| 0 |
Subject: Michigan - Notre Dame - What the Heck
Posted by: GoatLocker
- Sustainer [060151121] Sat, Sep 16, 2006, 18:04
Just walked back inside.
Turned this one on for a sec to check the score.
WOW,
What has happened to ND.
Are they looking like they did in the first game again?
Cliff |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 339 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 09:56
|
Congrats MC on the Gators win. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in the Buckeyes. I can't remember such a letdown displayed by the Buckeyes (except maybe their game against Michigan State in 1997-ish). Florida won all facets of the game, but I will admit that losing Ted Ginn after 3 offensive plays is an attributing factor to our lackluster effort on offense. Florida has speed, and Ginn is our fastest player. We had no big play ability once Ginn left the field because Florida's corners and safeties were too fast for the rest of our WR's. Plus, the Fiesta Bowl last year illustrated how much OSU uses Ted Ginn, and after losing him that early last night, I have to imagine that a bunch of the playbook had to be tossed. Would we have won if Ginn played? Probably not, as our defense didn't look capable to stop Florida's offense. Would it have been a better game if Ginn played? Certainly. I guess, to put it another way, imagine Percy Ervin getting hurt after 3 plays yesterday and what that would of done to Florida's offense? He was everywhere yesterday and tons of Florida's game plan revolved around him. If he got hurt, the Florida offense would not have been as explosive.
MC, I have to imagine your post 323 was tongue in cheek and still had the euphoria of the national championship win, because it was only a week ago that Penn State beat Tennessee and that Wisconsin beat Arkansas. In fact, the only conference the Big 10 has a winning record against this bowl season is the SEC.
As for the ranking projections above, anyone who moved USC above #4 is putting too much weight on the bowl season. Losses to UCLA and Oregon State will never move you above a one loss team whose loss came in the national championship game. No two loss team would have moved above OSU, and the only team that can justifiably be moved to #2 would be Boise State.
Ohio State had a good year and put up a stinker when they needed their best game. They were dominated and the Gators look like national champions last night. Everything came together (including their kicking game) and they are the deserved national champs.
|
| 340 | Perm Dude
ID: 1703699
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 10:36
|
I wonder how much the OSU players bought into the hype that they were all but crowned champs.
I don't think that was it. I think there was an letdown after such an emotional game against their rivals. I think that it had something to do with both Michigan and OSU playing flat.
Like them or not, they both stunk in their bowl games and played well below what they are capable of doing. They both played against excellent opponents who were up for the games, played great games, and controlled the tempo from the start.
|
| 341 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 10:51
|
Legge, props for coming on here and giving Florida their due especially after backing your team.
As for the ranking projections above, anyone who moved USC above #4 is putting too much weight on the bowl season. Losses to UCLA and Oregon State will never move you above a one loss team whose loss came in the national championship game
Bowls games are a chance for the contenders to step up and show us what they are about. Plenty of time to prepare for every team. Had OSU lost this game by single digits or even shown they had a chance to win this game midway through, they don't drop down further than second in my book, especially considering Ginn's injury. BUT, they lost by 27 points. They were utterly dominated. I just don't believe Ginn or anyone else was going to make up the difference last night. To put the 27 point loss into perspective as a USC fan, you would have to add up all of USC's losses for the last 5 years to almost reach that total. I understand that 2 losses are worse than 1 loss in a season, but can you really argue that a team that gets blown out by 27 points deserves to be the 2nd ranked team?
|
| 342 | Perm Dude
ID: 1703699
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 11:16
|
I just don't believe Ginn or anyone else was going to make up the difference last night
But that's not the way college football works. With Ginn in there, it never gets to a 27-point lead. The whole complexion of the game changes. It turns into a shootout.
IMO, Florida gets the same points (they play for the points instead of having them handed to them). And the way Leak was playing in the first half, they simply wouldn't be denied those points. But OSU's problem was that the secondary was too fast to allow the big play, and too quick to allow small plays to get YAC (yards after catch). Put in the fastest guy on either team and that changes.
Again, this is a bit speculative, since OSU's defense finally got up in the second half, but in a shootout does that really happen? But there's no way OSU shoots blanks the whole night with Ginn on the field.
pd
|
| 343 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 11:16
|
The margin of victory doesn't mean much to me. Honestly, it appeared as though Florida could of won 60-14 if they wanted to, and it wouldn't change my opinion. OSU was dominated, but they beat all the opponents they were supposed to during the regular season, something USC could not do. The regular season counts for something and we an't throw it away because OSU had their worst game in the national championship.
|
| 344 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 11:18
|
I agree PD. Like I said, imagine Florida's offense last night without Percy. The entire complexion of the game changes. Losing Ginn caused that for Ohio State.
|
| 345 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 11:33
|
Week 17 AP Top 25
1. Florida (64) 13-1 1,624
2. Ohio State 12-1 1,492
3. LSU 11-2 1,452
4. USC 11-2 1,389
5. Boise State (1) 13-0 1,383
6. Louisville 12-1 1,338
7. Wisconsin 12-1 1,288
8. Michigan 11-2 1,145
9. Auburn 11-2 1,112
10. West Virginia 11-2 1,035
Week 17 USA Today Poll
1. Florida (63) 13-1 1,575
2. Ohio State 12-1 1,435
3. LSU 11-2 1,418
4. USC 11-2 1,345
5. Wisconsin 12-1 1,328
6. Boise State 13-0 1,275
7. Louisville 12-1 1,270
8. Auburn 11-2 1,119
9. Michigan 11-2 1,092
10. West Virginia 11-2 1,012
|
| 346 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 12:20
|
A 13-0 team ranked below two 2-loss teams just shows how moronic the current system is. Heck, why not put Michigan, Auburn, and West Virginia above them?
|
| 347 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 12:26
|
BSU was almost 4th in the AP poll, but in the coaches poll they were almost 7th! Coaches give them less props than the writers.
|
| 348 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 12:26
|
I hope this means that people will finally stop bashing the SEC and relize how over matched OSU was last night. the ginn injury really hurt the OSU offense and had he not got hurt it might of made things interesting but the game was won and lost up front Florida O line which had let just about every Dline run crazy in the back field made the OSU dline look about as potent as UCFs. And if you can not get pressure on leak he will kill you every time As for the highly acclaimed OSU Oline it seemed to forget that you might want to try and block the defensive end, even when blocked they seemed to just run the Oline over. I am not sure that Ginn/Harvin comparison is very accurate, Ginn is a much better deep threat and Harvin getting hurt really just means through it to another guy with single digit on his jersey they are all about interchangeable.
I really think BSU should have been ranked higher and which big name school is going to get their hands on their coach first.
|
| 349 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 12:35
|
One writer gave BSU a first place vote. I thought they were required to vote the BCS champ #1? Oh well.
|
| 350 | Razor
ID: 2611333012
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 12:39
|
Ohio State got whipped last night because they went into the game with a terrible plan. Neutralizing Florida's offense is all about getting pressure on Leak, which is something they didn't even try to do, instead opting to rush three and drop back into a soft zone, which Leak and Florida's speedy receivers had no trouble picking apart.
Offensively, the Buckeyes' gameplan for neutralizing Florida's ends was to let Troy Smith try to avoid the pass rush. That's a great plan against a slow ass Big 10 team, but the ends and LB's in the south are way too fast for that.
Ohio State had this game lost before they even stepped on the field. Congrats to the Gators.
|
| 351 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 12:39
|
i thouhgt only the coaches did, i thought the AP could still do what ever they wanted, isnt that how the lsu/usc split title happened a few years ago?
|
| 352 | TB
ID: 19425813
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 12:42
|
I think that the coaches are required to vote the BCS champ #1 and not the writers.
While I do think it is a shame that Boise State can't get better recognition for their fine season, I am just curious which other top ten teams they think Boise State would beat. I would say the only two I wouldn't bet money on Boise State's opponent to win straight up would be West Virginia and Wisconsin.
|
| 353 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 12:56
|
UW was very underrated this year as well. They are a very good team. That is why we need a playoff! I've enjoyed this colelge football season moreso than any in a long time. A playoff this year would have been something special.
|
| 354 | Perm Dude
ID: 1703699
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 12:58
|
#350: I think you are probably right, but I think the fact that OSU didn't change things up is what doomed them. I know, for example, that the defense is young, but when you have Leak just picking apart your zone, why don't you switch to a man-to-man and start hitting guys off the line to take them off their timing game?
If your gameplan isn't working, you change your gameplan. At that level you need to be flexible enough to do so in order to win. I was pleased to see OSU's defense change things up (finally!) in the second half, but their offense never did.
|
| 355 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 13:18
|
Boikin, I agree with almost all of your post, except the point about Harvin being interchangable with the other WR's. If that was the case, the other WR's would have close to the 13 offensive touches that Harvin had. Harvin is the best "playmaker" Florida has, and even though they have other good WR's, that doesn't make them interchangable. I mean look at all the pregame coverage and news articles leading up to the game - the comparison was Ginn vs. Harvin and who would have the bigger impact on the game. After the opening kickoff, I thought Ginn was going to be the star.
Additionally, boikin, Ginn is a deep threat, but if you watch OSU games, you will see they run similar plays as Florida in order to get him the ball. I.e. the looping motion swing pass, quick throw on the line of scrimmage, and end arounds. Ginn needs 10-15 touches per game (not just bombs) for OSU to be successful, which is similar to Harvin.
|
| 356 | TB
ID: 19425813
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 13:27
|
Was the scoring in the 2nd half a product of OSU making defensive changes or more a reflection of Florida adjusting their plan to control the game clock? Maybe a combination of both. OSU's offense only managed to generate 82 net yards and score one TD the entire game. Perhaps if OSU showed more offense in the 2nd half, Florida would have had to open it up again. Smith completed 4 of 14 pass attempts, 5 sacks, numerous times forced out of the pocket and he didn't look very effective when he had to throw on the run. I really don't know if Ginn would have been able to get 10-15 looks with the pressure Florida's defensive front put on Smith. It certainly sucks that he was hurt and we didn't get to see him play the full game.
|
| 357 | Perm Dude
ID: 1703699
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 13:30
|
I think OSU clearly had better defensive pressure in the second half than the first. More rushed passes and sacks for example. While FSU might have been trying to control the clock, I don't think you do that by allowing the defense to get to your QB!
|
| 358 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 13:35
|
Was the scoring in the 2nd half a product of OSU making defensive changes or more a reflection of Florida adjusting their plan to control the game clock?
Unfortunately, I thought it was more of the latter. If OSU came out and scored two quick TD's, I felt Florida would of just put our defense on our heels again. It's all speculation, but Ginn would of certiainly gotten 10-15 looks if he was in (meaning looks, maybe not touches). I have to imagine Smith would of targeted him up to 10 times and there would of been a couple swing passes and end arounds mixed in there.
The worst part of the game happened when it was 21-14, we stopped Florida, and came out on the field and threw 3 successive incomplete passes. We had just showed we can run on Florida the previous drive, and then we abandon it when we needed a long drive and score. What's the best way to neutralize fast pass rushers coming around the outside? Run at them. What's a good move if your top WR is hurt? Run the ball. That 3 play "drive" really hurt us and as the game wore on, we had to abandon the run completely.
|
| 359 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 13:36
|
leggestand, Harvin like teabow is and were highly over hyped, becuase of a few big plays they have made. harvin has been hurt most of the season and caldwell played his roll just was well if not better when had fully recovered from his ankle injury, catching the 5 yrd crossing route. the reason he got some many touches was that OSU left the short middle open all night. Harvin does seem to run the throw out WR run play slight better than the other WR, but i think they like him there because he has a smaller body and is probably not as effective as down field blocker.
|
| 360 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 13:37
|
The worst part of the game happened when it was 21-14, we stopped Florida, and came out on the field and threw 3 successive incomplete passes. We had just showed we can run on Florida the previous drive, and then we abandon it when we needed a long drive and score. What's the best way to neutralize fast pass rushers coming around the outside? Run at them. What's a good move if your top WR is hurt? Run the ball. That 3 play "drive" really hurt us and as the game wore on, we had to abandon the run completely.
yeah what was that?
|
| 361 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 18:31
|
While FSU might have been trying to control the clock,
Huh? Are you making the mistake I think you're making, Perm Dude? Clearly the credibility of your opinions on NCAA football is questionable after a foot-in-mouth like that.
It's almost like me calling your team 'Ohio'. That would show me to be a pretty clueless fan wouldn't it?
Legge, the Big 10 is not a good conference. It's not. The two teams you mentioned above in 339 are basically numbers 3 and 4 in your conference, and they were the only 2 teams to win Bowl Games this season. The SEC won a bunch of bowl games. And the true measure is how well the best teams in each conference did. Ohio State and Michigan were slaughtered when matched up with the best teams from other conferences.
My comment was based in euphoria, but it was completely accurate.
Big 10: 2-5
SEC: 6-3
There are plenty of aspects to this argument, not just those numbers. Still, those numbers say a lot.
|
| 362 | Perm Dude
ID: 1703699
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 19:48
|
Yikes! Sorry about that.
I, for one, would like more games between Big 10 and SEC teams. I still find it incredible that Florida and OSU met for the first time yesterday.
|
| 363 | Pancho Villa
ID: 1311532913
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 21:00
|
Boise State and USC had a common opponent this year, Oregon State. BSU killed them and USC lost. As for those who ridicule BSU's schedule, keep in mind that Utah, who BSU also completely destroyed this year, is only two years removed from being the first BCS buster, and their coach at the time is now the coach of the national champions, meaning much of Utah's team is Meyer recruits.
Nevada, also a BSU victim, gave Miami all they wanted, while Hawaii beat Pac 10's Arizona St. So the WAC just missed going 3-0 against BCS league teams by 2 points.
Still, Boise gets little respect and many qualifiers like they don't schedule strongly enough, couldn't beat this team or that, etc. But we here in this area are used to being disrepected, ever since the BCS told an 11-0 BYU in 2001 that they weren't getting a BCS bowl game even though they were undefeated.
|
| 364 | leggestand
ID: 1503896
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 21:01
|
MC, I was looking at the whole of your post 323. You called out Tennessee as being a good rival because they at least have a chance against Florida (basically saying Tennessee is better than the entire Big 10 because the "Big 10 sucks"). I said you must have forgotten that Tennessee just lost to Penn State one week ago.
I am also just going with what the bowl season showed me. The Big 10 played the SEC in 3 games. The Big 10 #4 team beat the SEC #5 team. The Big 10 #3 team beat the SEC #2 team. The SEC #1 team beat the Big 10 #1 team. Say what you want about SEC wins against Houston, Nebraska, Clemson, and Notre Dame, I am just talking about Big 10 vs. SEC, which contradicts the Tennessee statement.
Sure, top to bottom, the SEC is better than the Big 10, but top 4 teams in the Big 10 vs. top 4 teams in the SEC, there is not much difference to say all of the Big 10 "sucks."
|
| 365 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 22:11
|
I think it was evident last night that the Big 10 is much weaker than people (the media) believed. I think the Rose Bowl showed that, too. There are about 3 or 4 competitive teams in the Big 10, and then there are about 7 teams that Vanderbilt could beat.
Sure Ohio State and Michigan is a great rivalry, and historic and it's lots of fun watching them play, etc. But that seems to have been the basis for elevating those 2 teams all season long in the polls. I'm sorry but both teams were exposed badly this week. And that shows me that the Big 10 lags miles behind the best conferences in terms of talented teams. To think that we almost got stuck witnessing a rematch of OSU and Michigan. For a National Title! Ugh.
This year shows me more than ever that a playoff is needed. This is pretty dire stuff. Opinions shouldn't be a basis for deciding who plays for the trophy, especially when there are hardly any common opponents and schedules vary so wildly. Ohio State beat up on lesser competition, won the 2 big games they had to win, and they were elevated because of their reputation. Say it with me now. After that game last night I have serious doubts about whether OSU is the #2 team. I have to give LSU and maybe even USC a nod over them. Not ready to say that Boise St. is there, but they're not far behind.
|
| 366 | Perm Dude
ID: 1703699
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 22:28
|
This year you might be right. I would argue, however, that the most overrated team of the season was an SEC team: Arkansas.
Historically, however, the Big Ten has no peer.
|
| 367 | leggestand
ID: 1503896
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 22:41
|
Again, anyone who puts USC, who lost to marginal UCLA and Oregon State, above OSU, has quickly forgotten the regular season. You are hanging your hat on OSU's one loss, and forget that we have two bad losses to hang on USC. Two! Maybe, if USC loses only to UCLA at season's end (and had beaten Oregon State), they could be elevated to #2 now. Sure, OSU had THREE big wins (Ohio State beat Penn State...and if we can't count that as a big win now, then we need to drop a lot of UF's wins, including against Tennessee) and beat everyone else they should have. How many big wins did USC have? 4? And they DIDN'T beat the teams they should have. No argument for #2, and the polls reflect that.
And as for LSU, the majority of people here didn't want an OSU v. UM rematch because UM couldn't even win their conference. Well, what about LSU, they were the 3rd best team in their conference!?!?! And now we should make them the 2nd best team in the country. All of the people who argued against UM being #2 have completely reversed their tune, even though it's the same argument.
|
| 368 | leggestand
ID: 1503896
Tue, Jan 09, 2007, 22:50
|
Man, after thinking even more, I am not getting the LSU argument at all.
No one was talking about LSU a month ago, so, what has changed in the past month? Oh yeah, they beat Notre Dame! Seriously guys, was that Notre Dame win that convincing to move them to #2 when they weren't part of the discussions at all before the bowl games? You know who else stomped on Notre Dame, at South Bend? That's right, that same crappy Michigan team that everyone now says stinks. Must not be a good win for LSU to beat someone less convincingly than Michigan did...
Honestly, LSU? Because they stomped Notre Dame at home?
|
| 369 | Sludge
ID: 45541422
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 00:19
|
Please, leggestand, you know how these things work. LSU's two losses (to the #1 and #7/8 teams) came in the first half of the season, while Michigan's came in their last two games (to the #2 and #4 teams).
As the old proverb goes, "The success of a rain dance depends on the timing."
|
| 370 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 00:21
|
I don't really care who is ranked #2 to #100, but I do find it funny that the rationale to judge teams has flipped for both sides, including mine. You have a legitimate argument about LSU, but now that the season is over it is a little easier to push the bias aside and really evaluate what each team did.
I also find it odd that you feel that strongly that USC lost two conference road games by a total of 6 points but somehow that is worse than losing a game by 27 points. USC was in both games down to the final minute. The Oregon State game was horrible for them as far as turnovers, but they battled back and the UCLA game was a serious letdown after 3 big, hyped games in a row. Let's say that USC managed to score a TD instead of throwing an INT at the UCLA 18 yard line with 1:15 left to play for a last second victory. USC would be the same exact team they are today, but now they would have only one loss by 2 points. Instead of one loss, by 27 points, on a neutral field that actually seemed to have a lot of red in the stands. I don't live in fantasy land, so I understand we can't take the two losses away, but we already got to debate how great the Big 10 is and how UF and USC were less deserving than than OSU and Michigan. I understand being bitter about your team losing. Trust me, I really do. I also understand that the best team doesn't always win, but a great team, or at least a team that should be considered one of the best in the nation, doesn't lose a game by 27 points.
|
| 371 | Perm Dude
ID: 1703699
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 01:10
|
Against the #1 team they might.
I mean really--there is enough ammunition for both sides of every argument here. OSU got spanked, but only lost one game. USC won against more ranked teams, but lost two games to non-ranked teams. LSU lost twice, but had a great run in winning their last 7. Etc etc.
|
| 372 | leggestand
ID: 1503896
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 07:42
|
Sludge, I was speaking of Michigan, and I have no problems with LSU being higher than Michigan. I would take issue if LSU or USC finished higher than OSU.
TB, I am going to do an uber-2007 scenario, but stick with me. Let's assume that this season:
- Ohio State lost to Penn State by 2 and to Minnesota by 4 (pretty comparable to Oregon State and UCLA)
- USC went undefeated
- OSU beat Oklahoma in a BCS bowl (maybe played in Columbus) by 14
- USC lost to a one loss Florida by 27 in the national championship to end up with 1 loss
Would you say that OSU or USC is the #2 team? Even I would say that USC is still the #2 team.
|
| 373 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 07:58
|
Not trying to be that guy, but there is now a clear decrement factor in my mind for teams from the Big 10. As PD pointed out, that's a relatively recent development for that conference, but nonetheless, it was evident to me this season (despite the epic victories of Penn State and Wisconsin in the bowl games). Therefore, Michigan, with 2 losses, is eliminated from the argument. Big time.
LSU lost to UF on the road and Auburn on the road. There's no shame in either of those losses. Further, they creamed every team they played from other conferences. And they looked like one of the most dangerous teams in the country the last month of the year. Now that the season is over, I think of it in terms of "who is likely to win a game between these two teams?" and the one I choose gets ranked higher. I think LSU (and USC) would beat Ohio State at this point. Thus I rank LSU (and USC) ahead of the Buckeyes. The pollsters clearly follow their traditional pattern (which is obviously in place because they would mostly look dumb if OSU was ranked #1 all season and then suddenly finished 5th) so Ohio State winds up in second place.
As a good friend mentioned above, #2-100 is about as relevant as shampoo for a bald guy. But I have been there, and I know when my team finished with a loss I wanted to see them as highly ranked as possible. I am going to enjoy myself from here on out and reserve any thought of those things until the next time I'm in that position. Hopefully years and years from now!
|
| 374 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 09:03
|
MC, I agree with your #2-#100 sentiments above.
We can go round and round over and over, but I can't agree with many points in your LSU argument:
LSU lost to UF on the road and Auburn on the road. There's no shame in either of those losses.
And Michigan's losses to USC and OSU on the road somehow has shame? You can knock that the latter half of the Big 10 conference stinks, but you can't say that most wouldn't have lost to those same two teams. If anything, those two losses are "better" than LSU's.
Further, they creamed every team they played from other conferences.
They played Tulane, LA-Lafayette, Arizona, and Fresno State (no bowls and their from crappy conferences). Wouldn't every team in the top 10 cream those squads? They also played Notre Dame, but that's a common opponent to Michigan, so, that doesn't help there either. One of the main knocks against LSU is they don't schedule anyone out of conference worth mentioning.
And they looked like one of the most dangerous teams in the country the last month of the year.
That's the problem. Winning an NCAA football championship is "who was the best team all season." Not who looks best at the end of the year. Sure, it helps in your ranking, but picking up two early losses will put you behind a team that played a more consistant season (with one loss in the national championship). Look at OSU last year, two early losses to Texas and PSU...no chance to be #2 at the end of the season.
And I don't get the "epic" victories comment. The SEC and Big 10 had three games against each other, and two were won by the Big 10. Should we start calling Florida's victory an "epic" victory, because like those Big 10 teams, they weren't favored? Whether anyone likes it or not, I'd put the top 4 Big 10 teams up against any other conference in the country.
And the "who would win" argument also can't really be used. Who would win between LSU and Auburn? Auburn did, so let's rank them above LSU. Who would win between Auburn and Arkansas? Arkansas, because they did. Who would win between Wisconsin and Arkansas? Wisconsin, because they did, so, let's rank Wisconsin #2. It could go on and on and you could never do accurate rankings if you based it on "who you think would win if they played." You can only go off what actually happened, which has correctly been done.
|
| 375 | Razor
ID: 2107611
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 09:35
|
The problem with LSU is that they are an up and down team. They are capable of looking amazing one week and capable of shooting themselves in the foot ten times the next, like they did against Florida. There's really not excuse for LSU scoring 3 points against Auburn.
If Ohio State came out with a game plan that didn't immediately put their players at a huge disadvantage, I'd take Ohio State over USC or LSU. Ohio State had a great team. they just got deep sixed by horrible coaching decisions leading up to the championship game which left the players with little chance for success. Is Ohio State's defense really worse than every D-I team Florida faced? No. They just had the worst game plan.
|
| 376 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 15:02
|
PD i was totally amazed by that fact too, and i agree would agree with MC about LSU and USC being ahead of OSU. the intersting thing about this is that if there was a 4 team playoff system who would have made it? UF, UM, OSU and USC? where is LSU probably not in it who probably most likly to win it LSU, with out LSU probabaly UF wins it. we could then stretch it to 8 team playoff at that piont it really is anyones tournment to win depending on seeding between BSU, UL, UW, LSU, UF, UM, OSU, and USC. Is that really going to tell us who the best team in the nation is any better than the current system it will only tell us who is best over 3 week stretch where luck and injuries may determine the winner as much or more than talent or coaching.
|
| 377 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 15:16
|
Playoffs is ALWAYS about who is the best team over that stretch or more importantly who actually wins the games. In the regular season, you just have to be good enough to get to the playoffs. After that you are all even--save the seedings. I know many want a 16 team playoff and while that wold prob. be ideal, I don't think you can have a truly legit. playoff at all shy of 8 teams. Though I'd take 4 over none.
|
| 378 | Perm Dude
ID: 140201014
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 15:29
|
I'd take any playoff over what we have now. NCAA Div IA Men's Football is the only NCAA-sanctioned sport without a playoff.
I know that it seems the cutoff (4/8/16 teams) is arbitrary, but I think any team that wins a playoff against the teams that are likely to go in will have answered any real questions. If Florida (for instance) beats OSU/USC/LSU in an end-of-season playoff, is there any doubt they are the champs? Plug in Boise State and we'd be saying the same thing.
And it certainly would put to a stop questions about whether losses were early in the season enough to "count."
|
| 379 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 15:47
|
PD that is my piont if you have 4 team playoff is the champion really the champion if one the 'bubble' teams could have won it all too this makes the playoffs not more arbitrary than the way things are done.
How about this idea what if schools had to declare if they wanted to challege for the title and in doning so they remove there cupcake teams from the schedule freeing up a sorta round robin schedule for 4 games (2 home/2 away) where teams where forced to play other 'good' teams from other confrences and then championship game could then be decided based on scedule record and since the cupcakes where removed from there schedule they could choose there first 2 games to be exibition games which would not could to national title contition(though might count to cofrence title). the system would not be prefect there would still be arguments but then you would guarenteed a much better bases to jugdge teams on and think of all the money tv could make during the 4 week round robin play.
|
| 380 | TB
ID: 19425813
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 16:00
|
And it certainly would put to a stop questions about whether losses were early in the season enough to "count."
And that would suck. We wouldn't have this almost 400 post debate/conversation, which has been enjoyable to particpate in and highly entertaining. While it would be great to see the top 16 teams battle it our for the championship, there would be a lot more losers than current winners. Instead of winning a bowl game and ending the season on a high note all of the following teams except one, depending on which 16 teams were selected, would possibly end up as losers: Florida, USC, LSU, Boise State, Louisville, Wisconsin, Auburn, West Virginia, and Rutgers.
|
| 381 | Perm Dude
ID: 140201014
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 16:03
|
So increase it to 32 teams. OSU had 51 days from the Michigan game until the BCS bowl. Surely we can squeeze in some games there.
|
| 382 | Razor
ID: 2107611
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 16:06
|
Flex playoff - if there are only two undefeateds, they play each other. If there are no undefeateds, one undefeated or three undefeateds, take the top four BCS teams. Sorry, Boise State. This still leaves you out until you beef up your schedule.
Sixteen playoff would be the worst thing to ever happen to college football. 3 loss teams with a shot at the title? What a joke. 2 loss teams shouldn't even have a shot.
|
| 383 | Perm Dude
ID: 140201014
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 16:11
|
3 loss teams who beat three top teams in a row in a playoff at the end of the season do deserve it. If they didn't, they get beat.
Having the undefeateds play will increase cupcake scheduling and leave teams like Boise State even more out in the cold. Who would schedule them if a loss meant no championship chance?
A playoff of any real length will separate the pretenders from the contenders. If Boise State (or any other "outsider" school, like Rutgers) wins a playoff there would be no talking about if they were real or not.
|
| 384 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jan 10, 2007, 16:13
|
If 3 loss teams had a shot at the title, than maybe they'd beef up their non-conference schedule! Best teams should be in the playoffs. You lose to 3 top teams and say they were close--maybe you're one of the top teams.
BSU was undefeated and won a BCS Bowl game. Any playoff you talk about MUST consider them. If it's 16 teams then we can talk about 3 loss teams that are pretty darn good. 8 teams will probably get you some 2 loss teams.
|
| 385 | Razor
ID: 2107611
Fri, Jan 12, 2007, 09:50
|
3 loss teams, by definition, aren't that good. We can make it 64 teams if you want to make sure no one gets left out, and you'd still have the same argument that any team that wins that tournament can truly say they are champ, but that's not really the point. College football is great because the regular season is great. There's no sense in diluting it because some folks don't want to get into the dirty business of trying to decide which teams are contenders and which teams are pretenders. All increasing the field does is dilute the regular season and waste everyone's time with extra games. We've already got every conference battling each other and deciding crowning a conference champ. When you start taking 2nd (2nd in conference and 2nd in the nation scenario excepted), 3rd and 4th place conference teams and give them a shot at the title is when college football loses all its cache and just becomes another sport where the only thing that matters is the playoffs.
|
| 386 | Perm Dude
ID: 36022129
Fri, Jan 12, 2007, 10:22
|
Well, if you expand it to 64 teams it certanly would be diluted. But I'm certainly not advocating that.
|
| 387 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Jan 12, 2007, 10:27
|
Going with 8 teams would be fairly safe. I don't ever remember feeling that a team ranked 9th should have been in line for a national title. Would some undeserving teams make it? Sure, but casting a wide enough net is important. You'd hope to see the undeserving teams brushed away after the first round.
Oh, and Notre Dame should be excluded if they don't beat at least one top 10 team during the season.
|
| 388 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jan 19, 2007, 14:47
|
Jeff Samardzija is giving up football for baseball, FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal is reporting.
Samardzija, a wide receiver at Notre Dame, could have been a first-round pick in the NFL draft. However, he was also drafted by the Cubs in the fifth round last year and got a deal potentially worth $7.25 million over five years. That he'll concentrate on baseball makes him one of the Cubs' top pitching prospects. Jan. 19 - 2:08 pm et
Source: FOXSports.com
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|