|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 74
2nd String
|
2nd String
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 74 |
Don't worry guys, Pitt will knock out Cincy the beginning of December.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,976
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,976 |
I feel ok with a loss, as long as it isn't the SEC Championship.
If we are undefeated going in to that and lose,(and Bama is pretty damn good) I still think there is a shot we still get the game over a Boise or Cincy, though it would be a fairly long shot.
It would have to be a epic game down to the wire.
To be honest, we are playing hurt and frankly not playing all that well on the offensive side of the ball for a number of reasons.
Maybe we hold it together, but I am liking last years team more than this years team....at least as I type this.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Peen....
I think it's VERY obvious that the Top 2 teams in the country are Florida and Alabama.
But, two teams from the same conference will never play for a National Title, nor should they.
Just like Michigan a few years ago... You don't deserve to play for a National Title if you can't win your own conference.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I have no problem with it being Florida and Alabama, as long as all of the others have a loss, and in that case, it can/might happen. Though the NCAA does have a basketball playoff/tournament for it's "setup," nobody complains that 2 teams from the same conference there play for the title. Football, albeit different in setup, does have a de facto tournament called the regular season, and if you meet the qualifier -- in this case finishing #2 in the BCS -- you should be in the tltle game. Whether the loser of the SEC Title Game gets back to #2 is the question,....so, we have to wait first to see if Florida and Alabama survive the 'regular' gauntlet. If so, and the cards fall the right way, I have no more a problem with a "rematch," than I do with it being Boise and Cincinnati (or TCU), nor had I if Michigan had finished #2 -- the polls and the computers did not allow that, and that's why the Wolverines didn't make The Big Show. Too much football to be played,...just ask VaTech and Ohio State.  They are done. Anyway,...I see at least 8 or more teams still "in" this thing,...to include undefeated Texas, Iowa, and TCU,...and the one loss USC, Georgia Tech, Miami, LSU and Penn State teams. Undoubtedly LSU and Penn State need help with conference tiebreakers (PSU has lost to Iowa and LSU to Florida -- I will investigate those if the need arises), and Oregon and Oklahoma State still need a lot of help but have a longshot in their conferences (i.e. Oregon can take the PAC-10 by beating USC,...). Would make for an awesome playoff,...I digress. In calling the shot TODAY -- ?? It looks like the undefeated SEC Champion and Texas, all things remaining the same. Back to the TV on Saturday !!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Oh wow like I'm really going to cry over what you guys say. Pryor sucks and I don't have to prove anything to you guys so block me and don't read my posts.
No one asked you to cry over what we said nor did we ask you to prove anything. You have the right to make your statements,and we have the right to comment on how asinine it was to wish for one of the players from a team you claim to be a fan of to get a concussion.
I wont block you, reading dumb statements like that can be amusing at times.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Don't worry guys, Pitt will knock out Cincy the beginning of December.
The Boise State crowd loves YOU !! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,976
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,976 |
Quote:
Peen....
I think it's VERY obvious that the Top 2 teams in the country are Florida and Alabama.
But, two teams from the same conference will never play for a National Title, nor should they.
Just like Michigan a few years ago... You don't deserve to play for a National Title if you can't win your own conference.
I understand the thinking, but don't agree, and didn't then.
ND doesn't even have a conference to win yet they have a shot.
I do agree it probably wouldn't happen
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
Peen....
I think it's VERY obvious that the Top 2 teams in the country are Florida and Alabama.
But, two teams from the same conference will never play for a National Title, nor should they.
Just like Michigan a few years ago... You don't deserve to play for a National Title if you can't win your own conference.
I understand the thinking, but don't agree, and didn't then.
ND doesn't even have a conference to win yet they have a shot.
I do agree it probably wouldn't happen
Yup, the "have to win your conference" argument doesn't carry any weight with me. ND is a good example and so is a situation where a BCS team doesn't win their conf due to a conf loss while that conf winner had 2-3 non-conf losses.
The BCS championship game is supposed to have the two best teams playing for the title. Not, the two best teams in different conferences or two best teams with 1 or 2 losses skipping an undefeated team in a non-BCS conference. Put the two best teams in the final game (easier said than done, I know).
To anyone asking or dreaming for a 6, 8, or 16-team playoff......don't hold your breath. It won't happen, ever. Ok, "ever" is a long time but essentially that's the timeline you need to consider. An "And 1" or 4-team playoff format is possible and might happen....but that's a big "might".
Look, the NCAA and college presidents like having a "broken" system. It's currently paying them off nicely and they think it generates a lot of discussion/debate (which means more attention). So, even having Cincy vs. BSU or, like they did last year, skipping 1-2 undefeated teams wouldn't force them to change it. They like the current system.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
They like the current system.And is what counts,... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465 |
After watching Notre Dame vs USC, Notre Dames WR Tate is better than any WR currently on the Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,976
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,976 |
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
After watching Notre Dame vs USC, Notre Dames WR Tate is better than any WR currently on the Browns.
That isn't saying much. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
is pryor that bad, or is it just the system he's in?
conservative coach, halfway decent receivers.
i know the kid doesn't have the best qb skills in the league, but neither did vince young, but mack brown runs a really solid spread formation system.
pryor actually played well during the come back, made the throws he needed to make, and when they got close, purdue sent the house at him, and pryor had no chance.
he was awful during the first portion of the game, but when ohio state made their comeback, i don't really put that on him.
do you guys think he asks for a transfer to a school that maybe runs an offense more fit for him?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Lou Holtz thinks the reason why the offense is being run the way it is......is because of the promises made to TP while recruiting him. For example, he wanted to scramble 60% and pass deep the other 40%...and run a certain type of offense. If Tres goes back on that promise, he loses credibility to all future recruits.
Lou mentioned that OSU and Tres, even in YSU, have both traditionally used the power running game to setup the pass. And with TP under center, it's not even close.
I don't know if I agree with Lou 100%.....but he's a lot smarter about college football than me. So I might defer to him.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
If Tres goes back on that promise, he loses credibility to all future recruits.
If he doesn't and OSU struggles, isn't he, by default, going back on his promise to 50+ other recruits that he brought in based on promises of winning Big 10 championships and competing on a national level?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
is pryor that bad, or is it just the system he's in?
conservative coach, halfway decent receivers.
i know the kid doesn't have the best qb skills in the league, but neither did vince young, but mack brown runs a really solid spread formation system.
pryor actually played well during the come back, made the throws he needed to make, and when they got close, purdue sent the house at him, and pryor had no chance.
he was awful during the first portion of the game, but when ohio state made their comeback, i don't really put that on him.
Do you guys think he asks for a transfer to a school that maybe runs an offense more fit for him?
I had that thought before the Purdue game,...but he loses whatever NFL chance (not really big here anyway,...) he has by stepping down to a 1-AA school (that's if he pulls this 'trigger') wanting to play right away in a more fitting system.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
just watching him play for a year and a half, the kid is talented, there is no question abou that.
qb skills? i know he doesn't have claussen's skills, or bradford, mccoy, etc... but i think he throws the ball well enough to be a legitimate title contending qb.
in my opinion, i don't think we're running him enough, and teams are treating him like a drop-back, pocket qb. and since you can't run the ball, and since you don't use pryor to run as much as you should, why wouldn't any defense do that?
tressel is so stubborn though. and that's fine, but you probably shouldnt recruit qb's like terrelle pryor if you aren't gonna make a few adjustments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
Quote:
Quote:
is pryor that bad, or is it just the system he's in?
conservative coach, halfway decent receivers.
i know the kid doesn't have the best qb skills in the league, but neither did vince young, but mack brown runs a really solid spread formation system.
pryor actually played well during the come back, made the throws he needed to make, and when they got close, purdue sent the house at him, and pryor had no chance.
he was awful during the first portion of the game, but when ohio state made their comeback, i don't really put that on him.
Do you guys think he asks for a transfer to a school that maybe runs an offense more fit for him?
I had that thought before the Purdue game,...but he loses whatever NFL chance (not really big here anyway,...) he has by stepping down to a 1-AA school (that's if he pulls this 'trigger') wanting to play right away in a more fitting system.
i really think his calling in the nfl is going to be receiver. he could easily end up being a great college qb if he puts the work in and gets better, but i dont think he will ever ben an nfl qb.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
Quote:
I think it's VERY obvious that the Top 2 teams in the country are Florida and Alabama.
How do you come to that conclusion considering that Florida was all but beaten by an unranked team?
Plus, why do you claim "very obvious" when neither Florida or Alabama has played Texas or USC?
Plus, how do you come to your conclusions considering Alabama was overhyped and way overanked last year? - Consider they were beaten by two scores by a Mountain West team (Utah) in bowl play. Also consider that Utah beat Alabama by a wider margin than Florida did.
Last year, Florida should have been playing Texas for the title, but lucked out and played Oklahoma. - Mind you, Texas beat Oklahoma by a wider margin than Florida did.
I'll give you this much: Florida and Alabama are two of the top 5 teams at this point in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
So, Florida and Alabama aren't the Top two teams because Florida ALMOST lost to an unranked team, and because Alabama was overrated LAST YEAR? You're really reaching there. You bring up USC and Texas. How about Texas being ALMOST beat by Oklahoma without their "star" QB? How about USC LOSING to unranked Washington? And, this team beat this team by this many, while this team beat that team by that many? Come on man, that's such a weak argument, and you know it. Alabama lost to Utah last year, yeah. But what's last year have to do with ANYTHING right now? As for "Florida should have been playing Texas". I don't understand that argument from people at all. They're argument is "Texas beat Oklahoma". Okay, well. Texas Tech beat Texas and only had one loss, too. Why not Texas Tech, going by that logic? PS- Texas didn't even win the conference. Sorry, but if you can't be the best in your conference, you have absolutely ZERO argument to be in the National Title game. That's like in the NFL, going "Well, sorry Pittsburgh, we know you won the division, but we think Baltimore is better, so we're putting them in the playoffs ahead of you." 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Maryland beat Clemson.. Clemson beat Wake Forest.. Wake Forest beat Stanford.. Stanford beat Washington.. Washington beat USC... I think it's obvious that Maryland deserves to be in the national championship discussion. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Kentucky beat Louisville Louisville beat Southern Miss Southern Miss beat Maryland Maryland beat Clemson Clemson beat Wake Forest Wake Forest beat Stanford Stanford beat Washington Washington beat USC Clearly it should be Kentucky vs. Maryland for the national championship. I don't even know what the discussion is about. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Plus, how do you come to your conclusions considering Alabama was overhyped and way overanked last year? - Consider they were beaten by two scores by a Mountain West team (Utah) in bowl play. Also consider that Utah beat Alabama by a wider margin than Florida did.
Far be it from me to be an SEC apologist.. but Alabama blew a 4th quarter lead to Florida in the SEC championship game or they would have been in the National Championship game.. I'm sure playing Utah in some other bowl for them was about as interesting as playing in the consolation game at a softball tournament... and I take nothing away from Utah....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
PS- Texas didn't even win the conference. Sorry, but if you can't be the best in your conference, you have absolutely ZERO argument to be in the National Title game.
That's like in the NFL, going "Well, sorry Pittsburgh, we know you won the division, but we think Baltimore is better, so we're putting them in the playoffs ahead of you."
Again, ND isn't even in a conference. Ok, they're aren't in the top 10 so it's a moot point but should they return to their dominance, according to your rule, they can never paly for a National Championship.
And again, winning your conference doesn't prove you're the best team from that conference. This could very well happen in the Big 10 (and it's not exact to this year - go with me):
Big 10 Standings:
(#25) Penn St. 9-3 (8-0)
(#2) Iowa 11-1 (7-1)
(#15) OSU 10-2 (6-2)
Top 3 in polls:
Texas 11-1 (8-0) [lost to #10 ranked Texas A&M]
Iowa 11-1 (7-1) [lost to OSU]
USC 11-1 (7-1) [lost to non-ranked Pac-10]
Stregth of schedule and conference are considered equal
Penn St would be the Big 10 Champ for going undefeated in conference (they lost three non-conf games).
Iowa lost their first conference game to OSU, which is ranked #15. Iowa also ended up beating a bunch of other top-15 ranked non-conf opponents.
Now, if there are no other undefeated teams in the country......does Iowa get passed by USC in the BCS standings due to not winning their conference even though USC lost to an unranked team?
I would say Iowa vs. Texas in the BCS championship.
Most of the other conferences are tougher to get these situation due to having conference championship games. But the same scenario could still happen (and did happen last year).
It still comes down to your strength of schedule and overall record. And if you have a loss, who was it to.
In your example, you're using NFL teams....which doesn't work since they have a logical model for determining who gets a shot at the title. The BCS system isn't logical (preseason tanking taint the water, some conferences have title games, some conferences are considered stronger, and going undefeated doesn't me jack rabbit).
I get your point regarding winning your conference, but I just gave you an example where Iowa would be clearly the better team and they didn't win their own conference. They're still the better team overall and matched up against USC in my mock example, Iowa looks better.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Absolutely USC would jump Iowa.
I don't care when you lost, or who you lost to. But, you need to take care of business in conference. Obviously Notre Dame is a unique situation.
But, if I had my say it in, yes I'd say Notre Dame belongs no where near a National Title game until they join a conference.
Take care of your business in conference, period.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Plus, how do you come to your conclusions considering Alabama was overhyped and way overanked last year? - Consider they were beaten by two scores by a Mountain West team (Utah) in bowl play. Also consider that Utah beat Alabama by a wider margin than Florida did.
Far be it from me to be an SEC apologist.. but Alabama blew a 4th quarter lead to Florida in the SEC championship game or they would have been in the National Championship game.. I'm sure playing Utah in some other bowl for them was about as interesting as playing in the consolation game at a softball tournament... and I take nothing away from Utah....
DC did you watch the 1st quarter of that game? Utah flat out dominated Alabama in the trenches the entire game. There was no excuse for Alabam because Utah was simply the better team IMO and it showed on the field.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065 |
Quote:
is pryor that bad, or is it just the system he's in?
I think it's just the system in all honesty. The kid has talent but not the kind that can be used in a multitude of ways (i.e. like a Tim Tebow). For him to be effective, he can't throw 30 times in a game....he needs to be a run first QB.
I really hate getting in to arguments over how smart a college kid is but I've heard plenty of grumblings around the program that Pryor still hasn't learned anywhere close to the entire playbook (in 2 years). In a pro-style system like OSU wants to run, that's going to really cripple your play calling, especially when your QB isn't a pass first player. There just aren't a lot of QB run plays in such an offense and OSU doesn't have an athletic enough OL to consistently run them either (they recruit big, pro-style lineman).
Also....while he has a strong arm, he's neither accurate nor a good decision maker. For a guy like him to be successful he needs a run pass option 75-80% of the time in my opinion....4 out of every 5 times you throw, you roll the pocket. Why? Because he's much more dangerous as a runner then he is as a passer. As defenses start to cheat up to account for the run, it makes it that much easier for him to throw the ball because he'll face a lot more man coverage.
Without another good runner, a QB like Pryor is really handcuffed. He can't do it all. When a defense doesn't really need to account for the feature back (i.e. not being a game breaker), it puts way too much pressure on Pryor to make plays by himself. The leading rusher at RB is only something like 20 yards ahead of Pryor on the season.
I think that's been the most surprising part for me is the lack of play makers that are around Pryor right now (at all skill positions). They're all really highly ranked players but OSU doesn't have another star anywhere on the offense and it really shows up in their "explosive plays". Only 6 players on OSU have a play of 20 or more yards and only ONE has gone for a TD (Sanzenbacher) . 
I know Michigan is a dirty word around here but by comparison, 19 different offensive players have at least one play of 20 or more yards and 9 of those 19 players have a TD that gained at least 20 . That's an amazing disparity when you consider OSU probably has more talent top to bottom.
A lot of OSU fans say "well he did it with Troy Smith" but Pryor is clearly not Troy Smith from what I have personally seen.......... but who will be? Smith was a great player. Pryor is not the thrower or DECISION MAKER Smith was. When you couple that with forcing him to throw way too often, the results are going to be less than spectacular.
That's the main difference I see between Smith and Pryor is that their decision making, in those split-second situations, is night and day. Smith was an INSANELY efficient thrower. He was great at not only fitting the ball in to tight spots but knowing when not to try. I don't remember the exact figures off the top of my head but I think he only had 10-11 INT's his ENTIRE college career?! Smith's overall football IQ and feel for the game was off the charts. Pryor seems to get by purely on athletic ability, even with 1.5 years (and 2 springs) under his belt. Eventually that catches up with you. You can't individually out athlete someone week in and week out.
So one of two things needs to happen in my opinion. Pryor has to make a huge leap as a passer or Tressel needs to make a huge leap as a play caller (i.e. installing more run first plays or calling more plays in which he rolls the pocket). If neither happens, OSU is probably going to lose a lot of games they shouldn't over the next 2.5 years. Not trying to be a flame about it but it just is what it is. It looks like they're trying to fit a square peg in to a round hole.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
So, Florida and Alabama aren't the Top two teams because Florida ALMOST lost to an unranked team, and because Alabama was overrated LAST YEAR? You're really reaching there.
You bring up USC and Texas. How about Texas being ALMOST beat by Oklahoma without their "star" QB?
How about USC LOSING to unranked Washington?
And, this team beat this team by this many, while this team beat that team by that many? Come on man, that's such a weak argument, and you know it.
Alabama lost to Utah last year, yeah. But what's last year have to do with ANYTHING right now?
As for "Florida should have been playing Texas". I don't understand that argument from people at all. They're argument is "Texas beat Oklahoma". Okay, well. Texas Tech beat Texas and only had one loss, too. Why not Texas Tech, going by that logic?
PS- Texas didn't even win the conference. Sorry, but if you can't be the best in your conference, you have absolutely ZERO argument to be in the National Title game.
That's like in the NFL, going "Well, sorry Pittsburgh, we know you won the division, but we think Baltimore is better, so we're putting them in the playoffs ahead of you."
First of all Texas did not win the conference because they were stripped of the opportunity to play in the Big 12 Title Game, due to very poorly constructed conference tiebreaking rules,...i.e. relying on BCS rankings -- what a crock of bull that is. And to this day, I do not know if the Big 12 has adjusted that procedure. I would hope so, because they are headed for another one if the cards are dealt right.
And your point about Alabama is way too well founded -- "what does last year have to do with anything,...." While absolutley moot now, why is what happened to Ohio State 2 and 3 years ago held against every Big Ten team NOW,....not you of course, but the media does it. If Ohio State had beaten USC and not lost last weekend, where do you think they'd be ranked ?
I heard a neighbor say at Saturday's gathering -- "This should drop Florida 3 notches." Bullcrap. That's not how the polls work. When you are on top, generally you stay there. Championship teams win the hard fought, close ones.
Oklahoma proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that it did not belong in the Title Game. Period. Not saying Texas did, but Texas Tech also might have. I'm on your side on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
DC did you watch the 1st quarter of that game? Utah flat out dominated Alabama in the trenches the entire game. There was no excuse for Alabam because Utah was simply the better team IMO and it showed on the field.
Yes I watched it.. Alabama looked like they didn't want to be there... that's my point.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
If Ohio State was undefeated right now. They'd be #4.
#1, #2, and #3 would still be Florida, Alabama, and Texas, but then Ohio State would be right behind them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
DC did you watch the 1st quarter of that game? Utah flat out dominated Alabama in the trenches the entire game. There was no excuse for Alabam because Utah was simply the better team IMO and it showed on the field.
Yes I watched it.. Alabama looked like they didn't want to be there... that's my point.
And my point is that it didn't even really matter because Utah clearly was the better team even if Alabama really wanted to play in the game or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Sorry to dump on your work -- I'm NOT -- some good stuff -- but in today's polling environment, how does Iowa stay at the supposed #2 after losing to #25 Penn State. Methinks your example incorrectly picked a conference that doesn't have a Title Game, especially a conference that has no national credibility.
Just for the sake of reason, say everyone in the country had 2 losses last year except the Big 3 in the Big 12. Use the Big 12 and last year's result, BUT, assume that for the sake of discussion, Texas had won the tiebreaker, then lost in the Big 12 Title Game. Then,....Texas Tech COULD, with one loss, have every whining reason to claim a share of the BCS Game.
In today's world, if a Big Ten team loses a game, you drop 7 spots,...automatically.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
So, you back up your claim that Florida and Alabama are "obviously" the two best teams by presenting this knocking down Texas with this hypothetical argument: Quote:
You bring up USC and Texas. How about Texas being ALMOST beat by Oklahoma without their "star" QB?
Then you knock down USC with this hypothetical argument:
Quote:
How about USC LOSING to unranked Washington?
Then you discuss how weak hypothetical arguments are by writing this:
Quote:
Tech beat Texas and only had one loss, too. Why not Texas Tech, going by that logic?
??????????
Then you write this regarding Oklahoma and Texas last year:
Quote:
That's like in the NFL, going "Well, sorry Pittsburgh, we know you won the division, but we think Baltimore is better, so we're putting them in the playoffs ahead of you."
- That's essentially exactly what happened to Texas last year. Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral site, and finished with the same conference record as Oklahoma, but, for some reason, the voters said (Note the words I'm using and compare them to your pitts-balt example) "Well, sorry Texas we know you won the game, but we think Oklahoma is better, so we're putting them in the conference championship game."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
If Ohio State was undefeated right now. They'd be #4.
#1, #2, and #3 would still be Florida, Alabama, and Texas, but then Ohio State would be right behind them.
Somehow, I just doubt that very much. More like 5/6.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Your question was "How are they obviously the two best teams when they haven't played USC or Texas."
Because they've looked better, against better teams.
Your argument was that Florida ALMOST lost to unranked Arkansas. USC DID LOSE to unranked Washington. Texas ALMOST lost to 3-3 Oklahoma without their "star QB". So, I don't get that argument either.
As far as last year having any bearing on where Alabama should be ranked... Give me a break, that's just blind hatred for the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
It's no secret that I'm an OSU-Hater, but unlike the SEC haters on this board, I'm realistic when it comes to the polls.
They would obviously be ahead of everyone with a loss. So that leaves Florida, Alabama, Texas, Boise, Cincy, and TCU. You know as well as I do that OSU would be ahead of Boise, Cincy, and TCU if they were undefeated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
That's my point with the polls -- we don't "know" that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
If OSU had any kind of offense they would be a top 5 team IMO I found this on another website 
Last edited by candyman92; 10/19/09 07:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
I think I know where you're going with this. So, again, you wrote that Florida and Alabama are "obviously" the top two teams. I countered that by saying that Florida almost lost to an unranked team. Your counter to that was that Florida didn't lose, they almost lost. As you wrote: Quote:
Florida ALMOST lost to unranked Arkansas.
I also noted that Texas should be considered one of the top two teams, you countered that by noting that Texas almost lost to 19th ranked Oklahoma. As you wrote:
Quote:
Texas ALMOST lost to 3-3 Oklahoma without their "star QB".
So, Florida ALMOST loses to an unranked team and you consider them to be one of the "obvious" top two programs in the country, yet Texas ALMOST loses to a ranked team and you claim that by virtue of them ALMOST losing to a ranked team that they aren't deserving of top two status.
You're all over the place bro.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
You're all over the place bro.
That's what SEC homerism does to ya
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum College Football Week 7
|
|
