2013 NCAA College Football

[MS256]

Yep, I would put it as maybe 1 or 2 higher end team in the SEC. Though Pac-12 looks really legit. Yet I was glad to see the Big Ten be competitive and in the games against some very good teams. If you look at the games, I think they were the underdog in each game, and pulled up a few upsets. I know a lot of people will see only wins and losses, but when your conference has hit rock bottom, just showing up is a big step forward. Things don't just don't go 180 over night.

It's good for football for the conferences to be as equal as possible so in that regard I'm glad most of the conferences are making a decent showing. Methods of success always spread around sooner or later. Hell Bob Stoops even went to Alabama last spring to see what he could learn from their defense (I think he learned too well). Plus FSU hired two of our coaches.

Even though we lost I did see some adjustments by Alabama that I was happy to see (and didn't think I would). Maybe Lane Kiffin gave some good advice? Those adjustments in the running game at least kept it a ball game. Still not to a Gus Malzahn level but a step in the right direction for only a few weeks of practice. Now Saban needs to get enough guts to tell T.J. Yeldon he's not the featured running back anymore. Travis Henry is going to be great if he stays healthy.

P.S. Guts enough to get a new offensive coordinator would be even better but I'm not holding my breath waiting on that to happen.

[saevel25]

Running backs are only as good as their offensive lineman. Only special running backs, and there has only been one I have ever seen that really ran like they didn't need an offensive line, Barry Sanders.

When it comes down to it, in those type of games, it is all about "Dominating your space." As Saban put it so brilliantly when he was interviewed before the Big Ten Championship game asking what MSU had to do to win. Basically you can scheme all you want, the players have to make the play. OU players made more plays.

[MS256]

Running backs are only as good as their offensive lineman. Only special running backs, and there has only been one I have ever seen that really ran like they didn't need an offensive line, Barry Sanders.

When it comes down to it, in those type of games, it is all about "Dominating your space." As Saban put it so brilliantly when he was interviewed before the Big Ten Championship game asking what MSU had to do to win. Basically you can scheme all you want, the players have to make the play. OU players made more plays.

I don't disagree with any of that but a fullback and/or two running backs can make the offensive line's job a lot easier. Most teams understand that but Alabama hasn't.

One back only works at a championship level with either a dominating offensive line (like we had for the last few years) or with a very elite quarterback (which we haven't had since the 60s).

[saevel25]

I don't disagree with any of that but a fullback and/or two running backs can make the offensive line's job a lot easier. Most teams understand that but Alabama hasn't.

One back only works at a championship level with either a dominating offensive line (like we had for the last few years) or with a very elite quarterback (which we haven't had since the 60s).

Well it is more complicated than that.

Look at Ohio State, they are a one back system. They do have a very good Offensive line. What they do is they have their TE in the slot, and they will motion him in to block, usually when they see a zone look because then they get a numerical advantage inside. If it is man, they probably keep him outside in the slot more, and block his guy who is defending him.

What OSU does is basically simple math. They are spreading the field out, and looking for that +1 because the QB can run. Basically with a standard QB, defensive have a numerical advantage because they can commit an additional guy away from the QB. So what Urban does is, count the men in the box. Like above, shifting around can grant an advantage. So lets say its one on one on the outside. They will throw a screen pass because usually you can block the two outside DB's, and go to the edge before the slot defender can react to the other WR. So you get a +1 there.

Also you can get numerical advantages depending on what gap you choose. If you catch a team in a blitz off the edge and run up the middle, then you can get more O lineman on defenders because the guy blitzing can be left alone because he's run himself out of the play. Wisconsin does this well because they will shift lineman down the line to gain blocking advantages on the edge and run zone read run plays, stretching to the sideline.

[MS256]

Well it is more complicated than that.

Look at Ohio State, they are a one back system. They do have a very good Offensive line. What they do is they have their TE in the slot, and they will motion him in to block, usually when they see a zone look because then they get a numerical advantage inside. If it is man, they probably keep him outside in the slot more, and block his guy who is defending him.

What OSU does is basically simple math. They are spreading the field out, and looking for that +1 because the QB can run. Basically with a standard QB, defensive have a numerical advantage because they can commit an additional guy away from the QB. So what Urban does is, count the men in the box. Like above, shifting around can grant an advantage. So lets say its one on one on the outside. They will throw a screen pass because usually you can block the two outside DB's, and go to the edge before the slot defender can react to the other WR. So you get a +1 there.

Also you can get numerical advantages depending on what gap you choose. If you catch a team in a blitz off the edge and run up the middle, then you can get more O lineman on defenders because the guy blitzing can be left alone because he's run himself out of the play. Wisconsin does this well because they will shift lineman down the line to gain blocking advantages on the edge and run zone read run plays, stretching to the sideline.

Yes, it's really just that simple. I'm not comparing a spread offense with a running threat QB with Alabama's offense (even though I wish we had that much imagination and a QB that could run it).

I'm talking about how to make Alabama's offense harder to stop on short yardage plays. It's no accident that Alabama was actually much better on short yardage last night when they put a fullback in the game (except when they fumbled the football). If they had done that against Auburn they probably would have won the game.

They lost last night because they turned the ball over 4 times and couldn't cover OU's receivers. That's easier to live with than running a single back set with no lead blocker into a 10 man box on fourth and one. The first means you simply got beat. The second means you are stupid.

Last night we got beat. Against Auburn we were stupid, and at least learned from it.

[saevel25]

Yes, it's really just that simple. I'm not comparing a spread offense with a running threat QB with Alabama's offense (even though I wish we had that much imagination and a QB that could run it).

I'm talking about how to make Alabama's offense harder to stop on short yardage plays. It's no accident that Alabama was actually much better on short yardage last night when they put a fullback in the game (except when they fumbled the football). If they had done that against Auburn they probably would have won the game.

They lost last night because they turned the ball over 4 times and couldn't cover OU's receivers. That's easier to live with than running a single back set with no lead blocker into a 10 man box on fourth and one. The first means you simply got beat. The second means you are stupid.

Last night we got beat. Against Auburn we were stupid, and at least learned from it.

Well I think you guys got beat by Auburn as well. When you go 4 quarters and you still can't stop Auburn from running the ball, you will have issues. I think Auburn wins that game in overtime as well. I still believe its easier to beat someone when you run the ball than you can throwing it. Just a more dominant form of football.

[Roblar]

I am not basing the selection on the fact they lost their bowl game. That is not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that a 3 loss sooner team gets to go ahead of a 2 loss team from the same division, and a 2 loss PAC-12 team who has been better than them all year. We can easily sit here and say, "Well it turned out good, we got one heck of a game". That is like going for 4th and 3 and making it. We all praise the selection, yet the result has no baring on the actual selection process to begin with. We like to use hindsight to justify it, but the selection of the Sooners ahead of some other teams was not justified. The only reason they got to go was because of the all mighty $$$$$$$.

OK... just a little nit to pick, but OU only had two losses.

As for the selection of the Sooners over Oregon, I think you're right -- the Sugar Bowl probably felt that more Sooner fans would travel than Oregon fans.

That said, OU was still a top 10 team, and the claim that Oregon is a better team than OU?  Well, maybe. (...Of course, that's what everyone said about Alabama before the Sugar Bowl too. )

[saevel25]

Here's the thing about football. The better team doesn't always wins. Which means that the non-better team by defeated the better team, doesn't make them the better team. Basically OU probably isn't the better team than Alabama, they just happen to beat them.

Also, again, just because OU beat Alabama, doesn't justify the fact OU should have been picked ahead of another team in the first place.

[MS256]

Well I think you guys got beat by Auburn as well. When you go 4 quarters and you still can't stop Auburn from running the ball, you will have issues. I think Auburn wins that game in overtime as well. I still believe its easier to beat someone when you run the ball than you can throwing it. Just a more dominant form of football.

I think we lose that game in overtime too. I also think there is no overtime if we pick up a fourth and one, or kick a field goal but that's another story.

It's not like I'm basing something off of one game. I've watched every game for years and it's always been a problem. We wouldn't have beaten Auburn when Ingram was playing if we hadn't gone to the wildcat with Richardson and Ingram in the backfield. Richardson was just a decoy for the most part but it was enough to give the linebackers a tough read. We don't even do that anymore.

[phan52]

Bill O'Brien to a beat writer a couple of weeks ago: “You can print this: You can print that I don’t really give a shit what the ‘Paterno people’ think about what I do with this program. I’ve done everything I can to show respect to Coach Paterno. Everything in my power. So I could really care less about what the Paterno faction of people, or whatever you call them, think about what I do with the program. I’m tired of it. For any ‘Paterno person’ to have any objection to what I’m doing, it makes me wanna put my fist through this windshield right now.”

“I’m trying to field the most competitive football team I can with near-death penalty f--ing sanctions. Every time I say something like that and somebody prints it, it’s skewed as an excuse. And I’m not an excuse-maker. I’m trying to do the best I can for the kids in that program. That’s all I care about is the kids in that program. As long as I’m the head football coach here.”

The writer held it back because he felt he had incited O'Brien with some pointed questions. He printed it this week when O'Brien took the Houston job.

Being a Penn State fan, I am sorry to see him go and I feel bad for the kids who hung in there with him. Penn State has to get their act together. They have to move on and get over Joe Paterno because he failed them and was no saint. The next coaching choice is really critical. Sciani would be a poor choice as he was on Sandusky's defensive staff. Munchak and Golden both played for Joe Paterno. I say, go outside the culture, someone like James Franklin at Vanderbilt, who grew up in PA and played college football at Stroudsburg.

[teamroper60]

Here's the thing about football. The better team doesn't always wins. Which means that the non-better team by defeated the better team, doesn't make them the better team. Basically OU probably isn't the better team than Alabama, they just happen to beat them.

Also, again, just because OU beat Alabama, doesn't justify the fact OU should have been picked ahead of another team in the first place.

Based on an entire body of work, I would agree that the better team does not always win but then again, as one of the coaches (I think it was Saban) said, bowl games are essentially one game seasons.   So last night, for that one game, OU was the better team and anyone who thinks OU wasn't better than 'Bama last night, did not watch that game.   They sacked McCarron 7 times and intercepted him twice.  Those kind of stats win games.    Make them play 5 times and they probably lose 3 of them but IIRC, it was you who pointed out earlier in this thread that they only play once (unless they meet in a bowl game) and for this once, OU was the better team.

[Golfingdad]

We like to use hindsight to justify it, but the selection of the Sooners ahead of some other teams was not justified. The only reason they got to go was because of the all mighty $$$$$$$.

But I don't believe that there is anything wrong with that.  Under the current BCS system, once you've seeded 1 and 2, and then placed all of the AQ-ers accordingly, then as I understand it, "the almighty $$$$" is precisely how they pick the remaining teams.  I don't believe that they make any qualms about saying that they choose at-large teams for bowl games based on whose fans will travel the best.

Even as a Pac-12 fan, I think if the choice were between watching a sold-out game between Oklahoma and Alabama, (played in New Orleans), with 50% rabid fans for each side versus Alabama and Oregon, which may be 75/25 or, heaven forbid, not even sold out ... I'd rather the former.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by MS256

The question among people with an ounce of common sense (which is not common at all) was never whether a good team from a weak conference could beat a good team from a better conference. It was always whether that good team from a weaker conference would be in that position if they were in the stronger conference.

I think that question has been answered over the course of the past two seasons.    Mizzou and Texas A&M; were basically mid-pack Big 12 schools, yet both schools did pretty well for themselves this past year (and A&M; did pretty well last year as well).

[MS256]

I think that question has been answered over the course of the past two seasons.    Mizzou and Texas A&M; were basically mid-pack Big 12 schools, yet both schools did pretty well for themselves this past year (and A&M; did pretty well last year as well).

That's just it though. They've done pretty well for themselves but haven't won the conference. TAMU had an outstanding team last year and Missouri a pretty good team this year. They've done about like I would have expected them to do. Played really well but couldn't go through the whole conference schedule without losses.

We will never know how they would have done in another conference. Maybe they would have won another conference, and maybe not. We will never know. It's definitely not possible to compare a team or teams from one year to a team or teams from other years. Not a chance that TAMU would have been a mid-pack team in the Big 12 (or any other conference) last year.

Personally I think the top teams from the AQ conferences are always close enough to be called equals and can certainly beat each other on any given day. Occasionally (but not always) a top team from the non AQ conference is also right there with them.

[teamroper60]

That's just it though. They've done pretty well for themselves but haven't won the conference. TAMU had an outstanding team last year and Missouri a pretty good team this year. They've done about like I would have expected them to do. Played really well but couldn't go through the whole conference schedule without losses.

You didn't say they had to win the conference or go undefeated, you said, "It was always whether that good team from a weaker conference would be in that position if they were in the stronger conference."   The two schools came to the SEC as perennial mid-tier Big 12 schools.   The Big 12 is perceived to be weaker than the SEC.  Given that nobody went undefeated in the SEC this year, or last, requiring an undefeated record in order to qualify as successful is just a bit excessive.

But back to the original question, Mizzou's 11-2 record with virtually the same personnel as last year, their appearance in the SEC championship game and TA&M;'s performance the past two seasons says the answer remains, "Yes."

[MS256]

You didn't say they had to win the conference or go undefeated, you said, "It was always whether that good team from a weaker conference would be in that position if they were in the stronger conference."   The two schools came to the SEC as perennial mid-tier Big 12 schools.   The Big 12 is perceived to be weaker than the SEC.  Given that nobody went undefeated in the SEC this year, or last, requiring an undefeated record in order to qualify as successful is just a bit excessive.

But back to the original question, Mizzou's 11-2 record with virtually the same personnel as last year, their appearance in the SEC championship game and TA&M;'s performance the past two seasons says the answer remains, "Yes."

Once again. What we don't know is what those teams would have done in another conference. Maybe they would have been undefeated. People that think the SEC is a tougher road would say they absolutely would have. People that think the Big 12 is just as strong would say they wouldn't have. I would say I'm not sure. Doesn't solve the debate at all.

Another variable that is hard to quantify is how long it takes to adjust to play in a different league (tougher or not). A few games, half a season, a year? Hard to say. It looked like last year TAMU took a few games to get used to playing teams with a different style than they were used to playing. Once they got comfortable they were probably the best team in the conference. Missouri looked lost the whole year but were fine this year. Was that because the SEC was weaker this year with basically no Florida and a weaker Alabama, Georgia and LSU, or because they were better? Impossible to say.

You are trying to declare a debate settled that can never be settled because it's different years, different personnel and different conferences. Nothing is equal in the whole equation.

[saevel25]

Or the fact that Missouri ran through a weak division in the SEC. The east division was clearly weak this year. Florida was in shambles with injuries. Georgia couldn't put complete games together. South Carolina had a shot.

Also Missouri had a ton of scholarship players injured last year, similar to what Florida is going through. So don't say last years Missouri team is this years, it isn't. Devil in the details

[MS256]

Or the fact that Missouri ran through a weak division in the SEC. The east division was clearly weak this year. Florida was in shambles with injuries. Georgia couldn't put complete games together. South Carolina had a shot.

Also Missouri had a ton of scholarship players injured last year, similar to what Florida is going through. So don't say last years Missouri team is this years, it isn't. Devil in the details

Hey, I'm watching your team. Good game to watch so far (since I don't have a dog in the hunt).