first to say the BCS sucks and will blow up in its face this year
Zac
· 1 year ago
Didn't that happen last year? Come to think of it, didn't that kinda happen in 2004?
Porcine
· 1 year ago
Meh.
Zac
· 1 year ago
Isn't that supposed to be followed by, "Wats Up, Doc?"
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Can't really get how Georgia and Ohio State could be ranked higher than Florida. Doesn't make too much sense to me.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
That group from Georgia to Florida is so close that the actual position now is almost meaningless, especially with 8 weeks left to go.
The ranking values of the scores show that Georgia is closer to what a #8 team should have and Florida is closer to what a #9 team should have.
Georgia and Ohio State have shown some resilience since suffering losses several weeks back. They also have huge tests on the horizon.
Zac
· 1 year ago
I don't know, Ben. While I agree; this is a tough, close call, FL lost to Ole Miss by 1; GA lost to AL by 11, and AL had all they could do to hold off Ole Miss. A better comparison involves TN and will eventually involve LSU. FL beat TN 30-6 in Knocksville, holding the Vol's to 1 late TD. GA allowed 2 TD's at home to those same Vol's. Given FL absolutely manhandled LSU by 30 pts, it'll be interesting to see how GA handles the Tigers in Baton Rouge. Of course, as we have all agreed, it's the final poll that counts.
blackdawg
· 1 year ago
The Dawgs look real good between the twenties, (against the two teams from Tenn) we are out stat-ing our opponents, but it's just not showing up on the score board. The three freshman (2 true, 1RS) and 2 Sophs on the offensive line are struggling at times in the red zone. Stafford seems to be rushing his throws at times and under throwing some deep passes. It would be nice, if we can find that gear that we found last year around this time, going into Baton Rouge and Jacksonville.
michael
· 1 year ago
someone explain to me how ohio state..who lost at USC without Wells....fell so far..when Florida lost at HOME to Mississippi and Oklahoma fell only 4 spots when losing to the number one team....now trust me..i'm a PITT fan...and this makes no sense..i know they've looked bad in the last 2 BCS games..but each year is to be different..if they beat Penn State on Saturday..there is no reason for them not to be in the top 5!!
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Agreed, but not concerned.
Apparently the computers register emasculation in the same manner as a close loss.
Actually, TOSU I get; they are a completely different team than the one that USC annihalated, since Beanie Wells is back, AND Terrell Pryor has teken over and come into his own. Well, I don't think they belong higher than UF, but I get them not being completely panned as a result of the USC game.
UGA on the other hand, has only lost more players to injury, eeked out ugly wins, and done virtually nothing to impress anyone.
...but again, I ain't complaining--that bodes well for UF, since they're on our schedule.
GO GATORS!!
PrinceMarko
· 1 year ago
Wow, Florida got no respect at all.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Yep....and that's a good thing. I like having to earn our keep. Whenever it's gift wrapped, you're pretty much set up for disappointment.
GO GATORS!!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Some other BCS dynamics rules of thumb, actual results may vary:
Loss to unranked team: -0.3 Loss to lower ranked team: -0.2 Loss to higher ranked team: -0.1
Win: +0.005 * Ranking (For attrition) Win over lower ranked team: +0.1 Win over higher ranked team: +0.2
Top 2 exception: Teams in the top 2 may have a perception unanimously well above the remainder, and a loss must overcome this divide before BCS points are reduced. Wins by these teams add to this invisible cushion.
I am actually going to say these rankings are far better than the polls or any of the computers, IMO. While the system may be screwy, the rankings are not that bad.
PrinceMarko
· 1 year ago
Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Ohio State are not better than Florida. Ohio State's schedule does not warrant its ranking either.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
BS, Marko. It's entirely possible that Florida (who lost to Ole Miss) could lose to Okie State, Texas Tech, or Ohio State. My opinion, UF would be a slight underdog to the Cowboys or Red Raiders, slight favorites to the Buckeyes.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I think historical bias in the lines would give Florida the edge in the line against OK ST and TX Tech.
A game between any of these teams would likely be great to watch.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
With respect....
...how's it matter if we would be 'dogs? It'd only matter who would win an actual game played between them, and I don't care where Vegas puts their money, UF is better than OkSU or TT (sure we might lose--that's why the play the games--but UF is a better team); the probability would have to be with UF.
On second thought, I should care--if Vegas had us as dogs against either of those teams, I'd bet the kids' college fund!
GO GATORS!!
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
TB:
Fact is: The LVSC would make Florida a prohibited favorite over both Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. That is where all of the money would be going - on Florida.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Damn straight!
...but IF they had UF as dogs, could you...could anyone...resist that action? NFW! But you'd have to pounce, because the line would immediately correct to show UF as favs.
(b/t/w: it's "prohibitive" not "prohibited"...I know, probably a typo...but just in case/fyi...).
GO GATORS!!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Two of these rankings, Ohio State and Oklahoma State will either be confirmed or corrected next week.
The other the following week, unless Kansas proves the rankings wrong.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Ben:
Your the expert - riddle me this: USC beat Ohio State by 32 points, so then, how in the world does Ohio State outrank USC in the computer models? This has been established after the 1st BCS poll BTW...I know that it's gonna have something to do with USC lost to a lower ranked team, right? But, isn't there something wrong with that?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Argument 1:
When comparing two 1 loss teams, the simplest ranking would be to use the rank of the team they lost too. USC>Oregon State, so Ohio State>USC.
This argument turns a victory chain upside down when the top of the chain is proven to be weak.
Argument 2:
At this point enough games are present to start considering some game outliers. Throwing out the best and worst game for each team lets compare what is left. For USC we drop out their win over Ohio State and their loss to Oregon State. For Ohio State we drop their win over Michigan State and loss to USC.
Ohio State still has wins over 6-1 Minnesota,3-4 Wisconsin, and a 4-2 Troy team that leads their conference.
USC has wins over 5-2 Oregon, 4-3 Virgina and a bunch of teams that can't even beat MWC scrubs.
Argument 3: The computers are too dependent on win loss. A typical approach would be to use an equivalent to PCT to measure a teams strength and an equivalent to opponents PCT to measure SOS. The central limit theorem shows that the variance of these measures would be expected to differ by a factor of the square root of the number of games played.
Since rankings are based on the variance of the sum, the PCT would be amplified by a factor of the square root of the number of games played relative to the SOS by this overly simple (Colley Matrix-like) method. Ohio State's opponents have a better combined W-L record than USC's.
Argument 4: USC is artificially inflated by the LA Media bias, the entire west coast bias consolidated into one team. At least on the East coast is distributed among a conference. Computer's don't reflect this regional effect.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Ben:
I like argument # 4. Why can't we make a computer model that automatically adjusts itself for that criteria? Seriously, I use something along the lines of argument # 3, which uses a central-mean and calculates every game played. It does not care if you lose. It does care who you lose to and by how much. So, I take it that your in agreement, that the Ohio State beatdown was something that was fabricated by the "West Coast Media"?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I am not refuting the 32 point pounding USC gave Ohio State.
I am stating that this game is getting more of the appearance of an outlier and that the trend line for Ohio State is climbing steadily since then.
Skip
· 1 year ago
The only BCS dynamic that really matters is polling. The pollsters will decide who goes and who doesn't. They will override the computers by artificially inflating or lowering a team whose BCS standing is deemed "wrong" and will respond to sleazy lobbying by coaches and the media. Those numbers might be accurate, but in the end, people will make all the decisions.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Skip:
Bravo! ding,ding,ding...You've nailed it! Actual play on the field doesn't have anything to do with it. Truthfully, I was not so upset back in 2003 (even though USC was ranked # 1 in both polls), when USC was passed over for an LSU/Oklahoma game. I am quite sure, that the BCS system as it was, was alot better than what they have now. At that time, the system, gave equal weight to "the voters" and "the computers". The computers overrode what the voters believed (probably based on SOS) and left USC out. It was probably correct.
Now, "the system", gives about 2/3 of the weight to "the voters". We now have the same system as we had prior to the invention of the BCS system. It is obviously very difficult for the computers to overtake the voters. Therefore, Auburn was burned in 2004, as the voters decided that USC should play Oklahoma. I don't know, if the actual computer data, would have gotten Auburn into one of the top two spots - but it would not surprise me at all.
So, I'm not gonna cry too hard about a system that was overhauled, because of what was deemed my teams slight. But, I do know that it did hurt the whole system. The idea was to get rid of "the voter bias", by using actual computer models to determine actual play on the field, but the whole thing has been discarded for what the media's popular opinion is.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Actually in 2004 the computers where in lock step with the polls.
The new system is FAR superior to the ad hoc old system. Until better computers, ones that can compare with the polls in predictive power, the polls are superior to the computers and should be weighted more. The computers do reduce bias, though they do emphasize PCT too much, and the end results are not bad.
Now these numbers, especially at the top need some adjusting. Penn State will not pass Alabama. This actually is an application of the top 2 rule. Also the numbers will be less for all of the top 7. A more accurate top 3 would be:
1) Texas: 1.00 2) Alabama: 0.95 3) Penn State: 0.93
I would be surprised if Georgia does not pass USC, but not really if Texas Tech does not. They should, but they might not.
The gap between Utah and Boise State will be reduced due to Utah's bye week and Boise State's good showing against WAC contender San Jose State, who is doing better than usual this year. If Boise State takes the lead now Utah would get it back with a win over TCU.
I think BYU will not get as many points as this indicates. FSU should end up between Ball State and BYU. Tulsa is in the right spot but will pick up a few more points than shown.
Pittsburgh and USF will likely be passed by a few new entries to the BCS top 25, possibly even knocking Pittsburgh out of the top 25.
Tyler Ellis
· 1 year ago
i dont understand why USC is that far up..the lost to an unranked team and barely fell any spots..we (UGA) lost to a Top 10 ranked team and fell to 11...the system is so biased its not even funny
TidePride27
· 1 year ago
no you got run over by the #8 team then,now ranked#2 and searching for higher ground.
Jason
· 1 year ago
Yet he brings up a fair point. USC was down 21-0 at halftime against (unranked) Oregon State. Why is USC already back to the top 5?
TigerEducated
· 1 year ago
Jason,
He doesn't care about the point...He wanted to let his redneck fandom flag fly...
tigerhunter
· 1 year ago
As you just care about taking a shot.... tiger.
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
I, for one, am momentarily happy with our BCS overlords. Meh, feeling's gone now.
THE OHIO STATE
· 1 year ago
UF number one are over rated they get smashed by a team that wasn't even ranked ,and then you ask why Ohio is over them dude we lost to the number one team Go Buckeyes
Mr2Bits
· 1 year ago
Smashed????? Do you watch college football? We lost on a blocked extra point. You my friend were "smashed" by USC and soon to be by State Penn
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
"...and soon to be (smashed) by State Penn..."
Not so sure about that. The game is in Columbus and the line only favors PSU by 2. PSU has never won in Columbus since entering the Big 10(11). OSU played well last Saturday and PSU didn't.
I think if OSU shuts down the run, it'll be a entertaining game to watch.
Mr2Bits
· 1 year ago
Agree it will be close, just wanted to use the smashed term as it's my new go to!
Tom_Blogical
· 1 year ago
LOL!
TidePride27
· 1 year ago
Roll Tide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dawg
· 1 year ago
Get a life Tommy Trojan...Georgia lost to a top ten Alabama team and Florida lost to an unranked Ole Missy team...that's more than likely WHY the Dawgs are ranked higher in the BCS. The Trojan's are SO LUCKY as they are ranked higher but also lost to an unranked team...in fact, they play NO ONE!!
Skip
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I don't get it. The whole point of including computers, and part of the justification for the entire BCS system, is to take power out of the hands of pollsters. But then when the computer results didn't align with the polls, people screamed "WHAT'S GOING ON????" and demanded a fix to the craaaazy situation--even though it was not only expected, but preferable. The solution was to marginalize the unbiased computers and give all the power back to an even worse group of pollsters.
I am generally in favor of the BCS over a playoff (especially a large playoff), but the way they have implemented it makes the system very hard to defend.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
If the computers could out perform the voters in predicting the outcome of the bowls they could be trusted more to determine the outcome. They are not to that level yet.
Skip
· 1 year ago
Do you have sources for this? I don't not believe you, just interested to see how the computers have done predicting bowl game results compared to the pollsters.
I found that the computers were less reliable than the pollsters at ranking the winning teams higher before the game. For programs offereing MOV and W-L only options the MOV algorithms performed better. The only computer that out performed the human polls was Massey's MOV algorithm, not used by the BCS.
basscat02
· 1 year ago
I am an LSU fan and alumni and a Florida hater. But I am an SEC supporter. LSU probably got a better than fair rating until we see what they do with Bama and the Ga. Bulldogs. But as much as I dislike the Gators, they got ripped here, they are the best team in the country(sorry Tigers). #10, no way, no how. Georgia should not be in the top 10, USC should not be in the top 10 and Ohio State should not even be mentioned. Otherwise, things are fairly correct. After reading the 6 independent BCS rankers from last year where not one had the National Champion as # 1 AFTER they won it and showing Va. Tech as #1, nothing surprises me. Quality of play on the field does not count which is ridiculous even though my Tigers got their butts whipped by Florida. It will come down to this, the winner of the SEC and Big 12 or Big 10 will be in the title game. That means Fla., Ga.,Bama or LSU against who knows
GA_Boy
· 1 year ago
No way Georgia should be in the top 10? I guess I can see that since we haven't been able to dominate in the red zone like we have between the 20s(of course I speak not of the half that would not die as I am fondly calling it these days.) But coming from an LSU fan named "basscat02"??? Here's the recipe for my crow stew for you basscat:
Take one large crow. Marinate for 4 days in LSU posts and predictions of a dominating performance. Add a pinch of TE analysis (in TE terms a pinch means at least a 1000 word essay.) Cook in 73 degree weather from 330 to 700 on Saturday. Serve with a nice cold Hurricane around 8 PM. It's tasty. Ask TE. He had some after the FLA game!
GO DAWGS!!
Tyler_Tech
· 1 year ago
I agree with our ranking. I have a hypothetical question for everyone. Do you think TECH is worthy of the number one ranking if we beat Kansas on the road, then turn around and beat UT at home. P.S. Marko if anything is true about our team(we have proved it) we can beat anyone and come from behind on anyone on any given day.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
If Tech wins out, then they deserve to be top three. I don't know how I feel about moving them ahead of Alabama just right yet. Win out and win the Big XII championship against Mizzou - then you got something.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
No. They would jump Penn State and be at #2, unless Alabama loses.
Is #1 really better than #2 though? They both get to the big game.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Ben:
See what you think of this. We'll just take five simple catagories (Offppg,Offypg,Defppg,Defypg,SOS), give a National ranking (which is real), and then calculate a simple average, by dividing by five. Who do you think will win? I have a feeling...I'll use Sagarin's rating for SOS. Currently the conferences are ranked thus...Big12,SEC,Big 10,ACC,Pac-10,BE,MWC,WAC.
1. U.S.C., beat opponent by 33.7 ppg, outgains them 251.3 ypg, SOS = 13th, rating = 7.20 2. Florida, beat opponent by 25.5 ppg, outgains them 130.0 ypg, SOS = 21st, rating = 19.40 3. Texas, beat opponent by 30.5 ppg, outgains them 160.9 ypg, SOS = 24th, rating = 20.00 4. Penn State, beat opponent by 33.6 ppg, outgains them 218.8 ypg, SOS = 82nd, rating = 22.80 5. Oklahoma, beat opponent by 26.2 ppg, outgains them 228.4 ypg, SOS = 35th, rating = 23.40 6. Georgia, beat opponent by 14.0 ppg, outgains them 159.9 ypg, SOS = 22nd, rating = 24.40 7. T.C.U., beat opponent by 22.6 ppg, outgains them 185.3 ypg, SOS = 78th, rating = 29.00 8. Utah, beat opponent by 20.4 ppg, outgains them 143.5 ypg, SOS = 86th, rating = 34.60 9. Alabama, beat opponent by 17.9 ppg, outgains them 95.1 ypg, SOS = 53rd, rating = 35.00 10. Oklahoma St., beat opponent by 25.8 ppg, outgains them 165.5 ypg, SOS = 87th, rating = 37.20 11. Ohio State, beat opponent by 13.5 ppg, outgains them 56.9 ypg, SOS = 33rd, rating = 40.20 12. L.S.U., beat opponent by 9.7 ppg, outgains them 103.5 ypg, SOS = 64th, rating = 42.00 13. Texas Tech, beat opponent by 24.8 ppg, outgains them 206.0 ypg, SOS = 103rd, rating = 42.20 14. Missouri, beat opponent by 19.6 ppg, outgains them 110.0 ypg, SOS = 28th, rating = 42.20 15. Boise State, beat opponent by 22.0 ppg, outgains them 110.5 ypg, SOS = 120th, rating = 42.40
These are the Top 15 teams ranked in the 1st BCS rating. Clearly, there are some serious fallacies here. Alabama, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State are not where they line up at. The BCS computer has Oklahoma State rated 3rd for a win over Missouri. Alabama has not been able to outscore their opponents by more than 17.9 ppg or outgain them by more than 95.1 ypg. And yet, if we drink up all the kool-aid, we'll be convinced that they have the best offensive and defensive lines in the country. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, although they both have great stats, have played extremely weak SOS. Penn State's stats jump more off the page at you - although their SOS is weak also. It could be that SOS should be weighted more than 20% - as it is in this simple model. There are differing opinions of what the SOS rating would be, depending on what rating service was used, but Sagarin's should be in the ball park. Everything is now unbiased - so those ratings might very well be accurate. Again, in the end, we're all gonna find out that the Top Teams here - are the Top Teams period. It really doesn't matter what "the voters" think. The numbers never lie.
Bama_Babe
· 1 year ago
You would create a formula that makes USC #1............
;)
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Bama_Babe:
I don't have to create a formula that does that. The notion of # 1 is an anamoly. There will never be a way, to decide who is really the very best team, without a playoff system. And, besides, whatever is happening at this moment in time - will all be different at the end of the season. Nothing is set in concrete in college football. There are injuries, player development, and further coacing expertise that constantly change over the course of a season. All you can ever know is what happened yesterday. The above numbers only apply to what has already happened. They have nothing to do with tomorrow.
Bama_Babe
· 1 year ago
Yes, I know this.
I was just kidding.
JB
· 1 year ago
but seriously haha
TigerEducated
· 1 year ago
B_B,
You have the luxury of being able to completely throw out all of the mathematics on this one...
Being as you are one of I believe four teams in the SEC that still controls its own destiny (UAT, LSU, UF, UGA), it does not matter what Ace Rothstein dreams up in Excel...If any of those aforementioned 4 teams in the SEC wins out, they will easily fly by the Bois from Troi. The Lifestyles simply won't have the resume, and the voters are not going to ever ignore the SEC again after the beatdown we've administered two years in row.
Especially in light of the fact that both years, nobody nationally thought that the SEC team should unquestionably should have been participating.
We'll never see something like Auburn did in 2004in this conference, again. We've proven it on the field against each other, and against the rest of the country.
Tommy has to rely on numbers...We get the luxury of relying on what takes place on the field of play...
(Cue sarcastic, mathematically laced, Revenge Of The Nerds-esque response from Tommy quoting multiple math models, and casting aspersions using cryptic information that he thinks he knows about what you do in real life)
Pay no mind to the man, or his spreadsheets...We get to worry about what goes on, on the field...
BTW-Getting back to why I was messaging you...I've heard differing reports on Cody's injury...What's the extent of it, B_B?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The SEC had a very down year in 2004, worst OOC record I have ever seen for them. This contributed more than anything else to Auburns lack of ranking.
This year USC gets to see things from the Auburn side, though with a loss. I agree with those 4 teams you list, and several from the Big 12, having the opportunity to jump over USC if they win out.
Shoot, Ohio State would be close with a win over Penn State this weekend.
thebuckstopshere
· 1 year ago
Let me get this right. So you're saying it’s the SEC's divine right to play in the NCG based on the last two years beat down of a over-hyped and over-rated Ohio St. team (at least that's the perception)? I'm not directing this next part at you specifically, but you can't have it both ways either Ohio St. sucks and they never belonged in either game and they never deserve a top ten ranking again, OR their a descent team that just lost to better teams on that day. I mean really if beating Ohio St. the last two years is the SEC's crown jewel of accomplishments I don't understand all the bashing they take. So I guess I'm just wondering your real opinion of Ohio St. as your holding your leagues victories over them in such high regard?
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
buck:
They are saying that the BCS only exists, to try and determine, who should play the SEC champion. That has all been "etched into stone", because they were able to beat a coach, who couldn't put a gameplan together. This makes the SEC the most dominate conference that has ever existed. We'll find out this year what's really going on - because Ohio State won't be there. Oh, maybe they'll get lucky again, and maybe draw Bob Stoops.
TigerEducated
· 1 year ago
No, we're saying that when we get to the end of the season, a 1-loss SEC team has proven itself against top flight competition, over and over...
We've proven that our path makes us more worthy than round robin rubes...
thebuckstopshere
· 1 year ago
So your of the opinion OSU is top flight competition? I mean I think thier one of the top 5 programes out there, I just didn't get the impression you did.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
TE:
Glad you mentioned "Top Flight Competition", rather than, "the best" competition. Yes, you've managed to "duck" the best competition for going on seven years. Until you beat the best competition - your not worthy of much.
2003: USC 23 Auburn 0 LSU 31 Auburn 7 USC 45 Arizona 0 LSU 59 Arizona 13 California 34 USC 31 Kansas State 42 California 28 Kansas State 35 Oklahoma 7 LSU 21 Oklahoma 14
USC would have been better than Oklahoma by around 11 points. The best team wasn't in the game.
2007: USC 49 Illinois 17 Illinois 28 Ohio State 21 L.S.U. 38 Ohio State 24
Do I have to even mention this one?
Do you notice a pattern here? The pattern is that the best team that you could ever play is never in the game. Your "boasting" about beating teams, that we have dispatched with even more ease, does not qualify you to make the claim that "you are deserving". Top Flight competition doesn't cut it in Championship games. You shouldn't boast too much until you actually ever beat "the best team".
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Weak daisy chain logic, TT.
Playing the occasional SEC team, is not the same as playing a SEC schedule.
We've been through this for years with Miami Fan and FSU Fan. Now that they're in the same enhanced conference, behold the futility. Imagine if they had joined the SEC or the Big XII!
USC enjoys its success, because they're in the "Big East" West al la Miami in the early oughts, or the 90's ACC, a la FSU. Great, for the occassional 2-3 games per year, but put them in a conference like the SEC or Big XII, and you could expect different results.
So let me turn the tables on you: when did USC play the best team in the country to claim it's NC?
Choklahoma in '04? When there was an undefeated SEC champ out there? Turns out, the best team wasn't in THAT NC game, either. Cuts both ways bubba.
That's why I have such a bloodlust for USC v. SEC champ.
...its been brewing for years....
GO GATORS!!
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
TG:
It's not weak daisy chain logic. Neither Oklahoma in 03' or Ohio State in 06' and 07' were better teams than Southern Cal was in those years. The "Daisy Chain" was only put there to back up what we already know. Even with the weak Daisy Chain argument - Southern Cal still outperformed those teams. That's the point. And, they did it in all three instances. And, BTW, Southern Cal did outrank all three of those teams at the end of the year. So, it's a fact, the SEC Champion never did play the best available team in those three years. You even know that. And, the argument had nothing to do with "how tough the SEC is". I can't understand why you people can't get unstuck from that stupid idiotic logic. Your teams were in the Championship game. What did that have to do with anything. My argument was that you did not play against the best team. It has nothing to do with "your conference".
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Get over it! When Miami played Nebraska was not Oregon the better team? You two are talking about what could have been. It wasn't so move on. They say time heals all pain BUT I guess in this case Tommy Trojan and Tampagator can't let go.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Lennie:
You've broken a cardinal rule of Fanblogs. You are never allowed to make mention of the fact that there was a good PAC 10 team. Don't let it ever happen again. Or, we'll all have to quit responding to you.
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Tommy Trojan this is getting old! I have mentioned on here before that I look at individual teams NOT conferences. There are good teams, middle of the road teams, and bad teams in all conferences. "Best Conference" is a matter of opinion. As far as people not responding to me....Life goes on!
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
"...Southern Cal did outrank all three of those teams at the end of the year..."
Of course they did; they won their f*%N bowl!
...just like Auburn was ranked ahead of OU in after '04 season--which (by your logic) means USC didn't play the best team in '04. The EXACT same scenario you're using to discredit the SEC--A CONFERENCE....
Hence when you say:.
"...My argument was that you did not play against the best team. It has nothing to do with "your conference...".
...is patently ridiculous. It had EVERYTHING to do with a conference--and the samples you sited were against LSU AND UF--not just LSU (re. '06-b/t/w: using your own twisty DCL: UF was up 34-14 at half; they coasted to win 41-14 vs. OSU who BEAT Michigan--who played USC to a 3-0 first half; they just fell apart in the second half, but they played USC close for a half....whatever...it gets us no where).
Bottom line: if you find the logic "...stupid and idiotic...", please note that you are commenting on your own logic, since I merely mirrored it--in order to illustrate its absurdity.
GO GATORS!!
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
TG:
Southern Cal did not play the best team in 04'. Did I say that they did? The BCS has only gotten it right in 05'. That's the only time. You argued, "Of course they did; they won their f*%N bowl"! No kidding! That's the point. We do win our Bowl games. Ohio State and Oklahoma do not. We outranked those teams at the end - because we were better at the end. If we were better at the end - then why weren't we better prior to the Bowl games. The weak "Daisy Chain" logic points out that we were. There were no shots taken at the SEC in the argument. The argument was that the SEC didn't play the best team. I suppose that you would make the argument that Oklahoma was better in 04', after getting pasted 55-19 by USC, than Auburn was. You make the same lame as argument here. Of course Auburn was the better choice in 04' - but this wonderful BCS system could not figure that out. It rarely gets the two best teams on the field. Go ahead and dispute that if it makes you feel right. I think that the whole system blows!
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
TT:
Let's go back to the comment that started this whole sub-thread, directed to TE:
"...Until you beat the best competition - your not worthy of much...."
I inferred that to mean it only applied to the SEC--if you're acknowleding that it applies to USC in '04 as well, we're good (that is, I won't argue with you; if you wanna discredit USC's only own NC in order to discredit SEC's last 3, at least you're applying the same standard equally).
b/t/w:
"...I suppose that you would make the argument that Oklahoma was better in 04', after getting pasted 55-19 by USC, than Auburn was...."
Why pray tell, would I do that?
My whole point was that IF USC was better than OU & OSU x2 based on their final ranking--which necessarily factors in for a bowl loss to the champ--THEN so too must AU have been better than OU in '04.
Seems the only thing we can agree on, is that USC v. SEC champ is a long time coming.
...but then, would it be the two best teams in the nation, when they do meet? Probably not, but frankly I don't care--I'd just like to see them settle those bragging rights on the gridiron.
GO GATORS!!
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
TG:
I did not make the original claim that the SEC was so dominant because they have three "crystal balls". That was your pal who did that. I said that they don't mean much. I stated that USC didn't play the 2nd best team in 04' - that has got to be too obvious. I'm against the BCS period. I don't think that they hardly ever get it right. USC/Texas in 05' and maybe Ohio State/Miami in 02'. But clearly, in most every other year, the BCS "runnerup" could not have been the best team available or there was at least good argument against it. Auburn was considered the 2nd best team in 04' and never got a chance to prove that they might have been # 1. I stand by that.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
I don't see anthing up there about SEC = dominant due to "3 crystals".
Looks like "...what we have here is a failure to communicate..."
You inferred from TE's comment that the "top flight" competition he was referring to was the NC games (he was talk'n about SEC in general).
I inferred your reply to mean that SEC didn't play the best team in NC game, but that USC did.
In other words, it appears that we both read into prior posts, things that weren't even implied.
Oh well... it made for an interesting exchange anyway.
GO GATORS!!
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
You might have not thought "the best" team was in those championship games BUT the voters did! By the way Tommy Trojan are the public relations voice of the Southern California Trojans aka the Effeminate Warriors"! Stanford beat Oregon State and Oregon State beat Southern California so how many points should Stanford beat Southern California by? Do that math! Ynuk-Ynuk-Ynuk-Ynuk-Ynuk!
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Lennie:
Right now, the "voters" think that Alabama is better than Oklahoma. What do you really think, Lennie? And, I know that you don't get to be a "voter". Just curious. Do you think that Oklahoma is not as good as Alabama is - because they lost a game? Do you think that if Texas had lost - that Texas would not be as good as Bama? You seem to want to argue today. Did the dog get out of the yard again?
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Tommy Trojan...it does not matter what I think. I know Alabama has no losses and Oklahoma does! Texas did not lose and that's why they are #1. Tommy Trojan I don't want to argue with you or anyone else on here! I don't own a dog, I have tarantulas and scorpions as pets and they are in terriums.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Lennie:
I should have known that you were an "insect guy". Bet your most not favorite movie is "Men in Black".
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
INSECTS? Tarantulas and scorpions are not insects! Not favorite movie? Mens in Black was al'ight! Better than Mens in Skirts flinging swords at 'cha aka the EFFEMINATE WARRIORS!
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
I agree, and how does a team that gives up 185 yds rushing, loosing to the Beavers get ranked higher than Texas Tech, Ok State,Utah and Tulsa all undefeated
JaredIsKing
· 1 year ago
If all the other teams on this list got to play WSU then they would be ahead of USC on the ppg stat.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
JaredIsJanitor:
Missouri has played: SE Missouri State, Nevada and Buffalo Oklahoma has played: Chattanooga and Baylor Texas has played: Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Rice and Arkansas Oklahoma State has played: Washington State, Houston, Troy and Missouri State Texas Tech has played: Eastern Washington, Nevada, SMU and Massachusetts
How many points do you think that Southern Cal might have scored had they played nothing but this kinda stellar competition? I can guarantee you that it would be a whole lot more than anybody who just got to play Washington State.
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
You forgot that Oklahoma played Cincinnati and Texas Christian. How many points Oklahoma would have scored if they played Oregon State?
The_Observer
· 1 year ago
Dude, the fact of the matter is that none of the polls matter right now. You seem to be upset with USC's spot, but I think you are more upset that USC doesn't control its own destiny. You need atleast two teams (Texas, Penn State or Alabama) to lose and then USC will get its chance. I personally believe that USC is one of the top 2 teams, but the reality is that they lost a bad game and will have to make up ground for the remainder of the season (and hope for some losses in the current Top 3).
So just lay off the BCS BS and your ridiculous posts explaining the "fallacies" of the current system and take a cue from your head coach and ignore the polls and hope that your team gets the job done on the field.
Respectfully,
The Observer
P.S. You have waaaaay too much time on your hands.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Utah nor TCU have demonstrated that they deserve to be in the top 10 yet.
I guess if you throw out actual games and look solely at stats anything is possible. Yes, lets embrace your system, make margin of victory all that matters, and encourage teams to run up the score and undermine sportsmanship.
MOV is 40% of your system. Yards gained margin is 40% of your system. Actual W-L record is 0% of your system.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Ben:
This isn't any kinda "system". All this shows is what the actual numbers are. You can see some things by looking at actual numbers. For instance, Alabama's offense isn't much better than Ohio State's is. Alabama offensive and defensive lines are not as dominating as they might appear to be. That is reflected in the yardage numbers. Yardage numbers give you an idea of who is controlling the ball. Alabama certainly is not doing that like everybody thinks they are. Everybody seems to be real stuck on wins and losses. That does not have a thing to do with who the very best teams are. How many years do people have to watch the game to understand this. LSU lost two games last year. So did Southern Cal. Every great team loses games. What I'm trying to get across - is that everybody will lose games. You are really stuck on this.
The_Observer
· 1 year ago
Yes, ignore what you see during the games and only pay attention to the numbers! THE NUMBERS!!!!!
"Yardage numbers give you an idea of who is controlling the ball. Alabama certainly is not doing that like everybody thinks they are. Everybody seems to be real stuck on wins and losses."
Your system or your "actual numbers" don't take into account the actual game. I would be interested in seeing your numbers for the first half of games. I think that your numbers might show that some teams, such as Alabama, play conservative in the second half of ball games in which they are riding out a lead.
Let me say that I strongly disagree with going conservative so early in games, but if you look at your numbers I am sure that you will see a team more deserving of its spot in the polls.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Observer:
You really don't understand what a "level of consistancy" is. Every team has good quarters and bad quarters. How many are you gonna have? Clearly, Georgia had a bad half against Alabama. Alabama has had many bad halves. They just haven't had two of them in the same game. That day is coming real soon. Why do I know this? Because they are not as dominate as you all think that they are. That is reflected in "the numbers". They may get by Tennessee (but don't count on it), or they may even get by LSU, but they are gonna get waxed when they meet Florida. They will get beaten just as badly as LSU did. Furthermore, they are a 1st half team only. They have absolutely no stamina. The 2nd half of the season is upon us. Now, this is where the wheat gets separated from the chaff. Let's just see how much endurance that they have. I think that Alabama is a very fine program, on it's way upward, and will continue to improve into next year. This year - they have no depth. Terrance Cody is now gonna be sidelined for at least a couple of weeks. Let's just see how that effects Alabama. Do not be surprised if Tennessee doesn't take this game this weekend. It is very much possible. I don't care where USC stands in the polls. We all know that you are "severly penalized" for one loss in the BCS system. Look at Florida. Ranked 10th? Really? Now, that's an injustice. That's the worst injustice in these rankings. What I'm doing here is pointing out the fallacies of the voters. For my team, we're gonna have to have at least three more teams lose games, before we even get a sniff. We may be the best team in the country, but it doesn't matter, because we lost one game. Same thing has happened to Florida. What I don't like is for teams that become overrated for one "upset" win. And in this case, if you pay close attention to the numbers, Alabama's win over Georgia can still be seen as an upset. Georgia has still played better ball, than Alabama has, over the entire rest of the season. They had one bad game, and just happened to do it, against Alabama. This somehow transformed Alabama into a great team. I call this "SEC tranference". It means that if there is an "upset" in the SEC, that the team who won in an "upset", somehow becomes the next National Champion. Fortunately, Alabama is still got a few tough games to go, and will be knocked out of the box. Therefore, college football, can be returned back to some kinda normalcy.
The_Observer
· 1 year ago
You are probably right. Noone expected Alabama to be any good this year for all the reasons that you have stated. me included. I figured 8-5 was the top end of spectrum for expectations, but so far so good.
I'm sure your opinion is on par with much of the country, but it doesn't change the fact that Alabama has played well enough to pull out a 7-0 record with some pretty impressive moments on the big stage in front of the entire nation. And don't worry about me being suprised if Alabama get defeated because I can assure you that I won't be.
Terrance Cody could turn out to be a devastating loss for Alabama. That is the exact type of injury to Alabama's roster that could send them spiraling downward.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that Alabama could remain unbeaten, but they will need to beat both LSU and Auburn (both teams have had a knack for exposing Bama as a prentender in the past). That is after having to travel to Knoxville and facing an "On-the-Hot-Seat" Phil Fulmer and then Mississippi State will be a challenge if Alabama keeps playing the way they have been.
You are right though, Alabama has not had two great halves in the same game, nor have they had two bad halves. It is much more likely that Alabama loses a game or two than that they go undefeated. That may be the easiest prediction to make in all of college football. Going undefeated now days is very rare, much more so with the parity of the SEC. Alabama would need to have almost zero injuries just to be competitive with LSU and Florida, but that isn't very realistic. Cody may just turn out to be the first domino to fall.
TT, The fact of the matter is, everyone is "stuck" on wins and losses because that is what the season is about. WINS or LOSES make or break the season. Not how many touchdowns you score in a game. Win a game 69-0 or 24-20...either one ends the same way - with a W added to the record. Yes, LSU lost 2 games last season and still won the NC. But the thing is, they got there because of late losses by USC, West Virginia, and Missouri. It may not all be about wins and loses, but if a team has a zero after the dash in their record, it doesn't matter how they win, how many yards they gain per game, how many yards they allow per game, etc. If a team can stay undefeated by finding ways to win week after week,and beat some quality opponents, they deserve a ranking that reflects that.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Bama_Babe:
Here's a real good question for you. Let's just say that Texas wins out, finishes unbeaten, and is rated # 1 in the final BCS standings. Now, let's just say that Alabama loses one game to Auburn, goes on to win the SEC Championship finishing with a 12-1 mark - while ending up with the # 3 BCS ranking.
Now, as a real absurd scenario, what if Ball State ended up 12-0, with the # 2 BCS ranking? Or, maybe a little more realistically, what if it were Utah at 12-0 instead? What would be your thinking? And, please don't try and tell me that it is all about wins and loses. And, try and not tell me about the "we play in the tougher conference" stuff either, as that only applies to SEC teams as we know it. No, I want you to try and get honest, and try and explain exactly why a Ball State should not be in the game - but it needs to be an original thought.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
If Alabama loses to Auburn and wins the SEC championship game they would be ahead of an undefeated Utah. They fall just a little lower than Georgia, then get a jump up with the championship game.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
"...They fall just a little lower than Georgia..."
You're presuming a UGA win over UF? That would be a mistake.
UGA won ugly last year against a ridiculously young, porous UF defense, and an injured QB. They're the ones with the injury issues this year (OL), and they've done nothing to impress anyone; while UF has shown vast improvement.
Masbe you can enlighten me--where the hell does all the UGA love come from? I thought the bama slaughter would be sufficient to dispense with the mystique, yet here we are, a few weeks removed, and they're still getting the love...I don't get it (I like it--since they're on our schedule, but I really don't get it...).
GO GATORS!!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Actually I was referring more to the spot Georgia is at now. If Georgia loses, someone else would slid up to that spot.
The_Observer
· 1 year ago
I agree TT. Utah plays a wicked hard schedule, really it's hella tough! The schedule looks like this: Michigan UNLV Utah State Weber State Oregan State Wyoming Colorado State New Mexico TCU (currently BCS-14 & AP-15) San Diego State BYU (currently BCS-21 & AP-18)
It's Beastly!
Compare that to a 1 loss Alabama team that would have only played and beaten under these circumstances: Georgia (Preseason MNC favorite, currently BCS-7 & AP-9) LSU (currently BCS-13 & AP-11, '03 & '06 National Champs) Florida (most likely SEC East Champ, BCS-10 & AP-5, '07 National Champs)
It's Utah, no question!
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Observer:
You agree with what? I didn't answer the question - you should have done that. You started dabbling around with the "SEC schedule stuff" again, and that was prohibited from the correct answer, as I was kinda looking for a straight-up honest reason for dismissing these teams. You came close to doing it - but just didn't quite pull the trigger.
The_Observer
· 1 year ago
My point, though you seemed to miss it, is that ignoring the schedule played during the year is STUPID!!! Is that clear?
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Observer:
Do you remember the days when Florida State and Nebraska didn't play anybody on the way to the "NC Game"? I do. Those teams probably had the worst SOS in the country. Again, who you played has nothing to do with how good your team really is. What is the "real" reason that a "Ball State" should not play in a National Championship game?
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Respectfully, that's just not accurate at all. The 1993 FSU National Championship over Nebraska was a season in which the Noles played the #1 strength of schedule.
42-0 vs Kansas 45-7 vs Duke 57-0 vs #21 Clemson 33-7 vs #13 North Carolina 51-0 vs Georgia Tech 28-10 vs #3 Miami 40-14 vs #15 Virginia 54-0 vs Wake Forest 49-20 vs Maryland 24-31 loss vs #2 Notre Dame 62-3 vs NC State 33-21 vs #7 Florida 18-16 vs #2 Nebraska
Sorry - just had to correct that SOS claim.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Who did Nebraska play in 1993? Let me guess - Oklahoma? Was that it? Might have been. What about some of the other years? Were those ACC teams really ever ranked that high? I can see that Miami, Notre Dame and Florida were definately stout competition. The point wasn't, "Did Florida State deserve to be there"? Most of the time you just know that they did. It would not have mattered who they had played. They were a very great football program.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Kevin:
My bad here. Going back to 1998, the inception of the BCS era, it was Florida State that would have an extremely high SOS most of the time. Nebraska even had a higher SOS than Miami had in most seasons. So, it would have been Miami that was playing in the weak Big East conference, that actually had the lower SOS. Nevertheless, they were a great team and deserved to play for National Championships, regardless of how weak the Big East was.
Bama_Babe
· 1 year ago
But who would Ball State have beaten if they went undefeated? Exactly. And Ball State's schedule doesn't even need an arguement on the issue of their opponent's "toughness." If there are various programs with 1 loss at the end of the season (Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Penn State, whatever) it would be ANOTHER BCS nightmare. I have no clue what to tell you there, nor would I have an unbiased opinion on who would be more deserving. All I was saying was that if teams like Texas and Alabama - with the programs they have - do happen to go undefeated, they deserve to be playing in the Miami. I, by no means, am saying that is going to happen. You were acting like wins and loses don't mean anything, and my point was that they mean a helluva lot more than average ypg or ppg. USC may be the most talented team with the best stats in college football, but there are teams with a better record than them. And, unfortunately in your case, the polls are based more on RECORDS and SOS than statistics.
So therefore, at this point in the season, Texas and Alabama can either put their foot on the gas and follow the track, or wreck and let others pass them.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Bama_Babe:
Again, your only talking about "who have they played", and then do make mention of wins and losses. I am intersted in finding out if an unbeaten Ball State team, picked over a once beaten Alabama team, would seem to be a problem? And, if it was, why would that be? Now, it doesn't much matter who they played, because the only reason that they are there (in the argument) is because they have not lost. This is the criteria for the BCS system.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Bama_Babe:
"And beat some quality opponents". Quality is always open to debate. Losing to quality opponents should also be factored in. We did not lose later than LSU did, but we did lose to Stanford, a non-quality opponent. This is what did us in. Georgia could have been picked just as easily - they just didn't get a shot at the SEC Championship game. The reason for SOS ratings - is to figure out who has played the toughest schedule. I'd bet my absolute last dollar that Southern Cal played a tougher SOS than LSU did last year. Wanna bet? But, the loss to a lower ranked Stanford team, skewed the minds of the voters.
TigerEducated
· 1 year ago
We didn't lose to any team in regulation: You did.
We didn't lose to any team that didn't go to a bowl game: You did.
We didn't lose to any teams that were below .500: You did.
Those facts skewed the voters minds, funny how facts tend to do that...
One subjective fact that may have factored in was the fact that Stanford was a -41 dog to you at your place when you got owned by them...
Yes...Whether it was 1 point or 69-0, if you're USC and your beat in the Coliseum by a garbaje Stanford squad, you got owned...
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Correction! And glad you didn't take the bet. LSU did in fact play a tougher schedule in 2007 than USC did. LSU's SOS would be around 11th and Southern Cal's was around 29th for that year. Therefore, that would have been a great part of the equation, for why LSU was chosen to play the game.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Alabama offensive and defensive lines are not as dominating as they might appear to be. That is reflected in the yardage numbers.
Sorry, but Tulsa dominates in the yardage numbers and this is certainly is not due to dominating the line. If your goal is to measure line dominance rushing yards should be used. If your goal is to measure speed passing yards would be a good measure.
I am not stuck on this. I agree with you. In a playoff one loss and you are out. How does this determine the best team? The BCS system claims that each regular season game is like a playoff game, thus one loss is viewed as much more significant than they really are.
This focus on a single loss is a byproduct of the system, it does not originate from me. Above you asked me how the computers could rank Ohio State higher than USC. They definately rely too much on W-L.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Ben:
I agree with some of the things you've said. But, Alabama is a running team. They are viewed as having these completely dominating lines. It just isn't so. As for a passing team, if they can pass protect and give the QB's and WR's time, then maybe they too can be construed as doing a great job - for their particular sheme. Either way, by dominating in the yardage catagories, you are controlling the ball and keeping the other teams offense off the field. This is an extremely important catagory. Nevertheless, if you don't get good line play, you are not gonna outscore your opponents by much or control the game. That is what those numbers do reflect. I fully understand that "the BCS system" is not interested in determining the two best teams. It really is only concerned with making sure that two teams with the least amount of losses take the field. That is what opens us all up, for those "meaningless" Division II opponents, that is all the rave these days. It's all a total joke. BTW, don't count yourself out, Utah may well go unbeaten and get a shot at a National Championship. In this system, the way that it is set-up, it may well happen.
TigerEducated
· 1 year ago
I think they have top flight quality on the starting 11 on both sides, but they don't have depth...
LSU played 20 kids on defense Saturday...9 alone on the DL, and even went to 4 DE's on passing downs, shifting Tremaine Johnson & Tyson Jackson into the DT spot...
Not that anyone in America can rotate 10 DL like we can, but they need to be able to rotate folks, and losing Cody-for example-will show that they're ready, they're just not deep enough, yet...
The_Observer
· 1 year ago
Exactly. Bama will need to be very fortunate to avoid any injuries and I mean ANY injuries. Maybe they will be able to work through the Cody injury (I've heard mixed reports about the severity of his knee), but if one or two more starters get hurt then Alabama's dream is done!
Bama_Babe
· 1 year ago
ESPN reports Cody to be out for at least 2 weeks with a sprained MCL. He could (hopefully!) be back for LSU on November 8th. Saban said his injury is similar to Andre Smith's that sidelined him for the Tulane game.
TigerEducated
· 1 year ago
Well, I talked to an orthopedist on our site today, and you guys should take heart...
The MCL is not really called upon to help out that much...It's only really damaged in those "roll up" type injuries.
Also, other muscle groups can compensate for a weakened MCL...
I know that our 1st team All-SEC LB Derry Beckwith had the same thing happen to him, and he missed 4 weeks this year, and he sat out late against South Carolina when he retweaked it...
I think the biggest issue is how to rehab him...
B_B...Seriously...Do you guys drain half the pool before he gets in =-)
Bama_Babe
· 1 year ago
Haha, Big TC is actually in my cousin's Lit class. She said one day he walked into class with nothing but a gallon of milk about 1/3 full drinking it. I've seen him around campus and he's just a monster!
Hopefully the healing will be speedy, because we really need him on the field. I'm hoping for some fumbles by Foster this weekend. I'll be in that UGLY orange stadium so I hope Bama puts together a full game. I want another win like last year!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
That could still be a problem. With two weeks of inactivity, this guy might pack on 40 lbs...
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I have made my views clear on Utah's chances in the past weeks and nothing has changed, except a week went by without any major upsets.
The odds are a good bit longer than last week, and BYU is no longer an out in the MWC in the NC game bet. I am going to hold my tongue in this regard until I see the results of the Utah TCU game in three weeks. If Utah beats New Mexico and kills TCU worse than Oklahoma did expect me to then carry the Utah should be #2 banner.
Unless 2 of Texas, Penn State, Alabama are still undefeated. That argument would still be ridiculous, even by my standards.
JaredIsKing
· 1 year ago
I really don't think you can make that a guarantee. We would have to restart the the season with Southern Cal playing each of those kinda stellar teams. Since there is a very good chance that USC would lose to a team like Charttanooga or Taxachusetts, I would offer that Southern Cal would not have scored all that many points, on average, on said teams.
Mr2Bits
· 1 year ago
UF did get screwed but I'm not bothered at this pointa as there are many weeks left. Wins over GA, Vandy(of all things),Kentucky(of all things x2), and a decently ranked FSU squad will have UF hovering right where they need to be making the biggest leap if they can get/win the SEC championship which I see them meeting an undefeated Bama pending they get past LSU and Auburn(thorninside).
There are still going to be alot of top ten mixups and as long as UF is not involved, they will get theirs.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
You are correct in as much as UF's remaining schedule should help em.
JB
· 1 year ago
People there is waaaaaay to much football left to be played ...all these teams could loose again and we will be in the same boat ...lets wait at least till november 2nd untill we start determing who is the best ( i say november 2nd because by then, most of the teams have run through the most difficult part of thier schedules, with the execption of rivalry week at the end......TX plays Okie St and Tech....USC wins by 50 a couple times.....FL plays GA.....LSU plays UGA and AL........and so and so forth
4cornerz
· 1 year ago
We need a Playoff. The BCS sucks
Tyler_Tech
· 1 year ago
I think a playoff system is really not the best idea. The reason you see such good bowl games is that teams have weeks to prepare and get all of their starters 100%. Having a playoff is really not the best solution because of injuries and the fact that every team cannot play against top competition week in and week out and show their best effort. Take the SEC for example. If the schedule was not so brutal you would not have UF losing to an ole miss, but unfortunately that is the way it is. Maybe a one game playoff would not be so bad, only in the instance that there are more than 2 undefeated teams in BCS conferences. Until then though the BCS provides alot of entertainment and makes each week in college football that much more important. Wreck em'
OU_Ron
· 1 year ago
Looks like my hypothetical question on another thread from last week could be a real possibility, again I don't really think that this will happen, but it could !!
Oklahoma v. Ohio State--to determine once and for all, who's the biggest choker of 'em all!
My money would be on OU...to choke, that is....
GO GATORS!!
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
OU_Ron:
I mentioned it before and it is a real possibility. Those games that both Texas and Oklahoma have left, against Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, are real winnable games. This is a little bit better Oklahoma team than last year. There is no reason to think that they would lose twice. Texas could win out also. Texas Tech and Oklahoma State start out the year quite well on occasion - and then always fold it up later on.
All you need is for Alabama to lose, which they will, and for either Iowa or Ohio State to beat Penn State. If Penn State plays a bad half, like they did against Michigan, Ohio State is much more likely to beat that team. I really doubt if they would surrender 39 straight points up in the game. But, remember, you've got to win impressively - unless your in the SEC. Southern Cal will probably keep winning big, along with Florida, so Oklahoma has got to win big also.
OU_Ron
· 1 year ago
Tommy, if our defense and special teams were stronger, then I would think we could do it because our offense is awsome.......I think there is a real chance we lose to Okla State...
GA_Boy
· 1 year ago
Everybody just take a deep breath and listen to me. I usually bequeath (impart, leave, bestow, grant) the right for spelling corrections during the thread to TE or one of the gator twins but this has got to stop. I don't think it is "typos" either. I am quite certain that this word is intentionally being spelled this way.
It's LOSE, not LOOSE. Examples:
Lose: to fail to win (a prize, stake, game, etc.): "If GA were to lose to LSU, I might drive to Baton Rouge and torch the place."
Loose: free or released from fastening or attachment. "I was starting to wonder if I had a chance until I noticed that her bra clasp was loose."
I will now go back to not worrying about spelling but that one gripes me. Please spot check yourself if you feel the need to use either of those words while trying to make a point that you want someone to respect.
GO DAWGS!!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Sorry if I got loose with my spelling of lose.
Stupid look alike sound alikes.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Your a looser, man!
GO GATORS!!
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
Hey "gator twin", I have the trademark on that phrase!
GA_Boy
· 1 year ago
Look out DAWG fans, they are putting their keyboards together, "Gator Twin powers activate." By the way Ramblin, thanks for the props on Stafford. I have been waiting for someone from the Gator Nation to acknowledge that he is good. I know you have the one and only Tebow but nice to hear you give credit where credit is due, especially after I punked out and gushed about Tebow's skills a few posts ago.
GO DAWGS!
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
No gushing over Tebow, please. Heck, I love the kid, but I'm even sick of the non-stop Tebow-thon.
GA_Boy
· 1 year ago
By the way, check out my new picture. My man has got some skills I tell you. I hated to leave the Vandy girls on there much longer Tomcat. It was bad enough we beat them, I didn't want to rub in the fact that our gals are just so much damn hotter too! Moreno is a pleasure to watch. The kid can just motor. I feel a little sorry for him because he is now running behind what has got to be the weakest O line (I don't mean that in a bad way, just the facts) in the history of a top 10 BCS team. No fault of their own. They are young and thrown into action by necessity and they are all going to be great eventually. Will it be this year? I can't say. I doubt it. I sure as hell hope so. They have put together two great drives at the ends of our last two games to put them away and I could not be more proud of the way they dig in late in the game and just POWER that ball down the field. Time consuming drives. Now we go up against LSU and their arsenal of D Line. What do you have TE, 5 seniors, 2 juniors, and a sophmore rotating in and out? We have 3 freshman and 2 sophmores on the O line. We are going to see them grow up or get beat up this weekend. We have not allowed any sacks in the last two games but TN and Vandy D lines are no LSU D line. But, if we can hang in there early with LSU and FLA, we can win them both. We get better as the game goes on. I think we only had 5 penalties the last game and 3 of those were defensive. The O is coming around. Now they just need to finish off in the redzone. You won't stop us too often 20 to 20 but the field goal is becoming way too important to this team. Our boy wonder missed 2 against Vandy. I like that RIcht sent him back out there and let him make the game sealer. The defense scares me. They are dominating at times and hell against the run. The problem I see is the soft zone they play and no pass rush. You won't be able to go sideline to sideline on us. You can't run it straight up the middle either. You CAN kill us on the underneath pass because our LB crew, as much as I love them, like to cheat up on the run and they bite big on the play action. They were much better this weekend against Vandy so maybe Martinez in getting it corrected. Our corners are slow, comparatively speaking. Again, they are physical and excellent at open field tackles, but they have a tendency to let the WR get past them in man to man. Dawgs fans keep asking in the call in shows why Martinez plays zone and doesn't blitz more. Dumb question. Vandy answered it for them. Our guys can't play man well. Asher Allen is the only one that matches up well in man coverage.
GO DAWGS!!
E32
· 1 year ago
WOW ! I just happened to stumble upon this blog and didn't realize this was so controversial. Everyone is going to be bummed about their team not being in the top "whatever". I was actually looking for somewhere to comment how Ohio State is once again in the top 10 and may actually creep up to one of the top 3 spots if they win out and the right teams lose, but from the looks of things everything is covered. I'm just curious how Ohio State is top 10 and Tulsa is barely in the top 25. I mean I'm not a numbers type of guy like Tommy Trojan but maybe he can help out. I'm not attacking anyone but Tulsa seems to put up some very gawdy numbers agains the same type of opponents that Ohio State has. Anyways, just venting ..........
OU_Ron
· 1 year ago
Asking Tommy for help with numbers is like dangling a piece of meat in front of a bunch of wolves, just don't feed them by hand, you might draw back a nub.......
NMLSooner
· 1 year ago
The playoffs if they started this Saturday 8 Ball State @ 1 Texas 5 Florida @ 4 Texas Tech 6 Boise State @ 3 USC 7 South Florida @ 2 Oklahoma 8 Tulsa @ Alabama 5 Ohio State @ Georgia 6 Utah @ Oklahoma State 7 Georgia Tech @ Penn State
All Comments
The ranking values of the scores show that Georgia is closer to what a #8 team should have and Florida is closer to what a #9 team should have.
Georgia and Ohio State have shown some resilience since suffering losses several weeks back. They also have huge tests on the horizon.
Apparently the computers register emasculation in the same manner as a close loss.
Actually, TOSU I get; they are a completely different team than the one that USC annihalated, since Beanie Wells is back, AND Terrell Pryor has teken over and come into his own. Well, I don't think they belong higher than UF, but I get them not being completely panned as a result of the USC game.
UGA on the other hand, has only lost more players to injury, eeked out ugly wins, and done virtually nothing to impress anyone.
...but again, I ain't complaining--that bodes well for UF, since they're on our schedule.
GO GATORS!!
GO GATORS!!
Loss to unranked team: -0.3
Loss to lower ranked team: -0.2
Loss to higher ranked team: -0.1
Win: +0.005 * Ranking (For attrition)
Win over lower ranked team: +0.1
Win over higher ranked team: +0.2
Top 2 exception: Teams in the top 2 may have a perception unanimously well above the remainder, and a loss must overcome this divide before BCS points are reduced. Wins by these teams add to this invisible cushion.
I am actually going to say these rankings are far better than the polls or any of the computers, IMO. While the system may be screwy, the rankings are not that bad.
A game between any of these teams would likely be great to watch.
...how's it matter if we would be 'dogs? It'd only matter who would win an actual game played between them, and I don't care where Vegas puts their money, UF is better than OkSU or TT (sure we might lose--that's why the play the games--but UF is a better team); the probability would have to be with UF.
On second thought, I should care--if Vegas had us as dogs against either of those teams, I'd bet the kids' college fund!
GO GATORS!!
Fact is: The LVSC would make Florida a prohibited favorite over both Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. That is where all of the money would be going - on Florida.
...but IF they had UF as dogs, could you...could anyone...resist that action? NFW! But you'd have to pounce, because the line would immediately correct to show UF as favs.
(b/t/w: it's "prohibitive" not "prohibited"...I know, probably a typo...but just in case/fyi...).
GO GATORS!!
The other the following week, unless Kansas proves the rankings wrong.
Your the expert - riddle me this: USC beat Ohio State by 32 points, so then, how in the world does Ohio State outrank USC in the computer models? This has been established after the 1st BCS poll BTW...I know that it's gonna have something to do with USC lost to a lower ranked team, right? But, isn't there something wrong with that?
When comparing two 1 loss teams, the simplest ranking would be to use the rank of the team they lost too. USC>Oregon State, so Ohio State>USC.
This argument turns a victory chain upside down when the top of the chain is proven to be weak.
Argument 2:
At this point enough games are present to start considering some game outliers. Throwing out the best and worst game for each team lets compare what is left. For USC we drop out their win over Ohio State and their loss to Oregon State. For Ohio State we drop their win over Michigan State and loss to USC.
Ohio State still has wins over 6-1 Minnesota,3-4 Wisconsin, and a 4-2 Troy team that leads their conference.
USC has wins over 5-2 Oregon, 4-3 Virgina and a bunch of teams that can't even beat MWC scrubs.
Argument 3:
The computers are too dependent on win loss. A typical approach would be to use an equivalent to PCT to measure a teams strength and an equivalent to opponents PCT to measure SOS. The central limit theorem shows that the variance of these measures would be expected to differ by a factor of the square root of the number of games played.
Since rankings are based on the variance of the sum, the PCT would be amplified by a factor of the square root of the number of games played relative to the SOS by this overly simple (Colley Matrix-like) method. Ohio State's opponents have a better combined W-L record than USC's.
Argument 4:
USC is artificially inflated by the LA Media bias, the entire west coast bias consolidated into one team. At least on the East coast is distributed among a conference. Computer's don't reflect this regional effect.
I like argument # 4. Why can't we make a computer model that automatically adjusts itself for that criteria? Seriously, I use something along the lines of argument # 3, which uses a central-mean and calculates every game played. It does not care if you lose. It does care who you lose to and by how much. So, I take it that your in agreement, that the Ohio State beatdown was something that was fabricated by the "West Coast Media"?
I am stating that this game is getting more of the appearance of an outlier and that the trend line for Ohio State is climbing steadily since then.
Bravo! ding,ding,ding...You've nailed it! Actual play on the field doesn't have anything to do with it. Truthfully, I was not so upset back in 2003 (even though USC was ranked # 1 in both polls), when USC was passed over for an LSU/Oklahoma game. I am quite sure, that the BCS system as it was, was alot better than what they have now. At that time, the system, gave equal weight to "the voters" and "the computers". The computers overrode what the voters believed (probably based on SOS) and left USC out. It was probably correct.
Now, "the system", gives about 2/3 of the weight to "the voters". We now have the same system as we had prior to the invention of the BCS system. It is obviously very difficult for the computers to overtake the voters. Therefore, Auburn was burned in 2004, as the voters decided that USC should play Oklahoma. I don't know, if the actual computer data, would have gotten Auburn into one of the top two spots - but it would not surprise me at all.
So, I'm not gonna cry too hard about a system that was overhauled, because of what was deemed my teams slight. But, I do know that it did hurt the whole system. The idea was to get rid of "the voter bias", by using actual computer models to determine actual play on the field, but the whole thing has been discarded for what the media's popular opinion is.
The new system is FAR superior to the ad hoc old system. Until better computers, ones that can compare with the polls in predictive power, the polls are superior to the computers and should be weighted more. The computers do reduce bias, though they do emphasize PCT too much, and the end results are not bad.
1) Texas: 1.0979
2) Penn State: 0.9666
3) Alabama: .9587
4) Oklahoma: 0.8519
5) Georgia: 0.8201
6) Texas Tech: 0.8127
7) USC: 0.8001
8) Florida: 0.7190
9) Oklahoma State: 0.6727
10) Boise State 0.6470
11) Utah: 0.6345
12) Ohio State: 0.6030
13) TCU: 0.4897
14) Missouri: 0.4432
15) LSU: 0.3987
16) Ball State: 0.3342
17) BYU: 0.3221
18) FSU: 0.2370
19) Tulsa: 0.2368
20) USF: 0.1296
21) Pittsburgh: 0.0831
Now these numbers, especially at the top need some adjusting. Penn State will not pass Alabama. This actually is an application of the top 2 rule. Also the numbers will be less for all of the top 7. A more accurate top 3 would be:
1) Texas: 1.00
2) Alabama: 0.95
3) Penn State: 0.93
I would be surprised if Georgia does not pass USC, but not really if Texas Tech does not. They should, but they might not.
The gap between Utah and Boise State will be reduced due to Utah's bye week and Boise State's good showing against WAC contender San Jose State, who is doing better than usual this year. If Boise State takes the lead now Utah would get it back with a win over TCU.
I think BYU will not get as many points as this indicates. FSU should end up between Ball State and BYU. Tulsa is in the right spot but will pick up a few more points than shown.
Pittsburgh and USF will likely be passed by a few new entries to the BCS top 25, possibly even knocking Pittsburgh out of the top 25.
He doesn't care about the point...He wanted to let his redneck fandom flag fly...
Not so sure about that. The game is in Columbus and the line only favors PSU by 2. PSU has never won in Columbus since entering the Big 10(11). OSU played well last Saturday and PSU didn't.
I think if OSU shuts down the run, it'll be a entertaining game to watch.
I am generally in favor of the BCS over a playoff (especially a large playoff), but the way they have implemented it makes the system very hard to defend.
I found that the computers were less reliable than the pollsters at ranking the winning teams higher before the game. For programs offereing MOV and W-L only options the MOV algorithms performed better. The only computer that out performed the human polls was Massey's MOV algorithm, not used by the BCS.
It will come down to this, the winner of the SEC and Big 12 or Big 10 will be in the title game. That means Fla., Ga.,Bama or LSU against who knows
Take one large crow.
Marinate for 4 days in LSU posts and predictions of a dominating performance.
Add a pinch of TE analysis (in TE terms a pinch means at least a 1000 word essay.)
Cook in 73 degree weather from 330 to 700 on Saturday.
Serve with a nice cold Hurricane around 8 PM.
It's tasty. Ask TE. He had some after the FLA game!
GO DAWGS!!
P.S. Marko if anything is true about our team(we have proved it) we can beat anyone and come from behind on anyone on any given day.
Is #1 really better than #2 though? They both get to the big game.
See what you think of this. We'll just take five simple catagories (Offppg,Offypg,Defppg,Defypg,SOS), give a National ranking (which is real), and then calculate a simple average, by dividing by five. Who do you think will win? I have a feeling...I'll use Sagarin's rating for SOS. Currently the conferences are ranked thus...Big12,SEC,Big 10,ACC,Pac-10,BE,MWC,WAC.
1.Texas, 48.1 Opg (2), 484.0 Oyg (10), 17.6 Dpg (25), 323.1 Dyg(39), SOS (24) = 20.00
2. Alabama, 32.3 Opg (32), 371.1 Oyg (60), 14.4 Dpg (14), 276.0 Dyg (16), SOS (53) = 35.00
3. Penn State, 45.4 Opg (7), 482.1 Oyg (11), 11.8 Dpg (6), 263.3 Dyg (8), SOS (82) = 22.80
4. Oklahoma, 46.9 Opg (3), 544.1 Oyg (4), 20.7 Dpg (41), 315.7 Dyg (34), SOS (35) = 23.40
5. U.S.C., 41.5 Opg (8), 471.5 Oyg (12), 7.8 Dpg (1), 220.2 Dyg (2), SOS (13) = 7.20
6. Oklahoma State, 46.4 Opg (4), 501.4 Oyg (7), 20.6 Dpg (40), 335.9 Dyg (48), SOS (87) = 37.20
7. Georgia, 31.7 Opg (35), 429.6 Oyg (26), 17.7 Dpg (27), 269.7 Dyg (12), SOS (22) = 24.40
8. Texas Tech, 45.9 Opg (5), 557.0 Oyg (2), 21.1 Dpg (43), 351.0 Dyg (58), SOS (103) = 42.20
9. Ohio State, 26.9 Opg (56), 322.3 Oyg (90), 13.4 Dpg (12), 265.4 Dyg (10), SOS (33) = 40.20
10. Florida, 38.5 Opg (16), 404.3 Oyg (37), 13.0 Dpg (8), 274.3 Dyg (15), SOS (21) = 19.40
11. Utah, 39.0 Opg (13), 407.5 Oyg (35), 18.6 Dpg (30), 264.0 Dyg (9), SOS (86) = 34.60
12. Boise State, 32.5 Opg (31), 421.2 Oyg (27), 10.5 Dpg (2), 310.7 Dyg (32), SOS (120) = 42.40
13. L.S.U., 31.2 Opg (38), 398.8 Oyg (40), 21.5 Dpg (44), 295.3 Dyg (24), SOS (64) = 42.00
14. T.C.U., 33.5 Opg (25), 403.9 Oyg (38), 10.9 Dpg (3), 218.6 Dyg (1), SOS (78) = 29.00
15. Missouri, 45.9 Opg (5), 520.9 Oyg (5), 26.3 Dpg (72), 410.9 Dyg (101), SOS (28) = 42.20
1. U.S.C., beat opponent by 33.7 ppg, outgains them 251.3 ypg, SOS = 13th, rating = 7.20
2. Florida, beat opponent by 25.5 ppg, outgains them 130.0 ypg, SOS = 21st, rating = 19.40
3. Texas, beat opponent by 30.5 ppg, outgains them 160.9 ypg, SOS = 24th, rating = 20.00
4. Penn State, beat opponent by 33.6 ppg, outgains them 218.8 ypg, SOS = 82nd, rating = 22.80
5. Oklahoma, beat opponent by 26.2 ppg, outgains them 228.4 ypg, SOS = 35th, rating = 23.40
6. Georgia, beat opponent by 14.0 ppg, outgains them 159.9 ypg, SOS = 22nd, rating = 24.40
7. T.C.U., beat opponent by 22.6 ppg, outgains them 185.3 ypg, SOS = 78th, rating = 29.00
8. Utah, beat opponent by 20.4 ppg, outgains them 143.5 ypg, SOS = 86th, rating = 34.60
9. Alabama, beat opponent by 17.9 ppg, outgains them 95.1 ypg, SOS = 53rd, rating = 35.00
10. Oklahoma St., beat opponent by 25.8 ppg, outgains them 165.5 ypg, SOS = 87th, rating = 37.20
11. Ohio State, beat opponent by 13.5 ppg, outgains them 56.9 ypg, SOS = 33rd, rating = 40.20
12. L.S.U., beat opponent by 9.7 ppg, outgains them 103.5 ypg, SOS = 64th, rating = 42.00
13. Texas Tech, beat opponent by 24.8 ppg, outgains them 206.0 ypg, SOS = 103rd, rating = 42.20
14. Missouri, beat opponent by 19.6 ppg, outgains them 110.0 ypg, SOS = 28th, rating = 42.20
15. Boise State, beat opponent by 22.0 ppg, outgains them 110.5 ypg, SOS = 120th, rating = 42.40
These are the Top 15 teams ranked in the 1st BCS rating. Clearly, there are some serious fallacies here. Alabama, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State are not where they line up at. The BCS computer has Oklahoma State rated 3rd for a win over Missouri. Alabama has not been able to outscore their opponents by more than 17.9 ppg or outgain them by more than 95.1 ypg. And yet, if we drink up all the kool-aid, we'll be convinced that they have the best offensive and defensive lines in the country. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, although they both have great stats, have played extremely weak SOS. Penn State's stats jump more off the page at you - although their SOS is weak also. It could be that SOS should be weighted more than 20% - as it is in this simple model. There are differing opinions of what the SOS rating would be, depending on what rating service was used, but Sagarin's should be in the ball park. Everything is now unbiased - so those ratings might very well be accurate. Again, in the end, we're all gonna find out that the Top Teams here - are the Top Teams period. It really doesn't matter what "the voters" think. The numbers never lie.
;)
I don't have to create a formula that does that. The notion of # 1 is an anamoly. There will never be a way, to decide who is really the very best team, without a playoff system. And, besides, whatever is happening at this moment in time - will all be different at the end of the season. Nothing is set in concrete in college football. There are injuries, player development, and further coacing expertise that constantly change over the course of a season. All you can ever know is what happened yesterday. The above numbers only apply to what has already happened. They have nothing to do with tomorrow.
I was just kidding.
You have the luxury of being able to completely throw out all of the mathematics on this one...
Being as you are one of I believe four teams in the SEC that still controls its own destiny (UAT, LSU, UF, UGA), it does not matter what Ace Rothstein dreams up in Excel...If any of those aforementioned 4 teams in the SEC wins out, they will easily fly by the Bois from Troi. The Lifestyles simply won't have the resume, and the voters are not going to ever ignore the SEC again after the beatdown we've administered two years in row.
Especially in light of the fact that both years, nobody nationally thought that the SEC team should unquestionably should have been participating.
We'll never see something like Auburn did in 2004in this conference, again. We've proven it on the field against each other, and against the rest of the country.
Tommy has to rely on numbers...We get the luxury of relying on what takes place on the field of play...
(Cue sarcastic, mathematically laced, Revenge Of The Nerds-esque response from Tommy quoting multiple math models, and casting aspersions using cryptic information that he thinks he knows about what you do in real life)
Pay no mind to the man, or his spreadsheets...We get to worry about what goes on, on the field...
BTW-Getting back to why I was messaging you...I've heard differing reports on Cody's injury...What's the extent of it, B_B?
This year USC gets to see things from the Auburn side, though with a loss. I agree with those 4 teams you list, and several from the Big 12, having the opportunity to jump over USC if they win out.
Shoot, Ohio State would be close with a win over Penn State this weekend.
They are saying that the BCS only exists, to try and determine, who should play the SEC champion. That has all been "etched into stone", because they were able to beat a coach, who couldn't put a gameplan together. This makes the SEC the most dominate conference that has ever existed. We'll find out this year what's really going on - because Ohio State won't be there. Oh, maybe they'll get lucky again, and maybe draw Bob Stoops.
We've proven that our path makes us more worthy than round robin rubes...
Glad you mentioned "Top Flight Competition", rather than, "the best" competition. Yes, you've managed to "duck" the best competition for going on seven years. Until you beat the best competition - your not worthy of much.
2003:
USC 23 Auburn 0
LSU 31 Auburn 7
USC 45 Arizona 0
LSU 59 Arizona 13
California 34 USC 31
Kansas State 42 California 28
Kansas State 35 Oklahoma 7
LSU 21 Oklahoma 14
USC would have been better than Oklahoma by around 11 points. The best team wasn't in the game.
2006:
USC 50 Arkansas 14
Florida 38 Arkansas 28
Ohio State 42 Michigan 39
USC 32 Michigan 18
Florida 41 Ohio State 14
Again, the best team wasn't even in the game.
2007:
USC 49 Illinois 17
Illinois 28 Ohio State 21
L.S.U. 38 Ohio State 24
Do I have to even mention this one?
Do you notice a pattern here? The pattern is that the best team that you could ever play is never in the game. Your "boasting" about beating teams, that we have dispatched with even more ease, does not qualify you to make the claim that "you are deserving". Top Flight competition doesn't cut it in Championship games. You shouldn't boast too much until you actually ever beat "the best team".
Playing the occasional SEC team, is not the same as playing a SEC schedule.
We've been through this for years with Miami Fan and FSU Fan. Now that they're in the same enhanced conference, behold the futility. Imagine if they had joined the SEC or the Big XII!
USC enjoys its success, because they're in the "Big East" West al la Miami in the early oughts, or the 90's ACC, a la FSU. Great, for the occassional 2-3 games per year, but put them in a conference like the SEC or Big XII, and you could expect different results.
So let me turn the tables on you: when did USC play the best team in the country to claim it's NC?
Choklahoma in '04? When there was an undefeated SEC champ out there? Turns out, the best team wasn't in THAT NC game, either.
Cuts both ways bubba.
That's why I have such a bloodlust for USC v. SEC champ.
...its been brewing for years....
GO GATORS!!
It's not weak daisy chain logic. Neither Oklahoma in 03' or Ohio State in 06' and 07' were better teams than Southern Cal was in those years. The "Daisy Chain" was only put there to back up what we already know. Even with the weak Daisy Chain argument - Southern Cal still outperformed those teams. That's the point. And, they did it in all three instances. And, BTW, Southern Cal did outrank all three of those teams at the end of the year. So, it's a fact, the SEC Champion never did play the best available team in those three years. You even know that. And, the argument had nothing to do with "how tough the SEC is". I can't understand why you people can't get unstuck from that stupid idiotic logic. Your teams were in the Championship game. What did that have to do with anything. My argument was that you did not play against the best team. It has nothing to do with "your conference".
You've broken a cardinal rule of Fanblogs. You are never allowed to make mention of the fact that there was a good PAC 10 team. Don't let it ever happen again. Or, we'll all have to quit responding to you.
Of course they did; they won their f*%N bowl!
...just like Auburn was ranked ahead of OU in after '04 season--which (by your logic) means USC didn't play the best team in '04. The EXACT same scenario you're using to discredit the SEC--A CONFERENCE....
Hence when you say:.
"...My argument was that you did not play against the best team. It has nothing to do with "your conference...".
...is patently ridiculous. It had EVERYTHING to do with a conference--and the samples you sited were against LSU AND UF--not just LSU (re. '06-b/t/w: using your own twisty DCL: UF was up 34-14 at half; they coasted to win 41-14 vs. OSU who BEAT Michigan--who played USC to a 3-0 first half; they just fell apart in the second half, but they played USC close for a half....whatever...it gets us no where).
Bottom line: if you find the logic "...stupid and idiotic...", please note that you are commenting on your own logic, since I merely mirrored it--in order to illustrate its absurdity.
GO GATORS!!
Southern Cal did not play the best team in 04'. Did I say that they did? The BCS has only gotten it right in 05'. That's the only time. You argued, "Of course they did; they won their f*%N bowl"! No kidding! That's the point. We do win our Bowl games. Ohio State and Oklahoma do not. We outranked those teams at the end - because we were better at the end. If we were better at the end - then why weren't we better prior to the Bowl games. The weak "Daisy Chain" logic points out that we were. There were no shots taken at the SEC in the argument. The argument was that the SEC didn't play the best team. I suppose that you would make the argument that Oklahoma was better in 04', after getting pasted 55-19 by USC, than Auburn was. You make the same lame as argument here. Of course Auburn was the better choice in 04' - but this wonderful BCS system could not figure that out. It rarely gets the two best teams on the field. Go ahead and dispute that if it makes you feel right. I think that the whole system blows!
Let's go back to the comment that started this whole sub-thread, directed to TE:
"...Until you beat the best competition - your not worthy of much...."
I inferred that to mean it only applied to the SEC--if you're acknowleding that it applies to USC in '04 as well, we're good (that is, I won't argue with you; if you wanna discredit USC's only own NC in order to discredit SEC's last 3, at least you're applying the same standard equally).
b/t/w:
"...I suppose that you would make the argument that Oklahoma was better in 04', after getting pasted 55-19 by USC, than Auburn was...."
Why pray tell, would I do that?
My whole point was that IF USC was better than OU & OSU x2 based on their final ranking--which necessarily factors in for a bowl loss to the champ--THEN so too must AU have been better than OU in '04.
Seems the only thing we can agree on, is that USC v. SEC champ is a long time coming.
...but then, would it be the two best teams in the nation, when they do meet? Probably not, but frankly I don't care--I'd just like to see them settle those bragging rights on the gridiron.
GO GATORS!!
I did not make the original claim that the SEC was so dominant because they have three "crystal balls". That was your pal who did that. I said that they don't mean much. I stated that USC didn't play the 2nd best team in 04' - that has got to be too obvious. I'm against the BCS period. I don't think that they hardly ever get it right. USC/Texas in 05' and maybe Ohio State/Miami in 02'. But clearly, in most every other year, the BCS "runnerup" could not have been the best team available or there was at least good argument against it. Auburn was considered the 2nd best team in 04' and never got a chance to prove that they might have been # 1. I stand by that.
Looks like "...what we have here is a failure to communicate..."
You inferred from TE's comment that the "top flight" competition he was referring to was the NC games (he was talk'n about SEC in general).
I inferred your reply to mean that SEC didn't play the best team in NC game, but that USC did.
In other words, it appears that we both read into prior posts, things that weren't even implied.
Oh well... it made for an interesting exchange anyway.
GO GATORS!!
Right now, the "voters" think that Alabama is better than Oklahoma. What do you really think, Lennie? And, I know that you don't get to be a "voter". Just curious. Do you think that Oklahoma is not as good as Alabama is - because they lost a game? Do you think that if Texas had lost - that Texas would not be as good as Bama? You seem to want to argue today. Did the dog get out of the yard again?
I should have known that you were an "insect guy". Bet your most not favorite movie is "Men in Black".
Missouri has played: SE Missouri State, Nevada and Buffalo
Oklahoma has played: Chattanooga and Baylor
Texas has played: Florida Atlantic, UTEP, Rice and Arkansas
Oklahoma State has played: Washington State, Houston, Troy and Missouri State
Texas Tech has played: Eastern Washington, Nevada, SMU and Massachusetts
How many points do you think that Southern Cal might have scored had they played nothing but this kinda stellar competition? I can guarantee you that it would be a whole lot more than anybody who just got to play Washington State.
So just lay off the BCS BS and your ridiculous posts explaining the "fallacies" of the current system and take a cue from your head coach and ignore the polls and hope that your team gets the job done on the field.
Respectfully,
The Observer
P.S. You have waaaaay too much time on your hands.
I guess if you throw out actual games and look solely at stats anything is possible. Yes, lets embrace your system, make margin of victory all that matters, and encourage teams to run up the score and undermine sportsmanship.
MOV is 40% of your system. Yards gained margin is 40% of your system. Actual W-L record is 0% of your system.
This isn't any kinda "system". All this shows is what the actual numbers are. You can see some things by looking at actual numbers. For instance, Alabama's offense isn't much better than Ohio State's is. Alabama offensive and defensive lines are not as dominating as they might appear to be. That is reflected in the yardage numbers. Yardage numbers give you an idea of who is controlling the ball. Alabama certainly is not doing that like everybody thinks they are. Everybody seems to be real stuck on wins and losses. That does not have a thing to do with who the very best teams are. How many years do people have to watch the game to understand this. LSU lost two games last year. So did Southern Cal. Every great team loses games. What I'm trying to get across - is that everybody will lose games. You are really stuck on this.
"Yardage numbers give you an idea of who is controlling the ball. Alabama certainly is not doing that like everybody thinks they are. Everybody seems to be real stuck on wins and losses."
Your system or your "actual numbers" don't take into account the actual game. I would be interested in seeing your numbers for the first half of games. I think that your numbers might show that some teams, such as Alabama, play conservative in the second half of ball games in which they are riding out a lead.
Let me say that I strongly disagree with going conservative so early in games, but if you look at your numbers I am sure that you will see a team more deserving of its spot in the polls.
You really don't understand what a "level of consistancy" is. Every team has good quarters and bad quarters. How many are you gonna have? Clearly, Georgia had a bad half against Alabama. Alabama has had many bad halves. They just haven't had two of them in the same game. That day is coming real soon. Why do I know this? Because they are not as dominate as you all think that they are. That is reflected in "the numbers". They may get by Tennessee (but don't count on it), or they may even get by LSU, but they are gonna get waxed when they meet Florida. They will get beaten just as badly as LSU did. Furthermore, they are a 1st half team only. They have absolutely no stamina. The 2nd half of the season is upon us. Now, this is where the wheat gets separated from the chaff. Let's just see how much endurance that they have. I think that Alabama is a very fine program, on it's way upward, and will continue to improve into next year. This year - they have no depth. Terrance Cody is now gonna be sidelined for at least a couple of weeks. Let's just see how that effects Alabama. Do not be surprised if Tennessee doesn't take this game this weekend. It is very much possible. I don't care where USC stands in the polls. We all know that you are "severly penalized" for one loss in the BCS system. Look at Florida. Ranked 10th? Really? Now, that's an injustice. That's the worst injustice in these rankings. What I'm doing here is pointing out the fallacies of the voters. For my team, we're gonna have to have at least three more teams lose games, before we even get a sniff. We may be the best team in the country, but it doesn't matter, because we lost one game. Same thing has happened to Florida. What I don't like is for teams that become overrated for one "upset" win. And in this case, if you pay close attention to the numbers, Alabama's win over Georgia can still be seen as an upset. Georgia has still played better ball, than Alabama has, over the entire rest of the season. They had one bad game, and just happened to do it, against Alabama. This somehow transformed Alabama into a great team. I call this "SEC tranference". It means that if there is an "upset" in the SEC, that the team who won in an "upset", somehow becomes the next National Champion. Fortunately, Alabama is still got a few tough games to go, and will be knocked out of the box. Therefore, college football, can be returned back to some kinda normalcy.
I'm sure your opinion is on par with much of the country, but it doesn't change the fact that Alabama has played well enough to pull out a 7-0 record with some pretty impressive moments on the big stage in front of the entire nation. And don't worry about me being suprised if Alabama get defeated because I can assure you that I won't be.
Terrance Cody could turn out to be a devastating loss for Alabama. That is the exact type of injury to Alabama's roster that could send them spiraling downward.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that Alabama could remain unbeaten, but they will need to beat both LSU and Auburn (both teams have had a knack for exposing Bama as a prentender in the past). That is after having to travel to Knoxville and facing an "On-the-Hot-Seat" Phil Fulmer and then Mississippi State will be a challenge if Alabama keeps playing the way they have been.
You are right though, Alabama has not had two great halves in the same game, nor have they had two bad halves. It is much more likely that Alabama loses a game or two than that they go undefeated. That may be the easiest prediction to make in all of college football. Going undefeated now days is very rare, much more so with the parity of the SEC. Alabama would need to have almost zero injuries just to be competitive with LSU and Florida, but that isn't very realistic. Cody may just turn out to be the first domino to fall.
Everyone said now way back in February, but...
The fact of the matter is, everyone is "stuck" on wins and losses because that is what the season is about. WINS or LOSES make or break the season. Not how many touchdowns you score in a game. Win a game 69-0 or 24-20...either one ends the same way - with a W added to the record.
Yes, LSU lost 2 games last season and still won the NC. But the thing is, they got there because of late losses by USC, West Virginia, and Missouri. It may not all be about wins and loses, but if a team has a zero after the dash in their record, it doesn't matter how they win, how many yards they gain per game, how many yards they allow per game, etc. If a team can stay undefeated by finding ways to win week after week,and beat some quality opponents, they deserve a ranking that reflects that.
Here's a real good question for you. Let's just say that Texas wins out, finishes unbeaten, and is rated # 1 in the final BCS standings. Now, let's just say that Alabama loses one game to Auburn, goes on to win the SEC Championship finishing with a 12-1 mark - while ending up with the # 3 BCS ranking.
Now, as a real absurd scenario, what if Ball State ended up 12-0, with the # 2 BCS ranking? Or, maybe a little more realistically, what if it were Utah at 12-0 instead? What would be your thinking? And, please don't try and tell me that it is all about wins and loses. And, try and not tell me about the "we play in the tougher conference" stuff either, as that only applies to SEC teams as we know it. No, I want you to try and get honest, and try and explain exactly why a Ball State should not be in the game - but it needs to be an original thought.
You're presuming a UGA win over UF? That would be a mistake.
UGA won ugly last year against a ridiculously young, porous UF defense, and an injured QB. They're the ones with the injury issues this year (OL), and they've done nothing to impress anyone; while UF has shown vast improvement.
Masbe you can enlighten me--where the hell does all the UGA love come from? I thought the bama slaughter would be sufficient to dispense with the mystique, yet here we are, a few weeks removed, and they're still getting the love...I don't get it (I like it--since they're on our schedule, but I really don't get it...).
GO GATORS!!
Michigan
UNLV
Utah State
Weber State
Oregan State
Wyoming
Colorado State
New Mexico
TCU (currently BCS-14 & AP-15)
San Diego State
BYU (currently BCS-21 & AP-18)
It's Beastly!
Compare that to a 1 loss Alabama team that would have only played and beaten under these circumstances:
Georgia (Preseason MNC favorite, currently BCS-7 & AP-9)
LSU (currently BCS-13 & AP-11, '03 & '06 National Champs)
Florida (most likely SEC East Champ, BCS-10 & AP-5, '07 National Champs)
It's Utah, no question!
You agree with what? I didn't answer the question - you should have done that. You started dabbling around with the "SEC schedule stuff" again, and that was prohibited from the correct answer, as I was kinda looking for a straight-up honest reason for dismissing these teams. You came close to doing it - but just didn't quite pull the trigger.
Do you remember the days when Florida State and Nebraska didn't play anybody on the way to the "NC Game"? I do. Those teams probably had the worst SOS in the country. Again, who you played has nothing to do with how good your team really is. What is the "real" reason that a "Ball State" should not play in a National Championship game?
42-0 vs Kansas
45-7 vs Duke
57-0 vs #21 Clemson
33-7 vs #13 North Carolina
51-0 vs Georgia Tech
28-10 vs #3 Miami
40-14 vs #15 Virginia
54-0 vs Wake Forest
49-20 vs Maryland
24-31 loss vs #2 Notre Dame
62-3 vs NC State
33-21 vs #7 Florida
18-16 vs #2 Nebraska
Sorry - just had to correct that SOS claim.
My bad here. Going back to 1998, the inception of the BCS era, it was Florida State that would have an extremely high SOS most of the time. Nebraska even had a higher SOS than Miami had in most seasons. So, it would have been Miami that was playing in the weak Big East conference, that actually had the lower SOS. Nevertheless, they were a great team and deserved to play for National Championships, regardless of how weak the Big East was.
Exactly. And Ball State's schedule doesn't even need an arguement on the issue of their opponent's "toughness."
If there are various programs with 1 loss at the end of the season (Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Penn State, whatever) it would be ANOTHER BCS nightmare. I have no clue what to tell you there, nor would I have an unbiased opinion on who would be more deserving.
All I was saying was that if teams like Texas and Alabama - with the programs they have - do happen to go undefeated, they deserve to be playing in the Miami. I, by no means, am saying that is going to happen. You were acting like wins and loses don't mean anything, and my point was that they mean a helluva lot more than average ypg or ppg. USC may be the most talented team with the best stats in college football, but there are teams with a better record than them. And, unfortunately in your case, the polls are based more on RECORDS and SOS than statistics.
So therefore, at this point in the season, Texas and Alabama can either put their foot on the gas and follow the track, or wreck and let others pass them.
Again, your only talking about "who have they played", and then do make mention of wins and losses. I am intersted in finding out if an unbeaten Ball State team, picked over a once beaten Alabama team, would seem to be a problem? And, if it was, why would that be? Now, it doesn't much matter who they played, because the only reason that they are there (in the argument) is because they have not lost. This is the criteria for the BCS system.
"And beat some quality opponents". Quality is always open to debate. Losing to quality opponents should also be factored in. We did not lose later than LSU did, but we did lose to Stanford, a non-quality opponent. This is what did us in. Georgia could have been picked just as easily - they just didn't get a shot at the SEC Championship game. The reason for SOS ratings - is to figure out who has played the toughest schedule. I'd bet my absolute last dollar that Southern Cal played a tougher SOS than LSU did last year. Wanna bet? But, the loss to a lower ranked Stanford team, skewed the minds of the voters.
We didn't lose to any team that didn't go to a bowl game: You did.
We didn't lose to any teams that were below .500: You did.
Those facts skewed the voters minds, funny how facts tend to do that...
One subjective fact that may have factored in was the fact that Stanford was a -41 dog to you at your place when you got owned by them...
Yes...Whether it was 1 point or 69-0, if you're USC and your beat in the Coliseum by a garbaje Stanford squad, you got owned...
Sorry, but Tulsa dominates in the yardage numbers and this is certainly is not due to dominating the line. If your goal is to measure line dominance rushing yards should be used. If your goal is to measure speed passing yards would be a good measure.
I am not stuck on this. I agree with you. In a playoff one loss and you are out. How does this determine the best team? The BCS system claims that each regular season game is like a playoff game, thus one loss is viewed as much more significant than they really are.
This focus on a single loss is a byproduct of the system, it does not originate from me. Above you asked me how the computers could rank Ohio State higher than USC. They definately rely too much on W-L.
I agree with some of the things you've said. But, Alabama is a running team. They are viewed as having these completely dominating lines. It just isn't so. As for a passing team, if they can pass protect and give the QB's and WR's time, then maybe they too can be construed as doing a great job - for their particular sheme. Either way, by dominating in the yardage catagories, you are controlling the ball and keeping the other teams offense off the field. This is an extremely important catagory. Nevertheless, if you don't get good line play, you are not gonna outscore your opponents by much or control the game. That is what those numbers do reflect. I fully understand that "the BCS system" is not interested in determining the two best teams. It really is only concerned with making sure that two teams with the least amount of losses take the field. That is what opens us all up, for those "meaningless" Division II opponents, that is all the rave these days. It's all a total joke. BTW, don't count yourself out, Utah may well go unbeaten and get a shot at a National Championship. In this system, the way that it is set-up, it may well happen.
LSU played 20 kids on defense Saturday...9 alone on the DL, and even went to 4 DE's on passing downs, shifting Tremaine Johnson & Tyson Jackson into the DT spot...
Not that anyone in America can rotate 10 DL like we can, but they need to be able to rotate folks, and losing Cody-for example-will show that they're ready, they're just not deep enough, yet...
The MCL is not really called upon to help out that much...It's only really damaged in those "roll up" type injuries.
Also, other muscle groups can compensate for a weakened MCL...
I know that our 1st team All-SEC LB Derry Beckwith had the same thing happen to him, and he missed 4 weeks this year, and he sat out late against South Carolina when he retweaked it...
I think the biggest issue is how to rehab him...
B_B...Seriously...Do you guys drain half the pool before he gets in =-)
Hopefully the healing will be speedy, because we really need him on the field. I'm hoping for some fumbles by Foster this weekend. I'll be in that UGLY orange stadium so I hope Bama puts together a full game. I want another win like last year!
The odds are a good bit longer than last week, and BYU is no longer an out in the MWC in the NC game bet. I am going to hold my tongue in this regard until I see the results of the Utah TCU game in three weeks. If Utah beats New Mexico and kills TCU worse than Oklahoma did expect me to then carry the Utah should be #2 banner.
Unless 2 of Texas, Penn State, Alabama are still undefeated. That argument would still be ridiculous, even by my standards.
There are still going to be alot of top ten mixups and as long as UF is not involved, they will get theirs.
Wreck em'
http://newsok.com/ou-texas-meeting-in-bcs-title...
Oklahoma v. Ohio State--to determine once and for all, who's the biggest choker of 'em all!
My money would be on OU...to choke, that is....
GO GATORS!!
I mentioned it before and it is a real possibility. Those games that both Texas and Oklahoma have left, against Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, are real winnable games. This is a little bit better Oklahoma team than last year. There is no reason to think that they would lose twice. Texas could win out also. Texas Tech and Oklahoma State start out the year quite well on occasion - and then always fold it up later on.
All you need is for Alabama to lose, which they will, and for either Iowa or Ohio State to beat Penn State. If Penn State plays a bad half, like they did against Michigan, Ohio State is much more likely to beat that team. I really doubt if they would surrender 39 straight points up in the game. But, remember, you've got to win impressively - unless your in the SEC. Southern Cal will probably keep winning big, along with Florida, so Oklahoma has got to win big also.
It's LOSE, not LOOSE. Examples:
Lose: to fail to win (a prize, stake, game, etc.):
"If GA were to lose to LSU, I might drive to Baton Rouge and torch the place."
Loose: free or released from fastening or attachment.
"I was starting to wonder if I had a chance until I noticed that her bra clasp was loose."
I will now go back to not worrying about spelling but that one gripes me. Please spot check yourself if you feel the need to use either of those words while trying to make a point that you want someone to respect.
GO DAWGS!!
Stupid look alike sound alikes.
GO GATORS!!
By the way Ramblin, thanks for the props on Stafford. I have been waiting for someone from the Gator Nation to acknowledge that he is good. I know you have the one and only Tebow but nice to hear you give credit where credit is due, especially after I punked out and gushed about Tebow's skills a few posts ago.
GO DAWGS!
Moreno is a pleasure to watch. The kid can just motor. I feel a little sorry for him because he is now running behind what has got to be the weakest O line (I don't mean that in a bad way, just the facts) in the history of a top 10 BCS team. No fault of their own. They are young and thrown into action by necessity and they are all going to be great eventually. Will it be this year? I can't say. I doubt it. I sure as hell hope so. They have put together two great drives at the ends of our last two games to put them away and I could not be more proud of the way they dig in late in the game and just POWER that ball down the field. Time consuming drives. Now we go up against LSU and their arsenal of D Line. What do you have TE, 5 seniors, 2 juniors, and a sophmore rotating in and out? We have 3 freshman and 2 sophmores on the O line. We are going to see them grow up or get beat up this weekend. We have not allowed any sacks in the last two games but TN and Vandy D lines are no LSU D line. But, if we can hang in there early with LSU and FLA, we can win them both. We get better as the game goes on. I think we only had 5 penalties the last game and 3 of those were defensive. The O is coming around. Now they just need to finish off in the redzone. You won't stop us too often 20 to 20 but the field goal is becoming way too important to this team. Our boy wonder missed 2 against Vandy. I like that RIcht sent him back out there and let him make the game sealer.
The defense scares me. They are dominating at times and hell against the run. The problem I see is the soft zone they play and no pass rush. You won't be able to go sideline to sideline on us. You can't run it straight up the middle either. You CAN kill us on the underneath pass because our LB crew, as much as I love them, like to cheat up on the run and they bite big on the play action. They were much better this weekend against Vandy so maybe Martinez in getting it corrected. Our corners are slow, comparatively speaking. Again, they are physical and excellent at open field tackles, but they have a tendency to let the WR get past them in man to man. Dawgs fans keep asking in the call in shows why Martinez plays zone and doesn't blitz more. Dumb question. Vandy answered it for them. Our guys can't play man well. Asher Allen is the only one that matches up well in man coverage.
GO DAWGS!!
8 Ball State @ 1 Texas
5 Florida @ 4 Texas Tech
6 Boise State @ 3 USC
7 South Florida @ 2 Oklahoma
8 Tulsa @ Alabama
5 Ohio State @ Georgia
6 Utah @ Oklahoma State
7 Georgia Tech @ Penn State