PDA

View Full Version : Great Day for College Football



MWM
11-03-2007, 11:17 PM
What a great college football day. Lots of good games, lots of meaningful games.

We learned a couple of things about Ohio State, even though I wouldn't consider this a real test. First, we learned that the defense is more vulnerable than some thought. There were times in the game where Wisconsin moved it pretty easily. Second, we learned that they're capable of bouncing back after some adversity. After the 3 and out following Wisconsin's go ahead TD, I was seeing 1998 Michigan State all over again. Boy was I wrong. They completely took over the game with theri O and D lines and dominated a decent Wisconsin team from there on out.

Folks, LSU is not THAT good. I'm not suggesting they're a bad team or that there are a lot of teams better, but they're not the juggernaut many thought they would be. They're incredibly undisciplined as a team and Les Miles is, well, just insane. Seriously! I think the guy is whacko. They're capable of beating anyone in the country with the talent they have, but they're also capable of losing to a lot of teams they should beat. I don't think they're well coached and they've been INCREDIBLY lucky to squeak out a few of their victories (see incredibly boneheaded play by Albama QB to ive them the ball on the 3 yard line). I wouldn't at all be surprised to see them falter at some point to a team they should easily beat (like UK). I just don't have any faith in their coaching.

And I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating. University of Michigan - run fast away from Miles. You want not part of that psycho. There's a reason why he's not very popular in Baton Rouge. I think he's exposed himself this year, so I don't see them making a run at him. But if they do, it's going to be a long few years in Ann Arbor.

I don't think anyone can stop Oregon's offense. They're just too good. Now, the defense isn't very good, so it's possible to outscore them. But if you want to play with them, you better be ready for a shootout. They're that good.

Dennis Dixon is the Heisman winner. Period. It shouldn't even be a close vote. There's no one else I can think of worth voting for.

It's nice to see Michigan State is still Michigan State, even with D'Antonio. Once again, they lose a game they had well in hand. That team should never play with a lead. There's must be something in the water there in East Lansing that makes them fold once they have a game in hand.

Michael Hart is a special football player and, in my mind, is a great representation of all what college football is about. The guys plays with such a passion that's rare. And his balance is off the charts unreal. The play of the game today that allowed Michigan to sustain their final drive was a play where Mallett fumbled and he picked it up, completely dodged Spartan defender and wound up with a first down. It's was an amazing play, and I doubt Michigan wins the game had they lost that fumble; or even if they hadn't gotten that first down.

As always, Oklahoma is the most over-rated team in the nation.

I'm officially tired of the whining about the east coast bias. I was watching the Oregon-ASU game and the announcer was going on and on about how unfair it was for players on the west coast never getting the exposure they need to get a fair shot at the Heisman. Last time I checked, 3 of the last 6 Heisman winners were from the Pac-10. Stop crying about bias. And it looks like this year will be 4 out of 7.

What a train wreck in Nebraska. Callahan is also a little nuts. Actually, he's a LOT nuts. Goes to show that getting to one Super Bowl doesn't make you a great coach. It also shows that getting an NFL coach doesn't always work (see Pitt for exhibit B, Georgia Tech for Exhibit C, Virginia for D). It's too bad because there are no better college football fans than in Lincoln, Nebraska. They deserve better.

For all the talk about weak schedules in the Big 10, SEC powerhouses played Tenesse Tech and Troy today. And Georgia struggled a bit against them. Troy gained 485 yards of offense and scored 34 points. I thought this didn't happen in the SEC. I thought they had so much speed, no one else was supposed to be able to play with them. :evil:

What if Kansas goes undefeated? It's really not that much of a stretch. They have to play Oklahoma State and Missouri, but they could win both of those game. Then they'll likely play Oklahoma in the conference championship game. And we all know that Oklahoma is more than capable of losing in big games. I still don't think it will happen, but it wouldn't be shocking if it did. But if they do, I don't see how they don't play for the National championship. Other than the Buckeyes playing for the title, there's nothing I'd rather see more than a Kansas - BC national title game. Looks like BC won't make it through the night, but a guy can hope.

This is the year the Wolverines beat OSU. Mark it down. There's no way Mike Hart loses 4 times to the Buckeyes. It's in Ann Arobr. Manningham is finally looking like Manningham and OSU is vulnerable to the run. My prediction is a close game, but Hart will put on a clinic of how to take over a game as a tailback. He'll go down as one of the greatest Michigan RBs in their storied history.

How can Notre Dame be THIS bad? I'm not kidding. I think everyone knew it would be a down year. I have a lot of ND fan friends and they all knew it as well. I figured they'd be a game or two under .500, but for the love of all that is holy, how could this ever happen at ND. The general consensus among Irish faithful is that this is the residue of just how bad at recruiting Willingham was. The ND junior and senior class is almost completely devoid of talent. How much of the blame falls on Weis? I've always been of the mind that Weis was a really good coach and I don't understand how he could have forgotten how to coach in the off season. So I'm inclined to give him the benfit of the doubt simply because the last two years they looked like a well coached team. But is the talent really THIS bad? He's put himself in a situation where he MUST show some serous improvement next year, or he's going to have to go. But apparently, they continue to sign blue chip recruits. This is supposedly one of the top recruiting classes ND has had in a long time. It's also the #1 recruting class in the country. We'll see.

I don't like Nick Saban one bit. But he's going to have Alabama back as a big time contender REAL soon. I hope I'm wrong, but the guy can coach.

Speaking of recruiting, how can Michigan's class be rated ahead of Ohio State's pretty much every year, yet OSU continues to have the better teams? That also begs the question, there are certain teams that seem to have top 5 recruting classes every year, but rarely are they top tier teams. How does that happen?

And finally, boy do I love college football. :cool:

WMR
11-03-2007, 11:25 PM
Someone find Puffy and Razor and talk them down off the bridge.

WMR
11-03-2007, 11:27 PM
Let's top it all off with the over-rated BC Eagles losing to Gentleman Bowden and his Florida State Seminoles.

Hoosier Red
11-03-2007, 11:45 PM
And Indiana gets their 6th win(scheduling genius to put the final MACrifice this late in the season)
It may not be enough, but for the first time since before I went to IU, the Hoosiers will not have a losing season.

OnBaseMachine
11-03-2007, 11:45 PM
MWM, agreed about Oregon's offense. They are incredibly good, the best in the country IMO. However, injuries to killing them. Backup RB Jeremiah Johnson is out for the season, along with 2nd and 3rd WR's Brian Paysinger and Cameron Colvin. 4th WR Derrick Jones is also hurt but should be back next week. Dixon got banged up tonight but it appears to be minor. Their depth at WR is very thin now, they've already pulled the redshirt off three WR's (Scott, Davis, and Pflugrad). We'll see how this affects them down the road.

OnBaseMachine
11-03-2007, 11:48 PM
One other thing: Those Heisman all came from USC. SC gets a ton of national exposure, unlike the othe nine Pac-10 teams. And you can plame Pac-10 commish Tom Hansen for that. His TV contract is horrible, they need to get some sort of TV contract with ESPN like the Big-10 has.

GoReds33
11-04-2007, 12:17 AM
I really hope that today's win will propel the Bearcats back into contention for the Big East title. This is a season that can make or break a program. If they continue winning they will pick up better prospects. Just look at the prospects lists on some of the recruiting websites. Since the start of the year, as they got better, the prospects got better and better on some of the websites. This is a season that really excites me for the future of UC football.

Chip R
11-04-2007, 12:19 AM
I'm beginning to think Les Miles has a horseshoe and a 4 leaf clover with him 24/7 cause they have been really lucky this year.

I think the Heisman's Dixon's to lose. About the Pac 10, I think a problem is that a lot of their games start really late at night so they don't get the attention the schools in the east do.

The folks in Lincoln, NE are not too happy these days. And it couldn't happen to a better school. That 70 points Kansas put up was swee revenge for all the times Nebrasa used to beat the Kansases and the K-States and the Iowa States and the Missouris and the Oklahoma States of the world 72-3 back in the day. I'd be a little surprised if Callahan were fired before the end of the year but there's no way he keeps his job after this year. My prediction is that they bring back former Husker QB Turner Gill in to restore the tradition.

And here's to my alma mater, the #1 FCS team in the land, the Universty of Northern Iowa Panthers for capturing their 13th Gateway Conference championship today. One team. One goal.

paintmered
11-04-2007, 12:22 AM
I really hope that today's win will propel the Bearcats back into contention for the Big East title. This is a season that can make or break a program. If they continue winning they will pick up better prospects. Just look at the prospects lists on some of the recruiting websites. Since the start of the year, as they got better, the prospects got better and better on some of the websites. This is a season that really excites me for the future of UC football.

With ND losing again, maybe some of those GCL kids would like to return to Cincinnati?


TEAM CONF. W-L OVERALL W-L
Connecticut 4-0 8-1
West Virginia 2-1 7-1
Cincinnati 2-2 7-2
Louisville 2-2 5-4
Pittsburgh 2-2 4-5
Rutgers 2-3 5-4
South Florida 1-3 6-3
Syracuse 1-3 2-7

UConn and WVU have yet to play. UC plays UConn and WVU the next two weekends. Conceivably, if WVU beats UConn (which they probably will) and UC wins beats both, UC and WVU will have tied for the Big East title. Since UC would have the head-to-head victory, they'd win the conference. UC does control their own destiny. But so does UConn and WVU.

However, I haven't seen anything that suggests UC will actually beat West Virginia. UC beat UConn at their place last year in a close game.

dman
11-04-2007, 12:34 AM
As far as OSU goes, Todd Boeckman looked to be improving, that is until today's game. Beanie Wells was clearly the savior of this one, as far as the offense is concerned. I do think that Boeckman is one of the best QB's that OSU has had in pocket situations in quite some time, and the guy has a cannon of an arm, but at 6'5", he looks like Shrek running a football.

Sea Ray
11-04-2007, 12:36 AM
As a fan, Big Ten football is boring to me. I'm talking about the competition of the season not game calling, coaching etc.

Every year it's OSU and Mich and no one else. Once again it'll all come down to that meaningful game the week before Thanksgiving. In other conferences the top team loses once or twice making many games key to winning the title. In the Big Ten is there really any reason to watch these games other than OSU-Mich? Todays intra-state game between MSU and MI was good but it really didn't mean anything. Even if MSU pulled off the upset it was still going to come down to OSU-MI in a couple weeks. Ditto for Wisc-OSU.

In the SEC and PAC 10 different games every week effect the SEC race. Some weeks it involved KY, some involved LSU, on and on. But in the Big Ten what game really means anything other than OSU-MI?

MWM
11-04-2007, 12:39 AM
I'd really rather not rehash the whole Big Ten - SEC thing for the 1,237,934 time. It's been done enough times, we could all just go re-read one of those threads.

OnBaseMachine
11-04-2007, 12:40 AM
Well, the refs are at it again tonight. FSU is up 20-10 on BC with 8 minutes left in the game. BC had a 3rd and 4 at and completed a pass to the TE. He was CLEARLY a yard shy of the first down but the ref gave him a very favorable spot and the first down. It should have been 4th and 1. Next play they throw a bomb for first and goal and then get a TD. Once again the refs blow a huge call. Referring continues to get worse and worse.

Sea Ray
11-04-2007, 12:42 AM
I'd really not rehash the whole Big Ten - SEC thing. It's been done enough times, we could all just go re-read one of those threads.


Yeah, I'm not interested in rehashing it either. I'm with you there. I'm not trying to even get into which conference has better teams. I'm just saying as a fan I don't find watching OSU-Wisc as compelling as LSU-Alabama.

OldRightHander
11-04-2007, 12:53 AM
Yeah, I'm not interested in rehashing it either. I'm with you there. I'm not trying to even get into which conference has better teams. I'm just saying as a fan I don't find watching OSU-Wisc as compelling as LSU-Alabama.

I can see were you're coming from as a fan of the game in general, but I'm one of those sports fans with a favorite in every sport and I will more often than not watch that favorite play over any other game that might be a more compelling matchup. So while there may be other games on that will be more competitive or more entertaining, I'll watch the Bucks every time. When they're not on, though, I will tend to gravitate toward whatever game offers the most entertainment value, or I will channel surf looking for one that's close.

OldRightHander
11-04-2007, 12:55 AM
Well, looks like BC is going down.

OnBaseMachine
11-04-2007, 12:57 AM
BC loses. Matt Ryan threw his third INT of the night, with the last one being returned for a TD.

My top three would be:

1. OSU
2. Oregon
3. LSU

Chip R
11-04-2007, 01:09 AM
In the SEC and PAC 10 different games every week effect the SEC race. Some weeks it involved KY, some involved LSU, on and on. But in the Big Ten what game really means anything other than OSU-MI?


I see what you're saying and you have a point. However, all those SEC games do is set up a championship game where you could have an undefeated team and if they just happen to lose that championship game by a fluke, they can't play for the BCS championship. It almost makes the regular season meaningless. I'm not saying the SEC isn't a good conference. It's arguably the best conference this year and it would be a shame to see a 1 or 2 loss team not being able to come out of there and not get to play for the BCS championship because teams from weaker conferences are undefeated.

Javy Pornstache
11-04-2007, 01:15 AM
I've been saying for weeks that Oregon and West Virginia are the darkhorses in this national championship chase as a lot of the focus has been on OSU, LSU, Okla, and in recent weeks, BC and South Florida. It's hard to call them darkhorses now that WV's back near the top five and Oregon's already made it there, but as teams continue to get picked off, it's hard to ignore these two. Obviously, OSU-Michigan will likely determine whether the Buckeyes play for the title, and I still think LSU is one of the very best teams in the country, but the SEC is so brutal. They still have one moderately tough regular season game left (Arkansas) but an SEC Championship that should be a real battle with any of five teams (Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky). There's a real chance for either of these two to get into the championship game.

Cedric
11-04-2007, 02:57 AM
Mike Hart will be remembered just like Jake Long and Chad Henne. First four time losers to Ohio State.

I'm sure after the game he will talk about how he is better than Wells and how Michigan lost the game. His mouth is bigger than his game. Hart wasn't even the best running back playing on that field today. Ringer is a much better player on a worse team and Oline.

GAC
11-04-2007, 05:22 AM
What a great college football day. Lots of good games, lots of meaningful games.

Amen brother! And to echo your last line..... "Boy do I love college football."

I was watching the Michigan-MSU game and my cable box, which has been acting up, went out again. So I'm scrambling around like Carson Palmer unhooking the box and going with a direct feed into the TV so I can at least get the lower tier channels and get the game(s) back on.

Charter says there is nothing wrong with the box, but that's it for me with Charter Communications. Plus, they have no plans to carry the Big Ten Network or Hi-Def. I mean, I got a 55" HD TV, and it may as well be a 13" black and white. :lol:


We learned a couple of things about Ohio State, even though I wouldn't consider this a real test. First, we learned that the defense is more vulnerable than some thought.

Deja Vu Mike? They're good; but have they really (and I do mean "really") been tested? They have shut down what was, at the time, two of the Big Ten's top offenses in Purdue and Michigan State.... but I am still unconvinced.


There were times in the game where Wisconsin moved it pretty easily. Second, we learned that they're capable of bouncing back after some adversity. After the 3 and out following Wisconsin's go ahead TD, I was seeing 1998 Michigan State all over again. Boy was I wrong. They completely took over the game with theri O and D lines and dominated a decent Wisconsin team from there on out.

I think this was the first game where it appears they came out and didn't follow their normal gameplan, which is.... run the ball to establish the passing game. OSU this year has had a very balanced attack. They didn't utilize that in the first half. Why? I have no idea. Tressel experimenting, taking a harder look-see at how good/capable Boeckman is in leading a team? Anyone's guess.

But Chris Wells is one heck of a runner IMO.


Folks, LSU is not THAT good. I'm not suggesting they're a bad team or that there are a lot of teams better, but they're not the juggernaut many thought they would be. They're incredibly undisciplined as a team and Les Miles is, well, just insane. Seriously! I think the guy is whacko. They're capable of beating anyone in the country with the talent they have, but they're also capable of losing to a lot of teams they should beat. I don't think they're well coached and they've been INCREDIBLY lucky to squeak out a few of their victories (see incredibly boneheaded play by Albama QB to ive them the ball on the 3 yard line). I wouldn't at all be surprised to see them falter at some point to a team they should easily beat (like UK). I just don't have any faith in their coaching.

I actually picked Alabama to win this game. And they should have IMO. I'm not too impressed with the defensive play of some of these SEC teams.

With the BC loss yesterday, it looks like LSU (the darlin' of ESPN) will become #2, while the Mighty Ducks will be #3.

And yes, a OSU-LSU matchup in the NC game does scare me, regardless of Mile's reckless coaching. ;)


It's nice to see Michigan State is still Michigan State, even with D'Antonio. Once again, they lose a game they had well in hand. That team should never play with a lead. There's must be something in the water there in East Lansing that makes them fold once they have a game in hand.

On our Big Ten thread, they have screwed me 2-3 times early in the season with their erratic/inconsistent play. You have no idea which team is going to appear on Saturday. I no longer pick them to win anything. :lol:


Michael Hart is a special football player and, in my mind, is a great representation of all what college football is about. The guys plays with such a passion that's rare. And his balance is off the charts unreal. The play of the game today that allowed Michigan to sustain their final drive was a play where Mallett fumbled and he picked it up, completely dodged Spartan defender and wound up with a first down. It's was an amazing play, and I doubt Michigan wins the game had they lost that fumble; or even if they hadn't gotten that first down.

And I thought "hobblin'" Henne also had a very gutsy game. When he went out, being 10 pts down, and they brought in that freshman QB, I thought it was over for Michigan. Having that protective leg brace on, Henne was still able to plant and throw some excellent passes in late, pressure situations. And kudos to Manningham also. What a gifted receiver.



What a train wreck in Nebraska. Callahan is also a little nuts. Actually, he's a LOT nuts. Goes to show that getting to one Super Bowl doesn't make you a great coach. It also shows that getting an NFL coach doesn't always work (see Pitt for exhibit B, Georgia Tech for Exhibit C, Virginia for D). It's too bad because there are no better college football fans than in Lincoln, Nebraska. They deserve better.

When they first flashed that score across the bottom of my TV screen I thought it was a BB pre-season score. :lol:


For all the talk about weak schedules in the Big 10, SEC powerhouses played Tenesse Tech and Troy today. And Georgia struggled a bit against them. Troy gained 485 yards of offense and scored 34 points. I thought this didn't happen in the SEC. I thought they had so much speed, no one else was supposed to be able to play with them. :evil:

The SEC has some darn good teams. They are, right now, a "step above" the Big Ten. I'm just tired of some many raggin' on the Big Ten and saying they are weak. I don't think they are as weak as some may contend.



This is the year the Wolverines beat OSU. Mark it down. There's no way Mike Hart loses 4 times to the Buckeyes. It's in Ann Arobr. Manningham is finally looking like Manningham and OSU is vulnerable to the run. My prediction is a close game, but Hart will put on a clinic of how to take over a game as a tailback. He'll go down as one of the greatest Michigan RBs in their storied history.

Ain't gonna happen IMO. Hart is good, but so is Chris Wells. But it's still going to come down, just like yesterday (late), to Chad Henne pulling them through. Manningham scares me more then Hart. But OSU's run defense is still pretty stout (71 yds/game. Michigan allows 129 yds/game) - it's OSU's pass defense that worries me.

Michigan had to comeback yesterday to beat a poor 1-5 (5-5 overall) MSU team. They should have lost to Penn State earlier too IMO.

Lets see how they do next week at Wisconsin. ;)

It's obviously going to be a typical OSU-Michigan game where these coaches are going to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at each other. But that's the way it always is.

I think it will be a high scoring affair; but OSU's offense will prevail because Michigan's defense, regardless of how "inspired" they may be because it is Ohio State, will let them down.

And WE have Lloyd Carr. :D



How can Notre Dame be THIS bad? I'm not kidding. I think everyone knew it would be a down year. I have a lot of ND fan friends and they all knew it as well. I figured they'd be a game or two under .500, but for the love of all that is holy, how could this ever happen at ND.

Extend Weiss!

traderumor
11-04-2007, 08:08 AM
Michael Hart is a special football player and, in my mind, is a great representation of all what college football is about. The guys plays with such a passion that's rare. And his balance is off the charts unreal. The play of the game today that allowed Michigan to sustain their final drive was a play where Mallett fumbled and he picked it up, completely dodged Spartan defender and wound up with a first down. It's was an amazing play, and I doubt Michigan wins the game had they lost that fumble; or even if they hadn't gotten that first down.

That really just makes me want to hurl. Hart is a weinie who can't stay on the field and looks like Michael Jackson as the Scarecrow in The Wiz.

Sea Ray
11-04-2007, 09:17 AM
I see what you're saying and you have a point. However, all those SEC games do is set up a championship game where you could have an undefeated team and if they just happen to lose that championship game by a fluke, they can't play for the BCS championship. It almost makes the regular season meaningless.


Your point is quite valid but it desn't make the regular season any less compelling because SEC teams have to fight and claw just to get to the Championship game. Your point would make sense if there was an undefeated team in the West and an undefeated team in the East. That gets us back to the Big Ten again. Let's say it was split into a North (with Mich) and a South (with OSU), then you'd be right. The regular season means little.

So the issue is competition w/i the conference. Not how it's setup.

Unassisted
11-04-2007, 10:16 AM
And I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating. University of Michigan - run fast away from Miles. You want not part of that psycho. There's a reason why he's not very popular in Baton Rouge. I think he's exposed himself this year, so I don't see them making a run at him. But if they do, it's going to be a long few years in Ann Arbor.
I think a big strike against Miles getting hired at UM is the outcome from the one time he coached against Tressel. (2004 Alamo Bowl, while Les was at Oklahoma State.) The game was not close (33-7) against a Buckeye team that was minus Troy Smith and had faltered 4 times in the regular season. Small sample size, to be sure, but it's an exceptionally lousy sample.

OnBaseMachine
11-04-2007, 06:09 PM
Ahhh yes, the new BCS rankings are out and yet another three loss SEC team enters. That's now FIVE three loss SEC teams in the top 25. Tennessee and Cal are both 6-3. Cal crushed Tennessee. Yet Tennessee is ranked ahead of them. There is something seriously wrong with that picture.

Highlifeman21
11-04-2007, 06:14 PM
Go Navy

15fan
11-04-2007, 06:17 PM
Go Navy.

For the first time in about 20 years, I will be pulling for Duke when they travel to South Bend. God that would be awesome if ND lost at home to Duke.

MWM
11-04-2007, 06:49 PM
Ahhh yes, the new BCS rankings are out and yet another three loss SEC team enters. That's now FIVE three loss SEC teams in the top 25. Tennessee and Cal are both 6-3. Cal crushed Tennessee. Yet Tennessee is ranked ahead of them. There is something seriously wrong with that picture.

Yep. the SEC is clearly the best conference, top to bottom, in the country. But the magnitude of that conference superiority is GREATLY exaggerated by the media and their fans.

traderumor
11-04-2007, 07:09 PM
One of the biggest jokes of the rankings this year was the South Florida #2 ranking. I'm not recalling any more embarrassing bandwagon jumping, and some folks were clamoring that they "deserved" to be #1. The rankings really need to move past looking at the undefeated and putting them up by default. It is certainly arguable that LSU is still the best team, all told, even though they tripped up against UK, although 'Bama really should have won that game last night, which makes their #2 more dubious than moving Oregon up based on performance. But then, I think Arizona State really was a pretender. An OU vs. OSU matchup would certainly be interesting.

As for the SEC power, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of D played in that conference from week to week.

Yachtzee
11-04-2007, 08:18 PM
That really just makes me want to hurl. Hart is a weinie who can't stay on the field and looks like Michael Jackson as the Scarecrow in The Wiz.

Which means he's a good candidate for the Bengal's first round draft pick.

gm
11-04-2007, 08:48 PM
MWM, agreed about Oregon's offense. They are incredibly good, the best in the country IMO. However, injuries to killing them. Backup RB Jeremiah Johnson is out for the season, along with 2nd and 3rd WR's Brian Paysinger and Cameron Colvin. 4th WR Derrick Jones is also hurt but should be back next week. Dixon got banged up tonight but it appears to be minor. Their depth at WR is very thin now, they've already pulled the redshirt off three WR's (Scott, Davis, and Pflugrad). We'll see how this affects them down the road.

After the Vegas bowl blowout last year, no one around here saw "this" coming. Here's today's blog entry from Bellotti's formerly strongest critic:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/johncanzano/2007/11/more_dixon_and_why_chip_kelly.html

Anyone want Chip Kelly to head coach their Big Ten team?

gm
11-04-2007, 08:50 PM
Which means he's a good candidate for the Bengal's first round draft pick.

Or maybe...they can draft Akili Dixon?

OnBaseMachine
11-04-2007, 09:52 PM
After the Vegas bowl blowout last year, no one around here saw "this" coming. Here's today's blog entry from Bellotti's formerly strongest critic:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/johncanzano/2007/11/more_dixon_and_why_chip_kelly.html

Anyone want Chip Kelly to head coach their Big Ten team?

I expected Oregon to be very good this year, maybe not National Championship contender good, but good nonetheless. Dennis Dixon has always had the talent, and he's finally putting it together as a senior. Pac-10 senior QB's always have huge seasons. Plus Jonathon Stewart is a stud at RB. He's every bit as good as McFadden and Slaton IMO.

And I disagree with TR. I think ASU is much more than a pretender. Dennis Erickson is a heckuva coach. ASU always had great talent but this year is the first time in a longtime that the coaching has been as good as the talent.

MWM
11-04-2007, 09:55 PM
Jonathon Stewart is a good football player. But no offense, he's not in McFadden's class. Few are. If McFadden played on a decent team, he'd be all world.

OnBaseMachine
11-04-2007, 09:57 PM
I'm not saying Stewart is better than McFadden but he's right there with him IMO. I would rank them as:

1. McFadden
2. Stewart
3. Slaton

MWM
11-04-2007, 10:01 PM
Well, my personal opinion is that the gap between McFadden and Stewart isn't small. But I also think McFadden is one of the most naturally gifted football players I've seen in a while. Stewart is good, but there's nothing all that unique about him. Any given year, there's usually a handful of really good RBs. I think that's where Stewart is. Then there's guys who come along who are a step above, such as Reggie Bush, Adrian Peterson, etc... I really think McFadden is in that class. He just needs a better team.

Cedric
11-04-2007, 10:44 PM
McFadden is much better than Stewart. It's not a fair comparison. Stewart is playing in a notoriously wide open conference and he doesn't have natural instincts. He himself has spoken on how he had to work on his vision and instincts. McFadden is playing in the SEC and has done it since day one. Nothing against Stewart, just not valid arguement, IMO.

Danny Serafini
11-05-2007, 10:34 AM
While I'd prefer not to see Ohio State sleepwalk and fall behind like they did, it's at least good to see them not freak out and wipe Wisconsin out late. Whoever they play in the title game is going to provide a lot more adversity than they've had to deal with so far, nice to see they can handle it.

Oregon is the #2 team in the country, it shouldn't even be up for debate. Likewise, Dennis Dixon as Heisman winner shouldn't be up for debate at this point. The Ducks looks totally legit.

On the other hand, LSU hasn't looked impressive in over a month. They're very good, but they're not near what they were hyped up to be. Inconsistent play + mad scientist coach does not = top team in the land. To me they're clearly a notch below Oregon.

Looks like the frauds have mostly been shaken out. S. Florida is in full collapse mode now, BC (who should've lost last week) finally spit the bit, and while I won't call Arizona St. a fraud it wasn't a surprise at all that they got beat down. What that does leave us with is Kansas. They've played an even softer schedule than OSU, but they do have a neutral site game against a pretty good Missouri team coming up. If they win that, they then get perennially overranked Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game, a winnable game. Would the voters move a 13-0 Kansas ahead of a 12-1 LSU or 11-1 Oregon?

Mike Hart is soft. Soft as a baby's bottom. I'm not doubting his skill, but when was the last time he played an entire game? I'm tired of hearing what a warrior he is because he plays 2/3 of a season. He's going to be a bust of epic proportion in the NFL. If he can't take the beating from college kids how is he going to handle playing against grown men?

Going for it instead of kicking was almost a fireable offense for Charlie Weis. That was, without doubt, the bonehead call of the season. Even if he misses the kick you're going to OT, there's no downside to kicking. Are you really worried about giving Navy field position if you miss? Somehow I don't see the quick strike Navy offense marching down the field in the last 30 seconds and hitting a long FG to win. That was absurd. Though it was fun watching Navy win.

bucksfan2
11-05-2007, 11:09 AM
I think OSU showed that it has a special football team. Wisconsin isn't that bad of a football team and they played a pretty good game. The D didn't play that well but only gave up 17 points. OSU just showed another way to beat you letting Wells take over the game. The guy runs hard and as long as he hangs onto the ball he is a great back. Tressel is one of the most frustrating coaches to watch as a fan. He never deviates from his style even when all of us fans are nervous.

LSU is relying more on national reputation that any other program in football. Miles isn't a good coach and I think they lose to Arkansas in classic trap game.

Texas and Georiga may be two of the most over rated clubs in the past few years. Both teams are just not that good and are living on their name more than their play on the field.

Hart is a good back, talks a lot, and has trouble staying healthy. The problem I forsee for UM against OSU is how healthy is Hart and Henne? They will take a beating that day and have a bruising Wisconsin team to play the weak before. Hart and Henne won't be able to rest because they need to win and play a good team. I forsee a good OSU UM game I just don't think UM has the horses to play with OSU this year.

registerthis
11-05-2007, 11:23 AM
Even if he misses the kick you're going to OT, there's no downside to kicking.

Well, unless your missed field goal gets returned 109 yards for a TD. :)

But that doesn't excuse Weis at all. That has to be one of the all-time greatest coaching blunders I have seen.

D-Man
11-05-2007, 12:41 PM
Stewart is playing in a notoriously wide open conference and he doesn't have natural instincts.

Your first point just can't be true. Stewart is a half a yard better per carry than anyone else in that conference with 100 carries. . . Unless you want to argue that the conference is notably weak in RBs, which would be a pretty hollow argument. This is the same conference where USC has like four high school All Americans at RB.

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncf/confsortables?stat=rush&group=9&year=2007&sort=ypc

Stewart's 6.5 yards per carry is nothing to sneeze at. By point of reference, Bo Jackson averaged 6.42 ypc in 1985.

Regarding your second point--Does Stewart really need outstanding natural instincts when he's built like a cement truck and runs a 4.34 forty?


But I also think McFadden is one of the most naturally gifted football players I've seen in a while. . . He just needs a better team.

If McFadden only needs a better team, then why is Felix Jones managing quite well with the team he has? Jones has 9.3 ypc on 110 carries. I'm asking honestly, because I haven't seen Arkansas play this year, other than McFadden's ridiculous highlights.

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncf/confsortables?stat=rush&group=8&year=2007&sort=ypc

Cedric
11-05-2007, 01:31 PM
Your first point just can't be true. Stewart is a half a yard better per carry than anyone else in that conference with 100 carries. . . Unless you want to argue that the conference is notably weak in RBs, which would be a pretty hollow argument. This is the same conference where USC has like four high school All Americans at RB.

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncf/confsortables?stat=rush&group=9&year=2007&sort=ypc

Stewart's 6.5 yards per carry is nothing to sneeze at. By point of reference, Bo Jackson averaged 6.42 ypc in 1985.

Regarding your second point--Does Stewart really need outstanding natural instincts when he's built like a cement truck and runs a 4.34 forty?



If McFadden only needs a better team, then why is Felix Jones managing quite well with the team he has? Jones has 9.3 ypc on 110 carries. I'm asking honestly, because I haven't seen Arkansas play this year, other than McFadden's ridiculous highlights.

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncf/confsortables?stat=rush&group=8&year=2007&sort=ypc

USC hasn't figured out which RB to play. Other than Stewart what starting RB in the Pac Ten is NFL caliber? He should be dominating with the spread offense and Dixon taking so much pressure away.

And I never questioned Stewart was a great back. This debate was McFadden against Stewart and I don't think many people would think it's as close as some on this thread.

Johnny Footstool
11-05-2007, 01:43 PM
Looks like the frauds have mostly been shaken out. S. Florida is in full collapse mode now, BC (who should've lost last week) finally spit the bit, and while I won't call Arizona St. a fraud it wasn't a surprise at all that they got beat down. What that does leave us with is Kansas. They've played an even softer schedule than OSU, but they do have a neutral site game against a pretty good Missouri team coming up. If they win that, they then get perennially overranked Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game, a winnable game. Would the voters move a 13-0 Kansas ahead of a 12-1 LSU or 11-1 Oregon?

For KU to go undefeated, they would have to beat 2 Top-10 teams in Missouri and Oklahoma. That should end all the "they haven't played anyone" talk. If that happens, KU simply has to play for the national championship.

Of course, we're not there yet. There's plenty of football to be played before it comes down to that.

MWM
11-05-2007, 01:44 PM
For KU to go undefeated, they would have to beat 2 Top-10 teams in Missouri and Oklahoma. That should end all the "they haven't played anyone" talk. If that happens, KU simply has to play for the national championship.

Of course, we're not there yet. There's plenty of football to be played before it comes down to that.

Totally agree. It would be an absolute travesty to have an undefeated team in a BCS conference not play for the National Title over other 1 loss teams.

Sea Ray
11-05-2007, 02:30 PM
Totally agree. It would be an absolute travesty to have an undefeated team in a BCS conference not play for the National Title over other 1 loss teams.

The National Championship pairing will be interesting this year. In addition to the scenario you listed above, how about Ohio State? What if they lose to Michigan and there are no major undefeated teams? My bet is there will be a lot of clamouring out of our state capital that OSU should be given a spot in the NC game even though they didn't even win their conference. It could happen.

Chip R
11-05-2007, 02:35 PM
The National Championship pairing will be interesting this year. In addition to the scenario you listed above, how about Ohio State? What if they lose to Michigan and there are no major undefeated teams? My bet is there will be a lot of clamouring out of our state capital that OSU should be given a spot in the NC game even though they didn't even win their conference. It could happen.


OSU's problem would be their schedule. People are just chomping at the bit to knock them down in the polls if they lose because of their soft schedule. If they lose to Michigan and teams like LSU and Oregon stay at 1 loss, OSU gets rated below those teams and maybe a couple more. Then their only hope is if LSU loses in the SEC title game and/or Oregon State beats Oregon and then maybe they can sneak past one of those teams. But the soft schedule is doing them no favors.

Cedric
11-05-2007, 02:37 PM
Ohio State would have zero chance unless two of either Oregon, LSU, and Oklahoma have 2 losses.

Roy Tucker
11-05-2007, 02:56 PM
In addition to the soft schedule, it's better to lose 1 game early in the season than late.

Lose that one game late and you get knocked down several slots in the polls and no time left to make it up.

Frankly speaking, even as a die-hard OSU fan, I'd put a 1 loss Buckeyes down around the bottom of the top 10.

And as a Buckeye fan with the vision of a 2005 Vince Young beating OSU at the Shoe, Dennis Dixon scares the pee out of me.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-05-2007, 03:35 PM
OSU's weakness of schedule has been overblown in my opinion. As of today, Sagarin has them at #63 in SOS with each week getting a little better. Games vs. Illinois and Michigan will take it up into the 50's or 40's.

Oklahoma and Kansas are worse at #72 and #104 SOS respectively. West Virginia (#61), Missouri (#53), and B.C. (#44) are also not too great of the 1-loss teams in terms of SOS.

Oregon and LSU have a great SOS at #13 and #12 respectively.

So, if OSU lost a close one to Michigan, they would need LSU to lose in the SEC championship (to Tennessee or Georgia). In the Big 12, they just need Oklahoma to lose at Texas Tech in a couple weeks and for Missouri to beat Kansas or have a 2-loss Oklahoma beat Kansas in the Big 12 championship.

I don't think WVU, even with 1-loss, passes OSU if OSU loses close to Michigan. The computers don't like WVU. Frankly, I see them going down in two weeks at UC anyway. I think it's probable that BC and ASU lose again, but even if they don't I don't think either passes OSU (if OSU loses close to UM).

That would leave OSU and Oregon. Oregon is the one team, from here on out, that I see winning out with no problem. They have at Arizona, at UCLA, and Oregon State left.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-05-2007, 03:48 PM
Ohio State would have zero chance unless two of either Oregon, LSU, and Oklahoma have 2 losses.

After making my post, I saw this.

You are correct, but I think LSU losing once more (SEC championship?) and OU going down once more as the only obstacles and I think they are both very possible.

Hell, before it's all said and done, we may need Kansas to be the spoiler and beat OU in the Big 12 championship. Why? I wouldn't be surprised if Kansas goes down this weekend to Oklahoma State.

Perfect scenario:

1. Kansas loses to Ok. State this weekend.
2. Oklahoma loses at Texas Tech next week.
3. LSU loses in SEC championship to Tennessee or Georgia.

4. Oklahoma (with 2 losses) beats either Missouri/Kansas winner in Big 12 championship (for insurance).
5. BC loses at Clemson next week or once more (for insurance).
6. WVU loses at UC next week or once more (for insurance).
7. ASU loses at UCLA this weekend or once more (for insurance).

Even if this scenario plays out OSU would be golden to play Oregon for the title. The only 2-loss team that could possible be a problem is Georgia. Yes, that's right, Georgia.

Johnny Footstool
11-05-2007, 04:04 PM
After making my post, I saw this.

You are correct, but I think LSU losing once more (SEC championship?) and OU going down once more as the only obstacles and I think they are both very possible.

Hell, before it's all said and done, we may need Kansas to be the spoiler and beat OU in the Big 12 championship. Why? I wouldn't be surprised if Kansas goes down this weekend to Oklahoma State.

Perfect scenario:

1. Kansas loses to Ok. State this weekend.
2. Oklahoma loses at Texas Tech next week.
3. LSU loses in SEC championship to Tennessee or Georgia.

4. Oklahoma (with 2 losses) beats either Missouri/Kansas winner in Big 12 championship (for insurance).
5. BC loses at Clemson next week or once more (for insurance).
6. WVU loses at UC next week or once more (for insurance).
7. ASU loses at UCLA this weekend or once more (for insurance).

Even if this scenario plays out OSU would be golden to play Oregon for the title. The only 2-loss team that could possible be a problem is Georgia. Yes, that's right, Georgia.

Nah. A perfect scenario would be for Ohio State and Kansas to both win out and meet for the national championship. Having only two undefeated teams from BCS conferences pretty much answers the "who belongs in the title game" question. Hawaii would get the shaft, but they can sit on the beach in January and drown their sorrows in pina coladas and poy.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-05-2007, 05:00 PM
Nah. A perfect scenario would be for Ohio State and Kansas to both win out and meet for the national championship. Having only two undefeated teams from BCS conferences pretty much answers the "who belongs in the title game" question. Hawaii would get the shaft, but they can sit on the beach in January and drown their sorrows in pina coladas and poy.

My perfect scenario was a selfish one. It's just looking out for OSU. But, with that said, I would love for them both to win out. I'm just worried that your Kansas would get the shaft if Oregon or LSU don't lose again.

Those Jayhawks certainly put a whooping on Lincoln.

Hawaii (if they win out) will get a BCS bid and get blown out.

Sea Ray
11-05-2007, 05:11 PM
OK, my question was answered. Apparently a few of you are OK with a team in the National Championship game that did not win its conference. I for one am a little leery about a team getting one of two bids for the National Championship game if they didn't even win their own conference.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-05-2007, 05:16 PM
I'm only okay with it if it's "my" team.

BuckeyeRed27
11-05-2007, 05:24 PM
OK, my question was answered. Apparently a few of you are OK with a team in the National Championship game that did not win its conference. I for one am a little leery about a team getting one of two bids for the National Championship game if they didn't even win their own conference.

I think they have to win the regular season title. If its a conference that has a championship game I think they could potentially lose that and still play for the NC if the rest of their body of work was really good and there wasn't another good option.

Chip R
11-05-2007, 05:40 PM
I think they have to win the regular season title. If its a conference that has a championship game I think they could potentially lose that and still play for the NC if the rest of their body of work was really good and there wasn't another good option.


I think that if you lose the conference championship game, you can't play for the BCS championship no matter how good your record is.

Johnny Footstool
11-05-2007, 05:50 PM
I'm just worried that your Kansas would get the shaft if Oregon or LSU don't lose again.

I'm not worried, because in order for KU to actually make it to that point, they would have to beat two top-ranked opponents in the last two games of the season. An accomplishment like that would be pretty much undeniable if the BCS wanted to retain any illusion of legitimacy.

Of course, we're still a long way from that even being an issue.

OnBaseMachine
11-05-2007, 07:18 PM
USC hasn't figured out which RB to play. Other than Stewart what starting RB in the Pac Ten is NFL caliber? He should be dominating with the spread offense and Dixon taking so much pressure away.

And I never questioned Stewart was a great back. This debate was McFadden against Stewart and I don't think many people would think it's as close as some on this thread.

Unfortunately, Pete is favoring the vets over the younger, talent back at SC. Chauncey Washington is a decent back, but Stafon Johnson should be the starter. Stafon has Heisman potential. He's been incredible this year when given the chance.

As for NFL caliber backs in the Pac-10:

Ryan Torain from ASU would have been a probable second round pick until he injured his foot. Louis Rankin and Yvenson Bernard will probably be late round picks. The list does fall off after Stafon and Stewart this year, but the Pac-10 has produced some great backs in the last five years: Reggie Bush, LenDale White, and Justin Fargas from USC. Marshawn Lynch and JJ Arrington (backup for the Cardinals) from Cal, Stephen Jackson from Oregon State, and Onterrio Smith from Oregon.

gm
11-05-2007, 08:44 PM
and/or Oregon State beats Oregon and then maybe they can sneak past

Bite your tongue. The game's in Eugene. The road team hasn't won a Civil War in forever and the Ducks won't be lacking motivation

SandyD
11-05-2007, 08:53 PM
I think that if you lose the conference championship game, you can't play for the BCS championship no matter how good your record is.
Yes you can. Don't think you SHOULD be able to, but you can.

Okla did

Chip R
11-05-2007, 11:28 PM
Yes you can. Don't think you SHOULD be able to, but you can.

Okla did


But I think that's exactly why and when they changed it.

Cedric
11-06-2007, 12:02 AM
But I think that's exactly why and when they changed it.

I think the SEC and Big 12 both are pathetic for their conference title games.

I can understand people bashing the Big 10 for their network, but at least that doesn't effect play. I guess it worked last year for Florida though. Got them past Michigan and gave them two extra weeks. Maybe the Big Ten should lose all integrity and get a pointless conference championship game.

Chip R
11-06-2007, 12:27 AM
I think the SEC and Big 12 both are pathetic for their conference title games.

I can understand people bashing the Big 10 for their network, but at least that doesn't effect play. I guess it worked last year for Florida though. Got them past Michigan and gave them two extra weeks. Maybe the Big Ten should lose all integrity and get a pointless conference championship game.


I think either all of them should have them or none of them should. I prefer to see the title won through conference play and not a winner take all game. Although it's easier when you're the Big 10 and can play about every conference opponent except one or two.

A conference title game can help or hurt a team's cause. LSU is a perfect example. They are sitting pretty at #2 and if they lose the SEC championship game, they have 2 losses and no shot at the BCS championship. Or, like Florida did last year, they could vault another team for the right to play in the BCS championship.

Sea Ray
11-06-2007, 12:30 AM
The conference championship games are all about money, nothing else.

It took a long time for the Big Ten to come around with a conference basketball tournament. They'll be slow to go the championship game route as well but they'll get there. They'll need a 12th team first.

Johnny Footstool
11-06-2007, 01:07 AM
I think the SEC and Big 12 both are pathetic for their conference title games.

I can understand people bashing the Big 10 for their network, but at least that doesn't effect play. I guess it worked last year for Florida though. Got them past Michigan and gave them two extra weeks. Maybe the Big Ten should lose all integrity and get a pointless conference championship game.

The Big 12 is a split conference, and the teams don't all play each other. They have to have a conference title game to decide the champion, otherwise the unbalanced schedule becomes too much of a factor.

bucksfan2
11-06-2007, 10:21 AM
The conference championship games are all about money, nothing else.

It took a long time for the Big Ten to come around with a conference basketball tournament. They'll be slow to go the championship game route as well but they'll get there. They'll need a 12th team first.

Basketball and Football conference championships are completly different. Basketball doesn't have quite the significance that Football does.

As a poster above mentioned it is strictly about money. It really isn't about the teams benefiting as much as the universities.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 01:31 PM
I'm not worried, because in order for KU to actually make it to that point, they would have to beat two top-ranked opponents in the last two games of the season. An accomplishment like that would be pretty much undeniable if the BCS wanted to retain any illusion of legitimacy.

So you think if Kansas wins their last two games and the title game ends up being Ohio State and LSU or Oregon that the BCS is no longer legitimate?

Kansas has played nobody this season. At least nobody who is currently recieving votes in the AP poll. And even Troy is getting a vote in the AP poll. LSU has gone 5-1 against teams who are getting votes. Sorry, but to me that is more impressive than being 0-0 against such teams. And one win over Missouri isn't going to solve that issue.

And if we get that far and both teams win their conference championship game, a win over OU for Kansas is not going to be THAT much more impressive than a win for LSU over Georgia or Florida.

So it suprises me that you think a win over Missouri is going to make up for this awful schedule which is ranked 104th right now, right in front of Bowling Green and Florida Atlantic.

Kansas can prove they aren't a fraud. We really have no way of knowing at this point since they have been playing the JV teams schedule. But I still don't think they can lay claim to having as impressive of a season as LSU or Oregon or Ohio State if none of those teams loses another game.

Being in the SEC, nobody should be surprised that LSU has a loss. And looking at KU's schedule, nobody should be surprised that they don't.

I think a one loss OU or a one loss Mizzou could lay more claim to a title game shot than undefeated Kansas. I don't think you get bonus points for going undefeated without considering SOS.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 01:40 PM
Kansas is the perfect example of why you need championship games.

They avoid both OU and Texas during the regular season. They shouldn't win the league over a one loss Texas or OU team if they don't play them. You can't declare a conference champion from regular play if all the teams aren't playing each other IMO. Especially when you aren't playing two or more of the teams. Too unbalanced.

Plus conference title games mean teams don't have to sit around for two months like Ohio State had to do last year and will have to do again this year.

I can't be against additional college football games that matter. The Big 10 and Pac 10 need to catch up with the rest of the world.

Johnny Footstool
11-06-2007, 01:49 PM
So you think if Kansas wins their last two games and the title game ends up being Ohio State and LSU or Oregon that the BCS is no longer legitimate?

Kansas has played nobody this season. At least nobody who is currently recieving votes in the AP poll. And even Troy is getting a vote in the AP poll. LSU has gone 5-1 against teams who are getting votes. Sorry, but to me that is more impressive than being 0-0 against such teams. And one win over Missouri isn't going to solve that issue.

And if we get that far and both teams win their conference championship game, a win over OU for Kansas is not going to be THAT much more impressive than a win for LSU over Georgia or Florida.

So it suprises me that you think a win over Missouri is going to make up for this awful schedule which is ranked 104th right now, right in front of Bowling Green and Florida Atlantic.

Kansas can prove they aren't a fraud. We really have no way of knowing at this point since they have been playing the JV teams schedule. But I still don't think they can lay claim to having as impressive of a season as LSU or Oregon or Ohio State if none of those teams loses another game.

Being in the SEC, nobody should be surprised that LSU has a loss. And looking at KU's schedule, nobody should be surprised that they don't.

I think a one loss OU or a one loss Mizzou could lay more claim to a title game shot than undefeated Kansas. I don't think you get bonus points for going undefeated without considering SOS.

You don't think beating the #5 and #6 teams in the country in succession to end the season would lend enough legitimacy to Kansas? Because that's what they'd have to do to remain unbeaten. My guess is that two such victories would vault them up to #2 in the BCS, regardless of their early season weakness of schedule.

The idea that a one-loss OU or MU having more claim to the title than Kansas is absolutely moot, because those things simply can't happen. If Kansas remains undefeated, both OU and MU will have two losses. If either OU or MU finishes the season with 1 loss, then KU will have 1 loss as well and thus will be out of the running.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-06-2007, 02:08 PM
You don't think beating the #5 and #6 teams in the country in succession to end the season would lend enough legitimacy to Kansas? Because that's what they'd have to do to remain unbeaten. My guess is that two such victories would vault them up to #2 in the BCS, regardless of their early season weakness of schedule.

Johnny, I don't see how this is possible. You know how the pollsters feel about the SEC (LSU) and the flavor of the month, Oregon. No way the pollsters vault Kansas over either of those two and the polls account for 2/3 of the BCS formula.

Your best bet, is LSU losing the SEC championship (a very possible scenario) and that causing enough of a shakeup that the pollsters re-examine where they have Kansas and Oregon.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 02:29 PM
I agree Buckeye. Kansas is quite a way behind LSU even though it is only two spots.

Johnny, my scenario with one loss OU or Mizzou compared to KU was purely hypothetical. My point was that if Mizzou or OU wins the Big 12 they will be just as deserving of a title game shot as KU would have been if they went undefeated and won the conference. Just my opinion.

The question about Kansas wasn't about making them legitimate. You said the BCS would have to put Kansas in the game to remain legitimate. I don't think we can say today that Kansas is the second best team in the country IF they beat Mizzou and OU. It isn't that easy. And I don't think it is fair to annoint them just because they won those games. Its a body of work, not a two week season. And what about LSU? And Oregon? Their seasons are at the mercy of Kansas even though they play tougher teams and are ranked higher?

Like I said, didn't want to make this about Kansas and where they will be on the legitimacy meter IF they beat the Sooners and Tigers. My inquiry was about the BCS remaining legit if they "spurn" the Jayhawks.

Johnny Footstool
11-06-2007, 03:59 PM
I agree it is a body of work, not a two-week season. Unfortunately, the polls are heavily weighted towards the end of the year. A 1-loss team who lost in September and October is viewed with a lot more regard than a 1-loss team who loses in November (case in point: Oklahoma). Bearing that in mind, a super-strong finish could (and should) have a huge impact in the polls.

In terms of legitimacy, well, if a team like Kansas can play in a BSC conference, finish the season against consecutive top-10 opponents, and emerge undefeated, but still have no shot at a national title, you've really got to take a long, hard look at the system.

bucksfan2
11-06-2007, 04:05 PM
If Kansas runs the table they deserve to be in the BCS championship game. Imagine the complaints from SEC fans if in a down year a team like South Carolina ran the table and was left out of the game to a 1 loss Oklahoma. Like it or not if you run the table in a BCS conference you deserve to play in the title game.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 04:12 PM
If Bowling Green was undefeated right now (they have the same SOS as Kansas) and just happened to have number 5 Missouri on their schedule, would you be advocating them as worthy of being in the title game?

Kansas has the 104th ranked schedule, BCS conference or not and they haven't beaten anyone. Not even close to anyone, really.

My point is they have the resume that a number of MAC teams have had over the year, even if we give them the win against Mizzou.

IMO the fact that the NCAA recognizes them as a member of the Big 12 doesn't mean squat when your schedule is that bad.

There schedule isn't tougher because they are in a BCS conference. It is a weak schedule, no matter what league you play in.

Chip R
11-06-2007, 04:13 PM
The BCS system punishes losses no matter who they were against. That's why teams like South Florida and BC were ranked so highly even though they were exposed as paper tigers. That's why tOSU is #1. You keep on winning, you get rewarded. You lose and you are punished.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 04:20 PM
Is it fair to say that people use an entire different criteria when it comes to evaluating college football teams compared to college hoops?

When it comes time to talk worthy teams for the NCAA tourney, strength of schedule is the big topic of discussion.

Seems in football playing cupcakes is being advocated. Am I wrong? I see a lot of people and I don't just mean here who think KU should be rewarded "for being undefeated". Nobody wants to talk about who they play, just that they play in a "BCS" conference.

Well in basketball I remember 21 win Syracuse who gave Georgetown their only loss in their last 16 games getting shut of the tourney and nobody shed many tears as Syracuse deserved what they got because of their weak schedule. The fact thay no team from a major conference with 20 wins had ever been shut out nor the strength of the Big East mattered.

I recall some advice to the Syracuse team. Leave New York for an out of conference road game. But Kansas stayed home and played C.Michigan, SE La, Toledo and Florida Atlantic before conference play.

Serious question. Why the polar opposite approaches? Just picking up wins in basketball isn't good enough to get you into a 65 win tourney, even when you play in a premier league. But it is good enough to give you one of two spots in a championship football game?

Chip R
11-06-2007, 04:30 PM
Is it fair to say that people use an entire different criteria when it comes to evaluating college football teams compared to college hoops?

When it comes time to talk worthy teams for the NCAA tourney, strength of schedule is the big topic of discussion.

Seems in football playing cupcakes is being advocated. Am I wrong? I see a lot of people and I don't just mean here who think KU should be rewarded "for being undefeated". Nobody wants to talk about who they play, just that they play in a "BCS" conference.

Well in basketball I remember 21 win Syracuse who gave Georgetown their only loss in their last 16 games getting shut of the tourney and nobody shed many tears as Syracuse deserved what they got because of their weak schedule. The fact thay no team from a major conference with 20 wins had ever been shut out nor the strength of the Big East mattered.

I recall some advice to the Syracuse team. Leave New York for an out of conference road game. But Kansas stayed home and played C.Michigan, SE La, Toledo and Florida Atlantic before conference play.

Serious question. Why the polar opposite approaches?


It's apples and oranges. Your Bowling Green analogy doesn't hold any water because they are not in a BCS conference. Like it or not and no matter if they deserve it or not, an undefeated Kansas has to be ranked highly.

You also forget this is not for the NCAA football championship. That game will be played in Chattanooga, TN on December 14. This is for the BCS championship and they have their own rules set up.

There are probably not a lot of people who believe Kansas is a legitimate BCS championship contender but as long as there is a system like this and they meet the criteria, they have to be in. Besides, if they win the Big 12 title game, they have to be considered a very good team.

KronoRed
11-06-2007, 04:37 PM
The conference championship games are all about money, nothing else.


Please, they are more about 12 or more team conferences making sure that there is only one champion and not a ridiculous bunch of "co champs"

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 04:42 PM
Bowling Green might not be in a BCS conference but they are included in the BCS rankings. Would they not be in the title game if they were 1st or 2nd?

I realize that would never happen, them being 1 or 2 but the reason for that is a weak schedule. That is my point. Kansas is playing a Bowling Green schedule. It shouldn't be rewarded.

Sure Kansas should be considered good if they win the Big 12. But what about the winners of the SEC, Pac 10 and Big Ten?

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 04:43 PM
Please, they are more about 12 or more team conferences making sure that there is only one champion and not a ridiculous bunch of "co champs"

Exactly. Either that or the Pac 10 and Big Ten have something against money.

KronoRed
11-06-2007, 04:53 PM
The Pac 10 actually used the extra 12th game to start to a full round robin conference schedule, good for them.

Chip R
11-06-2007, 05:03 PM
Bowling Green might not be in a BCS conference but they are included in the BCS rankings. Would they not be in the title game if they were 1st or 2nd?

I realize that would never happen, them being 1 or 2 but the reason for that is a weak schedule. That is my point. Kansas is playing a Bowling Green schedule. It shouldn't be rewarded.

Sure Kansas should be considered good if they win the Big 12. But what about the winners of the SEC, Pac 10 and Big Ten?


It would be difficult for BG to be in the title game if they were undefeated. Boise State from last year is a perfect example. They went undefeated and got to play in a BCS bowl but couldn't play for the BCS championship because they weren't in a BCS conference. If Boise St. were in the Pac 10 and went undefeated, they would be right in there.

The system is designed to keep teams that aren't in a BCS conference and are not Notre Dame out. Kansas may be playing a BCS schedule but going undefeated in a BCS conference makes them part of the conversation.

The winners of the other conferences shouldn't have lost any of their games. Then they would have made the Kansas situation moot.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 05:31 PM
I know it would be "tough" for a team from outside of a big conference to play in the title game. But that wasn't what you said before. You seemed to be implying that it was against some rule or something.

Teams such as MAC teams get penalized because they play in weaker conferences. And that is why the SOS is down in the 100s. They don't get the respect, don't get the votes and the computers knock them down as well, because of the SOS. But teams like Kansas who just happen to be playing a MAC schedule, despite being in a BCS conference get this extra respect.

I have great respect for teams in the BCS and agree they should be the only teams who get title shots. If in basketball we just picked a final 4 every year, George Mason would never get in. What I'm saying is lets not be blind and give Kansas credit they have not earned. It is all fine and dandy that they are listed on paperwork in the Big 12 office. But they lucked out with their schedule and don't have to play Texas and Oklahoma. I'm sorry, the conference you are in shouldn't be part of the argument if you don't play the top two powers in said league (in the regular season).

Wouldn't we be arguing about the schedule if there were 3 undefeated teams from BCS conferences? But since we are down to 2 we just assume the two undefeated teams are the best and move on? It doesn't matter who you play, so long as you go unbeaten?

Chip, your comment that the other conference champs just shouldn't have lost a game is pretty short sighted. LSU couldn't play a schedule as easy as Kansas unless they left the SEC.

I think you are going to be pretty disapointed with the title game if Oregon and LSU don't lose another game while OSU stays unbeaten. The BCS has their own rules and one loss teams are allowed in, even when there is a team with no losses from a BCS conference.

Chip R
11-06-2007, 05:50 PM
I know it would be "tough" for a team from outside of a big conference to play in the title game. But that wasn't what you said before. You seemed to be implying that it was against some rule or something.

Teams such as MAC teams get penalized because they play in weaker conferences. And that is why the SOS is down in the 100s. They don't get the respect, don't get the votes and the computers knock them down as well, because of the SOS. But teams like Kansas who just happen to be playing a MAC schedule, despite being in a BCS conference get this extra respect.

I have great respect for teams in the BCS and agree they should be the only teams who get title shots. If in basketball we just picked a final 4 every year, George Mason would never get in. What I'm saying is lets not be blind and give Kansas credit they have not earned. It is all fine and dandy that they are listed on paperwork in the Big 12 office. But they lucked out with their schedule and don't have to play Texas and Oklahoma. I'm sorry, the conference you are in shouldn't be part of the argument if you don't play the top two powers in said league (in the regular season).

Wouldn't we be arguing about the schedule if there were 3 undefeated teams from BCS conferences? But since we are down to 2 we just assume the two undefeated teams are the best and move on? It doesn't matter who you play, so long as you go unbeaten?

Chip, your comment that the other conference champs just shouldn't have lost a game is pretty short sighted. LSU couldn't play a schedule as easy as Kansas unless they left the SEC.

I think you are going to be pretty disapointed with the title game if Oregon and LSU don't lose another game while OSU stays unbeaten. The BCS has their own rules and one loss teams are allowed in, even when there is a team with no losses from a BCS conference.


I'm not saying it's against the rules for a non-BCS school that isn't Notre Dame to get into the championship game but the deck is stacked very heavily against them.

I understand my comment about those other teams not losing a game are shortsighted. But that's the way the rules are unfortunately. Is a 1 or 2 loss LSU team better than an undefeated Kansas team? More than likely. But since there is no playoff, LSU can't redeem themselves and Kansas gets to play in the championship game. And if Kansas does go undefeated, they have to win the Big 12 championship game where they will play Oklahoma. Nobody would be arguing about Kansas right now if LSU had beaten Kentucky. Right now a loss to Kentucky by LSU still trumps a Kansas win over Iowa St. or Kansas St. or Nebraska. But if LSU loses another game, and Kansas keeps winning, LSU is out of the picture.

I just think it's a shame it's never going to be settled on the field.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 06:21 PM
Is a 1 or 2 loss LSU team better than an undefeated Kansas team? More than likely. But since there is no playoff, LSU can't redeem themselves and Kansas gets to play in the championship game.

I don't follow. Kansas gets to play in the title game? Only if they finish 2nd and right now that spot is occupied by LSU. Plus they'd have to jump over Oregon. You seem to be implying that because Kansas is unbeaten it is their spot, no matter what the BCS standings say. That just isn't true.

When it comes to Kansas vs. LSU or LSU vs. anyone for that matter, not named Ohio State, the Tigers have redeemed themselves. They are number 2 and comfortably ahead of number 4 Kansas in the BCS standings.


I'm not saying it's against the rules for a non-BCS school that isn't Notre Dame to get into the championship game but the deck is stacked very heavily against them.

I'm not disputing that. I agree the deck is stacked against them. That is my point. The deck is stacked against them because they play weak schedules. They don't play big boy college football so they don't get the respect and like I said earlier, they don't get the votes.

My point is, Kansas is playing a Bowling Green schedule. They are in the Big 12 but they got lucky with the schedule and avoided the Michigan and Ohio State of the league. They officially are in the cushy BCS conference but it isn't enough to just say, they are in a BCS conference and LSU is in a BCS conference when talking their schedules. There is more to it than that.

To this point Kansas is getting respect that they have not earned when looking at how teams before them were evaluated. If Kansas can be number 4 playing a MAC schedule then there is no reason whatsoever a MAC team that was unbeaten couldn't get that high or as high as you expect Kansas to go.

Save me the "its how the rules work". I get that. I just happen to disagree with it.

Johnny Footstool
11-06-2007, 06:24 PM
There is an ESPN Insider article available now on this very subject. I can't get the entire article, but the title blurb insinuates that yes, Kansas might indeed be able to leapfrog LSU by winning out.

Chip R
11-06-2007, 06:57 PM
I don't follow. Kansas gets to play in the title game? Only if they finish 2nd and right now that spot is occupied by LSU. Plus they'd have to jump over Oregon. You seem to be implying that because Kansas is unbeaten it is their spot, no matter what the BCS standings say. That just isn't true.

When it comes to Kansas vs. LSU or LSU vs. anyone for that matter, not named Ohio State, the Tigers have redeemed themselves. They are number 2 and comfortably ahead of number 4 Kansas in the BCS standings.



If LSU loses another game then if Kansas wins out they can jump them is all I'm saying. Yes, there is Oregon but Oregon could slip up or Kansas could pass them just because they are undefeated and Oregon isn't.

paintmered
11-06-2007, 06:59 PM
From my viewpoint, strength of schedule is so dynamic from week to week, that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to gauge the true strength of a team by their SOS until the regular season is over.

OnBaseMachine
11-06-2007, 07:12 PM
The Pac 10 actually used the extra 12th game to start to a full round robin conference schedule, good for them.

Yup. I love the round robin within the conference. I wish all conferenes could do it, but it woud be nearly impossible for the conferences with 12 teams to do it.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 07:30 PM
There is an ESPN Insider article available now on this very subject. I can't get the entire article, but the title blurb insinuates that yes, Kansas might indeed be able to leapfrog LSU by winning out.

No doubt. I just find it unlikely unless Kansas really takes Mizzou and OU out behind the woodshed while LSU narrowly wins a couple of their remaining games. Kansas needs help from a lot of voters.


If LSU loses another game then if Kansas wins out they can jump them is all I'm saying. Yes, there is Oregon but Oregon could slip up or Kansas could pass them just because they are undefeated and Oregon isn't.

Again, I know all the scenarios. I know how the system works. I know lots of things COULD happen. But you mentioned a one loss LSU team and then claimed that "Kansas gets to play in the championship game."

Only an idiot would think a two loss LSU team is going to stay in front of Kansas. That aspect is of no relevance and simply doesn't need to be discussed. Nobody is going to claim a two loss LSU team deserves to be ahead of Kansas. Its a one loss LSU team that is the issue. And when you claim that Kansas gets to go to the title game because LSU doesn't get to redeem themselves it just doesn't make any sense.

It isn't breaking news to anyone that LSU will slip if they lose.

BuckeyeRed27
11-06-2007, 07:58 PM
I look at it this way. Yes Kansas has clearly played a weaker schedule than Oregon and LSU to this point. However for them to go undefeated they are going to have to beat Mizzou and Oklahoma. Oregon lost to Cal and LSU lost to Kentucky. I would take both Mizzou and Oklahoma to beat Cal and Kentucky. So if Kansas can win out they deserve it more than Oregon and LSU. Not because there road was harder but because they did something that LSU and Cal could not.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 09:36 PM
I would take just about everyone LSU has played to smoke the pants off Kansas' entire schedule thus far.

If LSU continues on they have to play a conference title game as well and it will be Georgia, Tennessee or Florida. And they still have to deal with Darren McFadden. This after playing a very tough schedule to date, the number 9 schedule to be exact, according to CBS Sportsline.

And consider this. There are SEVEN teams from the SEC in the cbs top 25 and ALL of them have top 25 strength of schedules. There are only TWO other TEAMS in the top 25, Oregon and Virginia Tech that have top 25 SOS.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-06-2007, 10:01 PM
What's strange is that the SEC hasn't played that tough of a non-conference schedule.

It's like they are rewarded for playing each other. And five SEC teams (with three losses) are in the top 25, but only one of the four Big Ten teams with three losses are in the top 25. The reason the four Big 10 teams have three losses is because they have lost to each other and to 2-loss Michigan and undefeated OSU. I also find it strange that once OSU beats someone, they automatically are considered worthless. Take Purdue. 3 losses. At UM, vs. OSU, and at PSU. And they don't sniff the top 25 in any of the three main polls. They were top 25 when OSU beat them, but now, for some reason, it's not considered a decent win for OSU. Same for Penn State and Wisconsin. I'm sure after OSU beats Illinois, we'll hear how bad Illinois is. Also, the number 1 team in the land beats these teams and they drop like a ton of bricks. Wisconsin drops and average of 8 spots in each of the polls by losing one the road to the number one team in the country.

I think the SEC OOC schedule strength will start to take a little dip as many have not played their OOC cupcakes yet. LSU has LA Tech, UF still has Fl. Atlantic, Alabama with LA. Monroe(Ole Miss just played Northwestern State and Auburn just played Tenn. Tech). The Big 10 played their cupcakes earlier on.

I did some research on this last month and was surprised to find that the SEC played a weaker OOC schedule (as far as cupcakes-non BCS and 1-AA OOC) than the Big 10. The Big 10's little brother is the MAC and the SEC's is the Sun Belt. The MAC is much better than the lowly Sunbelt and both the SEC and Big 10 play the same number of 1-AA's with the SEC playing a far worse I-AA batch.

I really think the two losses Michigan suffered are causing a huge discrepancy between the leagues in SOS's.

MaineRed
11-06-2007, 10:37 PM
SEC teams ARE rewarded for playing each other. You play good teams it helps your schedule strength and nobody plays as many good teams as the SEC does. They have played some tough OOC games as well.

LSU played Virginia Tech. It is one of the best OOC wins any team has this year. Auburn played South Florida and Kansas State. Florida has FSU coming up. Tennessee played Cal. Georgia played Oklahoma State and still has Ga Tech. Alabama played FSU. Vanderbilts last game is against Wake Forrest. USC has Clemson coming up. Mississippi played Mizzou.

The Big Ten might collectively play a tougher schedule but they can't match the competition the SEC has faced at the top. Michigan played Oregon and Illinois played Mizzou. After that all that I don't see a whole lot. Washington, Washington State, Notre Dame, Syracuse and Pitt.

Maybe the weak sisters the Big Ten picks on are better than those the SEC beats up but I don't see how that is relevant. You should get credit for the good teams you beat. If your whole season is cupcakes that is one thing but I don't see any reason to break down Florida Atlantic vs. Kent or La Monroe vs. Citadel.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 12:40 AM
I guess I just don't understand the math. The Big Ten's best teams have similar records as the SEC's best teams and have beat each other up as well. Both conferences have won their OOC games (except for UM) and I don't see alot OOC that seperates the two.

As I said, everyone has their non BCS cupcakes. Nobody has a monopoly on these games. The Big Ten did have to face two top 6 schools (Oregon and Missouri). Other than VTech, I don't see any SEC OOC games that match those two. Notre Dame has been to two straight BCS bowls, but just happens to suck eggs this year. Can't blame the Big Ten for those four wins.

I just don't see the big disparity between conferences. Maybe the SEC is a tad better, but the argument that they are better because they play each other (and they're better) seems like a circular argument to me.

MaineRed
11-07-2007, 01:14 AM
LSU has played six conference games and all of them were against winning teams with a combined record of 36-20.

Ohio State has played six conference games as well, three against teams with winning records for a combined 32-28.

Oregon has played six conference games, three against winning teams for a combined 30-24.

Kansas is 5-0 in the Big 12 and they've played two winning teams. The combined record of their conference opponents is 23-26.

Penn State has played the toughest conference schedule I have found though, 43-17. They are the anti Kansas, avoiding Northwestern and 1-9 Minnesota in league play. Playing the Gophers really drags the numbers down.

gonelong
11-07-2007, 10:20 AM
I just don't see the big disparity between conferences.

I don't see a huge disparity either, but I'd agree that the SEC is better this year, top to bottom.


Maybe the SEC is a tad better, but the argument that they are better because they play each other (and they're better) seems like a circular argument to me.

It's funny, but I remember this exact line of reasoning being used by some Big12 guys against the strength of the Big10 a decade or so ago.

I agreed with them then, and I agree with you know.

GL

Chip R
11-07-2007, 10:52 AM
Again, I know all the scenarios. I know how the system works. I know lots of things COULD happen. But you mentioned a one loss LSU team and then claimed that "Kansas gets to play in the championship game."

Only an idiot would think a two loss LSU team is going to stay in front of Kansas. That aspect is of no relevance and simply doesn't need to be discussed. Nobody is going to claim a two loss LSU team deserves to be ahead of Kansas. Its a one loss LSU team that is the issue. And when you claim that Kansas gets to go to the title game because LSU doesn't get to redeem themselves it just doesn't make any sense.



Then quit complaining about it.

Roy Tucker
11-07-2007, 10:57 AM
I just think it's a shame it's never going to be settled on the field.

And this is what it comes down to.

All of these gyrations and variations on SOS, relative strengths and weaknesses of leagues, BCS vs. non-BCS, phases of the moon, etc. don't amount to hill of beans. Having people (or computers) rank teams is an academic exercise.

It needs to be determined on the playing field.

registerthis
11-07-2007, 11:20 AM
It needs to be determined on the playing field.

What a novel concept. Do any other sports do this?

IslandRed
11-07-2007, 11:31 AM
It needs to be determined on the playing field.

I know it really doesn't happen anymore, but it comforts me to know that if a George Mason or some other team in a lower-level conference somehow happened to possess the best college basketball team, they can win the NCAA Championship. That can't really happen in football.

The schedule-strength argument is persuasive, but it's also a self-perpetuating closed system. To pick a school at random out of the dozens, let's take Middle Tennessee State. If MTSU somehow came into a team that could spot the New England Patriots points on a neutral field, they still wouldn't get a chance to play for the BCS title game. "They didn't play anybody," the big schools would say. These are the same big schools that would stop returning MTSU's phone calls as soon as they started getting really good, and MTSU can't join their conference at will. So how exactly would MTSU get a big-boy schedule?

Over time, a school can pull itself upwards in the caste system. It just takes pace at glacial speed.

MWM
11-07-2007, 11:34 AM
The SOS schedule argument gets blown out of proportion for sure. People assume that if you don't play anyone, you're automatically not very good. Or that you couldn't beat anyone good. That's not the case. It's entirely possible that the best team in the country plays the easiest schedule. All you can do it go out and beat the people on your schedule.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 12:12 PM
The SOS schedule argument gets blown out of proportion for sure. People assume that if you don't play anyone, you're automatically not very good. Or that you couldn't beat anyone good. That's not the case. It's entirely possible that the best team in the country plays the easiest schedule. All you can do it go out and beat the people on your schedule.

Exactly.

And I think what separates the six BCS conferences is so small that it's ridiculous to claim superiority. I mean, if Michigan beats App. State and Oregon, they are number 1, OSU is number 2 and the Big 10 as a whole looks very strong. You'd have all these other Big Ten teams that have only three losses (Purdue, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois) with two of their three losses coming to #'s 1 and 2 (Michigan and OSU).

Two games is all it takes to make the Big 10 go from "great" to "weak" by the consensus. Besides Michigan and their two "upsets", the other top teams in the Big Ten (OSU, Illinois, PSU, Purdue, Wisky) went a combined 18-1 out-of-conference with the only loss being Illinois to #6 Missouri by 6 points (40-34). But, yet, none of these teams (other than OSU) is a consensus top 25 team, simply due to the perception that the Big Ten is weak because of the two upsets of Michigan and OSU's collapse against Florida last year. Meanwhile, five teams from the SEC with three losses are consensus top 25.

If things are going to be judged by such a small ample size of a game or two here or there, the Big Ten could just as easily claim superiority over the SEC by beating the SEC 3 of 4 times head-to-head last year.

But, no. Everyone wants to focus on the perfect storm on January 8th in which Florida, a team that was lucky to even make it into the game (thanks to USC choking to UCLA) blew away the number one team in the country. Yes, the Big Ten must suck.

dabvu2498
11-07-2007, 12:40 PM
Two games is all it takes to make the Big 10 go from "great" to "weak" by the consensus. Besides Michigan and their two "upsets", the other top teams in the Big Ten (OSU, Illinois, PSU, Purdue, Wisky) went a combined 18-1 out-of-conference with the only loss being Illinois to #6 Missouri by 6 points (40-34). But, yet, none of these teams (other than OSU) is a consensus top 25 team, simply due to the perception that the Big Ten is weak because of the two upsets of Michigan and OSU's collapse against Florida last year. Meanwhile, five teams from the SEC with three losses are consensus top 25.

Here's the difference between the SEC and the Big 10... the "non-elite" teams are capable of beating the better teams.

Vandy can (and did) go on the road and beat South Carolina. Kentucky can (and did) beat LSU. Mississippi State can (and did) go on the road and beat Kentucky. Auburn can (and did) go on the road and beat Florida. Ole Miss could have beaten both Florida and Bama.

In the Big 10, it doesn't appear that any of the "lesser" programs is capable of competing with, much less beating either of the "Big 2." (Though Mich St. did give Mich a nice game this past weekend.)

Let's try this another way, by looking at the lesser teams trying to get bowl eligible. Vanderbilt is currently 5-4 (2-4 in conference), needing two wins to guarantee a bowl. Remember, one of those wins was over then #6 South Carolina on the road. Their remaining games: Kentucky, @ Tennessee, Wake Forest. Northwestern, before last weekend was 5-4 (2-3 in conference and with a loss to Duke at home), needing 2 wins to guarantee a bowl. Their remaining games: Iowa, Indiana, @ Illinois.

Something else, the Big 10 isn't done with their cupcake OOC games either. Penn State still has Temple, Iowa still has Western Mich. There's one other tough OOC conference game from the SEC that you missed, too. MSU@WVU.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 12:40 PM
I know it really doesn't happen anymore, but it comforts me to know that if a George Mason or some other team in a lower-level conference somehow happened to possess the best college basketball team, they can win the NCAA Championship. That can't really happen in football.

The schedule-strength argument is persuasive, but it's also a self-perpetuating closed system. To pick a school at random out of the dozens, let's take Middle Tennessee State. If MTSU somehow came into a team that could spot the New England Patriots points on a neutral field, they still wouldn't get a chance to play for the BCS title game. "They didn't play anybody," the big schools would say. These are the same big schools that would stop returning MTSU's phone calls as soon as they started getting really good, and MTSU can't join their conference at will. So how exactly would MTSU get a big-boy schedule?

Over time, a school can pull itself upwards in the caste system. It just takes pace at glacial speed.

I understand the George Mason argument in basketball but I think comparing hoops and football is apples and oranges. The odds of a George Mason winning it in hoops may be a million to one, but the odds of them winning it in football would be infinity-1 to one (if they even have a program). Let's not forget that basketball has more programs.

One more thing. These football games ARE settled on the field. That's what makes college football great and why every week is special. It's an ongoing playoff. Granted , you could say that in football only a 65 (BCS schools) of the 119 have a shot at the title, but that's what it is. If a program can evolve and make their way out of 1-AA and into a BCS conference after payinng their dues in the Sun Belt, WAC, or independent (see: UConn) then they have a better shot. And it's not out of the realm of possibility that one of those other 54 non-BCS conference schools has a shot. Boise State last year proved they could get close. The onus is on them, since they are not in a BCS conference, to schedule tougher games pre-conference. If Middle Tennessee State has their goal set on a NC, they need to schedule USC, OSU, Oklahoma, and other power BCS schools and beat them and then run away with their conference. I guarantee you if MTSU beat those schools and then went 8-0 in their conference, they would have a shot.

Getting back to the hoops argument, if we are going to argue that everyone should have a chance then maybe we should lobby for Findlay and Otterbein to have a chance to be a Cinderella in hoops (look what Findlay did to my Bucks last night - Ouch!), but we don't. Basketball has it's rules splitting up divisions and football does too. There just happens to be 300+ schools with a shot at winning it all in hoops and 65+ in football. But let's be honest, George Mason made it to the Final Four, but were still a longshot to win it all. And they were an 11-seed. So, realistically, there are only 40 or so programs of the 300 in hoops that legitimately have a shot. The same goes for football.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 12:52 PM
Here's the difference between the SEC and the Big 10... the "non-elite" teams are capable of beating the better teams.

Vandy can (and did) go on the road and beat South Carolina. Kentucky can (and did) beat LSU. Mississippi State can (and did) go on the road and beat Kentucky. Auburn can (and did) go on the road and beat Florida. Ole Miss could have beaten both Florida and Bama.

In the Big 10, it doesn't appear that any of the "lesser" programs is capable of competing with, much less beating either of the "Big 2." (Though Mich St. did give Mich a nice game this past weekend.)

I think this is another one of these myths that needs busted.

The past two years this appears like an obvious observation with OSU and Michigan going undefeated both years (a combined 26-0 so far), but this is not the 60's and 70's anymore. Northwestern has won three championships in the past 10 years. Wisconsin has won a few. Illinois just won it five years ago.

I guess I'm of the opinion that if you struggle or lose with the "mediocre" teams in your conference you aren't a truly great team. You better hope other teams out there struggle as well. Take UK, they have done nothing this year, but beat LSU. They are the equivalent of a Purdue. Now, had Purdue beaten OSU they would be the media darling. They would be 8-2 and I guarantee a top 15 team. But they lost, so they don't sniff the top 25. And the Big Ten must be weak because they LOST. Now go back to UK, a team that you probably could compare to Purdue. They beat LSU and now not only is UK this great program all of a sudden, but LSU must be great too, because the SEC is so super deep that a mediocre program could beat one of their monsters.

If Purdue beat OSU, it would have been "proof" that the Big Ten was a joke.

Double standard and another circular argument it seems.

dabvu2498
11-07-2007, 01:11 PM
I think this is another one of these myths that needs busted.

The past two years this appears like an obvious observation with OSU and Michigan going undefeated both years (a combined 26-0 so far), but this is not the 60's and 70's anymore. Northwestern has won three championships in the past 10 years. Wisconsin has won a few. Illinois just won it five years ago.

I guess I'm of the opinion that if you struggle or lose with the "mediocre" teams in your conference you aren't a truly great team. You better hope other teams out there struggle as well. Take UK, they have done nothing this year, but beat LSU. They are the equivalent of a Purdue. Now, had Purdue beaten OSU they would be the media darling. They would be 8-2 and I guarantee a top 15 team. But they lost, so they don't sniff the top 25. And the Big Ten must be weak because they LOST. Now go back to UK, a team that you probably could compare to Purdue. They beat LSU and now not only is UK this great program all of a sudden, but LSU must be great too, because the SEC is so super deep that a mediocre program could beat one of their monsters.

If Purdue beat OSU, it would have been "proof" that the Big Ten was a joke.

Double standard and another circular argument it seems.

Not really. Because not only did Purdue not beat Ohio State or Michigan, they pretty much got dominated in both games. There wasn't really much of a chance of Purdue winning either game because of the disparity in talent.

Kentucky not only had enough talent to compete with LSU, but also to beat them. Could have beaten Florida and USCEast also, but that's another story.

I think OSU and Michigan have just as much talent as anyone in the SEC. Could they compete for the SEC Championship? You bet. But do you think Illinois has the talent to be 4-2 against an SEC schedule? Penn St. 4-3? Purdue 3-3? Could Northwestern have beaten 2 SEC schools?

IslandRed
11-07-2007, 01:15 PM
The onus is on them, since they are not in a BCS conference, to schedule tougher games pre-conference. If Middle Tennessee State has their goal set on a NC, they need to schedule USC, OSU, Oklahoma, and other power BCS schools and beat them and then run away with their conference.

I'm sure the Boise States of the world try. But there are a lot more schools competing for those slots against the powerhouses than there are slots, and you're still ignoring the fact that it takes two to tango and being good makes those games more difficult to schedule. Big schools like their cupcakes soft.

MWM
11-07-2007, 01:20 PM
This year is an absolute anomaly for UK. And the last couple of years for Vandy. Next year, UK will go back to being stomped by pretty much everyone in the SEC. I don't know enough about Vandy either.

And the past two seasons are also anomalies for the Big Ten as far as the top 2 going undefeated. It's not like it happens very often. Heck, just 3 years ago, OSU lost 3 straight conference games.

MaineRed
11-07-2007, 01:31 PM
Exactly.

And I think what separates the six BCS conferences is so small that it's ridiculous to claim superiority.

The Big Ten must suck.

Who is saying the Big Ten sucks? I can believe the Pats are the best team in the NFL without thinking the Colts suck.

The outside world has tried to give the Big Ten credit this year. Michigan was highly ranked and lost to 1-AA team. All I heard about before OSU took down Purdue was about Purdue's nation leading offense. Then before the Penn State game all I heard about was the whiteout and how OSU was bound to lose. Both games were duds. Zook and Illinois was everyone's darling and they lost to a very banged up Iowa squad. Wisconsin was highly ranked and then forgot how to tackle for 3 games.

And lets not get too worked up about SEC bias. They have one team in the top 9. 8 teams from the other leagues, 3 from the Big 12 are ranked in the top 9.

What makes the SEC better is the number of Penn States and Purdues. There are more of them in the SEC. You don't have Heisman canidates and record breaking backs playing for the 9th place team in the Big Ten. But that doesn't mean the teams at the top aren't good. Unless they played each other on a regular basis some of it has to be subjective but when LSU a team with as much talent as anyone in the country play a confernce game they get tested. Ohio State, they just roll over everyone. After the BCS game last year with Florida does anyone think OSU is better than LSU? Does anyone think Ohio State would go on the road to Bama and Auburn or Florida and Tennessee and roll, week after week after week? I don't.

I don't think it is fair to say that the gap between the Big East or ACC and the SEC is small. Other than a couple of Big East schools they would all get killed in the SEC while most SEC schools would be favorites to win the Big East against all teams except maybe WVU. The ACCs best team is BC or VT (they played and the score was 14-10) and LSU kicked the crap out of VT. Sure the game was in Baton Rouge but I don't hear Oregon making excuses for their loss at the Big House.

Some conferences are better than others. The gap between 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 or 5 and 6 might be small but there is a tremendous gap in talent between 1 and 6. I think most would agree.

And if SOS isn't important, just winning games and being in a BCS conference is, isn't college football opening itself up to reward the lower tiered BCS conferences while inviting teams to play nobody outside of their league? We should be impressed when LSU smokes Va Tech or Oregon blast Michigan. Right? So why not be unimpressed when Kansas is playing Toledo and Florida Atlantic?

I don't buy the argument that MTS should just schedule the big guys and beat them if they want to win. Why doesn't Kansas have to do the same thing? Why is their cupcake schedule rewarded but the schedule of MTS has to be examined with a fine tooth comb? What happened to just winning games?

We need SOS and it needs to be important. It is a big determining factor, especially when there are more than two unbeatens. Otherwise what are you going to use to pick the two title teams, a coin flip? If you are going to heavily weigh SOS then, don't you have to now?

Someone wrote that we can't just assume Kansas is bad because they haven't played anyone. Well is it fair to the other teams that we think we have the answer on to just guess that they are good because they have won all their games? I don't know how good they are as they aren't on TV and when they are they don't play anyone. How can I just assume they are good when I don't know?

I'm more than willing to be fair with Kansas but I need something to go on besides wins over secondary competition. Just from who they have played and the scores of the games I think Kansas would be lucky to have less than 3 losses right now if they played Ohio State's schedule.

MaineRed
11-07-2007, 01:48 PM
I guess I'm of the opinion that if you struggle or lose with the "mediocre" teams in your conference you aren't a truly great team. You better hope other teams out there struggle as well. Take UK, they have done nothing this year, but beat LSU. They are the equivalent of a Purdue. Now, had Purdue beaten OSU they would be the media darling. They would be 8-2 and I guarantee a top 15 team. But they lost, so they don't sniff the top 25. And the Big Ten must be weak because they LOST. Now go back to UK, a team that you probably could compare to Purdue. They beat LSU and now not only is UK this great program all of a sudden, but LSU must be great too, because the SEC is so super deep that a mediocre program could beat one of their monsters.

If Purdue beat OSU, it would have been "proof" that the Big Ten was a joke.

Double standard and another circular argument it seems.

But Purdue didn't beat Ohio State, they got waxed. Kentucky did beat LSU. That is why Kentucky is ranked and Purdue is only recieving a few votes. You don't see the difference?

Are you suggesting that we should lump Purdue and Kentucky together because that is what we would have done if Purdue beat OSU?

Kentucky would be hanging out right next to Purdue in the rankings if they lost to LSU. But they didn't.

A big reason Kentucky beating LSU was "proof" that the SEC is a good league is becuase Kentucky had worked themselves up into the top ten and they had to that point beaten Louisiville, a BCS team with a Heisman canidate at QB and Arkansas a team with the Heisman frontrunner. While those wins are not as impressive today as they were then nobody knew that then.

Had Purdue beaten OSU it would have been Purdues only decent win. There weren't two takedowns of very serious Heisman canidates.

Now that we are deeper into the season we can see what Kentucky is or perhaps was. They are a decent team and are probably ranked accordingly. They are below Penn State and Penn State's best wins are Wisconisn and Purdue.

What happened to the SEC bias? How is a Big Ten team without any sort of a signature win ahead of the only team to beat LSU? Its not like Kentucky is 3-6.

Penn State is ahead of the Wildcats because most voters are objective and leave the so called bias at home.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 02:15 PM
Not really. Because not only did Purdue not beat Ohio State or Michigan, they pretty much got dominated in both games. There wasn't really much of a chance of Purdue winning either game because of the disparity in talent.

Maybe OSU is just that good. Maybe LSU is just good and not great. It seems that if a dominant team from the SEC struggles the argument is always going to be that it was because the SEC is so great. What I'm trying to do in these posts is question that logic. What if LSU destroyed UK (like OSU did to Purdue) and Big Ten people and the media then said, "well, it wasn't close, so your conference is down and your wins don't mean as much." The fact of the matter is that they lost. OSU dominated the game at Purdue in just has hostile of an environment (at night) and my argument is that Purdue and UK are one in the same. Your logic is that that Purdue doesn't have much talent because they lost to OSU. I say Purdue has the same talent as UK and the SEC's dominant team lost to them. My argument is that if OSU played UK, at UK (even at night), they would do to them what they did to Purdue, which LSU could not. Prove to me that UK is better than Purdue (other than using the LSU win) and we might have something.

Otherwise, it's a circular argument again. SEC team loses, because SEC is better. Big Ten team wins because Big Ten must not be as deep.



Kentucky not only had enough talent to compete with LSU, but also to beat them. Could have beaten Florida and USCEast also, but that's another story.

The same could have be said about Purdue's losses to Michigan and Penn State and those are arguably better teams than Florida and South Carolina.


I think OSU and Michigan have just as much talent as anyone in the SEC. Could they compete for the SEC Championship? You bet. But do you think Illinois has the talent to be 4-2 against an SEC schedule? Penn St. 4-3? Purdue 3-3? Could Northwestern have beaten 2 SEC schools?

These are impossible questions to answer. They are opinion based. Similar to me asking you if you think Ole Miss, Vandy, Arkansas, or Mississippi State could win four games in the Big Ten or compete for a Big Ten title. At least our bad teams have some good years (Northwestern, Minnesota, etc.). When was the last time Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Kentucky, or Vandy won the SEC? I'm not sure I understand the logic of the question.

If you want my honest opinion, I think Purdue, Penn St., Wisconsin, Illinois, and even Iowa and Michigan State (in addition to OSU and UM) could all win at least 4 games in the SEC in a given year, just like I bet Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina (in addition to Florida and LSU) could all win at least 4 games in the Big Ten.

And those teams you mentioned have beaten comparable SEC teams in bowls. The Outback and Capital One are bowls designed to match comparable teams from each conference.

The Big 10 is 13 and 13 vs. the SEC in bowls over the last 10 years from 1997 to 2006 season. This is not bad, considering how much we hear about SEC superiority and that 25 of the 26 games were played on SEC turf.

Also, the Big 10 was 0-2 vs. the SEC ten years ago ('97), so once this season's bowl match up's are determined and there should be at least a couple Big 10/SEC match up's (have been 3 SEC/B10 bowls per year 4 of the last 5 years), the Big 10's record over the last 10 years (1998-2007) will be 13-11, plus whatever record they put up this year. So, all they need is one bowl victory over the SEC (this year) to be assured of a winning record over the last 10 years. Over the last 5 years, the Big 10 is 8-6 over the SEC in bowl match up's. 2002 (2-1), 2003 (1-2), 2004 (2-1), 2005 (1-1), and 2006 (2-1).

Ironically, Ohio State being 0-3 is the only thing keeping the Big Ten from looking like a dominant conference in head-to-head bowl matchups with the SEC.



Michigan: (4-1)
Win vs. Arkansas - '98 Citrus
Win vs. Alabama - '99 Orange
Win vs. Auburn - '00 Citrus
Loss vs. Tennessee - '01 Citrus
Win vs. Florida - '02 Outback

Wisconsin: (2-3)
Loss vs. Georgia - '97 Outback
Loss vs. Auburn - '03 Music City
Loss vs. Georgia - '04 Outback
Win vs. Auburn - '05 Capital One
Win vs. Arkansas - '06 Capital One

Penn State: (2-2)
Loss vs. Florida - '97 Citrus
Win vs. Kentucky - '98 Outback
Loss vs. Auburn - '02 Capital One
Win vs. Tennessee - '06 Outback

Iowa: (2-1)
Win vs. Florida - '03 Outback
Win vs. LSU - '04 Capital One
Loss vs. Florida - '05 Outback

Ohio State: (0-3)
Loss vs. South Carolina - '00 Outback
Loss vs. South Carolina - '01 Outback
Loss vs. Florida - '06 Fiesta (neutral field)

Minnesota: (2-0)
Win vs. Arkansas - '02 Music City
Win vs. Alabama - '04 Music City

Purdue: (0-2)
Loss vs. Georgia - '99 Outback
Loss vs. Georgia - '03 Capital One

Michigan State: (1-0)
Win vs. Florida - '99 Citrus

Illinois: (0-1)
Loss vs. LSU - '01 Sugar

dabvu2498
11-07-2007, 02:26 PM
This year is an absolute anomaly for UK. And the last couple of years for Vandy. Next year, UK will go back to being stomped by pretty much everyone in the SEC. I don't know enough about Vandy either.

And the past two seasons are also anomalies for the Big Ten as far as the top 2 going undefeated. It's not like it happens very often. Heck, just 3 years ago, OSU lost 3 straight conference games.

I'd say you're right about Kentucky. Two good years in a row is about it for them. It will be interesting to see if their success on the field leads to them getting some premier recruits.

Vandy... ehhhhh... there's some talent there... some NFL caliber talent, particularly WR Earl Bennett and LB Jonathan Goff. CB DJ Moore might be draft-worthy in a couple years. This year their entire OL is 5th year seniors, so next year, particularly if Bennett leaves early, could be a mystery offensively. There's more talent there than there has been in 25 years... enough to pull off the periodic upset here and there (UT 2 years ago, UGa last year, USC this year), but enough to win 4 conference games, 7 overall, and make it to a bowl? Not likely. Would I like to have seen them play Purdue's schedule? Absofreakinlutely. Sorry if that chaps anyone's behind, but it's true. I would have.

MaineRed
11-07-2007, 02:30 PM
Yeah, a game ten year ago will tell you which conference is best THIS year.

Seems to me if you are digging up stats from TEN years ago then you are struggling to find relevant data that backs up what you want it to say.

Purdue is one of the top teams in the Big Ten. Kentucky is a bottom 4 SEC team. And you, the Big Ten fan took the time to compare the two. So one of your better teams is one of the SEC's worst? But your real argument is that this proves the Big Ten is just as good?

BTW, LSU had to play Kentucky the week after their biggest game of the year against Florida and the Gator game was an emotional battle. The week before Purdue, OSU was playing Minnesota.

Do you think OSU would have such an easy time at Purdue if they played Michigan the week before? You have to take some of this stuff into consideration.

And Michigan better than Florida? Maybe on whatever piece of paper you are looking at. While understanding that this isn't last years Florida team, lets remember tha nobody gave the Gators a shot to beat OSU and the the Buckeyes had no answer for the speed Florida has. It would be the same thing if Florida played UM or PSU.

What evidence is there that Michigan is better than Florida or that PSU is better than Florida? Could either team go to LSU on a Saturday night and even give the Tigers a game? I doubt it.

MWM
11-07-2007, 02:34 PM
The argument chages if you're talking this year vs. most years. Because this year (and last year), the Big Ten is top heavy. Although, I do believe Penn State and Wisconsin could play with a lot of the SEC teams. They're better than people think (they both beat SEC teams in bowls last year).

But in the average year, I'm with BuckeyeRedLeg, I'd put Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State, Purdue, and Illinois against the 3-8 SEC teams. It would be a close matchup, IMO.

dabvu2498
11-07-2007, 02:43 PM
BuckeyeRL -- Let me first say this -- I'm no football scout, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

My opinion, and yes it is an opinion, is based on observations of the two leagues. Sad to say, but most of my Saturdays this fall have been spent in front of a TV. Heaven help me, I even watched almost all the Purdue-Penn St. game this past weekend even. In my opinion, that game, and other games between the mid-tier Big 10 teams, was not played at as high a level as say the Bama-UT game, the USC-UK game, the Auburn-UF game, etc., etc. Just an opinion.

If you really think Iowa, Illinois, Mich St., or Purdue could win 4 SEC games, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

The Purdue-Kentucky comparison, if you go beyond just their records, doesn't really hold up in my mind. Look at who Purdue has beaten. Not too impressive. Look at who UK has beaten. Pretty impressive.

MaineRed
11-07-2007, 02:44 PM
Agreed. What I don't undestand is why such proclamations have to be made as I don't think anyone is disputing that. Alabama and Auburn playing PSU and Purdue would be god games and either team could win. No doubt.

There seems to be this perception from both Pac 10 and Big 10 fans that if you believe the SEC is number one you think the other conferences are total garbage. I've yet to see anyone say actually say it but people keep arguing against it.

The Big Ten has a legitimate case to being the second best IMO. SO does the Big 12. The ACC and Big East fight it out for a distant 5th and 6th (this year).

MWM
11-07-2007, 02:49 PM
dabvu, Big Ten football can be ugly, especially when two Bog Ten teams are playing against each other. That doesn't always mean they aren't playing at as high a level. The Big Ten style isn't as fun to watch, but it has historically matchedup well when they've gone against SEC team - last year's national title game excepting.

dabvu2498
11-07-2007, 02:52 PM
dabvu, Big Ten football can be ugly, especially when two Bog Ten teams are playing against each other. That doesn't always mean they aren't playing at as high a level. The Big Ten style isn't as fun to watch, but it has historically matchedup well when they've gone against SEC team - last year's national title game excepting.


Agreed. But I'm not really arguing the historical argument. I'm talking about this year.

"Bog Ten" wasn't a bit of a subliminal slip-up, was it?

MWM
11-07-2007, 02:58 PM
LOL! Nah, just a typo.

But I've contended for a few years that the rest of the Big Ten needs to move into this century as far as offense goes. I think the defenses in the Big Ten overall are really good. But the style off offense played at a lot of the schools is outdated. Once some of these other schools make the switch to the modern day style of offense, the Big Ten should rise again. I think the past couple of seasons have been down years for the Big Ten, so I was mostly arguing historical. this year is this year. The tide will turn. Most years, the conferences are quite close, IMO.

dabvu2498
11-07-2007, 03:05 PM
LOL! Nah, just a typo.

But I've contended for a few years that the rest of the Big Ten needs to move into this century as far as offense goes. I think the defenses in the Big Ten overall are really good. But the style off offense played at a lot of the schools is outdated. Once some of these other schools make the switch to the modern day style of offense, the Big Ten should rise again. I think the past couple of seasons have been down years for the Big Ten, so I was mostly arguing historical. this year is this year. The tide will turn. Most years, the conferences are quite close, IMO.

Well, either way, I'm going to use it.

Agreed. I think style of play has hurt some Bog Ten teams in getting skilled offensive recruits.

BTW, Purdue's getting a very interesting player from the Dayton area next year -- Roy Roundtree from Trotwood-Madison. Saw him this past weekend in a playoff game. Kid is a playmaker. Kinda undersized, but exciting to watch.

bucksfan2
11-07-2007, 03:05 PM
dabvu, Big Ten football can be ugly, especially when two Bog Ten teams are playing against each other. That doesn't always mean they aren't playing at as high a level. The Big Ten style isn't as fun to watch, but it has historically matchedup well when they've gone against SEC team - last year's national title game excepting.

Here is my point about the SEC and Big 10. This entire discussion, the entire hatred for an over rated OSU team by just about everyone outside of ohio, is based largely upon one football game. It wasn't based upon who OSU had returning, it wasn't base upon the acutal talent they had coming in, it wasn't based upon their coaching staff, rather it was based upon one lopsided loss.

OSU started the season ranked outside the top 10 while LSU started the season the pre season #1. If you look at the 06 teams and compare who they lost to the current teams they are rather similar. Both teams lost a ton of talent on the offensive side of the ball but had a lot coming back on the defensive side of the ball. The ONLY difference was the perception. OSU is still considered slow but I would be willing to bet if you average all speed measures across the entire team OSU would compare with the fastest teams in the country. If you want to break look at this season LSU lost to an average UK team. If they dont lose that game then we aren't having this discussion. Many people were pimping South Florida over OSU because of perception rather than reality. Is the SEC the best conference in the country, probably, but that doesn't mean the best team in the country has to come from that conference. It also doesn't mean that they are deserving of anything.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 03:20 PM
Who is saying the Big Ten sucks?

The media. This board. The south.


The outside world has tried to give the Big Ten credit this year.

Who? The Big Ten Network? I have seen the exact opposite.


Michigan was highly ranked and lost to 1-AA team.

Yes, that has been mentioned before. And Michigan is #12 now in the BCS. Great win for App. State, but no different than if a strong MAC team were to defeat Michigan. App. State, N.D. State, and other I-AA's are just has good as many of the non-BCS schools such as Troy (that just almost beat Georgia). The App State upset was huge, but in today's day of limited scholarships, the powers are going to lose every once in a while to a non-power. Stanford over USC was worse, but all we hear about is App State. Hell, USC drops seven spots in the polls for losing to Stanford. Michigan drops out of the top 25 altogether and one could argue that App State is much better than Stanford. Double-standard perpetuated by the media and the powers that be.



All I heard about before OSU took down Purdue was about Purdue's nation leading offense. Then before the Penn State game all I heard about was the whiteout and how OSU was bound to lose.

Exactly. And all you heard going into the UK-LSU game was how great UK was and then they won. The Buckeyes took care of business and LSU did not. You are taking away from the wins, by stating they (Penn St. and Purdue) were not real teams to begin with. Again, how can I argue with such logic? Maybe OSU is just that good AND in a deep conference. The two aren't mutually exclusive.


Both games were duds. Zook and Illinois was everyone's darling and they lost to a very banged up Iowa squad. Wisconsin was highly ranked and then forgot how to tackle for 3 games.

But I keep hearing the SEC is the only conference where the teams beat each other up. Illinois loss to Iowa is the only loss of the top 7 Big Ten teams that has happened outside that top 7 (other than OOC - Missouri, App State, Oregon). Wisconsin just lost to the
#1 team in the country and to two other teams (Penn State and Illinois) that should be recognized as top 25 teams. What's the big deal? The SEC does the same thing, but is credited with it. And shouldn't the fact that the Big Ten's top teams (other than Michigan and OSU this year) are all beating each other prove the conference is pretty deep and good too? I don't care if both games were "duds". I don't need to be entertained with a triple-overtime thrillers to think one conference is so much deeper than another



And lets not get too worked up about SEC bias. They have one team in the top 9. 8 teams from the other leagues, 3 from the Big 12 are ranked in the top 9.

I'm more concerned with the 5 teams with three losses in the top 25. This is what leads to the "SEC's has superior depth" myth. If every SEC team is in the top 25 and they all beat each other and all go 6-5 they all should stay in the top 25, because they all must be great, because they all beat each other, right?



What makes the SEC better is the number of Penn States and Purdues. There are more of them in the SEC. You don't have Heisman canidates and record breaking backs playing for the 9th place team in the Big Ten.

So Darrin McFadden makes the SEC better than the Big Ten? Ok. Maybe McFadden's team is not very good. They certainly haven't played anyone.


But that doesn't mean the teams at the top aren't good. Unless they played each other on a regular basis some of it has to be subjective but when LSU a team with as much talent as anyone in the country play a confernce game they get tested. Ohio State, they just roll over everyone. After the BCS game last year with Florida does anyone think OSU is better than LSU? Does anyone think Ohio State would go on the road to Bama and Auburn or Florida and Tennessee and roll, week after week after week? I don't.

Maybe OSU is that much better than LSU. And funny, I remember OSU NOT rolling over everyone in 2002, but that was dismissed as being "lucky". Does anyone else see the double standard? I guess it was "lucky" in 2002 because OSU won close in low-scoring defensive struggles, but high-scoring triple-overtime wins mean you are not lucky, but GREAT and in a DEEP conference.



I don't think it is fair to say that the gap between the Big East or ACC and the SEC is small.

I think the gap is so small I think it is splitting hairs, to be honest. One game here or there. Michigan beating Oregon could flip those conference rankings around.


Other than a couple of Big East schools they would all get killed in the SEC while most SEC schools would be favorites to win the Big East against all teams except maybe WVU. The ACCs best team is BC or VT (they played and the score was 14-10) and LSU kicked the crap out of VT. Sure the game was in Baton Rouge but I don't hear Oregon making excuses for their loss at the Big House.

Maine, I know you are a smart guy and know your football, so don't take offense to this, but saying "they would all get killed in the SEC" is the exact kind of logic I'm arguing against.



And if SOS isn't important, just winning games and being in a BCS conference is, isn't college football opening itself up to reward the lower tiered BCS conferences while inviting teams to play nobody outside of their league? We should be impressed when LSU smokes Va Tech or Oregon blast Michigan. Right? So why not be unimpressed when Kansas is playing Toledo and Florida Atlantic?

I agree with this.


I don't buy the argument that MTS should just schedule the big guys and beat them if they want to win. Why doesn't Kansas have to do the same thing? Why is their cupcake schedule rewarded but the schedule of MTS has to be examined with a fine tooth comb? What happened to just winning games?

Well. MTSU is not in a BCS conference, like Kansas for one thing. For another, MTSU is not undefeated right now. If they were, they would have had to knock off a few BCS schools and roll through their conference. I don't see people knocking on Hawaii, but if they were #4 or #5 right now in the BCS, they WOULD get knocked for not beating anyone in the top 30. And who said Kansas's cupcake schedule is being rewarded? They are on then outside looking in. They are the only undefeated BCS school (other than OSU) left and are on the outside looking in. Why? Their cupcake schedule. However, if they beat OU and Missouri they SHOULD be in, but they won't because of the media's love affair with the SEC and LSU.


We need SOS and it needs to be important. It is a big determining factor, especially when there are more than two unbeatens. Otherwise what are you going to use to pick the two title teams, a coin flip? If you are going to heavily weigh SOS then, don't you have to now?

SOS is a good tool, but it's not relevant until the season plays itself out. Remember, SOS is a factor in the computers and OSU is #1. Kansas is #4 and I think, ironically if they win out, it will be the computers and not the pollsters that elevate them past LSU.



Someone wrote that we can't just assume Kansas is bad because they haven't played anyone. Well is it fair to the other teams that we think we have the answer on to just guess that they are good because they have won all their games? I don't know how good they are as they aren't on TV and when they are they don't play anyone. How can I just assume they are good when I don't know?

The computers are non-biased and show Kansas as #4. That's good enough for me. I mean, again, we are splitting hairs. If you don't think they should be in the top 10 or 20, that's where we may have an issue. The computers say they are #4. What's the issue? Maybe they should have won more close conference games to show conference depth, I don't know.



I'm more than willing to be fair with Kansas but I need something to go on besides wins over secondary competition. Just from who they have played and the scores of the games I think Kansas would be lucky to have less than 3 losses right now if they played Ohio State's schedule.

I doubt that. Maybe one loss. But I know one thing, Kansas would still be undefeated if they played Arkansas's schedule.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 04:42 PM
Yeah, a game ten year ago will tell you which conference is best THIS year.

Here's what I see. Everyone wants to throw around subjective arguments about how the SEC is better. "WE beat this team and YOU lost to that team so we must be better." "Could your middle of the pack teams make it in our deep conference?" I provided objective head-to-head data from the last 10 years and I get this from you. C'mon man. We were doing pretty good here discussing this. It's the only thing we have to measure the two conferences fairly. You don't like 10 years? Well, I provided the results from last year. I mean, everyone wants to bring up the OSU-Florida NC game all the time in the SEC- Big Ten discussions. How about the Big Ten going 2-0 on SEC turf in bowl games and 1-0 in another (Vandy losing to Michigan)? The Big Ten LAST YEAR was 3-1 against the SEC. Not 10 years ago. LAST YEAR. Nobody has played this year (yet) so we have no objective data for 2007.



Seems to me if you are digging up stats from TEN years ago then you are struggling to find relevant data that backs up what you want it to say.

Again, those are the last 26 bowls the Big Ten and SEC has faced off in. I could go back 5 years as well Big Ten is 8-6. The last three years the Big Ten is 5-4. And what relevant data have you even attempted to provide?



Purdue is one of the top teams in the Big Ten. Kentucky is a bottom 4 SEC team. And you, the Big Ten fan took the time to compare the two. So one of your better teams is one of the SEC's worst? But your real argument is that this proves the Big Ten is just as good?


Thanks for proving my point. UK is "bottom 4"? You hear that UK fans? He says you are bottom 4. If they are bottom 4, Maine, please tell me why they are ranked in the top 25, while five other SEC schools are not ranked. Over the past few years they might be bottom four, but this year, according to the media, they are not. Purdue is unranked. The only reason I compared the two was to show the double-standard that exists. I think you're using UK's past reputation to downgrade them. They are 6-3. Purdue is 7-3. UK is 2-3 in conference and Purdue is 3-3 in conference. What makes you think that Purdue is one of the Big Ten's "better" teams? If better means top 6 or 7, then yes, they are one of the Big Ten's top six or seven teams. And UK is one of the SEC's best 6 or 7 teams. Just ask the media. They are in the top 25. So, what's the issue with comparing the two?



BTW, LSU had to play Kentucky the week after their biggest game of the year against Florida and the Gator game was an emotional battle. The week before Purdue, OSU was playing Minnesota.

And you've helped me make another point. I was more comparing Purdue with UK, since you were saying that OSU must play nobody since they blew them out. Well now maybe the blowout vs. Purdue has been justified from Purdue's standpoint - because OSU faced Minnesota the week before. This point you are making lets Purdue off the hook a bit, especially after you previously stated that they were bad for getting blown out by OSU. And LSU? Well, UK snuck up on them due to the Florida game the week before. This takes away from UK's win. Look, I'm not trying to say that OSU is so much better than LSU. I'm just taking the logic and SEC mentality and flipping it around.



Do you think OSU would have such an easy time at Purdue if they played Michigan the week before? You have to take some of this stuff into consideration.

I would if I was trying to determine which team (LSU, OSU) was worthy of a BCS title bid if they both had one loss. Fortunately, for now, that's is a non-issue. It was more a comparison between Purdue and UK and the double-standard used when trying to excuse LSU's loss, because their conference is so deep, all the while dismissing OSU's win, "because they beat them so bad Purdue must not have been that good anyway."


And Michigan better than Florida? Maybe on whatever piece of paper you are looking at. While understanding that this isn't last years Florida team, lets remember tha nobody gave the Gators a shot to beat OSU and the the Buckeyes had no answer for the speed Florida has. It would be the same thing if Florida played UM or PSU.


Michigan over Florida? Yes, the computers, the polls, and here's some subjectivity - MY EYES all say Michigan is better than Florida.

I realize OSU lost to Florida. Please don't remind me. But I thought we were talking about this year. OSU was horribly unprepared in every facet of the game and made zero adjustments LAST YEAR. See Cedric's post (in another thread) on the subject for more. I completely agree with his take. And the speed thing is another overplayed myth. I remember OSU debunking that myth in 2002 when they were "supposed" to have no shot against Miami.



What evidence is there that Michigan is better than Florida or that PSU is better than Florida? Could either team go to LSU on a Saturday night and even give the Tigers a game? I doubt it.


I was saying that PSU was better than South Carolina. In any case, what evidence is there either way? I have at least tried to provide some objectivity and rational debate into the discussion and you continue to base your opinions on subjectivity and faulty logic.

MaineRed
11-07-2007, 06:03 PM
Record wise Kentucky is tied for 8th in the SEC. Mississippi and Vandy are the only teams with worse conference records. An astute Kentucky fan shouldn't need me to tell them that. I told you why they are ranked and Purdue isn't, the signature win they have. You really don't think beating LSU should count for more than losing to Ohio State? Kentucky beat one of the best teams in the country and they don't have any bad losses. Neither does Purdue. The difference, the win over LSU.

You're taking Kentucky being one of the bottom teams to mean what you want it to mean instead of what it actually means. Six of the seven teams ahead of them in the SEC are ranked at this time. The other is South Carolina. When LSU, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida and Georgia are ahead of you, there is no shame in that.

You are defending Ohio State pretty hard and there is no need. I have great respect for them and consider myself one of the first people to jump on the, they're good bandwagon. I was saying watch out for them a long time ago when most of the country wanted to dismiss them. I have also not said anything about them not playing anyone.

My point wasn't that OSU is no good or that it wasn't a good win because they blew them out. It was that you rarely see games like this in the SEC because the middle of the road teams are closer in talent than the Purdues of the world are to Ohio State. Props to Ohio State, not taking anything away from them. But I am taking something away from Purdue as they prove over and over again that they can't hang with OSU and Michigan. Consistently the games in the SEC are close. And it isn't because the top teams aren't good.

Jeff Sagrin's rankings on USAToday show the Big Ten as the 6th best conference with the Big East number 2. And there is no subjectivity to his numbers as far as I know. He has the SEC in first. His computer must be biased?


Michigan over Florida? Yes, the computers, the polls, and here's some subjectivity - MY EYES all say Michigan is better than Florida.

So now the polls and computers matter? Funny, the polls, the computers and MY EYES were the reason I was using to say the SEC was best and you called that faulty logic. If you want to use computers and polls I am not really sure what you are arguing. Both CLEARLY state one thing, the SEC is king.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc07.htm


I realize OSU lost to Florida. Please don't remind me. But I thought we were talking about this year.

Bringing up last year is quite a bit different that 1997. Freaking Tee Martin won the national title for Tennessee in 98, I am defending the SEC and I don't think Tee Martin as anything to do with this conversation.

If you don't want to talk last year, fine. I don't care to talk about 1997. Neither are relevant to this year. You are making arguments for what conference is traditionally the best, or the best over time. I though we WERE talking about this year. If so, what do you think of Sagarin and nearly ever other ranking that says the SEC is best? Its not just SEC fans making it up. Half the reason so many feel the way they do is because it is drilled into our head and it isn't based on opinion, it is based on computers. For whatever reason they consistently say the SEC is best. The Big Ten isn't even in the argument this year as far as Sagarins ratings go. I was giving them MUCH more credit than the computers. But I won't be questioned for that "faulty logic". Insted I'll get raked over the coals for stating (if you go by computers) the obvious truth.

You can't talk about bias and then come at me from that angle. I am giving the Big Ten more respect than is called for, APPARENTLY. But you want to rip me for my critisim of the Big Ten?

dabvu2498
11-07-2007, 06:25 PM
Freaking Tee Martin won the national title for Tennessee in 98, I am defending the SEC and I don't think Tee Martin as anything to do with this conversation.

I've heard that wouldn't have happened if Ohio State had been allowed to play in that championship game. Wouldn't have happened. (Only joking OSU fans... only joking... I hate Tennessee more than anything in the world... even more than the Big 10. :D )

Jeff Sagarin can't be biased... he's got a degree from Indiana. But then again, he does have 9 SEC schools ranked in his top 31... whoops! And has Kentucky ranked 9 spots ahead of Purdue even though Purdue's 0-3 vs. his top 30 and UK is 2-3... that can't be!!!

I keed, I keed.

:D

It's why college sports is so much fun. We'll never know. Even after they hand out the trophy. I love the BCS!!! :D

MaineRed
11-07-2007, 06:49 PM
Sagarin must have been brainwashed by Verne Lunquist.

So 9 of the SEC is in the top 31? Are there any stats other than bowl records from when Doc Blanchard and Glen Davis were starting for Army that show that another conference is actually better than the SEC?

Why does the SEC take all this grief yet have the most teams in the rankings, the best schedules and ALL the support from the computers?

Obviously the Big Ten has shown they are no slouch when they have played the SEC over the years. But that isn't enough to make them the best conference in the country. The one big out of conference game played by each league saw a Big Ten big boy get crushed by the Pac 10s best while the biggest OOC game in the SEC was LSU sawing Va Tech, the ACCs big power in half.

The Big Ten has been waxed in their last two big OOC games while the SEC has run away with their two.

MaineRed
11-07-2007, 06:58 PM
And the speed thing is another overplayed myth. I remember OSU debunking that myth in 2002 when they were "supposed" to have no shot against Miami.

I remember one of the best players in the nation, a guy who had scored the third most rushing TDs in the history of college football and had run for over 1,700 yards getting hurt and thus taking away Miami's best speed threat. That injury was huge and IMO gave OSU their shot. You can't understate the value of a guy who had 1,700 yards and scored 28 TDs. Heisman finalist don't grow on trees.

It has nothing to do with the speed myth but the pass intereference call on Miami before the winning TD was as bogus as they come. There is no doubt in my mind that Miami was the best team that year. I don't want to use the word lucky with Ohio State that year. I'll call them fortunate.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 07:39 PM
Record wise Kentucky is tied for 8th in the SEC. Mississippi and Vandy are the only teams with worse conference records. An astute Kentucky fan shouldn't need me to tell them that. I told you why they are ranked and Purdue isn't, the signature win they have. You really don't think beating LSU should count for more than losing to Ohio State? Kentucky beat one of the best teams in the country and they don't have any bad losses. Neither does Purdue. The difference, the win over LSU.

Your taking Kentucky being one of the bottom teams to mean what you want it to me instead of what it actually means. Six of the seven teams ahead of them in the SEC are ranked at this time. The other is South Carolina. When LSU, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida and Georgia are ahead of you, there is no shame in that.


I think we are misunderstanding each other. The point is that both UK and Purdue are about the same this year and they both sit in similar positions in their conference. If you go by record, which I think is a bit misleading since they have only played 5-6 games and it's two separate divisions with separate schedules, UK is 8th in W/L % within conference. However, they are one game back from being 5th and 2 games back from being 2nd. Every SEC school (except LSU and Ole Miss) has between 2-4 losses. So, to say one is "better" than the other because one is one game up, with an uneven schedule is a stretch. Let's take Sagarin. I see (below) you mention Sagarin and I use his rankings for SOS and quality within conference as well. UK is #23, putting them 6th in their own conference. 5 teams higher, 6 teams lower. Purdue is #32 and 5th in the Big Ten. 4 teams higher. 6 teams lower. How are the two not comparable? My comparison was also based on the notion that had Purdue beaten OSU, the Big Ten would be ridiculed (unlike the SEC) for showing weakness. I think right now Purdue and UK are comparable. Had Purdue somehow won, they would be sitting above UK in Sagarin's ratings.



Jeff Sagrin's rankings on USAToday show the Big Ten as the 6th best conference with the Big East number 2. And there is no subjectivity to his numbers as far as I know. He has the SEC in first. His computer must be biased?


No, I contended several posts earlier, that this may be a factor of SOS and that the Big Ten has played all their cupcakes already (so their SOS is way lower). I also contended that there is little that separates the BCS conferences 1 through 6, and I was taking into account Sagarin when I contended that.

1 SOUTHEASTERN = 80.69
2 BIG EAST = 78.48
3 BIG 12 = 77.90
4 PAC-10 = 77.44
5 ACC = 76.86
6 BIG TEN = 76.13

7 MOUNTAIN WEST= 69.18

Again, look at the numbers. A game or two here and there and it could be changed. I wish I could find out how those numbers would change if Michigan didn't lose early, because my main contention is if it were not for two games (App. State and Oregon) that the whole thing would be different. That's okay though. I understand, they DID lose. We can't change that. But that and the fact that the SEC plays their cupcakes from the SunBelt later does skew these numbers. That's my point. It's such a small sample size that these numbers fluctuate weekly. Once conference games start, it's hard for one conference to pass another. The thing that's odd though, is that the SEC and Big Ten both have the #1 and #2 OOC winning percentages, so I'm not sure why the Big Ten is 6th. Anyway, if you look at the Mountain West, in relation to the other six, you see a big drop off. That tells me that the top 6 conferences are all solid. Again, a game or two here and there and not worth splitting hairs over. A team can be the best and come from one of these six conferences, regardless of who they played OOC.




Now the polls and computers matter? Funny, the polls, the computers and MY EYES were the reason I was using to say the SEC was best and you called that faulty logic. If you want to use computers and polls I am not really sure what you are arguing. Both CLEARLY state one thing, the SEC is king.

King of what? The mythical November 7th version of the Sagarin ratings championship? We'll see how they do head-to-head vs. the Big Ten in December and January. I'm betting we'll get three games matching the two up and at this point I hope to God that OSU and LSU both win out.

I'm always supporting the computers in these discussions, but my point from the beginning is that the computers don't really have a problem with the Big Ten, but with Michigan losing those first two.



Bringing up last year is quite a bit different that 1997. Freaking Tee Martin won the national title for Tennessee in 98, I am defending the SEC and I don't think Tee Martin as anything to do with this conversation.

You know that 1997 wasn't the crux of my argument. I listed the last 26 bowls between the Big Ten and SEC to show how even they have been over the years head-to-head - on SEC turf. I don't see what the problem with this is. I wasn't quoting the Big Ten's record vs. the SEC in 1997.



If you don't want to talk last year, fine. I don't care to talk about 1997.


Again, who said anything about 1997? Last year (2007), the Big Ten was 3-1 vs. the SEC. I just don't want to talk about OSU-Florida, because I just recently was able to sleep again without the lights on after that nightmare. If OSU loses to Michigan, I hope that Florida wins out and they somehow sneak into the BCS. I would love for OSU to play them again.



Neither are relevant to this year. You are making arguments for what conference is traditionally the best, or the best over time. I though we WERE talking about this year. If so, what do you think of Sagarin and nearly ever other ranking that says the SEC is best?

For the umpteenth time, my argument wasn't that the SEC wasn't good or shouldn't be ranked #1 as much as it was that a double standard exists for the Big Ten and the conferences are so close that it's not fair to judge one team over the other because of their conference affiliation (see: the Kansas or UK-Purdue argument).


Its not just SEC fans making it up. Half the reason so many feel the way they do is because it is drilled into our head and it isn't based on opinion, it is based on computers.

And the computers love OSU (#1), Oregon (#3), Kansas (#4), Arizona State (#5), Boston College (#6), Oklahoma (#7), and Missouri (#8) even though none of them play in the mighty SEC.



For whatever reason they consistently say the SEC is best. The Big Ten isn't even in the argument this year as far as Sagarins ratings go. I was giving them MUCH more credit than the computers. But I won't be questioned for that "faulty logic". Insted I'll get raked over the coals for stating (if you go by computers) the obvious truth.

Again, who cares? I find it humorous that a fan base cares more about the conference as a whole than their individual team. It seems like some kind of southern inferiority complex or something. Great. The SEC conference is "rated" number 1. Does that prove anything? No, because they have to prove it on the field. Every year I root against Michigan in whatever bowl they go to. Why do I care if they win? What kind of weird pride does that give me? The SEC fan base is so wrapped up in what conference is better and ripping on everything not SEC that they miss the whole point. I suggest they just succeed from the BCS like they did from the Union. Maybe then, they'll start caring about their own individual teams again.

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 07:41 PM
I've heard that wouldn't have happened if Ohio State had been allowed to play in that championship game. Wouldn't have happened. (Only joking OSU fans... only joking...

Why, I outta...:D

BuckeyeRedleg
11-07-2007, 07:42 PM
Sagarin must have been brainwashed by Verne Lunquist.

So 9 of the SEC is in the top 31? Are there any stats other than bowl records from when Doc Blanchard and Glen Davis were starting for Army that show that another conference is actually better than the SEC?

Why does the SEC take all this grief yet have the most teams in the rankings, the best schedules and ALL the support from the computers?

Obviously the Big Ten has shown they are no slouch when they have played the SEC over the years. But that isn't enough to make them the best conference in the country. The one big out of conference game played by each league saw a Big Ten big boy get crushed by the Pac 10s best while the biggest OOC game in the SEC was LSU sawing Va Tech, the ACCs big power in half.

The Big Ten has been waxed in their last two big OOC games while the SEC has run away with their two.

Way to flip it around. Good one. Just argue with yourself. You have totally missed the point.

MaineRed
11-07-2007, 08:03 PM
The SEC still has games with Wake Forrest, Georgia Tech, Clemson and Florida State. Not world beaters but very resectable out of confernce opponents.

I'm not from the south nor do I have a horse the race. I'm not a member of the SEC. I'm a college football fan who enjoys OSU vs. Michigan just as much as I enjoy LSU-Auburn.

I don't know where this whole thing started. This thread or as a whole. Personally I have never made the starting comment in one of these conference debates. I usually jump in when I see someone slicing up the SEC while ignoring the same polls, computers and rankings that they use to defend their own team. I have no intention to go around promoting the SEC. But I do enjoy debates about the whole thing. At the same time I'm not sure why you have to go and announce that the SEC should just leave the BCS because of comments from some guy from Maine who has no affiliations with the SEC. You act like half the South is here on the board shoving it down your throat.

I don't cheer for SEC teams in bowl games either. Other than one bowl game each year I could care less. And I agree with your data that shows the Big Ten is right up there. And like I said I really don't see that much critism of the Big Ten other than people stating what the computers state. Are those people really that far off? Maybe it is close enough that nobody should be worrying about it. But enough people like to talk about it so I don't see the problem.

MWM
11-07-2007, 08:59 PM
McGahee hadn't done squat that game. It wasn't until the 4th quarter that he got hurt. He had 20 carries in the game. And his backup was some guy named Frank Gore. If people want to play up conference stereotypes, then that was a game where Miami couldn't handle the hard hitting of the Buckeyes. Ohio State came out and hit Miami like they had never been hit before and it tooko them by surprise. They didn't have an answer for it. They just out-toughed the Hurricanes that particular game.

And honestly, I also thought the PI call was a bad one. Actually, it kind of ruined my night. I didn't feel as elated as a fan should when their team wins the National Championship because I felt like they got help from that call. But a couple of things got me past that. First, it allowed Ohio State to tie, not win. They still had to play another round of overtime with a clean slate.

But more importantly, Lee Corso of all people before the next season was on one of the ESPN radio shows and was asked about it. He said he was so tired of being asked about that call. He said if you really want to be fair, you have to go back to OSU's final drive in regulation. They had 3rd down and long with just a couple of minutes left to play in Miami territory. Krenzel threw a pass to Michael Jenkins that would have given them the first down and pretty much let them run the clock out from there. It was the most important play of the game. The ref called Jenkins out of bounds, but the replay showed he was clearly in. So the refs blew that call that forced OSU to punt. Roscoe Parrish returned i 50 yards into FG terriotory and they tied it with a FG.

So the refs blew a call that would have virtually ended the game in regulation. They also blew a call that would ended it in overtime. IMO, they're a wash. OSU played a better game than Miami. They came out with a gameplan Miami never anticipated and wasn't prepared for. I don't disagree with you that Miami was the best team that year. Had they played again, Miami probably wins. But on that night, the Bucks outplayed them from start to finish. The best team doesn't always win. We see it all the time. All you have to do it be better on a single night. That's the upside of having such a huge amount of time between the final game and the title game. It allows a team time to devise and practice for weeks an entirely new gameplan that the other team would never expect. You can't do that in one or two weeks.

GAC
11-07-2007, 10:02 PM
He said if you really want to be fair, you have to go back to OSU's final drive in regulation. They had 3rd down and long with just a couple of minutes left to play in Miami territory. Krenzel threw a pass to Michael Jenkins that would have given them the first down and pretty much let them run the clock out from there. It was the most important play of the game. The ref called Jenkins out of bounds, but the replay showed he was clearly in. So the refs blew that call that forced OSU to punt. Roscoe Parrish returned i 50 yards into FG terriotory and they tied it with a FG.

So the refs blew a call that would have virtually ended the game in regulation. They also blew a call that would ended it in overtime. IMO, they're a wash.

Exactly. If people wanted to be fair. ;)

Cedric
11-08-2007, 12:38 AM
Nobody wants to be fair on this site about Ohio State. But yet Ohio State fans were the one's getting ripped for months on here about everything.

Bringing up the 02 game and trying to turn that against Ohio State? McGahee did absolutely nothing in that game and got hurt in the 4th quarter. You aren't biased huh?

And Ohio State had 11 defensive starters on that team drafted and countless other underclassmen drafted on that defense. That isn't even mentioning the Oline, Wr's, and Clarett.

Ohio State was loaded that year and absolutely dominated the Miami Oline. Who led the whole game? What a joke people still bring up that game and try and mouth Ohio State. They flat out whipped Miami with Craig freaking Krenzel at Qb. The better team won that night. They were better coached and had just as much talent.

MaineRed
11-08-2007, 08:12 AM
Florida wiped Ohio State.

Whatever you want to call what OSU did to Miami, it was done in OT. You make it sound like they won going away.

I remember McGahee getting hurt. Didn't remember it was the 4th quarter. So not remembering every detail of a game from 5 years ago makes me biased?

As for him "doing nothing" he had 76 yards and TD to that point and still had the 4th quarter and OT. He EASILY could have finished with over 100 yards and 2 TDs. That is nothing?

You want to talk bias? You have claimed an OT win was a wipe job and that a guy with 76 yards and TD in 3/4 of a game had done nothing.

And the back-up wasn't Frank Gore. He missed the season due to an injury. Jarret Payton was the back-up to McGahee that season.

Miami didn't get "wiped". McGahee had done more than NOTHING and Frank Gore wasn't even in uniform.

But yeah, I'm biased.


Nobody wants to be fair on this site about Ohio State.

Fair? How about giving the 2002 Willis McGahee his due? How about using a fitting adjective to describe the events of the game. Some people call it one of the best games ever played. But you OSU fans think it was total domination from start to finish. It went to OT!!!

And lets be fair. If I claimed that OSU could easily overcome an injury to Clarett because Eddie George was his back-up, I'd get ripped to shreds by Buckeyes.

We all probably remember what we wat to but clearly OSU fans aren't immune from mental errors when discussing games from five years ago.

Stop acting like the only people who do it are out to get OSU. It works both ways.


Bringing up the 02 game and trying to turn that against Ohio State? McGahee did absolutely nothing in that game and got hurt in the 4th quarter. You aren't biased huh?

That game was brought up by a Buckeye fan. Not someone trying to turn anything against OSU. Speed was mentioned and I noted that one of the teams burners got hurt during the game. I was mistaken on just how much of the game he missed. You were obviously mistaken on what he had done to that point, including a nine yard TD run.

If you are going to have a short memory like that and accuse others with the same issues as biased, doesn't that make you the same thing? Or are Buckeye fans immune from being biased? That seems to be the message. You want to rip on me for not remembering every detail of that game but you can't remember them all either. Or perhaps you can explain how being on pace for 100 yards againt this vaunted defense is akin to "nothing"?

The game went to OT, McGahee was a Heisman finalist. He COULD have made the difference. Even if he missed only one series.

Doesn't mean OSU didn't win the game, played bad or was undeserving.

MWM
11-08-2007, 08:58 AM
McGahee had 67 yards on 20 carries. He had 38 yards on his first 16 carries. I've watched the game several times and he hadn't been able to do anything. I don't think your'e biased at all. I just think you argue for the sake of arguing on this site. That's all you ever do.

MaineRed
11-08-2007, 09:08 AM
You are correct. It was 67 yards. I'm either dislexic or got the info from a site that had the number backwards.

All I said in response to you MWM was that Gore wasn't the back-up. Which is 100% true. I'm just wondering why Gore appears on those replays you keep watching when he was on the sidelines on crutches. Your evaluations that McGahee had done nothing would be more believable if you could accurately describe who entered the game for him when he was hurt. It wasn't Frank Gore.

Clearly you didn't review this tape yesterday.

Cedric
11-08-2007, 12:24 PM
You are correct. It was 67 yards. I'm either dislexic or got the info from a site that had the number backwards.

All I said in response to you MWM was that Gore wasn't the back-up. Which is 100% true. I'm just wondering why Gore appears on those replays you keep watching when he was on the sidelines on crutches. Your evaluations that McGahee had done nothing would be more believable if you could accurately describe who entered the game for him when he was hurt. It wasn't Frank Gore.

Clearly you didn't review this tape yesterday.

Who cares. Ohio State won and obviously was loaded with speed. All 11 defensive players were drafted into the NFL and countless others like Hawk and Will Allen later were early picks and they were backups that year.

The NFL doesn't like slow players.

MaineRed
11-08-2007, 01:14 PM
Right, we are all supposed to care who the Buckeyes back-ups were that year but the response to me making a correction to a comment about the Miami roster is met with a "who cares".

I care. It is not accurate to claim that Miami didn't miss McGahee because they had NFL Pro Bowler Frank Gore ready to enter the game when he wasn't even in uniform.

Why does every comment about Ohio State have to 100% right and met with such critism if it isn't positive while nobody cares about accuracy when it comes to other teams?

Yes the NFL loves speed. They also love QBs who can throw the ball downfield and put zip on it. Yet they continue to draft Danny Wuerfel, Ken Dorsey and other QBs who have next to no shot of ever doing anything.

Yes Ohio State won. I guess that proves everything you want it to prove. Ohio State narrowly beats Miami and it means they have super speed and are the best college team in history. But when Florida kills Ohio State it was just a bad day for the Buckeyes who forgot to make second half adjustments and wore the wrong cleats thus killing their obvious speed advantage.

It would be a lot easier to credit Ohio State for what they do if it wasn't an excuse fest when it comes to their losses.

Just what kind of reaction would I get if I claimed Miami only lost because they didn't make the adjustments that were needed? You read what you want to read about Ohio State and when someone supports them and says something that is factually wrong, you say nothing and instead wait until the mistake is corrected and then claim nobody cares.

I have a great deal of respect for this years Ohio State team, the only OSU team that matters at this point and I haven't said an ill word about them. I haven't questioned their schedule, their speed or anything else. I think they are good. And I expect to see them playing in the title game.

Cedric
11-08-2007, 02:34 PM
Right, we are all supposed to care who the Buckeyes back-ups were that year but the response to me making a correction to a comment about the Miami roster is met with a "who cares".

I care. It is not accurate to claim that Miami didn't miss McGahee because they had NFL Pro Bowler Frank Gore ready to enter the game when he wasn't even in uniform.

Why does every comment about Ohio State have to 100% right and met with such critism if it isn't positive while nobody cares about accuracy when it comes to other teams?

Yes the NFL loves speed. They also love QBs who can throw the ball downfield and put zip on it. Yet they continue to draft Danny Wuerfel, Ken Dorsey and other QBs who have next to no shot of ever doing anything.

Yes Ohio State won. I guess that proves everything you want it to prove. Ohio State narrowly beats Miami and it means they have super speed and are the best college team in history. But when Florida kills Ohio State it was just a bad day for the Buckeyes who forgot to make second half adjustments and wore the wrong cleats thus killing their obvious speed advantage.

It would be a lot easier to credit Ohio State for what they do if it wasn't an excuse fest when it comes to their losses.

Just what kind of reaction would I get if I claimed Miami only lost because they didn't make the adjustments that were needed? You read what you want to read about Ohio State and when someone supports them and says something that is factually wrong, you say nothing and instead wait until the mistake is corrected and then claim nobody cares.

I have a great deal of respect for this years Ohio State team, the only OSU team that matters at this point and I haven't said an ill word about them. I haven't questioned their schedule, their speed or anything else. I think they are good. And I expect to see them playing in the title game.

I've never made excuses as to why Ohio State lost to Florida in January. I've brought up what I see as valid points even if it was Michigan vs Florida. I think a 51 day layoff is just insane and not fair. Does that make me a biased big ten lover? Maybe, I just don't think it's right.

And nobody said it means Ohio State had the best team in history. It does mean they have the speed to equal anyone in College football. Honestly it doesn't take much research to realize that Ohio State has as much speed as most every other team in the nation. That's not something new or shocking.

KronoRed
11-08-2007, 03:19 PM
In 2002 OSU has a 40 day layoff compared to Miami's 26, didn't seem to make a big difference that night.

WMR
11-08-2007, 03:28 PM
I've never made excuses as to why Ohio State lost to Florida in January.

Ahhh, yes you have.


Does that make me a biased big ten lover?

Yes.

WMR
11-08-2007, 03:30 PM
In 2002 OSU has a 40 day layoff compared to Miami's 26, didn't seem to make a big difference that night.

:fineprint

:owned::KoolAid:

:redface:

registerthis
11-08-2007, 04:13 PM
I'm not even sure what's being argued right now.

dabvu2498
11-08-2007, 04:17 PM
I'm not even sure what's being argued right now.

Tee Martin vs. Craig Krenzel! DISCUSS!!!

MaineRed
11-08-2007, 04:18 PM
I've never made excuses as to why Ohio State lost to Florida in January.

Right and you also didn't have anything to say to the people who WERE making excuses. Instead you wait for someone to make "an excuse" about a game that Ohio State won. Then you jump ugly. You want to get the facts straight. But the facts from an Ohio State loss don't matter.

I brought up a fact, Williis McGahee got hurt. Someone dimissed that as nothing more than a minor setback as "some guy" named Frank Gore was the back-up. When I corrected that, it became "who cares".

Someone cared enough and thought it was relevant enough to mention it. But as soon as we found out it wasn't an NFL pro bowler who was backing up McGahee but a no name scrub, all of a sudden the discussion turned to me liking to argue and comments that nobody cares.

Exactly. If you aren't humping Ohio State or bowing to the Big Ten, shut up.

registerthis
11-08-2007, 04:22 PM
Tee Martin vs. Craig Krenzel! DISCUSS!!!

Only if I can also introduce Pepe Pearson into the discussion.

dabvu2498
11-08-2007, 04:26 PM
Only if I can also introduce Pepe Pearson into the discussion.

I'll allow it, if Shawn Bryson is allowed.

MaineRed
11-08-2007, 04:30 PM
Craig Krenzel would have been a Heisman candiate if he played for Vandy or Ole Miss.

The SEC is THAT good.

:starwars:

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
11-08-2007, 04:34 PM
I'll allow it, if Shawn Bryson is allowed.how bout Carlos Snow

dabvu2498
11-08-2007, 04:36 PM
how bout Carlos Snow

Better than that!!!

Vlade Janakievski vs. Fuad Reveiz

Danny Serafini
11-08-2007, 04:38 PM
Butler By'not'e led the Big 10 in apostrophes. Let's see anyone in the SEC match that!

dabvu2498
11-08-2007, 04:42 PM
Butler By'not'e led the Big 10 in apostrophes. Let's see anyone in the SEC match that!

Jesse Mahelona likely would have if his name had been spelled in the traditional Hawaiian fashion.

KronoRed
11-08-2007, 04:45 PM
I'm not even sure what's being argued right now.

This thread is what is behind the argument door

Chip R
11-08-2007, 04:58 PM
This thread is what is behind the argument door


No it isn't.