College Football is almost back

[Damaramu 0]

Well I agree Texas sucks and as a Sooner-bred OU fan I will be rooting for OU to stomp them into the ground.

But I'm trying to step back and look at this realistically and view the personnel on the field. Unfortunately I neglected to observe the personnel on the sideline under my original post on the game.

[Bored 0]

Until Texas actually beats Oklahoma I'll never be sold on them. Even if they do win they'll screw it up some how like losing to Missouri and A&M or lay an egg in the Big XII title game.

 

Ohio State has a million starters back so I'm betting on experience here. I get an 90's FSU vibe about this team, a bunch of thugs and criminals who just constantly win. They also have a very favorable conference schedule, outside of traveling to Ann Arbor. I think they'll go into Michigan undefeated with a shot at playing for the national title. Right now I'm picking them to play USC in the Rose Bowl but that might just be the Rose Bowl purist in me hoping for the Pac-10/Big Ten match-up.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Until Texas actually beats Oklahoma I'll never be sold on them. Even if they do win they'll screw it up some how like losing to Missouri and A&M or lay an egg in the Big XII title game.

 

Ohio State has a million starters back so I'm betting on experience here. I get an 90's FSU vibe about this team, a bunch of thugs and criminals who just constantly win. They also have a very favorable conference schedule, outside of traveling to Ann Arbor. I think they'll go into Michigan undefeated with a shot at playing for the national title. Right now I'm picking them to play USC in the Rose Bowl but that might just be the Rose Bowl purist in me hoping for the Pac-10/Big Ten match-up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

USC/OSU would be great.

[ANKLELOCK 0]

My Worthless But Probably Dead-On Correct Picks:

 

ACC: Miami takes it

 

Big East: Louisville easily

 

Big XII: Oklahoma slightly

 

Big Ten: Michigan

 

Pac-10: Oregon........................................................Im kidding, USC

 

SEC: Tennessee over LSU in Title Game. (Florida is overrated)

 

National Title: USC (12-0) vs. Tennessee (11-1)

[teke184 0]

ACC- Miami, if only because they always have such a load of talented players. I'd consider the Hokie Chokies if they didn't have Don Mexico, Ron's dumber younger brother, as their QB.

 

Big (L)East- Louisville by default

 

Big 12- Oklahoma, as Texas always chokes in big games

 

Big 10- Iowa. They bring back the core of a team that gave LSU fits last year in the Capitol One bowl.

 

Pac 10- USC by default

 

SEC- LSU, as they have all the skill players they need and, supposedly, Miles has chosen the starting QB and will stick behind him.

 

 

Title game-

 

USC vs. Iowa

 

 

USC is a given if they go undefeated.

 

If there are a bunch of teams that are either undefeated or have one loss vying for the #2 slot, it'll go to the Big Ten team because the Oklahoma ass-whooping last year will have soured the voters on the Big 12, as well as the belief that the Big Ten teams play "tougher schedules" than the other conferences.

 

(Not that I'd argue with Iowa getting the nod because I know they're tough, but most Big Ten teams tend to get overrated because of the "East Coast bias" and SEC teams not named Alabama or Florida get the "They didn't play anybody" label whenever they're in a multi-team race.)

[Damaramu 0]

I see everyone picking OU and Texas for the Big XII but I mean Texas A&M is better and I think they could shock some people. Do I want them to? Hell no. But I think they could.

Of course like I said they go to Norman and play a team that has typically whipped their asses in Norman(i posted the combined score earlier) and that same team has only lost one homer game in 6 years.

But I mean that team is ripe for the picking! As a massive OU homer I KNOW that we are weakened and open for the Big XII to finally start taking their revenge shots.

[cabbageboy 0]

It worries me that everyone on earth is picking U of L to crush in the Big East. 23 of 24 writers did at the conference. WVU might not be too bad, we've got them on the road.

 

That said, I have the feeling Tom Jurich is looking for any reason to fire Bobby Petrino after the past two years of him flirting with Auburn and LSU. Not making the BCS would be a good reason.

[Damaramu 0]

Of the major conferences which one do you guys think is the most wide open one? Which is the hardest to predict?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Of the major conferences which one do you guys think is the most wide open one? Which is the hardest to predict?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Big 10 is pretty wide open: Iowa, Michigan, Ohio State, and Purdue are all legitimate contenders to win the conference, the first three in particular and each of them is a Rose Bowl threat.

[teke184 0]

Of the major conferences which one do you guys think is the most wide open one? Which is the hardest to predict?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'd say the ACC will be the hardest to predict for two reasons:

 

1. There's a ton of talented teams in the mix (Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Boston College, NC State)

 

2. The added championship game could throw a monkey-wrench in the works if someone slips in and beats the expected champ, a la Kansas State vs. Oklahoma a few years back.

 

 

 

The Big Ten has a bunch of good teams *but*, the way the schedules fall, one team appears to have the benefit of playing everyone BUT the other two power teams.

 

Example- Purdue's Big Ten schedule is VERY easy... they don't have Ohio State or Michigan, and their game against Iowa is at Purdue. Their only question mark appears to be their game at Wisconsin.

 

Also, Wisconsin doesn't play Ohio State and they've got Purdue, Michigan, and Iowa at Camp Randall.

 

 

 

I'd say the Big East has the potential to be unpredictable, but that involves Louisville slipping and giving someone else the opportunity.

 

Hell, look at last year when everyone thought West Virginia would go undefeated, taking the Big East's BCS bid, and they ended up losing about 3-4 games, at which point Pitt was able to snag the BCS big away from the departing Boston College thanks to a BIG assist by Syracuse.

 

If Louisville and Pitt have early trouble, things could get interesting.

[Secret Agent 0]

Dama, your lack of faith in Oklahoma really saddens me.

 

Yes, Oklahoma has lost a lot of its talent pool with the graduating class of 2005, however Oklahoma still has plenty of players that show a ton of promise. Jason White, while good, took way too much on his shoulders and cracked under pressure. You act like the whole team has gone to shit from losing him when if fact you have more QB’s that are all just as talented. Rhett Bomber, Paul Thompson, that one dude that played second string last season, and I don’t know about Lee Blankenship, but whatever.

 

OU still has the ability to get the job done against Texas, Texas A&M, and most certainly against Tech. The thing about Texas and Texas A&M is they have got to shut both of their QB’s down. Texas only won the rose bowl because of their QB taking off to the end zone with the ball. Not cause of their run game or their passing game, and it was a damn field goal that decided that game. They don’t even have Benson this year for their big run, or lack there of. However, they did show they can make a come back against a team that don’t know how to win a game like Oklahoma State. Thus, I have no worries about LSU in the SEC because Les Miles still hasn’t learned how to win a football game.

 

A&M – their QB is talented as fuck and they got some good receivers. Shut the QB down. Don’t give him anyone open and don’t give him room to run. Their run game wasn’t all there last year.

 

Nebraska just may be your dark horse out of the Big XXII, but I have faith in Oklahoma to win the south if not the division still. The new team is not any worse than the old one, from what I’ve seen so far that is.

 

BTW...I'm going to personally hunt down any retard OU fan that throws shit on the field this year resulting in penalties. I would, however, like to see the sight of a bunch of 10 pound sugar bags getting tossed instead of Oranges.

[Damaramu 0]

Well I still in my heart think that OU will win the Big XII and beat Texas for a 6th straight year.

I'm just looking at it realistically and they are a very very young team. They have more talent on defense this year but less on offense but they do still have AD.

Yeah White cracked against KSU, LSU, and USC. But think about at Texas A&M. One of the most hostile places in the country to play and he led them back from being down 2 TD's in that game. Hell I think he had 5 TD passes. I don't think the young QB's can do that this year.

But hell they get A&M at home and I posted how bad they beat A&M in Norman.

So yes while I think as a fan they will get the job done. As just an observer I think it'll be tough.

[therealworldschampion 0]

Conference predictions:

 

ACC: Miami based on their talent. They'll probably beat FSU and if they can get their QB situation settled, they'll be undefeated when they go to Virginia Tech. I just think Marcus Vick may be a little too shaky this year.

 

Big Ten: Ohio State. If they beat Texas and Iowa, I can definitely see them going to Ann Arbor undefeated. Michigan will probably lose twice on the road again, and Iowa is a contender if they can win in Columbus.

 

Big XII: Oklahoma. I'm not picking Texas until they actually beat Oklahoma. Sooners won't go undefeated this year, but they'll win the South and the Big XII title game.

 

Big East: Louisville. West Virginia is the only challenger that they have in the conference.

 

Pac 10: USC by a wide margin.

 

SEC: Now we're talking. Tennessee has boatloads of talent, but a total nightmare of a schedule(their toughest games I think are LSU, in Gainesville against Florida, and in Tuscaloosa, which is going to be a war.) Florida is talented, but I think they'll need to adjust to Meyer. Eh I'll take LSU as long as Miles adapts well and they get the QB situation settled.

[Damaramu 0]

Has UCLA improved their rush defense? I remember Oklahoma State went down their and only threw 4 passes the entire game. And now OU is visiting them and with a running threat at QB and Adrian Peterson I don't see what UCLA will do unless they learn to stop the run more.

[Guest Black Widow]

(OU.  Oklahoma Stuff.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lame.

[Damaramu 0]

(OU.  Oklahoma Stuff.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See now that's just trolling. I wasn't showing rampant homerism or really anything and you had to jump on me.

See that's the problem with this forum. If I try to talk about OU normally or something aside from them people jump on me.

When I posted that first thread that never mentioned OU I half expected someone to jump in and go "WHOO! BOOMER SOONER! HAHAHAHA!"

[Carnival 0]

ACC: Va. Tech

 

Big East: Pitt

 

Big Ten: Michigan

 

Big 12 North: Iowa State

Big 12 South: Texas

Big 12 Title: Texas

 

CUSA: Louisville

 

MAC East: Miami OH

MAC West: Northern Illinois

MAC Title: Northern Illinois

 

MWC: Utah

 

PAC Ten: USC

 

SEC East: Florida

SEC West: Auburn

SEC Title: Florida

 

WAC: Boise State

 

National Championship: USC 56 - Texas 17

 

Final Rankings

1. USC 12-0

2. Texas 11-1

3. Florida 10-2

4. Auburn 10-2

5. Oklahoma 10-2

 

I know NOTHING about college football. Only that Nebraska sucks ass.

[Damaramu 0]

Everybody is assuming that USC will be in the title game. And with good reason. I'm not going to be dumb enough to pick against them being right there either.

However aside from the Orange Bowl this is a team that struggled last year in some games. And they have taken a lot of key losses on the coaching staff. Does anyone think there is a possibility that they do stumble during the regular season and they don't make it to the Rose Bowl?

 

I mean a national title game that doesn't involve: USC, FSU, OU, Miami, and OSU or some combination thereof would be nice.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Huge possibility of that, of course. It's tough to argue with a team that's, what, 24-1 over the last season, returning one of the best QBs in the country, one of the best all-around threats, and a whole slew of talent at other positions, but they can definitely lose. Talent seems up to typical levels, but does USC get past Cal and Oregon last year without Norm Chow?

 

They also have a non-conference schedule that would look pretty rough for any team not as heavily loaded. At Hawaii, at Notre Dame, and hosting Fresno State and Arkansas--many teams have non-conference schedules without a single game as tough as any of those.

[iggymcfly 0]

Everybody is assuming that USC will be in the title game. And with good reason. I'm not going to be dumb enough to pick against them being right there either.

However aside from the Orange Bowl this is a team that struggled last year in some games. And they have taken a lot of key losses on the coaching staff. Does anyone think there is a possibility that they do stumble during the regular season and they don't make it to the Rose Bowl?

 

I mean a national title game that doesn't involve: USC, FSU, OU, Miami, and OSU or some combination thereof would be nice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The thing is, if you look back at the history of other championship-level teams, changes in the coaching staff almost never hurt a team the first year after they take place. All the players have been properly trained, and the new coaches don't really feel comfortable changing all the schemes yet, so they pretty much play just like they did the year before.

 

In the long run, it might knock down the Trojan dynasty a rung or two, but I think for now, you're looking at the 12-0 back-to-back national champions. (I can't say back-to-back-to-back, because LSU was the real champ two years ago.)

[Damaramu 0]

Well I think the level of competition that they run into this year in the Rose Bowl may be something they aren't used to.

Now OU was a talented team and the fact that they dismantled them speaks volumes about how great USC is. But I think the team they run into in the Rose Bowl be it Iowa, tOSU, LSU, or Tennessee I think will be worlds better than OU last year and will be better than what USC has faced in the past 2 years.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

(I can't say back-to-back-to-back, because LSU was the real champ two years ago.)

 

That's total bullshit. USC has as much claim to the title as LSU did. They dismantled the #4 team in Michigan at Rose Bowl while LSU struggled to beat an injured Jason White. The media found it fit to call USC the champions. Don't ever fucking downplay their accomplishments. The wrong team went into the Sugar Bowl and it was proven in the Rose AND Sugar Bowl.

[teke184 0]

(I can't say back-to-back-to-back, because LSU was the real champ two years ago.)

 

That's total bullshit. USC has as much claim to the title as LSU did. They dismantled the #4 team in Michigan at Rose Bowl while LSU struggled to beat an injured Jason White. The media found it fit to call USC the champions. Don't ever fucking downplay their accomplishments. The wrong team went into the Sugar Bowl and it was proven in the Rose AND Sugar Bowl.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Don't even start this fucking shit with me...

 

The Trojans did not win the *BCS* title in 2003. They won the AP title which was not the generally accepted title going into that season.

 

 

 

As for LSU "struggling" to beat OU, did you actually watch the game or did you only look at the final score?

 

If you watched the game, LSU pretty much beat OU from pillar to post but OU lucked out and got 7 of their points off of a blocked punt. OU's offense never really got started, as the D-line had White on his ass most of the night and the secondary picked off several of his passes.

[UZI Suicide 0]

The Trojans did not win the *BCS* title in 2003. They won the AP title which was not the generally accepted title going into that season.

 

It was not the generally accepted title because most people just figured that the AP vote would be the same as whatever the BCS came up with. But it wasn't, and USC and LSU are co-national champions.

[CanadianChris 0]

The Trojans did not win the *BCS* title in 2003.  They won the AP title which was not the generally accepted title going into that season.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no such thing as a "BCS national championship." Never has been. The only two polls that hand out "recognized" national championships are the Associated Press poll and the USA Today coaches poll. The coaches poll just happens to be contracted to vote for whoever is #1 in the BCS standings. Both polls, though, are equally accepted as "national championship" polls.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I actually saw the game. And I admit I am an USC mark so I might be biased but I think USC had a better game than either OU or LSU. That could be attributed to the level of competition, and I'm not saying LSU didn't deserve the title. They did, but to say USC didn't is ridiculous. LSU might have won the "official" championship, but USC seemed to have impressed the OTHER HALF enough for them to vote them #1 over BOTH LSU and OU. If only the game was LSU/USC...

[iggymcfly 0]

The fact is that through the formula that was contracted to determine a national champion, USC did not qualify for the championship. This was due to the fact that they played a weak schedule and had a bad loss to Cal who was nowhere near as good two years ago as they were last year.

 

The two teams that did qualify for the championship played and LSU won. End of story, LSU's the champion. The idea that USC "looked more impressive" against the #4 team than LSU did against the #2 team is totally immaterial to the discussion.

 

Auburn actually had a better claim to being a split champion last year than USC did two years ago. They went undefeated in a difficult conference, and just got screwed out of the championship in favor of an inferior Oklahoma team. No bad loss to Cal, no weak schedule. The fact that Auburn didn't have newspaper writers to say they "looked impressive" doesn't really shoot down their claim at all IMO.

[CanadianChris 0]

The fact is that through the formula that was contracted to determine a national champion, USC did not qualify for the championship. This was due to the fact that they played a weak schedule and had a bad loss to Cal who was nowhere near as good two years ago as they were last year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The FACT is that only one of the two polls in the formula is contracted to strictly follow the formula at the end of the year.

 

The FACT is that there is a split "national championship" whenever the polls disagree at the end of the year.

 

Regardless of what anyone's OPINION is, neither USC nor LSU is considered the one true "national champion" of 2003. The "championship" was split between the two schools. USC was named champion by the AP, and LSU was named champion by the coaches, and both of those titles historically carry equal weight.

[Damaramu 0]

Auburn actually had a better claim to being a split champion last year than USC did two years ago. They went undefeated in a difficult conference, and just got screwed out of the championship in favor of an inferior Oklahoma team. No bad loss to Cal, no weak schedule. The fact that Auburn didn't have newspaper writers to say they "looked impressive" doesn't really shoot down their claim at all IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pre-season polls. Auburn would've been in that game if they weren't ranked lower going into the season.

Why don't people complain about the pre-season polls as much as they do about the BCS?

I gurantee you that if Auburn has been ranked like #3 going into last season they would've gone to Miami to play USC while OU would've shipped off to Tempe to play Utah.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

The fact is that through the formula that was contracted to determine a national champion, USC did not qualify for the championship. This was due to the fact that they played a weak schedule and had a bad loss to Cal who was nowhere near as good two years ago as they were last year.

 

The two teams that did qualify for the championship played and LSU won. End of story, LSU's the champion. The idea that USC "looked more impressive" against the #4 team than LSU did against the #2 team is totally immaterial to the discussion.

 

This is evident you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. LSU and Oklahoma also lost to an opponent in the season. What the fuck is your point? And LSU was #2, not facing #2 as you claim. I am not discrediting LSU, they deserve their HALF of the title. USC deserves theirs. End of discussion.