to hoping for another good season.
On August 07 2008 02:15 Signet wrote: My team, Texas, will probably see their streak of 7 straight 10+ wins seasons come to an end. The top half of the Big 12 is sick this season now that Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Tech are all good at the same time, and Texas plays all of those teams (plus Oklahoma, obv).
Never thought I'd see Mizzou as a title contender. The didn't get OU or Tech on their schedule either, so they've got a good chance of rolling into the conference championship with a BCS title game spot on the line.
I'm sick of seeing Ohio State cruise through the Big Ten and then get pasted in the title game. But they play a road game at USC in September. If they win that and go undefeated, they'll have definitely earned a top 2 spot. Winner of that game probably deserves the early-season #1 ranking.
which sucks, cuz i bought my season tickets this year. T_T horrible.
On August 07 2008 02:15 Signet wrote: My team, Texas, will probably see their streak of 7 straight 10+ wins seasons come to an end. The top half of the Big 12 is sick this season now that Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Tech are all good at the same time, and Texas plays all of those teams (plus Oklahoma, obv).
Never thought I'd see Mizzou as a title contender. The didn't get OU or Tech on their schedule either, so they've got a good chance of rolling into the conference championship with a BCS title game spot on the line.
I'm sick of seeing Ohio State cruise through the Big Ten and then get pasted in the title game. But they play a road game at USC in September. If they win that and go undefeated, they'll have definitely earned a top 2 spot. Winner of that game probably deserves the early-season #1 ranking.
which sucks, cuz i bought my season tickets this year. T_T horrible.
just bought my season tickets too :[
hopefully we don't start losing until the OU game, i gotta get my tickets out for at least $400 :p
I don't quite know how my team is going to perform this year, learning Paul Johnson's new offensive schemes and such. It's great that GT's first game is on a Thursday, even if it is against Jacksonville State...
AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN BEAT U[sic]GA THIS YEAR!!!
Sorry, random plastering of thoughts just occurred, but you get the general drift of my ideas.
On August 07 2008 04:16 duncan.mc wrote: I agree Signet, it's really gonna be tough for us this year. Not only because of our schedule but because we lost our explosive RB and TE. But I think we still have a shot. We won't know until the season starts how we actually play, but I keep following them closely and Mack and coaches say they're keeping the same strict practices and same position security (i.e. if you aren't playing your best you lose your starting role) as they had before the bowl game last year. And after losing to some mediocre teams like A&M and K St you could really see the difference in the way we stomped a good Arizona St team. Plus we got the proven defensive coach, Muschamp, from the SEC and I hear only good things about him. So here's to hoping for another good season.
BTW Signet, do you attend UT?
Nah, I lived in TX for 12 years but moved before going to college.
It'll be a downgrade at the RB/TE/WR positions across the board, but I'm confident the new players will be good enough to have a solid season. McCoy needs to play like he did as a freshman.
Muschamp is going to be an awesome DC. Those LSU and Auburn defenses were amazing, even moreso the Auburn def's who played well despite their offense going 3 and out so much. Texas's secondary is still very questionable though :/
You're right, Texas blew some games they should have won last season! The way I see it, Texas should go 1-3 or 2-2 in their four toughest conference games. I really see Oklahoma and Missouri as being the top of the conference this year, and the Texas Tech game will be a shootout. The Horns can still win 10 if they don't drop games they should win. If they finish the regular season 9-3, they should get a very winnable bowl game.
On August 07 2008 04:36 itzme_petey wrote: which sucks, cuz i bought my season tickets this year. T_T horrible.
They will be such good games to see though! I'd rather watch a good game against Tech than see UT walk all over some 2-10 team.
As long as the Horns play well, the fans are in for some real treats this season
I'm at UCLA, where there's a lot of hype surrounding the new coach, Rick Neuheisel. I have a lot of hope, but I'm still maintaining a wait-and-see attitude.
I can't see WVU not winning the Big East. For that matter, with their insane amount of speed/talent and the lack of another major conference power, I'm amazed they haven't played in a NC game yet.
On August 07 2008 02:53 Mindcrime wrote: If Boeckman stops throwing lobs, and there is no dumbassery (I'm looking at you, Pryor), there's a strong possibility that OSU will go undefeated.
And there has, apparently, been dumbassery already...
Yeah hopefully Stewart can take us to the NC game, last year we had it in the bag..but yet the Pitt upset took us off. This year we should get it, and I don't care if its against OSU or what not. I'm so tired about hearing about the freakin overrated buckeyes.They have the weakest schedule with the exception of USC.
On August 13 2008 08:31 samsung10 wrote: Yeah hopefully Stewart can take us to the NC game, last year we had it in the bag..but yet the Pitt upset took us off. This year we should get it, and I don't care if its against OSU or what not. I'm so tired about hearing about the freakin overrated buckeyes.They have the weakest schedule with the exception of USC.
Last year, OSU's schedule was ranked 70th or so. The year before it was ranked much higher, and I'd wager it's going to be ranked quite a bit higher this year too.
With USC and Ohio State facing each other, it will be tough to criticize the winner's strength of schedule. Yes it's just one game, but few other teams will face an opponent that tough.
USC faces 9 Pac 10 teams, Ohio State, and Virginia. Sure, it looks like there isn't a strong #2 in the Pac 10 this season, but nine conference games does make the schedule more difficult. Even Notre Dame is better than the creampuffs like The Citadel or Temple that other big schools schedule.
Sure, Georgia's schedule is a lot tougher... or for that matter, look at the teams Auburn plays. As usual, whoever wins the SEC will have faced a crazy path to get there. But if we're comparing USC/OSU's schedule to a team like Missouri, Oklahoma, West Virginia... you can't say there's *that* much difference this season.
Unfortunately Jacksonville State didn't play the two players who I graduated high school with, but whatever. They have Perriloux, and he can run like a mofo.
Great Thursday for me, can't wait for Saturday, unfortunately everybody (with a few exceptions) are playing cupcakes...
I root for two teams: Virginia Tech and Bowling Green.
BG got totally pwned in the bowl game last winter. From what I heard, it was the worst blowout in bowl history. It was painful to watch, but I got to go for free (marching band FTW!)
As I live in Blacksburg, VA, it is a requirement to be a VT fan. Too bad we just lost to East Carolina
Man, Sherridan has a gun but 0 touch. Neither of them can run so theres basically no threat of a QB scrambling. Utah is able to get rid of the ball really fast so thats frustrating as hell to watch as a Michigan fan. Its hard to believe the offense is playing this bad They cant get any fucking rungame going at all.
Im surprised the defense has been as bad as its been though, I mean Utahs offense is pretty good but theres no way they can match athlete for athlete with Michigan so this spread shit shouldnt be working as well as it is.
On August 29 2008 11:53 hasuprotoss wrote: WOOOO!!!!!! 41-14!!! GO TECH, :D
I've got a lot of faith in Paul Johnson, especially after that game. If he can take Navy from awful to good, he can take Georgia Tech from mediocre to great. Not much hope for beating UGA this season, but that's ok. I never got into the GT-UGA rivalry because I had as many friends at UGA as I did at tech, although it does suck that the jackets haven't won since I enrolled in 2001. ESPN predicted that GT won't even make a bowl game this year, which I find unlikely.
On the national stage, I'm so sick of Ohio State and USC that I hope neither of them make a BCS game this year. USC hasn't been interesting since Leinart and Bush graduated, and Ohio State is the Stork of college football.
EDIT2: rofl, the story of his last arrest is hysterical
Police said they were forced to secure a cloth around Clarett's mouth after he allegedly spit at the officers and called them "niggers" during the arrest. According to Columbus Police Sgt. Mike Woods, the officers discovered a katana, a loaded AK-47 variant and two other loaded handguns in his vehicle along with an open bottle of Grey Goose vodka.
The officers used mace to subdue Clarett after attempts to subdue him with a Taser proved ineffective because he was wearing kevlar body armor.
On August 31 2008 07:08 Sadist wrote: Man, Sherridan has a gun but 0 touch. Neither of them can run so theres basically no threat of a QB scrambling. Utah is able to get rid of the ball really fast so thats frustrating as hell to watch as a Michigan fan. Its hard to believe the offense is playing this bad They cant get any fucking rungame going at all.
Im surprised the defense has been as bad as its been though, I mean Utahs offense is pretty good but theres no way they can match athlete for athlete with Michigan so this spread shit shouldnt be working as well as it is.
Well, I think the defense is going to play the rest of the season like they did in the 4th quarter, but that still leaves concerns because Tweet overthrows like crazy. We reaaaaaaaaaally need to get a running game, fast.
Can't wait for some of the upcoming games. I can't believe that with the games on, I'm watching Mississippi State-La Tech. Whatever, it's a decent game.
Va Tech got out Beamer-balled .
And since I'm a Penn State fan... HAHAHAHA. Pitt got beat by Bowling Green. Way to go Wannstauche. :D
Edit: And one of my former high school football players caught a TD pass against UGA today. If only Georgia Southern upset the Dawgs
Edit 2: Or maybe not, just checked the Box Score. It appears my friend lied to me :X
Either Bama is really impressive tonight and deserve a higher ranking, or Clemson is highly overrated. Cause the Tigers are getting pounded in all aspects of the game. For a #9 ranked team, I think they're terrible. Can't run, can't pass, can't defend.
Blah MSU was close to making it closer then even what it was. 2 TDs called back (one prollly an actual TD) and too many mistakes on offense. Hopefully they will learn and grow from this cal game on the road. Also U o M sucks vs the spead....its so funny seeing them try the spread vs a veteran spread team and try to keep up. I thought the U of M D would be better but the spread always seems to problems for them.
Missouri beat Illinois! Whoo! Pretty exciting game that was close for most of it, even if Missouri tended to be in control. Started getting a bit nervous near the end but the defense got a few clutch turnovers and that was pretty much that.
Although listening to the commentators made me remember how biased everyone is toward teams that aren't traditionally good. I swear Missouri better go undefeated or they'll probably get screwed out of a BCS bowl game by the committees again. -.-
Also reading old comments about how it was going to play out are hilarious. Illini predicting Chase Daniel gets sacked and stuffed repeatedly because the defense of the Illini is that good, and Missouri fans thinking the Illini were going to score <20 points. Who knew Juice Williams would have more passing yards than Chase Daniel?
On September 01 2008 04:25 zer0das wrote: Missouri beat Illinois! Whoo! Pretty exciting game that was close for most of it, even if Missouri tended to be in control. Started getting a bit nervous near the end but the defense got a few clutch turnovers and that was pretty much that.
Although listening to the commentators made me remember how biased everyone is toward teams that aren't traditionally good. I swear Missouri better go undefeated or they'll probably get screwed out of a BCS bowl game by the committees again. -.-
Yeah, that's one of the few things I hate about the polls. They're subjective and the preseason polls weigh too much into things. Mizzou could probably lose to Texas and still go to the national championship game, though. However, they might need some defensive help... Giving up that many points to Illinois isn't great.
Clemson was just meh. I thought they would've won that game, but they just can't ever seem to live up to high expectations. However, that means I'm happy that Ga Tech is playing them this year, we might have a chance to beat them :D
Kentucky vs. Louisville is on right now, nothing spectacular, but whatever. It's still early and it's a nice rivalry that got pretty interesting recently with both teams splashing on the scene.
On September 01 2008 04:25 zer0das wrote: Missouri beat Illinois! Whoo! Pretty exciting game that was close for most of it, even if Missouri tended to be in control. Started getting a bit nervous near the end but the defense got a few clutch turnovers and that was pretty much that.
Although listening to the commentators made me remember how biased everyone is toward teams that aren't traditionally good. I swear Missouri better go undefeated or they'll probably get screwed out of a BCS bowl game by the committees again. -.-
However, they might need some defensive help... Giving up that many points to Illinois isn't great.
The defense did get 5 sacks and 2 interceptions, and almost completely shut down the run (Illinois had negative yardage after the first half running the ball). I think part of the problem was they were blitzing way too much and they started to get burned. I'm not too worried, early season jitters. They came up big when it mattered. Not to mention the last 7 points were a throwaway and the game was already over.
And scoring 50 plus points against the Illini isn't something to scoff at either.
On September 01 2008 04:25 zer0das wrote: Missouri beat Illinois! Whoo! Pretty exciting game that was close for most of it, even if Missouri tended to be in control. Started getting a bit nervous near the end but the defense got a few clutch turnovers and that was pretty much that.
Although listening to the commentators made me remember how biased everyone is toward teams that aren't traditionally good. I swear Missouri better go undefeated or they'll probably get screwed out of a BCS bowl game by the committees again. -.-
However, they might need some defensive help... Giving up that many points to Illinois isn't great.
The defense did get 5 sacks and 2 interceptions, and almost completely shut down the run (Illinois had negative yardage after the first half running the ball). I think part of the problem was they were blitzing way too much and they started to get burned. I'm not too worried, early season jitters. They came up big when it mattered. Not to mention the last 7 points were a throwaway and the game was already over.
And scoring 50 plus points against the Illini isn't something to scoff at either.
Daniel, Washington, and Coffman all looked great. Maclin too obviously - I hope he's okay.
Missouri did what they always do to give up that many points, and it's why I don't think they will win the Big 12 (along with OU being a strong team). They got up 45-20, the offense goes into a shell and they just stop playing defense. How wide open were those Illini receivers in the 4th quarter? This cost them the Sun Bowl two years ago and they did it against Illinois to start last season. Teams score way too quickly to think it's over with a 25 point lead.
USC did look pretty damn impressive this weekend against Virginia, especially the running game. OSU fans better hope that Wells's injury is nothing serious or it could be a long day for the Buckeyes.
OSU definitely needs Wells to have a chance. Weird, just a week ago I was thinking the USC needed Sanchez to be healthy by that game... obviously, he's ok!
On September 02 2008 11:23 LosingID8 wrote: tenn vs ucla is like watching the special olympics
I think you're giving ucla a little too much credit there
true that
but i almost want UCLA to win just so that the circle-jerking SEC crowd will shut up for once
If my house wasn't littered with orange and white and I wasn't wearing my vols shirt I might agree with you . . . but I don't think I can do that. We look terrible still, this is really frustrating
On September 02 2008 12:11 Roffles wrote: I don't understand why Tennessee insists on throwing the ball so much. Crompton is pure garbage.
Yeah, thats what i've been wondering. We come out and throw on first and second down, Crompton couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at the moment, and then on 3rd and long that leaves no choice but to throw again.... pure stupidity.
On September 02 2008 12:55 LosingID8 wrote: LOL SEC
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
The only good thing that comes out of this is tennessee is appearing to be the 6th best team in the sec
btw - fire fulmer ffs
yeah but i mean, you lose to a team that's using their 3rd string QB that throws 4 INTs in the 1st half and loses 3 seniors to injury in the 1st quarter?
The hasu25: The power ranking's as hasuprotoss sees it Week 1.
Well, let's see how I rank the teams compared to those evil sports writers and coaches who are completely incapable of watching every single game:
1. Georgia- To hell with 'em. Unfortunately the most talented team in the nation, they won't stay here long. 2. Southern Cal- Well, at least they beat a BCS team. Granted, it might easily be the worst BCS team in the country, but whatever. Will not be surprised if they drop one or two in Pac10 play. 3. Ohio State- If Beanie's out, they are probably not that great. And Pryor really didn't look that impressive. He made the wrong read but blew by the FCS DE. Don't expect that to work in the Big 10. 4. Missouri- If they actually played a sucky team like that, they probably wouldn't be here. I hope their defense improves, or they won't stick around for long... 5. LSU- Couldn't find really anybody else to stick here. They did look good against Appalachian State though. 6. Oklahoma- Bradford is a beast, let's see if they can survive their nemesis Texas and the much talked about Texas Tech. 7. Florida- Ok, Tebow. Whatever. 8. West Virginia- Or Virgina if your a Pitt fan... but I digress... I don't think they are as good as last year, but an easy conference should help them out. Let's see how they fare against ECU. 9. Auburn- New offensive style. I wonder how they'll fare in the thick of things. 10. Fresno State- Just because they have balls. Massive balls. They actually have a tough out of conference schedule. Wisconsin, (at) UCLA, (at) Toledo, none of those are cakewalks (OK, maybe Toledo... ). Not to mention I'm pretty sure their toughest conference games are on the road. If they run the table, they are going to be VERY highly ranked. 11. Texas Tech- 17 points in quarter to Eastern Washington has me worried, but their offense should be well oiled with Harrell. 12. Wisconsin- At Fresno next week. If they win they jump in my rankings, easily. 13. California- Winning a tough out of conference game early has its rewards, no? 14. UCLA- Just a little bit ahead of California. Great game on Thursday, Craft showed some really big guts hanging in there with 4 picks in the first half and leading some of those drives late in the game in real impressive style. 15. Texas- Not really all that high on these guys. 16. Penn State- Actually dependable QB play from a Jay Paterno coached QB? NOWAI! Let's see if that continues against Oregon State. 17. Alabama- I'm still not that impressed with Clemson. However, holding them to 0 yards rushing will work. 18. Utah- The second best non-BCS team in my book. BYU is going to be a test for them, but if they get by it they might be able to crash the party. I just wish they had a slightly more difficult out-of-conference schedule (look at Fresno!), but they did win their "tough" game against Michigan. 19. Arizona State- I swear, it feels like Carpenter has been the QB of this team since I was born. A test next week against Stanford and a big test coming soon against Georgia. 20. BYU- A good team with a terrible schedule. 21. Oregon- Didn't look great, but whatever. 22. South Florida- Cupcake conference plus cupcake schedule yields cupcake ranking. 23. Eastern Carolina- Good luck against WVU. PROVE THAT C-USA ISN'T COMPLETE CRAP! 24. Wake Forest- Ok, Wake gets a near tie for difficulty with USC. Actually, Baylor may be worse. But whatever, Wake Forest might actually be capable of doing something. 25. Georgia Tech- We're undefeated, yo ^_^!
Edit: If you have an argument for moving someone, tell me why. If your points are good enough then I will move things around. And any Florida fan who thinks I should move them up... Hawaii is pure garbage. As in, the garbage of garbage.
Ohio State once again has such a cupcake schedule. Even if they lose to the one legit good team they play (USC) they'll still get a good bowl.
Fresno has a tough schedule, but let's not get ahead of ourselves, Rutgers isn't the Rutgers of two years ago. No Rice, a very mediocre Teel (the guy, since HS, has only been good with a lot of surrounding talent)
On September 03 2008 03:23 Hawk wrote: Ohio State once again has such a cupcake schedule. Even if they lose to the one legit good team they play (USC) they'll still get a good bowl.
Fresno has a tough schedule, but let's not get ahead of ourselves, Rutgers isn't the Rutgers of two years ago. No Rice, a very mediocre Teel (the guy, since HS, has only been good with a lot of surrounding talent)
Yeah, but Rutgers isn't Georgia Southern or Youngstown State either. So I'll give Fresno some credit on the scheduling. We'll have to see how the second week shakes out. I'm already ready for it to come, especially with that great game from last night. Hopefully the ACC can rebound and show that it has something besides utter disappointments and we get to see some tougher games out of more teams.
19. Florida State- Just because I feel bad for the ACC. FSU may very well be the best team in this (terrible looking after week one) conference. 21. Florida- Oh, whoops. Forgot about these guys until now. Whatever, they are probably more deserving of this ranking than anything higher. 23. Alabama- Whatever, you have the most annoying fan base in the world. Blow me.
Edit: If you have an argument for moving someone, tell me why. If your points are good enough then I will move things around. And any Florida fan who thinks I should move them up... Hawaii is pure garbage. As in, the garbage of garbage.
I disagree here. After seeing the 4th or 5th best team in the SEC dismantle the best the ACC has to offer, I don't feel any ACC team deserves a spot in the top 25. I believe Alabama deserves quite a few notches up to around 15. While most teams week one played cupcake opponents, Alabama went out and CRUSHED Clemson on National TV.
And Florida deserves at least 15 spots higher. Their offense is ridiculous.
On September 03 2008 04:50 Roffles wrote: And Florida deserves at least 15 spots higher. Their offense is ridiculous.
Definitely. Sure Hawaii is garbage, but so are Northern Arizona, Coastal Carolina, Chattanooga, Villanova, etc... in fact those teams are all worse than Hawaii. UF is probably a top 5 team; definitely belong in the top 10.
The only teams who beat anybody decent are Missouri, UCLA, Alabama, and maybe Utah.
On September 03 2008 05:05 Hawk wrote: I think Missouri is gonna surprise a lot of people.
I'm torn on this this. They might, but they shouldn't. Bias plays against them is pretty strongly, because ESPN is busy hyping up Georgia and Florida constantly (how exactly is Florida still ahead of them in the rankings? They closed the year out by losing to Michigan who wasn't even ranked when they were #9, and they played a cream puff team week 1).
The Missouri fan in me says they might lose to Texas, but then again any of the other times might lose to any number of opponents. Missouri beat a pretty tough team in week 1 before they had the chance to iron out any issues. They were in control 90% of the game, they would have won by 17 save for a last minute drive that scored with no time left. Yeah, their defense could have been better, but they actually took a chance and played a tough team week 1 on neutral ground. They didn't even get bumped up one rank.
Oh well, I suppose from here on out it's easy cruising for the Tigers until Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and Texas.I guess Missouri learned the lesson of "play easy teams, you don't get rewarded if play hard ones" from last year.
On September 03 2008 05:33 zer0das wrote: I'm torn on this this. They might, but they shouldn't. Bias plays against them is pretty strongly, because ESPN is busy hyping up Georgia and Florida constantly (how exactly is Florida still ahead of them in the rankings? They closed the year out by losing to Michigan who wasn't even ranked when they were #9, and they played a cream puff team week 1).
That bias is really going to hurt them if they lose the Big 12. I could see them going 11-2 again but getting left out in favor of Illinois for an at-large... the selection committee will probably say 10 points was "close enough" :/
Oh well, I suppose from here on out it's easy cruising for the Tigers until Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and Texas.I guess Missouri learned the lesson of "play easy teams, you don't get rewarded if play hard ones" from last year.
Missouri has no control over their Big 12 schedule. It's pure chance that they wouldn't face Oklahoma or Tech until the conference championship game. Last season, the nonconference schedule was Illinois + 3 creampuffs as well. Too bad... I'd like to see them play somebody like an Arizona State or Wisconsin for a second nonconference challenge.
Ok, the hasu25 has been updated. I decided that FSU wasn't really deserving of a spot. However, we can't truly deny Wake. While they weren't playing a OMG game, they did beat a BCS school. Florida moved up since I decided that I shouldn't be lazy and should actually move them up (I actually forgot about them originally, lol). And Bama moved up some.
Oh man... ESPN sure says some dumb things. One writer put Florida on top of the SEC rankings with the following justification: "Georgia got a bunch of mileage out of drubbing Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl last season, so Florida deserves some, right?"
We overhyped Georgia for beating Hawaii last year, and now we'll make up for it with overhyping Florida even more! Good call chief.
On September 04 2008 04:22 nemY wrote: Toledo is a cakewalk.
Cal has a tougher non conf. schedule (and conference in general) yet you rank them 5 ranks behind Fresno State? Don't tell me it's because FS > CAL
Hmm, I would like to see Fresno State against Cal, would be a good game. The only real beef I have with Cal is the close win against Michigan State. They gave up over 400 yards (but gave up only 82 on the ground to a running team with Ringer :O ). I'm still not quite 100% sure how strong this Cal team is. If they perform against Washington State and Michigan State looks more promising than I belief they are at this point in time, I'll definitely move them up. As of right now, they'll go on my radar (your post put them there as I kind of forgot about them).
As for the scheduling issue, it's kind of close. Cal got past their easiest out-of-conference foe in Michigan St. Maryland is a team which struggled with a Delaware team that lost Joe Flacco. Colorado State, I must admit, I know very little about. However, I know they aren't the strongest team. I will give you Toledo being a cakewalk (for Fresno) .
It should be interesting to see how teams perform in this next week. This will be a great chance for teams to earn respect, especially if people that they played in week one perform (unfortunately, we don't get to see how truly great Michigan St. is this week as they host Eastern Michigan).
As for Cal's conference, with the exception of USC, all of their tough conference games are at home. We'll see how they fare in the next few games.
On September 03 2008 00:13 hasuprotoss wrote: 2. Southern Cal- Well, at least they beat a BCS team. Granted, it might easily be the worst BCS team in the country, but whatever. Will not be surprised if they drop one or two in Pac10 play.
"might easily be the worst BCS team in the country"?? UCLA, with a third string quarterback, a first year coach and an untested line was undoubtedly "worse" than Virginia - until Saturday, when a Trojan wrecking ball murdered them, in house.
USC imposed their will on Virginia and MADE them look bad. Don't get it twisted.
On September 03 2008 00:13 hasuprotoss wrote: 2. Southern Cal- Well, at least they beat a BCS team. Granted, it might easily be the worst BCS team in the country, but whatever. Will not be surprised if they drop one or two in Pac10 play.
"might easily be the worst BCS team in the country"?? UCLA, with a third string quarterback, a first year coach and an untested line was undoubtedly "worse" than Virginia - until Saturday, when a Trojan wrecking ball murdered them, in house.
USC imposed their will on Virginia and MADE them look bad. Don't get it twisted.
You really underestimate the suckiness of Virginia. 2 returning starters on the O-line and their entire D-line left with one of those D-linemen going in the first round of the NFL draft. You just don't replace that kind of stuff over night unless you are basically USC. And trust me, I definitely had UCLA over Virginia before last week.
Edit: I'm willing to rise them up if Georgia looks stale against whoever they're playing (it's not anybody terribly good yet). Ohio State is running a big risk running Beanie this week.
Yea MSU did not perform as well as many people thought they might. The D gave up WAY to much rushing yards while the O-Line did not adjust well and give Ringer much room to run. Hoyer also still hasnt shown he can do well in pressure situations (MSU had chances late to tie but Hoyer threw some bad passes). Overall I was ok with their performance and the one thing that bothered me was the penelties at the worst times (the offensive pass int call that killed a TD for one). It was a close game, while Cal fans can say it wouldn't have been without the 2 Ints thrown by their one QB MSU had 2 TDs called back (the pass int was a call that imo could have gone both ways) and the no catch TD (didnt see this one real well but some people said it was a catch and others were not really sure so ill just say it wasn't a catch). I was disapointed with the run game but all in all Cal is supposed to have some sterling linebackers and we just weren't prepared for their defense packages and their shifting of them. We should blow out Eastern this week and probably Florida Atlantic as well.
On September 03 2008 00:13 hasuprotoss wrote: The hasu25: The power ranking's as hasuprotoss sees it Week 1.
Well, let's see how I rank the teams compared to those evil sports writers and coaches who are completely incapable of watching every single game:
1. Georgia- To hell with 'em. Unfortunately the most talented team in the nation, they won't stay here long. 2. Southern Cal- Well, at least they beat a BCS team. Granted, it might easily be the worst BCS team in the country, but whatever. Will not be surprised if they drop one or two in Pac10 play. 3. Ohio State- If Beanie's out, they are probably not that great. And Pryor really didn't look that impressive. He made the wrong read but blew by the FCS DE. Don't expect that to work in the Big 10. 4. Missouri- If they actually played a sucky team like that, they probably wouldn't be here. I hope their defense improves, or they won't stick around for long... 5. LSU- Couldn't find really anybody else to stick here. They did look good against Appalachian State though. 6. Oklahoma- Bradford is a beast, let's see if they can survive their nemesis Texas and the much talked about Texas Tech. 7. Florida- Ok, Tebow. Whatever. 8. West Virginia- Or Virgina if your a Pitt fan... but I digress... I don't think they are as good as last year, but an easy conference should help them out. Let's see how they fare against ECU. 9. Auburn- New offensive style. I wonder how they'll fare in the thick of things. 10. Fresno State- Just because they have balls. Massive balls. They actually have a tough out of conference schedule. Wisconsin, (at) UCLA, (at) Toledo, none of those are cakewalks. Not to mention I'm pretty sure their toughest conference games are on the road. If they run the table, they are going to be VERY highly ranked. 11. Texas Tech- 17 points in quarter to Eastern Washington has me worried, but their offense should be well oiled with Harrell. 12. Wisconsin- At Fresno next week. If they win they jump in my rankings, easily. 13. California- Winning a tough out of conference game early has its rewards, no? 14. UCLA- Just a little bit ahead of California. Great game on Thursday, Craft showed some really big guts hanging in there with 4 picks in the first half and leading some of those drives late in the game in real impressive style. 15. Texas- Not really all that high on these guys. 16. Penn State- Actually dependable QB play from a Jay Paterno coached QB? NOWAI! Let's see if that continues against Oregon State. 17. Alabama- I'm still not that impressed with Clemson. However, holding them to 0 yards rushing will work. 18. Utah- The second best non-BCS team in my book. BYU is going to be a test for them, but if they get by it they might be able to crash the party. I just wish they had a slightly more difficult out-of-conference schedule (look at Fresno!), but they did win their "tough" game against Michigan. 19. Arizona State- I swear, it feels like Carpenter has been the QB of this team since I was born. A test next week against Stanford and a big test coming soon against Georgia. 20. BYU- A good team with a terrible schedule. 21. Oregon- Didn't look great, but whatever. 22. South Florida- Cupcake conference plus cupcake schedule yields cupcake ranking. 23. Eastern Carolina- Good luck against WVU. PROVE THAT C-USA ISN'T COMPLETE CRAP! 24. Wake Forest- Ok, Wake gets a near tie for difficulty with USC. Actually, Baylor may be worse. But whatever, Wake Forest might actually be capable of doing something. 25. Georgia Tech- We're undefeated, yo ^_^!
Edit: If you have an argument for moving someone, tell me why. If your points are good enough then I will move things around. And any Florida fan who thinks I should move them up... Hawaii is pure garbage. As in, the garbage of garbage.
Haha why does everyone hate Florida so much?? There a good team and they recruit strong every year. Yes Hawaii wasn't much, but good teams are supposed to blow away crappy teams, it's just what they do. And as far as Mizzou go, they shouldn't be ranked higher than LSU or Oklahoma, there offense is still beastly but there D fence is a joke, they allowed 42 points against Illinois who should be a worse team than they were last year (we miss you Rashard Mendenhall).
On September 04 2008 11:22 Kingkosi wrote:Haha why does everyone hate Florida so much?? There a good team and they recruit strong every year. Yes Hawaii wasn't much, but good teams are supposed to blow away crappy teams, it's just what they do. And as far as Mizzou go, they shouldn't be ranked higher than LSU or Oklahoma, there offense is still beastly but there D fence is a joke, they allowed 42 points against Illinois who should be a worse team than they were last year (we miss you Rashard Mendenhall).
ESPN loves Tebow way too much for their own good, and Florida too. I guess you could extend that to the SEC. They even signed a deal for 2.25 billion dollars 15 year deal with the SEC.
But really, the end of last year was pretty disgusting. Florida wasn't that good and ESPN was pretty much TSPN (Tebow all the time!). Then they lost to Michigan. ESPN responded by hyping up Georgia since they beat Hawaii. I mean come on, LSU is in the SEC and they kind of won the BCS championship. They seem to be pulling the same garbage this year too.
During the Missouri-Illinois game one commentator said something like "Missouri pretty much has to go undefeated for Chase Daniel to have a shot at the Heisman." First thing that came to mind was "Kind of like Tebow, eh?"
On September 04 2008 11:22 Kingkosi wrote:Haha why does everyone hate Florida so much?? There a good team and they recruit strong every year. Yes Hawaii wasn't much, but good teams are supposed to blow away crappy teams, it's just what they do. And as far as Mizzou go, they shouldn't be ranked higher than LSU or Oklahoma, there offense is still beastly but there D fence is a joke, they allowed 42 points against Illinois who should be a worse team than they were last year (we miss you Rashard Mendenhall).
ESPN loves Tebow way too much for their own good, and Florida too. I guess you could extend that to the SEC. They even signed a deal for 2.25 billion dollars 15 year deal with the SEC.
But really, the end of last year was pretty disgusting. Florida wasn't that good and ESPN was pretty much TSPN (Tebow all the time!). Then they lost to Michigan. ESPN responded by hyping up Georgia since they beat Hawaii. I mean come on, LSU is in the SEC and they kind of won the BCS championship. They seem to be pulling the same garbage this year too.
During the Missouri-Illinois game one commentator said something like "Missouri pretty much has to go undefeated for Chase Daniel to have a shot at the Heisman." First thing that came to mind was "Kind of like Tebow, eh?"
That's my biased Big-12 take. ;d
I disagree. ESPN = FSPN. All day Brett Favre. Favre here, Favre there. Anyways I digress.
Tebow is not overrated. When's the last time you saw such a dynamic player at QB? Running the ball, passing the ball? Probably Vince Young. If you can throw and pass, you're gonna create many matchup problems, and you'll get praise from all media.
Anyways, the level of play in the SEC is ridiculous. You've got 4 top 10 teams (Florida, LSU, Georgia, Auburn) and 2 more in the top 25 (Alabama, South Carolina). The depth of the league is really astonishing. Any given day, a team could go down, as there aren't gonna be many cakewalks. To see how Bama completely annihilated the best the ACC could offer is simply amazing. When you get like the 3rd or 4th best team in the SEC WEST not just beating, but DESTROYING the best of the ACC, you know you have a really good team.
Plus, the SEC recruits really well. Alabama, LSU, Florida pulled in great recruiting classes.
McKinley over the defender, makes it look so easy.
And my high school coach got interviewed about two of the football players from my high school. I'm surprised they could form coherent words from his mouth, since if you ever listen to Coach Nix at a pep rally all you hear is: "RWORFODROEWOSDOF GO EAGLES FODOFDOFO NORTHSIDE FOSDFLDLF FOOBALL!" And random cheering from the crowd
On September 07 2008 03:22 berated- wrote: As long as both teams combine to score 47 points or more i don't really care, but it would be fun to watch OSU lose
Yes it would but it looks like Ohio is choking just a bit (fumbled ball on punt return).
Georgia Tech's offense looked like ass, but we still got the win :D. OSU looked terrible. 4:30 games should be better, but we don't have the greatest schedule (in terms of viewing) this week. No matches between top-25 teams
I don't even like the PAC 10 but holy shit am I pissed.... anyone else see the end of the washington byu game?
Washington scores and the officials flag him with a bullshit excessive celebration, which pushes the PAT back and gets it blocked. That game was going to go into overtime but not now. The whole new excessive celebration is total bullshit
On September 07 2008 07:21 berated- wrote: I don't even like the PAC 10 but holy shit am I pissed.... anyone else see the end of the washington byu game?
Washington scores and the officials flag him with a bullshit excessive celebration, which pushes the PAT back and gets it blocked. That game was going to go into overtime but not now. The whole new excessive celebration is total bullshit
On September 07 2008 07:21 berated- wrote: I don't even like the PAC 10 but holy shit am I pissed.... anyone else see the end of the washington byu game?
Washington scores and the officials flag him with a bullshit excessive celebration, which pushes the PAT back and gets it blocked. That game was going to go into overtime but not now. The whole new excessive celebration is total bullshit
wtf
He threw the ball over his shoulder and then celebrated with his team, which isn't a penalty - and they still flagged him.
Edit: Even still he scored the touchdown with 2 seconds left to tie the game to send it into overtime, how can you not be happy???
Wow, that is the stupidest call ever. Which conference officials were officiating it?
Anyways, ECU is running all over WVU. Wow, is all I can say about that. I wouldn't expect them to continue looking as dominant as they did against Va Tech. Of course, now they look even more dominant against WVU.
Penn State's QB play looks to be for real. They look to be really strong this year. I can't wait to see them against Ohio State, that should be one hell of a game.
Georgia looked more impressive against Central Michigan than they did against Georgia Southern. They actually showed their talent, and that Moreno hurdle was damn impressive .
Notre Dame struggles against a team that lost to a FCS team. Man, I don't know if all this preseason, 9-win hype is going to come true if they struggle against SDSU.
Wake Forest sneaks out a win, I don't think they are all that pleased with it though. The ACC still doesn't look OMG-worthy.
Wow, Washington got fucked over on that ridiculous bullshit call. So what if he threw the ball in the air? You gotta let him have some fucking celebration. It's the last 10 seconds for christ sake.
ESPN's headline to the video recap of the Florida-Miami game was "Florida wins easily." If it was so easy for Florida why did it take a half and change in order for it to enter "ez mode?"
Pitt=lol and Cal=Holy shit. What a blowout of a conference foe. :D
Kansas lost to South Florida. I feel slightly vindicated for last year when they got their stupid BCS bowl. The wonderful thing was Kansas was ahead all game, except near the tail end. Then they were tied and Kansas had the ball and Reesing throws an interception and South Florida wins on a long field goal. xD
Can't believe its already 14-0 ND... lol. MSU had an ugly win today vs Florida Atlantic with horrible weather and 100000 mis snaps and fumbles, however Ringer ran fro 284 yards and 2 TDs and had a 50 yard TD catch taken away by a iffy penelty that wouldn't have affected the play.
Jim: So what's the word on the sideline Alex? Alex: Well Jim, Coach Weiss' penis is a bit limp at the moment, but it's slowly getting more erect as I rub vasaline on it. I just got done licking his asshole clean and I can tell you for sure that it was taco night at the Weiss household last night. Also as I told you earlier, I got impregnated down here last week but I'm still not sure which coordinator is the father. Back to you, Jim.
That's what NBC's commentary is like for anyone not watching
FUCK. 3 damn turnovers killed Tech. Two iffy calls (especially that fucking helmet to helmet... GAH) helped out Va Tech as well.
Damnit, we outgained them by 140 yards. 3 turnovers though T_T
If they hadn't shown Charlie Weis getting injured and Penn State hadn't have won, I think today would've been awful. Fuck, it's still awful, but not as awful (but Charlie Weis is sooooo rofl right now).
ya rly i was talkin about this with my friends, and the score was 52-0 at the time with like 4 minutes to go. Then we were like "man, i wonder if ucla can at least make it 52-3" then we checked again and iit was 59-0
On September 14 2008 09:18 Jibba wrote: I have a feeling USC is about to get cockslapped. As much as I hate OSU, I wouldn't talk about them like the Trojans are doing.
OSU is so damn overrated. It's hilarious. Wells would have made the game a little closer though I suppose.
On September 14 2008 09:18 Jibba wrote: I have a feeling USC is about to get cockslapped. As much as I hate OSU, I wouldn't talk about them like the Trojans are doing.
I'm quoting this so you see what a huge idiot you are.
Did anyone really think they had a chance? Hell, in my eyes they lost to Ohio. Their offense certainly didn't beat Ohio. OSU has always been a joke of a team. The media is so biased towards that program and Notre Dame it is unreal.
And did anyone else see that miss. st vs rutgers game? it was so fun(ny) to watch, especially the fourth quarter, like 5 minutes left, score is 3-2 (will stay that way, rutgers winning), and rutgers gets a turnover. miss. st i think goes for a long drive and it gets intercepted, which was a pretty cool interceptioin, dude caught it right before he went out of bounds. there were also alot of turnovers for both teams in the closing minutes
On September 14 2008 14:17 il0seonpurpose wrote: OSU was horrible, wow.
And did anyone else see that miss. st vs rutgers game? it was so fun(ny) to watch, especially the fourth quarter, like 5 minutes left, score is 3-2 (will stay that way, rutgers winning), and rutgers gets a turnover. miss. st i think goes for a long drive and it gets intercepted, which was a pretty cool interceptioin, dude caught it right before he went out of bounds. there were also alot of turnovers for both teams in the closing minutes
Sadly, it was Miss State vs #9 ranked Auburn. That was such a funny/pathetic game of football. No offense whatsoever.
On September 14 2008 09:18 Jibba wrote: I have a feeling USC is about to get cockslapped. As much as I hate OSU, I wouldn't talk about them like the Trojans are doing.
OSU is so damn overrated. It's hilarious. Wells would have made the game a little closer though I suppose.
If by a little bit closer you mean 35-10, then maybe. OSU has been outmatched by top teams for the past three or four years. It's about time they played a real team early on; hopefully we won't have to watch them get their heads bashed in in the BCS Championship again.
ROFL at Jibba, too. OSU talked shit too, and the guy that did got lit up every time he touched the ball. (I don't recall who it was, but he said OSU teaches them to be better people, USC is all about football, which, on the field, is all that matters.)
On September 14 2008 09:18 Jibba wrote: I have a feeling USC is about to get cockslapped. As much as I hate OSU, I wouldn't talk about them like the Trojans are doing.
OSU is so damn overrated. It's hilarious. Wells would have made the game a little closer though I suppose.
If by a little bit closer you mean 35-10, then maybe. OSU has been outmatched by top teams for the past three or four years. It's about time they played a real team early on; hopefully we won't have to watch them get their heads bashed in in the BCS Championship again.
ROFL at Jibba, too. OSU talked shit too, and the guy that did got lit up every time he touched the ball. (I don't recall who it was, but he said OSU teaches them to be better people, USC is all about football, which, on the field, is all that matters.)
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.
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 :-/
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.
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.
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.
Why 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:
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:
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?
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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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."
On September 20 2008 13:45 hasuprotoss wrote: Just to show how stats don't tell the whole story:
Apparently UConn and Baylor combined for... ZERO first downs.
It was that or the guys at ESPN didn't enter in the numbers correctly...
Uh... they had 45 according to ESPN. I think you might be looking at the wrong thing...
No, like right after the game it had neither team having a first down. They probably fixed it by the time you saw it .
Anyways, Auburn is #10? How? They beat Mississippi St 3-2... Tech outscored that game in 5 minutes 5 seconds. Whatever. Come on UNC. Stop imploding. Beat Va Tech. You can do it, I swear!
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.
Why 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:
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:
Michigan owns the SEC, but we've still be pretty bad in years past. Especially out West.
That type of statistical analysis is incredibly flawed, especially in college football where emotions dictate so much of the game. In the USA basketball thread, we spent a good amount of time arguing that anything besides a bo3/bo5 is useless, and the same standard should be held for football. Obviously it won't happen, but to say X team is better than Y team due to OOC strength or opponent strength is the same shit we curse the BCS computers for doing.
Yeah, I know Jibba. But I guess this "every game means everything" mentality is what makes college football so great. The only problem is how harshly it punishes teams for losing late rather than losing early. But that's another quirk that I guess adds to the excitement as the season goes on.
Anyways, Ringer owned Notre Dame. Stupid Lou Holtz, Notre Dame will be lucky to go to a bowl game this year...
ACC regaining some respect. Ga Tech>Mississippi State and The U>Texas A&M in College Station should help bolster it somewhat.
On September 21 2008 11:26 BroOd wrote: Holy shit this guy Scott is phenomenal. It seems like he gets 10 years every other carry.
He's averaging 11yds a carry before today, I believe. He probably kept that around 10 yds. He's VERY important for our offense, because we're starting two freshmen QBs who don't have very strong arms so we can't really threaten over the top with our NFL wideouts.
Scott is slower than Addai, but has better vision at his age and is much stronger.
But yeah, we have Auburn(10 - win), Miss St., Florida(4), South Carolina, Georgia(3), Tulane, Alabama(9) as our upcoming games. People ask why we try not to schedule top 10 out of conference?
You just dont know oregon state. We are the best team in the country but we start every season losing the first 2 games. Could be a HS team and we'd get blanked. After that we become the most disguistingly good team around.
WOW talk about having usc's number OSU straight up beat the crap out of them in every aspect... on a side note Mark Sanchez sucks and doesnt deserve to be drafted.
This is Texas Tech's year BABY!!! Improved defense, a running game with Shannon Woods, Graham Harrell and the Best Wideout in college football (Crabtree), oklahoma and Missouri are gonna get crushed.
crabtree is the adrian peterson of WRs i will trade my whole draft for him in 2years in my keeper league lol i think this year it needs to be SEC vs Big 12 i would love to see a OU vs UF/LSU/GA title game
I saw a pretty good theory on why USC sucks it up randomly:
Pete Carroll is a great recruiter, but not a great football coach. By that, the theorists mean that Carroll can get massive amounts of talent, but he can't keep that talent's mind in the right place. If you watched the O(regon)SU-USC game, you would see 11 defenders all trying to make the play instead of 1 defense trying to make the play. Of course, the reason they beat O(hio)SU, is due to the fact that O(hio)SU is much the same way, a lot of talent and no true motivation to be a team player.
Anybody else agree Penn State is underrated in the rankings?
On September 27 2008 23:55 hasuprotoss wrote: I saw a pretty good theory on why USC sucks it up randomly:
Pete Carroll is a great recruiter, but not a great football coach. By that, the theorists mean that Carroll can get massive amounts of talent, but he can't keep that talent's mind in the right place. If you watched the O(regon)SU-USC game, you would see 11 defenders all trying to make the play instead of 1 defense trying to make the play. Of course, the reason they beat O(hio)SU, is due to the fact that O(hio)SU is much the same way, a lot of talent and no true motivation to be a team player.
Anybody else agree Penn State is underrated in the rankings?
I dont agree with that,
Carroll is a great coach, he does have arrogant guys on his team though but when they play good teams they always do well.
They looked shocked that Oregon State came out and was smashing them in the face from the beginning, normally they are the ones who like to be the bully.
Upsets happen, theyve always happened, the Pac 10 guys arent in awe of USC like out of conference teams are because theyve gotten used to seeing them the past 5-6 years.
On September 27 2008 23:55 hasuprotoss wrote: I saw a pretty good theory on why USC sucks it up randomly:
Pete Carroll is a great recruiter, but not a great football coach. By that, the theorists mean that Carroll can get massive amounts of talent, but he can't keep that talent's mind in the right place. If you watched the O(regon)SU-USC game, you would see 11 defenders all trying to make the play instead of 1 defense trying to make the play. Of course, the reason they beat O(hio)SU, is due to the fact that O(hio)SU is much the same way, a lot of talent and no true motivation to be a team player.
Anybody else agree Penn State is underrated in the rankings?
I dont agree with that,
Carroll is a great coach, he does have arrogant guys on his team though but when they play good teams they always do well.
They looked shocked that Oregon State came out and was smashing them in the face from the beginning, normally they are the ones who like to be the bully.
Upsets happen, theyve always happened, the Pac 10 guys arent in awe of USC like out of conference teams are because theyve gotten used to seeing them the past 5-6 years.
The last sentence nails it. It's a lot easier to play a team that you see once a year rather than the powerhouse that rolls into town, that you've only seen on tape.
I just can't even stand watching Michigan football anymore. I have always hated the spread offence and watching UofM just run it like they're a highschool team makes me want to put my face through a wall. 44% of all their plays from the line are either zero or negitive yards how god awful is that? Pretty goddamn awful. I have to watch MSU now this year because they play the way I like to see it.
On September 28 2008 05:35 tonight wrote: I just can't even stand watching Michigan football anymore. I have always hated the spread offence and watching UofM just run it like they're a highschool team makes me want to put my face through a wall. 44% of all their plays from the line are either zero or negitive yards how god awful is that? Pretty goddamn awful. I have to watch MSU now this year because they play the way I like to see it.
Smashmouth.
psh
This year is going to make the next few years all the much better. This is the first time U of M has been "bad" since ive been watching them. Its actually nice to watch all the games since you dont know whats going to happen. I cant wait until Rich Rod gets a running QB in there, its going to be awesome.
On September 28 2008 05:35 tonight wrote: I just can't even stand watching Michigan football anymore. I have always hated the spread offence and watching UofM just run it like they're a highschool team makes me want to put my face through a wall. 44% of all their plays from the line are either zero or negitive yards how god awful is that? Pretty goddamn awful. I have to watch MSU now this year because they play the way I like to see it.
/notfootball Anyone else surprised by how much stereo music Penn St. is playing at this game? It's almost like a soccer/hockey atmosphere. Michigan and Purdue are almost entirely just the marching bands so I assumed most schools are.
On September 28 2008 05:35 tonight wrote: I just can't even stand watching Michigan football anymore. I have always hated the spread offence and watching UofM just run it like they're a highschool team makes me want to put my face through a wall. 44% of all their plays from the line are either zero or negitive yards how god awful is that? Pretty goddamn awful. I have to watch MSU now this year because they play the way I like to see it.
Smashmouth.
psh
This year is going to make the next few years all the much better. This is the first time U of M has been "bad" since ive been watching them. Its actually nice to watch all the games since you dont know whats going to happen. I cant wait until Rich Rod gets a running QB in there, its going to be awesome.
Bah I knew at #9 wis was way overrated but damn, their O is so bad when you stop Hill....soo many turnovers by the UM offense it wasnt even funny. Funny thing was that this was just like the ND game except ND SCORED when it got good field position from turnovers. Awesome play by UMs D tho. #1 3 and 9 went down this week, time for another reshuffle, maybe MSU can sneak in there.
Man my uncle was soooo pissed the 1st half when UMs O looked like a high school football team saying "their D are playing their hearts out and all they can do is fumble the ball right back to them" (he is a pure big ten fan but always roots for the home state teams IR MSU and UM).
On September 28 2008 05:35 tonight wrote: I just can't even stand watching Michigan football anymore. I have always hated the spread offence and watching UofM just run it like they're a highschool team makes me want to put my face through a wall. 44% of all their plays from the line are either zero or negitive yards how god awful is that? Pretty goddamn awful. I have to watch MSU now this year because they play the way I like to see it.
Smashmouth.
psh
This year is going to make the next few years all the much better. This is the first time U of M has been "bad" since ive been watching them. Its actually nice to watch all the games since you dont know whats going to happen. I cant wait until Rich Rod gets a running QB in there, its going to be awesome.
edit:
btw TeeBow....
wheres your god now?????
wtf did you just relate football to God?
Tebow is an evangelical and like always people/he thank god only when good things happen.
So id just thought id throw that jab in there! =-)
On September 28 2008 10:08 FzeroXx wrote: Oh god, Saban v LSU in Death Valley on November 8th for a national title spot. Oh god. Oh.. god.
Fun as that game will be, games like those render the streets of baton rouge undrivable for a few days. Gotta prepare for em the same way you would for a hurricane
And suddenly I have tons of relatives who all want to see me and stay at my place for the weekend lol
On September 28 2008 11:45 Jibba wrote: /notfootball Anyone else surprised by how much stereo music Penn St. is playing at this game? It's almost like a soccer/hockey atmosphere. Michigan and Purdue are almost entirely just the marching bands so I assumed most schools are.
Yeah people at Black Shoe Diaries were commenting on it.
But boy, does Penn State look good. I think that's the first time in years where their offense outplayed their defense for an entire game. Play calling is actually decent and stuff!
Edit: Two of the Gameday crew voted for GT in the top 25 this week! Is it bad that I still hate that show with a passion .
And also, some dude from Utah ranked Penn State 17th... Is he blind?
On September 28 2008 10:08 FzeroXx wrote: Oh god, Saban v LSU in Death Valley on November 8th for a national title spot. Oh god. Oh.. god.
Fun as that game will be, games like those render the streets of baton rouge undrivable for a few days. Gotta prepare for em the same way you would for a hurricane
And suddenly I have tons of relatives who all want to see me and stay at my place for the weekend lol
On October 03 2008 08:29 iheartgna wrote: Anyway, USF >>> PITT tonight, USF is going to go undefeated you heard it here first. Give us a shot at Florida we're the best team in the state.
Edit: I feel like a USC fan.
Hmm... I wonder if this thought is being considered after a team with one good player was met...
On October 12 2008 03:46 zer0das wrote: These refs are atrocious. Don't touch anyone, it'll be a personal foul!
Yeah that was hilarious when the punter was about to get up, and then got right back down and started holding his leg. But amazing game so far, torn between whether to watch college football or blizzcon =/.
It seems to be that OK throws a lot of short passes and that all of Bradfords padded stats are really the WR doing most of the work. Thats just from this games observations tho. It just seems like he has to make a lot of really difficult throws.
UMs players are too young and hey don't fit into Rods system so its not unusual that they suck ass at offense. Im just happy MSU is 6-1 and has a chance to finish top 3 in the big ten and they are already bowl eligible.
Man... Missouri vs Oklahoma State has been surprisingly close. Daniel looked way off early, but the defense is picking up the slack, and right when it looks really bad he marches the offense 90 plus yards.
The SEC is extremely overrated this year; LSU and Auburn did not deserve their ratings, Georgia is mediocre, Vandy is just bad, and Alabama is still overrated. Florida is the only good team, and even they lost to Ole Miss. The Big 12 is way better.
Personally I find the discussion more interesting than the actual rankings. :d
Yeah these mock rankings are pretty similar to how the actual rankings look, ridiculous. BYU>Utah for sure, we have played some really tough opponents this year and our defense is better than it has ever been. Lord knows we will never get a Championship again because of the BCS.
1. Texas-It's close between the Longhorns, the big ugly elephant thing, and the extinct animals, but the cows are the best in my book after besting Oklahoma. 2. Alabama-With Georgia looking horrid against Tennessee (considering how bad Tennessee is this year), I'll put Texas above them barely. 3. Penn State-These guys may very well be the best team in the nation; however, they have not truly played anybody of massive consequence. Sure they beat Oregon State (who bested USC), but that's their sexiest win, especially with Wisconsin tanking it recently. This week they get their best chance to exercise the demons of the massive Michigan winning streak against them, so I look for Penn State to move up after the Texas-Mizzou game (since I expect Mizzou to take it, but you never know! 4. Oklahoma State- The next best undefeated team, imo. But it's by a pretty darn big margin. Can't wait to see them continue their rough patch of scheduling in the Big 12, maybe they can win it by a big surprise. 5. BYU-With the exception of the Washington game they have generally dominated their competition. The winner between them and Utah are basically guaranteed a BCS spot. 6. Texas Tech-Looked shaky against Nebraska. but they are still undefeated. 7. Utah-Win over Michigan does not look so great anymore, but they did destroy Wyoming. Their schedule just has not been as great as BYU's. 8. Boise State-Still undefeated and they are looking like they could run the table again in the WAC. It's scary looking at the capabilities in the mid-majors. I'm not sure about the rules of two mid-majors getting into the BCS, but if Boise State runs the table, they might just deserve it. 9. Ball State-Probably the least impressive undefeated team, but they are still undefeated. 10. Tulsa-I lied about Ball State, I didn't even know Tulsa was undefeated, DOH! 11. Oklahoma-A pretty well-exposed defense on Saturday, I do think they are the best of the "once-beatens." 12. Missouri-No, I'm not drinking any Big Twelve Kool-aid. I just believe that everybody else who has one loss is inferior to Missouri. 13. Cal-I was going to put Michigan State in this spot and then I realized Cal beat them. Therefore, Cal gets the nod. 14. Michigan State-Only loss is to Cal, and Ringer is a beast. 15. Florida-GROAN. I really hate putting Florida here. I don't think they are that amazing, but they did beat LSU. I think they will beat Georgia, but drop another game along the road to the SEC championship game. 16. Georgia-I was going to put USC in this spot, but their one shared opponent gave USC more of a game. Man, did they look horrid against Tennessee though. 17. USC-Couldn't move the ball on ASU, and they were just flat out destroyed by Oregon State 18. .LSU-I'm calling for the upset this week! Spurrier at home! Look out! 19. TCU-They have only one loss to Oklahoma, but they haven't played anybody else... 20. Ohio State-They aren't staying here long... Since there is a team that wears green that will probably give them a nice spanking on Saturday. 21. Virginia Tech-They should definitely have two losses in conference, but they luckboxed their way into fumbles against Ga Tech and North Carolina, thus they get the nod here. 22. North Carolina-Butch Davis is doing a great job here, they will be an impressive team for the rest of the schedule. 23. South Florida-I hate putting a Big East team in the rankings, but I guess South Florida is the most impressive team out there for this spot. 24. Minnesota-Wow, they have wins! 25. Kansas- When's basketball season again?
Any disagreements should be posted. I might try and do this weekly from here on out...
And look at this idiot... Seriously... USC>Penn St??? Considering how badly Penn State spanked Oregon State and Oregon State spanked USC??? WTF GIMME WHATEVER YOUR SMOKING MAN!!:
On October 14 2008 08:57 hasuprotoss wrote: My mid-season poll:
1. Texas-It's close between the Longhorns, the big ugly elephant thing, and the extinct animals, but the cows are the best in my book after besting Oklahoma. 2. Alabama-With Georgia looking horrid against Tennessee (considering how bad Tennessee is this year), I'll put Texas above them barely. 3. Penn State-These guys may very well be the best team in the nation; however, they have not truly played anybody of massive consequence. Sure they beat Oregon State (who bested USC), but that's their sexiest win, especially with Wisconsin tanking it recently. This week they get their best chance to exercise the demons of the massive Michigan winning streak against them, so I look for Penn State to move up after the Texas-Mizzou game (since I expect Mizzou to take it, but you never know! 4. Oklahoma State- The next best undefeated team, imo. But it's by a pretty darn big margin. Can't wait to see them continue their rough patch of scheduling in the Big 12, maybe they can win it by a big surprise. 5. BYU-With the exception of the Washington game they have generally dominated their competition. The winner between them and Utah are basically guaranteed a BCS spot. 6. Texas Tech-Looked shaky against Nebraska. but they are still undefeated. 7. Utah-Win over Michigan does not look so great anymore, but they did destroy Wyoming. Their schedule just has not been as great as BYU's. 8. Boise State-Still undefeated and they are looking like they could run the table again in the WAC. It's scary looking at the capabilities in the mid-majors. I'm not sure about the rules of two mid-majors getting into the BCS, but if Boise State runs the table, they might just deserve it. 9. Ball State-Probably the least impressive undefeated team, but they are still undefeated. 10. Toledo-I lied about Ball State, I didn't even know Toledo was undefeated, DOH! 11. Oklahoma-A pretty well-exposed defense on Saturday, I do think they are the best of the "once-beatens." 12. Missouri-No, I'm not drinking any Big Twelve Kool-aid. I just believe that everybody else who has one loss is inferior to Missouri. 13. Cal-I was going to put Michigan State in this spot and then I realized Cal beat them. Therefore, Cal gets the nod. 14. Michigan State-Only loss is to Cal, and Ringer is a beast. 15. Florida-GROAN. I really hate putting Florida here. I don't think they are that amazing, but they did beat LSU. I think they will beat Georgia, but drop another game along the road to the SEC championship game. 16. Georgia-I was going to put USC in this spot, but their one shared opponent gave USC more of a game. Man, did they look horrid against Tennessee though. 17. USC-Couldn't move the ball on ASU, and they were just flat out destroyed by Oregon State 18. .LSU-I'm calling for the upset this week! Spurrier at home! Look out! 19. TCU-They have only one loss to Oklahoma, but they haven't played anybody else... 20. Ohio State-They aren't staying here long... Since there is a team that wears green that will probably give them a nice spanking on Saturday. 21. Virginia Tech-They should definitely have two losses in conference, but they luckboxed their way into fumbles against Ga Tech and North Carolina, thus they get the nod here. 22. North Carolina-Butch Davis is doing a great job here, they will be an impressive team for the rest of the schedule. 23. South Florida-I hate putting a Big East team in the rankings, but I guess South Florida is the most impressive team out there for this spot. 24. Minnesota-Wow, they have wins! 25. Kansas- When's basketball season again?
Any disagreements should be posted. I might try and do this weekly from here on out...
And look at this idiot... Seriously... USC>Penn St??? Considering how badly Penn State spanked Oregon State and Oregon State spanked USC??? WTF GIMME WHATEVER YOUR SMOKING MAN!!:
wtf? Toledo is 2-4 and is a terrible, terrible, team. I disagree with alot of your rankings (USC is far better than Cal), but Toledo at #10? Once again, WTF?
And I'd find myself hard pressed to convince myself that Ball State is better than USC, Florida, and Georgia.
Yet they haven't lost a game. And Cal, with the exception of having to play a Maryland team that roller coasters (at a time when they would not normally be awake anyway) has smashed the competition. Plus they have looked a lot better then USC. Also, USC, Florida, and Georgia has lost a game, Ball State and Tulsa have not.
Edit: And if Tulsa/Ball State don't lose, they will probably be jumped as the conference schedules get further under way.
I think the timing of losses is overrated. If OU had played Texas in week 2, they would have lost earlier. No sense rewarding/penalizing teams for the order in which they play their games. Lots of times, teams who finish the season "on a hot streak" really just had an easier second half of their schedule and a tougher first half.
Overall, I think OU has played better/more consistent football than the other one-loss teams. They lost a very close game to the #1 team in the country on a neutral field. In their other games, they've won easily. On the other hand, USC lost a game to an unranked team. Ohio State got blown out and their offense has looked pretty bad even in wins. Missouri lost at home to a team who's #8.
OU doesn't necessarily "deserve" to be ranked above USC or Florida, but neither of those teams "deserve" to be ranked above Oklahoma either. It's too early to tell.
On October 14 2008 08:57 hasuprotoss wrote: My mid-season poll:
1. Texas-It's close between the Longhorns, the big ugly elephant thing, and the extinct animals, but the cows are the best in my book after besting Oklahoma. 2. Alabama-With Georgia looking horrid against Tennessee (considering how bad Tennessee is this year), I'll put Texas above them barely. 3. Penn State-These guys may very well be the best team in the nation; however, they have not truly played anybody of massive consequence. Sure they beat Oregon State (who bested USC), but that's their sexiest win, especially with Wisconsin tanking it recently. This week they get their best chance to exercise the demons of the massive Michigan winning streak against them, so I look for Penn State to move up after the Texas-Mizzou game (since I expect Mizzou to take it, but you never know! 4. Oklahoma State- The next best undefeated team, imo. But it's by a pretty darn big margin. Can't wait to see them continue their rough patch of scheduling in the Big 12, maybe they can win it by a big surprise. 5. BYU-With the exception of the Washington game they have generally dominated their competition. The winner between them and Utah are basically guaranteed a BCS spot. 6. Texas Tech-Looked shaky against Nebraska. but they are still undefeated. 7. Utah-Win over Michigan does not look so great anymore, but they did destroy Wyoming. Their schedule just has not been as great as BYU's. 8. Boise State-Still undefeated and they are looking like they could run the table again in the WAC. It's scary looking at the capabilities in the mid-majors. I'm not sure about the rules of two mid-majors getting into the BCS, but if Boise State runs the table, they might just deserve it. 9. Ball State-Probably the least impressive undefeated team, but they are still undefeated. 10. Tulsa-I lied about Ball State, I didn't even know Tulsa was undefeated, DOH! 11. Oklahoma-A pretty well-exposed defense on Saturday, I do think they are the best of the "once-beatens." 12. Missouri-No, I'm not drinking any Big Twelve Kool-aid. I just believe that everybody else who has one loss is inferior to Missouri. 13. Cal-I was going to put Michigan State in this spot and then I realized Cal beat them. Therefore, Cal gets the nod. 14. Michigan State-Only loss is to Cal, and Ringer is a beast. 15. Florida-GROAN. I really hate putting Florida here. I don't think they are that amazing, but they did beat LSU. I think they will beat Georgia, but drop another game along the road to the SEC championship game. 16. Georgia-I was going to put USC in this spot, but their one shared opponent gave USC more of a game. Man, did they look horrid against Tennessee though. 17. USC-Couldn't move the ball on ASU, and they were just flat out destroyed by Oregon State 18. .LSU-I'm calling for the upset this week! Spurrier at home! Look out! 19. TCU-They have only one loss to Oklahoma, but they haven't played anybody else... 20. Ohio State-They aren't staying here long... Since there is a team that wears green that will probably give them a nice spanking on Saturday. 21. Virginia Tech-They should definitely have two losses in conference, but they luckboxed their way into fumbles against Ga Tech and North Carolina, thus they get the nod here. 22. North Carolina-Butch Davis is doing a great job here, they will be an impressive team for the rest of the schedule. 23. South Florida-I hate putting a Big East team in the rankings, but I guess South Florida is the most impressive team out there for this spot. 24. Minnesota-Wow, they have wins! 25. Kansas- When's basketball season again?
Any disagreements should be posted. I might try and do this weekly from here on out...
And look at this idiot... Seriously... USC>Penn St??? Considering how badly Penn State spanked Oregon State and Oregon State spanked USC??? WTF GIMME WHATEVER YOUR SMOKING MAN!!:
I am sorry, but this is the FUNNIEST/WORST ranking I have ever seen. First of all, anything can happen in conference games. USC had a shit awful game and lost to OSU, so they are ranked below Boise State, Ball State, Tulsa, and Cal? TCU?! I apologize if your post was meant to be a joke, but come on...Oklahoma is moved to #11 because of a close loss to #1 Texas? Minnesota over Kansas? Tulsa over Ohio State? Michigan State/Ball State/Boise State over Florida/Georgia/USC/Kansas?
On October 14 2008 09:57 hasuprotoss wrote: Yet they haven't lost a game. And Cal, with the exception of having to play a Maryland team that roller coasters (at a time when they would not normally be awake anyway) has smashed the competition. Plus they have looked a lot better then USC. Also, USC, Florida, and Georgia has lost a game, Ball State and Tulsa have not.
Edit: And if Tulsa/Ball State don't lose, they will probably be jumped as the conference schedules get further under way.
FUCK!! I meant Tulsa not Toledo. My bad...
Ball State and Tulsa over USC/Florida/Georgia because they haven't lost a game? Wow. Look at their schedule, their opponents, and their conferences. USC/Florida/Georgia would RAPE them mercilessly. Do you actually watch football, or are you going off the blind "Oh 6-0 zomg" technique?
On October 14 2008 09:57 hasuprotoss wrote: Yet they haven't lost a game. And Cal, with the exception of having to play a Maryland team that roller coasters (at a time when they would not normally be awake anyway) has smashed the competition. Plus they have looked a lot better then USC. Also, USC, Florida, and Georgia has lost a game, Ball State and Tulsa have not.
Edit: And if Tulsa/Ball State don't lose, they will probably be jumped as the conference schedules get further under way.
FUCK!! I meant Tulsa not Toledo. My bad...
Ball State and Tulsa over USC/Florida/Georgia because they haven't lost a game? Wow. Look at their schedule, their opponents, and their conferences. USC/Florida/Georgia would RAPE them mercilessly. Do you actually watch football, or are you going off the blind "Oh 6-0 zomg" technique?
It's the middle of the season. USC lost to OSU, and they looked quite pathetic doing it. Other than that they have beaten... well, an overrated tOSU, who will probably look horrible after getting dredged in the coming two saturdays.
Florida lost to Ole Miss, who has a resume as impressive as a rock outside of that win.
Georgia is so obviously overhyped it hurts. When they win more than a pushover I'll give them credit.
It's not so much who would beat who, it's a matter of who's done what. So far the 3 teams you cited have not done a great job of shit. Sure Florida beat LSU, but LSU struggled against Auburn, who lost to fucking Arkansas (who sucks). Give the season more time and the undefeated non-BCS'ers will fall (unless of course the major conferences start sucking it up even more).
I don't care about those fluke losses, and the ranking shouldn't be affected so much by them either. Shit happens, it's college football. Teams have awful days and crazy upsets happen every Saturday. I realize Georgia was overrated, but they are at where they should be now. Not below Ball State, Tulsa, Boise State, and Michigan State. The Bulldogs lost to Alabama, one of the best teams in the nation. So what? That does not mean they should be below all those inferior teams with easy schedules.
It's not so much who would beat who, it's a matter of who's done what against what teams. In what conference. In what type of schedule. Now you resort to using some ridiculous chain links to somehow suggest that Florida sucks. Auburn loses to Arkansas, LSU struggles against Auburn, and therefore Florida gets no credit for beating LSU?
rofl hasuprotoss those are some of the most ridiculous rankings i've seen, and i'm not just saying that because i go to USC. USC not in the top 10? you don't put teams ranked in front of others for the mere fact that they are undefeated. there are so many other things you have to consider.
On October 17 2008 13:58 LosingID8 wrote: rofl hasuprotoss those are some of the most ridiculous rankings i've seen, and i'm not just saying that because i go to USC. USC not in the top 10? you don't put teams ranked in front of others for the mere fact that they are undefeated. there are so many other things you have to consider.
Like results, true. But you cannot honestly say that USC deserves to be ranked in the top 10 because they are USC and they have talent. That's a major flaw in the current rankings right now done by the AP. Of course Tulsa and Ball State aren't in the top ten in terms of strength; however, they have not lost a game to any team. As the season wears on and USC begins to add more wins over more quality opponents, than sure, they'll become higher ranked. And fluke loss? More like USC didn't show up to Oregon State. I actually wasn't surprised, because I remembered two years ago.
Anyways, USC's best two wins are Ohio State (who has looked horrifically stagnant against ALL competition this year) and Oregon (who got taken into overtime by Purdue and lost to Boise State). Of course, USC doesn't get a boost in strength this week traveling to Pullman, but if Ohio State bests Michigan State, then they can have a claim for the top 10 other then their reputation and talent.
If you look at the AP guidelines, they clearly state that the basis of voting shouldn't be preseason hype or reputation, it should be based on results. Of course my rankings might be overboard in the sense that all the undefeated teams are over the one-loss teams, but that seems a lot more ideal than this, which shows a 1-loss Florida and Oklahoma over a no loss Penn State, who may very well be the best team in the country.
On October 17 2008 13:58 LosingID8 wrote: rofl hasuprotoss those are some of the most ridiculous rankings i've seen, and i'm not just saying that because i go to USC. USC not in the top 10? you don't put teams ranked in front of others for the mere fact that they are undefeated. there are so many other things you have to consider.
Like results, true. But you cannot honestly say that USC deserves to be ranked in the top 10 because they are USC and they have talent. That's a major flaw in the current rankings right now done by the AP. Of course Tulsa and Ball State aren't in the top ten in terms of strength; however, they have not lost a game to any team. As the season wears on and USC begins to add more wins over more quality opponents, than sure, they'll become higher ranked. And fluke loss? More like USC didn't show up to Oregon State. I actually wasn't surprised, because I remembered two years ago.
Anyways, USC's best two wins are Ohio State (who has looked horrifically stagnant against ALL competition this year) and Oregon (who got taken into overtime by Purdue and lost to Boise State). Of course, USC doesn't get a boost in strength this week traveling to Pullman, but if Ohio State bests Michigan State, then they can have a claim for the top 10 other then their reputation and talent.
If you look at the AP guidelines, they clearly state that the basis of voting shouldn't be preseason hype or reputation, it should be based on results. Of course my rankings might be overboard in the sense that all the undefeated teams are over the one-loss teams, but that seems a lot more ideal than this, which shows a 1-loss Florida and Oklahoma over a no loss Penn State, who may very well be the best team in the country.
what's with the emphasis on AP rankings? those aren't even factored into the BCS standings anymore.
with that said, the AP poll is giving USC it's lowest ranking at 6th. USC is 4th on Coach/Harris polls.
in other news, i hope that all the ranked / higher ranked teams lose today, other than USC.
Anyways, the entire Big Ten sucks again this year. If Penn State does manage a comeback and runs the table, they'll get smashed by whoever they play in their BCS Bowl Game.
On October 19 2008 06:19 Jibba wrote: ROFL WHAT WAS THAT CATCH?
Can we all just agree the rankings are stupid until the end of the season? Especially preseason rankings.
I like rankings, it gives a more determinate feeling to what games are upsets and whether the two teams are evenly matched. For me at least, it makes football games a lot more interesting. So why not have preseason rankings?
ONCE, just once in my life, I'd like to see Michigan fans to storm the field.
Probably would have been closer to 100-0 but they took Sanchez out a few minutes into the 3rd quarter when he already have 5 TD 0 INT for about 240 YDs. 3 RBs for 100+ YDs. 4 different QBs in the game, 2nd/3rd string players in on both sides of the ball.
I just need Mizzou to beat Texas (very possible), Michigan to beat Penn St. (currently tied in the 3rd quarter), and Ole Miss to beat Bama (very close game).
OSU just destroyed MSU =\ it started bad and only got worse as nothing worked well today and our offense and defense just seemed.....baffled? They didn't play like they have at all.
HasuProtoss "5. BYU-With the exception of the Washington game they have generally dominated their competition. The winner between them and Utah are basically guaranteed a BCS spot."
Im glad you think so highly of my Cougars but neither of those teams are getting a BCS spot. Even if we went undefeated this season (TCU >.<) there was a very small chance we could get a BCS bid. They do not deserve a number five spot at all, and it pains me to say so. They have been rated around 9 or 10 by most polls and they probably dont deserve that either. I love my team but to be realistic they are probably a low teens rated team not a top ten. YOU ACTUALLY USED A GAME AGAINST WYOMING FOR UTAHS RANK.... WHAT THE FUCK!? That being said the rest of your rankings look like they were written by a fucking crackhead.
On October 14 2008 08:57 hasuprotoss wrote: 20. Ohio State-They aren't staying here long... Since there is a team that wears green that will probably give them a nice spanking on Saturday.
Anyone know why the FUCK sheridan came in the game?
I was playing golf so I missed the first half, but the start of the 2nd half sheridan was in the game. Threet played the First half right? WHY IS SHERIDAN FUCKING PLAYIN GAT ALL
HE SUCKS, HES NO THREAT TO THROW BECAUSE HE THROWS PICKS, AND HE CAN BARELY RUN. WHY NOT JUST PUT A FUCKING RUNNING BACK IN THE BACKFIELD TO TAKE A DIRECT SNAP OVER SHERIDAN.
WTF Missou... you ruined Sunday Night Football for me. Anyways it doesn't matter, cause a certain team in Lubbock is gonna woop Texas two weeks from now.
My theory is that Chase Daniel is Sampson in disguise. He shaves his hair into something hideously disgusting, and now he's terrible! And he sort of got it together in the second half, after his hair had time to grow.
On October 14 2008 08:57 hasuprotoss wrote: 20. Ohio State-They aren't staying here long... Since there is a team that wears green that will probably give them a nice spanking on Saturday.
1. Texas- They are still top dogs after romping Mizzou. 2. Penn State- Gets the jump after demolishing Michigan for a half. 3. Alabama- Drops after getting a game from Ole Miss. Who might actually be better than I expected. 4. Oklahoma State- I'm surprised they didn't blow out Washington State by 60 in their first game of the season. 5. Texas Tech- Has been struggling lately, getting games from Nebraska and Texas A&M 6. Oklahoma- Their only loss has been pretty damn strong again this week. 7. USC- Gets a leap after Ohio State helped out their strength of schedule by destroying Michigan State. 8. Tulsa- They are averaging just under 625 yards per game. They nearly put up 800 yards on UTEP. 9. Florida- Bye-week for the Gators. 10. Utah- Blew away Colorado State. Yawn. 11. Georgia- Things get clearer for U[sic]GA and the team below them next week. 12. LSU- Things get clearer for LSU and the team above them next week. 13. Ball State- Continue to put up solid results in their games. 14. Boise State- Could conceivably bust the BCS again this year. 15. Ohio State- Next week they can reallllllyyyy impress. Just like they did this week (Congrats on fucking up my pick though =[). 16. Pitt- WTF. How did these guys get in here? The sad thing is. Pitt could run the table from here on out (I wonder if that'll make their yellow-outs any less impressive. I'm guessing not [for those who don't know. Pitt's stadiums's seats are yellow. And they draw about two fans to every game.].) 17. South Florida- Lost to Pitt. That's why they are looking up at them. 18. Georgia Tech- I honestly have no idea how to rank the 1-loss ACC teams. I think I'm going to put Tech at top, just because they beat BC. 19. Boston College- Who beat Va Tech, who beat Georgia Tech. WTF, this is confusing as hell. 20. Florida State- AHHH! Hurry up and play BC and GT please. 21. Missouri- Their two losses have come to the #1 and #4 teams. Hopefully they can turn it around. 22. TCU- Destroyed BYU. 23. Minnesota- Still alive in the top 25. I have no idea about this team. 24. Northwestern- Or this one. 25. Cincinnati- Did you know these guys were a one loss team? Me neither
Well USC looks much better this week. Not because they destroyed Wa-Zoooo (I mean, who hasn't?), but because Ohio State looked so impressive in their win against Michigan State. Next week should provide some fun matchups.
On October 14 2008 08:57 hasuprotoss wrote: 20. Ohio State-They aren't staying here long... Since there is a team that wears green that will probably give them a nice spanking on Saturday.
lol
hasuprotoss is hasufootball
Yeah, this week taught me to never pick games again. I sucked it up.
Uh.... last week BYU was #5 and now they arent even on your rankings? Stop doing this you suck at it, it looks like your taking AP polls and just mix and matching.
On October 20 2008 01:05 hasuprotoss wrote: 1. Texas- They are still top dogs after romping Mizzou. 2. Penn State- Gets the jump after demolishing Michigan for a half. 3. Alabama- Drops after getting a game from Ole Miss. Who might actually be better than I expected. 4. Oklahoma State- I'm surprised they didn't blow out Washington State by 60 in their first game of the season. 5. Texas Tech- Has been struggling lately, getting games from Nebraska and Texas A&M 6. Oklahoma- Their only loss has been pretty damn strong again this week. 7. USC- Gets a leap after Ohio State helped out their strength of schedule by destroying Michigan State. 8. Tulsa- They are averaging just under 625 yards per game. They nearly put up 800 yards on UTEP. 9. Florida- Bye-week for the Gators. 10. Utah- Blew away Colorado State. Yawn. 11. Georgia- Things get clearer for U[sic]GA and the team below them next week. 12. LSU- Things get clearer for LSU and the team above them next week. 13. Ball State- Continue to put up solid results in their games. 14. Boise State- Could conceivably bust the BCS again this year. 15. Ohio State- Next week they can reallllllyyyy impress. Just like they did this week (Congrats on fucking up my pick though =[). 16. Pitt- WTF. How did these guys get in here? The sad thing is. Pitt could run the table from here on out (I wonder if that'll make their yellow-outs any less impressive. I'm guessing not [for those who don't know. Pitt's stadiums's seats are yellow. And they draw about two fans to every game.].) 17. South Florida- Lost to Pitt. That's why they are looking up at them. 18. Georgia Tech- I honestly have no idea how to rank the 1-loss ACC teams. I think I'm going to put Tech at top, just because they beat BC. 19. Boston College- Who beat Va Tech, who beat Georgia Tech. WTF, this is confusing as hell. 20. Florida State- AHHH! Hurry up and play BC and GT please. 21. Missouri- Their two losses have come to the #1 and #4 teams. Hopefully they can turn it around. 22. TCU- Destroyed BYU. 23. Minnesota- Still alive in the top 25. I have no idea about this team. 24. Northwestern- Or this one. 25. Cincinnati- Did you know these guys were a one loss team? Me neither
Well USC looks much better this week. Not because they destroyed Wa-Zoooo (I mean, who hasn't?), but because Ohio State looked so impressive in their win against Michigan State. Next week should provide some fun matchups.
err.. Pitt is a good team and has been for awhile, they were ranked preseason.
Did anybody see the South Carolina/LSU game? More specifically see the ref run over the South Carolina QB? Haha this is one of the funniest things in football I've seen for a while.
Yea that really happened. I was watching the game live on television and other than laughing I didn't think much of it until I seen that youtube vid. After seeing the multiple angles and slow-mo it looks obvious that he did it purposely which made it all the more funnier,but I mean come on, he followed the QB all the way over then squared up and leveled the guy.
It's been plastered all over the sports shows as of late and if I'm not mistaking I heard that the SEC officials ruled that he didn't do anything wrong so nothing came out of it.
Wow...I dunno exactly the technicalities of the rules but that call for the TD for UM seems like utter bullshit. I mean he landed out of bounds but they ruled somehow he had true possesion before?
Ok the announcers just got the reasoning for the call....they ruled he had possession in the air and when he hit the pylon that counts as the endzone even tho he only hit the ground out of bounds. Never heard of that but w/e hoyer shouldnt have fumbled anyway.
On October 26 2008 05:35 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Ok the announcers just got the reasoning for the call....they ruled he had possession in the air and when he hit the pylon that counts as the endzone even tho he only hit the ground out of bounds. Never heard of that but w/e hoyer shouldnt have fumbled anyway.
So your saying if his leg would of missed the pylon then its not a td? I mean they ruled he had possession while in the air and I have never seen them do that.
The announcers just pulled the rule book out and it says "a player who is airborne and touched the pylon is out of bounds" This describes exactly what happened yet the replay booth called TD.
On October 26 2008 06:09 Slaughter)BiO wrote: So your saying if his leg would of missed the pylon then its not a td? I mean they ruled he had possession while in the air and I have never seen them do that.
yeah you have to make contact with the endzone to be considered a touchdown (and as said before the pylon is a part of the endzone).
on a catch that doesnt count that was a really really bad call.
Anyway, MSU played pretty good, I was very dissapointed in Threets play this game, he starred down his receivers a lot and the picks were really bad at the end. Hopefully michigan's secondary gets better next year too because they give up way too many big plays.
Yea they had some tackling issues on some of the big plays by MSU. But you have to say they did a decent job bottling up ringer when they went inside run. Threet had some good throws but his ints were just wtf calls that as the announcers said he needs to read the ENTIRE fieldl. But yea it seems consensus that they blew the call but it doesn't matter because MSU won. UM D is sill solid tho, they just dont have the personnel to work their system and 2-3 years will be good again.
hey ohio state, beanie wells is sucking this game. stop wasting 2 downs every time gaining a total of 1 yard. just throw some screen passes PLEASE. short 3-5 yard passes, come on.
On November 02 2008 06:29 Signet wrote: I think it'll be the toughest for UT. Tech looked GOOD last weekend and may be hitting their stride.
tech is looking hot no doubt, but the only ranked team they've played all season was last week vs. kansas, and they were sitting at #23. granted they've looked insanely good against every team they've played, but texas isn't going to roll over and die as easily as the other teams did.
UT on the other hand has beaten 3 incredibly good teams in the past 3 weeks (although they looked very very vulnerable against oklahoma state last week).
just by looking at this season's schedule alone and at the teams they've played against, i would give UT the edge as the better team (i'm also a little biased because i go there ). honestly though, i think this a flip and either team could easily come away with the win, especially since tech is playing at home and they're having a great year.
Haha Notre Dame is overhyped, overrated, and overall a bad team. NBC made a terrible deal. Charlie Weiss should be fired, he isnt worth 1/10 of the insane money he's paid. Notre Dame could get a Nick Saban or Pete Carroll type coach for the money they pay Weiss (3.5 mil per year, fucking ridiculous). He's the highest paid coach in all of college football. What a waste of money.
Michigan has sunk to a new low... I thought the Michigan defense was still supposed to be good this year. And I sincerely hope that Penn State does not make it to the BCS NC game. They'll get buttraped by whomever the other team is.
On November 02 2008 07:58 Try wrote: Haha Notre Dame is overhyped, overrated, and overall a bad team. NBC made a terrible deal. Charlie Weiss should be fired, he isnt worth 1/10 of the insane money he's paid. Notre Dame could get a Nick Saban or Pete Carroll type coach for the money they pay Weiss (3.5 mil per year, fucking ridiculous). He's the highest paid coach in all of college football. What a waste of money.
Michigan has sunk to a new low... I thought the Michigan defense was still supposed to be good this year. And I sincerely hope that Penn State does not make it to the BCS NC game. They'll get buttraped by whomever the other team is.
Also, LOL at georgia getting screwed.
Notre dame isnt overhyped or overrated, no one thinks they are good.
Saban is the highest paid coach in college football, not weis. And Michigan will be back next year ! look out for NC contention in 2-3 years.
Anyone see the BYU vs CSU game? It was really intense all the way to the end which has left me disappointed. My Cougars opened this season so strong but they have kinda leveled out mid season. My expectations are way too high and I find it hard to be happy with just a win and not a huge win or CSU. With the Utah game coming up and AirForce as well they need to stop making so many mistakes early game or ima go batshit at the U vs Y game.
So I didn't get to see Calvin Johnson too much before the Lions drafted him, but Crabtree is definitely on a higher level than all the other stud WRs that have come out recently (Fitzgerald, Edwards, etc.) And seriously, Harrell is the complete package. McNabb at Syracuse is probably the last QB I remember looking that good in every department.
On November 02 2008 23:49 KOFgokuon wrote: wtf is going on this season haha fantastic penn state now has a walk to the championship game
If Tech and Bama win out, Penn state will get screwed. That's probably not gonna happen though, Tech has OU ,OSU, and the Big 12 Championship Game to play, Bama will have to play LSU and Florida in the SEC Championship. So most likely, Penn State gets to National Championship. And then gets annihilated by whatever other team plays.
On November 02 2008 07:58 Try wrote: Haha Notre Dame is overhyped, overrated, and overall a bad team. NBC made a terrible deal. Charlie Weiss should be fired, he isnt worth 1/10 of the insane money he's paid. Notre Dame could get a Nick Saban or Pete Carroll type coach for the money they pay Weiss (3.5 mil per year, fucking ridiculous). He's the highest paid coach in all of college football. What a waste of money.
Michigan has sunk to a new low... I thought the Michigan defense was still supposed to be good this year. And I sincerely hope that Penn State does not make it to the BCS NC game. They'll get buttraped by whomever the other team is.
Also, LOL at georgia getting screwed.
Notre dame isnt overhyped or overrated, no one thinks they are good.
Saban is the highest paid coach in college football, not weis. And Michigan will be back next year ! look out for NC contention in 2-3 years.
Just a few weeks ago, ESPN had a discussion about whether or not ND should be ranked. If it wasn't for Montana and Bryant Young, I'd hate everything about that school. Overrated as hell.
edits: Georgia. Why why why.
Fuck Penn State and the big joke. More overrated shit. God, I hate the bcs. It makes me so miserable. If they go, they're gonna pull an OSU and get rolled by Bama or whoever goes.
so assuming tech beats OSU at home (very likely) and then loses to OU away (possible), and assuming that texas and OU win out (again, very likely, aside from OU's game vs tech), then we'll have 3 one-loss teams sitting at the top of the big 12 south, all wanting to play for the big 12 championship as well as the national championship.
in the event that this happens (and in the event that penn state goes to the national championship game), i think the world will explode in a raging ball of flame and chaos.
also, i bet blake gideon got wasted, then cried himself to sleep last night
On November 03 2008 04:24 TheMusiC wrote: so assuming tech beats OSU at home (very likely) and then loses to OU away (possible), and assuming that texas and OU win out (again, very likely, aside from OU's game vs tech), then we'll have 3 one-loss teams sitting at the top of the big 12 south, all wanting to play for the big 12 championship as well as the national championship.
in the event that this happens (and in the event that penn state goes to the national championship game), i think the world will explode in a raging ball of flame and chaos.
also, i bet blake gideon got wasted, then cried himself to sleep last night
Texas probably put Blake Gideon on suicide watch. They need to rework the teams in the Big 12, so that its an East-West Big 12 rather than a North South. I'm tired of seeing teams get screwed and blowouts in the Big 12 Title Game.
On November 03 2008 06:52 Try wrote: Texas probably put Blake Gideon on suicide watch. They need to rework the teams in the Big 12, so that its an East-West Big 12 rather than a North South. I'm tired of seeing teams get screwed and blowouts in the Big 12 Title Game.
You're definitely right this year, as the South has 4 teams that I would take over the best North team. However, there was a time when Nebraska and Colorado (and even K-State) were good teams. Any way you divide it, it won't be perfect in the future, since teams could become resurgent or just drop off for a while.
I'm hoping we get as many 1-loss teams as possible so that the BCS system looks bad yet again, and they finally replace it with some sort of playoffs. I'm not sure how big the playoffs should be; 16 teams might be too much and 4 might not be enough. There has to be a better system than the current one though.
Your bring to hard on Penn State, from their schedule they shouldn't be in the title game (Imo texas and Florida are the most impressive or OU or TT) but they have been a good solid team all year and I bet they would do 100x better then OSU because OSU is good but they choke pretty bad when its on the line IE the NC game.
On November 03 2008 06:52 Try wrote: Texas probably put Blake Gideon on suicide watch. They need to rework the teams in the Big 12, so that its an East-West Big 12 rather than a North South. I'm tired of seeing teams get screwed and blowouts in the Big 12 Title Game.
You're definitely right this year, as the South has 4 teams that I would take over the best North team. However, there was a time when Nebraska and Colorado (and even K-State) were good teams. Any way you divide it, it won't be perfect in the future, since teams could become resurgent or just drop off for a while.
I'm hoping we get as many 1-loss teams as possible so that the BCS system looks bad yet again, and they finally replace it with some sort of playoffs. I'm not sure how big the playoffs should be; 16 teams might be too much and 4 might not be enough. There has to be a better system than the current one though.
I do think that when you're getting to the point of having 16 teams in a playoff, some of the meaningfulness of the regular season is lost. I personally don't care and would love to see a big, exciting playoff like this, but I can see the other side's argument here.
On the other hand, when Auburn can go 13-0 and win the toughest conference and not even get to play for the title, the meaningfulness of the regular season is lost under the current system!
Four team would be good enough almost all the time. By the time you're #5, there's not much argument that you are the #1 team. Sure there will always be controversy over who gets that last spot, but you won't have a situation where a major unbeaten team is left out.
Six (top two get a bye) or eight (all 6 conference champs plus 2 at large) would also be really fun to watch; I have no objection to getting to watch more good football
On November 03 2008 06:52 Try wrote: Texas probably put Blake Gideon on suicide watch. They need to rework the teams in the Big 12, so that its an East-West Big 12 rather than a North South. I'm tired of seeing teams get screwed and blowouts in the Big 12 Title Game.
You're definitely right this year, as the South has 4 teams that I would take over the best North team. However, there was a time when Nebraska and Colorado (and even K-State) were good teams. Any way you divide it, it won't be perfect in the future, since teams could become resurgent or just drop off for a while.
I'm hoping we get as many 1-loss teams as possible so that the BCS system looks bad yet again, and they finally replace it with some sort of playoffs. I'm not sure how big the playoffs should be; 16 teams might be too much and 4 might not be enough. There has to be a better system than the current one though.
I do think that when you're getting to the point of having 16 teams in a playoff, some of the meaningfulness of the regular season is lost. I personally don't care and would love to see a big, exciting playoff like this, but I can see the other side's argument here.
On the other hand, when Auburn can go 13-0 and win the toughest conference and not even get to play for the title, the meaningfulness of the regular season is lost under the current system!
Four team would be good enough almost all the time. By the time you're #5, there's not much argument that you are the #1 team. Sure there will always be controversy over who gets that last spot, but you won't have a situation where a major unbeaten team is left out.
Six (top two get a bye) or eight (all 6 conference champs plus 2 at large) would also be really fun to watch; I have no objection to getting to watch more good football
I don't get how the regular season's meaning is lost if you need to do well to get into the playoffs? It's not like it's an 82 game season like hockey. Every game will still count.
Why would they make the Texas Tech's coach leave? I feel bad for coach fulmer, he had one bad season and now they're firing him?? his records like 150-51, I think thats pretty good.
On November 05 2008 00:42 il0seonpurpose wrote: Why would they make the Texas Tech's coach leave? I feel bad for coach fulmer, he had one bad season and now they're firing him?? his records like 150-51, I think thats pretty good.
As in hopefully Tennessee won't try to hire Mike Leach, one of the best practical options for Tenn. They dream of getting Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, Jon Gruden or Pete Carroll, but that's just not going to happen. The other practical options for Tenn are Muschamp (who got his ass handed to him by Leach's offense), Gary Patterson, and a couple others. I believe that Leach will be at the top of their list if he keeps winning.
so if USC gets 5 shutouts in a single season (3 so far already, and 2 more could be possible with UCLA and maybe ND or Stanford), do you think that gives them a case to jump over the other 1-loss teams? obviously strength of schedule would be going against USC.
On November 05 2008 01:23 LosingID8 wrote: so if USC gets 5 shutouts in a single season (3 so far already, and 2 more could be possible with UCLA and maybe ND or Stanford), do you think that gives them a case to jump over the other 1-loss teams? obviously strength of schedule would be going against USC.
No way.
Those three shutouts, the teams have a combined total of three wins. The hardest team they face now is Cal, which is pretty mediocre this year, imo. They beat a very overrated Ohio State team, and then choked big time. People will point to ND, but they're a joke and have beaten nobodys. If they actually faced a quality opponent in the last few weeks, I'd say maybe, but a 1 loss team from the SEC or Big 12 should get in over them without a doubt.
On November 04 2008 06:39 Hawk wrote: I don't get how the regular season's meaning is lost if you need to do well to get into the playoffs? It's not like it's an 82 game season like hockey. Every game will still count.
That's the way I feel too. The NHL regular season isn't all that important because 16 out of 30 teams make it - over half the teams! There's 119 FBS football teams. Being in the top 8 or top 16 is still quite an accomplishment.
On November 05 2008 00:40 Try wrote: O god... PLEASE no UF vs Penn State, it would be slaughter.
I'd LOVE to see an SEC vs Big 12 matchup. But realistically, I don't think Texas Tech is going to beat Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, and Missouri (B12 championship). Too many strong opponents in a month - if they even play a bad half (like Texas did) they'll lose one of those.
My feeling is that PSU will get slaughtered by Florida or any of the Big 12 contenders. With Alabama there's the chance of a close game (maybe...) but even then it'd be like watching the LSU-Oklahoma Sugar Bowl.
Yeah, it's a different style game. Everything about the NHL is designed to be a marathon, and personally, I like it (but I am a hockey nut, so I digress =p)
Haha, even obama said yesterday on that MNF interview that he hates the BCS.
I would laugh my ass of if Penn State makes the title game and wins over UF or TT or Alabama or whoever, just to stop the stupid "well its obvious Penn State sucks because the Big Ten is having a down year LOL LOGIC"
An 8 team playoff would be great. It's only three extra weeks... and some teams that might not get a shot at the title otherwise (read: undefeated teams in wank conferences, teams that are in conferences that are very strong), but probably deserve a shot would get a chance.
The polls are ridiculous... hey, Texas lost a game in the last minute of the game to a highly ranked opponent on the road... let's put USC and Florida above them! And Oklahoma for good measure. Granted this was just the USA Today poll, but seriously... coaches are on something.
Meanwhile Mizzou is back to their old ways... let's not just lose to ranked opponents, let's almost drop a game to Baylor! Whee! On the other hand, it is kind of comforting they are back to their old ways...
On November 05 2008 01:23 LosingID8 wrote: so if USC gets 5 shutouts in a single season (3 so far already, and 2 more could be possible with UCLA and maybe ND or Stanford), do you think that gives them a case to jump over the other 1-loss teams? obviously strength of schedule would be going against USC.
UCLA sucks really bad this year and even a shutout wouldn't be that great for a team like USC. My number 15 BYU Cougars shut them out by 60 points in the early season and then the Utah Utes defeated them 44-6 like a couple weeks later. USC defeating them is guaranteed, a shutout wouldnt be surprising at all. I know how you feel man BYU has a fairly laid back schedule this year and when they ran into TCU it killed our BCS dreams and Max Halls Heisman dreams.
Man MSU has really surprised me. I knew they would always be improving and playing hard but I did not expect a 9 win season. 9-2 right now playing for a 10th (as little chance as it might be). Go Green!
On November 09 2008 05:17 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Man MSU has really surprised me. I knew they would always be improving and playing hard but I did not expect a 9 win season. 9-2 right now playing for a 10th (as little chance as it might be). Go Green!
What are you guys gonna do next year without Ringer?
Anyways, OMG Iowa Over Penn State!!! (I knew the Lions were overrated)
Bama vs LSU is painful to watch. Bama is overrated as well, their gonna get crushed by Florida in the title game.
On November 09 2008 05:17 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Man MSU has really surprised me. I knew they would always be improving and playing hard but I did not expect a 9 win season. 9-2 right now playing for a 10th (as little chance as it might be). Go Green!
What are you guys gonna do next year without Ringer?
Anyways, OMG Iowa Over Penn State!!! (I knew the Lions were overrated)
Bama vs LSU is painful to watch. Bama is overrated as well, their gonna get crushed by Florida in the title game.
NO ROSE BOWL FOR U OHIO STATE
2 4 star RB recruits coming in this year + the guys who were the backups who are decent but they are working ringer to death so they get no time. and GOD DAMNIT PSU just fucked MSU since now OSU and PSU will probably take the top spots unless MSU can beat PSU --;
On November 16 2008 07:16 OneOther wrote: I wish the championship match was Texas vs Florida instead :/
it very well could be if TTU loses against oklahoma. in that scenario texas should have the highest BCS rank, so they'd go to the Big XII championship game vs mizzou.
On November 16 2008 07:16 OneOther wrote: I wish the championship match was Texas vs Florida instead :/
it very well could be if TTU loses against oklahoma. in that scenario texas should have the highest BCS rank, so they'd go to the Big XII championship game vs mizzou.
Nope, OU would most probably leap Texas if they beat ttu.
But we don't need to speculate cause TTU will beat down the Sooners in Norman!!!
On November 16 2008 09:35 LosingID8 wrote: so apparently the USC vs Stanford game is being broadcasted on the Versus Network rather than the usual FSN (for non ABC/ESPN) coverage.
unfortunately the USC cable that all students receive doesn't include Versus...
On November 16 2008 09:47 LosingID8 wrote: espn360 isn't covering the game
Wow man you guys got totally fucked, and so did the network.... wtf...
In other news BYU won today which means we only have one loss going to face our biggest rival, Utah(#7 in the BCS) next Saturday. If you have never seen this football rivalry I suggest you watch this game because honestly I dont think I have ever been to a better sports event than the Holy War (named that because BYU is a Mormon owned school while the U is a states school). BYU is probably going to be like 15-17 in the BCS going up against #7 Utah. Should be a great game this year.
On that note FUCK YOUR PAC10 MOUNTAIN WEST BITCHES!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! MWC>PAC10 3-1(teams in BCS) 6-1(MW vs Pac10 teams this year) SUCK IT!
Our quarterback got kicked off the team before the season started, we're still one of the better teams in the country. This is our down/rebuilding year. We didn't pull a Michigan. We're playing with a guy that has thrown 7 or 8 pick 6s in 7 games.
We're getting the top rated QB in the nation next year out of TX. I think we'll be just fine. We lost to three teams in the top 10 BCS.. I'm kinda okay with that because we aren't a top 10 team this year.
On November 16 2008 14:06 FzeroXx wrote: Oops? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Moron.
Our quarterback got kicked off the team before the season started, we're still one of the better teams in the country. This is our down/rebuilding year. We didn't pull a Michigan. We're playing with a guy that has thrown 7 or 8 pick 6s in 7 games.
We're getting the top rated QB in the nation next year out of TX. I think we'll be just fine. We lost to three teams in the top 10 BCS.. I'm kinda okay with that because we aren't a top 10 team this year.
michigan is in extraordinary circumstances.
10/11 starters on offense are gone, and they werent backed up by juniors, both quarterbacks hadnt played since highschool and honestly wouldnt start at michigan if it werent for this year.
The defense has 0 excuses though, the secondary cant tackle, and honestly the michigan secondary hasnt had a good tackler since marlin jackson
On November 16 2008 14:06 FzeroXx wrote: Oops? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Moron.
Our quarterback got kicked off the team before the season started, we're still one of the better teams in the country. This is our down/rebuilding year. We didn't pull a Michigan. We're playing with a guy that has thrown 7 or 8 pick 6s in 7 games.
We're getting the top rated QB in the nation next year out of TX. I think we'll be just fine. We lost to three teams in the top 10 BCS.. I'm kinda okay with that because we aren't a top 10 team this year.
michigan is in extraordinary circumstances.
10/11 starters on offense are gone, and they werent backed up by juniors, both quarterbacks hadnt played since highschool and honestly wouldnt start at michigan if it werent for this year.
The defense has 0 excuses though, the secondary cant tackle, and honestly the michigan secondary hasnt had a good tackler since marlin jackson
Don't make excuses for Michigan. They're in this situation because of poor recruiting and their plan.
On November 16 2008 14:06 FzeroXx wrote: Oops? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Moron.
Our quarterback got kicked off the team before the season started, we're still one of the better teams in the country. This is our down/rebuilding year. We didn't pull a Michigan. We're playing with a guy that has thrown 7 or 8 pick 6s in 7 games.
We're getting the top rated QB in the nation next year out of TX. I think we'll be just fine. We lost to three teams in the top 10 BCS.. I'm kinda okay with that because we aren't a top 10 team this year.
michigan is in extraordinary circumstances.
10/11 starters on offense are gone, and they werent backed up by juniors, both quarterbacks hadnt played since highschool and honestly wouldnt start at michigan if it werent for this year.
The defense has 0 excuses though, the secondary cant tackle, and honestly the michigan secondary hasnt had a good tackler since marlin jackson
Don't make excuses for Michigan. They're in this situation because of poor recruiting and their plan.
no? You if mallet wouldve stayed the team wouldnt have been that good this year but with a down big 10 they could have won 7-8 games. Michigans Qb's are scrubs in the current system, neither would start (especially at their current level). Rich Rod made a good point, he said he had entirely new players so why even try to run an older system? They have to learn everything new anyway. With a more mobile QB and experience Michigan will be back next year, and in the tilte hunt in 2-3 years.
On November 16 2008 14:06 FzeroXx wrote: We're getting the top rated QB in the nation next year out of TX. I think we'll be just fine. We lost to three teams in the top 10 BCS.. I'm kinda okay with that because we aren't a top 10 team this year.
In other news BYU won today which means we only have one loss going to face our biggest rival, Utah(#7 in the BCS) next Saturday. If you have never seen this football rivalry I suggest you watch this game because honestly I dont think I have ever been to a better sports event than the Holy War (named that because BYU is a Mormon owned school while the U is a states school). BYU is probably going to be like 15-17 in the BCS going up against #7 Utah. Should be a great game this year.
I endorse this statement. Answered prayer x2 anyone?
Haha its really going to be a miracle if we win this game (we meaning BYU). Utah is probably a much better team this year and they know how to play against us, but likewise we know how to play against them. As always though this game is all about spirit not skill, so its really up in the air.
On November 21 2008 08:42 SpiralArchitect wrote: Haha its really going to be a miracle if we win this game (we meaning BYU). Utah is probably a much better team this year and they know how to play against us, but likewise we know how to play against them. As always though this game is all about spirit not skill, so its really up in the air.
Well certainly they've got the advantage. You don't go 11-0 for nothing. That said, the last bajillion Holy Wars have been won by 7 points or less. I wouldn't count BYU out just yet.
I never ever count my Cougars out man :D Last year they should have lost, 4th and 18 with a few minutes left to play and what happens? Hall connects with Collie(I think it was collie) and we win. The year before we should have lost for real, we were at the utes with seconds left to play and the last play of the game comes down to John Beck running his ass off in every direction trying to find an open man. Finally he completes to Johnny Harline and we win! I hope this game is going to be even more intense than the previous seasons.
On November 21 2008 08:42 SpiralArchitect wrote: Haha its really going to be a miracle if we win this game (we meaning BYU). Utah is probably a much better team this year and they know how to play against us, but likewise we know how to play against them. As always though this game is all about spirit not skill, so its really up in the air.
Well certainly they've got the advantage. You don't go 11-0 for nothing. That said, the last bajillion Holy Wars have been won by 7 points or less. I wouldn't count BYU out just yet.
Are you from Utah? I have never ever been engaged about my BYU posts and most people assume I go there. Do you go to BYU?
No, not at all. I think Oklahoma has the most explosive offense in the nation (although Texas Tech is close) and Raiders have a history of chocking in the Sooners Stadium. They are definitely NOT "way better" than Oklahoma. If they do come out victorious, nobody in the country will doubt them. It will certainly be a tough challenge though.
GO OU! Just because TT should have lost to Texas (fucking FREE int late dropped). Texas IS the best team and they should be in the NC game. Oh and GO MSU vs PSU :D and *kinda* go UM over OSU *sigh*.
On November 21 2008 12:05 OneOther wrote: No, not at all. I think Oklahoma has the most explosive offense in the nation (although Texas Tech is close) and Raiders have a history of chocking in the Sooners Stadium. They are definitely NOT "way better" than Oklahoma. If they do come out victorious, nobody in the country will doubt them. It will certainly be a tough challenge though.
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.
OU has wiped the floor with teams all season. their opponents just got harder once conference play started up. and early on in the season you always hear about how good the defenses are for every half-decent ranked team, but that's because they are all playing some division ii school that has a fraction of the enrollment.
the top three of which poll? where they stand in all of them is fair as of now, and if they do beat TT how do you suggest reorganizing, assuming Alabama does not lose? http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/polls?poll=0
On November 21 2008 12:05 OneOther wrote: No, not at all. I think Oklahoma has the most explosive offense in the nation (although Texas Tech is close) and Raiders have a history of chocking in the Sooners Stadium. They are definitely NOT "way better" than Oklahoma. If they do come out victorious, nobody in the country will doubt them. It will certainly be a tough challenge though.
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.
WHAT? Oklahoma has been raping all season long (especially after the first loss), with the exception of the Texas game they dropped. Oklahoma is playing better than ever...are we talking about the same Sooners?
Spiral, tell me the truth. What is the last game you watched the Sooners play? If you have seen them in the last 5 weeks, I don't see how you can be skeptical of Oklahoma. Forget a shoe in for Texas Tech, they are the underdogs.
EDIT: I really think Sooners would have beaten the Longhorns if Reynolds didn't get injured. That was a huge blow.
On November 21 2008 12:05 OneOther wrote: No, not at all. I think Oklahoma has the most explosive offense in the nation (although Texas Tech is close) and Raiders have a history of chocking in the Sooners Stadium. They are definitely NOT "way better" than Oklahoma. If they do come out victorious, nobody in the country will doubt them. It will certainly be a tough challenge though.
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.
WHAT? Oklahoma has been raping all season long (especially after the first loss), with the exception of the Texas game they dropped. Oklahoma is playing better than ever...are we talking about the same Sooners?
Spiral, tell me the truth. What is the last game you watched the Sooners play? If you have seen them in the last 5 weeks, I don't see how you can be skeptical of Oklahoma. Forget a shoe in for Texas Tech, they are the underdogs.
EDIT: I really think Sooners would have beaten the Longhorns if Reynolds didn't get injured. That was a huge blow.
qft
i go to texas, so i'm obligated to say that OU sucks year round, but they are playing some sick football right now.
i dunno about whether or not reynolds would have changed the final result of the game, but it was an awesome match and i don't think we'll see very many more games like that for the rest of the season.
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.
Are you from Utah? I have never ever been engaged about my BYU posts and most people assume I go there. Do you go to BYU?
That I do. :D The ONLY downside is that I can't make any use of youtube VODs.
And I think you're right, it was Collie.
Haha you must be mormon then, or at least smart haha. Because there are quite a few more downsides to BYU for me, hence my applications to the U even though Im probably the biggest Y fan in the Salt Lake valley. HOLY WAR TOMOROW! ITS ON!
On November 16 2008 14:06 FzeroXx wrote: Oops? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Moron.
Our quarterback got kicked off the team before the season started, we're still one of the better teams in the country. This is our down/rebuilding year. We didn't pull a Michigan. We're playing with a guy that has thrown 7 or 8 pick 6s in 7 games.
We're getting the top rated QB in the nation next year out of TX. I think we'll be just fine. We lost to three teams in the top 10 BCS.. I'm kinda okay with that because we aren't a top 10 team this year.
You do realize that USC grabbed the top rated QB not LSU right? Russell Shedred or whatever his name is the second rated QB in the nation not top. At least according to rivals.com and scout.com he's rated second. Although espn has him and Matt Berkley rated the same but espn has russell as an ATH instead of QB.
North Carolina and Virginia both lost today, which means Georgia Tech just needs Virginia Tech to lose to either Duke today (yeah right) or to Virginia next week. That's amazing that GT can actually make it to the ACC championship with a 5-3 (2-3 div) record. I thought they were screwed after the NC loss.
Texas v Florida nat'l title OK v Bama Penn v USC Rose Utah v Boise? -- I'm under the impression you can't have more than 2 teams in these bowl games from your conference.. so Tech gets fucked.
Err.. I forgot about Oregon State. That fucks up everything. /shrug
a lot of us here at USC are hoping that oregon state wins out. we'll still get our shared pac-10 title, and we'll get to go to a bowl game vs a big 12 or SEC opponent which would be much more exciting than beating up on big ten teams for the 3rd year in a row.
this to me is the reason we need a playoff system.
That game was retarded, then Penn state blows out MSU, but isnt going to get a shot, Texas probably OR Oklahoma one of them wont get a shot, alabama or florida, one wont get a shot.
USC doesnt get a shot, its lame.
edit:
Also you have Utah and Boise State both being undefeated (Ball St Too) and not having a shot at all.
I dont think they would win, but nobody though George Mason would beat all those teams on their trip to the final 4 either.
On November 23 2008 13:38 LosingID8 wrote: a lot of us here at USC are hoping that oregon state wins out. we'll still get our shared pac-10 title, and we'll get to go to a bowl game vs a big 12 or SEC opponent which would be much more exciting than beating up on big ten teams for the 3rd year in a row.
if OSU wins out i'm pretty sure they will be pac-10 champions alone, and they will be in the rose bowl vs PSU. obviously USC could get an at-large elsewhere, so i guess your statement still stands.
btw if OSU wins out, the rose bowl committee is forced basically obligated to choose them and of course PSU... which is a rematch of that blowout from earlier in the season lol. i'm not sure how much interest that would garner nationally... potentially bad tv ratings relative to the other bowls imo.
On November 23 2008 16:23 LosingID8 wrote: btw if OSU wins out, the rose bowl committee is forced basically obligated to choose them and of course PSU... which is a rematch of that blowout from earlier in the season lol. i'm not sure how much interest that would garner nationally... potentially bad tv ratings relative to the other bowls imo.
i dont like the BCS bowls having affiliations.
If we arent going to have a playoff, we should have the top teams. PSUvs Oregon State will suck, + weve seen it already, PSU vs USC would be ehhhh ok, but id rather see USC face florida or alabama. Last year it was retarded that Illinois went.
It sucks because this year there are a bunch of great 1 loss teams which would make awesome games, but im worried theyll end up playing Utah or Boise or something and have SHIT games.
On November 23 2008 16:23 LosingID8 wrote: btw if OSU wins out, the rose bowl committee is forced basically obligated to choose them and of course PSU... which is a rematch of that blowout from earlier in the season lol. i'm not sure how much interest that would garner nationally... potentially bad tv ratings relative to the other bowls imo.
i dont like the BCS bowls having affiliations.
If we arent going to have a playoff, we should have the top teams. PSUvs Oregon State will suck, + weve seen it already, PSU vs USC would be ehhhh ok, but id rather see USC face florida or alabama. Last year it was retarded that Illinois went.
It sucks because this year there are a bunch of great 1 loss teams which would make awesome games, but im worried theyll end up playing Utah or Boise or something and have SHIT games.
The bowls games have always been affiliated with certain conferences. The BCS didn't make it that way.
On November 23 2008 17:17 Sadist wrote: It sucks because this year there are a bunch of great 1 loss teams which would make awesome games, but im worried theyll end up playing Utah or Boise or something and have SHIT games.
Utah and Boise both won last time they were in BCS bowls. I'd be interested in an Ok/Boise rematch if Ok isn't in the NC game
On November 23 2008 16:23 LosingID8 wrote: btw if OSU wins out, the rose bowl committee is forced basically obligated to choose them and of course PSU... which is a rematch of that blowout from earlier in the season lol. i'm not sure how much interest that would garner nationally... potentially bad tv ratings relative to the other bowls imo.
i dont like the BCS bowls having affiliations.
If we arent going to have a playoff, we should have the top teams. PSUvs Oregon State will suck, + weve seen it already, PSU vs USC would be ehhhh ok, but id rather see USC face florida or alabama. Last year it was retarded that Illinois went.
It sucks because this year there are a bunch of great 1 loss teams which would make awesome games, but im worried theyll end up playing Utah or Boise or something and have SHIT games.
The bowls games have always been affiliated with certain conferences. The BCS didn't make it that way.
I know this obviously, but once they switched to the BCS format that should have ended.
It ended for a while anyway when they had the championship game rotate between the bowls until they made this new championship bowl.
We had shit games last year. And shit games before that. rarely have the other BCS games been good (Texas Michigan in the rosebowl was good, Boise Oklahoma too)
Lets just leave it like this. The BCS sucks a fat one. Fuck the BCS. Seriously I hate the BCS more than Bisu, and I really really really really really hate Bisu.
Edit: If you watched Barack Obamas interview on 60 Minutes it should have made you really happy. Obama is a huge college ball boy and he has already stated that he will do everything he can to get rid of the BCS. He is a proponent of a three week playoff system which may have to reduce the amount of regular season games but still having a playoffs would be worth it. Computers shouldnt have any say in whos the best football team in College sports. FUCKING GAY COMPUTERS!
On November 24 2008 15:51 tonight wrote: Everyone always fucking bitches about the BCS, but it's not logical to have college teams play in a play-off.
Why not? 3 weeks for an 8 team playoff. That's not very long. Especially given only two teams would actually play for three weeks. How would that be any different from March Madness, beyond there being fewer teams?
On November 24 2008 15:51 tonight wrote: Everyone always fucking bitches about the BCS, but it's not logical to have college teams play in a play-off.
Look at how the NFL does it. If there were a BCS system in the NFL it would be a total joke. As far as I am concerned the BCS makes college football worse. A playoff system is viable, I don't see why it isnt. The old argument of it ruining the education of athletes is just ridiculous, look how damn long the basketball season is and then theres march madness.
The NFL doesn't have a million fucking teams. How would you do the play offs? Top 25 26(?) and then just have a superbowl type game? How would you rank the teams mid-season to be able to put them into seeds? There are so many teams that you can't go by friends and you would need that computer to help place each team. It just would not work.
Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2.
Some (of many) complaints I have about the system: 1. To break a conference tie in the Big 12 South, they are using BCS rankings. But the BCS rankings account for all games the team has played, not just the in-conference games. So they are deciding the standings in the conference using out of conference games as well. Does not make sense. 2. If Boise State wins its last game, it is highly likely they will be ranked ahead of both the Big East and ACC conference champions. (at least, possibly even Pac-10 co-champ/champ Oregon State should they beat Oregon) Yet those 2 champions get automatic berths and Boise State very likely won't, since Utah is taking up the "one buster per year" quota.
On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2.
the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football.
Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid)
big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\
very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway.
Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too)
Top 8 isn't bad, but it's not teams holding their breath "generally". A couple of the past years it has come down to the points in the system, but that's because teams 1 and 2 couldn't win out respectfully. I think everyone puts it all on the computer a lot more then it should be. If you can hold your top spot through the last week you will keep your top spot.
The main reason why they don't want to change to a play off system is because the value of the championship games and the bowl games would drop a lot, which means a lot of money lost in the process.
For example, let's take a look at the SEC championship. And for this example, lets say Florida was an undefeated team instead of a 1-loss team it is at the moment. If Florida and Bama were both undefeated, they would be #1 and #2 in the BCS ranks. If they played each other in the SEC championship, it wouldn't really matter since a 1-loss UF or Bama team would not likely fall below the 8th rank (provided that the playoff started from the top 8).
But with the current BCS system, the SEC championship becomes a HUGE deal (and LOTS of $$) since only one team can go to the championship.
So then you might say, "well lets have only 1 team per conference enter the playoffs". Well already that's a problem, since we come come back to the original problem where OU, TTech, and Texas are all in the same conference, putting us back to square one.
This is just one example, all in all they stand to lose too much money by abandoning all the bowl games right now.
though if there is enough pressure to move to a playoff system (every year that a team gets screwed out of the BCS title game, another supporter), they will eventually change
yes it'd be a big risk with regards to the bowl games and generally anything that involves this much money always has this much red tape, but eventually i think it'll happen
Hopefully it will happen in the next 5 years or so. If it turned into a March Madness type of frenzy that would be so much more intense than sitting at my comp hitting f5 4pm every sunday.
On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2.
the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football.
Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid)
big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\
very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway.
Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too)
Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography?
On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2.
the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football.
Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid)
big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\
very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway.
Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too)
Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography?
Michigan and OSU would have to be in the same division, MSU would have to be in there too. Maybe if you did north vs south ? The most logical seems east vs west though. Have to preserve the rivalries.
Seems like it's the same thing every year. Whoever is not in top two, but in top 8 BCS the coaches for their teams press for a playoff. OU pushing for it and TT pushing for it. Even though OU will jump TX if they win next week.
On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2.
the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football.
Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid)
big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\
very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway.
Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too)
Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography?
Michigan and OSU would have to be in the same division, MSU would have to be in there too. Maybe if you did north vs south ? The most logical seems east vs west though. Have to preserve the rivalries.
On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2.
the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football.
Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid)
big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\
very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway.
Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too)
Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography?
Michigan and OSU would have to be in the same division, MSU would have to be in there too. Maybe if you did north vs south ? The most logical seems east vs west though. Have to preserve the rivalries.
Why must rivals be in the same division? And, again, why must geography be the basis on which a conference is split into divisions?
On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2.
the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football.
Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid)
big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\
very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway.
Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too)
Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography?
Michigan and OSU would have to be in the same division, MSU would have to be in there too. Maybe if you did north vs south ? The most logical seems east vs west though. Have to preserve the rivalries.
Then ND has to be in there too lol.
ND should be in the Big Ten. Fuck ND and its stupid television contract.
Is anyone else extremely happy that ND is shitting the bed once again? I hate everything about that school, and I'm so happy that Fatso is basically done after this season. Way to ride a cheater's coattails to a job, you cocky douchebag.
On November 25 2008 07:34 Hawk wrote: Is anyone else extremely happy that ND is shitting the bed once again? I hate everything about that school, and I'm so happy that Fatso is basically done after this season. Way to ride a cheater's coattails to a job, you cocky douchebag.
You think they will fire him? I doubt it, they signed him to a 10 year contract, theyd have to pay him like 20 mil lol
and also it makes traveling easier if they are split by geography.
meh
uh, because that's where most rivalries spawn. It's now that rival schools are placed in the same conference, more like schools in the same conference become rivals.
Geography matters because this is not the NFL, and schools need to think about the athlete's education as well as sports. It's another reason why they don't want to have a play-off, because a playoff means more games which means longer season for everyone. Then there's the money involved in having to fly across the coutry for some unranked team you're going to smash anyways.
With closer games schools save up money on traveling and scheduling.
On the other hand I wonder how Hawaii does it.... they must fly to every single away game they have.
On November 25 2008 07:24 Sadist wrote: Rivals have to be in the same division so they play every year.
why?
edit:
and also it makes traveling easier if they are split by geography.
meh
uh, because that's where most rivalries spawn. It's now that rival schools are placed in the same conference, more like schools in the same conference become rivals.
We're not talking about how rivalries come about. We're talking about the continuation of existing rivalries. OSU vs. Michigan doesn't become less of a rivalry when one of the teams sucks ass and it wouldn't become less of a rivalry if they were in separate divisions of the conference.
Geography matters because this is not the NFL, and schools need to think about the athlete's education as well as sports. It's another reason why they don't want to have a play-off, because a playoff means more games which means longer season for everyone. Then there's the money involved in having to fly across the coutry for some unranked team you're going to smash anyways.
With closer games schools save up money on traveling and scheduling.
On the other hand I wonder how Hawaii does it.... they must fly to every single away game they have.
We're talking about the Big Ten. Under the current system, Penn State already travels to play Iowa, OSU already travels to play Minnesota, and so on.
On November 25 2008 07:24 Sadist wrote: Rivals have to be in the same division so they play every year.
edit:
and also it makes traveling easier if they are split by geography.
Georgia and Georgia Tech aren't even in the same conference and they play every year. Florida - Florida State too.
Also, look at how ridiculous the ACC divisions are. They could have split it into north and south, but instead it's divided into the nonsensical "Atlantic" and "coastal" divisions. I assume they didn't want to put Florida State and Miami in the same division because those were both powerhouse programs when the conference was expanded to 12 teams.
On November 25 2008 07:24 Sadist wrote: Rivals have to be in the same division so they play every year.
why?
edit:
and also it makes traveling easier if they are split by geography.
meh
uh, because that's where most rivalries spawn. It's now that rival schools are placed in the same conference, more like schools in the same conference become rivals.
We're not talking about how rivalries come about. We're talking about the continuation of existing rivalries. OSU vs. Michigan doesn't become less of a rivalry when one of the teams sucks ass and it wouldn't become less of a rivalry if they were in separate divisions of the conference.
Geography matters because this is not the NFL, and schools need to think about the athlete's education as well as sports. It's another reason why they don't want to have a play-off, because a playoff means more games which means longer season for everyone. Then there's the money involved in having to fly across the coutry for some unranked team you're going to smash anyways.
With closer games schools save up money on traveling and scheduling.
On the other hand I wonder how Hawaii does it.... they must fly to every single away game they have.
We're talking about the Big Ten. Under the current system, Penn State already travels to play Iowa, OSU already travels to play Minnesota, and so on.
Penn State to Iowa is nothing compared to splitting the conferences and having to spend time on the west and east coast, not to mention the middle of the country and the south where Football is God. If they were to move the conferences around the nation then teams would have to travel further for each away game, and alot of Southern teams would be traveling out here to stomp the living crap out of whatever team they were playing. The difference in competition between the south and the rest of the nation is huge, though the gap has become considerably smaller lately imo.
Well, OU is better than Texas at this point in the season so I think it's the right choice. As long is Florida or USC aren't in the national championship game I don't care.
On November 25 2008 18:25 TheMusiC wrote: bottom line is texas gets fucked 100% unless by some miracle tech loses to baylor (not going to happen)
oh well, maybe next year!
Nah, as long as Oklahoma loses to either OSU or Missouri, then an 11-1 Texas plays in the NC game. No way Texas Tech jumps the Horns from that far down.
On November 26 2008 06:15 tonight wrote: Well, OU is better than Texas at this point in the season so I think it's the right choice. As long is Florida or USC aren't in the national championship game I don't care.
Based on? OU was killing every team they faced before the Red River game also. I honestly thought Texas was going to lose that one. OU's problem on offense is what happens when their running game gets shut down (also see TCU game), and Texas has an outstanding front seven.
Too bad the conference championship is one team per division. imo the best outcome would be to have Texas vs Oklahoma again to determine the Big 12 champion. Missouri hasn't earned the spot as much as Texas/OU/TTU have.
On November 25 2008 18:25 TheMusiC wrote: bottom line is texas gets fucked 100% unless by some miracle tech loses to baylor (not going to happen)
oh well, maybe next year!
Nah, as long as Oklahoma loses to either OSU or Missouri, then an 11-1 Texas plays in the NC game. No way Texas Tech jumps the Horns from that far down.
On November 26 2008 06:15 tonight wrote: Well, OU is better than Texas at this point in the season so I think it's the right choice. As long is Florida or USC aren't in the national championship game I don't care.
Based on? OU was killing every team they faced before the Red River game also. I honestly thought Texas was going to lose that one. OU's problem on offense is what happens when their running game gets shut down (also see TCU game), and Texas has an outstanding front seven.
texas wont go ahead of them if they didnt even play in the conf title game.
On November 26 2008 06:40 Sadist wrote: texas wont go ahead of them if they didnt even play in the conf title game.
Won't go ahead of who? Assuming Texas is able to win Thursday to finish 11-1...
If Oklahoma loses, either to Mizzou or OSU, then that's 2 losses. Texas would have 1 loss, and they've beaten OU. This is clear-cut. The only time a BCS conference team with fewer losses than a participant was left out of the BCS championship game was 2007 Kansas, and they had an exceptionally weak schedule.
Missouri? Same thing - the Tigers have 2 losses and one of them was to Texas.
They'll absolutely go over Texas Tech even if the Red Raiders win the conference. TTU's strength of schedule is crap thanks to playing Eastern Washington, SMU, and Massachussetts. Even if the voters for some reason decide that Texas Tech should go from being 4-5 spots below Texas right now to jumping the Horns after they make the amazing statement of beating Baylor, it won't be by enough to offset the sure edge Texas will have in the computers.
On November 26 2008 06:40 Sadist wrote: texas wont go ahead of them if they didnt even play in the conf title game.
Won't go ahead of who? Assuming Texas is able to win Thursday to finish 11-1...
If Oklahoma loses, either to Mizzou or OSU, then that's 2 losses. Texas would have 1 loss, and they've beaten OU. This is clear-cut. The only time a BCS conference team with fewer losses than a participant was left out of the BCS championship game was 2007 Kansas, and they had an exceptionally weak schedule.
Missouri? Same thing - the Tigers have 2 losses and one of them was to Texas.
They'll absolutely go over Texas Tech even if the Red Raiders win the conference. TTU's strength of schedule is crap thanks to playing Eastern Washington, SMU, and Massachussetts. Even if the voters for some reason decide that Texas Tech should go from being 4-5 spots below Texas right now to jumping the Horns after they make the amazing statement of beating Baylor, it won't be by enough to offset the sure edge Texas will have in the computers.
On November 26 2008 08:05 Sadist wrote: bama could still go ahead of them
Yeah, Bama will surely go as long as they win out. I'm assuming the title game will be SEC vs Big 12. Doubtful that both Florida and Bama would go, since the loser would have just lost the day before final rankings come out, and in 2006 the voters showed that they have a clear aversion to same-conference rematch title games.
USC is also a long shot, and might not win the Pac 10 which eliminates the conference champion argument. Penn State needs a miracle.
imo, this crap is just more proof that we need a playoff. I'll agree that it's ridiculous for Texas to be national champions but not Big 12 champions... on the other hand, it'd also be ridiculous for Missouri to (hypothetically) claim the conference title over Texas despite a worse record and losing their head-to-head. The way conference championship games are set up is pretty dumb... you can back in by playing in a weak division then negate the entire regular season in just one game.
On November 26 2008 08:05 Sadist wrote: bama could still go ahead of them
Yeah, Bama will surely go as long as they win out. I'm assuming the title game will be SEC vs Big 12. Doubtful that both Florida and Bama would go, since the loser would have just lost the day before final rankings come out, and in 2006 the voters showed that they have a clear aversion to same-conference rematch title games.
USC is also a long shot, and might not win the Pac 10 which eliminates the conference champion argument. Penn State needs a miracle.
imo, this crap is just more proof that we need a playoff. I'll agree that it's ridiculous for Texas to be national champions but not Big 12 champions... on the other hand, it'd also be ridiculous for Missouri to (hypothetically) claim the conference title over Texas despite a worse record and losing their head-to-head. The way conference championship games are set up is pretty dumb... you can back in by playing in a weak division then negate the entire regular season in just one game.
Well, you never know.
If bama loses by a last second field goal or something they might have a chance.
The bullshit from 06 was that if you werent a conf champ how could you play in the title game (even though it happened before)
If texas doesnt get to the title game Id love to hear the logic these assholes use after saying the exact opposite in 06.
The same thing happened last year with georgia even.
So say Oklahoma loses and texas tech wins and gets in, how the FUCK can you put texas ahead of them even if they lose? Thats the exact same thing that happened to georgia. IMO Penn State should go over USC, even though I thinK USC is better. lost by a last second field goal to iowa, compared to getting pushed around by oregon state.
PS College football and this system is super gay unless your team is on top ;(
But, without this system we wouldn't be having these spirited discussions every year. I think it just makes the whole NCAA more exciting for the public in general. Yes, everyone below top 2 will always want a playoff that's just a fact, but for marketing and money reasons it will never happen.
On November 26 2008 09:38 Sadist wrote: If texas doesnt get to the title game Id love to hear the logic these assholes use after saying the exact opposite in 06.
Really depends on how it happens.
For example, what if OU loses to OSU and the B12 Championship is Missouri vs Texas Tech. Missouri wins. Then Texas is the only team in the B12 with just one loss and they beat Missouri. This makes them the best team in the conference, regardless of whether they have a pretty trophy to show for it. In my opinion, overall record trumps everything else unless one team just faced an extremely weak schedule.
Or, what if all 3 teams win this week and OU goes to the B12 championship. Now, this ignores the fact that Texas beat Oklahoma, but the voters are saying that OU is the better team anyway. Then Missouri beats OU. The argument is that the voters got it wrong the first time - Texas should have been ahead of Oklahoma - and this is no reason to punish the Longhorns just because the voters got it wrong before the conference championship game.
If Texas Tech goes to the conference title game and wins, then I think it's harder to make an argument. They're basically arguing that Texas should have gone to the conference championship game after TTU was blown out by Oklahoma and overall played a much weaker schedule than Texas - that these factors outweigh Tech winning on a last second pass at home. TTU beating Missouri doesn't prove anything since Texas also beat Missouri.
Like you said, it's happened before. I think the clearest example is 2003 Oklahoma. Is there really an argument that Kansas State, with 3 regular season losses, was the best team in the Big 12? Of course not. In 2003 we could have just chosen USC vs LSU instead. What about this season? Say Florida is the SEC Champ and Missouri is the Big 12 Champ (beating Oklahoma). Oregon State will wind up Pac 10 champs if they win just one more game. Texas Tech, Texas, and USC are all sitting at 11-1 and all clearly had better seasons than Missouri and Oregon State. Being "conference champion" doesn't mean you're the best team in your conference. I really don't put a lot of weight into that argument for inclusion in national championship games. I mean, should we include Penn State just because they're Big Ten champions? Makes no sense. That's just rewarding them for playing in a conference that doesn't have a championship game and that is having a down season. The reason I thought Florida should have gone over Michigan in 2006 was because a) Ohio State and Michigan had just played the last weekend of the season, so an immediate rematch would be silly since Florida had the same record and hadn't lost since October and b) Florida faced a far, far tougher schedule than Michigan. Mostly the latter.
On November 26 2008 09:57 tonight wrote: But, without this system we wouldn't be having these spirited discussions every year. I think it just makes the whole NCAA more exciting for the public in general. Yes, everyone below top 2 will always want a playoff that's just a fact, but for marketing and money reasons it will never happen.
I dunno, March Madness generates a lot of discussion and publicity. If a playoff is done well, it would produce just as much money and marketing potential.
But yeah, the playoff is unlikely to happen for a while. The Rose Bowl and Jim Delany are too strongly against it.
Last year georgia was arguably better than LSU and didnt get a chance to be in the SEC title game because of a loss to tenn. They had 2 losses, didnt get in.
Im just saying, from the precedent that everyone bitched about in 06 with Michigan, It would be horseshit if texas got to go and didnt win their conf. A rematch had already happened with Florida vs Florida State in the NC game, Michigan had to play OSU on the road, and came back from being down big. Im still bitter =[
On November 26 2008 12:21 Sadist wrote: Last year georgia was arguably better than LSU and didnt get a chance to be in the SEC title game because of a loss to tenn. They had 2 losses, didnt get in.
Im just saying, from the precedent that everyone bitched about in 06 with Michigan, It would be horseshit if texas got to go and didnt win their conf. A rematch had already happened with Florida vs Florida State in the NC game, Michigan had to play OSU on the road, and came back from being down big. Im still bitter =[
On November 26 2008 12:21 Sadist wrote: A rematch had already happened with Florida vs Florida State in the NC game
Ever since that I've hated Florida.
That was also pre-BCS, when the bowls were decided based mostly on conference. The BCS would have pitted unbeaten Florida State against unbeaten Arizona State. (much as I don't like the BCS, it is a slight improvement over what we had before)
On November 27 2008 01:10 KOFgokuon wrote: Hate on Florida all you want, but you have to admit that Urban Meyer's daughter is kind of cute http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=881113 even though she may not even be 18 yet...
She's at least 16 and most of us are <24 so it's all good by Florida law and definitely by Georgia law.
On November 26 2008 12:21 Sadist wrote: It would be horseshit if texas got to go and didnt win their conf.
How absolutely do you believe this, though? Hypothetical: * Florida loses to Alabama (finishes 11-2). * Alabama are 13-0 SEC Champions and in the title game for sure. * Oregon State beats Oregon to win Pac 10 (finishes 9-3) * Let's say Penn State had lost to Michigan State (making Ohio State Big 10 champs at 10-2) * Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma State (both finish 10-2) * Texas Tech loses to Missouri (both 2 losses) * Big East champion already guaranteed at least 2 losses * ACC champion already guaranteed at least 3 losses
It's down to either Texas who has the best record in the Big 12 but not the championship trophy, a BCS champion with more losses than Texas, or a team from the WAC/Mt West/MAC. I don't see the argument here for Missouri over Texas.
One big difference between this year's Big 12 and last year's SEC is that Georgia lost the SEC West due to head-to-head. It was a straight-up, objective tiebreaker. Texas may lose the Big 12 South due to voting, despite having beaten the team (Oklahoma) who they are tied with in record but will get the subjective nod. That's not really Texas' fault that the voters prefer Oklahoma. Therefore, if Oklahoma chokes it in the conference championship, it's less unreasonable to send Texas rather than OU or Missouri (on the other hand, if Oklahoma wins the B12CG, then they deserve to go).
Likewise, if LSU had lost the SEC title game last season, I think it would have been totally legit to send Georgia to the BCS championship.
On November 26 2008 12:21 Sadist wrote: It would be horseshit if texas got to go and didnt win their conf.
How absolutely do you believe this, though? Hypothetical: * Florida loses to Alabama (finishes 11-2). * Alabama are 13-0 SEC Champions and in the title game for sure. * Oregon State beats Oregon to win Pac 10 (finishes 9-3) * Let's say Penn State had lost to Michigan State (making Ohio State Big 10 champs at 10-2) * Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma State (both finish 10-2) * Texas Tech loses to Missouri (both 2 losses) * Big East champion already guaranteed at least 2 losses * ACC champion already guaranteed at least 3 losses
It's down to either Texas who has the best record in the Big 12 but not the championship trophy, a BCS champion with more losses than Texas, or a team from the WAC/Mt West/MAC. I don't see the argument here for Missouri over Texas.
One big difference between this year's Big 12 and last year's SEC is that Georgia lost the SEC West due to head-to-head. It was a straight-up, objective tiebreaker. Texas may lose the Big 12 South due to voting, despite having beaten the team (Oklahoma) who they are tied with in record but will get the subjective nod. That's not really Texas' fault that the voters prefer Oklahoma. Therefore, if Oklahoma chokes it in the conference championship, it's less unreasonable to send Texas rather than OU or Missouri (on the other hand, if Oklahoma wins the B12CG, then they deserve to go).
Likewise, if LSU had lost the SEC title game last season, I think it would have been totally legit to send Georgia to the BCS championship.
I dont believe it, but the arguement has been used before. I thought Michigan should have gone in 06.
But thats what people whined about last time (especially the SEC faggots)
you can argue that you are rewarding texas by not playing thereby not possibly losing in the conf title game if you let them go.
On November 26 2008 12:21 Sadist wrote: A rematch had already happened with Florida vs Florida State in the NC game
Ever since that I've hated Florida.
That was also pre-BCS, when the bowls were decided based mostly on conference. The BCS would have pitted unbeaten Florida State against unbeaten Arizona State. (much as I don't like the BCS, it is a slight improvement over what we had before)
I was mostly talking about 06 when Florida jumped Michigan. They also didn't want a rematch of OSU and UofM in the championship game. Even though Florida ended up smashing OSU and then UofM got around to beating Florida the following year.
On November 26 2008 12:21 Sadist wrote: A rematch had already happened with Florida vs Florida State in the NC game
Ever since that I've hated Florida.
That was also pre-BCS, when the bowls were decided based mostly on conference. The BCS would have pitted unbeaten Florida State against unbeaten Arizona State. (much as I don't like the BCS, it is a slight improvement over what we had before)
I was mostly talking about 06 when Florida jumped Michigan. They also didn't want a rematch of OSU and UofM in the championship game. Even though Florida ended up smashing OSU and then UofM got around to beating Florida the following year.
Yeah but Florida did lose a lot of players to graduation or the draft after that 06 championship so comparing the two game isn't really fair to Florida.
On November 26 2008 12:21 Sadist wrote: A rematch had already happened with Florida vs Florida State in the NC game
Ever since that I've hated Florida.
That was also pre-BCS, when the bowls were decided based mostly on conference. The BCS would have pitted unbeaten Florida State against unbeaten Arizona State. (much as I don't like the BCS, it is a slight improvement over what we had before)
I was mostly talking about 06 when Florida jumped Michigan. They also didn't want a rematch of OSU and UofM in the championship game. Even though Florida ended up smashing OSU and then UofM got around to beating Florida the following year.
Yeah but Florida did lose a lot of players to graduation or the draft after that 06 championship so comparing the two game isn't really fair to Florida.
Yes, both Michigan and Florida lost a lot of players, and that makes that head-to-head comparison even worse. You just can't compare the two different seasons like that. Anyway, Florida did beat Ohio State that year convincingly, so in hindsight it was not a bad choice. Not to mention the '06 Michigan team lost decisively to USC. So if there had been a +1 or a playoff format, not even one of the Big Ten teams would most likely make the title game, much less both of them.
This year, just as every year, is a demonstration that the current format is flawed. The BCS cares whether your conference is one of the 6 privileged, regardless of if the privileged conference is strong or not. Boise State, Ball State and Utah all ran the table in their respective conference, and in addition at least Utah and Boise State are guaranteed to be ranked ahead of the Big East and ACC Champion, and possibly even the Pac-10 main champion. But only one of them will go to a BCS bowl, while the other (Boise) is most likely stuck in some average bowl game. The argument is, that they did not play a strong schedule so the undefeated record does not matter much. But then teams like Cincinnati and Oregon State, with 2 and 3 losses, should also not get a BCS bowl bid, since their conferences are not better than the MWC, for example.
Yes, both Michigan and Florida lost a lot of players, and that makes that head-to-head comparison even worse. You just can't compare the two different seasons like that. Anyway, Florida did beat Ohio State that year convincingly, so in hindsight it was not a bad choice. Not to mention the '06 Michigan team lost decisively to USC. So if there had been a +1 or a playoff format, not even one of the Big Ten teams would most likely make the title game, much less both of them.
This year, just as every year, is a demonstration that the current format is flawed. The BCS cares whether your conference is one of the 6 privileged, regardless of if the privileged conference is strong or not. Boise State, Ball State and Utah all ran the table in their respective conference, and in addition at least Utah and Boise State are guaranteed to be ranked ahead of the Big East and ACC Champion, and possibly even the Pac-10 main champion. But only one of them will go to a BCS bowl, while the other (Boise) is most likely stuck in some average bowl game. The argument is, that they did not play a strong schedule so the undefeated record does not matter much. But then teams like Cincinnati and Oregon State, with 2 and 3 losses, should also not get a BCS bowl bid, since their conferences are not better than the MWC, for example.
Uh, how about Florida had Tebow who won the Heisman. How does that sit?
It'll be interesting to see how the polls shape up tomorrow. Through three quarters Okla State kept it really close, but OU made the final score convincing.
Yeah, just more proof that they need a playoff. Mack Brown was talking about how if they used the SEC system, which eliminates the bottom ranked team then uses head-to-head between the top two, Texas would win the B12S for sure. One of the announcers said that if point differential was the last tiebreaker, Oklahoma would win it for sure. Just stupid that it comes down to what system they use and who's voting. Both teams are just about equally deserving.
Been playing around with Colley's computer poll. GT > Georgia and Kansas > Missouri have a HUGE impact. If OU starts passing Alabama now that Georgia has lost, that could swing the Big 12 South.
Right now it looks like we will have Oklahoma +1 spot in Sagarin (official) and Massey's (OU-UT went 1-2 last week). Texas highly likely to be +1 in Colley's. OU was ahead in Billingsley's last week, and with Goergia's loss that may be enough to jump them to #1 over Alabama. Assuming that happens, OU is +3 in the computers with Anderson and Wolfe still out.
Texas was +1 in Anderson and +2 in Wolfe last week. In AH there is a decent chance Texas could pass Utah to get +2. In Wolfe, Oklahoma will surely pass Texas Tech. The question is whether OU will pass Texas... or for that matter, whether Texas will pass Alabama. Seems like the most likely results are a tie in the computer polls or Oklahoma ahead by 1 vote (scales down to 0.25 in the computer average).
With the Coaches Poll practically tied, this means it comes down to the Harris Poll. The AP voters moved towards Texas by just 12 points out of 65 voters. The coaches on the other hand moved towards Texas by 41 points out of 61 voters. Did the Harris voters see things more like the AP, or more like the coaches?
Gotta say, I am disappointed that the computers are once again sending Oklahoma to a championship game over the voters' pick. It would have been more understandable if the Sooners had played well enough that the voters decided they were more deserving, but that (just barely) wasn't the case. After seeing OU again not playing defense in a big game, I'm curious how they're supposed to stop Tim Tebow if Florida wins the SEC... I think the voters also saw that Texas is the better defensive team, and defense wins championships.
We need a playoff, but in the meantime we need a different system of picking the top teams. Again if this had been the voters' choice, that still would have sucked, but it'd be more understandable.
On December 01 2008 08:54 TheMusiC wrote: texas beat both teams playing for the big 12 championship by double digits
lol what the fuck
OU's offense can shoot with the best, but their defense is going to get rolled in the NC game
And OU beat TT by 44 who beat Texas which caused Texas not to be playing in it. The whole 45-35 remember is bullshit. Texas had a chance to get it done on the field and lost to TT.
I would argue that a last second miracle pass is hardly grounds to say that Texas didn't "get it done in the field." Of course playing good teams later in the season counts for more than playing good teams four weeks in a row in the middle of the season, and getting beaten by double digits early counts for less than losing by one miracle touchdown three weeks later. Also playing against a string of unranked opponents in between your loss to #5 and your big win over the #2 counts for more than playing four ranked opponents in a row (and losing by a miracle in the last game). Sick BCS computer logic.
And none of this would even matter if the Big 12 didn't have stupid tiebreaker rules.
Oh well, if OU goes to the national championship maybe they won't get blown out as hard as the last time. Also if OU manages to lose to Missouri, it would be hilarious and entirely BCS-like to send USC to the NC game.
On December 01 2008 10:16 MCMcEmcee wrote: I would argue that a last second miracle pass is hardly grounds to say that Texas didn't "get it done in the field." Of course playing good teams later in the season counts for more than playing good teams four weeks in a row in the middle of the season, and getting beaten by double digits early counts for less than losing by one miracle touchdown three weeks later. Also playing against a string of unranked opponents in between your loss to #5 and your big win over the #2 counts for more than playing four ranked opponents in a row (and losing by a miracle in the last game). Sick BCS computer logic.
Exactly. Alabama is the only team from a major conference who's gotten it done every week. Beyond them it's a bunch of one-loss teams. If Texas and Oklahoma are the two most-deserving, it should go to Texas. If Texas Tech and Texas were the two most-deserving (ie, had they not gotten blown out and not played two FCS schools), then TTU should go. But since Tech scheduled a bunch of completely ridiculous creampuffs and their loss was not even close, they're out of the discussion.
And how people ignored that Texas played OU, Missouri, OSU, and TTU all consecutively is another mystery.
And none of this would even matter if the Big 12 didn't have stupid tiebreaker rules.
Absolutely true. By any other of the 12-team conferences' tiebreakers, Texas wins the conference. Amazingly, only two (MAC, CUSA) use anything close to the same system. This really needs to be standardized.
Oh well, hopefully Missouri will pull off the upset. Texas would probably go in that case, but if USC got called up they are also a very deserving team; their loss was pretty much a fluke too. Unlikely though - Missouri just lost to Kansas which is not a good team.
You think the BCS is trash because the better OU team jumps Texas? Yes, Texas won in their matchup earlier in the season, but you cannot deny that the OU team now is much better then the OU team that Texas faced in the beginning of the season. If anything I don't want to see Alabama there even though I feel they did work hard to get there.
Pfft Texas has proved it is worthy. Why is OU better? Because they beat TT soundly? Pah, Texas was VERY close to beating them and going undefeated. Texas is awesome and this is EXACTLY why a playoff is needed. So many good teams in the big 12 that have the potential to rip apart almost every other team in the country.
OU blew out everyone they faced prior to, and following, Texas. Now they are doing it while scoring more points but also giving up more points. Since the Texas game, OU hasn't been able to hold a single opponent to less than 20! Texas' defense gives up an average of about 18 ppg. Yeah the Sooner offense is great but when I see that defense giving up 41 to OSU while Kendall Hunter's not even 100%, I think a team like Texas or Florida who are better at QB, OL, and WR than the Cowboys would score on every possession.
They might be better than Texas, it's possible. But unless it's undeniably obvious that OU would win a rematch, which I don't think it is, then the head-to-head has to separate the two.
And yes, this really shows that the BCS is trash. It's like when Florida State got in over Miami in 2000, despite Miami having beaten them.
Yeah I don't feel like Alabama has done anything great to get there -- Georgia was obviously overrated. If they manage to beat Florida, though, then they've passed a tough test to keep their perfect record.
Did anyone else watch the SEC championship game? Wow it was a great game, if Florida doesnt move into the top position and go to the BCS championship I am going to kill whoever invented the BCS.
On December 07 2008 09:29 SpiralArchitect wrote: Did anyone else watch the SEC championship game? Wow it was a great game, if Florida doesnt move into the top position and go to the BCS championship I am going to kill whoever invented the BCS.
Great game indeed!
All that speculation is unfounded. Beating Alabama is going to shoot UF way up in the computer polls. They'll probably be #2 there. Also top 2 in the voter polls. They're going to the championship for sure.
Mizzou is just not playing well today, I havent watched them very much this season but they are looking really lackluster. Its too bad they wont be able to get revenge for last year, at least if it stays like this.
On December 07 2008 11:42 SpiralArchitect wrote: Mizzou is just not playing well today, I havent watched them very much this season but they are looking really lackluster. Its too bad they wont be able to get revenge for last year, at least if it stays like this.
This is about normal. Somewhere along the way Chase Daniel forgot how to get first downs and it has been pretty bad ever since. ;.;
did anyone think mizzou would actually win? i mean come on, seriously... chase daniel playing like total shit tonight doesn't help their case either :/
i predict a UF trouncing of OU. florida's defense looked absolutely beastly today, and OU hasn't really faced a defense like that all season (the closest they came was vs. texas, who isn't even close to florida's level). unless OU's defense can take out tebow's kneecaps or crush his adam's apple on the 1st play or something, they won't be able to stop the gators.
no, florida vs oklahoma will be a close/great game. florida defense looked better against the slower alabama offense, but they will not be able to stop oklahoma offense. nobody can. and the florida is definitely not that much better than texas defense. oklahoma offense just has too much talent, but same goes for florida offense, assuming percy is healthy. florida "trouncing" oklahoma? i am just gonna take this as a biased prediction, you can't be serious.
^ I think your right as well, though I believe Florida to be the better team I do not think this is going to be a blowout on either side by any means. I am really excited, the BCS is so hit and miss but it looks like it did well this year. On that note I wanted MIzzou to win so bad just so another season could be fucked up by the BCS and maybe it would go away.
both offenses are top-notch and explosive, no doubt. the big difference between the two i think is the defenses. aside from shutting down tech at home (which was very impressive) they couldn't outgun texas and they also looked very vulnerable vs. oklahoma state, especially on special teams, and we all know florida has a fantastic special teams unit. OU's been great all season, but florida is much much better than anything they've faced thus far. in reality i'd love to see something similar to the UT-OU game in october, but i'm inclined to say something else so i don't get my hopes up . this game has the potential to be great, but it also has the potential to end up like OU's last NC game ;o
UT's defense imo isn't as good as most people think it is. sure, they stopped OU (which was pretty much the only time all season anyone could keep them in check), but i'm wholly convinced that that was just a lucky game ;D. tbh i'm not really sure how they held up so well this year being so young and inexperienced, i guess will muschamp is a genius or something.
like i said earlier, OU's offense can shoot with the best, but their defense to me leaves a bit to be desired (especially with reynolds out). if they can get stops against florida then i'll be really impressed.
tonight's big 12 game was a joke though, asking a team whose defense is so bad to play against oklahoma is just mean :[
that's the thing though, there hasn't really been a defense anywhere this season that's shown it's good enough to stop the sooner offense (except for, again, texas, but they fucked that up later in getting dominated by TT). the most anyone can do is to get stops and hope that you can outgun them because at this point in the season there's no way you'll be able to contain bradford/gresham/iglesias/brown. fwiw though i think florida will be able to do this (or attempt to do this) better than any team that OU has played (this is just going from what i've seen though so i could be totally wrong, but this defensive unit has looked pretty wicked). plus they looked really really good in beating alabama, though their offensive style is quite a bit different from anything you'll see in the big 12.
anyway, i'm hoping it'll be a great game, but as always with college football, i'm not going to get too excited about anything :p
On December 07 2008 17:40 TheMusiC wrote: that's the thing though, there hasn't really been a defense anywhere this season that's shown it's good enough to stop the sooner offense (except for, again, texas, but they fucked that up later in getting dominated by TT). the most anyone can do is to get stops and hope that you can outgun them because at this point in the season there's no way you'll be able to contain bradford/gresham/iglesias/brown. fwiw though i think florida will be able to do this (or attempt to do this) better than any team that OU has played (this is just going from what i've seen though so i could be totally wrong, but this defensive unit has looked pretty wicked). plus they looked really really good in beating alabama, though their offensive style is quite a bit different from anything you'll see in the big 12.
anyway, i'm hoping it'll be a great game, but as always with college football, i'm not going to get too excited about anything :p
i think USC's defense could hang in there with the sooner offense.
unfortunately we had 1 stupid bad quarter back in september.
On December 07 2008 17:40 TheMusiC wrote: that's the thing though, there hasn't really been a defense anywhere this season that's shown it's good enough to stop the sooner offense (except for, again, texas, but they fucked that up later in getting dominated by TT). the most anyone can do is to get stops and hope that you can outgun them because at this point in the season there's no way you'll be able to contain bradford/gresham/iglesias/brown. fwiw though i think florida will be able to do this (or attempt to do this) better than any team that OU has played (this is just going from what i've seen though so i could be totally wrong, but this defensive unit has looked pretty wicked). plus they looked really really good in beating alabama, though their offensive style is quite a bit different from anything you'll see in the big 12.
anyway, i'm hoping it'll be a great game, but as always with college football, i'm not going to get too excited about anything :p
i think USC's defense could hang in there with the sooner offense.
unfortunately we had 1 stupid bad quarter back in september.
argh.
oh well, gotta focus on the rose bowl.
well, nobody can really stop the oklahoma offense. if you have weak defensive line, oklahoma can run the ball every time. weak secondaries, they will pass all day. or maybe combination of both to do what they are best at doing - scoring touchdowns. imo you pretty much need to have a perfect defense to effectively slow down oklahoma, because the sooners will read the defense and exploit the weaknesses like no other. not only do they have amazing skill position players (bradford, iglesias, gresham, murray, brown, royles) their offensive line is amazing. they can run and pass down the field in light speed, and of course, they don't turn the ball over. so i don't think usc or florida would succeed in containing the touchdown machine. however, florida defense just needs to do enough to outscore them by using their speedy and explosive offense. it will be hell of a shootout.
about 3/4 of our starting defensive players will be 1st round draft picks.
kind of outdated by a couple weeks but whatever:
1 - Scoring defense national ranking (7.8) 1 - Pass defense national ranking (162.0) 1 - Pass efficiency defense national ranking (84.3) 2 - Total defense national ranking (222.5) 3 - Shutouts posted 3 - Passing touchdowns allowed 6 - Rushing defense national ranking (90.2) 8 - Opponents held to 100 rushing yards or less 8 - Opponents held to under 250 total yards 8 - Opponents held to 14 points or less 10 - Touchdowns allowed 14 - Drives allowed of 50-plus yards allowed 19 - Points allowed in the second half 28.8 - Third down conversion percentage allowed
On December 07 2008 19:54 LosingID8 wrote: about 3/4 of our starting defensive players will be 1st round draft picks.
kind of outdated by a couple weeks but whatever:
1 - Scoring defense national ranking (7.8) 1 - Pass defense national ranking (162.0) 1 - Pass efficiency defense national ranking (84.3) 2 - Total defense national ranking (222.5) 3 - Shutouts posted 3 - Passing touchdowns allowed 6 - Rushing defense national ranking (90.2) 8 - Opponents held to 100 rushing yards or less 8 - Opponents held to under 250 total yards 8 - Opponents held to 14 points or less 10 - Touchdowns allowed 14 - Drives allowed of 50-plus yards allowed 19 - Points allowed in the second half 28.8 - Third down conversion percentage allowed
i hate to say this as a west coaster but any defense can look excellent playing against pac10 offense. while i agree usc has great defense, those statistics are very inflated. 3/4 of usc defense is going first round? i am having hard time believing that, with all the talented SEC defensive players out there. who knows though
August 30 at Virginia W 52-7 1-0 (0-0) September 13 No. 5 Ohio State W 35-3 2-0 (0-0) September 25 at Oregon State L 27-21 2-1 (0-1) October 4 No. 23 Oregon W 44-10 3-1 (1-1) October 11 Arizona State W 28-0 4-1 (2-1) October 18 at Washington State W 69-0 5-1 (3-1) October 25 at Arizona W 17-10 6-1 (4-1) November 1 Washington W 56-0 7-1 (5-1) November 8 No. 21 California W 17-3 8-1 (6-1) November 15 at Stanford W 45-23 9-1 (7-1) November 29 Notre Dame W 38-3 10-1 (7-1) December 6 at UCLA W 28-7 11-1 (8-1)
That's your schedule. Honestly. Seriously. Schedule some real opponents if you want anyone outside of the LIBRAL BIASED MEDIASFSD to take USC seriously. Ohio State is your only real opponent.. and they suck, bad.
Compare to OK or FL schedules:
==OK== August 30 Chattanooga W 57-2 1-0 (0-0) September 6 Cincinnati W 52-26 2-0 (0-0) September 13 at Washington W 55-14 3-0 (0-0) September 27 No. 24 TCU W 35-10 4-0 (0-0) October 4 at Baylor W 49-17 5-0 (1-0) October 11 vs. No. 5 Texas* L 45-35 5-1 (1-1) October 18 No. 16 Kansas W 45-31 6-1 (2-1) October 25 at Kansas State W 58-35 7-1 (3-1) November 1 Nebraska W 62-28 8-1 (4-1) November 8 at Texas A&M W 66-28 9-1 (5-1) November 22 No. 2 Texas Tech W 65-21 10-1 (6-1) November 29 at No. 12 Oklahoma State W 61-41 11-1 (7-1) December 6 vs. No. 20 Missouri* W 62-21 12-1 (7-1)
==FL== August 30 Hawaii W 56-10 1-0 (0-0) September 6 Miami (FL) W 26-3 2-0 (0-0) September 20 at Tennessee W 30-6 3-0 (1-0) September 27 Mississippi L 31-30 3-1 (1-1) October 4 at Arkansas W 38-7 4-1 (2-1) October 11 No. 4 LSU W 51-21 5-1 (3-1) October 25 Kentucky W 63-5 6-1 (4-1) November 1 at No. 6 Georgia W 49-10 7-1 (5-1) November 8 at Vanderbilt W 42-14 8-1 (6-1) November 15 No. 25 South Carolina W 56-6 9-1 (7-1) November 22 Citadel W 70-19 10-1 (7-1) November 29 at No. 20 Florida State W 45-15 11-1 (7-1) December 6 vs. No. 1 Alabama* W 31-20 12-1 (7-1)
did you just say USC needs to schedule some real opponents? lol.
look, we scheduled UVA, tOSU, and ND. UVA was a 9-4 team last year, and that was the first game of the season. tOSU is a great OOC game as well. ND is a traditional rivalry game, and historically are an amazing football program.
we all know about the big12 this year. yes, it was clearly the strongest conference by far.
but please don't tell me about florida. yes they have a great SEC record and won against many ranked opponents. but how many teams actually deserved those rankings? they were clearly overrated. a win over "#4 LSU"? they finished 7-5, with a 3-5 conference record. "#6 georgia" ended up with 3 losses. "#25 south carolina" 4-4 in conference, 7-5 overall. "#20 FSU" has 4 losses? plus florida lost AT HOME to unranked ole miss. of course, vs bama was a great win though. their ooc wins are against citadel (lol), miami FL, and hawaii. miami is the only team from a BCS conference.
but please don't tell me about florida. yes they have a great SEC record and won against many ranked opponents. but how many teams actually deserved those rankings? they were clearly overrated.
You think florida is overrated??? really?
BTW, UVA is in the ACC (one of the worst conferences in the country this season), and their record this year was 5-7 against mostly unranked teams--failing to even qualify for a bowl game. And ND is mediocre at best.
If you actually look at the schedule of the teams Florida beat, you'll see they all had much tougher schedules than USC as well. If you put USC into a tougher conference, they would come out with much the same sort of 9-3 8-4 7-5 type of record.
I'm not blaming USC, they can't really do much about their conference sucking. But that doesn't mean they deserve to play in the title game if they have a good record.
On December 08 2008 05:59 LosingID8 wrote: sorry my sentence structure was very ambiguous.
florida is not overrated, but the many ranked teams that they played were. primarily due to the media loving the SEC.
I completely understood that you did not explicitly call florida overrated. But I thought the whole reason you brought up florida's "overrated" opponents was to imply that florida itself is overrated. Oh well, nvm.
On December 08 2008 05:24 LosingID8 wrote: did you just say USC needs to schedule some real opponents? lol.
look, we scheduled UVA, tOSU, and ND. UVA was a 9-4 team last year, and that was the first game of the season. tOSU is a great OOC game as well. ND is a traditional rivalry game, and historically are an amazing football program.
we all know about the big12 this year. yes, it was clearly the strongest conference by far.
but please don't tell me about florida. yes they have a great SEC record and won against many ranked opponents. but how many teams actually deserved those rankings? they were clearly overrated. a win over "#4 LSU"? they finished 7-5, with a 3-5 conference record. "#6 georgia" ended up with 3 losses. "#25 south carolina" 4-4 in conference, 7-5 overall. "#20 FSU" has 4 losses? plus florida lost AT HOME to unranked ole miss. of course, vs bama was a great win though. their ooc wins are against citadel (lol), miami FL, and hawaii. miami is the only team from a BCS conference.
it isn't USC's fault the PAC-10 had a down year.
I love you ID8 but the PAC-10 is such a weak ass conference this year. USC is the only team from the PAC-10 in the BCS standings and they are only there because they could walk over all of their PAC-10 opponents with ease. UCLA was total joke this year and your friends up north didnt do much better for themselves. The MWC seriously put the smackdown on you guys this year and if we keep doing it I hope we get our BCS slot, because MWC is better than the PAC-10. Besides you guys deserve it for ignoring Utah/BYU for so long now, we deserve a spot in the PAC-10 where we could easily compete against anyone except USC, and I could see the Utes or the Cougs beating them just not easily.
On December 07 2008 17:40 TheMusiC wrote: that's the thing though, there hasn't really been a defense anywhere this season that's shown it's good enough to stop the sooner offense (except for, again, texas, but they fucked that up later in getting dominated by TT).
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.
USC's nonconference schedule was as tough as anyone's out there. UVA, Ohio State, and ND is a lot tougher than (for example) Cincy, TCU, Washington, and Chattanooga.
Can't ignore how awful the rest of the Pac 10 is this year though. Because of that, USC doesn't belong in over Florida/Oklahoma if they all have the same # of losses.
lol I was really hoping Missouri could fix the Big 12's mistake... so much for that!
On December 07 2008 17:40 TheMusiC wrote: that's the thing though, there hasn't really been a defense anywhere this season that's shown it's good enough to stop the sooner offense (except for, again, texas, but they fucked that up later in getting dominated by TT).
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.
I'm torn. The Big 12 gets a lot of crap in the media for losing NC games. But I really want to see OU get destroyed. If OU wins, I'll feel like Texas was robbed of a likely national title. But if Florida wins by like 30, then they're probably better than UT also, given how close UT and OU were.
On December 08 2008 07:08 Signet wrote: USC's nonconference schedule was as tough as anyone's out there. UVA, Ohio State, and ND is a lot tougher than (for example) Cincy, TCU, Washington, and Chattanooga.
Can't ignore how awful the rest of the Pac 10 is this year though. Because of that, USC doesn't belong in over Florida/Oklahoma if they all have the same # of losses.
lol I was really hoping Missouri could fix the Big 12's mistake... so much for that!
You have to admit Notre Dame hardly lived up to their big name this year.
it does suck that they have to basically go undefeated to get to the championship, despite a nonconference schedule way harder than anyone else's. UVa, Ohio State, and ND looked solid before the season. The Citadel never did.
Yeah if we're just going to let two teams in, strength of schedule has to count for a lot. It sucks for USC that their conference just happens to be bad this year, but it'd suck worse for the Big 12 champion to be left out when the conference is very tough this year.
I think most people agree - playoff is the only way to solve this.
Dude, are you guys serious? Scheduling "famous" teams isn't scheduling good teams. Is Michigan, Nebraska, and Notre Dame a hard non-conference schedule? Fuck no. What makes USC's schedule tough at all? Name one thing. There isn't one. They haven't been tested at all.
The best teams get tested week after week and come out on top anyway. Just because Lyon wins the the French football league EVERY SINGLE YEAR doesn't make them the best football team in the world. It makes them the best of a bunch of bad teams.
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.
On December 07 2008 17:40 TheMusiC wrote: that's the thing though, there hasn't really been a defense anywhere this season that's shown it's good enough to stop the sooner offense (except for, again, texas, but they fucked that up later in getting dominated by TT).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NC is YET AGAIN a big fail as more then OU and UF deserve to be there but yet the fact that UT lost later in the season then OU (who lost to UT) places them above. When you lose should not fucking affect anything, fuck the bcs it gives no one any fucking chance besides who the fucking computers think and the coaches OPINION.
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.
i can see the argument for playoffs. sometimes, BCS doesn't work out all that well and it certainly has its downsides. matter of fact, i used to be a supporter of the playoff system until i realized why i love college football: the BCS revenges, the storylines, the weekly drama, and the unpredictability that never fails to deliver every Saturday.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
every week and every game do matter, but even under the current system i'm sure most people would agree that it's infinitely better to lose early in the season than it is to lose later on.
now i actually don't think you know anything about college football. you were one 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.
On November 21 2008 12:05 OneOther wrote: No, not at all. I think Oklahoma has the most explosive offense in the nation (although Texas Tech is close) and Raiders have a history of chocking in the Sooners Stadium. They are definitely NOT "way better" than Oklahoma. If they do come out victorious, nobody in the country will doubt them. It will certainly be a tough challenge though.
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.
btw i am kind of frustrated right now with physics test and an essay i have to write, so please excuse my attacking tone in my previous posts. apologies, spiral.
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
On December 08 2008 18:39 SpiralArchitect wrote: 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?
Pssst, Washington was the undisputed worst team in Div 1-A this year (BYU beat them by 1 point). UCLA and Washington combined for a 4-20 record.
By the way, I am not a big fan of SEC or Big 12. But I have to admit the fact that they have the toughest competition out there, and the two teams emerge at the top from those conferences deserve to play in the national championship. I have lived in west coast all my life, so Pac-10 is my conference. What is the true is true, man. Dropping a game in one of those conferences is by far more impressive than going undefeated in some other conference. Let me say this again: I am not a fan of either conference. However, I abide by the level of competition and what each team deserves.
I don't know where you get the impression that I am a Sooners fan (because I am not), but they really deserve to play in the national championship. No, not because Big 12 puts in the most funding, but because they had to through the toughest teams. Therefore, it is fair.
(BCS obviously its flaws, such as the Texas vs Oklahoma case. I never said it was perfect)
Let's talk about BYU as an example. BYU lost to the only good opponents they played - TCU and Utah. They have won against, well, Northern Iowa, UCLA, Washington, Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, UNLV, Colorado State, San Diego State, and Air Force.
USC lost to Oregon State, but they beat Ohio State, California, and Oregon. Florida lost to Ole Miss, but they beat Alabama, Georgia, LSU, South Florida, Florida State.
I hate the fact that all football powerhouses are from SEC and Big 12, but I have accepted it. I have accepted the fact that the winners in each conference play against the most competition in the most fierce atmospheres. I think you should too
BCS creates more weekly intensity and drama. I don't see how you can possibly deny this. Watching all those top 10 teams get upset and #1/#2 teams being replaced every week makes college football what it is. How about seeing an unknown beat a football powerhouse and get a ranking in the BCS? That's awesome as well. Playoff system is bound to take away some of that in the regular season.
Sucks for Boise State. I was hopeing for a Boise/Oklahoma rematch L) Obviously it wasn't going to happen with OU in the NT game, but having Boise shut out entirely is crap too. Give em a shot. At least Utah is facing a good team. Last time they went to a BCS bowl they got a relative chump in 20th ranked Pittsburgh. This year they can at least have a chance at proving themselves and making a case for a playoff. If (if) they should roll Alabama more convincingly than Florida did that would have to raise questions.
Anyway, I'm still bitter about the year BYU went 14-1 beating Texas A&M along the way but got sent to the Cotton Bowl (where they beat Kansas State and became the first 15 win team in college football history). That season was the reason the BCS made the rule that the top non-BCS team (if ranked 12 or higher) got an auto-bid, which I was happy enough to see Utah take advantage of several years later. They may be rivals, but I'm happy to see someone represent the conference. Maybe this year with Boise getting cold shouldered they'll change the rule to allow more than one non-BCS team. I mean it's not like Boise didn't act like they belonged last time
The biggest problem with Spiral's argument is that the nation doesn't want to see new teams in the big games. The people behind the BCS do it for the money, and they get the most money when the fans are the most excited. The fans get the most excited for the Big12, SEC, Big10 and USC. It's really simple math. College football is willing to make whatever system will get those teams to play each other at the end of the year.
Remember Kansas last year? Nobody watched that shit. It was a good story, but nobody watched it.
On December 08 2008 19:59 OneOther wrote: By the way, I am not a big fan of SEC or Big 12. But I have to admit the fact that they have the toughest competition out there, and the two teams emerge at the top from those conferences deserve to play in the national championship. I have lived in west coast all my life, so Pac-10 is my conference. What is the true is true, man. Dropping a game in one of those conferences is by far more impressive than going undefeated in some other conference. Let me say this again: I am not a fan of either conference. However, I abide by the level of competition and what each team deserves.
I don't know where you get the impression that I am a Sooners fan (because I am not), but they really deserve to play in the national championship. No, not because Big 12 puts in the most funding, but because they had to through the toughest teams. Therefore, it is fair.
(BCS obviously its flaws, such as the Texas vs Oklahoma case. I never said it was perfect)
Let's talk about BYU as an example. BYU lost to the only good opponents they played - TCU and Utah. They have won against, well, Northern Iowa, UCLA, Washington, Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, UNLV, Colorado State, San Diego State, and Air Force.
USC lost to Oregon State, but they beat Ohio State, California, and Oregon. Florida lost to Ole Miss, but they beat Alabama, Georgia, LSU, South Florida, Florida State.
I hate the fact that all football powerhouses are from SEC and Big 12, but I have accepted it. I have accepted the fact that the winners in each conference play against the most competition in the most fierce atmospheres. I think you should too
BCS creates more weekly intensity and drama. I don't see how you can possibly deny this. Watching all those top 10 teams get upset and #1/#2 teams being replaced every week makes college football what it is. How about seeing an unknown beat a football powerhouse and get a ranking in the BCS? That's awesome as well. Playoff system is bound to take away some of that in the regular season.
The biggest difference between us on this issue is you will accept that the BCS is engineered to bring the same teams back every year. I refuse to accept that. BTW I assume you were a Sooners fan since you had shown them support during the season and what not, I should learn to not assume things, it makes an ass out of... me.
On December 08 2008 18:39 SpiralArchitect wrote: 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?
Pssst, Washington was the undisputed worst team in Div 1-A this year (BYU beat them by 1 point). UCLA and Washington combined for a 4-20 record.
Just thought I'd point that out.
UCLA and Washington both started the season ranked higher than BYU and are supposed to be better teams. They are PAC-10 teams and the MWC teams are often judged on how they do against their PAC-10 opponents since the 10 is supposed to be one step up from the MWC.
On December 08 2008 18:39 SpiralArchitect wrote: 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?
Pssst, Washington was the undisputed worst team in Div 1-A this year (BYU beat them by 1 point). UCLA and Washington combined for a 4-20 record.
Just thought I'd point that out.
UCLA and Washington both started the season ranked higher than BYU and are supposed to be better teams. They are PAC-10 teams and the MWC teams are often judged on how they do against their PAC-10 opponents since the 10 is supposed to be one step up from the MWC.
Is it fair to compare the absolute worst teams in PAC10 with one of the top teams in the MWC?
No. Thats another reason I hate the BCS, those two games gave us more gusto in the standings than any other game we won this season. If we had beat Utah and TCU then things would have been different, but UCLA and Washington gave BYU their standings. Besides UCLA and Washington arent supposed to be the worst teams in the PAC-10, UCLA especially. This also brings up my least favorite part of college football, the unpredictable nature of a teams year to year strength, but I guess at the same time it is one of my favorite parts of college football and probably why I watch NCAA more than the NFL.
Wow, I just checked all the bowl games out and what a joke. The BCS ones in particular (the fact that the championship game is probably the most legit of them is a bad sign). So awful.
On December 10 2008 06:21 SpiralArchitect wrote: No. Thats another reason I hate the BCS, those two games gave us more gusto in the standings than any other game we won this season. If we had beat Utah and TCU then things would have been different, but UCLA and Washington gave BYU their standings. Besides UCLA and Washington arent supposed to be the worst teams in the PAC-10, UCLA especially. This also brings up my least favorite part of college football, the unpredictable nature of a teams year to year strength, but I guess at the same time it is one of my favorite parts of college football and probably why I watch NCAA more than the NFL.
aren't you supposed to a fan of less popular conferences like the pac-10? if so, you should know that washington is the absolute worst team (never won a single game) and ucla is right around there at the bottom. washington/washington state/ucla make the worst teams in the pac-10. what do you mean ucla and washington arent "supposed" to be the worst teams in the pac-10? who cares what's "supposed" to happen. reality is reality - they are two of the worst teams in the entire conference. if BYU put up good results against the good teams in their conference, then they would obviously get more respect. however, they lost to both utah/tcu. how in the world would you expect them to be ranked?
you don't like the changing nature of a team's year to year strength? aren't you being contradictory because you said multiple times that you don't want to see the same teams in the championship and bowl games every year? oh wait, it's also one of your favorite parts, haha. i am glad you said that.
On December 11 2008 23:11 zer0das wrote: Wow, I just checked all the bowl games out and what a joke. The BCS ones in particular (the fact that the championship game is probably the most legit of them is a bad sign). So awful.
Eh, fwiw three of the BCS games have the potential to be good. Florida/OU, USC/Penn State, and Texas/Ohio State. Yeah OSU could make it a good game if Pryor goes off.
Real problem is the other bowls. There's only three matchups that look good to me: TCU/Boise Okla State/Oregon Pittsburgh/Oregon State (great RB matchup)
They've got a fucking Congressman from TX who has apparently put something in writing to have the country force them to go to a playoff. WHy the fuck do our elected officials feel the need to waste their time on this shit.
I read about that yesterday. The bill would prohibit advertising something as the "national championship" if it was not the result of a playoff.
Whatever, our country is better off when these people are wasting their time. Remember how good the economy was in 1998 when Congress' hands were tied trying to prosecute Bill Clinton? (half-joking...)
On December 10 2008 06:21 SpiralArchitect wrote: No. Thats another reason I hate the BCS, those two games gave us more gusto in the standings than any other game we won this season. If we had beat Utah and TCU then things would have been different, but UCLA and Washington gave BYU their standings. Besides UCLA and Washington arent supposed to be the worst teams in the PAC-10, UCLA especially. This also brings up my least favorite part of college football, the unpredictable nature of a teams year to year strength, but I guess at the same time it is one of my favorite parts of college football and probably why I watch NCAA more than the NFL.
aren't you supposed to a fan of less popular conferences like the pac-10? if so, you should know that washington is the absolute worst team (never won a single game) and ucla is right around there at the bottom. washington/washington state/ucla make the worst teams in the pac-10. what do you mean ucla and washington arent "supposed" to be the worst teams in the pac-10? who cares what's "supposed" to happen. reality is reality - they are two of the worst teams in the entire conference. if BYU put up good results against the good teams in their conference, then they would obviously get more respect. however, they lost to both utah/tcu. how in the world would you expect them to be ranked?
you don't like the changing nature of a team's year to year strength? aren't you being contradictory because you said multiple times that you don't want to see the same teams in the championship and bowl games every year? oh wait, it's also one of your favorite parts, haha. i am glad you said that.
Nono I am not trying to say BYU should be better ranked, sorry I kinda worded that bad. What I meant is that a team like BYU has to win all there games (like Utah has) to even have a chance while teams like Wash and UCLA start the season with a good ranking because the PAC-10 is a more respected conference than MWC. I think BYU is right where they belong after their big losses to TCU and Utah.
The heisman is a joke, Sam Bradford wasnt even mentioned when they lost to texas even though he had 4 td's and 2 ints. It wasnt his fault they lost yet all of a sudden hes out of the running. You could play awesome, but if your team loses its on you which is stupid.
the BCS is a playoff system, its just a 2-team playoff bracket for the championship. if you were to expand the current BCS playoff bracket to 8, theres a much larger margin of error, we'd have the best team winning the national championship close to 100% of the time
On December 12 2008 07:46 Sadist wrote: The heisman is a joke, Sam Bradford wasnt even mentioned when they lost to texas even though he had 4 td's and 2 ints. It wasnt his fault they lost yet all of a sudden hes out of the running. You could play awesome, but if your team loses its on you which is stupid.
Well he's one of the 3 finalists now. Tebow won it last year despite Florida going 9-3 or something.
Yeah. I thought they were dumb giving the trophy to Tebow last year, but I will be quite a bit more pissed if they do this year.
I think Nebraska vs Clemson is probably the bowl game I am looking forward to the most. But that's just because I like teasing a friend that goes to Clemson. xD
So my dad got tickets to the Las Vegas bowl for Christmas this year. Anyone else going to or got any special plans for the Bowl games? I am really excited to see my Cougars in action one last time this year.
I bet those were really expensive not to mention hard to find Luckily me and my dad have season tickets to BYU so we were guaranteed a set from the first allotment that BYU received for the game.
Personally I think Tebow was the better quarterback. But at this point he doesnt really deserve to take another Heisman when the competition was ridiculously close to him this season. Gratz to Bradford I hope they can put up a good fight before the Gators rape them.
LOL Notre Dame FINALLY wins a Bowl Game. Granted, its the Hawaii Bowl against a pitiful Hawaii team. I'm looking forward to Charlie Weis keeping his job and Notre Dame sucking for another 4 years. At Least. Before they bring in Urban Meyer.
On December 30 2008 12:31 Qatol wrote: Anyone watching the alamo bowl right now? Stupid Northwestern. How do they keep getting kickers that miss extra points?
Nope. Chase Daniel sucking has gotten old. I am paying attention to it, and you have to be kidding me that Mizzou is probably going to win. xD
(Talk about not deserving it.)
Edit: THIS IS TIGER FOOTBALL. WHOO. I bet Pinkel is having a blast. Edit2: Hahahaha... this game is ridiculous.
Ah but no matter how bad Mizzou sucks, Northwestern just sucks that little bit more. I remember I honestly considering trying out for kicker (have never done it before in my life) a few years ago just because I figured I couldn't be any worse than Huffman (who would miss extra points so often eventually we just always went for 2)
Im glad MSU didn't get blown out like everyone said. They actually had plenty of chances to take the game but couldnt get their offense working, which was mainly due to our O-line sucking at pass and run blocking and getting dominated again.
Arizona v BYU California v Miami Oregon v Oklahoma State Oregon State v Pittsburgh USC v Penn State
The Oregon and USC victories are pretty good, especially the Oregon one. Impressive performance from them. USC was always going to crush Penn State, so meh.
I always want to watch Pac-10/SEC/Big12 battle it out, but we never get those games.
On January 02 2009 13:02 Last Romantic wrote: pac-10 always underrated despite taking some of the most ridiculous schedules possible
oh well. it happens.
yup
what happens is that we always schedule games from other BCS conferences (or other strong FBS teams), and while some teams win, many will lose. this causes us to look bad in the national rankings, because teams from other divisions are 3-0 or 4-0 (always including one FCS team plus other consistently crappy teams) while most Pac-10 usually have a loss. thus once conference games start, you have all these teams beating "ranked" opponents, when really none of the wins were of any quality.
maybe the pac-10 should start scheduling cupcakes too.
On January 03 2009 12:09 zer0das wrote: Pretty much.
In other news, don't look now but Utah is beating Alabama. :0
If you don't look soon I think you'll miss the opportunity to see it. Utah came out tough, but I think they came out too fast. Alabama has settled down big time and looks good.
On January 05 2009 06:04 Try wrote: Pryor will be eaten alive by Orakpo and Kindle. He'll never want to touch a football again. Beanie Wells will get less than 50 yards.
Beanie will have a good game. McCoy will have a big game though.
On January 06 2009 14:22 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Hey they played good though, you cannot rag on them this time because they played a team that had a case for the NC game close.
It was only that close because it WASN'T the NC Game.
yeah I'm glad they put up a good fight, even though they couldn't get it done. Texas is nothing to sneeze at, that's for sure. Here's to hoping Pryor develops that throwing arm for next year!
On January 06 2009 14:22 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Hey they played good though, you cannot rag on them this time because they played a team that had a case for the NC game close.
It was only that close because it WASN'T the NC Game.
I agree with both lol.
Ohio State played better than they did against Florida, LSU, or for that matter USC earlier this season. The defense executed and even when they gave up plays, they made tackles so it didn't turn into huge plays (last TD the only real exception), and the offense made some plays. Pryor being in at QB really was the difference because so much of their offense came off of broken plays. If he gets any kind of accuracy on his throws (already has decent velocity when he needs to deliver a crisp pass), he'll be great.
That said, the Texas offense played a completely unfocused in the first half. I think they expected to just walk all over Ohio State en route to a free 5-TD win or something. When they finally figured out that they were in a game (last drive of the first half), they moved the ball pretty easily. This also would have helped the defense -- you could tell in the 4th quarter they were gassed from all the time on the field when the offense was failing for the first two quarters.
On January 06 2009 14:22 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Hey they played good though, you cannot rag on them this time because they played a team that had a case for the NC game close.
It was only that close because it WASN'T the NC Game.
What the fuck? What kind of dumb response is that. If they would of blown out OSU they would of had a shot at the AP #1 spot. So I'm SURE they prepared for as if it was.
I fucking hate you. I don't even like OSU because I'm long time UofM fan, but the big-10 sucks so bad that I didn't care who won as long as they were big10.
On January 07 2009 05:29 tonight wrote: I fucking hate you. I don't even like OSU because I'm long time UofM fan, but the big-10 sucks so bad that I didn't care who won as long as they were big10.
that is sacrilege its no Michigan fan can ever root for OSU
On January 07 2009 05:29 tonight wrote: I fucking hate you. I don't even like OSU because I'm long time UofM fan, but the big-10 sucks so bad that I didn't care who won as long as they were big10.
I hated you long before this, you spamming cuntface!!!
I wanna say you can't root for rivals... but imagine my pain when it was Florida vs Ohio St. (I'm a UGA fan =[ )
Either slapped around or just generally broke down in big moments. I hope the NC game will be a good one. I really don't want Florida to win, reallyreallyreally.
wow tonight, I'm an OSU fan but I totally agree with you. When Mich took out Florida last year I was so extremely happy. It was a great way for Lloyd Carr to go out and a plus for the Big-10. Oh, and I hate hate hate Florida (for reasons I think you can guess =P).
I think the rivalry has turned into conference battles nowadays. As much as I might root against Mich in Big 10 play, I find myself cheering for them against other conference opponents.
On another note, anyone else getting tired of the Utah praise for their undefeated season? I know they beat bama, but seriously? Their conference isn't nearly as strong as the others and for people to call them "national champs" already is ridiculous. Hopefully we can get some playoffs in here soon to settle this for good.
On January 08 2009 06:22 strongwind wrote: On another note, anyone else getting tired of the Utah praise for their undefeated season? I know they beat bama, but seriously? Their conference isn't nearly as strong as the others and for people to call them "national champs" already is ridiculous. Hopefully we can get some playoffs in here soon to settle this for good.
that's the whole reason I brought it up, because of rick reilly's article.
I totally agree that there should be a playoff system, don't get me wrong. I think that's what rick reilly is really trying to say. But for you to give them the national champ crown because of the BCS system is ludicrous. I thought we were trying NOT to reward teams that beat cupcakes, and Utah's weaker schedule is exactly that. I know they had some tough competition in their conference, but it's nothing compared to the Big 12 or the SEC.
I have nothing against Utah whatsoever, they beat a good Crimson Tide team and deserve a whole bunch of credit. But until they start a playoff system, the "national champ" stamp should go to one of the two teams in the BCS NC game.
I don't hate Florida; since UT has no hope of a #1 ranking at this point, I can safely root for a team to beat the team we already beat imo. Computers may like them more but OU still sucks~
Also TX came out really flat against OSU, just because it's a BCS bowl doesn't mean our guys were hella motivated to be there- this is a team that was one miracle pass upset away from playing in the NC game, were STILL in consideration for the NC game... and then they had to play against OSU in the Fiesta Bowl. Kinda hard to be quite as motivated when you're in the race for the NC and some computers decide you're a few arbitrary points worse than a team you already beat and thus less worthy of that game.
Utah deserves some credit for a good season, but they don't deserve more than maybe a nicer bowl game at best; maybe in the future they'll be able to schedule in more than one good team to prove themselves.
On January 08 2009 09:32 MCMcEmcee wrote: Also TX came out really flat against OSU, just because it's a BCS bowl doesn't mean our guys were hella motivated to be there- this is a team that was one miracle pass upset away from playing in the NC game, were STILL in consideration for the NC game... and then they had to play against OSU in the Fiesta Bowl. Kinda hard to be quite as motivated when you're in the race for the NC and some computers decide you're a few arbitrary points worse than a team you already beat and thus less worthy of that game.
Wow, I totally disagree with that. Why would Texas play LESS motivated after getting shafted from the big game? Why would they give MORE ammunition to the people that just shafted them? That makes absolutely no sense.
After the game, Texas players repeatedly said they were out to prove people wrong in this game. Your reasoning is unfounded.
On January 08 2009 09:32 MCMcEmcee wrote: Also TX came out really flat against OSU, just because it's a BCS bowl doesn't mean our guys were hella motivated to be there- this is a team that was one miracle pass upset away from playing in the NC game, were STILL in consideration for the NC game... and then they had to play against OSU in the Fiesta Bowl. Kinda hard to be quite as motivated when you're in the race for the NC and some computers decide you're a few arbitrary points worse than a team you already beat and thus less worthy of that game.
Wow, I totally disagree with that. Why would Texas play LESS motivated after getting shafted from the big game? Why would they give MORE ammunition to the people that just shafted them? That makes absolutely no sense.
After the game, Texas players repeatedly said they were out to prove people wrong in this game. Your reasoning is unfounded.
This. I said something similar earlier, but I think it may have been over looked.
On January 08 2009 10:09 strongwind wrote: After the game, Texas players repeatedly said they were out to prove people wrong in this game. Your reasoning is unfounded.
People always SAY that, and on some level they mean it... doesn't mean they won't feel less motivated on another level. UT teams have some recent history of underperforming in "disappointment bowl" games. Credit to OSU and all, of course, but UT was far more likely to lose to themselves than they were to OSU's football team... and they almost did. Oh well. We won, OU still sucks, let's move on.
I hate that they always fucking talk about Florida on every goddamn station at every goddamn time of day. FloridaFloridaFloridaFloridaFlorida that's all I ever hear. For that reason alone I want them to lose. I mean, that and I don't like them.
On January 09 2009 10:12 tonight wrote: I hate that they always fucking talk about Florida on every goddamn station at every goddamn time of day. FloridaFloridaFloridaFloridaFlorida that's all I ever hear. For that reason alone I want them to lose. I mean, that and I don't like them.
On January 09 2009 10:12 tonight wrote: I hate that they always fucking talk about Florida on every goddamn station at every goddamn time of day. FloridaFloridaFloridaFloridaFlorida that's all I ever hear. For that reason alone I want them to lose. I mean, that and I don't like them.
haha quit hatin
I mean come on even this game these announcers just continue to ass kiss on Tebow. "Just spend 5 or 20min with Tebow and your life will be better for it." I mean give me a fucking break.
If OU would of hurried up and ran their play on 3rd and goal it would of been a touchdown. Why hurry to the line if you're just going to check over to the sideline every play? To read the defense? The defense is giving the same look every down.
On January 09 2009 11:30 tonight wrote: If OU would of hurried up and ran their play on 3rd and goal it would of been a touchdown. Why hurry to the line if you're just going to check over to the sideline every play? To read the defense? The defense is giving the same look every down.
On January 09 2009 11:30 tonight wrote: If OU would of hurried up and ran their play on 3rd and goal it would of been a touchdown. Why hurry to the line if you're just going to check over to the sideline every play? To read the defense? The defense is giving the same look every down.
to keep the same defensive package on the field
They don't make a lot of defensive subs anyway. They still can give different looks.
No, OU blew it. They had the chance to really separate themselves in the first half, but just couldn't do it. Now I'll have to listen to all the media and announcers suck on Tebow's dick for the next month.
On January 09 2009 13:41 tonight wrote: Texas could barely beat OSU.
You're right, they had an easier time against the Sooners than they did against the Buckeyes
The way Texas played on Monday, they wouldn't have been able to beat Florida either. But Oklahoma going over Texas is as ridiculous as when Florida State went over Miami.
Looks like OU just choking it up when it counts in a bowl game, pretty standard. Maybe they'll prove the naysayers wrong with some miracle performance now, but I think they used up their miracles getting into this game in the first place ;(
I like UT over OU. We played like crap against OSU but we got it done when it mattered; OU looked good in the first half of this game but hasn't done jack with their opportunities.
I like how this year's Heisman winner had a chance to keep his team in this game and redeem all those years of choking then gets denied. Ladies and gentlemen, your Heisman winner.
It's a national championship game and OU still sucks.
On January 09 2009 13:47 MCMcEmcee wrote: Looks like OU just choking it up when it counts in a bowl game, pretty standard. Maybe they'll prove the naysayers wrong with some miracle performance now, but I think they used up their miracles getting into this game in the first place ;(
I like UT over OU. We played like crap against OSU but we got it done when it mattered; OU looked good in the first half of this game but hasn't done jack with their opportunities.
It's a national championship game and OU still sucks.
On January 09 2009 13:41 tonight wrote: Texas could barely beat OSU.
You're right, they had an easier time against the Sooners than they did against the Buckeyes
The way Texas played on Monday, they wouldn't have been able to beat Florida either. But Oklahoma going over Texas is as ridiculous as when Florida State went over Miami.
So, by this logic Ole Miss is the best team in the country?
On January 09 2009 13:41 tonight wrote: Texas could barely beat OSU.
You're right, they had an easier time against the Sooners than they did against the Buckeyes
The way Texas played on Monday, they wouldn't have been able to beat Florida either. But Oklahoma going over Texas is as ridiculous as when Florida State went over Miami.
So, by this logic Ole Miss is the best team in the country?
lol exactly. If Ole Miss was 12-1 right now, that would be "by this logic"
But oh well. The BCS messed up again, hardly big news. Congrats to the Gators on an excellent season, they are definitely the most deserving team based on what did play out with the bowl selections.
"what the fuck were we playing against out there?!?!"
"a defense"
congrats to florida and all the bowl winners, it'll be awesome (and a bit lulzy) to see how the final rankings turn out. i'm willing to bet that OU isn't a guarantee at all to take the #2 spot, given the way the rest of the season has gone.
also, if UT and OU played again i think OU would have the edge. UT won only because of some sick heroic play by orakpo and sergio kindle, i dunno if they'd be able to do it again.
I swear I was going to rip off someone's head after the 4th false-start penalty by that 75 guy on Florida.
When OU started off a drive they were freaking scary. But our defense really picked it up and our offense, though was full of errors first have pulled through in the end.
On January 09 2009 15:28 TheMusiC wrote: also, if UT and OU played again i think OU would have the edge. UT won only because of some sick heroic play by orakpo and sergio kindle, i dunno if they'd be able to do it again.
imo, it was more because McCoy completed 80% of his passes and Shipley and Cosby both went over 100 yards. Ship also returned a kickoff for TD when OU went up 14-3, probably the game-changing play. McCoy was just ridiculously accurate this season, setting a NCAA record for completion %.
Orakpo and Kindle pretty much saved Texas in the first half against Ohio State as well, sacking the QBs on big plays and usually stopping the run at the line; Miller had a big hand in that too. On the few runs that got past the line, the linebackers got totally burned which is how Wells got all of his yards, but most of his carries were for 0-3 yards. Texas is the only team in the big 12 with any semblance of a defense this year... for comparison, UT finished ~20th in scoring defense while OU was ~60th. It's not a USC-caliber defense, but good enough when you have the best QB in college football. (that's just imo; obviously Tebow, Bradford, and Harrell are all extremely good themselves)
If they rematched, it would totally come down to McCoy's play. McCoy played like ass in the first half against Texas Tech and in the first half against Ohio State. When he plays like that, you're basically looking at '07 Texas. When he plays the way he has the rest of the season, Florida and USC are probably the only teams who can match up. Maybe Utah. (I don't think so, but I also thought Alabama would crush them, so who knows)
Jevan Snead used to be Colt McCoy's backup at Texas. Transferring was definitely the right move for him since they were both the same year and McCoy's outstanding freshman season cemented his starting spot. I'm happy to see him having such an immediate impact on Ole Miss.
Snead had originally committed to Florida too, but when he found out Tebow was coming in as QB he withdrew his commitment and went to Texas, then McCoy was there so he went to Ole Miss, where he finally gets to shine.
I felt so crappy about Florida losing to Ole Miss, but considering how they turned out the rest of the season I don't feel so bad anymore. In fact I think they're gonna be a pretty solid team next year.
final rankings are out from both the AP and USA today and they are preeetty lols
AP 1. florida 2. utah 3. usc 4. texas 5. oklahoma
USA today 1. florida (all 1st place votes except for 1) 2. usc 3. texas 4. utah (with 1 first place vote, guess who!) 5. oklahoma
the coaches' association apparently agreed to have all of its voters put the winner of the national championship game at #1 (in the usa today poll), but apparently utah's coach voted them #1 anyway, which means he could possibly lose his vote.
if you look at the points it's pretty clear that florida should be #1 and also that oklahoma is pretty far behind the pack. however texas and usc are very, very close to each other in both polls (3 points apart in the AP and 4 points in the USA today poll), so i think if all the usc/utah/texas backers would've agreed to vote for one (or maybe even two) teams they could've fucked things up epicly.
i might feel a little sorry for oklahoma, but i can't help laughing too.
Snead had originally committed to Florida too, but when he found out Tebow was coming in as QB he withdrew his commitment and went to Texas, then McCoy was there so he went to Ole Miss, where he finally gets to shine.
I felt so crappy about Florida losing to Ole Miss, but considering how they turned out the rest of the season I don't feel so bad anymore. In fact I think they're gonna be a pretty solid team next year.
i think florida is the team to beat next year, especially with tebow (most likely) coming back
Snead had originally committed to Florida too, but when he found out Tebow was coming in as QB he withdrew his commitment and went to Texas, then McCoy was there so he went to Ole Miss, where he finally gets to shine.
I felt so crappy about Florida losing to Ole Miss, but considering how they turned out the rest of the season I don't feel so bad anymore. In fact I think they're gonna be a pretty solid team next year.
i think florida is the team to beat next year, especially with tebow (most likely) coming back
their secondary is very very good. Those are the type of players Rich Rod is recruiting so Im excited! Plus seing the triple option was sick, hopefully forcier is good next year. Florida should be consensus #1 if tebow comes back though.
Apparently Percy Harvin is also unsure of what to do. Most likely he'll go off to the NFL but some say he personally wants to stay. Although it's not likely, if Harvin and Tebow both stay.... omg i might just jizz in my pants.
EPT
)
.
![[image loading]](http://www.consolenauts.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/2mrhbgh.gif)
