Bloody Weekend for top ranked teams... [Archive]

Danielos38

09-30-2007, 12:15 AM

Crazy weekend, 5 of the top ten teams lose, 7 of the top 13 teams.

The likely new #3/4/5 teams are not very good IMO and we'll likely see a lot more shakeout at the top real soon.

It'll be real interesting to see how the rankings come out... I'm very curious to see how USF fares... They should pass WVU having just beaten them and they beat the team on the road the team that just knocked off Florida in the Swamp. Is it be possible that next week the Bulls are the highest ranked team in the state of Florida?

It is the 2nd biggest school in the state, so I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner.

mweb

09-30-2007, 02:34 AM

Crazy weekend, 5 of the top ten teams lose, 7 of the top 13 teams.

The likely new #3/4/5 teams are not very good IMO and we'll likely see a lot more shakeout at the top real soon.

It'll be real interesting to see how the rankings come out... I'm very curious to see how USF fares... They should pass WVU having just beaten them and they beat the team on the road the team that just knocked off Florida in the Swamp. Is it be possible that next week the Bulls are the highest ranked team in the state of Florida?

I think Cal is quite good.

But yeah, crazy weekend.

geschinger

09-30-2007, 09:26 AM

I think Cal is quite good.

But yeah, crazy weekend.

I like their offense but I do think their defense is going to cost them at least one game other than the USC matchup.

mweb

09-30-2007, 04:28 PM

I like their offense but I do think their defense is going to cost them at least one game other than the USC matchup.

Maybe, they're in a very good conference, so some tough games still ahead. But winning at Oregon is very impressive.

square634

09-30-2007, 05:22 PM

It's shaping up to be an interesting year as far as BCS games this year. I think it is possible that if there is only one undefeated team from a major BCS conference (and I expect either LSU or USC to lose a game eventually) there could be another controversy about the national championship. I think a team like Hawaii could (and probably should) get passed over even if they are undefeated. I hope that there is as much controversy as possible, so that eventually they will move to a playoff system. I know everyone says it's about the money, but I don't see why a playoff system can't still have bowl affiliation.

ixcuincle

09-30-2007, 05:23 PM

ixcuincle

09-30-2007, 05:24 PM

I hope that there is as much controversy as possible, so that eventually they will move to a playoff system. I know everyone says it's about the money, but I don't see why a playoff system can't still have bowl affiliation.

I do too...the thing is they'd actually earn more money with a playoff system but the Presidents seem to think everything is fine as is :rolleyes:

Any system that forces you to wait a month between the end of the regular season and a bowl game (specifically a national championship game) has problems that should be corrected asap. What other sport does that?

geschinger

09-30-2007, 05:44 PM

Latest polls :

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex

USF 6 in one poll , I believe 9 in the other. LSU supplants USC at first in one poll.

And after that loss to MD , Rutgers drops from 10 to 21. Wow...

Ridiculous that the coaches have FL ranked that high and over South Florida. I also don't like how far WVU dropped... Losing to a very good USF team on the road hurt them significantly more than UF losing at home against an unranked team.

ixcuincle

09-30-2007, 06:07 PM

mweb

09-30-2007, 06:18 PM

But the most eyebrow-raising ranking is how BC somehow managed to maneuver themselves into a #7 ranking. This is a team that beat GT , WF , Army , NC State , and UMass. Notice how none of these teams are ranked. GT was ranked but they are unranked now because they are a crap team whose only talent is a RB named Choice. So why is BC 7?

Becasue their undefeated, have 2 decent wins, and were ranked to begin the year. Plus a ton of teams lost. Rankings seem to be more about record than who is actually better in many cases.

ixcuincle

09-30-2007, 06:24 PM

Becasue their undefeated, have 2 decent wins, and were ranked to begin the year. Plus a ton of teams lost. Rankings seem to be more about record than who is actually better in many cases.

They beat probably one good team in GT , and GT isn't exactly an amazing team either. The rest listed aren't exactly ranked or great teams. But we'll see how good BC is once they stop playing cupcakes and play a real team down in Blacksburg. USF I can understand (they beat Auburn and WVU) but BC has scheduled tons of cupcakes and ends up ranked that high?

PS : upon further schedule review it appears BC has Bowling Green and Notre Dame coming up before the big game at Lane , so they could come into Blacksburg undefeated. And VT has played very well at home this year (at least on defense)...it will be a very good game.

ledzepp8

09-30-2007, 06:30 PM

Ridiculous that the coaches have FL ranked that high and over South Florida. I also don't like how far WVU dropped... Losing to a very good USF team on the road hurt them significantly more than UF losing at home against an unranked team.

Totally agree Gesch. There's no way that Florida or Oklahoma should still be in the top ten. Florida lost to an unranked team(who was beaten at home by USF)at home and Oklahoma lost to an average Colorado team. WVU should still be in the top ten over teams like Florida and Oklahoma, they lost on the road to a team that is now ranked 6th in the country. There's a ridiculous bias going on these polls.

Can we please get a playoff already? I know WVU still has the Big East Title and a BCS game to play for, but it's just really deflating when you're chance for a championship is basically over after the 5th game of the season.

Eight

09-30-2007, 07:50 PM

ledzepp8

09-30-2007, 08:33 PM

Florida should definitely still be in the top 10. Yeah, they lost, and it wasn't the best loss in the world, but still. The top 10 this week has SoFla, BC, and Kentucky at 6-8. Is there any chance Florida wouldn't be favored over every single one of those teams on a neutral field? You can argue they don't "deserve" to be that high because those other teams are undefeated, but if you're ranking the top ten teams Florida should be in there.

But that's not really the point though. Florida, Oklahoma and WVU all lost yet the only one to drop from the top ten was WVU, who probably had the best loss out of the three. It's not a huge deal because the polls are basically a meaningless popularity contest, but there's definitely a bias towards the SEC and all of the big name schools like USC, OK, Ohio St, Michigan, ND, etc. These teams are always pushed down our throats as NC contenders no matter how good they really are.

Sports Guy

09-30-2007, 08:40 PM

The voters are ridiculous with how much they drop and move up teams based on one game.

The polls shouldn't come out for the first time until mid October.

Danielos38

09-30-2007, 08:40 PM

Ridiculous that the coaches have FL ranked that high and over South Florida. I also don't like how far WVU dropped... Losing to a very good USF team on the road hurt them significantly more than UF losing at home against an unranked team.

When you win the national championship, you geta little bit of respect. Especially over a completely unproven team with no tradition.

geschinger

09-30-2007, 08:56 PM

When you win the national championship, you geta little bit of respect. Especially over a completely unproven team with no tradition.

That probably has something to do with it and is illustrative as to why coaches shouldn't be voting. They let reputation matter too much because they (or more likely their SID) don't have the time or inclination to focus on what teams across the nation are doing. I don't think anyone can deny there is a bias towards the bigger name programs.

Either way hopefully they'll be a lot of controversy again this year so that maybe at some point we'll get a playoff system.

mweb

09-30-2007, 09:47 PM

But that's not really the point though. Florida, Oklahoma and WVU all lost yet the only one to drop from the top ten was WVU, who probably had the best loss out of the three. It's not a huge deal because the polls are basically a meaningless popularity contest, but there's definitely a bias towards the SEC and all of the big name schools like USC, OK, Ohio St, Michigan, ND, etc. These teams are always pushed down our throats as NC contenders no matter how good they really are.

That's because they're elite programs.;) But yeah, I agree that it's not fair.

Birds of B'more

10-02-2007, 01:57 AM

That probably has something to do with it and is illustrative as to why coaches shouldn't be voting. They let reputation matter too much because they (or more likely their SID) don't have the time or inclination to focus on what teams across the nation are doing. I don't think anyone can deny there is a bias towards the bigger name programs.

Either way hopefully they'll be a lot of controversy again this year so that maybe at some point we'll get a playoff system.

Or even their receptionists, IIRC in that controversial news story from a couple years ago about the coaches poll.

And don't hold your breath on that playoff. The powers-that-be are more than happy with the popularity contest they have now and the cash it brings in. And too many of them are affraid to kill the goose laying all those golden eggs.......public opinion be damned. :mad:

geschinger

10-02-2007, 08:48 AM

Or even their receptionists, IIRC in that controversial news story from a couple years ago about the coaches poll.

And don't hold your breath on that playoff. The powers-that-be are more than happy with the popularity contest they have now and the cash it brings in. And too many of them are affraid to kill the goose laying all those golden eggs.......public opinion be damned. :mad:

Yep, I agree although I don't understand it. I would think a playoff would generate huge revenues.

PeteCanes

10-03-2007, 11:49 AM

They beat probably one good team in GT , and GT isn't exactly an amazing team either. The rest listed aren't exactly ranked or great teams. But we'll see how good BC is once they stop playing cupcakes and play a real team down in Blacksburg. USF I can understand (they beat Auburn and WVU) but BC has scheduled tons of cupcakes and ends up ranked that high?

PS : upon further schedule review it appears BC has Bowling Green and Notre Dame coming up before the big game at Lane , so they could come into Blacksburg undefeated. And VT has played very well at home this year (at least on defense)...it will be a very good game.

To be fair, by your logic, what makes Virginia Tech a "real team". Who have they beaten. Bill and Mary, Ohio?

ixcuincle

10-03-2007, 02:11 PM

To be fair, by your logic, what makes Virginia Tech a "real team". Who have they beaten. Bill and Mary, Ohio?

Yeah , VT hasn't been that impressive , but they aren't ranked 7th in the polls with their weak schedule (plus they did lose to #1 LSU). This reminds me of the time VT had as good as a start as BC my freshman year and was ranked extremely high despite playing nobody. However , that VT team actually blew people out and won by huge margins...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/sports/ncaafootball/01colleges.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

WINNER No. 7 Boston College. The Eagles have been rewarded despite seeming uninterested against Army and Massachusetts the past two weeks. Are they really better than Florida and Oklahoma? Their toughest remaining test is a Thursday night game at Virginia Tech on Oct. 25.

Sheesh...

10. BOSTON COLLEGE (5-0) Judge postpones top-10 trespassing trial until after Bowling Green. (12)

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dufrank4oct04,1,6355887.story?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctrack=8&cset=true

BustaJ2632

10-06-2007, 10:31 PM

OMG STANFORD!!!

lower case letters

PDog

10-06-2007, 10:44 PM

OMG STANFORD!!!

lower case letters

HOLY CRAP!!! I can't believe they pulled it off!!! My mom, a Stanford alum, is going nuts right now!!!!

BustaJ2632

10-06-2007, 10:48 PM

It's looking entirely possible that every team ranked in the top 5 last week will have lost by the end of this week.

ixcuincle

10-06-2007, 10:53 PM

A lot of those games have been very close. Cal nearly avoided a loss to Oregon because the ball-carrier for Oregon fumbled , LSU is down to UF right now , and USC lost. In addition USF played very closely with Florida Atlantic until they finally pulled away. No one is safe , and this season has had a lot more upsets than I can remember. In the past I criticized college football for being too predictable , but parity is starting to take shape and more upsets are taking place. Parity is a good thing.

square634

10-06-2007, 10:54 PM

OMG STANFORD!!!

lower case letters

Man, I was watching this game on gamecast and trying to interview the soccer team over the phone at the same time! One of my friends is a freshman at Stanford now, but he doesn't care about football at all. I sent him like 3 crazy facebook messages anyway though :002_scool:

How do you give up 20 yards on 4th and 20?!? I can't wait to see that play.

geschinger

10-06-2007, 11:06 PM

mweb

10-06-2007, 11:17 PM

Wow, shocking loss, and no excuse for losing to such a poor team. Now if LSU loses, the national title picture will be very fuzzy.

PDog

10-06-2007, 11:18 PM

Captain Comeback has done a heck of a job getting them ready to play today. While it was surprising that it was at home and Stanford that did it, it wasn't all that surprising that Booty was going to cost the Trojans. Now it'll be interesting to see how little or how far they drop. My guess is that it won't be far enough for losing to what was a home game against a 1-3 team.

They won't drop out of the top 10 which will show why the polls are bs. You don't lose to a 1-3 team that you were 40 pt favorites over at home.

I can say this, if that was WVU that had lost to Stanford at home they would be lucky to be in the top 20, but USC...can't have them fall to far.

ixcuincle

10-06-2007, 11:21 PM

square634

10-06-2007, 11:24 PM

I'm hoping that the preseason top 25 all have at least one loss. Then I want the national championship to be something like South Florida vs. Hawaii, even though they probably aren't the best two teams. If the highest profile, largest revenue-producing teams don't make the national championship, that will probably be the most effective way to change the BCS system. Money talks.

geschinger

10-06-2007, 11:30 PM

In the interests of messing up more national championship predictions and introducing more parity and unpredictability into NCAA football : Go Gators. I believe the game is better off with more parity like this ; it isn't fun when the game becomes predictable and preseason favorites make the championship game.

I agree that the game is better when any team is capable of winning on any given Saturday but it just magnifies the absurdity of the current system used to crown champions.

Sports Guy

10-06-2007, 11:44 PM

ixcuincle

10-06-2007, 11:46 PM

LSU just scored to keep NC hopes alive...UF better come back. Parity , people!

BustaJ2632

10-06-2007, 11:46 PM

There will be a 1 loss team in the NC game...6 of the 9 years since the BCS started, a 1 loss team has played for the NC...Still time for schools like USC to get in.

Horrendous loss by USC though....Just pathetic...41 point favorite and lose!!!

No chance USC gets in unless the rest of the big boys lose 2. A loss like this, to a 1-3 team at home, is an absolute dagger to any chance they may have had.

geschinger

10-06-2007, 11:51 PM

No chance USC gets in unless the rest of the big boys lose 2. A loss like this, to a 1-3 team at home, is an absolute dagger to any chance they may have had.

We'll see. I would not be surprised at all to see the coaches give USC somewhat of a pass and keep them in the top 10. There is time to recover from that considering some of the surprising teams in the top ten who will likely lose a game at some point.

Sports Guy

10-06-2007, 11:52 PM

No chance USC gets in unless the rest of the big boys lose 2. A loss like this, to a 1-3 team at home, is an absolute dagger to any chance they may have had.

Well, they still have to go to Oregon and to Cal...Cal will be ranked #2 after this week....If they go into those 2 teams and win both and then win out the rest of the games, they will have a chance....Right now, LSU, Cal and OSU are in the drivers seats...South Florida as well.

Problem for those teams is that if they lose a game from here on out, it will be later in the season than USC's loss.

gallden

10-06-2007, 11:57 PM

Geaux Tigers!!!!

geschinger

10-07-2007, 12:00 AM

LSU just scored to keep NC hopes alive...UF better come back. Parity , people!

I could never root for UF under any circumstances.

Gotta give Les Miles a ton of credit. Some ballsy decisions that ended up being the difference in the game.

ledzepp8

10-07-2007, 12:22 PM

They won't drop out of the top 10 which will show why the polls are bs. You don't lose to a 1-3 team that you were 40 pt favorites over at home.

I can say this, if that was WVU that had lost to Stanford at home they would be lucky to be in the top 20, but USC...can't have them fall to far.

THANK YOU!!! This is exactly right. Please let's get a playoff already. I hope the teams playing for the NC both have like two losses or something, maybe that will show how ridiculously stupid it is to basically hand pick two teams to play for a title.

ledzepp8

10-07-2007, 12:25 PM

I could never root for UF under any circumstances.

Yeah I agree. The constant whining by the Gators over the years about not getting title shots and the fact that I hate Urban Meyer. That being said, I'd like to see LSU lose before the season is out.

ixcuincle

10-07-2007, 02:33 PM

geschinger

10-07-2007, 02:58 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex

USC to 10 , VT ranked higher than UF too :eek:

And like I've said before BC is ranked way too high. They are a #9 team. They are not the #4 team in the country by any means.

Unfortunately the SIDs/coaches didn't feel like it was all that bad a loss for USC to lose to an unranked team at home dropping them only to #7. They'll have plenty of time to make that up.

PDog

10-07-2007, 04:06 PM

ledzepp8

10-07-2007, 04:40 PM

Sports Guy

10-07-2007, 05:27 PM

mweb

10-07-2007, 05:46 PM

The polls are bs but it is also bs that a team loses one game and drops far.

USC is ranked where they should be IMO.

Now, WV got dropped too low.

I mean, does anyone think there are even 7 teams better than USC, much less teams like BC and USF?

Yeah, the rankings are BS, and as you suggest, don't really seem to be about who are the best teams in order, often more based on record and pre-season ranking. USC would be favored over BC or USF on a neutral field, and there are plenty of other examples like that.

PDog

10-07-2007, 06:34 PM

Here's something else pretty funny about the coaches poll. Oregon last week was ranked 13th. They had a bye this week and jumped up...wait for it...to #8. That is one spot higher then WVU who they were ranked behind last week and WVU played and killed Syracuse.

I guess Oregon impressed the coaches with their poise during the bye week after their loss the week before. :rolleyes:

ledzepp8

10-07-2007, 06:34 PM

The polls are bs but it is also bs that a team loses one game and drops far.

USC is ranked where they should be IMO.

Now, WV got dropped too low.

I mean, does anyone think there are even 7 teams better than USC, much less teams like BC and USF?

This I agree with, but if you're going to drop WVU 8/9 spots for losing to a team that you're now calling the 5th best team in the nation then USC needs to drop a lot farther than that for losing to a 1-3 team at home that was a 40 some point underdog. The pollsters are just that idiotic and obvious about their biases.

Sports Guy

10-07-2007, 07:53 PM

This I agree with, but if you're going to drop WVU 8/9 spots for losing to a team that you're now calling the 5th best team in the nation then USC needs to drop a lot farther than that for losing to a 1-3 team at home that was a 40 some point underdog. The pollsters are just that idiotic and obvious about their biases.

Well what that tells you is that they think USC is a superior team to WVU and that they shouldn't drop as far...However, you say WVU dropped 8 or 9 spots...Well, so did USC. They were just ranked higher to begin with.

geschinger

10-07-2007, 08:39 PM

Well what that tells you is that they think USC is a superior team to WVU and that they shouldn't drop as far...However, you say WVU dropped 8 or 9 spots...Well, so did USC. They were just ranked higher to begin with.

The AP Poll isn't too bad, it is somewhat defensible (USC @10). However only dropping 6 spots (USC is 7 Coaches Poll) as USC did when losing at home to an unranked team is not.

What it tells me is that the coaches or SIDs or whomever is handling the voting for the coaches are not up to the task.

ledzepp8

10-07-2007, 08:40 PM

Well what that tells you is that they think USC is a superior team to WVU and that they shouldn't drop as far...However, you say WVU dropped 8 or 9 spots...Well, so did USC. They were just ranked higher to begin with.

The point was that USC lost to a far inferior team in Stanford, than USF was to WVU or anyone in college football. I understand that they think they are superior and I can almost buy that, but at least try not to let your biases show. Someone said it best in this thread I believe, the pollsters don't drop the teams they want in the NC as far, like USC, FL, OK, etc, because they want to make it easier and less sketchy to get them back in the title hunt.

geschinger

10-07-2007, 08:43 PM

Yeah, the rankings are BS, and as you suggest, don't really seem to be about who are the best teams in order, often more based on record and pre-season ranking. USC would be favored over BC or USF on a neutral field, and there are plenty of other examples like that.

If they eliminated preseason rankings and waited until when the BCS rankings start to release 'em we might have a much better system. Preseason polls when noone has seen any of the teams have way too much impact. And as we've seen w/teams like Michigan and (sadly) Louisville voters really have no clue.

RShack

10-08-2007, 02:42 AM

there's definitely a bias towards the SEC and all of the big name schools like USC, OK, Ohio St, Michigan, ND, etc. These teams are always pushed down our throats as NC contenders no matter how good they really are.
My personal ties are to the ACC, but I live in SEC-land. And, say what you want, I think the SEC is typically a pretty good BS-filter. As a rule, nobody gets through an SEC season without multiple serious tests. Since I am more familiar with the SEC, I am less concerned about favoritism boosting SEC teams unfairly, especially by the end of the season. This is not to defend poll-BS... only that teams in some conferences typically have much harder rows to hoe than in other conferences. SEC teams tend to do a good job of knocking each other out of contention. Any SEC team that ends up at or near the top of the BCS mess by the end of the season, IMO they've pretty much earned it.

mweb

10-08-2007, 03:32 AM

If they eliminated preseason rankings and waited until when the BCS rankings start to release 'em we might have a much better system. Preseason polls when noone has seen any of the teams have way too much impact. And as we've seen w/teams like Michigan and (sadly) Louisville voters really have no clue.

Yes, preseason polls do have too much impact, however, the lack of rankings for the first couple months or so would hurt interest in the sport imo. The voters would still basically have preseason rankings in their heads anyway. BTW, Michigan is pretty good, they just can't defend the spread offense, I know, a pretty big flaw, but it's not like their Louisville.

geschinger

10-08-2007, 10:07 AM

Yes, preseason polls do have too much impact, however, the lack of rankings for the first couple months or so would hurt interest in the sport imo. The voters would still basically have preseason rankings in their heads anyway. BTW, Michigan is pretty good, they just can't defend the spread offense, I know, a pretty big flaw, but it's not like their Louisville.

I'm not sure how much impact it would have on interest so that might be a factor. While voters have an idea of where they'd rank teams in the preseason if they waited they wouldn't be stuck working from such a flawed framework.

Louisville is pretty good, they just can't defend anyone. Although that too is a pretty big flaw. ;)

Birds of B'more

10-08-2007, 05:00 PM

Don't look now, but Ohio St has very quietly manuevered themselves into excellent position for another shot at the title. If they can get through a challenging last 4 games (@ PSU, vs Wis, vs Ill, @ Mich) then look for them to be playing in New Orleans on Jan 7.

Birds of B'more

10-08-2007, 05:08 PM

So WVU loses to an undefeated USF team on the road that is ranked in the top 5 now and dropped out of the top 10 to 12/13 (depends on the poll). USC loses at home to a Stanford team that had been killed by PAC-10 teams and yet they are still ranked in the top 10 (#7 in the Coaches...#7!!!). I wish I could say i'm shocked by this but i'm not. Just another reason that the polls are bs.

Part of the problem I think is the difference in exposure those two games had. The WV/USF game was nationally televised and there were no other games played that night, so all eyes were on them. And while WV still kept it close, the six turnovers probably soured a lot of voters. Meanwhile, very few people probably saw the USC/Stanford game and were left to draw their own conclusions as to what happened.......and, USC being USC, they likely just chalked it up to one of those flukey games that happen from time to time.

ixcuincle

10-13-2007, 08:03 PM

LSU is a 1 loss team now. Yay for a battle between a plethora of 1-loss teams for the right to go to the Championship game.

BustaJ2632

10-13-2007, 08:16 PM

I'll be rooting like hell for the Terps on Nov. 10, but barring that upset, I hope that USF/BC is the title game. This season is shaping up to be the perfect storm that shows just how much is wrong with the college football postseason system.

ixcuincle

10-13-2007, 08:18 PM

BustaJ2632

10-13-2007, 08:33 PM

Still not convinced on BC...I would be very startled if they managed to go undefeated. Nothing I have seen from them other than Ryan impresses me , and how good will Ryan be once he plays a formidable defense?

Oh, I'm not at all convinced either and I think the Terps have a better chance this year against BC than they have the last two. But if the Terps aren't going to beat them, I'd love to see them somehow get through undefeated...first off for the conference, but secondly because I think seeing such a mediocre default championship game could be the thing that finally forces a change.

ixcuincle

10-13-2007, 10:20 PM

The upsets just keep on coming...Oregon State beating Cal. Who's #1 now? Ohio State probably...

Joe Starkey , Cal broadcaster , is irate when he called the final play. Riley , a young freshman quarterback at the OSU 20 , ran out the clock by running around instead of throwing the ball. By running out this clock , Cal's undefeated season has ended in heartbreaking fashion.

geschinger

10-13-2007, 10:43 PM

The upsets just keep on coming...Oregon State beating Cal. Who's #1 now? Ohio State probably...

Noone wants to be #1. OSU tried everything possible to keep Cal unbeaten but Cal wanted none of that.

Now it'll be real interesting to see how the pollsters react w/LSU and Cal. LSU's loss was much better than the USC debacle where they only dropped to #7. I don't expect Cal to be shown as much love as LSU will be, I'd be kind of surprised if they remain above a teams like WVU and VT.

Hank Scorpio

10-13-2007, 10:48 PM

College football is soooooooooooo much better than the NFL. This is what it's all about!

geschinger

10-13-2007, 10:50 PM

College football is soooooooooooo much better than the NFL. This is what it's all about!

It is great during the regular season. I still hate that championships are decided in large part by SIDs and whomever else coaches get to fill out their polls each week.

Sports Guy

10-13-2007, 10:54 PM

Ohio State will be the new #1.

But how about BC and USF being 2 and 3..in all likelihood?

That is just ugly.

geschinger

10-13-2007, 10:58 PM

Ohio State will be the new #1.

But how about BC and USF being 2 and 3..in all likelihood?

That is just ugly.

BC is very ugly, but USF is the new FSU/Miami. Nothing ugly about a BEast team near the top of the polls.

Ohio State is not very good but considering the truly awfulness of the B10 this year they may just run the table and get blown out in the BCS title game.

beaner

10-14-2007, 12:15 AM

BC is very ugly, but USF is the new FSU/Miami. Nothing ugly about a BEast team near the top of the polls.

Ohio State is not very good but considering the truly awfulness of the B10 this year they may just run the table and get blown out in the BCS title game.

Just like last year..

I think Michigan beats them on November 17.

Sports Guy

10-14-2007, 12:25 AM

Just like last year..

I think Michigan beats them on November 17.

I hope so...Still want the 2 best teams play for the NC...USC and LSU.

mweb

10-14-2007, 12:37 AM

Sports Guy

10-14-2007, 12:42 AM

Little early to be saying that don't you think?

Yea really...The potential is there but talk to us in 20 years.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 08:34 AM

I hope so...Still want the 2 best teams play for the NC...USC and LSU.

Most talented teams yes, but the way USC has played the last couple of weeks they have to improve quite a bit to be considered one of the best two teams.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 08:48 AM

Little early to be saying that don't you think?

Hyperbole? Sure. But I do honestly believe the program is very similar to the Miami program during the Schnellenberger era. Other than tradition what USF has to offer when it comes to facilities, location measures favorably compared to UM and FSU.

Yea really...The potential is there but talk to us in 20 years.

Get in on the ground floor. ;)

mweb

10-14-2007, 12:08 PM

Most talented teams yes, but the way USC has played the last couple of weeks they have to improve quite a bit to be considered one of the best two teams.

I agree. A lot of their problems are injury related, so they need to get healthy more than anything.

beaner

10-14-2007, 12:25 PM

geschinger

10-14-2007, 01:03 PM

What would LSU do to South Florida or BC? It would be blowout city.

Against USF LSU would certainly be favored but I'm not convinced that it would be blowout city. If Kentucky can play with LSU, USF certainly can.

As fun as College Football is to watch, the system is even more flawed. Imagine the Pats or Cowboys, whoever loses today basically being eliminated from contention because of one loss. It just doesn't make sense.

Couldn't agree more. College football needs a playoff system.

ledzepp8

10-14-2007, 01:42 PM

What would LSU do to South Florida or BC? It would be blowout city. As fun as College Football is to watch, the system is even more flawed. Imagine the Pats or Cowboys, whoever loses today basically being eliminated from contention because of one loss. It just doesn't make sense.

This is a fantastic post. Let's get a playoff already. Let the teams determine who is the best and will play for the NC, not some sports writers and computers.

Sports Guy

10-14-2007, 02:32 PM

Against USF LSU would certainly be favored but I'm not convinced that it would be blowout city. If Kentucky can play with LSU, USF certainly can.

.

USF could play with LSU at home...In LSU or on a neutral field, LSU wins by 3 TDs.

ixcuincle

10-14-2007, 02:39 PM

LSU could beat BC or USF. But what about Ohio State?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex

OSU may be overrated like last year but I don't think they would beat BC , I have to get this strong hate of BC out of my system. "#2" BC (as wacky as it sounds for a team that hasn't really played anyone to rise up to #2) comes to #11 Virginia Tech in 10 days. That game will be the true test for BC...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3056976

But there are plenty of skeptics who wonder if BC, which has never played in a BCS game, is for real. The Eagles' biggest win over the season's first half was a 24-10 thumping of then-No. 15 Georgia Tech in Atlanta. Looked pretty impressive until the Yellow Jackets followed that loss with two more defeats in their next three games.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 02:55 PM

USF could play with LSU at home...In LSU or on a neutral field, LSU wins by 3 TDs.

You are either way overstimating LSU or underestimating USF. LSU by 3 at USF. LSU by 10 at LSU.

USF has proven they can win in the toughest of environments with big wins @ WVU last year and @ Auburn this year. USF's speed on defense and as well coached as they are would prevent them from getting blown out.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 03:04 PM

As I thought, LSU w/some serious love from the pollsters only dropping to #5. I'm fine w/that a lot more so than the joke of where USC ended up after losing to Stanford. Cal didn't get the love dropping about 8 spots in the polls. I find it interesting how West Virginia got punished for their embarassing performance in the bye week by dropping in the AP poll.

USF and BC in the top 3 is kind of amazing. I think BC has a real chance as VT might be just as overrated as BC is. I was not impressed at all with their performance against the Carolina teams. With as bad as Miami and FSU are this year Maryland might be the deciding factor. We could actually get an incredibly competetive BCS title game if Ohio State and BC matched up where the winner is nowhere near being the actual best team in the country.

ledzepp8

10-14-2007, 03:33 PM

I find it interesting how West Virginia got punished for their embarassing performance in the bye week by dropping in the AP poll.

Agreed, they should have definitely moved up...by default if nothing else. Two teams ahead of them lost, LSU is 5th so WVU should be 6 or 7.

Sports Guy

10-14-2007, 05:24 PM

Tank

10-14-2007, 05:28 PM

BCS standings out.....

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3063603

OSU-USF title game! Probably get the worse ratings ever for a major sport's title game...Hopefully that awful game won't happen for the NC.

Hopefully something like that does happen, if only we can get a playoff system implemented. I think if college football had a playoff system, it would compete with the NFL and March Madness in excitement.

beaner

10-14-2007, 05:33 PM

Hopefully something like that does happen, if only we can get a playoff system implemented. I think if college football had a playoff system, it would compete with the NFL and March Madness in excitement.

God Forbid Ohio State and South Florida meet in the title game. My guess is neither team will be there. Oklahoma/LSU is my pick for now.

ledzepp8

10-14-2007, 05:34 PM

BCS standings out.....

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3063603

OSU-USF title game! Probably get the worse ratings ever for a major sport's title game...Hopefully that awful game won't happen for the NC.

Yeah and Jimmy Johnson was talking about how the Ohio St University had the easiest road to the NC and that they wouldn't lose again. I'm just thinking yeah, let tOSU go undefeated, LSU will win out and move back into the #2 slot and then knock the living **** out of tOSU in the NC. All of this while we'll have several 1 loss teams with a legitimate beef for being held out of the NC. tOSU hasn't beaten anyone and they play in a crappy conference. This season has been crazy, hopefully it will bring about some change.

mweb

10-14-2007, 05:34 PM

BCS standings out.....

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3063603

OSU-USF title game! Probably get the worse ratings ever for a major sport's title game...Hopefully that awful game won't happen for the NC.

I predict all of the top 3 teams will lose before the end of the year. Hawaii might be the only undefeated team at the end of the regular season.

mweb

10-14-2007, 05:37 PM

Yeah and Jimmy Johnson was talking about how the Ohio St University had the easiest road to the NC and that they wouldn't lose again. I'm just thinking yeah, let tOSU go undefeated, LSU will win out and move back into the #2 slot and then knock the living **** out of tOSU in the NC. All of this while we'll have several 1 loss teams with a legitimate beef for being held out of the NC. tOSU hasn't beaten anyone and they play in a crappy conference. This season has been crazy, hopefully it will bring about some change.

They still have to go to Penn St and UM, plus at home against Wisconsin and Illinois, not that easy. I wouldn't call that conference crappy either, they just don't have any really good teams other than OSU.

ledzepp8

10-14-2007, 05:48 PM

They still have to go to Penn St and UM, plus at home against Wisconsin and Illinois, not that easy. I wouldn't call that conference crappy either, they just don't have any really good teams other than OSU.

Crappy was too strong of a word, but it's not a very good conference. It's full of 2 loss teams and one undefeated team whose hardest game so far has been against a Purdue team that is 1-2 in the Big 10. I see them losing to at least one of Michigan and Penn St and wouldn't be shocked if they lost to both. Geez, they were held to only 20 points by Akron.

beaner

10-14-2007, 06:06 PM

Crappy was too strong of a word, but it's not a very good conference. It's full of 2 loss teams and one undefeated team whose hardest game so far has been against a Purdue team that is 1-2 in the Big 10. I see them losing to at least one of Michigan and Penn St and wouldn't be shocked if they lost to both. Geez, they were held to only 20 points by Akron.

An Akron team that lost at home to Temple, mind you. I do think Michigan will beat them, but not Penn State.

bernie132000

10-14-2007, 06:09 PM

I really don't think anyone is really that good this year. That said, BC is one of the top teams this year. They can throw the ball, and stop the run very well. Tribble is also a very good player. I was counting on BC losing one of their last games, but I really don't see it happening. I don't think VT, Miami, Clemson, or FSU are that good. May come down to the UMD-BC game. Might be a 3 way tie at 7-1 in conference. Tiebreaker is too confusing, but I'll post it here if anyone can figure out what would happen if Wake wins out, MD wins out, and BC wins out except for UMD.

Two-Team Tie

1. Head-to-head competition between the two tied teams

2. Records of the tied teams within the division.

3. Head-to-head competition versus the team within the division with the best overall record.(divisional) Conference record and proceeding though the division. Multiple ties within the division broken from first to last.

4. Overall record versus all common non-divisional opponents.

5. Combined record vs. all non-divisional teams.

6. Record versus common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish (divisional and non-divisional) and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division.

7. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the end of regular season games shall be the divisional representative in the ACC Championship Game.

8. The representative shall be chosen by a draw.

Three (or More) Team Tie
(Once tie has been reduced to two teams, the two-team tiebreaker format is used)

1. Combined head-to-head record among the tied teams

2. Records of the tied teams within the division.

3. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall (divisional or conference) record, and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken first to last.

4. Overall record for non-divisional teams.

5. Combined record versus all common non-divisional teams.

6. Record versus common non-divisional with the best overall Conference (divisional) and non-divisional record and proceeding through the other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within the division.

7. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the conclusion of regular season games shall be the divisional representative in the ACC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the ACC Championship Game.

8. The representative shall be chosen by a draw.

ledzepp8

10-14-2007, 06:18 PM

I really don't think anyone is really that good this year. That said, BC is one of the top teams this year. They can throw the ball, and stop the run very well.

BC is up there by default. They are one of the only undefeateds left and they have an up and coming QB. I don't think they are one of the top teams this year, they haven't played anyone. Their best win was against #15 Georgia Tech, who have since lost twice more and are 2-3 in the ACC. GA Tech barely beat a pretty crappy Miami team. BC beat a horrible Notre Dame team by only 13 points. They won't be at the top for long because I'm almost positive that Va Tech kills them. Hell, Maryland most likely beats them.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 07:53 PM

They still have to go to Penn St and UM, plus at home against Wisconsin and Illinois, not that easy. I wouldn't call that conference crappy either, they just don't have any really good teams other than OSU.

Not necessarily easy games but not exactly intimidating matchups either. Michigan may be the only team they play that ends up being a top 25 team.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 07:55 PM

God Forbid Ohio State and South Florida meet in the title game. My guess is neither team will be there. Oklahoma/LSU is my pick for now.

What a great story that would be to have a school like USF crowned National Champions. But I agree with you that they won't be there at the end. It's just too hard to make it through a BEast schedule unscathed.

mweb

10-14-2007, 07:58 PM

Not necessarily easy games but not exactly intimidating matchups either. Michigan may be the only team they play that ends up being a top 25 team.

So now it's more meaningful where teams end up compared to where they are when they play them?;)

I mostly agree, but at Michigan is quite tough, their a better team than they showed early, and a very good team against offenses that don't spread you out much.

mweb

10-14-2007, 08:07 PM

What a great story that would be to have a school like USF crowned National Champions. But I agree with you that they won't be there at the end. It's just too hard to make it through a BEast schedule unscathed.

If there's no sarcasm here, you really should take a step back and try to be more objective when it comes to your conference, the Big East isn't that great, it's much improved for sure, but besides the top 2 teams, there's no teams that are really much or any better than the Big Ten schools you seem to be down on. Your sounding like a SEC fan here. And since USF already beat WVU, their conference schedule isn't that tough from here on out. At Rutgers isn't easy, but MD went there and won by 10, and Cincy also went there and came out with a win. At UConn, and home against Cincy are somewhat tough. I think OSU's remaining schedule is tougher than USF's.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 08:10 PM

So now it's more meaningful where teams end up compared to where they are when they play them?;)

I mostly agree, but at Michigan is quite tough, their a better team than they showed early, and a very good team against offenses that don't spread you out much.

No, to be honest I worded it that way because I didn't feel like looking back to see if they've beaten any teams that were ranked when they played them. Other than Purdue who might have been barely a top 25 team when they played OSU I don't know that they've played any.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 08:21 PM

If there's no sarcasm here, you really should take a step back and try to be more objective when it comes to your conference, the Big East isn't that great, it's much improved for sure, but besides the top 2 teams, there's no teams that are really much or any better than the Big Ten schools you seem to be down on. Your sounding like a SEC fan here. And since USF already beat WVU, their conference schedule isn't that tough from here on out. At Rutgers isn't easy, but MD went there and won by 10, and Cincy also went there and came out with a win. At UConn, and home against Cincy are somewhat tough. I think OSU's remaining schedule is tougher than USF's.

The Big 10 is in a down year, usually it compared favorably to the BEast. But I do believe if you look at any of the attempts to objectively rank conferences the BEast is considered better this year than the B10 and barely behind the B12. OSU certainly doesn't have any games on its schedule that are as tough as winning @ Auburn or beating WVU.

Being honest though, I will readily admit I'm a bit of a homer for the BEast but they won't let me down. While WVU is likely not going to get the chance to play for a title the way things sit now I think the BEast's chance of 2 BCS teams is actually enhanced by what has happened so far this year. And even before knowing the matchups, I am confident in predicting the BEast will make me proud again during the Bowl season.

mweb

10-14-2007, 08:29 PM

The Big 10 is in a down year, usually it compared favorably to the BEast. But I do believe if you look at any of the attempts to objectively rank conferences the BEast is considered better this year than the B10 and barely behind the B12. OSU certainly doesn't have any games on its schedule that are as tough as winning @ Auburn or beating WVU.

Being honest though, I will readily admit I'm a bit of a homer for the BEast but they won't let me down. While WVU is likely not going to get the chance to play for a title the way things sit now I think the BEast's chance of 2 BCS teams is actually enhanced by what has happened so far this year. And even before knowing the matchups, I am confident in predicting the BEast will make me proud again during the Bowl season.

I didn't say the Big Ten was the better conference, but USF's remaining schedule is not tougher than OSU's imo. Probably easier.

Comments like they won't let you down is over the top imo. You also were very confident WVU would play for the championship, they obviously let you down. Louisville has obviously let you down. Rutgers has let you down.

They could get 2 BCS schools, we shall see, but WVU could win out and not end up with 1 win against a team that finishes in the top 25. Their only remaining game against a ranked team is at Cincy who is ranked 23rd, they can easily fall out of the rankings.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 08:42 PM

I didn't say the Big Ten was the better conference, but USF's remaining schedule is not tougher than OSU's imo. Probably easier.

Comments like they won't let you down is over the top imo. You also were very confident WVU would play for the championship, they obviously let you down. Louisville has obviously let you down. Rutgers has let you down.

They could get 2 BCS schools, we shall see, but WVU could win out and not end up with 1 win against a team that finishes in the top 25. Their only remaining game against a ranked team is at Cincy who is ranked 23rd, they can easily fall out of the rankings.

That's what is so great about a conference as deep as the BEast. :D Louisville disappoints and USF steps up. Rutgers disappoints and Cincy steps up. I do think USF will have an off day and lose a game, maybe even this weekend where they have a tough road game and might be suffering a bit of big head syndrome seeing where they are ranked. It'll be a classic letdown scenario. If they lose once and WVU wins out USF wins the conference and gets the auto bid and WVU should be high enough ranked to get an at large bid.

mweb

10-14-2007, 08:48 PM

geschinger

10-14-2007, 08:54 PM

Yeah, that's very possible, but again, WVU wouldn't have exactly beat anyone of significance to get where they'd be.

I'll sum up my thoughts on this by saying it's annoying enough to listen/read SEC fans talk the way you're, but at least they have some reason to do so, a Big East fan should not be acting like an SEC fan at this point. Maybe in a few years, just like maybe UCF will be a Miam/FSU type program in a few years, but as of now, it's very premature.

Heh, sorry if it's annoying like I said, I readily admit to a tiny bit of homerism and occasionaly a smidgen of hyperbole. With the conference on the brink of destruction after the evil Swofford attacked for the conference to be where it's at today makes BEast fans proud. Maybe even a bit too proud of the conference.

mweb

10-14-2007, 08:59 PM

BTW, concerning the bowl comment you made, am I supposed to be that impressed with a 2 loss WVU team having to comeback to beat a 4 loss GT team by 3 points in a bowl game? WVU has won their last 2 bowl games, each by a score of 38-35, the Georgia win being much more impressive, however, they did lose the 3 bowl games before that, all to ACC schools.

I would say a big reason for the Big East's success in bowl games last year, is they got matched up with schools who were lower level schools. WVU against GT, Rutgers against KState, Cincy against Western Michigan, Louisville against Wake, South Florida against East Carolina.

I'll grant you that it's quite impressive that they won all of those games, but it's not like the level of competition was that good. I guess that's because the Big East doesn't get much respect with their bowl ties since the ACC raided them.

Going back a year further, 1-3 in 2005 in bowl games by my count.

mweb

10-14-2007, 09:00 PM

Heh, sorry if it's annoying like I said, I readily admit to a tiny bit of homerism and occasionaly a smidgen of hyperbole. With the conference on the brink of destruction after the evil Swofford attacked for the conference to be where it's at today makes BEast fans proud. Maybe even a bit too proud of the conference.

It is quite a story that they've recovered from that they way they have, and I get why you'd be excited over that. I'll stand by my other comments though.;)

geschinger

10-14-2007, 09:16 PM

BTW, concerning the bowl comment you made, am I supposed to be that impressed with a 2 loss WVU team having to comeback to beat a 4 loss GT team by 3 points in a bowl game? WVU has won their last 2 bowl games, each by a score of 38-35, the Georgia win being much more impressive, however, they did lose the 3 bowl games before that, all to ACC schools.

I would say a big reason for the Big East's success in bowl games last year, is they got matched up with schools who were lower level schools. WVU against GT, Rutgers against KState, Cincy against Western Michigan, Louisville against Wake, South Florida against East Carolina.

I'll grant you that it's quite impressive that they won all of those games, but it's not like the level of competition was that good. I guess that's because the Big East doesn't get much respect with their bowl ties since the ACC raided them.

However they got there, having 38% of the conference finish among the top 12 teams in the country last year is extremly impressive by any standard. While they won't be quite as good this year with a little luck and teams taking care of business the conference could end up w/2 BCS teams and two teams in the top 10 to end the year which would equate to another highly successful season for the conference.

mweb

10-14-2007, 09:24 PM

However they got there, having 38% of the conference finish among the top 12 teams in the country last year is extremly impressive by any standard. While they won't be quite as good this year with a little luck and teams taking care of business the conference could end up w/2 BCS teams and two teams in the top 10 to end the year which would equate to another highly successful season for the conference.

I'm not disputing any of that, but I think I've made some pretty good points here, would be interested in seeing you respond to the bowl comments and the WVU schedule comment. And if those teams played top 12 teams in the bowl games last year, I doubt all 3 would have ended up in the top 12.

geschinger

10-14-2007, 09:43 PM

I'm not disputing any of that, but I think I've made some pretty good points here, would be interested in seeing you respond to the bowl comments and the WVU schedule comment. And if those teams played top 12 teams in the bowl games last year, I doubt all 3 would have ended up in the top 12.

WVU's schedule has been less than I'd like it to have been but its no worse than OSU's schedule or BCs schedule so it doesn't bother me too much. A lot of it is that it takes two to tango and not many teams have been willing to do home/home games with them. Although that is improving as teams like Auburn have stepped up to the challenge in future years.

And yes, WVU dug themselves into a hole against GT last year. They had no answers for Calvin Johnson in the first half but after solving that huge issue they settled in and ran the ball all over GT as expected. As for the other teams, maybe if they had tougher matchups they might not have ended up ranked as highly but I do think Louisville would of had a good chance to beat whomever they played and the same goes for Rutgers. In other words, I think their rankings were legit.

Birds of B'more

10-15-2007, 12:29 AM

ixcuincle

10-15-2007, 08:39 AM

Interesting no one is talking about Arizona State. They do have a tough schedule remaining (Cal and USC at home, Oregon in Eugene).......but if they can run the table against that group, that should bring them enough love from both the human and computer voters to be playing in New Orleans. At this point, I would think the Sun Devils have been more impressive than BC.

Yes. I was listening to the BC Radio Network last Saturday and they were talking about their "win by double-digits streak". Well , of course you're going to win by double digits if you don't play anyone good...and keep in mind 2 of those games (UMASS comes to mind) weren't exactly blowouts. The thing is , they're in the ACC , and the ACC has been notorious for being a weak conference (see records of last 3 ACC teams in BCS Bowls , lost against SEC , Big 10 , Big East). So naturally I would give the PAC-10 the advantage too when deciding which undefeated team would be ranked higher.

Birds of B'more

10-15-2007, 02:56 PM

Yes. I was listening to the BC Radio Network last Saturday and they were talking about their "win by double-digits streak". Well , of course you're going to win by double digits if you don't play anyone good...and keep in mind 2 of those games (UMASS comes to mind) weren't exactly blowouts. The thing is , they're in the ACC , and the ACC has been notorious for being a weak conference (see records of last 3 ACC teams in BCS Bowls , lost against SEC , Big 10 , Big East). So naturally I would give the PAC-10 the advantage too when deciding which undefeated team would be ranked higher.

Just for further proof that BC's ranking might be overinflated, in this week's Sagarin Ratings (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc07.htm) their strength of schedule is ranked #80. ASU's ranking is #54.......not exactly impressive, but a tougher schedule thus far nonetheless.

Other rankings of note: Washington is rated #1 in strength of schedule this week. The Terps are #29.

Birds of B'more

10-15-2007, 03:13 PM

It is great during the regular season. I still hate that championships are decided in large part by SIDs and whomever else coaches get to fill out their polls each week.

You know, the more I think about this the less I take issue with the head coaches not filling out ballots. With the mountain of responsibilites that is heaped on major college coaches during the season (games, studying opponents, preparing the team, in-season recruiting, TV/radio shows) can we really expect them to have greater knowledge of who the best teams are nationwide any better than the media that follow the sport closely, or even your average college football junkie who watches games all day on Saturdays? I'm sure that Ralph Friedgen, for example, is very knowledgeable on how the rest of the ACC stacks up........but can we really expect him to follow the other conferences closely enough to know whether 6-0 Kansas is a better team in the Big 12 than 6-1 Texas Tech? Chances are once the coaches finally get some down time they would choose to spend it with their families rather than watch recorded games of other teams, or even ESPN highlights, just so they can feel more confident about their rankings.

What needs to happen is that the "coaches" poll should be renamed to more accurately to reflect who is doing the voting. If the represented universities want to designate someone other than the football coach to submit their ballot, then that's fine.......as long as it is done so with the understanding that the individual doing the voting should be very knowledgeable about college football and should closely follow the results and events of all teams in Div 1A.

bernie132000

10-15-2007, 05:46 PM

Just for further proof that BC's ranking might be overinflated, in this week's Sagarin Ratings (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc07.htm) their strength of schedule is ranked #80. ASU's ranking is #54.......not exactly impressive, but a tougher schedule thus far nonetheless.

Other rankings of note: Washington is rated #1 in strength of schedule this week. The Terps are #29.

Question about strength of schedules. Shouldn't the worst teams have the hardest strength of schedules because the teams they play get a win and have a higher rank? Looking at the ACC, UNC has the 3rd hardest schedule in the country, and is 2-5, Duke is 1-6 with the 9th hardest, and NC State is 1-5 with the 20th hardest.

Birds of B'more

10-15-2007, 06:49 PM

Question about strength of schedules. Shouldn't the worst teams have the hardest strength of schedules because the teams they play get a win and have a higher rank? Looking at the ACC, UNC has the 3rd hardest schedule in the country, and is 2-5, Duke is 1-6 with the 9th hardest, and NC State is 1-5 with the 20th hardest.

I'm not sure exactly how Sagarin's measured. I'm sure different services could factor SoS in different ways. But when you look at Washington (#1 SoS in Sagarin) and who they've played, I think you could argue that they could be better than their current 2-4 record might indicate. 5 of the 6 teams they've played so far were ranked in the Top 25 at some point this season (Boise St, UCLA, Ohio St, USC, Arizona St). And they will probably stay #1 since they play 10th ranked Oregon this weekend.

I think UNC's schedule thus far is legit too. They've played S Florida (6-0), VaTech (6-1), and S Carolina (6-1). Of course, they've also played Virginia (6-1) and James Madison (6-1) whose records look better than they are because they've played infereior competition. I'm not sure if SoS rankings take into account that JMU plays in Div 1-AA.

Ultimately though, strength of schedule is usually a better measuring stick at the end of the season when everything has played out rather than at the beginning or middle. Take Duke, for instance. If you base their strength of schedule strictly off the records of their opponents, it looks like a tough schedule. But consider that two of their games were against Connecticut and Virginia, who have a combined 9-2 record right now......and that's subtracting the win they each got against Duke. But both of them have more difficult opponents coming up and their winning percentages are likely to drop.......and so will Duke's SoS ranking along with it.

Birds of B'more

10-18-2007, 11:47 PM

#2 USF 27
Rutgers 30

Another one bites the dust.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 12:25 AM

#2 USF 27
Rutgers 30

Another one bites the dust.

It'll be fun to see where they land. I'm sure the coaches/SIDs will be harsh but I suspect the computers will continue to love USF. Might be a reverse USC situation.

mweb

10-19-2007, 12:35 AM

geschinger

10-19-2007, 12:47 AM

If I was voting, I'd drop USF quite a bit, they didn't look like that good of a team tonight. A elite team should easily beat Rutgers, especially when they get a 3 to advantage. Rutgers isn't even that good.

Rutgers is a decent team, USF losing @ Rutgers is a lot more respectable than say USC losing to Stanford and we saw how meaningless that loss was for the coaches/SIDs. Much like w/USC, I predict the computers will go a long way towards balancing out the coaches/SID bias.

Birds of B'more

10-19-2007, 12:48 AM

A lot will depend on what happens Saturday, but I agree that the computers will probably only drop them somewhere in the 5-10 range. But the human voters may not be so kind, since USF looked pretty sloppy tonight. And the fact that it was nationally televised with no other games of significance being played isn't going to help them........unless by some stroke of luck the voters simply happened to be watching the Boston-Cleveland game instead.

Birds of B'more

10-19-2007, 12:50 AM

mweb

10-19-2007, 03:01 AM

Rutgers is a decent team, USF losing @ Rutgers is a lot more respectable than say USC losing to Stanford and we saw how meaningless that loss was for the coaches/SIDs. Much like w/USC, I predict the computers will go a long way towards balancing out the coaches/SID bias.

Of course it's more respectable than losing to Standford, it's hard not to be. Meaningless is clearly the wrong word to use there as well.

This is a bad loss for a top team though, Cincy and MD both have gone to Rutgers recently and came out with W's, and neither of those teams are close to being top teams. USF certainly has two very good wins, so the computer will rank them highly, but by watching them in this game and the WVU game, I don't get the impression that this is a legit top 10 team.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 09:33 AM

Of course it's more respectable than losing to Standford, it's hard not to be. Meaningless is clearly the wrong word to use there as well.

This is a bad loss for a top team though, Cincy and MD both have gone to Rutgers recently and came out with W's, and neither of those teams are close to being top teams. USF certainly has two very good wins, so the computer will rank them highly, but by watching them in this game and the WVU game, I don't get the impression that this is a legit top 10 team.

Whom they lost to seems to have been meaningless to the voters, not the loss itself. They were not punished any for losing to an awful team. They only dropped in the polls about as much as one might expect them to have dropped if they had lost to a good team.

For USF, absolutely, it was a tough loss. But I suspect if one was sheltered from the preseason hype and only saw USC in their last two games one would get the same impression as you have of USF, no? Same goes for Oklahoma's loss to Colorodo.

mweb

10-19-2007, 03:28 PM

Whom they lost to seems to have been meaningless to the voters, not the loss itself. They were not punished any for losing to an awful team. They only dropped in the polls about as much as one might expect them to have dropped if they had lost to a good team.

For USF, absolutely, it was a tough loss. But I suspect if one was sheltered from the preseason hype and only saw USC in their last two games one would get the same impression as you have of USF, no? Same goes for Oklahoma's loss to Colorodo.

If USC lost at Cal or Oregon, they probably would have stayed in the top 5 in both polls, assuming a close game.

I'm not sure why you're harping on USC here, I didn't bring them up, nor am I saying they've been more impressive.

I will say the main difference between USC's and Oklahoma's losses are they basically gave those games away, especially USC. USF was outplayed by Rutgers, and were given the gift of 2 muffed punts and a fumble to give them the ball late and in Rutgers territory only needing a FG, and they still lost.

And since you brought up USC, I do think they'd beat USF on a neutral field if they are reasonably healthy.

Birds of B'more

10-19-2007, 03:48 PM

If USC lost at Cal or Oregon, they probably would have stayed in the top 5 in both polls, assuming a close game.

I'm not sure why you're harping on USC here, I didn't bring them up, nor am I saying they've been more impressive.

I will say the main difference between USC's and Oklahoma's losses are they basically gave those games away, especially USC. USF was outplayed by Rutgers, and were given the gift of 2 muffed punts and a fumble to give them the ball late and in Rutgers territory only needing a FG, and they still lost.

And since you brought up USC, I do think they'd beat USF on a neutral field if they are reasonably healthy.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, I think a big part of this is the national TV coverage that the USF/Rutgers game got, as well as the USF/WV game before it. It's one of those instances where having the entire college football audience to yourself can come back and bite you. Conversely, with the losses that USC and Oklahoma suffered, I doubt many people outside of California and Oklahoma/Colorado actually saw those games, including those with votes in the polls. Assuming that, many voters probably gave Oklahoma and USC the benefit of a doubt for those losses based on their overall talent since they didn't actually get to see how badly they may have played that night. But last night USF's imperfections were out there for all the world to see, and the warts they showed will probably hurt them in the eyes of human voters.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 03:53 PM

If USC lost at Cal or Oregon, they probably would have stayed in the top 5 in both polls, assuming a close game.

I'm not sure why you're harping on USC here, I didn't bring them up, nor am I saying they've been more impressive.

I will say the main difference between USC's and Oklahoma's losses are they basically gave those games away, especially USC. USF was outplayed by Rutgers, and were given the gift of 2 muffed punts and a fumble to give them the ball late and in Rutgers territory only needing a FG, and they still lost.

And since you brought up USC, I do think they'd beat USF on a neutral field if they are reasonably healthy.

I only bring up USC in that I'm sure the coaches/SIDs will judge USF's loss much harsher than they would if it was say a USC or Oklahoma that lost under identical circumstances. But in the end it doesn't matter much as like I said, much like w/USC the computers will go a long way towards addressing the problems with the coaches/SIDs rankings.

If USC rights the ship and starts playing like they are capable of then I do agree they'd beat USF wherever they played. However if it's the USC team from the last couple of weeks there is no doubt in my mind that USF could and would beat them.

mweb

10-19-2007, 04:10 PM

I only bring up USC in that I'm sure the coaches/SIDs will judge USF's loss much harsher than they would if it was say a USC or Oklahoma that lost under identical circumstances. But in the end it doesn't matter much as like I said, much like w/USC the computers will go a long way towards addressing the problems with the coaches/SIDs rankings.

If USC rights the ship and starts playing like they are capable of then I do agree they'd beat USF wherever they played. However if it's the USC team from the last couple of weeks there is no doubt in my mind that USF could and would beat them.

I know you hate on Booty, but he played with a broken finger on his throwing hand against Stanford, that's why they lost, not because he's a bad QB, or because their not a very good team. With a healthy Booty, and with a couple other guys back from injury, I have full confidence in USC beating USF.

Sports Guy

10-19-2007, 04:37 PM

geschinger

10-19-2007, 04:46 PM

The difference in talent level between USC and USF isn't close.

If/when USC wins out, including winning at Oregon and Cal, they will end up in the national title game IMO or at least have a great shot at it.

2 of Oklahoma, OSU, LSU and USC will be in the title game.

Barring a lot more upsets it's going to be two from among OU, OSU and LSU. Even w/big wins against Oregon and Cal it'll be hard to get all the way from #14 to top 2.

Even w/the disappointing loss in Lexington, I still think LSU is the best team in the country and will get back into the top two and play for a national title.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 04:50 PM

I know you hate on Booty, but he played with a broken finger on his throwing hand against Stanford, that's why they lost, not because he's a bad QB, or because their not a very good team. With a healthy Booty, and with a couple other guys back from injury, I have full confidence in USC beating USF.

Hate is the wrong word, but I do think he's overrated. Injury or not, it was predictable that he was going to cost USC a game or two.

mweb

10-19-2007, 05:11 PM

Hate is the wrong word, but I do think he's overrated. Injury or not, it was predictable that he was going to cost USC a game or two.

No it wasn't. The only reason why he cost them the game is the injury, he's a very good QB, the WR corps isn't nearly as good as it has been in the past though. The O-line has had injury issues as well.

Birds of B'more

10-19-2007, 05:28 PM

The difference in talent level between USC and USF isn't close.

If/when USC wins out, including winning at Oregon and Cal, they will end up in the national title game IMO or at least have a great shot at it.

2 of Oklahoma, OSU, LSU and USC will be in the title game.

It's a bad news/good news scenario for USC.

The bad news is, USC's remaining schedule is brutal. Including the games at Cal and at Oregon they also have to play at #8 ASU, plus games against Oregon State and UCLA, both of whom beat USC last season. No matter how good they are, it is going to be extremely tough for them to win out.

The good news is, USC's remaining schedule is brutal. If they can manage to win all of those games they will earn a lot of respect from both the human voters and the computers, which should move them far enough north in the polls to be in position to play for the NC.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 05:35 PM

No it wasn't. The only reason why he cost them the game is the injury, he's a very good QB, the WR corps isn't nearly as good as it has been in the past though. The O-line has had injury issues as well.

Sure it was. It's not like I was alone in making such a prescient observation before the season. And to blame his poor performance on the injury is to ignore his subpar performance the week before against Washington. They might have lost that game too if another Booty interception wasn't overturned by replay allowing USC to kick the deciding FG.

Sports Guy

10-19-2007, 06:42 PM

Barring a lot more upsets it's going to be two from among OU, OSU and LSU. Even w/big wins against Oregon and Cal it'll be hard to get all the way from #14 to top 2.

Even w/the disappointing loss in Lexington, I still think LSU is the best team in the country and will get back into the top two and play for a national title.

I agree that LSU probably gets there.

They have at Alabama and Auburn at home...The rest of their games should be cake walks.

So, i think it will really come down to them winning the SEC title game or not IMO.

Oklahoma has a few games they could lose but it will likely come down to the Big 12 title game.

OSU ends with home date against Ill and Wisconsin and away games against Penn St and Mich.

I doubt they win out.

So, it looks like Oklahoma and LSU have the leg up right now.

The question will be does USC do enough to impress the voters with their tough schedule to vault them over Oklahoma?? I think it is possible.

mweb

10-19-2007, 07:11 PM

Sure it was. It's not like I was alone in making such a prescient observation before the season. And to blame his poor performance on the injury is to ignore his subpar performance the week before against Washington. They might have lost that game too if another Booty interception wasn't overturned by replay allowing USC to kick the deciding FG.

Sure it wasn't. You weren't alone, but you were easily in the minority on that. An no, it's not ignoring that at all, I have no clue how you can determine that by me rightly saying the Stanford loss was in large part due to his broken finger. That comment has nothing to do with any other game.

He played well enough to get the win against Washington, and I disagree about that deciding FG line. WASH scored a meaningless TD with 34 seconds left after blocking a punt in that game to make it a FG difference. That's not something I would rip Booty for. And are we now ripping on him for an almost INT? Those happen all the time.

He's had a good season other than the Stanford game, where the 4 picks killed him and his team. And he had a very good season last year.

mweb

10-19-2007, 07:13 PM

I agree that LSU probably gets there.

They have at Alabama and Auburn at home...The rest of their games should be cake walks.

So, i think it will really come down to them winning the SEC title game or not IMO.

Oklahoma has a few games they could lose but it will likely come down to the Big 12 title game.

OSU ends with home date against Ill and Wisconsin and away games against Penn St and Mich.

I doubt they win out.

So, it looks like Oklahoma and LSU have the leg up right now.

The question will be does USC do enough to impress the voters with their tough schedule to vault them over Oklahoma?? I think it is possible.

USC has 3 very tough road games ahead against top 12 teams, if they can win all 3, they'll move up a lot in the human and computer polls, and rightly so.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 07:26 PM

Sure it wasn't. You weren't alone, but you were easily in the minority on that. An no, it's not ignoring that at all, I have no clue how you can determine that by me rightly saying the Stanford loss was in large part due to his broken finger. That comment has nothing to do with any other game.

He played well enough to get the win against Washington, and I disagree about that deciding FG line. WASH scored a meaningless TD with 34 seconds left after blocking a punt in that game to make it a FG difference. That's not something I would rip Booty for. And are we now ripping on him for an almost INT? Those happen all the time.

He's had a good season other than the Stanford game, where the 4 picks killed him and his team. And he had a very good season last year.

I'm not saying he's not a good qb, he obviously is. I thought the Heisman talk and the comparisons to some of his predecessors was unwarranted and thought he was still inconsistent enough to cost USC a game or two. Whether that was/is a minority opinion does not make it any less correct.

mweb

10-19-2007, 07:31 PM

I'm not saying he's not a good qb, he obviously is. I thought the Heisman talk and the comparisons to some of his predecessors was unwarranted and thought he was still inconsistent enough to cost USC a game or two. Whether that was/is a minority opinion does not make it any less correct.

You are the one who brought up others thinking the same way, now you're saying that doesn't matter, interesting. It's only been correct so far because of a broken finger and some bad defense in the 2nd half against Stanford. If you want to feel good about your prediction based on that, have at it.

I do agree that he's no Carson Palmer or Matt Leinart.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 07:42 PM

You are the one who brought up others thinking the same way, now you're saying that doesn't matter, interesting. It's only been correct so far because of a broken finger and some bad defense in the 2nd half against Stanford. If you want to feel good about your prediction based on that, have at it.

I do agree that he's no Carson Palmer or Matt Leinart.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter, simply pointing out that an opinion does not have to be a majority opinion to be correct. I'll tell you what, I'll give Booty a pass for his performance and pretend like Stanford never happened. I have the utmost confidence that his inconsistency is going to haunt USC at least once more this season.

mweb

10-19-2007, 07:52 PM

I'm not saying it doesn't matter, simply pointing out that an opinion does not have to be a majority opinion to be correct. I'll tell you what, I'll give Booty a pass for his performance and pretend like Stanford never happened. I have the utmost confidence that his inconsistency is going to haunt USC at least once more this season.

Who is disputing your first sentence?:confused: Again, you are the one who brought others opinions into this. Remember this line: "Sure it was. It's not like I was alone in making such a prescient observation before the season."

I find it very odd that you would bring that into the conversation and then start arguing against me stating that it doesn't matter if it's a majority or minority opinion. It's especially odd since I'm not debating that.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 08:20 PM

Who is disputing your first sentence?:confused: Again, you are the one who brought others opinions into this. Remember this line: "Sure it was. It's not like I was alone in making such a prescient observation before the season."

I find it very odd that you would bring that into the conversation and then start arguing against me stating that it doesn't matter if it's a majority or minority opinion. It's especially odd since I'm not debating that.

Now you have me totally :confused:. I said that it was predictable that Booty would cost them a game or two to which you said it was not. I responded I wasn't alone in that prediction, hence it *was* predictable.

I guess where I became really :confused: is when you say: "You are the one who brought up others thinking the same way, now you're saying that doesn't matter" I guess I'm not understanding what you are reading into what I wrote to conclude I was saying "it doesn't matter".

To clarify/simplify my opinion: Booty is overrated and it was/is predictable that he'll cost USC a game or two with his play.

Sports Guy

10-19-2007, 08:41 PM

USC has 3 very tough road games ahead against top 12 teams, if they can win all 3, they'll move up a lot in the human and computer polls, and rightly so.

Agreed...The question is, can they move up higher than LSU or Oklahoma if they both win out?

I guess it will depend on how impressive each team looks.

USC's schedule is certainly harder than Oklahoma's and is probably right there with LSU.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 09:07 PM

Agreed...The question is, can they move up higher than LSU or Oklahoma if they both win out?

I guess it will depend on how impressive each team looks.

USC's schedule is certainly harder than Oklahoma's and is probably right there with LSU.

In the human polls, if they win out they might jump Oklahoma but I don't see how they make up enough ground w/the computers to jump either of 'em. I don't see any possibility of them jumping over a one loss LSU in either the human polls or w/the computers. They are currently ranked 23rd or lower by all the computers. While their schedule certainly looks impressive right now, over the next few weeks the Pac 10 teams will be beating up on each other and diminishing the impressiveness of those wins if USC does indeed win.

mweb

10-19-2007, 09:10 PM

Now you have me totally :confused:. I said that it was predictable that Booty would cost them a game or two to which you said it was not. I responded I wasn't alone in that prediction, hence it *was* predictable.

I guess where I became really :confused: is when you say: "You are the one who brought up others thinking the same way, now you're saying that doesn't matter" I guess I'm not understanding what you are reading into what I wrote to conclude I was saying "it doesn't matter".

To clarify/simplify my opinion: Booty is overrated and it was/is predictable that he'll cost USC a game or two with his play.

By that logic, almost anything is predictable. If I pick the Dolphins to beat the Pats this sunday, I doubt I'll be alone, but I will be in the minority to say the least. I was under the impression you meant it was easy to predict.

I didn't think it was likely that Booty would cost USC a game, and there wasn't much reason to feel he would.

I'm confused that you're confused, but whatever, it doesn't matter.

geschinger

10-19-2007, 09:36 PM

By that logic, almost anything is predictable. If I pick the Dolphins to beat the Pats this sunday, I doubt I'll be alone, but I will be in the minority to say the least. I was under the impression you meant it was easy to predict.

I didn't think it was likely that Booty would cost USC a game, and there wasn't much reason to feel he would.

I'm confused that you're confused, but whatever, it doesn't matter.

The whole issue comes down to us having differing opinions on the bolded sentence. He had some inconsistent performances last year that I thought would carry over to this year especially considering he wouldn't be able to lean on two experienced NFL caliber WRs. It certainly isn't a fringe prediction that has little chance of playing out like the example of Mia beating NE.

mweb

10-20-2007, 01:20 AM

The whole issue comes down to us having differing opinions on the bolded sentence. He had some inconsistent performances last year that I thought would carry over to this year especially considering he wouldn't be able to lean on two experienced NFL caliber WRs. It certainly isn't a fringe prediction that has little chance of playing out like the example of Mia beating NE.

Well I do think it was a fringe prediction. No QB is going to be great every game, he was at least decent in every game last year, and you'd expect improvement in his senior year.

Sports Guy

10-20-2007, 04:29 PM

Well, USF and South Carolina lost this weekend thus far.

Oklahoma didn't look good at all at a bad ISU team.

Sports Guy

10-20-2007, 07:13 PM

Well, USF and South Carolina lost this weekend thus far.

Oklahoma didn't look good at all at a bad ISU team.

2 more top 10 teams fall...Cal and Kentucky.

OSU doesn't look great on second half...OU struggled.

Sports Guy

10-21-2007, 06:36 PM

USF falls to 11th and 12th in the polls.

beaner

10-21-2007, 09:35 PM

Don't sleep on Michigan.....Up to #20 in the BCS. Damn Appalachian State.

Sports Guy

10-21-2007, 10:09 PM

Don't sleep on Michigan.....Up to #20 in the BCS. Damn Appalachian State.

They will get a BCS game if they won out but that's about it.

beaner

10-21-2007, 10:13 PM

They will get a BCS game if they won out but that's about it.

I know, but that would be impressive afte that awful start.

Sports Guy

10-21-2007, 10:17 PM

I know, but that would be impressive afte that awful start.

Yea but it would also show how bad the big 10 is.

The good thing for Michigan was that the 2 losses were out of the conference and one of those 2 losses was to a current top 5 team.

beaner

10-21-2007, 10:20 PM

Yea but it would also show how bad the big 10 is.

The good thing for Michigan was that the 2 losses were out of the conference and one of those 2 losses was to a current top 5 team.

True and True.

They've definitely turned the corner, and like you said, the Oregon loss doesn't look as bad now that they're playing so well.

Sports Guy

10-21-2007, 10:24 PM

True and True.

They've definitely turned the corner, and like you said, the Oregon loss doesn't look as bad now that they're playing so well.

Yea, had they not lost to App St, they would probably be in the mix for the National Title and your pick would have looked like you had a slight chance of knowing what you are talking about. :D

beaner

10-21-2007, 10:30 PM

Yea, had they not lost to App St, they would probably be in the mix for the National Title and your pick would have looked like you had a slight chance of knowing what you are talking about. :D

Now we know I have no clue what I'm talking about, but you're right that they'd have been in the mix for the title.

Sports Guy

10-21-2007, 10:36 PM

Now we know I have no clue what I'm talking about, but you're right that they'd have been in the mix for the title.

LOL....In this college football season, no one has a clue.

Sports Guy

10-25-2007, 11:50 AM

I think we see more shakeup by the time the new BCS standings come out....Here are some upsets i am looking at:

VT over BC(upset only by rankings, not reality)

Penn St over Ohio St.

USC over Oregon...Again, upset only by rankings

Texas A & M over Kansas

Rutgers over WVU

That is 5 top 10 teams losing again and Cal could certainly go into ASU and win as well.

Lots of really good games and huge games for the BCS standings.

By the next BCS standings, i think you see LSU/Oklahoma as the new championship game....If ASU beats Cal, they will be in instead of Oklahoma but i think OU will be closing fast.

VT, Florida and USC will all vault into the top 5 if ASU losing and the top 6 if they win.

geschinger

10-25-2007, 12:07 PM

Sports Guy

10-25-2007, 12:18 PM

Other than the WVU game, I'm hoping all of that comes to pass. I'm not sure if they play anyone through the rest of their schedule but the way OU has played 2 out of their last 4 games I think they'll have a tough time making it unscathed the rest of the way.

OU's schedule has some sort of tough games but all games they should win...They have home dates vs Texas A&M, Baylor and Ok St....They are on the road at Texas Tech.

3 of those games could give them problems but they probably should win all of them but agree that with the way they are playing, they could lose any one of them.

Sports Guy

10-25-2007, 11:09 PM

Well, VaTech had this game and they blew it at the end.

Impressive and surprising win for BC.

Poor Drungo...He must be fuming right now.

mweb

10-26-2007, 12:17 AM

Impressive and lucky(onside kick) comeback for BC, I still don't think their a top 2 caliber team, but they deserve to be up there in the rankings.

ixcuincle

10-26-2007, 12:17 AM

It was my fault for moving down to a lower section to prep myself for rushing the field. The instant I arrived down near the field to rush , the comeback began. :(

It was very disappointing. I had been standing in the rain for nearly 5 hours (2 hours before the game , 3 hours of the game) and my clothes were soaking wet even with the poncho but I persevered because I wanted on that field. And I nearly got on...if not for that final 2 minute choke. :mad:

Impressive and lucky(onside kick) comeback for BC

The kick was dagger. I thought the 3rd and 20 play was the most painful. On 3rd down deep inside Hokies territory Ryan threw for a touchdown. The entire place got furious until the flag called it back. It was 3rd and 20 , and Ryan threw for a touchdown again. This time , the crowd was silent.

The worst feeling about being at the game was the sudden momentum change. One second we were all yelling , confident of the 10 - point shutout , and everything was good. Then , in a few seconds , everything changed 180. Silence , interspersed with the occasional angry drunk fan yelling a profanity , permeated the air on the grim walk back to my car.

DrungoHazewood

10-26-2007, 04:05 PM

Well, VaTech had this game and they blew it at the end.

Impressive and surprising win for BC.

Poor Drungo...He must be fuming right now.

See the rants forum. I got a good one!

Sports Guy

10-27-2007, 02:25 PM

mweb

10-27-2007, 05:00 PM

Well, i am 0-2...WVU is cruising now.

I think WVU is a very good team, but they don't have any real good wins. Today at Rutgers, and at MD, who is at best middle tier ACC team are their two best wins. Not impressive at all. Their loss isn't looking nearly as good now either, South Florida is losing 16-0 to UConn right now. Margin has been impressive for them though.

mweb

10-27-2007, 06:15 PM

Well, i am 0-2...WVU is cruising now.

0-3, USC loses by a TD, 3 costly turnovers by the Trojans in the second half.

Sports Guy

10-27-2007, 06:26 PM

0-3, USC loses by a TD, 3 costly turnovers by the Trojans in the second half.

Yep...Both VT and USC basically gave the games away.

Sports Guy

10-27-2007, 06:27 PM

I think WVU is a very good team, but they don't have any real good wins. Today at Rutgers, and at MD, who is at best middle tier ACC team are their two best wins. Not impressive at all. Their loss isn't looking nearly as good now either, South Florida is losing 16-0 to UConn right now. Margin has been impressive for them though.

But they may play for the NC because other teams may fall.

WVU has a few tough games left but 3 of last 4 are at home.

mweb

10-27-2007, 06:32 PM

But they may play for the NC because other teams may fall.

WVU has a few tough games left but 3 of last 4 are at home.

It's possible, but would just do more to show a playoff is needed. They can easily finish the year without beating one team that finishes in the top 25.

Sports Guy

10-27-2007, 06:37 PM

It's possible, but would just do more to show a playoff is needed. They can easily finish the year without beating one team that finishes in the top 25.
Yea, it would be bad...I definitely agree.

It will be interesting to see if OSU is able to win tonight.

mweb

10-27-2007, 06:38 PM

I think Oregon has a good chance at winning out, and if they do, they'll probably play in the title game imo.

Sports Guy

10-27-2007, 06:42 PM

I think Oregon has a good chance at winning out, and if they do, they'll probably play in the title game imo.

They looked pretty impressive today.

They have ASU at home next week which could set up to be a monster game if ASU wins tonight.

It will probably come down to Oregon at UCLA.

mweb

10-27-2007, 07:02 PM

geschinger

10-27-2007, 07:34 PM

It's possible, but would just do more to show a playoff is needed. They can easily finish the year without beating one team that finishes in the top 25.

If it would take a team getting into the top two w/o a win against a end of season top 25 team to show people a playoff is needed those people were/are clueless. The evidence is overwhelming and has been for some time that college football needs a playoff.

Michigan has been playing better lately so maybe they'll run the table until November 17th, but if they don't OSU won't need any help to be playing for a national title w/o beating one team that finishes in the top 25.

geschinger

10-27-2007, 07:39 PM

The top ranked florida teams just went down, South Florida to UConn and UF to Geogia. Maybe USF is not on their way to becoming an elite program, and maybe their just not that good of a team this year, and maybe the Big East isn't nearly as great as some have made it out to be. Looks like they won't be getting 2 BCS bowl games like Gesh said would happen.

Devastating blow for the USF, the weather really neutralized their speed advantage. The expectation of two BCS teams dies although as a positive, WVU now controls their own destiny to win the conference. But top to bottom, the quality of the BEast is beind recognized. The USF loss may hurt a lot, but coming into this weekend, the BEast had made it up all the way to being the number two conference in the land (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc07.htm) to this point in the season. So even after a tough couple of weeks for the teams at the top it still is a lot better conference than some have made it out to be.

mweb

10-27-2007, 07:40 PM

If it would take a team getting into the top two w/o a win against a end of season top 25 team to show people a playoff is needed those people were/are clueless. The evidence is overwhelming and has been for some time that college football needs a playoff.

Michigan has been playing better lately so maybe they'll run the table until November 17th, but if they don't OSU won't need any help to be playing for a national title w/o beating one team that finishes in the top 25.

I don't think OSU will make the title game, but if they do, I think at least one of UM/Penn State/Wisconsin will end the regular season ranked.

Concerning the first paragraph, my point is it could be a wakeup call to those who like the current system. But UConn will now likely finish the regular season ranked.

mweb

10-27-2007, 07:51 PM

Devastating blow for the USF, the weather really neutralized their speed advantage. The expectation of two BCS teams dies although as a positive, WVU now controls their own destiny to win the conference. But top to bottom, the quality of the BEast is beind recognized. The USF loss may hurt a lot, but coming into this weekend, the BEast had made it up all the way to being the number two conference in the land (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc07.htm) to this point in the season. So even after a tough couple of weeks for the teams at the top it still is a lot better conference than some have made it out to be.

I don't think the Sagarin rating are the end all be all to this discussion as you seem to. Having the Big East over the Pac-10 is absurd imo. It's a conference with only one really good team, who as I said, hasn't really beaten anyone, and only 2 teams I'd even consider to be good after that. As of now, that Auburn win is probably making a huge difference for them considering they haven't played many other big out of conference games.

Besides the USF win at Auburn, what good out of conference wins does the Big East have? And I think most of the Big East schools aren't established enough or talented enough to think that highly of without having big wins.

BTW, are any of the other Big East schools going to eventually join the Big East in football? I know Villanova and GTown have teams, not sure about most of those other schools.

If the ACC could drop Duke and I guess NC State, they'd look a lot better too.;)

geschinger

10-27-2007, 07:56 PM

I don't think OSU will make the title game, but if they do, I think at least one of UM/Penn State/Wisconsin will end the regular season ranked.

Michigan is most likely if they run the table before OSU. For OSU to make it to the title game, they have to give Wisconsin who is unranked now, another loss so I think it's unlikely they make it back into the rankings. I guess PSU has a chance as well as I don't think they play anyone after tonight.

Depending on how far VT drops I think BC also has a chance to make it through the year w/o beating a EOS T25 team. After seeing VT against BC and earlier against the Carolinas I am convinced their ranking was the result of a weak schedule and think they'll lose at least one maybe two more games.

Concerning the first paragraph, my point is it could be a wakeup call to those who like the current system. But UConn will now likely finish the regular season ranked.

It would be nice, but probably wishful thinking. But for the good of the game, I say, let's find out w/WVU as the guinea pig. :D

mweb

10-27-2007, 08:02 PM

Michigan is most likely if they run the table before OSU. For OSU to make it to the title game, they have to give Wisconsin who is unranked now, another loss so I think it's unlikely they make it back into the rankings. I guess PSU has a chance as well as I don't think they play anyone after tonight.

Depending on how far VT drops I think BC also has a chance to make it through the year w/o beating a EOS T25 team. After seeing VT against BC and earlier against the Carolinas I am convinced their ranking was the result of a weak schedule and think they'll lose at least one maybe two more games.

It would be nice, but probably wishful thinking. But for the good of the game, I say, let's find out w/WVU as the guinea pig. :D

Wisonconsin is 32nd, so if they lose in a close game to OSU, they could still end up ranked. VaTech will probably stayed ranked the rest of the year and Clemson may end up ranked. Plus BC would have to play in the ACC title game. I highly doubt they run the table though. I agree that their not that good, their similiar to USF, except they won their ESPN thursday night game on the road.

geschinger

10-27-2007, 08:07 PM

I don't think the Sagarin rating are the end all be all to this discussion as you seem to. Having the Big East over the Pac-10 is absurd imo. It's a conference with only one really good team, who as I said, hasn't really beaten anyone, and only 2 teams I'd even consider to be good after that. As of now, that Auburn win is probably making a huge difference for them considering they haven't played many other big out of conference games.

I tend to agree, personally I think the Pac-10 is better than the BEast right now. But I do think that the national media and a majority of fans still underrate the BEast. And most conferences in this year of unprecedented parity have only one really good team. Even the Pac-10 which I do consider to rival the SEC as the best conference overall this season will have only one really good team when ASU gets exposed.

Besides the USF win at Auburn, what good out of conference wins does the Big East have? And I think most of the Big East schools aren't established enough or talented enough to think that highly of without having big wins.

BTW, are any of the other Big East schools going to eventually join the Big East in football? I know Villanova and GTown have teams, not sure about most of those other schools.

If the ACC could drop Duke and I guess NC State, they'd look a lot better too.;)

No, the BEast will not be adding any of those basketball only schools anytime soon. Tranghese is smart enough not to dillute the product. When (not if) Pittsburgh and Syracuse build back up to being the programs they are capable of being it will be top to bottom an excellent conference.

mweb

10-27-2007, 08:13 PM

mweb

10-27-2007, 08:17 PM

I tend to agree, personally I think the Pac-10 is better than the BEast right now. But I do think that the national media and a majority of fans still underrate the BEast. And most conferences in this year of unprecedented parity have only one really good team. Even the Pac-10 which I do consider to rival the SEC as the best conference overall this season will have only one really good team when ASU gets exposed.

No, the BEast will not be adding any of those basketball only schools anytime soon. Tranghese is smart enough not to dillute the product. When (not if) Pittsburgh and Syracuse build back up to being the programs they are capable of being it will be top to bottom an excellent conference.

Well they should be when they leave out their worst schools, like I said with the ACC and Duke, if other conferences left out their worst schools, they'd look a lot better top to bottom as well.

We shall see about that last part, your other definitive comments on the Big East haven't gone too well this year, so forgive me for not taking your word. When those programs rise, others will likely fall.

geschinger

10-27-2007, 08:32 PM

Yeah, but the PAC-10 has 2-3 teams that are better than the Big East's 2nd best team imo. I'll take the 2-4 teams in almost every conference over the Big East's.

IMO, that is because you are similar to the national media and most fans by underrating the BEast and its teams. If the ACC and Big 10 this year are part of the grouping of almost every conference, which are the 2-4 teams would you take over the BEast?

mweb

10-27-2007, 08:40 PM

IMO, that is because you are similar to the national media and most fans by underrating the BEast and its teams. If the ACC and Big 10 this year are part of the grouping of almost every conference, which are the 2-4 teams would you take over the BEast?

I don't think I am, I think you're overrating it, you're the biased one here, not me. What has UConn or Rutgers done to show their that good, besides beating USF who I'm not that impressed with.

Ok, not almost every, but most, I'll take the other 4 conferences over the Big East's 2-4 teams, and I do think the ACC and Big Ten would have a decent shot if this was settled on the field. Virginia beat UConn and UMD beat Rutgers, and I don't think either of those ACC schools are in their conferences top 4.

geschinger

10-27-2007, 08:40 PM

Well they should be when they leave out their worst schools, like I said with the ACC and Duke, if other conferences left out their worst schools, they'd look a lot better top to bottom as well.

Maybe they should consider giving the perrenial doormats the boot? The BEast did that will Temple several years ago to the conferences benefit.

We shall see about that last part, your other definitive comments on the Big East haven't gone too well this year, so forgive me for not taking your word. When those programs rise, others will likely fall.

Some of my goals for the BEast were overly ambitious... Two things really hurt the chances of the BEast achieving what I had set out for them and in the long run both are excellent for the conferences long term health. One is the emergence of programs like USF and UConn and Cincinnati and the other is that unlike other conferences that have gotten too big for their own good - in the BEast everyone plays everyone else every year. End result is these teams have nice records in OOC competetion and then beat the crap out of each other in conference play.

mweb

10-27-2007, 08:46 PM

Maybe they should consider giving the perrenial doormats the boot? The BEast did that will Temple several years ago to the conferences benefit.

Some of my goals for the BEast were overly ambitious... Two things really hurt the chances of the BEast achieving what I had set out for them and in the long run both are excellent for the conferences long term health. One is the emergence of programs like USF and UConn and Cincinnati and the other is that unlike other conferences that have gotten too big for their own good - in the BEast everyone plays everyone else every year. End result is these teams have nice records in OOC competetion and then beat the crap out of each other in conference play.

But they knocked Temple out competely, not just in football, pretty big difference imo. It doesn't make sense for the ACC to kick Duke out or for the Big Ten to kick Indiana out.

We'll see if those programs actually become good programs, or are just good in the short run, same with Rutgers.

Nice records in OOC play against mostly bad competition.

geschinger

10-27-2007, 09:05 PM

I don't think I am, I think you're overrating it, you're the biased one here, not me. What has UConn or Rutgers done to show their that good, besides beating USF who I'm not that impressed with.

If so then why do you suppose the computers or Sangarin or just about any other attempt to *objectively* rank teams or conferences falls closer to my opinion of the BEast and its teams than yours?

Ok, not almost every, but most, I'll take the other 4 conferences over the Big East's 2-4 teams, and I do think the ACC and Big Ten would have a decent shot if this was settled on the field. Virginia and UMD beat UConn and Rutgers, and I don't think either of those ACC schools are in their conferences top 4.

In this year of parity any of the top handful of teams in any conference has a decent chance of knocking off any of the top handful of teams in any other conference if decided on the field. UConn's only loss was by one point on the road against what was coming into today a team ranked 15th in the BCS polls. That loss doesn't bother me much although I there is nothing that can be said about Rutgers losing to UMD. That was an embarassment for the conference.

Since you'll take the other 4 - which are the teams in the Big 12 who this year are better than the teams in the BEast not named Mountaineers?

mweb

10-27-2007, 09:17 PM

If so then why do you suppose the computers or Sangarin or just about any other attempt to *objectively* rank teams or conferences falls closer to my opinion of the BEast and its teams than yours?

In this year of parity any of the top handful of teams in any conference has a decent chance of knocking off any of the top handful of teams in any other conference if decided on the field. UConn's only loss was by one point on the road against what was coming into today a team ranked 15th in the BCS polls. That loss doesn't bother me much although I there is nothing that can be said about Rutgers losing to UMD. That was an embarassment for the conference.

Since you'll take the other 4 - which are the teams in the Big 12 who this year are better than the teams in the BEast not named Mountaineers?

Because the Big East has done a good job in compiling wins, even though not against good competition, and don't have as bad of a bottom as most conferences due to only have 8 teams. What other computer ratings are high on the Big East? People try to objectively rank teams as well, and have the ability to actually see games and judge talent, and the people ranking teams don't seem to be that impressed by the Big East.

I've asked you what the Big East has done out of conference besides the Auburn win, and you did not respond to that, so you tell me why the Big East is so good without using the computer rankings.

Virginia isn't that good of a team. if UConn is on the same level as UVA, their not really a top 20 team imo.

Kansas, Missouri, and either KState or Texas. I think the first two teams would beat UConn and Rutgers, and USF would probably win the other game.

mweb

10-27-2007, 09:20 PM

I just want to make it clear that I don't think the Big East is bad, I'm just not impressed with it, and think any rating system that says their the 2nd best conference is very flawed. I basically think there's the top two conferences, then there's not a big difference between the rest.

geschinger

10-27-2007, 09:24 PM

But they knocked Temple out competely, not just in football, pretty big difference imo. It doesn't make sense for the ACC to kick Duke out or for the Big Ten to kick Indiana out.

We'll see if those programs actually become good programs, or are just good in the short run, same with Rutgers.

Nice records in OOC play against mostly bad competition.

True, they need Duke and Indiana respectively for what they bring to the table in other sports. But maybe the ACC and B10 respective should pressure those schools to put more resources into their programs and build them up. There is no excuse to be that bad for that long.

Only time will tell if the programs are good for the long term but I'm confident they are. At least I know that USF, Rutgers and UConn are serious about being quality programs and are putting a ton of resources into building 'em up. With the quality of the people running the respective programs I wouldn't bet against 'em. Although I guess at any time the NFL could come in and snag a guy like Schiano and slow that growth.

I'd be surprised if the BEast OOC schedules didn't match up well with that of many other schools. But There are some quality teams that teams from the conference have played and is part of the reason that the BEast teams come out in decent shape w/the computers.

mweb

10-27-2007, 09:35 PM

True, they need Duke and Indiana respectively for what they bring to the table in other sports. But maybe the ACC and B10 respective should pressure those schools to put more resources into their programs and build them up. There is no excuse to be that bad for that long.

Only time will tell if the programs are good for the long term but I'm confident they are. At least I know that USF, Rutgers and UConn are serious about being quality programs and are putting a ton of resources into building 'em up. With the quality of the people running the respective programs I wouldn't bet against 'em. Although I guess at any time the NFL could come in and snag a guy like Schiano and slow that growth.

I'd be surprised if the BEast OOC schedules didn't match up well with that of many other schools. But There are some quality teams that teams from the conference have played and is part of the reason that the BEast teams come out in decent shape w/the computers.

Well of course you think they'll be good for the long term, we shall see, I'd bet against at least one of those programs. And they better start recruiting better. Many of their OOC schedules do match up well with many schools, but as a whole, it's a pretty weak. For a team like UConn they need to schedule better in order to get people to consider them for real.

I'm anxious to see what happens in the bowl games, hopefully the Big East teams get a little tougher competition this year than in the past couple.

geschinger

10-27-2007, 09:58 PM

Because the Big East has done a good job in compiling wins, even though not against good competition, and don't have as bad of a bottom as most conferences due to only have 8 teams. What other computer ratings are high on the Big East? People try to objectively rank teams as well, and have the ability to actually see games and judge talent, and the people ranking teams don't seem to be that impressed by the Big East.

Teams in the BEast are usually consistently higher in the computer polls used by the BCS (I believe there are 6-8 of 'em) than they are in the subjective polls. Ironically enough that holds true for the teams other than WVU who the pollsters usually have ranked higher than the computers.

I've asked you what the Big East has done out of conference besides the Auburn win, and you did not respond to that, so you tell me why the Big East is so good without using the computer rankings.

I believe Cincy wiped the floor with the OSU team that knocked out what many thought was the PAC-10s 2nd best team. Louisville played Kentucky as tough as UF and LSU did. However I think you are penalizing the BEast teams calling them weak OOC schedules when for the most part they are every bit as good as those from other conferences. BEast teams aren't playing weaker OOC competetion.

Virginia isn't that good of a team. if UConn is on the same level as UVA, their not really a top 20 team imo.

Kansas, Missouri, and either KState or Texas. I think the first two teams would beat UConn and Rutgers, and USF would probably win the other game.

I think UConn is ranked about where they belong. I'm not going to overrate them based on today's win as I do think the results would of been different if the 1st half wasn't played in a driving rain.

USF and Texas have a common opponent in UCF. Texas won by 3, USF by 50. I haven't seen Missouri play to be able to agree or disagree about how they'd fare. I'm not sold on Kansas, I think they are benefiting from a ridiculously easy schedule. Their schedule is a case study on what is wrong w/mega conferences as they make it through conference play avoiding the better teams. I don't think there would be much difference in the quality of the conference this year if the 2007 USF, Rutgers and UConn teams were traded for Texas, Kansas and KSU.

ledzepp8

10-27-2007, 10:17 PM

For a team like UConn they need to schedule better in order to get people to consider them for real.

Well they've only been DI-A since 2000...I'm not sure who's been lining up to play them. And schedules are made years in advance.

ledzepp8

10-27-2007, 10:19 PM

But they knocked Temple out competely, not just in football, pretty big difference imo. It doesn't make sense for the ACC to kick Duke out or for the Big Ten to kick Indiana out.

Temple was only a member of the Big East in football. They've been in the Atlantic Ten in pretty much everything else, including basketball since something like 1982.

geschinger

10-27-2007, 10:19 PM

Well of course you think they'll be good for the long term, we shall see, I'd bet against at least one of those programs. And they better start recruiting better. Many of their OOC schedules do match up well with many schools, but as a whole, it's a pretty weak. For a team like UConn they need to schedule better in order to get people to consider them for real.

I'm anxious to see what happens in the bowl games, hopefully the Big East teams get a little tougher competition this year than in the past couple.

The thing w/scheduling is it takes two to tango. I know UConn has tried to schedule BC and been turned down. When looking at who BC schedules for OOC opponents I can only assume it's because they wanted easier matchups. Although UConn should have looked like a patsy when schedules were setup for 2007. I know WVU has had similar problems in the past but that seems to be getting better w/Auburn, Colorodo, and Florida State stepping up and being willing to do home an homes w/WVU in future years. USF has had some better luck since I assume teams had no idea they'd be good this quickly. In the next couple of years they start a series with Miami and the University of Florida. And that will be huge for their recruiting

I too am anxious to see what happens in the bowl games. Unfortunately matchups are based on tie-ins so instead of seeing how the second best team from the BEast might fare against a top notch Pac-10 team or SEC team they will end up with a lessor matchup against the second best team from the ACC.

For the good of college football by providing a possible wakeup call to those who like the current system I think we should all be hoping for WVU to sneak into the BCS title game in which case the BEast should have at least one tough matchup. :D

ledzepp8

10-27-2007, 10:24 PM

Because the Big East has done a good job in compiling wins, even though not against good competition, and don't have as bad of a bottom as most conferences due to only have 8 teams. The Big East football conference has been around since 1991 and as far as I know has always had 8 teams. This isn't something new. Most conferences didn't used to have as many teams as they do now, the only reason they are expanding is to have conference championships. I don't really see what the difference is though. The Big East has 8 teams and no conference championship, the bigger conferences have championship games but have subdivisions within the conference.

Sports Guy

10-27-2007, 10:36 PM

Looks like I jinxed the underdogs as I went 0-5(assuming OSU wins)

The top ranked teams stepped up today for some huge wins.

Be interesting to see if teams like Oregon gain some ground in the BCS standings.

ASU needs to win tonight to keep pace with everyone.

Sports Guy

10-27-2007, 10:39 PM

I really am surprised this is even a real argument...The Big East has some up and coming programs that we could be hearing about for years to come but right now they aren't that great of a conference...The Big East needs Syracuse IMO.

With the exception of maybe WVU, none of the top Big East schools could make in the better conferences.

Sports Guy

10-27-2007, 10:54 PM

A few good games next week:

LSU at Alabama...The Saban Bowl

ASU at Oregon...Potentially could be the biggest game of the year thus far(if ASU comes back tonight)

Also, OSU and BC have tough home against Wisconsin and FSU.

mweb

10-27-2007, 11:06 PM

Teams in the BEast are usually consistently higher in the computer polls used by the BCS (I believe there are 6-8 of 'em) than they are in the subjective polls. Ironically enough that holds true for the teams other than WVU who the pollsters usually have ranked higher than the computers.

I believe Cincy wiped the floor with the OSU team that knocked out what many thought was the PAC-10s 2nd best team. Louisville played Kentucky as tough as UF and LSU did. However I think you are penalizing the BEast teams calling them weak OOC schedules when for the most part they are every bit as good as those from other conferences. BEast teams aren't playing weaker OOC competetion.

I think UConn is ranked about where they belong. I'm not going to overrate them based on today's win as I do think the results would of been different if the 1st half wasn't played in a driving rain.

USF and Texas have a common opponent in UCF. Texas won by 3, USF by 50. I haven't seen Missouri play to be able to agree or disagree about how they'd fare. I'm not sold on Kansas, I think they are benefiting from a ridiculously easy schedule. Their schedule is a case study on what is wrong w/mega conferences as they make it through conference play avoiding the better teams. I don't think there would be much difference in the quality of the conference this year if the 2007 USF, Rutgers and UConn teams were traded for Texas, Kansas and KSU.

Well I only see the computer ratings for the 3 ranked Big East schools. EDIT: Tied for 16th is too high for UConn going into today. What was that ranking based on? Beating Louisville at home by 4 with the help of a bogus call and beating a bunch of bad teams. A lot of unranked schools would have been 6-1 with UConn's schedule.

Ok, so Oregon State is the 2nd best out of conference win for Big East schools? Their ok.

I don't know what schedules you're looking at, but yes, the Big East schools have played poor OOC schedules. They all have 5 OOC games, and combined have played 3 teams(4 games) that are currently ranked, 2 of which may not be ranked after this week. No teams ranked ranked higher than 14, and again, Kentucky and UVA will drop a lot tomorrow. And there's tons of cupcakes in there. Florida St and Miami alone probably have more impressive OOC opponents than the whole Big East combined.

Yes, Kansas has played a bad schedule, but I'll take what they've done over what UConn has done.

mweb

10-27-2007, 11:07 PM

Temple was only a member of the Big East in football. They've been in the Atlantic Ten in pretty much everything else, including basketball since something like 1982.

Well that makes my point about them even better.

mweb

10-27-2007, 11:14 PM

The thing w/scheduling is it takes two to tango. I know UConn has tried to schedule BC and been turned down. When looking at who BC schedules for OOC opponents I can only assume it's because they wanted easier matchups. Although UConn should have looked like a patsy when schedules were setup for 2007. I know WVU has had similar problems in the past but that seems to be getting better w/Auburn, Colorodo, and Florida State stepping up and being willing to do home an homes w/WVU in future years. USF has had some better luck since I assume teams had no idea they'd be good this quickly. In the next couple of years they start a series with Miami and the University of Florida. And that will be huge for their recruiting
I too am anxious to see what happens in the bowl games. Unfortunately matchups are based on tie-ins so instead of seeing how the second best team from the BEast might fare against a top notch Pac-10 team or SEC team they will end up with a lessor matchup against the second best team from the ACC.
For the good of college football by providing a possible wakeup call to those who like the current system I think we should all be hoping for WVU to sneak into the BCS title game in which case the BEast should have at least one tough matchup. :D

Well it depends on how they do, but those are the types of matchups that I want to see, as they help make these types of debates more clear, plus are much more entertaining than big school vs cupcake.

The 2nd best team in the ACC is better than UConn imo, who I guess is the 2nd best team in the Big East.

I understand it's not all these schools fault in regards to scheduling, but it doesn't change anything in terms of analyzing them this year.

mweb

10-27-2007, 11:15 PM

The Big East football conference has been around since 1991 and as far as I know has always had 8 teams. This isn't something new. Most conferences didn't used to have as many teams as they do now, the only reason they are expanding is to have conference championships. I don't really see what the difference is though. The Big East has 8 teams and no conference championship, the bigger conferences have championship games but have subdivisions within the conference.

I'm aware that some conferences have expanded, my point is just that it's easier to be good top to bottom when you have 8 schools compared to 12, plus it's easier when you keep out programs that are in your conference otherwise, but wouldn't perform well.

mweb

10-27-2007, 11:17 PM

Convincing win for Ohio State tonight, still think they'll lose to Michigan.

Sports Guy

10-27-2007, 11:22 PM

Convincing win for Ohio State tonight, still think they'll lose to Michigan.

So do I...Next week won't be easy either.

ledzepp8

10-27-2007, 11:45 PM

Well that makes my point about them even better.

And how exactly?

ledzepp8

10-28-2007, 12:05 AM

I'm aware that some conferences have expanded, my point is just that it's easier to be good top to bottom when you have 8 schools compared to 12, plus it's easier when you keep out programs that are in your conference otherwise, but wouldn't perform well.

Well the point is that the bigger conferences are basically two conferences in one, as not ever team plays each other. So if you looked at the subdivisions of each bigger conference, you could say the same thing.

And I still don't know what you're talking about when you say the Big East is keeping out programs that are in the conference otherwise. Besides the fact that the Big East didn't become a football conference until 1991 and thus the basketball conference has been around for a lot longer. But they aren't keeping any of the basketball conference teams out.

Notre Dame won't join any conference.
Depaul doesn't have a football team.
Georgetown is in Division I-AA.
Providence doesn't have a football team.
St. John's doesn't have a football team.
Seton Hall doesn't have a football team.
Villanova is in Division I-AA.

mweb

10-28-2007, 12:18 AM

And how exactly?

Because it's easier to get rid of a team that isn't involved with any other sports in the conference.

ledzepp8

10-28-2007, 12:23 AM

Because it's easier to get rid of a team that isn't involved with any other sports in the conference.

Okay...I still don't see what the problem is. They kicked out Temple because they were perennially bad.

mweb

10-28-2007, 12:27 AM

Well the point is that the bigger conferences are basically two conferences in one, as not ever team plays each other. So if you looked at the subdivisions of each bigger conference, you could say the same thing.

And I still don't know what you're talking about when you say the Big East is keeping out programs that are in the conference otherwise. Besides the fact that the Big East didn't become a football conference until 1991 and thus the basketball conference has been around for a lot longer. But they aren't keeping any of the basketball conference teams out.

Notre Dame won't join any conference.
Depaul doesn't have a football team.
Georgetown is in Division I-AA.
Providence doesn't have a football team.
St. John's doesn't have a football team.
Seton Hall doesn't have a football team.
Villanova is in Division I-AA.

Their still one big conference though, and teams play some of the teams from the other divisions in those conferences, and then obviously have a title game. But yeah, of course it's easier for one 6 team division to be good top to bottom.

Talking about GTown and Villanova. I didn't say they were keeping anyone out, was wondering if those schools will eventually join the Big East in football, and saying if the ACC for instance could get rid of Duke, that would help the football conference. I know those schools are I-AA, just pointing out that the really weak football links in the Big East aren't actually in the Big East, but the really weak links in other conferences are. It's not a big deal, was just curious if there's plans to let those teams in at some point.

mweb

10-28-2007, 12:28 AM

Okay...I still don't see what the problem is. They kicked out Temple because they were perennially bad.

When did I say it was a problem?

geschinger

10-28-2007, 12:28 AM

Well I only see the computer ratings for the 3 ranked Big East schools. 5 of them have UConn in the top 12, that right there should tell you not to put too much faith in the computer rankings. What was that ranking based on? Beating Louisville at home by 4 with the help of a bogus call and beating a bunch of bad teams. A lot of unranked schools would have been 6-1 with UConn's schedule.

Ok, so Oregon State is the 2nd best out of conference win for Big East schools? Their ok.

I don't know what schedules you're looking at, but yes, the Big East schools have played poor OOC schedules. They all have 5 OOC games, and combined have played 3 teams(4 games) that are currently ranked, 2 of which may not be ranked after this week. No teams ranked ranked higher than 14, and again, Kentucky and UVA will drop a lot tomorrow. And there's tons of cupcakes in there. Florida St and Miami alone probably have more impressive OOC opponents than the whole Big East combined.

Yes, Kansas has played a bad schedule, but I'll take what they've done over what UConn has done.

What are you looking at? It can't be the computer rankings used in the BCS as UConn's computer rankings range from 13th to unranked and their average ranking is 16th. They are essentially tied w/Auburn in the computer polls. Where are you coming up 5 top 12 rankings? :confused:

Florida State and Miami do have impressive OOC schedules. Hopefully their poor seasons don't lead them to schedule lighter in the future. But they are exceptions rather than the rule. They probably have tougher OOC opponents than the other 10 teams in their conference combined. Looking at the current BCS top 10 (of course USF will drop) only USF, LSU and Oregon have beaten a top 25 OOC opponent. At quick glance it looks like the record is even worse for the next 10. Hardly anyone schedules tough OOC games - the BEast has nothing to apologize for in their scheduling especially since they have been working hard on getting better games as seen in their future opponents. Hopefully teams from other conferences are doing the same.

I would take what Kansas has done so far over UConn as well. They have made it through unscathed so far. The UConn schedule is a lot tougher than the Kansas schedule from here on out and if they somehow did finish w/only one loss (which they won't) theirs would be a greater accomplishment than Kansas making it through their schedule.

mweb

10-28-2007, 12:51 AM

What are you looking at? It can't be the computer rankings used in the BCS as UConn's computer rankings range from 13th to unranked and their average ranking is 16th. They are essentially tied w/Auburn in the computer polls. Where are you coming up 5 top 12 rankings? :confused:

Florida State and Miami do have impressive OOC schedules. Hopefully their poor seasons don't lead them to schedule lighter in the future. But they are exceptions rather than the rule. They probably have tougher OOC opponents than the other 10 teams in their conference combined. Looking at the current BCS top 10 (of course USF will drop) only USF, LSU and Oregon have beaten a top 25 OOC opponent. At quick glance it looks like the record is even worse for the next 10. Hardly anyone schedules tough OOC games - the BEast has nothing to apologize for in their scheduling especially since they have been working hard on getting better games as seen in their future opponents. Hopefully teams from other conferences are doing the same.

I would take what Kansas has done so far over UConn as well. They have made it through unscathed so far. The UConn schedule is a lot tougher than the Kansas schedule from here on out and if they somehow did finish w/only one loss (which they won't) theirs would be a greater accomplishment than Kansas making it through their schedule.

Yeah, I screwed up on looking at the computer ratings. Tied for 16th before todays win is still a joke imo. And as I said, a lot of unranked teams would be 6-1 with that schedule. MD would be at least 5-2 right now with that schedule.

Considering the Big East teams play more out of conference games than other schools, they should have more tough games. And I still think their OOC schedule as a whole is weaker than normal. And some of the top schools from other conferences don't schedule hard because their conference is considered quite tough pluys they have a conference title game to play if they make it that far. The Big East doesn't have the title game to consider, and I think their still at the point where they need to prove themselves as a conference. Most people aren't going to think going 7-1 in the Big East like UConn might do is as impressive as a team doing that in most of the other conferences.

Considering Kansas will most likely have to play Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game if they remain undefeated, I strongly disagree with that.

mweb

10-28-2007, 01:08 AM

Florida State and Miami do have impressive OOC schedules. Hopefully their poor seasons don't lead them to schedule lighter in the future. But they are exceptions rather than the rule. They probably have tougher OOC opponents than the other 10 teams in their conference combined.

Well as you know MD went to Rutgers and hosted WVU. Duke played UConn. UNC played USF and South Carolina. GT plays Georgia. VaTech played LSU. UVA played UConn. Clemson plays South Carolina.

So I don't think your statement is true, and I think if you compare the ACC's OOC schedule to the Big East's, the ACC has the tougher one.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 01:29 AM

Yeah, I screwed up on looking at the computer ratings. Tied for 16th before todays win is still a joke imo. And as I said, a lot of unranked teams would be 6-1 with that schedule. MD would be at least 5-2 right now with that schedule.

Considering the Big East teams play more out of conference games than other schools, they should have more tough games. And I still think their OOC schedule as a whole is weaker than normal. And some of the top schools from other conferences don't schedule hard because their conference is considered quite tough pluys they have a conference title game to play if they make it that far. The Big East doesn't have the title game to consider, and I think their still at the point where they need to prove themselves as a conference. Most people aren't going to think going 7-1 in the Big East like UConn might do is as impressive as a team doing that in most of the other conferences.

Considering Kansas will most likley have to play Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game if they remain undefeated, I strongly disagree with that.

Big East teams play one extra OOC game compared to teams from other conferences. Not a huge difference IMO.

This brings everything back to my original point that most fans and national media underrate the BEast. Most people would be wrong to think that going 6-1 in BEast play is less impressive than say a Virginia going 7-1 in ACC play or Kansas going 7-1 in B12 play. If you happen to be a school in the weaker division of one of the overly large conferences its entirely possible to win a conference w/o ever having to play one of the best teams in that conference.

If KU has to play Oklahoma that evens things out considerably giving them a matchup similar to UConn @ WVU. But KU is a perfect example of what could happen in a mega conference that could never happen in the BEast. If OU were to lose between now and then it would be possible for KU to win the B12 and an auto bid to a BCS game w/o ever having to play two of the best teams (OU and Texas) in the conference.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 01:40 AM

Well as you know MD went to Rutgers and hosted WVU. Duke played UConn. UNC played USF and South Carolina. GT plays Georgia. VaTech played LSU. UVA played UConn. Clemson plays South Carolina.

So I don't think your statement is true, and I think if you compare the ACC's OOC schedule to the Big East's, the ACC has the tougher one.

It may be a bit short. FSU has UF which is about equivalent to Maryland's WVU matchup. Miami had Oklahoma which is somewhat equivalent to VaTech vs LSU. FSU also has Alabama and Colorodo. Miami had Texas A&M. The emergence of UConn definately pushes the rest of the confences OOC schedule over FSU/UM. Question is, if UConn continues to be a good team, will those teams keep them on the schedule or drop them for the next program making the jump to Div1.

mweb

10-28-2007, 01:48 AM

Big East teams play one extra OOC game compared to teams from other conferences. Not a huge difference IMO.

This brings everything back to my original point that most fans and national media underrate the BEast. Most people would be wrong to think that going 6-1 in BEast play is less impressive than say a Virginia going 7-1 in ACC play or Kansas going 7-1 in B12 play. If you happen to be a school in the weaker division of one of the overly large conferences its entirely possible to win a conference w/o ever having to play one of the best teams in that conference.

If KU has to play Oklahoma that evens things out considerably giving them a matchup similar to UConn @ WVU. But KU is a perfect example of what could happen in a mega conference that could never happen in the BEast. If OU were to lose between now and then it would be possible for KU to win the B12 and an auto bid to a BCS game w/o ever having to play two of the best teams (OU and Texas) in the conference.

1 game is a decent difference when it's playing a conference opponent compared to a cupcake.

Yeah, going 7-1 in the Big East can be more difficult than in other conferences depending on the schedule, not denying that, just talking about perception and why the Big East teams should schedule harder.

With the conference title game, it's very unlikey that a team could make it to the BCS bowl game without playing a tough conference schedule.

And if Kansas goes undefeated with their schedule, that's more than even compared to UConn only losing to WVU. Not sure if that was the scenario you meant, but you never mentioned Kansas losing, so that's how I took it.

mweb

10-28-2007, 01:56 AM

It may be a bit short. FSU has UF which is about equivalent to Maryland's WVU matchup. Miami had Oklahoma which is somewhat equivalent to VaTech vs LSU. FSU also has Alabama and Colorodo. Miami had Texas A&M. The emergence of UConn definately pushes the rest of the confences OOC schedule over FSU/UM. Question is, if UConn continues to be a good team, will those teams keep them on the schedule or drop them for the next program making the jump to Div1.

I have no idea. The OOC schedules are mostly already done for the next 5 years or so, but I don't know much about them. I think just about all the ACC schools like to play at least one tough OOC game each year, so maybe they'll keep them.

I would like to see BC and UConn play each year. I do know that BC and Syracuse have upcoming home and homes with USC, but that will be after the USC-Ohio State home and home that starts next year. Can't accuse USC of playing a weak schedule, this year they were unlucky, or lucky depending on the perspective that Notre Dame and Nebraska were down.

mweb

10-28-2007, 02:07 AM

Here's the future Big East OOC games: http://dailymail.com/static/bigeastfb.pdf

Looks like a big improvement for some teams. And UMD plays UConn down the line, so there you go.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 02:12 AM

1 game is a decent difference when it's playing a conference opponent compared to a cupcake.

Yeah, going 7-1 in the Big East can be more difficult than in other conferences depending on the schedule, not denying that, just talking about perception and why the Big East teams should schedule harder.

While the perception is wrong, BEast teams are adding a lot of quality OOC teams to the schedule. I'm confident they'd add even more if teams from other conferences were willing to play 'em.

If one is objective and ignores perception it would be hard to disagree w/Rich.

"I think the Big East has done a pretty good job of scheduling (non-conference games), particularly when you compare us to other BCS conferences. I get sometimes amused when people talk about, 'Well, they're in this league, so they don't need to schedule as many good games out of conference.' If you look at some of the other BCS teams. ... you have to question their strength of schedules."
— West Virginia coach Rich Rodriguez,

With the conference title game, it's very unlikey that a team could make it to the BCS bowl game without playing a tough conference schedule.

And if Kansas goes undefeated with their schedule, that's more than even compared to UConn only losing to WVU. Not sure if that was the scenario you meant, but you never mentioned Kansas losing, so that's how I took it.

Depending on the definition of tough schedule that might be the case. But it is common to have one division far superior to the others in these overly large conferences and it is relatively common for teams in the weaker division to win a conference championship w/o ever having to matchup against the better team. It happened a lot in the SEC back when UF and Tennesse were heads and shouldars above the rest of the league. It happens more recently w/OU and Texas in the same division.

I was using the scenario or KU and UConn both finishing w/one loss. 8-0 would be more impressive than 6-1 even w/a softer schedule.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 02:17 AM

I have no idea. The OOC schedules are mostly already done for the next 5 years or so, but I don't know much about them. I think just about all the ACC schools like to play at least one tough OOC game each year, so maybe they'll keep them.

I would like to see BC and UConn play each year. I do know that BC and Syracuse have upcoming home and homes with USC, but that will be after the USC-Ohio State home and home that starts next year. Can't accuse USC of playing a weak schedule, this year they were unlucky, or lucky depending on the perspective that Notre Dame and Nebraska were down.

I have a lot of respect for USC and Michigan for playing tough OOC schedules. Bowden too always plays it tough. I have a lot more respect for him than I do for the guys at UF and UM. There is no excuse for the UM and UF not to play every year.

mweb

10-28-2007, 02:18 AM

Of course you have to question some other teams OOC schedules as Rich said, but I think as a conference this year, the Big East has a weaker than normal OOC schedule.

mweb

10-28-2007, 02:20 AM

I have a lot of respect for USC and Michigan for playing tough OOC schedules. Bowden too always plays it tough. I have a lot more respect for him than I do for the guys at UF and UM. There is no excuse for the UM and UF not to play every year.

Miami typically plays a tough OOC schedule and does play USF in the future, so I wouldn't lose any respect for that program due to their OOC schedule, and obviously UF plays FSU every year, so for them, being in what is often the toughest conferece, I can see why they wouldn't want to play FSU and Miami every year.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 02:28 AM

Of course you have to question some other teams OOC schedules as Rich said, but I think as a conference this year, the Big East has a weaker than normal OOC schedule.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Maybe weaker than normal for them going froward but I don't agree that it's weaker relative to other BCS conferences. While they might not have as many ranked teams as some, I don't think they have as many Division I-AA cupcakes on their schedules as a lot of other teams do either.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 02:30 AM

Miami typically plays a tough OOC schedule and does play USF in the future, so I wouldn't lose any respect for that program due to their OOC schedule, and obviously UF plays FSU every year, so for them, being in what is often the toughest conferece, I can see why they wouldn't want to play FSU and Miami every year.

The reason they don't play has nothing to do with their conferences and everything to do with money.

mweb

10-28-2007, 02:31 AM

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Maybe weaker than normal for them going froward but I don't agree that it's weaker relative to other BCS conferences. While they might not have as many ranked teams as some, I don't think they have as many Division I-AA cupcakes on their schedules as a lot of other teams do either.

Maybe not D I-AA, but a cupcake is a cupcake, and there's a lot of them, and you do have to consider the 1-2 extra OOC games they play vs other teams playing in conference.

mweb

10-28-2007, 02:32 AM

The reason they don't play has nothing to do with their conferences and everything to do with money.

Alright, well whatever their reasons, it's not like they don't normally play tough OOC games.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 02:37 AM

Maybe not D I-AA, but a cupcake is a cupcake, and there's a lot of them, and you do have to consider the 1-2 extra OOC games they play vs other teams playing in conference.

It's only one extra OOC game not 1-2. BEast schedule = 7 games compared to others whose are 8. The conference title game is extra and does not equate to an extra OOC game for conferences that don't have one.

mweb

10-28-2007, 02:38 AM

Here's the future Big East OOC games: http://dailymail.com/static/bigeastfb.pdf

Looks like a big improvement for some teams. And UMD plays UConn down the line, so there you go.

BTW, how does USF get Miami to visit them 3 times out of 5 games?

mweb

10-28-2007, 02:40 AM

It's only one extra OOC game not 1-2. BEast schedule = 7 games compared to others whose are 8. The conference title game is extra and does not equate to an extra OOC game for conferences that don't have one.

PAC 10 schools only have 3 OOC games. That's where the 2 comes from.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 10:22 AM

BTW, how does USF get Miami to visit them 3 times out of 5 games?

A superior program can get terms like that :D

Seriously though, I have no idea, it is rather amazing considering how long ago those games would have been scheduled. Their arrangement w/UF is more normal for where the program has been. They need another couple of good years to get to the point where home and home series against good teams are expected.

Sports Guy

10-28-2007, 10:27 AM

geschinger

10-28-2007, 10:28 AM

PAC 10 schools only have 3 OOC games. That's where the 2 comes from.

Fair enough and that gives me more respect for PAC-10 teams. Like BEast teams Pac-10 teams have to play each other every year. No huge advantages based on scheduling quirks.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 11:20 AM

Well, Arizona vs Oregon next week.....Good chance that may end up being the biggest single game in college fball this year(in reg season).

Two undefeated, top 5 BCS teams....Whoever wins should leap over Oklahoma IMO.

It definately is a game with huge implications. In a perfect world ASU knocks off Oregon and then in the following week USC knock off ASU.

mweb

10-28-2007, 01:49 PM

It definately is a game with huge implications. In a perfect world ASU knocks off Oregon and then in the following week USC knock off ASU.

I guess that would be a perfect world for WVU, but I doubt Oregon loses to ASU.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 07:19 PM

I guess that would be a perfect world for WVU, but I doubt Oregon loses to ASU.

For college football as a whole and the quest to send a wakeup call to the doubters of the need for a playoff system. ;)

mweb

10-28-2007, 08:55 PM

geschinger

10-28-2007, 09:07 PM

Big East has fallen to 3rd in the almighty Sagarin ratings (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc07.htm). That's for both the central mean and simple average. In the simple average, the Big East is barely ahead of the putrid ACC. In the central mean, the gap isn't that large either with the ACC being 4th. The tremendous Big 12 is 2nd in the central mean, with the Pac-10 5th.:confused: Pac-10 is 2nd in the simple average.

It makes sense if you think about it. The Pac-10 has a couple of teams doing extrodinarily well and not many that are a total drag on the conference rankings helping their simple average but their middle of the pack teams don't compare favorably to those from other conferences. Seems reasonable to me.

Sports Guy

10-28-2007, 09:18 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

BCS standings are out...Nothing major except Oklahoma is now behind Oregon and ASU, as they should be IMO.

mweb

10-28-2007, 09:23 PM

It makes sense if you think about it. The Pac-10 has a couple of teams doing extrodinarily well and not many that are a total drag on the conference rankings helping their simple average but their middle of the pack teams don't compare favorably to those from other conferences. Seems reasonable to me.

Might make sense, but shows that these ratings shouldn't be taken as the gospel, any rating that has the Pac-10 5th has some issues imo. And I would assume you have issues with the how close the Big East and ACC are considering they way you've talked all year about said conferences.

geschinger

10-28-2007, 09:25 PM

Might make sense, but shows that these ratings shouldn't be taken as the gospel, any rating that has the Pac-10 5th has some issues imo.

I agree that they shouldn't be taken as gospel but simply as another tool to look at which might help overcome some of the misconceptions people have about the relative quality of certain conferences. Some conference with teams with more of a track record tend to get overrated and vice versa and any tool that attemps to objectively quantify rankings is helpful.

HoodGuy007

10-29-2007, 02:37 PM

I guess that would be a perfect world for WVU, but I doubt Oregon loses to ASU.
Us 'Neers would still need a loss by either Oklahoma, BC, and LSU to get in there, plus have the rest of the conference stop playing like they forgot how to win a football game. Plus, we still have to beat UConn, which isn't a pushover. That USF game really hurt us when Pat got hurt. If he plays, i think we squeak it out, and are number 2 in the country right now.

ixcuincle

11-04-2007, 12:11 AM

BC finally loses to FSU. There go Ryan's championship dreams...but they were dashed even if BC went undefeated. If BC went undefeated , LSU would likely leapfrog them for #2. Maybe BC can hope to make their first BCS bowl before they return to a program of mediocrity after Ryan and Callender graduate.

CrimsonTribe

11-04-2007, 12:39 PM

The Alabama/LSU game was heartwrenching. The terrible overturned call on Caddell's obvious catch in the 4th and Saban's decision to stop blitzing and sit back while LSU drove for the tying score stand out most to me. We had that game in our hands and LSU pulled their typical late game heroics combined with the worst reversal I've seen in quite a while. Hats off to them though b/c that was a great game to watch even though I had to drink my sorrows away afterward. Since we beat the crap out of Tennessee I can deal w/ this.

mweb

11-04-2007, 09:43 PM

So maybe South Florida isn't the next Miami afterall.

Ohio State vs LSU is what the title game would be now, I'm hoping and expecting LSU vs Oregon though. Sorry WVU fans, not looking good for their chances of playing for the title, 7th is a little too far out.

mweb

11-04-2007, 09:44 PM