This Week in College Football 11/23 - 11/27

[DangerousDamon 0]

I've made this point before but I'll make it again:

It's strange. Last year we had controversy with 3 one loss teams in OU, USC, and a team named the Tigers from the SEC.

This year we have controversy with 3 undefeated teams in OU, USC, and a team named the Tigers from the SEC.

 

ALSO

 

Last year we had a 2-loss Michigan team going to the Rose bowl to play a heavily favored 1-loss team from California named The Trojans who lost to the Bears.

This year we have a 2-loss Michigan team going to the Rose bowl to play a heavily favored 1-loss team from California named the Bears who lost to the Trojans.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything. Who is to say Cal would be heavily favored over Michigan anyway

[Damaramu 0]

I've made this point before but I'll make it again:

It's strange. Last year we had controversy with 3 one loss teams in OU, USC, and a team named the Tigers from the SEC.

This year we have controversy with 3 undefeated teams in OU, USC, and a team named the Tigers from the SEC.

 

ALSO

 

Last year we had a 2-loss Michigan team going to the Rose bowl to play a heavily favored 1-loss team from California named The Trojans who lost to the Bears. 

This year we have a 2-loss Michigan team going to the Rose bowl to play a heavily favored 1-loss team from California named the Bears who lost to the Trojans.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything. Who is to say Cal would be heavily favored over Michigan anyway

It's just an interesting tidbit.....you don't have to freak out over it dude. What the hell is your problem?

 

And I think Cal will be heavily favored over Michiga. Cal took the #1 team in the country to task. Michigan got beat by......Ohio State and ND.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Why do people make Notre Dame sound like crap. They're not the best team in the nation, but they're far from being a cream puff. I'd wager that if a lot of the elite teams in the nation had their schedule each year, they'd be hard-pressed to go undefeated.

[Damaramu 0]

Why do people make Notre Dame sound like crap. They're not the best team in the nation, but they're far from being a cream puff. I'd wager that if a lot of the elite teams in the nation had their schedule each year, they'd be hard-pressed to go undefeated.

Well yeah that's the problem with Notre Dame! If they had a normal schedule they'd win 10 games! But they seem to schedule the hardest teams possible. I mean do they even have one cream puff on their schedule?

[cabbageboy 0]

I guess you could consider Navy or someone to be a cupcake. I'm kinda interested in this ND/USC game, I think it could be closer than people think.

 

Cal would be about a 7 pt. fave over Michigan. Sure, Cal has lost one game to the #1 team by 6, but recall that they barely escaped against Oregon.

[Damaramu 0]

I guess you could consider Navy or someone to be a cupcake. I'm kinda interested in this ND/USC game, I think it could be closer than people think.

 

Cal would be about a 7 pt. fave over Michigan. Sure, Cal has lost one game to the #1 team by 6, but recall that they barely escaped against Oregon.

Yeah but everyone has close calls. Are there any top teams that haven't had one?

Hell the #1 team in the country barely escape mediocre competition at Stanford.

[Damaramu 0]

I've decided that Texas makes the entire Big XII look bad.

I mean this is a team that is ranked in the Top 10 every year but still looks so god damn inept all the time. I mean it's embarassing!

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'm glad you've come to that silly decision. Texas is one of the few teams stepping up and making the Big XII look good. I'd be more concerned with the entire North, or with Texas Tech's perennial underachievement, or the fact that A&M gave Baylor its sole conference win. Texas' credentials are so-so, but they're firmly the #2 team in the Big XII right now; no one else comes close unless A&M beats them on Friday.

[Damaramu 0]

I'm glad you've come to that silly decision.  Texas is one of the few teams stepping up and making the Big XII look good.  I'd be more concerned with the entire North, or with Texas Tech's perennial underachievement, or the fact that A&M gave Baylor its sole conference win.  Texas' credentials are so-so, but they're firmly the #2 team in the Big XII right now; no one else comes close unless A&M beats them on Friday.

They still embarass me.......I mean it's Texas.....maybe I have a bias against them......they just screw everything up. I fully expect them to screw up whatever bowl they're in. I also expect them to lose on Friday and screw it up for Cal who I'm pulling for in the Rose Bowl(if they make it).

Damn Horns.....

[iggymcfly 0]

I have to agree with Damaramu on this one. Texas is shitty and the fact that they're second in the Big XII makes the whole conference look bad.

 

I mean look at last year. WSU was one of the most overrated teams in the country. (How's that for bias; I go there.) Yet a heavily favored Texas team still managed to lose to them in the Holiday Bowl. Meanwhile, this year Texas almost lost to Arkansas, and they'll probably lose to ASU or Cal in the Holiday Bowl too.

 

The only difference I see is that the fact that Texas is second and that shitty isn't really a strike against Texas as much as it is an indictment on the entire conference. If the Longhorns were playing in the Pac-10, the SEC, or maybe even the ACC, there's no way that they would have been able to escape with one loss.

 

The Big XII has a good non-conference record, but the best quality win that anyone in the conference has picked up is UCLA. I think we're going to see just how overrated the Big XII is come bowl season.

[Damaramu 0]

I think the rest of the Big XII is better than Texas I think they just get LUCKY. I think OSU had a massive brain dead second half for some reason! I'm still figuring that one out.

And I think A&M will expose them on Friday, though I picked Texas b/c SOMEHOW they always get lucky.

Texas would win that conference every year with the talent they have if they had a good coach......they would've beat WSU if Mack Brown hadn't decided to play musical chairs with his QB's. Hell I think I got a snap in the Holiday bowl as QB.

[teke184 0]

Pitt just upset West Virginia, so the Big East BCS Armageddon scenario is in play.

 

As much as I like BC, it would be fun to see the Big East have their automatic BCS bid pulled by Syracuse representing them this year.

 

(They need to have their representatives within the BCS average a BCS poll ranking of at least 12 over the course of a few years before their bid goes under review. A 6-5 Syracuse going to a BCS bowl would all but guarantee that the Big East's automatic bid goes under review)

[cabbageboy 0]

Oh god, just when U of L is scheduled to join the conference. Let's just hope BC wins that game. Syracuse getting in now would be worse than those crap teams with Donovan McNabb that kept winning a bad Big East and jobbing big time in BCS games.

 

Hell didn't Cuse lose 44-0 to Purdue???

[Bored 0]

Syracuse's chances are incredibly slim as they'd have to end up with a higher BCS ranking than Pittsburgh and that isn't going to happen I don't think. Of course having a team who almost lost to Furhman go to a BCS bowl wouldn't be that good of a thing either.

[Damaramu 0]

Syracuse vs. Utah? Hmm.......Utah destroys the Orange. Ouch....well Utah's going to destroy anyone from that conference.

So WV loses 2 games.....and Lee Corso picked them preseason to go to the National Title game......he is so confusing sometimes.

[iggymcfly 0]

I think the rest of the Big XII is better than Texas I think they just get LUCKY. I think OSU had a massive brain dead second half for some reason! I'm still figuring that one out.

And I think A&M will expose them on Friday, though I picked Texas b/c SOMEHOW they always get lucky.

Texas would win that conference every year with the talent they have if they had a good coach......they would've beat WSU if Mack Brown hadn't decided to play musical chairs with his QB's. Hell I think I got a snap in the Holiday bowl as QB.

Mack Brown always plays the wrong quarterback. For years, Major Applewhite was better than Chris Simms. He'd come up huge in big games, (beating Nebraska for their only Big XII Title) whereas Simms would always choke when it mattered, throwing five picks just about every time he faced Oklahoma.

 

Brown would always wait until the game was just out of reach to put Applewhite in, and he'd lead a huge comeback but fall just a few points short. If Brown would have played Applewhite the year that Nebraska got into the title game against Miami, the Longhorns could have won a national title.

 

Now he's doing the same thing with Vince Young and Chance Mock. Young's okay when they're running the triple option to protect the lead, but he can't throw the ball to save his life, and unless he's playing a team that should move to the MAC like Kansas, he can't engineer a comeback. Every time they're in a situation to throw the ball, they really need to bring Mock in to give the Horns an opportunity to win the game. I mean with Cedric Benson as a major Heisman candidate, why do you need a quarterback to take a third of the carries anyway?

 

I can't guarantee that Texas would have beaten OU with Mock, but it would have been a really close game, and the Horns would have put at least 14-17 points on the board. Only Jason White awkening from his slumber trailing in the 4th quarter could have gotten OU by Texas if Mack Brown would have played Mock.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Pitt's a LOT better of a team than when they almost lost to Furman.

 

Palko was as green as they come at that point, and dumbass Walt Harris wasn't even letting him run the offense. Now, they've started to click and they could surprise someone if they end up with the Big East's bid.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Want to know the kind of BCS-whining that really gets on my nerves? Stuff like this:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writ...rose/index.html

 

Now, he makes some decent points about the Coaches poll being too secretive and so on, but his basic premise is that the BCS system might screw Cal out of playing in the Rose Bowl. Which is hilariously flawed to begin with, because without the BCS system USC would be in the Rose Bowl and Cal would be playing somewhere else anyway. It reminds me of when Colorado's coach was calling the BCS a "cancer" a few years ago even though it was the ONLY ranking that had them ahead of Oregon and hence his claim that Colorado should be in the title game but the BCS was screwing them over was laughable.

[Guest MikeSC]

Pitt's a LOT better of a team than when they almost lost to Furman.

 

Palko was as green as they come at that point, and dumbass Walt Harris wasn't even letting him run the offense. Now, they've started to click and they could surprise someone if they end up with the Big East's bid.

Furman is also a darned solid AA team who has a good shot at winning the national title. We're not discussing a horrendous AA team here.

-=Mike

[iggymcfly 0]

Pitt's a LOT better of a team than when they almost lost to Furman.

 

Palko was as green as they come at that point, and dumbass Walt Harris wasn't even letting him run the offense. Now, they've started to click and they could surprise someone if they end up with the Big East's bid.

Furman is also a darned solid AA team who has a good shot at winning the national title. We're not discussing a horrendous AA team here.

-=Mike

Yeah, I think Furman will definitely make it to the title game at least. In addition to their close call against Pittsburgh, they also beat Ga. Southern who played with Georgia for three quarters.

 

The Grizzly fan in me wants to give UM a chance at taking at all, and I am going to their 1st round playoff game this week, while I'm home for Thanksgiving, but honestly, I'd say that Ga. Southern and Furman are probably the two best I-AA teams in the country.

[iggymcfly 0]

Want to know the kind of BCS-whining that really gets on my nerves? Stuff like this:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writ...rose/index.html

 

Now, he makes some decent points about the Coaches poll being too secretive and so on, but his basic premise is that the BCS system might screw Cal out of playing in the Rose Bowl. Which is hilariously flawed to begin with, because without the BCS system USC would be in the Rose Bowl and Cal would be playing somewhere else anyway. It reminds me of when Colorado's coach was calling the BCS a "cancer" a few years ago even though it was the ONLY ranking that had them ahead of Oregon and hence his claim that Colorado should be in the title game but the BCS was screwing them over was laughable.

The way you summarized that article made it sound a lot worse than it actually was. The gist of the article was that the coaches shouldn't be able to influence a third of the BCS rankings when their votes aren't even made public. They have every reason to be terribly biased, and when Texas moves up on Cal as much as they did last week, it looks really suspicious.

 

For the most part, I think all these "tweaks" to the BCS system that happen almost every year just make it worse. If we had a system where SOS was taken into account and the computer rankings could take into account margin of victory as long as there was some reasonable cap, we wouldn't be having most of these problems. Utah would be in, Boise would be out, Texas would need Cal to lose, and Auburn would probably end up passing Oklahoma.

 

I agree with the writer that an eight team playoff is infinitely more reasonable than the current system, and the fact that the BCS actually keeps getting more and more screwed up is completely true.

[Damaramu 0]

This is the problem I have with the system overall(not just the BCS). People live and die by the AP and Coaches rankings it seems. But why are we so sure that's right?

I mean these are people and they are subjected to bias. I'm not saying that anyone is biased but I mean they are human. So why are there rankings automatically right? Why is what they say what we should all live and die by in relation to college fb?

 

I mean people were saying the computers were going to screw Auburn out of a title game but this week we come out and the voters are keeping them out of the title game as well. But I haven't heard anyone save maybe Trev Alberts(who's a flip-flopping dumbass anyways) complain that the humans are screwing Auburn and aren't getting it right.

[CanadianChris 0]

Syracuse's chances are incredibly slim as they'd have to end up with a higher BCS ranking than Pittsburgh and that isn't going to happen I don't think. Of course having a team who almost lost to Furhman go to a BCS bowl wouldn't be that good of a thing either.

Just one problem with that -- both teams are unranked. Syracuse beat Pitt in the regular season, so they would get the bid.

 

The Grizzly fan in me wants to give UM a chance at taking at all, and I am going to their 1st round playoff game this week, while I'm home for Thanksgiving, but honestly, I'd say that Ga. Southern and Furman are probably the two best I-AA teams in the country.

What about Harvard? Didn't they go undefeated?

[Damaramu 0]

Harvard doesn't do post season play do they? Why?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Division I-AA and probably never good enough to make the playoffs.

[cabbageboy 0]

How far exactly does the BCS go though? I mean does it rank the top 50 and all that, or just go to 25? If Syracuse does somehow get to the BCS it'll the biggest joke in the history of college football, and there have been some big jokes.

 

Besides, I don't think the BCS exactly determines who wins a conference, does it? I mean if Syracuse, BC, and Pitt all finish 4-2 in conf. play and Cuse beat BC and Pitt, they kinda have to get the bid.

[teke184 0]

How far exactly does the BCS go though? I mean does it rank the top 50 and all that, or just go to 25? If Syracuse does somehow get to the BCS it'll the biggest joke in the history of college football, and there have been some big jokes.

 

Besides, I don't think the BCS exactly determines who wins a conference, does it? I mean if Syracuse, BC, and Pitt all finish 4-2 in conf. play and Cuse beat BC and Pitt, they kinda have to get the bid.

The way it works out for the Big East is that 2 of 3 teams beat West Virginia (BC and Pitt both did), so they're out no matter what..

 

Then both Syracuse and Pitt will have beaten BC, so they'd be out.

 

 

At that point, it comes down to whether Pitt or Syracuse are ranked. If neither are, then I think that Syracuse's win over Pitt puts them in.

[CanadianChris 0]

Harvard doesn't do post season play do they? Why?

The Ivy League, for whatever reason, doesn't participate in the I-AA playoffs. Harvard would be in this year otherwise, as they went 10-0 (they're the only undefeated team in I-AA).

 

How far exactly does the BCS go though? I mean does it rank the top 50 and all that, or just go to 25? If Syracuse does somehow get to the BCS it'll the biggest joke in the history of college football, and there have been some big jokes.

The BCS only goes down to 25.

 

Besides, I don't think the BCS exactly determines who wins a conference, does it? I mean if Syracuse, BC, and Pitt all finish 4-2 in conf. play and Cuse beat BC and Pitt, they kinda have to get the bid.

The rules about BCS rankings are laid out in the Big East tiebreaking procedure:

 

FOUR-WAY TIE

A "mini-conference" is created amongst the four teams.

In the mini-conference, Team A is 3-0, Team B is 2-1, Team C is 1-2, and Team D is 0-3. Team A earns bid, regardless of ranking.

In the mini-conference, Teams A and B are 2-1, Teams C and D are 1-2. The higher ranked team of the 2-1 teams earns the bid. If two teams tie for the highest ranking, the bid goes to the team that won the head-to-head match-up.

I think this is all moot anyway, because Pitt should crack the top 25 after beating WV, which means they would likely be ranked by the BCS.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'm really wishing I'd picked LSU in Bored's pick-em. I was thisclose, but thought the Hogs would play better in their last home game with so much on the line. They're getting wrecked.

 

Also, Nebraska is awful.

[2GOLD 0]

After what I just saw in this Texas-Texas A&M game, I am now convinced that the Kansas coach's complaints may hold water.

 

So Texas kicks the ball into their own offensive line, which KILLS THE DAMN BALL, but TAM is penalized for grabbing a dead ball?

 

Ok, sure thing BCS.