The College Football Thread 11/11 - 11/15

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Well considering USC and Utah had three common opponents that season (Arizona, Colorado State and BYU), Utah won those three games by the combined score of 138-58. USC won those games by the combined score of 140-19.

 

Beyond that, you cannot argue that Utah has been beating better teams than USC. So who cares how good Utah looked against juggernauts like San Diego State while USC "had to hang on" against the 10-2 Golden Bears?

 

I'd actually give Auburn more of a shot to beat USC (but whoops, USC did beat the same team the previous season anyways) than Utah. But keep believin'!

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Well considering USC and Utah had three common opponents that season (Arizona, Colorado State and BYU), Utah won those three games by the combined score of 138-58. USC won those games by the combined score of 140-19.

 

Beyond that, you cannot argue that Utah has been beating better teams than USC. So who cares how good Utah looked against juggernauts like San Diego State while USC "had to hang on" against the 10-2 Golden Bears?

 

I'd actually give Auburn more of a shot to beat USC (but whoops, USC did beat the same team the previous season anyways) than Utah. But keep believin'!

 

Just for clarification... Opponents overall W-L record during the regular season

USC: 70-69 (50.4%) They beat 3 teams that finished with 9 or more wins. They played 8 teams with 6 wins or less.

Auburn: 73-66 (52.5%) They beat 4 teams that finished with 9 or more wins. They played 8 teams with 6 wins or less.

Utah: 53-72 (42.4%) They beat 3 teams that finished with 7 wins. They played 8 teams with 6 wins or less.

Oklahoma: 74-65 (53.2%) They beat 4 teams that finished with 8 or more wins. They played 6 teams with 6 wins or less.

 

Going by the argument of strength of schedule, the two teams that should've played would be Oklahoma and Auburn. USC's demolishing of Oklahoma is arguably made more impressive by the above stats (They killed the team with the best SOS). And just to point out, teams can change dramatically year to year so comparing the "same" Auburn team from 2003 to 2004 doesn't account for the new freshmen or the experience gained by the Seniors. Not to mention any coaching staff change in between.

 

The thing that irks me is not so much USC's being called the NC so much as Auburn and Utah not getting a chance to play for the NC. The current system basically says, "If you're a mid-major team like Hawaii, Boise State, or Utah you can win all your games 50-0 but it won't matter if you go 12-0 because we're inherently biased to not play you guys in the National Championship."

 

The prevailing attitude seems to favor certain conferences (Big 12, Pac-10, Big 10, and SEC) and penalize mid-majors and even decent conferences such as the ACC or Big East. It's a backwards logic to complain that a team who loses one game can get in over a one loss other team while an undefeated Boise State or whomever basically gets patted on the head and told, "At least you'll win your conference and make a decent mid-level bowl game!"

 

Under the current system, what's the incentive for an MWC/WAC/MAC team to play and go undefeated? It seems at best, they get around the 7th or 8th ranking in the polls and an outside shot at a bowl like the Fiesta or Orange. They'll arguably never get a chance to play in the National Title game, so why bother? Why even have those conferences? Why not just scrap those conferences and say that the Title game will be decided between the Big 12, Big 10, Pac-10, SEC, ACC, and Big East?

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I'm just trying to understand why people are acting like this Utah team was going places. I honestly think the 2006 Boise State team that shocked Oklahoma had a better argument for a national title or playoffs than that 2004 Utah team. I mean, really. Beating Pittsburgh is nothing. NOTHING.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I'm just trying to understand why people are acting like this Utah team was going places. I honestly think the 2006 Boise State team that shocked Oklahoma had a better argument for a national title or playoffs than that 2004 Utah team. I mean, really. Beating Pittsburgh is nothing. NOTHING.

 

And that's partly the problem... They weren't given a chance to play and possibly beat a higher level team and instead was handed Pittsburgh (8-3 at the time), who they promptly killed. You point out Boise State beating Oklahoma but the same argument could've been made, "Why do people think Boise State was going places in 2006?" if they hadn't faced Oklahoma and were stuck with an 8-4 or 7-5 opponent.

 

My perspective isn't so much that Utah was going places so much as they didn't get a real chance to prove themselves and now revisionist history has them as being mediocre/not being good enough to hang with the top teams anyway.

 

Hawaii at least got a chance to play Georgia (even if they got blown out) rather than being given Missouri or Kansas instead.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

I'm just trying to understand why people are acting like this Utah team was going places. I honestly think the 2006 Boise State team that shocked Oklahoma had a better argument for a national title or playoffs than that 2004 Utah team. I mean, really. Beating Pittsburgh is nothing. NOTHING.

 

Really? That's your argument? Really? That Utah team was pretty good, and if they barely beat Pitt you may have had an argument, but they took Pitt off the field, like any good team would have done.

 

Big game tonight for the ACC, as VT travels to Miami. I think VT will win fairly easily, but a lot of people think Miami will. Chances are, whoever wins will end up in the ACC title game.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Don't get me wrong. Utah wasn't a mediocre team or a team not good enough to hang with the top teams. They deserved a chance to play for the title, no doubt, especially since Oklahoma squandered their spot practically. I'd have welcomed a 4 team playoff in 2004 with USC/Oklahoma and Auburn/Utah as the semifinals, so if that's the point, I'd agree to it. But I'm really just arguing the presupposition that Utah got robbed. Look at that schedule. That wasn't a national championship schedule. There was just no way under the current system that Utah deserved the spot over USC, Oklahoma or Auburn. It makes me look like all those people who are biased against the mid majors, yes, but it is what it is. (To Harleen Quinzel)

 

Good teams beats a 8 win team that only got a BCS spot by virtue of winning the weak conference, yes, but it's nowhere near as impressive as you'd have people think. (to Psycho Penguin)

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Don't get me wrong. Utah wasn't a mediocre team or a team not good enough to hang with the top teams. They deserved a chance to play for the title, no doubt, especially since Oklahoma squandered their spot practically. I'd have welcomed a 4 team playoff in 2004 with USC/Oklahoma and Auburn/Utah as the semifinals, so if that's the point, I'd agree to it. But I'm really just arguing the presupposition that Utah got robbed. Look at that schedule. That wasn't a national championship schedule. There was just no way under the current system that Utah deserved the spot over USC, Oklahoma or Auburn. It makes me look like all those people who are biased against the mid majors, yes, but it is what it is. (To Harleen Quinzel)

 

Good teams beats a 8 win team that only got a BCS spot by virtue of winning the weak conference, yes, but it's nowhere near as impressive as you'd have people think. (to Psycho Penguin)

 

Oh I agree. I just think they were really a talented team that year and probably would have gone 12-0 or 11-1 in the Pac 10 and Big 12 also. Unlike a Ball State this year who is clearly benefiting from a weak sauce schedule.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Undefeated in the Pac-10? With USC and Cal around? That's a hard sell to me. Ditto for Big 12 with Oklahoma and Vince Young's Longhorns. But 11-1 seems possible.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Undefeated in the Pac-10? With USC and Cal around? That's a hard sell to me. Ditto for Big 12 with Oklahoma and Vince Young's Longhorns. But 11-1 seems possible.

 

Talented mid majors like Boise State prove they can beat elite and good Pac 10 and Big 12 teams, so 12-0 would be possible. Probable? No. But definitely possible. I mean, that Utah team WAS really good for a mid major. Mid majors like those don't come around very often, though.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I don't know if Utah could've matched up to the top tier in those conferences but they did beat: Texas A&M, Arizona, North Carolina, and later Pittsburgh in the bowl game so I could see Utah definitely going 8-4 or 9-3 at least in those two divisions.

 

The year after, they went 7-5 but still beat Arizona and Georgia Tech. In 2003, they beat California, Oregon, and Southern Miss.

 

I think a lot of the better mid-major teams could compete in and finish with 7-5 or 8-4 regular season records year after year if given the opportunity (Much like Texas Tech in the Big 12 over the past several years).

 

Ironically, here's some of the teams that the MWC beat in 2004 (All Teams): Texas A&M, Arizona, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Texas Tech, Mississippi, and UCLA.

 

This is true of 2008 as well. Boise State beat a 7-3 Oregon team 37-32 on the road and Ball State beat a 6-3 Navy team (and 3-7 Indiana team). Utah beat Michigan (3-7) and a 6-3 Oregon State team. TCU beat a 5-5 Stanford while BYU beat 0-9 Washington and 3-6 UCLA.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Anyone watching the VT/Miami game? Miami's up 7-0 but just turned it over.

[Damaramu 0]

Undefeated in the Pac-10? With USC and Cal around? That's a hard sell to me. Ditto for Big 12 with Oklahoma and Vince Young's Longhorns. But 11-1 seems possible.

 

Talented mid majors like Boise State prove they can beat elite and good Pac 10 and Big 12 teams, so 12-0 would be possible. Probable? No. But definitely possible. I mean, that Utah team WAS really good for a mid major. Mid majors like those don't come around very often, though.

 

Yeah but that was also one game that they had a month to get up for (the BSU/OU game). Would they be able to do it week in and week out against the same level of competition?

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Undefeated in the Pac-10? With USC and Cal around? That's a hard sell to me. Ditto for Big 12 with Oklahoma and Vince Young's Longhorns. But 11-1 seems possible.

 

Talented mid majors like Boise State prove they can beat elite and good Pac 10 and Big 12 teams, so 12-0 would be possible. Probable? No. But definitely possible. I mean, that Utah team WAS really good for a mid major. Mid majors like those don't come around very often, though.

 

Yeah but that was also one game that they had a month to get up for (the BSU/OU game). Would they be able to do it week in and week out against the same level of competition?

 

All of the "major" conferences have several teams that would struggle in the WAC or MWC to begin with, and OU had a month to prepare for BSU also. And BSU always has an edge with their blue field. I think BSU would be fine in a BCS conference. Not as dominant, but I think they could be competing for conference titles within 5 years.

 

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Here's how the conferences rank in terms of overall win % (i.e. W/L % of all teams)

 

01: Big 12 (74-46) - 61.67% - Has 5 teams with at least 8 wins

02: ACC (67-43) - 60.91% - Has 8 teams with at least 6 wins

03: SEC (70-45) - 60.87% - Has 4 teams with at least 7 wins

04: Big East (43-29) - 59.72% - Has 5 teams with at least 6 wins

05: Big 10 (65-46) - 58.56% - Has 5 teams with at least 7 wins

06: MWC (53-39) - 57.61% - Has 4 teams with at least 8 wins

07: WAC (42-43) - 49.41% - Has 6 teams with at least 5 wins

08: Pac 10 (45-48) - 48.39% - Has 5 teams with at least 6 wins

09: MAC (57-64) - 47.11% - Has 3 teams with at least 7 wins

10: C USA (46-62) - 42.59% - Has 3 teams with at least 6 wins

11: Sun Belt (30-44) - 40.54% - Has 2 teams with at least 5 wins

 

I'm surprised to see how good the Big 12 is (largely aided by Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech) but the insanity that is the ACC with it's gluttony of 6 win teams has actually helped the division out as a whole despite the lack of a top tier 8-9 win team at the moment. Also a little surprised at the suck that the Pac-10 has undergone this year... behind the WAC and barely ahead of the MAC as a whole.

 

Keep in mind, this can all change after a couple weeks as more teams finish at 6-6 or 7-5.

[CanadianChris 0]

Wouldn't that be a lot simpler if you just did win % out of conference?

 

Big East is artificially higher because they play fewer conference games as opposed to the other conferences.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Wouldn't that be a lot simpler if you just did win % out of conference?

 

Big East is artificially higher because they play fewer conference games as opposed to the other conferences.

 

Possibly, but then that favors teams like Texas Tech who played two I-AA opponents and taking those 2 opponents out can harm a team that plays 4 OOC opponents who are all I-A compared to Texas Tech's 2. Keep in mind that the above includes conference and non-conference games rather than just in-conference games.

 

Here's how they rank OOC (including I-AA games) although some teams schedule "softer" OOC teams than others.

 

SEC: 33-8 (80.5%) - 41 Games

Big 12: 38-10 (79.2%) - 48 Games

ACC: 34-10 (77.3%) - 44 Games

Big 10: 31-12 (72.1%) - 43 Games

MWC: 25-11 (69.4%) - 36 Games

Big East: 26-12 (68.4%) - 38 Games

WAC: 17-18 (48.6%) - 35 Games

Pac 10: 13-16 (44.8%) - 29 Games

MAC: 22-29 (43.1%) - 51 Games

C USA: 18-30 (37.5%) - 48 Games

Sun Belt: 11-25 (30.6%) - 36 Games

[CanadianChris 0]

Possibly, but then that favors teams like Texas Tech who played two I-AA opponents and taking those 2 opponents out can harm a team that plays 4 OOC opponents who are all I-A compared to Texas Tech's 2.

Teams, yes, but generally not entire conferences. Taking the conference games out provides a clearer picture, since an entire conference is necessarily .500 against itself.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Here's some interesting bowl news that I had no idea on (and may have repercussions in terms of how many teams a conference sends to a bowl game)

 

PapaJohns.com Bowl: In 2008 and 2009, the bowl will feature the Southeastern Conference's lowest-ranked bowl-eligible team and a team from the Big East Conference. Should neither of these conferences fulfill their bowl commitments, a team from the Sun Belt Conference - provided it is bowl eligible - will take their place. This could be Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, or Arkansas if they can finish 6-6

 

EagleBank Bowl: Under the agreement, the ACC would provide its ninth-best team for the bowl if the league had nine bowl eligible (records of 6-6 or better) teams. However, if the primary options do not provide two bowl eligible teams to play, the committee can select a team from the Mid-American Conference, Conference USA, or the Big Ten Conference as a replacement. Virginia can finish at 6-6 or 7-5 to fulfill this requirement (A 9th team getting the bid)

 

Poinsettia Bowl: Starting with the 2008 season, and continuing through 2009, if a Pac-10 team does not get the necessary six wins for bowl eligibility that the Poinsettia Bowl would select a WAC team to take its place.

 

Armed Forces Bowl: Conference USA will send a team vs. the Mountain West in 2008. In 2009, the Pac-10 has a bowl tie in. Teams with a shot include UTEP and Memphis. Maybe Houston if they can win one of their last three.

 

Humanitarian Bowl: The ACC did not renew their contract past the 2008 game and will be replaced by a team from the Mountain West Conference in 2009.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Cincy's up 7-0 on the Ville, maybe they can win out and get an actual above average team into the Big East's BCS and keep the win streak alive.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Who's quarterbacking the Bearcats? I know it isn't Ben Mauk. Wasn't Dustin Grotzka hurt at some point this season?

[Hawk 34 0]

Who's quarterbacking the Bearcats? I know it isn't Ben Mauk. Wasn't Dustin Grotzka hurt at some point this season?

 

Grutza. He was injured during the Oklahoma game. Tony Pike is the primary QB for Cincinnati. He was also injured during the season and was replaced by Chazz Anderson for a couple weeks.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Who's quarterbacking the Bearcats? I know it isn't Ben Mauk. Wasn't Dustin Grotzka hurt at some point this season?

 

 

Tony Pike. Coming into the game he had 1,229 yards on 60.2% with 10 TD vs. 3 INT. Seems to be filling in just fine. Pike's been the starter for tonight's game anyway.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Notre Dame transfer Demetrius Jones (I think that's his name) is still 3rd or 4th string, too!

[Hawk 34 0]

Notre Dame transfer Demetrius Jones (I think that's his name) is still 3rd or 4th string, too!

 

Actually, he's the 5th string QB. It's Pike, Collaros, Anderson, Grutza, Jones.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

That's hilarious. I guess he's 3rd or 4th string right now due to injuries, though.

 

It's a good game going on, I'm taping it because I am mostly watching SD, and I like watching Big East teams. I think it's a slightly underrated conference.

[JHawk 0]

Here's some interesting bowl news that I had no idea on (and may have repercussions in terms of how many teams a conference sends to a bowl game)

 

PapaJohns.com Bowl: In 2008 and 2009, the bowl will feature the Southeastern Conference's lowest-ranked bowl-eligible team and a team from the Big East Conference. Should neither of these conferences fulfill their bowl commitments, a team from the Sun Belt Conference - provided it is bowl eligible - will take their place. This could be Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, or Arkansas if they can finish 6-6

 

EagleBank Bowl: Under the agreement, the ACC would provide its ninth-best team for the bowl if the league had nine bowl eligible (records of 6-6 or better) teams. However, if the primary options do not provide two bowl eligible teams to play, the committee can select a team from the Mid-American Conference, Conference USA, or the Big Ten Conference as a replacement. Virginia can finish at 6-6 or 7-5 to fulfill this requirement (A 9th team getting the bid)

 

Poinsettia Bowl: Starting with the 2008 season, and continuing through 2009, if a Pac-10 team does not get the necessary six wins for bowl eligibility that the Poinsettia Bowl would select a WAC team to take its place.

 

Armed Forces Bowl: Conference USA will send a team vs. the Mountain West in 2008. In 2009, the Pac-10 has a bowl tie in. Teams with a shot include UTEP and Memphis. Maybe Houston if they can win one of their last three.

 

Humanitarian Bowl: The ACC did not renew their contract past the 2008 game and will be replaced by a team from the Mountain West Conference in 2009.

The fact that the ninth best team in a conference has a shot at the postseason saddens me.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

The 9th best team in the ACC will deserve a bowl this year. As much as the conference gets hated on, it's pretty balanced, with 9 potential bowl teams. And Clemson if they win out somehow.

[Hawk 34 0]

Another QB injury for the Bearcats. Pike is out and Grutza will return.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Here's a list of the outside looking in bowl eligible teams... Quite a lot of teams can clinch bowl eligible spots with victories this week.

 

ACC: Virginia (5-5), Clemson (4-5), and Duke (4-5)

Big 12: Colorado (5-5), Kansas State (4-6), and Texas A&M (4-6)

Big East: Louisville (5-6) and Rutgers (4-5)

Big 10: Illinois (5-5) and Wisconsin (5-5)

Conference USA: Houston (5-4), Memphis (5-5), Marshall (4-5), UTEP (4-5), and Southern Miss (4-6)

MAC: Akron (5-6), Bowling Green (5-5), and Northern Illinois (5-6)

Mountain West: Colorado State (4-6)

Pac 10: Stanford (5-5)

SEC: Vanderbilt (5-4), Mississippi (5-4), Auburn (5-5), and Arkansas (4-6)

Sun Belt: UL Lafayette (5-4), Florida International (4-5), Arkansas State (4-5), and Florida Atlantic (4-5)

WAC: Nevada (5-4), Louisiana Tech (5-4), Hawaii (5-5), and Fresno State (5-4)

[cabbageboy 0]

Yay, U of L blows yet another winnable game by not making plays down the stretch. Running the ball on a 3rd and 23 to set up a 45 yard FG? Ugh. Guess now that Cincy/Pitt winner next week has the inside track for the BCS, though WVU might still have a chance too.

 

Anyway, as far as Utah in 2004 goes, under the current BCS system obviously they would never get a shot since their SOS and conf. aren't powerful enough to beat out undefeated teams from the Big 12 and Pac 10 (or SEC). But even with a lesser schedule that team was so incredibly dominant that year, closest game was a 2 TD win. Boise St. in 2006 at least had a couple of tough games against Wyoming (17-10) and San Jose St. (23-20).

 

I mentioned USC vs. Utah as a fascinating game in 2004 because Auburn just wouldn't have enough offense to match USC. Utah could put up an insane amount of points to match the Trojans. And while USC was a dominant national champion in 2004, they did have several close calls besides that Cal game. They had a 29-24 win over a 6-6 UCLA team. A 31-28 win over a 4-7 Stanford team. A 28-20 win over a 7-5 Oregon State team (was this the fog game?).