Official (2015-2016) College Football Thread OSU#1

[quote name='Magus8472']Can't say I understand why Oregon's computer rankings jumped up so much, but I'll take it.[/QUOTE]

Stanford (only loss to Oregon) blowing out Washington on the road, Arizona State blowing out Washington State, Arizona only nipping by UCLA, and Oregon's 21 point road win against USC.

That said, it was a little surprising they're computer ranking went from #8 to #2 in just 1 week. I expected it to move to #1 or #2 by the end of the regular season if they kept winning.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Auburn smacked up Miss just like Oregon did with USC. You would think the two of them would still be in the same position.[/QUOTE]

3-5 Ole Miss doesn't come close to comparing to 5-3 USC (2 losses by last second FGs). They lost to an FCS team as well.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']3-5 Ole Miss doesn't come close to comparing to 5-3 USC (2 losses by last second FGs). They lost to an FCS team as well.[/QUOTE]

USC is far from what they were a couple of years ago. They are in sanctions. They barely survived Virginia. They lost to Washington, practically a FCS school as they are never good.
They have zero quality wins.

At least, Ole Miss doesn't give up on ball games like USC did during your game.

Since it was actually televised, I thought I would check your team out. USC just flat out gave up, coming after halftime. Their offense was pitiful and the defense suffered because of it; that is when your team finally started doing what they have done for weeks.

So based on the above, neither team is worthwhile so IMO it shouldn't have had any barring on the standings.
 
All true. But USC is well above Ole Miss in the computer rankings, and that's what boosted Oregon this week.

In all, these things are completely pointless to argue over as the BCS doesn't matter until all games are played as they computers get more "accurate" with more data and more teams lose and make it less complicated to pick the top 2 etc.

How I long for a playoff so all these pointless pissing matches over polls stop.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']USC is far from what they were a couple of years ago. They are in sanctions. They barely survived Virginia. They lost to Washington, practically a FCS school as they are never good.
They have zero quality wins.[/QUOTE]

Where are Ole Miss' quality wins? We're comparing USC and Ole Miss and it's clear USC > Ole Miss, even if they aren't as good as they had been earlier this decade. You discount beating Virginia, but they just beat Miami which you were tooting as a quality win for Ohio State. Can't have it both ways. And you calling Washington "practically a FCS school" makes you lose all credibility, especially saying they're never good.

At least, Ole Miss doesn't give up on ball games like USC did during your game.

Since it was actually televised, I thought I would check your team out. USC just flat out gave up, coming after halftime. Their offense was pitiful and the defense suffered because of it; that is when your team finally started doing what they have done for weeks.
Click to expand...

Gave up? They took the lead with 2 TDs in the 3rd quarter. Like any contender would do, Oregon went on 2 long, grinding TD drives to take the air out of USC. Gave up? USC's 1's were playing the whole game and were trying to score until the game ended. Oregon's 2's and 3's came up with a turnover to preserve the 4th quarter shutout. Gave up? You're just continuing to look for ways to discount Oregon... You don't see me in here trying to discount Auburn which I believe is a good team, but will need a defense if they want to beat Alabama in the Iron Bowl. The difference between Auburn and Oregon is that Auburn has had some close games against decent opponents while Oregon has blown out bad opponents and decent opponents.

So based on the above, neither team is worthwhile so IMO it shouldn't have had any barring on the standings.
Click to expand...

Missouri and Michigan State lost, so their computer rankings dropped below Oregon. That moved them up 2 spots. Boise State played another inferior opponent and thus their ranking dropped. Stanford blew out Washigton and that was probably good for another spot. The computers are finally understanding what the Humans see.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']Where are Ole Miss' quality wins? We're comparing USC and Ole Miss and it's clear USC > Ole Miss, even if they aren't as good as they had been earlier this decade. You discount beating Virginia, but they just beat Miami which you were tooting as a quality win for Ohio State. Can't have it both ways. And you calling Washington "practically a FCS school" makes you lose all credibility, especially saying they're never good.
[/QUOTE]

I never stated Ole Miss had quality wins. I stated they were just as bad as USC. As for Viriginia's win, Jacoby Harris went out with a concussion in the second. They played 2 other QBs in order to try and replace him. They threw 4 interceptions.

Washington.
2010: 3-5... well 3-6. You guys should easily beat them.
2009: 7 losses
2008: didn't win a game
2007: 9 losses
How does that make them a good school...
Lastly, Jake Locker is overrated.

Gave up? They took the lead with 2 TDs in the 3rd quarter. Like any contender would do, Oregon went on 2 long, grinding TD drives to take the air out of USC. Gave up? USC's 1's were playing the whole game and were trying to score until the game ended. Oregon's 2's and 3's came up with a turnover to preserve the 4th quarter shutout. Gave up? You're just continuing to look for ways to discount Oregon... You don't see me in here trying to discount Auburn which I believe is a good team, but will need a defense if they want to beat Alabama in the Iron Bowl. The difference between Auburn and Oregon is that Auburn has had some close games against decent opponents while Oregon has blown out bad opponents and decent opponents.
Click to expand...

Both of those 2 scores were drives that started on Oregon's 20 yard line i.e. non-factor. Their defense played you hard until they realized their offense wasn't going anywhere with all their 3 and outs. Stating they gave up has no effect on how I view your team, nor I am stating it to discount your team. I think you guys have a good team. I am just not as sold as the rest of the ESPN guys calling it the best offense in college football, since they haven't played anyone who is any decent on defense. I don't believe it would work in the SEC, a conference that prides defense. In the grand scheme, I do believe you are one of the top 5 teams in the country.

Missouri and Michigan State lost, so their computer rankings dropped below Oregon. That moved them up 2 spots. Boise State played another inferior opponent and thus their ranking dropped. Stanford blew out Washigton and that was probably good for another spot. The computers are finally understanding what the Humans see.
Click to expand...

My bad. Since my team is at the bottom of the BCS Top 25, I really don't watch the polls all that much. I assumed your team was number 2 or 3 last week. I just hope your team is the real deal if they get a shot at the Championship game, which at this point probably will either be a 1 loss SEC team or undefeated Boise St (giving that your team closes out undefeated).

[quote name='dmaul1114']In all, these things are completely pointless to argue over as the BCS doesn't matter until all games are played as they computers get more "accurate" with more data and more teams lose and make it less complicated to pick the top 2 etc.

How I long for a playoff so all these pointless pissing matches over polls stop. [/QUOTE]

You are correct. Who knows what will happen in the 3-4 games that are left on most schedules. No need to dwell on it. I also hope that the BCS defuncts sometime soon so we can see a playoff so we can determine a true champion every year like college basketball does.

All I hope is that this bowl season actually has good games, not blowouts like most years.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']I just hope your team is the real deal if they get a shot at the Championship game, which at this point probably will either be a 1 loss SEC team or undefeated Boise St.
[/QUOTE]

I think TCU will have a better shot at the Championship game than Boise St. If TCU wins big against Utah, I think that keeps them above Boise.
 
[quote name='Nate Nanjo']I think TCU will have a better shot at the Championship game than Boise St. If TCU wins big against Utah, I think that keeps them above Boise.[/QUOTE]

It could be them as well. The reason I left them off was this...
Realistically, Alabama beating Auburn or Auburn beating Alabama (given that both team goes into that game with their current record) should put them above both Boise St and TCU based on the quality win. The reason I threw in Boise St was that they could try to go for the "rematch" angle for that game... kind of like our game (FSU) 2 years ago against Penn St (for the legends of coaching)... a different ACC team was supposed to be in that game.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']I never stated Ole Miss had quality wins. I stated they were just as bad as USC. As for Viriginia's win, Jacoby Harris went out with a concussion in the second. They played 2 other QBs in order to try and replace him. They threw 4 interceptions.[/QUOTE]

USC is much better than Ole Miss and that is fact. A good team is more than one player. A good team should have a more than capable backup. Miami is an average team.

Both of those 2 scores were drives that started on Oregon's 20 yard line i.e. non-factor. Their defense played you hard until they realized their offense wasn't going anywhere with all their 3 and outs. Stating they gave up has no effect on how I view your team, nor I am stating it to discount your team. I think you guys have a good team. I am just not as sold as the rest of the ESPN guys calling it the best offense in college football, since they haven't played anyone who is any decent on defense. I don't believe it would work in the SEC, a conference that prides defense. In the grand scheme, I do believe you are one of the top 5 teams in the country.
Click to expand...

Their defense played hard for as long as they could. The fact is, teams can't keep pace for Oregon. It's not that they give up, they just don't have the conditioning to keep up which is why Oregon dominates in the 4th quarter. And the only reason defenses get overlooked in the Pac-10 is because it's the conference of quarterbacks where the ball gets aired out. SEC defenses continue to be overrated because they play against teams that run the ball 80% of the time. Defensive ratings (which is what most people use to compare defenses) only looks at the total yards given up. The Pac-10 in general gives up more yards because the conference airs it out more than the SEC does, skewing the statistics. That explains how Tennessee pretty much beat LSU and played close with Florida, yet got blown out by 2 Pac-10 teams recently.

My bad. Since my team is at the bottom of the BCS Top 25, I really don't watch the polls all that much. I assumed your team was number 2 or 3 last week. I just hope your team is the real deal if they get a shot at the Championship game, which at this point probably will either be a 1 loss SEC team or undefeated Boise St (giving that your team closes out undefeated).
Click to expand...

Oregon's already proven they're the real deal, as has Auburn. If Alabama does run the table, I definitely see them jumping to the #2 spot in the BCS, if the Humans move them up further, as the computers will put them at #1 or #2.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']Their defense played hard for as long as they could. The fact is, teams can't keep pace for Oregon. It's not that they give up, they just don't have the conditioning to keep up which is why Oregon dominates in the 4th quarter.[/QUOTE]
I saw what I saw. USC gave up. Lane Kiffin even hinted to it, when talking about the fumble in the first half due to him trying to change the play as the ball hiked.
As for blowing the door open in the fourth...:roll:
UCLA: game blown open in the first half 32 points (14 pts in fourth)
Wash St: game blown open in the first half 29 points (7pts in fourth)
Ariz St: 0 points in fourth
Portland St: game blown open in first quarter 21 points (0 pts in fourth)

And the only reason defenses get overlooked in the Pac-10 is because it's the conference of quarterbacks where the ball gets aired out. SEC defenses continue to be overrated because they play against teams that run the ball 80% of the time. Defensive ratings (which is what most people use to compare defenses) only looks at the total yards given up. The Pac-10 in general gives up more yards because the conference airs it out more than the SEC does, skewing the statistics.
Click to expand...
Looking at the overall Passing Leaders for all FBS...
Mallett (ark) number 2
Hartline (kentucky) number 8
Murray (georgia) number 24
Pac 10 has three... Tuel (Wash St) #16, Threet (Az St) #19 and Barkley (USC) #20
Also, you have more rushing leaders than the SEC (James #2, Franklin #23, Vereen #25, Rodgers #29, and Taylor #32) to just Newton #4. Sounds not as cut and dry as you state. Based on statistics, Pac-10 look more running than the SEC.

That explains how Tennessee pretty much beat LSU and played close with Florida, yet got blown out by 2 Pac-10 teams recently.
Click to expand...

A win is a win. LSU has barely beat all opponents this year. Their defense has carried their team all season, including special teams. The Florida game was not as close as you think 31-17. 3rd quarter they took off. Their offense at that point in the season had been stagnant until the second half, which happen to be the case for that game. 3rd quarter hit and the game was done.

As for your note, your team was the only Pac-10 team to beat them. Alabama and Georgia (4-5) had similar blowouts against Tennessee. They didn't play any other Pac-10 team.
 
Yeah, TCU and Villanova moving up to D1 are the most likely.

Could be expanding to have teams in place for any raid. There's some rumors on the boards of Pitt, WVU, Syracuse and UCONN making a push/being wooed to the ACC.

I'd love it, but will believe it when I see it. I don't think any more big expansion happens unless the Big Ten decides to grab rutgers and others to get to 14 or 16 teams and gets the ball rolling again.

ACC rumors are tied to ESPN TV money, and getting an even bigger deal than they currently have by adding those 4. But I just don't see them making any kind of move unless other leagues expand first.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']I saw what I saw. USC gave up. Lane Kiffin even hinted to it, when talking about the fumble in the first half due to him trying to change the play as the ball hiked.
As for blowing the door open in the fourth...:roll:
UCLA: game blown open in the first half 32 points (14 pts in fourth)
Wash St: game blown open in the first half 29 points (7pts in fourth)
Ariz St: 0 points in fourth
Portland St: game blown open in first quarter 21 points (0 pts in fourth)[/QUOTE]

Nice of you to leave off the Stanford game. And it's not just the 4th quarter, it's the whole course of the game. No team can play all 60 minutes of game with Oregon. BTW, with UCLA and Portland State, the 2s and 3s were in while the 1s for the opponents were still in.

Looking at the overall Passing Leaders for all FBS...
Mallett (ark) number 2
Hartline (kentucky) number 8
Murray (georgia) number 24
Pac 10 has three... Tuel (Wash St) #16, Threet (Az St) #19 and Barkley (USC) #20
Also, you have more rushing leaders than the SEC (James #2, Franklin #23, Vereen #25, Rodgers #29, and Taylor #32) to just Newton #4. Sounds not as cut and dry as you state. Based on statistics, Pac-10 look more running than the SEC.
Click to expand...

Which would support the point that SEC defenses are overrated.

A win is a win. LSU has barely beat all opponents this year. Their defense has carried their team all season, including special teams. The Florida game was not as close as you think 31-17. 3rd quarter they took off. Their offense at that point in the season had been stagnant until the second half, which happen to be the case for that game. 3rd quarter hit and the game was done.

As for your note, your team was the only Pac-10 team to beat them. Alabama and Georgia (4-5) had similar blowouts against Tennessee. They didn't play any other Pac-10 team.
Click to expand...

I was referring to when Cal put up 45 on Tennessee in 2007. Sure, a win is a win (LSU over Tennessee by a point), but it doesn't negate the fact that LSU is a total fraud of a team.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']Nice of you to leave off the Stanford game. And it's not just the 4th quarter, it's the whole course of the game.[/QUOTE]

Stanford is a fairly good team so you needed the push at the end. It's like the close SEC games vs their best teams. Why would I include 1 instance where your theory is supported out of the many games they have played this year...

No Pac-10 team can play all 60 minutes of game with Oregon this year
Click to expand...

Now it looks better. I can't wait to see bowl season. I just hope your team has to play someone other than a Big-10 joke school.

Which would support the point that SEC defenses are overrated.
Click to expand...

How does that support YOUR theory... if anything it supports the fact that A) Pac-10 teams don't air out the ball as much as you think and B) it states that the Pac-10 defenses are terrible against the run.

I was referring to when Cal put up 45 on Tennessee in 2007. Sure, a win is a win (LSU over Tennessee by a point), but it doesn't negate the fact that LSU is a total fraud of a team.
Click to expand...

There you go again talking about a game that was 4 seasons ago :applause:

Until bowl season, you will not know how much or not a fraud LSU is. LSU's defense is one of the best led by Patrick Peterson, considered the top defensive player in the country. It's what helped the team almost beat Auburn, #2 team in the BCS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='lordopus99']Until bowl season, you will not know how much or not a fraud LSU is. LSU's defense is one of the best led by Patrick Peterson, considered the top defensive player in the country.[/QUOTE]

LSU needed a bone-headed penalty to beat one of the worst team in the SEC and one of the worst teams from the BCS conferences. The whole country saw that. One player doesn't make a team unless you're Auburn. Can't wait for the Cowboy Classic next year when Oregon gets to play against that defense.
 
my ducks are # 1 and my TCU will be # 2 and they will play for the BCS
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']LSU needed a bone-headed penalty to beat one of the worst team in the SEC and one of the worst teams from the BCS conferences. The whole country saw that. One player doesn't make a team unless you're Auburn. Can't wait for the Cowboy Classic next year when Oregon gets to play against that defense.[/QUOTE]


Auburn actually has a pretty incredible offensive line aside from Newton. That's not to say that we would still be undefeated without him, but he's definitely making big plays and is an integral part of the team. LSU was over-ranked yes, but not because of their defense.

But it doesn't really matter anyway. You could argue until you're blue in the face about which conference is better. As the system stands, we only have stats to go off of and anything else is conjecture. Stats don't necessarily translate into a head-to-head match, but it's the only thing we have to work with at the moment.
 
I think great defenses should be able to stop a team no matter how many times a team throws the ball. So I don't see how a good defense's numbers could be skewed because of that. Just a thought.
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']But it doesn't really matter anyway. You could argue until you're blue in the face about which conference is better. As the system stands, we only have stats to go off of and anything else is conjecture. Stats don't necessarily translate into a head-to-head match, but it's the only thing we have to work with at the moment.[/QUOTE]

That's why I'm hoping Alabama runs the table and leapfrogs the Non-AQ teams for the #2 spot in the BCS to take on Oregon, if the Ducks make it to the end of the season unscathed. That way, a statement can be made in the final game of the season. Either: Defense wins championships and everyone outside the SEC is irrelevant OR speed is the new way to play college football, Chip Kelly is a genius, and the SEC is overrated.

Honestly, having a BCS school beat a Non-AQ team in the title game won't change anything. BCS def Non-AQ, Non-AQ teams don't belong as most people see it already. Non-AQ def. BCS, BCS team sucks and was a fraud.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']
Honestly, having a BCS school beat a Non-AQ team in the title game won't change anything. BCS def Non-AQ, Non-AQ teams don't belong as most people see it already. Non-AQ def. BCS, BCS team sucks and was a fraud.[/QUOTE]

Well the first would have BCS leagues more receptive to a playoff by showing they shouldn't lose a shot at a title to a non-AQ team.

The second would up the ante for a playoff by showing the non-AQs are truly on par with the AQ leagues and should have autobids etc.

Best cases is everyone loses but Boise and TCU, as then the BCS leagues will be in uproar wanting a playoff bitching that those two only had perfect records from not having the grind of a AQ conference schedule etc.
 
I don't see what is so hard about a playoff system. It could be as easy as a mini-"march madness." Maybe 32 teams, so many autobids for BCS schools, the rest are all play-in. Why couldn't we have a scenario where a "George Mason" takes it to the house. For all we know they could be the best or close to the best. If the teams are that inferior, then it shouldn't be any problem to take them out. More games would equal more money.

[quote name='MasterSun1']Either: Defense wins championships and everyone outside the SEC is irrelevant OR speed is the new way to play college football, Chip Kelly is a genius, and the SEC is overrated.
[/QUOTE]

Florida has the fastest players in college football (they have won Track championships) in Chris Rainey and Jeff Demps and you see what has happened this year to UF. At one time, people believed Urban Meyer was the genius. No Tebow and he now looks like a guy who doesn't develop players. As for SEC overrated, strong talk for a team that plays no one and when they played someone in the recent years (Boise St, Ohio St) they came up real short.
 
32 teams is too many. One of the big issues is the number of games being played and the health of the student athletes. 5 (4) extra games will not happen. The most likely is probably a 8 team playoff, which only results in 3 extra games, which is really only 2 extra when you factor in the bowl game.
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']32 teams is too many. One of the big issues is the number of games being played and the health of the student athletes. 5 (4) extra games will not happen. The most likely is probably a 8 team playoff, which only results in 3 extra games, which is really only 2 extra when you factor in the bowl game.[/QUOTE]

In the pros, they can play a total of 23 games (4 preseason, 3 playoffs). Asking college teams to play an additional 4 games (the lucky 2) is nothing when you consider they max play 14 games (some conference don't even play that many) currently on the season (9 less than the pros). If anything, it is conditioning these athletes for a future career in the NFL. Hockey, a sport just as physical, plays 3 times the amount of football games in college (34+4 playoffs).
 
That's all fine and good...but the health of players is still the big factor you know that right? All the opponents of the playoff system lean on that, and I can see their point, as much as I want the BCS to die.

The NFL thing is a bad example. The players were not happy that their regular season got extended to 17 games, why? Health reasons. These guys endure enough injuries throughout the season, and so many of them experience such terrible health conditions after their careers, I again see their point. You know why the Pro Bowl is the worst all-star event in pro sports? No one wants to play. Why? Injuries. Also, asking a STUDENT to play more games is completely different than asking a PROFESSIONAL to play more games. The pro gets paid and its their job. The student athlete plays enough games to have good conditioning, and they also play enough games to get noticed by NFL scouts, and even then, what, less than 8% of college football players in all levels of college football have a NFL career?

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.
 
Realistically a 8-16 playoff would be ideal, do you really need more than that? The good team are bound to be well within that range and you would only be adding 3-4 games, and that's only for the teams that go all the way. Otherwise the rest are going to have 1-2 additional games.

Another argument against 32 team playoff would be injuries. These are student athletes who don't get paid for their time. Do we really want to extend a season by 4-5 more games and have a much greater risk of a player getting injured?
 
Yeah, 8-16 team playoffs at most. More than that is too long, and waters down the regular season too much.

I get the player health concerns, but the lower levels do a 16 team playoff with no real complaints about injuries etc. That's the real valid comparison that makes concern about injuries, missed classes etc. moot--not silly comparisons to the NFL. The lower levels that have real student atheletes do it with no problems.

It could also be paired with shortining the regular season down to 10 or 11 games to help off set it.

College football needs a playoff soon or I'm going to give up on the sport. I'm already paying MUCH less attention to it than I did years ago. Just a bunch of pointless exhibition games at the end of the day until there's a playoff.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
It could also be paired with shortining the regular season down to 10 or 11 games to help off set it.
[/QUOTE]

I would say get rid of the non-conference games. Everyone ends up at around 11 games, and at most, say with a 16 team playoff, you play 4 extra games, which in reality is 3 since one would normally be a bowl game. Also by eliminating the non-conf. teams, teams can't pad their records, and those non-conf. games would be made up for during the playoffs.

But even then, 16 team playoff seems excessive. Who in their right mind is talking about the 16th ranked team and how THEY deserve a title shot? I think with 8, you typically have 8 legitimate teams who all have a right to be considered.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Florida has the fastest players in college football (they have won Track championships) in Chris Rainey and Jeff Demps and you see what has happened this year to UF. At one time, people believed Urban Meyer was the genius. No Tebow and he now looks like a guy who doesn't develop players. As for SEC overrated, strong talk for a team that plays no one and when they played someone in the recent years (Boise St, Ohio St) they came up real short.[/QUOTE]

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. I would love for Oregon to have a rematch against them this year, but it won't happen. There's nothing to gain from beating them as everyone will just continue to say BSU and Big 10 are overrated. Beat an SEC team and that's a statement.

Preseason rankings are dumb and yet they play a big roll in who gets to the title game.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Illegal spear... You keep telling me teams are more than 1 player so that shouldn't be the excuse :lol:

[quote name='A Happy Panda']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. [/QUOTE]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='lordopus99']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.[/QUOTE]

USC lost in triple OT to Cal and won the Pac-10. Oklahoma got pounded (lost by 28 points) and didn't even win the Big 12. They should have never even been considered to play in the title game. But I do agree that Auburn got screwed by the BCS with Oklahoma going to the title game in 2004-05 and getting destroyed by USC.
 
Jesus christ, the two of you have been arguing the same shit in this thread for like a month. Give it a damn rest or take it to PMs already.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']
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.[/QUOTE]

Hockey players are as big as linebackers? What planet are you living on right now? I don't recall a lot of 250 pound defense men in the NHL. I also don't recall 220 pound hockey players getting demolished by guys who can weigh more than 100 pounds more than them like in football.

Great. Hockey allows fighting...and? Two guys grab each other's jerseys and play grab ass for 30 seconds before refs come break it up. You really think that if the NHL actually thought for a second that their players could REALLY hurt each other during these fights, they'd let them keep doing it? The only thing I agree with here is the fact that these guys have skates and sticks, which can be very dangerous. I've seen the videos where guys get sliced by a skate, it's a legitimate danger. But Football? You're asked to literally fling your whole body weight as fast and as hard as you can at someone 40 - 50x a game.
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']Hockey players are as big as linebackers? What planet are you living on right now? I don't recall a lot of 250 pound defense men in the NHL. I also don't recall 220 pound hockey players getting demolished by guys who can weigh more than 100 pounds more than them like in football.

Great. Hockey allows fighting...and? Two guys grab each other's jerseys and play grab ass for 30 seconds before refs come break it up. You really think that if the NHL actually thought for a second that their players could REALLY hurt each other during these fights, they'd let them keep doing it? The only thing I agree with here is the fact that these guys have skates and sticks, which can be very dangerous. I've seen the videos where guys get sliced by a skate, it's a legitimate danger. But Football? You're asked to literally fling your whole body weight as fast and as hard as you can at someone 40 - 50x a game.[/QUOTE]

You are correct. They are not the same weight as football players. They are just on skates that take a 200 lbs person around 25-30 mph i.e. faster than football players. Since this is a college football thread, I finish this discussion with a hit from last season. I haven't seen anything in football this past season that has been as hard hit as this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgMG9iLx4Qc

[quote name='mastersum1']USC lost in triple OT to Cal and won the Pac-10. Oklahoma got pounded (lost by 28 points) and didn't even win the Big 12. They should have never even been considered to play in the title game. [/QUOTE]

If the Big 12 followed the way the Pac 10 and Big 10 determines their champion, they would have won as they had the best record in the Big 12. But they play a championship game...
 
[quote name='lordopus99']If the Big 12 followed the way the Pac 10 and Big 10 determines their champion, they would have won as they had the best record in the Big 12. But they play a championship game...[/QUOTE]

Big 10 doesn't play a round robin schedule like the Pac-10 does. You can't say Oklahoma would've made the title game as they don't play everyone in their conference.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']Big 10 doesn't play a round robin schedule like the Pac-10 does. You can't say Oklahoma would've made the title game as they don't play everyone in their conference.[/QUOTE]
That's might be true.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']Big 10 doesn't play a round robin schedule like the Pac-10 does. You can't say Oklahoma would've made the title game as they don't play everyone in their conference.[/QUOTE]

Having to play one of the of the better teams in the conference at the end of the year (the pressure of staying undefeated) can cause teams to shake up i.e. Kansas St that year. Kansas St got beat by Texas 24-20; that same Texas team got destroyed by Oklahoma 65-13. The two teams Oklahoma didn't play from their conference that year were Kansas (6 losses i.e. non-factor) and Nebraska (another team that lost to Texas). What benefit is it to show the world you can beat up on Kansas, Washington, etc??? Showing me you can beat the best/2nd best team in crunch time i.e. end of year it shows miles better than winning them early on and walking into bowl season by smashing inferior opponents.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Having to play one of the of the better teams in the conference at the end of the year (the pressure of staying undefeated) can cause teams to shake up i.e. Kansas St that year. Kansas St got beat by Texas 24-20; that same Texas team got destroyed by Oklahoma 65-13. The two teams Oklahoma didn't play from their conference that year were Kansas (6 losses i.e. non-factor) and Nebraska (another team that lost to Texas). What benefit is it to show the world you can beat up on Kansas, Washington, etc??? Showing me you can beat the best/2nd best team in crunch time i.e. end of year it shows miles better than winning them early on and walking into bowl season by smashing inferior opponents.[/QUOTE]

If we're playing "what ifs", then what if Oklahoma played Kansas State in the course of the regular season instead of the title game? Probably same result, Oklahoma getting smashed. If you beat a team once, you should be able to beat them again. There's no need to play a re-match (reason Ohio State and Michigan didn't play each other in the title game a few years back).

Winning your conference should be a requirement to even be considered for the title game. Oklahoma getting in that year was a sham and everyone knows it. Same with Nebraska in 2000.
 
Absurd that the Utah-TCU game is only on CBS-C. Thankfully I get that channel since I have the DirecTV sports pack. But you'd think ESPN or another network would have found a way to get the rights to that game, or ESPN would have moved it or the Bama-LSU game to primetime and shown in nationally etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Absurd that the Utah-TCU game is only on CBS-C. Thankfully I get that channel since I have the DirecTV sports pack. But you'd think ESPN or another network would have found a way to get the rights to that game, or ESPN would have moved it or the Bama-LSU game to primetime and shown in nationally etc.[/QUOTE]


Yeah its bullshit, second year in a row they have done this. I mean I am not a TCU fan, but I like to watch them play. I thought they showed MWC and Pac 10 games on Versus, looks at the upcoming games and they do show TCU playing new mexico, how lame.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Absurd that the Utah-TCU game is only on CBS-C. Thankfully I get that channel since I have the DirecTV sports pack. But you'd think ESPN or another network would have found a way to get the rights to that game, or ESPN would have moved it or the Bama-LSU game to primetime and shown in nationally etc.[/QUOTE]

CBS always uses their 3:30 slot for SEC games for their game of the week. You can blame the Mountain West for this game not showing. They left the ESPN deal for CBS. CBS has always been home for the SEC so the conference should have realized that it's big games weren't going to get played like they once had with ESPN and that they would be stuck to CBS-C and their MW network (i.e. limiting the amount of people seeing their games). I guess that is why Utah is leaving for Pac-10, BYU is going independent, and now there is rumor that TCU might join the Big East...
 
Sure, but CBS could have put this game in prime time if they wanted. No late game on CBS tonight--at least not in my region. Like I said, moot for me since I get CBS-C, but absurd that a match up of #3 and #5 in the BCS is on such a limited channel.

And yep, it seems like the expansion wave may be getting ready to go again. Rumors of TCU to the Big East--with Villanova moving up to D1 and UCF taking their place if they decide not to move up.

And some rumblings on message boards that all that might be the Big East trying to pre-emptively start surviving another ACC raid. I don't put much stock into these rumors yet, but the rumors are that WVU, Pitt, Syracuse and UCONN may be going to the ACC and ESPN offering to up the new TV contract to more than offset splitting money another 4 ways. But just board rumors on a few Big East and ACC team sites at this point, so take it with a HUGE grain of salt.
 
Despite always being a big fan of pro sports, I've never really been a big fan of the college game- football or basketball. I keep up with it, but I only watch games occasionally, usually when Illinois is on. But I'm glad I tuned in to Illinois vs. Michigan today.... incredible 1st half; tied 31-31.
 
And TCU wins 47-7. LSU knocks of Alabama, so Bama is out of the title hunt.

Hopefully Bama can beat Auburn so at least one of TCU/Boise will get in the title game.
 
[quote name='fatmanforlife99']TCU will be number 1 this week, but they will need oregon or auburn to loose for the title.[/QUOTE]

Umm, no chance TCU jumps Oregon or Auburn. They'll remain #3 in the human polls, but might jump up to #1 or #2 in the computers. That's not good enough to reach #1 or #2 in the BCS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top