That's called bad recruiting to not have a QB that fits your system. Not a bright move letting Cam Newton leave. That's on the coach and his staff.
I agree. No reason for Brantley to show up if not in a system where he sits in shotgun and passes. As for Newton... Newton left when Tebow came back as a Senior. It had to do with him wanting to play. There was no way Meyer was going to bench "the legend Tebow" over Newton.
There you go discounting Pac-10 competition. The fact is that Pac-10 is fairly deep majority of the years and pretty much no game is a gimme (except WSU this year). It's why Stanford, OSU, and UCLA have all knocked off USC in the past.
The Pac-10 normally is run by 2 teams. This year is the exception in which it appears 3 are running it (should have been four but Oregon St hasn't lived up to the hype); granted Arizona still has to play Stanford and Oregon so it could really be just 2.
All good teams could lose on any given day. It doesn't necessarily make the other team a good team.
If Oregon beats an SEC team this year, I can only hope SEC homers would shut up for a few moments, but it's not going to happen.
If they play one of the better teams in the SEC and beat them, then they finally proved themselves. So no hate if that happens. Beating Tennessee is not validation as they are the worst team in the SEC this year.
SEC is a tough conference, but not as tough as all the homers make it out to be. The East Coast bias is still at work. How? Florida, Texas, Georgia were all ranked at the beginning of the season. Arizona and Stanford were not yet are on the cusp of being Top 10 teams.
Like you stated later, it is preseason rankings. They don't matter unless everyone goes undefeated, which doesn't happen. I stated way earlier in this thread prior to the season that I felt Florida was way overrated as they lost every weapon on both offense and defense. I expected them to come back down like my team and Miami have been.
Arizona and Stanford just replaced USC and Oregon St who were both preseason ranked. Just like how South Carolina and Mississippi St replaced Florida and Georgia.
A 1 or 2-loss SEC team would beat out other schools with 1-2 losses for a spot in the national championship game and usually there's not reason for it. See USC in 2003. They had a better "resume" than LSU and Oklahoma, but those 2 teams got the bid. The humans knew this in the AP poll, but the computers who don't actually see the games got it wrong.
USC loss to Cal was a worse loss than Oklahoma losing in the Big 12 Championship. It wasn't like 2004 where Auburn got screwed out of playing USC for the National Championship, when they were a far superior team than Oklahoma.
I'll give you that Oregon lost to Boise State and Ohio State last year (and BSU the year before that, but there was a big QB injury from an illegal spear, but anyways). Those teams were better than Oregon that day.
Illegal spear... You keep telling me teams are more than 1 player so that shouldn't be the excuse
Comparing hockey to football in terms of physicality and the toll that it takes on a player's body is just ludicrous. I'm willing to bet everyone in this thread agrees with me on that point.
Hockey players get just as many concussions if not more (as alot are not reported). You get hit just as hard when checked into plastic boards by a player just as big as a linebacker going at a higher speed than them due to be on skates. Falling on ice is a lot harder than falling on grass as there is no give. Hockey allows fighting. There is always a risk to a blade cutting someone (youtube it) or getting sliced by a hockey stick. Add in the fact that their protective equipment is alot less than a football player.
Edited by lordopus99, 04 November 2010 - 09:43 PM.