College Football - Championship Week

[CuseCubFan69]

 

What I said is WV is capable of beating Ohio St or Michigan. Defensively they tackle too high and get burned by doing so. But, they have a lot of speed offensively and that gives teams a lot of problems for matchups.

 

ah, so they would get to Mike Hart quickly before they bounce off of him.

 

that's it. I'm done.

 

 

you sir, are absurd.

 

I'm being realistic but you have the top 3 teams in the Big 10 as good as the NFL. I haven't seen or read a thing from you about an honest evaluation of the top 3 Big 10 teams other than they are the best or better than the Big East.

[imb]

 

What I said is WV is capable of beating Ohio St or Michigan. Defensively they tackle too high and get burned by doing so. But, they have a lot of speed offensively and that gives teams a lot of problems for matchups.

 

ah, so they would get to Mike Hart quickly before they bounce off of him.

 

that's it. I'm done.

 

 

you sir, are absurd.

 

I'm being realistic but you have the top 3 teams in the Big 10 as good as the NFL. I haven't seen or read a thing from you about an honest evaluation of the top 3 Big 10 teams other than they are the best or better than the Big East.

 

I dont really understand why that cant be an honest evaluation?

[Andy]

I think the losses USC took indicate mediocrity - great teams don't lose those two games.

 

Mediocre teams don't go 10-2

 

Bosie State? Wisconsin? Anyway, this is a silly argument. If you think USC is a great team more power to you. We won't get to see Ohio State embarass them so you can keep believing it.

However, we might get to see them play Michigan.

 

USC pounded - pounded - two good teams in ND and Arkansas and another pretty decent one in Cal. They have more wins over ranked teams than anyone in the nation. They played bad twice this year and got burned for it. But they're a damn good team.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

What I said is WV is capable of beating Ohio St or Michigan. Defensively they tackle too high and get burned by doing so. But, they have a lot of speed offensively and that gives teams a lot of problems for matchups.

 

ah, so they would get to Mike Hart quickly before they bounce off of him.

 

that's it. I'm done.

 

 

you sir, are absurd.

 

I'm being realistic but you have the top 3 teams in the Big 10 as good as the NFL. I haven't seen or read a thing from you about an honest evaluation of the top 3 Big 10 teams other than they are the best or better than the Big East.

 

I dont really understand why that cant be an honest evaluation?

 

I suppose I meant more of a breakdown of the teams themselves.

 

Congrats on the win today by the way.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think the losses USC took indicate mediocrity - great teams don't lose those two games.

 

Mediocre teams don't go 10-2

 

Bosie State? Wisconsin? Anyway, this is a silly argument. If you think USC is a great team more power to you. We won't get to see Ohio State embarass them so you can keep believing it.

However, we might get to see them play Michigan.

 

USC pounded - pounded - two good teams in ND and Arkansas and another pretty decent one in Cal. They have more wins over ranked teams than anyone in the nation. They played bad twice this year and got burned for it. But they're a damn good team.

 

Ironically their own conference bit them and not their tough out of conference schedule.

[imb]

 

What I said is WV is capable of beating Ohio St or Michigan. Defensively they tackle too high and get burned by doing so. But, they have a lot of speed offensively and that gives teams a lot of problems for matchups.

 

ah, so they would get to Mike Hart quickly before they bounce off of him.

 

that's it. I'm done.

 

 

you sir, are absurd.

 

I'm being realistic but you have the top 3 teams in the Big 10 as good as the NFL. I haven't seen or read a thing from you about an honest evaluation of the top 3 Big 10 teams other than they are the best or better than the Big East.

 

I dont really understand why that cant be an honest evaluation?

 

I suppose I meant more of a breakdown of the teams themselves.

 

Congrats on the win today by the way.

 

Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks.

[Andy]

Bigger upset:

 

UCLA over USC or Hawaii not scoring in the 1st quarter?

[ConstableRabbit]

 

What I said is WV is capable of beating Ohio St or Michigan. Defensively they tackle too high and get burned by doing so. But, they have a lot of speed offensively and that gives teams a lot of problems for matchups.

 

ah, so they would get to Mike Hart quickly before they bounce off of him.

 

that's it. I'm done.

 

 

you sir, are absurd.

 

I'm being realistic but you have the top 3 teams in the Big 10 as good as the NFL. I haven't seen or read a thing from you about an honest evaluation of the top 3 Big 10 teams other than they are the best or better than the Big East.

 

OK I'll try:

 

Ohio St -- you said they were the best team in the country and almost everyone agrees. So I think I'll leave it at that.

Michigan -- only loss was to best team in the country (are they now the 2nd best? I don't know, but rankings have them top 3). Beaten several good teams.

Wisconsin -- didn't have to play OSU, but only loss was to Michigan. Clearly the worst of the three teams, because they didn't really have to play anyone that was a legit good team other than Michigan.

 

I guess it's who you've beaten vs. who you lost to, right? We can speculate, but that's all we have to go on.

 

Louisville, Rutgers, and WV haven't really played any good or special teams except each other, and they've each lost at least one of those games.

 

So maybe Louisville could beat Wisconsin because they've played 2 good teams whereas Wisconsin has only played 1. It would be a good game (I mean, it's still #6 vs. #7) but I just think that the Big Ten is a better conference. 8 out of the 11 teams have a loss from playing the best team in the country. I just give the Big 10 the benefit of the doubt here.

[Guest]

I think the losses USC took indicate mediocrity - great teams don't lose those two games.

 

Mediocre teams don't go 10-2

 

Bosie State? Wisconsin? Anyway, this is a silly argument. If you think USC is a great team more power to you. We won't get to see Ohio State embarass them so you can keep believing it.

However, we might get to see them play Michigan.

 

USC pounded - pounded - two good teams in ND and Arkansas and another pretty decent one in Cal. They have more wins over ranked teams than anyone in the nation. They played bad twice this year and got burned for it. But they're a damn good team.

 

Wasn't Arkansas missing their best player when they played them though? Cal is not a very good team at all. They have some great playmakers but their lines do not meaasure up to top teams. I didn't watch the ND game so if you say it was lopsided, I'll believe you. I just think that makes me doubt Notre Dame more than it makes me think USC is great.

 

In any case, this is just more reason to have a playoff. we can argue all night about who is better but unless the teams play, we'll never know. My instinct tells me 'cuse is wrong about the Big East teams matching up, but I know he is right that they should get a shot.

[CuseCubFan69]

 

What I said is WV is capable of beating Ohio St or Michigan. Defensively they tackle too high and get burned by doing so. But, they have a lot of speed offensively and that gives teams a lot of problems for matchups.

 

ah, so they would get to Mike Hart quickly before they bounce off of him.

 

that's it. I'm done.

 

 

you sir, are absurd.

 

I'm being realistic but you have the top 3 teams in the Big 10 as good as the NFL. I haven't seen or read a thing from you about an honest evaluation of the top 3 Big 10 teams other than they are the best or better than the Big East.

 

OK I'll try:

 

Ohio St -- you said they were the best team in the country and almost everyone agrees. So I think I'll leave it at that.

Michigan -- only loss was to best team in the country (are they now the 2nd best? I don't know, but rankings have them top 3). Beaten several good teams.

Wisconsin -- didn't have to play OSU, but only loss was to Michigan. Clearly the worst of the three teams, because they didn't really have to play anyone that was a legit good team other than Michigan.

 

I guess it's who you've beaten vs. who you lost to, right? We can speculate, but that's all we have to go on.

 

Louisville, Rutgers, and WV haven't really played any good or special teams except each other, and they've each lost at least one of those games.

 

So maybe Louisville could beat Wisconsin because they've played 2 good teams whereas Wisconsin has only played 1. It would be a good game (I mean, it's still #6 vs. #7) but I just think that the Big Ten is a better conference. 8 out of the 11 teams have a loss from playing the best team in the country. I just give the Big 10 the benefit of the doubt here.

 

This is why we need a playoff. There is just way too much speculation IMO.

[soccer10k]

I have to give it up to Oklahoma. After Bomar was kicked out my expectations for them plummeted and yet they find themselves in the Fiesta Bowl as the Big 12 Champion. I won't even mention "that game" for IMB!'s sake.

[CubinNY]

Let chaos reign!

 

Let it reign!

[E.J.]

This is just another year where the BCS proves that it's nothing but rubbish and that we need a playoff system. Florida and Michigan both deserve a chance to play in the National Championship game, but one of them is going to get snubbed (please be Florida). Same crap, different year.

[CuseCubFan69]

I have to give it up to Oklahoma. After Bomar was kicked out my expectations for them plummeted and yet they find themselves in the Fiesta Bowl as the Big 12 Champion. I won't even mention "that game" for IMB!'s sake.

 

And a certain RB getting hurt.

[CuseCubFan69]

This is just another year where the BCS proves that it's nothing but rubbish and that we need a playoff system. Florida and Michigan both deserve a chance to play in the National Championship game, but one of them is going to get snubbed (please be Florida). Same crap, different year.

 

I heard somebody talk about a play in game. Let Florida play Michigan and see who plays OSU.

[CubColtPacer]

Let me address this Big East thing real quickly:

 

Louisville should be in the conversation. It doesn't help anything if teams start just dismissing teams without looking at their overall resume. However, once looking at their resume, they are probably still behind both Michigan and Florida.

 

A big part of the reason why is their non-conference schedule. Louisville tried to get good teams, but it didn't work out this year. The teams they played were down, and they only beat 1 of the 2 very good teams in their conference, so that means they only have 1 very good win, and 1 loss to a very good team.

 

Michigan has a better loss than Louisville, and they have two of those types of wins (Wisconsin and ND).

 

Florida? Their loss is similar to Louisville's (I think Florida's is a little better, but I'm willing to say they are similar enough to be very close to equal, so we'll assume they are equal for now). They have 3 other very good wins: LSU, Tennessee, Arkansas.

 

I'd definitely put Louisville in the discussion, but I just don't see how they can be put ahead of the two other teams right now. It's simply too bad about a couple of their non-conference wins-if those teams could have been great otherwise, it would have been a completely different discussion.

[Andy]

I think the losses USC took indicate mediocrity - great teams don't lose those two games.

 

Mediocre teams don't go 10-2

 

Bosie State? Wisconsin? Anyway, this is a silly argument. If you think USC is a great team more power to you. We won't get to see Ohio State embarass them so you can keep believing it.

However, we might get to see them play Michigan.

 

USC pounded - pounded - two good teams in ND and Arkansas and another pretty decent one in Cal. They have more wins over ranked teams than anyone in the nation. They played bad twice this year and got burned for it. But they're a damn good team.

 

Wasn't Arkansas missing their best player when they played them though?

McFadden wasn't at full health and their QB in that game hasn't taken any snaps since, this is true. But their defense was at full strength and gave up 50 points. I doubt the added offense could overcome that.

[CubinNY]

This is just another year where the BCS proves that it's nothing but rubbish and that we need a playoff system. Florida and Michigan both deserve a chance to play in the National Championship game, but one of them is going to get snubbed (please be Florida). Same crap, different year.

 

I heard somebody talk about a play in game. Let Florida play Michigan and see who plays OSU.

 

What about other one loss teams?

[Guest]

There are just too many variables out there to accurately rank teams. Especially in college sports where athletes are far less consistent. To me, that's why you need a playoff. Would the best team always win - doubtful - but at least everyone would have an equal opportunity to win the games on the field. I guess what I was really saying about USC is that there are a number of teams out there that can beat them. Maybe mediocre is too strong a word. They just look beatable to me.

[Warpticon]

I think the losses USC took indicate mediocrity - great teams don't lose those two games.

 

Mediocre teams don't go 10-2

 

Bosie State? Wisconsin? Anyway, this is a silly argument. If you think USC is a great team more power to you. We won't get to see Ohio State embarass them so you can keep believing it.

However, we might get to see them play Michigan.

 

USC pounded - pounded - two good teams in ND and Arkansas and another pretty decent one in Cal. They have more wins over ranked teams than anyone in the nation. They played bad twice this year and got burned for it. But they're a damn good team.

 

Wasn't Arkansas missing their best player when they played them though?

McFadden wasn't at full health and their QB in that game hasn't taken any snaps since, this is true. But their defense was at full strength and gave up 50 points. I doubt the added offense could overcome that.

 

The offense turned the ball over five times and had absolutely nothing in the passing game. The time of possession was 36 to 24. USC's average field possession was in Arkansas territory. The offense was very much responsible for the surrender of 50 points.

 

(not that it's relevant to the discussion, but I always feel like I have to correct people who say that.)

[CubinNY]

There are just too many variables out there to accurately rank teams. Especially in college sports where athletes are far less consistent. To me, that's why you need a playoff. Would the best team always win - doubtful - but at least everyone would have an equal opportunity to win the games on the field. I guess what I was really saying about USC is that there are a number of teams out there that can beat them. Maybe mediocre is too strong a word. They just look beatable to me.

 

Exactly. The only thing standing in the way is money. D IA is the only division that doesn't have a playoff in football.

 

There has to be a way to make a playoff lucritive enough to change the sytem.

[Guest]

here has to be a way to make a playoff lucritive enough to change the sytem

 

stop watching the BS.

[Andy]

Why am I not surprised that Lou partially credited the fact that USC played ND last week while UCLA had a week off for the upset?

 

(Although while at ND, Lou was nearly unstoppable following a bye week, so maybe he knows something I don't.)

[ConstableRabbit]

I know they're not going to get it, and probably rightfully so, but I think someone should at least mention Boise State. I mean, they didn't play anyone, but they are getting very little credit for finishing 12-0.

[Warpticon]

So, I have a question.

 

Can anybody explain the Michigan helmet? I've wondered about that for years.