Fanblogs.com - Latest Comments in BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

tigerhunter — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:46:25 -0000

As you just care about taking a shot.... tiger.

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Ben Prather — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:34:42 -0000

Blindly following this I get:

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.

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

NMLSooner — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:45:36 -0000

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

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

TampaGator — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:17:50 -0000

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!!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Tommy_Trojan — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:45:27 -0000

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.

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

TampaGator — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:08:51 -0000

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!!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Tommy_Trojan — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:36:39 -0000

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!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

TampaGator — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:00:54 -0000

"...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!!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

OU_Ron — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:24:33 -0000

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.......

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Ramblin' Gator — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:14:01 -0000

No gushing over Tebow, please. Heck, I love the kid, but I'm even sick of the non-stop Tebow-thon.

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

E32 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:59:22 -0000

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 ..........

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

1Tomcat — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:51:30 -0000

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

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Lennie Collins — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:12:09 -0000

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!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Tommy_Trojan — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:06:19 -0000

Lennie:

I should have known that you were an "insect guy". Bet your most not favorite movie is "Men in Black".

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

GA_Boy — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:04:28 -0000

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!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Lennie Collins — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:38:39 -0000

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.

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Tommy_Trojan — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:24:44 -0000

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?

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Lennie Collins — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:50:19 -0000

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!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Tom_Blogical — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:10:46 -0000

LOL!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Lennie Collins — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:50:46 -0000

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!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Tommy_Trojan — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:47:37 -0000

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.

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Lennie Collins — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:46:32 -0000

You forgot that Oklahoma played Cincinnati and Texas Christian. How many points Oklahoma would have scored if they played Oregon State?

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Lennie Collins — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:26:12 -0000

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.

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Ramblin' Gator — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:03:09 -0000

Hey "gator twin", I have the trademark on that phrase!

Re: BCS Standings - Oct. 19th 2008

Tommy_Trojan — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:19:59 -0000

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".