Spicy McHaggis

The big question is, will you bet the same way you are predicting?

this is my favorite quote from you... EVER. In fact it's so good that it's going in the sig.

100 bucks says that Sylar is Adam from 24.

Personally, I have always said USC was deserving IF they won out. I couldn't agree more about a playoff, though.

Buckeyes vs. Broncos, baby!

I guess it's my fault for thinking a Michigan fan could engage in any reasoned debate beyond: The Big 10 is better than the Pac-10 because the Big 10 is the Big 10 and the Pac-10 is the Pac-10.

Let me get this straight, I make countless posts full of reasoned arguments and actual evidence, but that doesn't mean anything because you've seen every Michigan game and you know football better than everyone else. Okay thanks. I'll remember not to pay any attention to what you say. What will you say if USC beats Notre Dame by a greater margin of victory than Michigan did?

I swear to Christ, you guys don't know how to read. The link (for the third time): http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc06.htm From the web site:

I do too. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how great the SEC is just because it's the SEC. And, in a year when the Pac-10 has played so overwhelmingly well against such great schedules, I think the conference should get the praise it deserves. I don't think any Pac-10 team played eight home games this year.

Pac-10 strength of schedule ratings: USC: 3 Cal: 2 Oregon: 8 OSU: 15 UCLA: 6 UofA: 4 WSU: 7 ASU: 10 UW: 5 Stanford: 1 SEC strength of schedule ratings: Florida: 36 LSU: 37 Arkansas: 73 Tennessee: 11 Auburn: 32 South Carolina: 26 Georgia: 40 Kentucky: 45 Alabama: 41 Vanderbilt: 33 Mississippi State: 21 Mississippi: 28 First I'll let that sink in. Now I'll break it down for you. The Pac-10 features teams that have played 9 of the 10 toughest schedules in the country. FYI, Minnesota is the other top 10 schedule team. Oregon State has played the weakest schedule in the Pac-10, which is still the 15th toughest in the country. The toughest schedule in the SEC was Tennessee's, at number 11. That schedule is still weaker than 9 of 10 Pac-10 teams. The next closest SEC schedule is South Carolina at 26. Even with the overwhelmingly tougher schedules, the Pac-10 has a greater percentage (80%) of bowl eligible teams then the SEC (75%). I'm happy to do the other conferences.

Based on what evidence?

Wisconsin played Bowling Green, Western Illinois, San Diego State, and Buffalo out of conference. They played the 75th toughest schedule in the country. This is the second time I've posted this link: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc06.htm I'm glad we agree.

King, you have to realize something. It doesn't matter if USC just clinched the title of the best conference in the country. It doesn't matter if USC has beaten 7 bowl eligible teams (and, at the end of the season, will have played 10), including teams that will play for the conference championships of both the Big 12 and the SEC. It doesn't matter if the combined winning percentage of the teams USC has played in 10 games is slightly better than the combined winning percentage of the teams Michigan has played in 12. It doesn't matter if that combined winning percentage can only go up in USC's next two games. It doesn't matter if USC has beaten three teams rated in the BCS top 25, including two in the top 20 and one in the top 6. It doesn't matter if they will play a fourth. It doesn't matter if USC has played the third toughest schedule in the country, and just beat a team who has played the second toughest schedule in the country. Michigan beat Wisconsin, and that's all that matters. And their biggest claim is losing a close game to OSU. Apparently, you don't rate a team based on winning... losing is what matters. Oh, that paragraph up there, there's no Damaramu fanboy in that... that's all calm, clear research. We need to stop throwing that insult around. There are a couple of you whose opinions I've lost all respect for, so I'll just ignore you. I realize that nothing will change your mind beyond USC continuing to win. Lastly, for the predictors... I've always thought a prediction is based on what will probably happen, and not what you want to happen. If you look at the numbers, USC WILL pass Michigan if they win out. That's true whether you like it or not.

Just wanted to quote that for the people who think the Pac-10 is a weak conference. Eight bowl eligible teams. Eight. Oh, and here are the Sagarin conference rankings: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc06.htm One last thing... iggy, you're out of your mind. That is all.

Not from me. I just liked the article (naturally).

Here's a great article on why an 11-1 USC team would belong in the national championship game: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=Aj...o&type=lgns

The girl from the bubble boy movie! She also played the secretary for Dana Gordon on an episode of Entourage called "Neighbors".

Or maybe some of the audience members give up way too early.

Just so someone is saying it... Florida is playing WESTERN CAROLINA this weekend.

The BCS rankings have been leaked... http://www.footballfoundation.com/pdf/bcs06/111206l.pdf

*ducks head & prepares for cabbage meltdown*

Come on Iggy, that's a pretty selective memory. You projected Rutgers winning two weeks ago, then the next week you said you had cooled on betting on them, then you said it would be unlikely that Louisville would let down against Rutgers, then you said the only way Rutgers would win is if they caught Louisville napping, then you predicted Louisville winning 31-17, and then you picked them in Bored's contest. Maryland? Fine. Miami? Come on. Navy? Are you serious? I've said twice on this page of this thread that I think they're great top 15 teams, you guys need to start reading. Of course, Rutgers would be worthy if they beat Ohio State. They won't, they'll get destroyed. That's the point. Ohio State gets the championship by routing the team that didn't belong there... while Michigan, Cal, USC, Notre Dame, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, and Texas are on the outside looking in, teams that could have competed, some that could have beaten Ohio State would not get a chance.

I present your 2009 National Champions: Give it up for the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers!

Did you read anything I wrote? I said I was excited to see the rise of Rutgers and that they're a very good top 15 team. Obviously, I think Louisville was overrated as was West Virginia when they lost to Louisville. Again, undefeated doesn't matter when you play a crap schedule and the only good teams you defeat also play crap schedules. By your logic, if the Sun Belt somehow produced two undefeated teams, those teams MUST play for the championship because they're undefeated. I agree with cabbage... let's start with the Big East.

Well, I was really looking forward to Louisville/Rutgers and it delivered... big-time. It's exciting to see the rise of Rutgers. They're a VERY good top 15 team, that is all. I can't believe the "if they go undefeated in the Big East they should be playing for the NC" talk has started AGAIN. We've done this twice already. If you want to know my opinion of the upcoming Rutgers/West Virginia game, go back and read about what I said about last night's game and about West Virginia/Louisville. These teams are all great top 15 teams. But as far as the NC goes, a weak schedule is NOT validated by beating a team that went undefeated against an equally weak schedule. Obviously, I'm picking West Virginia in that upcoming matchup. Righting the college football ship has been a three-piece puzzle. Two of the pieces are in place, all we need is a West Virginia victory over Rutgers to make things right.