Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by Nate Nanjo So with Miami firing Randy Shannon, who else do you see getting fired this season?

I want to say Rich Rodriguez, although Darren Rovell says if they wait until Jan 1 to can him they save $1.5 million

Too many schools are quick to fire good coaches. Shannon was one of those guys. He had a winning record since taking over a program that was in shambles when it was handed over to him. In addition, he took what use to be a bunch of thugs and cleaned them up. Miami will learn that the grass isn't greener on the other side. Ask Tennessee how the firing of Phil Fulmer has been working for them.

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf...ory?id=5862368

Not sure I like TCU joining the Big East, if for no other reason than I'm bored watching WVU play in that league and hope it falls apart.

Interesting how the Big 12 didn't try to pick up TCU considering how they need to get back up to 12 teams.

Boise State gets the short end of the stick again as BYU, Utah, and TCU have left the MWC and those are arguably the 3 best teams in that conference.

When I think East Coast, I think the state of Texas

Auburn ranked #1 after beating Alabama.

Talk about a good weekend.

Originally Posted by lordopus99 Too many schools are quick to fire good coaches.

It's unfortunate, but it happens. I thought the same of Mike Shula a few years ago at Alabama but apparently if you don't get results in the first year or two, it's out on the streets.

Besides if they're a good enough coach they should be able to find a job at another school.

Ted Miller hits it right on the head:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_...than-your-team

Granted he's the Pac-10 blogger for ESPN, but at least he raises valid points.

Originally Posted by MasterSun1 Ted Miller hits it right on the head: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_...than-your-team Granted he's the Pac-10 blogger for ESPN, but at least he raises valid points.

His posts is terrible. Before I start my analysis of his post, I want to state I think Stanford is a good team. Now onto some of Ted Miller's laughable quotes...

Stanford is 11-1 playing against the nation's eighth toughest schedule in the nation's toughest conference, according to the highly respected Sagarin Ratings.

Far from it. Let's review last year's bowl season 2 wins, 5 losses. Yeah that's the toughest conference...

The Pac-10 plays nine conference games, which no other conference does. That means five more defeats are guaranteed to be scattered throughout the conference every season, thereby making it a mathematical fact that it's more difficult to become bowl eligible in the Pac-10 than any other conference.

Math doesn't take into fact how good the teams in the conference are. When two schools in the Pac 10 should really be in FCS, it doesn't matter. Washington St hasn't been competitive... well, ever. Washington has had winless seasons. Beating these two FCS schools each year doesn't make that more difficult to become bowl eligible as these are pretty much autowins. More BS about it being harder to be bowl eligible... Pac 10 sent in 7 teams last year, which is the same or more, than the Big 10, ACC, and Big East. Luckily, this crappy excuse is gone next year with the addition of 2 teams.

The Pac-10 plays the most challenging nonconference schedule among the BCS conferences. Not only has it played six top-17 teams in the current BCS standings, it played five of them all on the road. And that list doesn't include Iowa, Texas, Notre Dame, Tennessee and BYU.

Top 17... can we keep it to Top 25... All 6 of those games they lost.

ACC: We, as a conference, played Auburn (#1), Stanford (#4), Ohio St (#6), Oklahoma (#9), LSU (#10), Boise St (#11), Alabama (#16), South Carolina (#19), West Virginia (#24) = 9 Top 25 current BCS teams. 3 more than Pac 10. They went to the wire with Auburn, LSU, and Boise St and won against West Virginia. Sounds like the ACC had a more challenging out of conference in comparison...

If you count in-conference...
LSU played 6 Top 25 teams THEMSELVES this year (Four of them are currently in Top 25).

Then consider this: There are 19 other bowl-eligible BCS conference teams that are 6-6 or 7-5. How many would not be bowl eligible if they played an extra conference game, another road game (or two), one fewer nonconference patsy and one more tough nonconference game?

News Flash: Not all schools in AQ conferences are good at football. There are some good teams outside of AQ conferences as well (Mountain West went 4 wins 1 loss last bowl season). What I mean by this is adding another conference game doesn't equate into adding a quality game to your schedule.

Originally Posted by lordopus99 His posts is terrible. Before I start my analysis of his post, I want to state I think Stanford is a good team. Now onto some of Ted Miller's laughable quotes...

No more terrible than all the other conference bloggers.

Let's review last year's bowl season 2 wins, 5 losses. Yeah that's the toughest conference...

That's last year, not this year which is the only year that's relevant right now.

Math doesn't take into fact how good the teams in the conference are. When two schools in the Pac 10 should really be in FCS, it doesn't matter. Washington St hasn't been competitive... well, ever. Washington has had winless seasons. Beating these two FCS schools each year doesn't make that more difficult to become bowl eligible as these are pretty much autowins. More BS about it being harder to be bowl eligible... Pac 10 sent in 7 teams last year, which is the same or more, than the Big 10, ACC, and Big East. Luckily, this crappy excuse is gone next year with the addition of 2 teams.

WSU has been terrible, but they beat Oregon State who gave both TCU and BSU a game. It is fact that's it's harder to be bowl eligible because each team has to play another conference game (meaning a game against Oregon or Stanford or Arizona, etc) instead of crap FBS team that the SEC and Big 10 love scheduling.

ACC: We, as a conference, played Auburn (#1), Stanford (#4), Ohio St (#6), Oklahoma (#9), LSU (#10), Boise St (#11), Alabama (#16), South Carolina (#19), West Virginia (#24) = 9 Top 25 current BCS teams. 3 more than Pac 10. They went to the wire with Auburn, LSU, and Boise St and won against West Virginia. Sounds like the ACC had a more challenging out of conference in comparison... If you count in-conference... LSU played 6 Top 25 teams THEMSELVES this year (Four of them are currently in Top 25).

You seem to ignore the fact that rankings are a product of W/L record and many of those "ranked" (but undeserving) teams played crap schools. Ohio State is most guilty with Ws over Marshall, Ohio, and Eastern Illinois. Any school can get ranked if they start out with a cupcake schedule (Oregon being no exception this year). Somehow "quality losses" is only reserved for the SEC.

News Flash: Not all schools in AQ conferences are good at football. There are some good teams outside of AQ conferences as well (Mountain West went 4 wins 1 loss last bowl season). What I mean by this is adding another conference game doesn't equate into adding a quality game to your schedule.

An additional conference game means 5 additional losses vs. a likely 5 additional wins. Pac-10 would send more teams bowling on average (and likely will next year in the Pac-12) if they could play Chatanooga, Ohio, Marshall, Troy, Louisiana-Monroe, etc instead of having to take on another conference foe. Regardless of how bad some of the teams are, WSU, California, Oregon State, Arizona State, and UCLA are all better than the majority of cupcakes that the rest of the BCS conferences play with their additional non-conference game.

Originally Posted by MasterSun1 WSU has been terrible, but they beat Oregon State who gave both TCU and BSU a game. It is fact that's it's harder to be bowl eligible because each team has to play another conference game (meaning a game against Oregon or Stanford or Arizona, etc) instead of crap FBS team that the SEC and Big 10 love scheduling.

Based on quality wins, lets check the conferences out (Big 10 I will concede to say they play very soft)...

Pac 10
Oregon played 2 ranked teams.
Stanford played 2 ranked teams.
Arizona played 2 ranked teams.

SEC
Auburn played 6 ranked teams. The 5 best in-conference. Adding Kentucky or Vandy wouldn't have made a difference.
Arkansas played 5 ranked teams. The 5 best in-conference. Adding Tenneessee or Vandy wouldn't have made a difference.
LSU played 5 ranked teams.

Whether it is out of conference or in-conference, SEC is playing better competition.

You seem to ignore the fact that rankings are a product of W/L record and many of those "ranked" (but undeserving) teams played crap schools. Ohio State is most guilty with Ws over Marshall, Ohio, and Eastern Illinois. Any school can get ranked if they start out with a cupcake schedule (Oregon being no exception this year). Somehow "quality losses" is only reserved for the SEC.

Rankings are more than just W/L; it's more than just one factor. It's why your team moved from #1 to #2 because Auburn beat a quality team in Alabama, where Oregon walked over an overrated Arizona (yes, I have watched one of their games). It is also why Auburn didn't get into the BCS Championship in 2004 by playing those cupcakes. You are right though that anyone can get ranked by pumping up their out-of-conference schedule... the one thing you forgot is that they then play in-conference for the rest of the year. Look at the standings and see how many have come and gone. "Quality losses" are reserved for good teams beating other good teams; for instance, Virginia Tech losing to Boise St was a quality loss. See.. it isn't just reserved for the SEC. You just hear more about it since they have more quality teams than other conferences.

The most eye opening piece of information to me was how few road games Auburn and Ohio St. played...4? FOUR ing road games? Are you kidding me?

Finally, some good news regarding Cam Newton:

Originally Posted by AL.com The NCAA has cleared Auburn in its recruitment of quarterback Cam Newton and has ruled him eligible to compete. (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...am_newton.html)

I hope we beat Ucon Sat night......WV gives the Big East its best chance to win in the Fiesta and it puts us against a good Clemson team in the CarCare Bowl in NC!

Originally Posted by A Happy Panda The most eye opening piece of information to me was how few road games Auburn and Ohio St. played...4? FOUR ing road games? Are you kidding me?

That is what I am saying.

Originally Posted by BlueLobstah Finally, some good news regarding Cam Newton:

Here is the strange thing, doesn't the SEC have rule that states even if the player is not aware they can found guilty of violating rules?

If that's the case it sounds like the SEC is conveniently ignoring the rule so Netwon can win the Heisman and get in the NCG if they beat South Carolina this week.

I also think it's very naive to think that Cam was not aware of his father shopping for his services.

However, for now there is no evidence but, I would not be surprised if a couple years down the line when Cam is in the NFL we have a "Reggie Bush- like situation".

Essentially, if this holds up, it pretty much tells parents, "market your kids for 200 grand or more to a prospective school and as long as you don't tell them all is well and good."

Granted, that's probably how it has always worked.

You might change your "SEC" with "NCAA".

Originally Posted by lordopus99 SEC Auburn played 6 ranked teams. The 5 best in-conference. Adding Kentucky or Vandy wouldn't have made a difference. Arkansas played 5 ranked teams. The 5 best in-conference. Adding Tenneessee or Vandy wouldn't have made a difference. LSU played 5 ranked teams. Whether it is out of conference or in-conference, SEC is playing better competition.

Ask LSU if playing Tennessee was easy.

Have you gone against yourself now? You' re just adding to his argument that the SEC is a deep conference with more quality teams. Tennessee is bowl eligible.
Not unless you're going the route of oh yeah, but Oregon beat them by more. In that case I don't remember anyone saying that Oregon is a bad team.
Maybe I'm getting a little tired of this stubborn argument though.