or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NCAA College Football
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 NCAA College Football - Page 12

post #199 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by TN94z View Post
On a side note, I sure thought UT had it in them to win 7 games this year.  I am seeing some really good stuff to build from though!

 

I thought UT would win 7 also. With the way our defense has played the last few games, we'll be lucky to beat Vandy! I believe in Butch Jones, I think he has UT headed in the right direction! We have a total of 30 "verbal" commits with a few more in the works.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPMPIRE View Post
 

 

I thought ND would win that game, but I did say it would be a close game. I didn't watch it, but just looking at the recap, ND made a lot of mistakes in the 4th quarter. 

 

Despite USC's struggles, they still have a narrow shot at winning the Pac-12 South. Of course, USC has to get past Stanford this weekend. I don't see that happening, but I'll remain hopeful. ASU has to lose at least one game and it should come at the hands of UCLA in a couple of weeks. 

 

At this point in the BCS, I don't see how we don't end up with Bama vs FSU in the title game. FSU's only obstacle is Florida and considering how the Gators played against Vandy, I don't see how FSU loses that game. Auburn is a good team and think it will be a good game against Bama, but Auburn has struggled a lot against ranked teams - LSU, TA&M, and Ole Miss. They are 2 and 3 against these teams, but it wasn't easy. If they do struggle against a barely ranked Georgia this Saturday, I would say Bama has no problems with Auburn. 

 

Considering how Stanford shut down Oregon's powerhouse offense, I would love to see Alabama vs. Stanford. I think this would be a close, low-scoring game. 

 

If Auburn could find a passing game in the next few weeks, they'll have a legitimate shot at beating Bama. I am still not sold on FSU yet. Don't get me wrong Jameison is a great QB, but not sure if they could compete with Bama. Not to take anything from Clemson, but FSU made them look silly and Miami just flopped against them and then Miami's loss to VT proved they were a fluke. Don't flame me for this, but I just don't think FSU has played a top caliber team. I mean it is the ACC after all, where there is only 1 real standout team every year.

I agree, I would rather see Stanford and Bama go at it.

post #200 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyMac View Post
 

If Auburn could find a passing game in the next few weeks, they'll have a legitimate shot at beating Bama. I am still not sold on FSU yet. Don't get me wrong Jameison is a great QB, but not sure if they could compete with Bama. Not to take anything from Clemson, but FSU made them look silly and Miami just flopped against them and then Miami's loss to VT proved they were a fluke. Don't flame me for this, but I just don't think FSU has played a top caliber team. I mean it is the ACC after all, where there is only 1 real standout team every year.

I agree, I would rather see Stanford and Bama go at it.

 

It's a small and somewhat mediocre sample size, but just looking at FSU's games against ranked teams, they scored a whopping 155-28. Everyone knows they have a damn good offense, but their defense has good numbers too if you look at their win schedule throughout the entire season. Only the Boston College game really stands out where their defense might have slacked, but other than that, it's been pretty solid. I think FSU can definitely compete (and win) against Bama despite the soft schedule. 

 

IMO, if you compare the two games - Alabama v. FSU and Alabama v. Stanford - one game will have a high scoring game and the other will have a low scoring game. 

post #201 of 692

Then you got Ohio State versus those three and none of them get with in 14 points :beer:

post #202 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPMPIRE View Post
 

 

It's a small and somewhat mediocre sample size, but just looking at FSU's games against ranked teams, they scored a whopping 155-28. Everyone knows they have a damn good offense, but their defense has good numbers too if you look at their win schedule throughout the entire season. Only the Boston College game really stands out where their defense might have slacked, but other than that, it's been pretty solid. I think FSU can definitely compete (and win) against Bama despite the soft schedule. 

 

IMO, if you compare the two games - Alabama v. FSU and Alabama v. Stanford - one game will have a high scoring game and the other will have a low scoring game. 

 

You're exactly right, they have dominated the ranked teams they played. They crushed Maryland, Clemson and Miami.

 

This is my opinion, I think if you put teams like Missouri, Stanford and I'll even throw in a resurrected USC team into the ACC, that they could run the table as well. And would win by a large margin as well.I think Clemson was a little over rated just as Miami was. Clemson only glory this year was beating Georgia by 3, other than that, they played a played a pretty soft schedule, and got exposed by a great FSU team.

 

If any team goes into an offensive battle with Bama, their odds of winning is slim to none. Thats why I think Stanford has a better shot.

Being a Vols fan, I hate Bama more than you can imagine. We've had so many "so-called" UT fans jump ship to the Bama bandwagon, because times have been tough for the Vols for the last few years. Many Bama fans tend to forget that 10 year stretch between Gene Stallings and Nick Saban and how bad they really were. They lost to UL-Monroe for God's sake!

post #203 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

Then you got Ohio State versus those three and none of them get with in 14 points :beer:

 

Are you delirious? LOL! :-P 

post #204 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyMac View Post
 

 

Are you delirious? LOL! :-P 

 

Of course I am, its November and I am a football fan, its in the job description :-D

 

Like I said before, I have no clue how people can discredit OSU because they are in the Big Ten. They have Urban Meyer who started the SEC dominance in college football. He's recruited top 10 and top 5 teams the past two years. He's building an SEC style team. It doesn't matter if they play in the SEC or not, the coaching staff is there, the talent is there, the head coach is there. All everyone sees is "BIG TEN". 

post #205 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Of course I am, its November and I am a football fan, its in the job description :-D

 

Like I said before, I have no clue how people can discredit OSU because they are in the Big Ten. They have Urban Meyer who started the SEC dominance in college football. He's recruited top 10 and top 5 teams the past two years. He's building an SEC style team. It doesn't matter if they play in the SEC or not, the coaching staff is there, the talent is there, the head coach is there. All everyone sees is "BIG TEN".

Welcome to the club.  I am, by no means, about to suggest that the Mountain West is on par with the Big Ten, but I am simply going to sympathize with you on the idea that people so easily discredit an undefeated team based on competition.

 

Yesterday on the BCS Countdown show, Jesse Palmer (***k that guy!) flippantly stated that Fresno State would get "housed" by UCLA and a couple of other teams (that are ranked lower than them - his point being, I guess, that they didn't deserve to be in the BCS hunt).  I'm fully aware that they play a weak schedule, and I agree that they PROBABLY would lose to UCLA and the other teams he mentioned.  But a weak schedule on its own, when you are undefeated, doesn't really show anything.  You can't interpolate between one point and infinity.

 

Back to OSU.  They have to judge them somehow (since there isn't a playoff yet), so the strength of schedule plays into it all, but to say that they know OSU isn't as good as those other teams is silly.  I feel like they make the assumption based on their history (of losing championship games) which, of course, is dumb since it's all different players.

post #206 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Of course I am, its November and I am a football fan, its in the job description :-D

 

Like I said before, I have no clue how people can discredit OSU because they are in the Big Ten. They have Urban Meyer who started the SEC dominance in college football. He's recruited top 10 and top 5 teams the past two years. He's building an SEC style team. It doesn't matter if they play in the SEC or not, the coaching staff is there, the talent is there, the head coach is there. All everyone sees is "BIG TEN". 

 

Because their schedule is weak man, that is why.  An SEC schedule is not weak.  The best team Ohio State has played all year is Northwestern when they were #16.  The PAC 12 and Big 12  have more competitive conferences than the Big 10 this year. 

 

I will use my favorite team, who are sucking this year, the Vols. 

 

They played 7 top 25 ranked teams this year.

 

Baylor on the other hand has played one thus far.

 

If they were both undefeated at this point in the year, who do you think would be more deserving of a higher ranking or praise? 

 

Also, at the end of the year, which team is most likely to be beat down and worn out?

 

 

Playing ranked opponents week in and week out takes a toll and that is why strength of schedule is so important to me.  Admittedly this year Alabama got the good end of the SEC schedule and theirs isn't as tough as their past championship runs.  It is why if they get one loss they won't still be in the NC hunt like they may have been in years past.

post #207 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Welcome to the club.  I am, by no means, about to suggest that the Mountain West is on par with the Big Ten, but I am simply going to sympathize with you on the idea that people so easily discredit an undefeated team based on competition.

 

Yesterday on the BCS Countdown show, Jesse Palmer (***k that guy!) flippantly stated that Fresno State would get "housed" by UCLA and a couple of other teams (that are ranked lower than them - his point being, I guess, that they didn't deserve to be in the BCS hunt).  I'm fully aware that they play a weak schedule, and I agree that they PROBABLY would lose to UCLA and the other teams he mentioned.  But a weak schedule on its own, when you are undefeated, doesn't really show anything.  You can't interpolate between one point and infinity.

 

Back to OSU.  They have to judge them somehow (since there isn't a playoff yet), so the strength of schedule plays into it all, but to say that they know OSU isn't as good as those other teams is silly.  I feel like they make the assumption based on their history (of losing championship games) which, of course, is dumb since it's all different players.

 

I don't understand this train of thought at all.

 

Lets say we are playing a softball league.  There is competition league  and there is recreational league.  In this example the competition league is very competitive and has a lot of great talent.  Also, recreation league is full of beer bellied fat arses who play for more for drinking and being friends.

 

If Team A wins the competition league and Team B wins recreational league, are they on the same page?  No.  Even though they may have the exact same skill level the opponents Team B faced weren't as tough and the competition wasn't as fierce.

 

Why should Team B get to play in a weaker division with less talent and get to play for the league championship?  What is the incentive for Team A to play harder competition?

 

If there is none then teams would be better off going independent, playing weak schedules, and going undefeated all the time.

post #208 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

 

Because their schedule is weak man, that is why.  An SEC schedule is not weak.  The best team Ohio State has played all year is Northwestern when they were #16.  The PAC 12 and Big 12  have more competitive conferences than the Big 10 this year. 

 

I will use my favorite team, who are sucking this year, the Vols. 

 

They played 7 top 25 ranked teams this year.

 

Baylor on the other hand has played one thus far.

 

If they were both undefeated at this point in the year, who do you think would be more deserving of a higher ranking or praise? 

 

Also, at the end of the year, which team is most likely to be beat down and worn out?

 

 

Playing ranked opponents week in and week out takes a toll and that is why strength of schedule is so important to me.  Admittedly this year Alabama got the good end of the SEC schedule and theirs isn't as tough as their past championship runs.  It is why if they get one loss they won't still be in the NC hunt like they may have been in years past.

 

Schedule doesn't matter. You are what playing 3-4 ranked teams a year. That means for 48 minutes you are playing that talent. But if you recruit that talent or better, you are practicing against that talent every week for a longer duration. That is were fans don't get it. OSU has recruited one of the best d-lines in the nation. Noah Spence has better numbers than Clowney at SC. That means OSU's offense is going up against one of the nations best defensive lines week after week. That is were teams get better, not on saturday, but on Sunday thru Friday. That is were Urban Meyer builds championship caliber teams. 

post #209 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

 

Because their schedule is weak man, that is why.  An SEC schedule is not weak.  The best team Ohio State has played all year is Northwestern when they were #16.  The PAC 12 and Big 12  have more competitive conferences than the Big 10 this year.

 

I will use my favorite team, who are sucking this year, the Vols.

 

They played 7 top 25 ranked teams this year.

 

Baylor on the other hand has played one thus far.

 

If they were both undefeated at this point in the year, who do you think would be more deserving of a higher ranking or praise?

 

Also, at the end of the year, which team is most likely to be beat down and worn out?

 

 

Playing ranked opponents week in and week out takes a toll and that is why strength of schedule is so important to me.  Admittedly this year Alabama got the good end of the SEC schedule and theirs isn't as tough as their past championship runs.  It is why if they get one loss they won't still be in the NC hunt like they may have been in years past.

Yes, but when you're talking about an undefeated team, what exactly does a weaker schedule tell you about them?  It only tells you about their schedule, but it doesn't mean that they would necessarily lose any games if they played a tougher schedule.

 

Throw a loss in there and then you can start comparing them against other teams.  Oh, well they lost to this team, and this team lost to that team, and that team demolished that team, so therefore ... etc, etc."  But when they beat everybody thrown at them, all that means is ... they beat everybody thrown at them and they have the misfortune of getting only lesser teams thrown at them.

 

(I'm really only speaking in terms of OSU - and Baylor to an extent here - but not my Bulldogs.  You can look at their weak schedule, and then look at how they have barely squeaked by a few of those teams, and make some judgments.  (I'd rather people didn't declare they suck as fact, but I'm not blind ... they aren't on par with the other undefeateds)

 

Baylor, FSU and OSU are have one game where they had a fairly close win (10 points, 14 points, and 10 points), but otherwise they've all basically cruised in every other game.  Who's to say that they wouldn't still be undefeated, albeit with closer games, if they all played tougher schedules?

post #210 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Yes, but when you're talking about an undefeated team, what exactly does a weaker schedule tell you about them?  It only tells you about their schedule, but it doesn't mean that they would necessarily lose any games if they played a tougher schedule.

 

Throw a loss in there and then you can start comparing them against other teams.  Oh, well they lost to this team, and this team lost to that team, and that team demolished that team, so therefore ... etc, etc."  But when they beat everybody thrown at them, all that means is ... they beat everybody thrown at them and they have the misfortune of getting only lesser teams thrown at them.

 

(I'm really only speaking in terms of OSU - and Baylor to an extent here - but not my Bulldogs.  You can look at their weak schedule, and then look at how they have barely squeaked by a few of those teams, and make some judgments.  (I'd rather people didn't declare they suck as fact, but I'm not blind ... they aren't on par with the other undefeateds)

 

Baylor, FSU and OSU are have one game where they had a fairly close win (10 points, 14 points, and 10 points), but otherwise they've all basically cruised in every other game.  Who's to say that they wouldn't still be undefeated, albeit with closer games, if they all played tougher schedules?

 

I am just confused because OSU/FSU and Baylor aren't being discriminated against.  FSU is #2, OSU #3, and Baylor #5.  So it isn't like they are undefeated and being ranked #23.

post #211 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

 

I don't understand this train of thought at all.

 

Lets say we are playing a softball league.  There is competition league  and there is recreational league.  In this example the competition league is very competitive and has a lot of great talent.  Also, recreation league is full of beer bellied fat arses who play for more for drinking and being friends.

 

If Team A wins the competition league and Team B wins recreational league, are they on the same page?  No.  Even though they may have the exact same skill level the opponents Team B faced weren't as tough and the competition wasn't as fierce.

 

Why should Team B get to play in a weaker division with less talent and get to play for the league championship?  What is the incentive for Team A to play harder competition?

 

If there is none then teams would be better off going independent, playing weak schedules, and going undefeated all the time.

The line of thinking is this:  Take your exact scenario but swap Team A and Team B, and they still both win all of their games.  Is team B all of a sudden better than Team A?  Was Team A even better than Team B to begin with?  You have no idea in either case.  You only know that they each beat every team they played ... and until they play each other, or lose to somebody, you can't know any more than that ... especially in these cases (Baylor, OSU, FSU) where they have creamed every team thrown at them.

 

And I don't know what you are suggesting with the last two paragraphs, but let me make myself clear.  I am not saying that I think they rankings are incorrect right now.  I think they are pretty accurate based on what we've seen, and because you have to make these judgments in our non-playoff world.  You are, unfortunately, basically required to make these judgments to separate teams that can't play each other.  But beyond that, just from a "Do you think that these guys could beat those guys?" standpoint, I'm saying you can't make that judgment based on schedule strength.

 

And on that note, did you know:  To date, non-AQ teams are 4-2 against AQ teams in BCS bowls - and 1-1 against each other - for a total record in BCS bowls of 5-3.

 

--------------------------

 

I'm not suggesting anybody is being "discriminated against."  I'm just trying to agree with @saevel25 when he says "I don't know how you can discredit OSU ..." and you responded with "Because their schedule is weak, man."

 

That's all I am arguing towards.  But if you let me decide the BCS rankings by myself, I'd push Baylor up above Stanford for now, and otherwise leave it all alone.  I think everything else is right

post #212 of 692

No, I am not saying that the winner of Team A is always better than the winner of Team B.  It is possible that the winner of Team B is better.  But in the imperfect world of the BCS/Ranking system, what else could you go by?

 

If you are setting down and looking at Team A and B on paper I think it would be impossible to rank Team B higher.  And I think that is why Strength of schedule plays such an important role in the ranking system.  It also plays an important role in Basketball as well. 

 

For all I know the National Champion of DII football could possibly be better than the winner of D1, but until they play each other, who would you rank higher?

 

It is a flawed system, but until we can have 120 team playoffs, I am not sure what else could be done.

 

 

Note: I personally am not discrediting OSU.  However, if you have to vote between Alabama and OSU, both undefeated teams, who haven't played each other, what else can you go by?

post #213 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyMac View Post
 

 

I thought UT would win 7 also. With the way our defense has played the last few games, we'll be lucky to beat Vandy! I believe in Butch Jones, I think he has UT headed in the right direction! We have a total of 30 "verbal" commits with a few more in the works.

Really lucky!  Yeah, Jones is going to be great thing for UT.  He said he will build UT back up no matter what it takes.  Recruiting was a big issue and he seems to have that issue well on its way.  I really just hate that we wasted most of the year at QB when we could have been giving Dobbs so much more experience.  I understand the "why" but sometimes you just have to put them in.  Most really good players will be gone before they're ineligible anyway.  I feel much better about next year now though.

post #214 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

No, I am not saying that the winner of Team A is always better than the winner of Team B.  It is possible that the winner of Team B is better.  But in the imperfect world of the BCS/Ranking system, what else could you go by?

 

If you are setting down and looking at Team A and B on paper I think it would be impossible to rank Team B higher.  And I think that is why Strength of schedule plays such an important role in the ranking system.  It also plays an important role in Basketball as well. 

 

For all I know the National Champion of DII football could possibly be better than the winner of D1, but until they play each other, who would you rank higher?

 

It is a flawed system, but until we can have 120 team playoffs, I am not sure what else could be done.

 

 

Note: I personally am not discrediting OSU.  However, if you have to vote between Alabama and OSU, both undefeated teams, who haven't played each other, what else can you go by?

OK, this is one of those situations where I sort of backed myself into a corner where I'm arguing against somebody I don't even disagree with.  I agree with every single thing you just said.  :)

 

I just have a bit of a chip on my shoulder towards the human polls sometimes. ;)  It usually only flares up when in those years when we've had an undefeated Boise State or TCU kept behind a handful of one (and sometimes even 2) loss AQ teams, just because of the misfortune of being in a weak league.

post #215 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post
 

No, I am not saying that the winner of Team A is always better than the winner of Team B.  It is possible that the winner of Team B is better.  But in the imperfect world of the BCS/Ranking system, what else could you go by?

 

If you are setting down and looking at Team A and B on paper I think it would be impossible to rank Team B higher.  And I think that is why Strength of schedule plays such an important role in the ranking system.  It also plays an important role in Basketball as well. 

 

For all I know the National Champion of DII football could possibly be better than the winner of D1, but until they play each other, who would you rank higher?

 

It is a flawed system, but until we can have 120 team playoffs, I am not sure what else could be done.

 

 

Note: I personally am not discrediting OSU.  However, if you have to vote between Alabama and OSU, both undefeated teams, who haven't played each other, what else can you go by?

 

I am not taking anything away from any team here but I have to agree with SloverUT.  I personally think that when you are comparing teams in the different conferences to rank them in the Top 25, for instance, the schedule plays a very important role here.  I won't go any more in depth than that because most of it has been said and I don't want to beat a dead horse.  But as far as rankings go, schedule has to come into play....otherwise, how would you do it with the current system?

post #216 of 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by TN94z View Post
 

 

I am not taking anything away from any team here but I have to agree with SloverUT.  I personally think that when you are comparing teams in the different conferences to rank them in the Top 25, for instance, the schedule plays a very important role here.  I won't go any more in depth than that because most of it has been said and I don't want to beat a dead horse.  But as far as rankings go, schedule has to come into play....otherwise, how would you do it with the current system?

 

But you have to see that's circular logic, right?  You're ranking teams based on strength of schedule, but the strength of schedule is based on the ranking of the teams they play.

 

I'm not saying I have a better way, but I don't think rankings are a perfect representation of the relative abilities of different teams in different conferences.  If we're going to use rankings, let's at least see them for what they are.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NCAA College Football