College Football - Week of 11/1

[B]

Musberger is such a tool.

[Guest]

If team A wins 31-28 and team B loses 31-28, what does that tell us about the game? It tells us that on that day team A and team B were pretty much evenly matched. If team B wins 31-28 and team A loses 31-28, it tells us the same thing.

 

Actually, it tells us that one team found a way to win the game (for whatever reason) while the other team couldn't (again, for whatever reason). The winning team obviously did something that the losing team didn't. That gives the winning team an advantage over the team that lost.

[Mephistopheles]

Harrell's getting harassed. He's pretty inaccurate under pressure (all QBs are), but the secondary's breaking down quickly. He had Crabtree open on that last pass.

[SouthSideRyan]

No, but they play a huge part in deciding who gets to play for title games.

 

You're right. I'm not saying UF should be in the title game. I am not saying merit and quality are the same thing. It's the same way in baseball. It doesn't stop us from saying a team with a worse win loss record in baseball is better than another one. The current system is merit based...for two teams. It should be merit based. The real problem with the system is the only two spots in the title game. It should be two more. The current system is what it is though.

 

What really sucks is that Big Ten and Pac 10 teams don't play title games. It hurt them sometimes, it helps them sometimes. When they're undefeated, it helps them because they don't have to play a title game. When they have a loss, it hurts them because they don't have a chance to impress the voters with a big game at the end. It always causes them to have relatively weak schedules though - even in years when the Pac 10 or Big Ten are the top leagues in the country. Really, I think a +1 system is inevitable.

 

A +1 system will inevitably lead to a team that clearly isn't on the same level as the #1 ranked team winning the national title. Then everyone will whine that this team even had a chance and how the regular season means nothing. Then we'll get to a tournament and college football won't be as popular anymore.

[SouthSideRyan]

4 minutes into the OU Nebraska game and it's already got 3 TDs.

 

Black shirts.

[SpongeWorthy]

No, but they play a huge part in deciding who gets to play for title games.

 

You're right. I'm not saying UF should be in the title game. I am not saying merit and quality are the same thing. It's the same way in baseball. It doesn't stop us from saying a team with a worse win loss record in baseball is better than another one. The current system is merit based...for two teams. It should be merit based. The real problem with the system is the only two spots in the title game. It should be two more. The current system is what it is though.

 

What really sucks is that Big Ten and Pac 10 teams don't play title games. It hurt them sometimes, it helps them sometimes. When they're undefeated, it helps them because they don't have to play a title game. When they have a loss, it hurts them because they don't have a chance to impress the voters with a big game at the end. It always causes them to have relatively weak schedules though - even in years when the Pac 10 or Big Ten are the top leagues in the country. Really, I think a +1 system is inevitable.

 

A +1 system will inevitably lead to a team that clearly isn't on the same level as the #1 ranked team winning the national title. Then everyone will whine that this team even had a chance and how the regular season means nothing. Then we'll get to a tournament and college football won't be as popular anymore.

 

I've never understood why a playoff renders the regular season meaningless. Most losses for most teams at most points in the season would still be fairly devastating for natonal championship hopes.

 

Even in an 8 team field you're looking at most 2 loss teams on the outside looking in.

Edited November 2, 2008 by SpongeWorthy

[B]

Musberger is such a tool.

Someone tell him it's not "shuttle" pass.

[Mephistopheles]

If team A wins 31-28 and team B loses 31-28, what does that tell us about the game? It tells us that on that day team A and team B were pretty much evenly matched. If team B wins 31-28 and team A loses 31-28, it tells us the same thing.

 

Actually, it tells us that one team found a way to win the game (for whatever reason) while the other team couldn't (again, for whatever reason). The winning team obviously did something that the losing team didn't. That gives the winning team an advantage over the team that lost.

 

And the same thing happens in baseball. Usually that thing that the winning team did that the losing team didn't do is one big play or a fumble or a missed field goal or making a long field goal. You're right they did something to win the game. I am not saying to completely ignore the actual outcome. In the greater scheme of things it's not nearly as important as other stuff. You look at everything. Again, don't completely ignore Ws and Ls. But don't put a lot of stock in them either. I'm obviously putting it too bluntly. I shouldn't have said it teals us team A and team B are the same. It tells us team A and team B are evenly matched. Maybe team A has a better chance of winning a close game. It's like baseball with a good bullpen. When you have an elite bullpen youre more likely to win close games, but it doesn't mean you're better by all that much. Either way the difference in Team A actually winning the game isn't that big.

 

Do you know what the single most important statistic is in football on defense? It isn't points allowed. It isn't yards per play. turnovers mean more, but fumbles are random events - on defense and offense.

[Mephistopheles]

A +1 system will inevitably lead to a team that clearly isn't on the same level as the #1 ranked team winning the national title. Then everyone will whine that this team even had a chance and how the regular season means nothing. Then we'll get to a tournament and college football won't be as popular anymore.

 

Only four spots for 120 teams. Honestly, 90% of the time the #1 ranked team is not the best team in football. However, most of the time the best team in football is ranked in the top 4.

[SpongeWorthy]

A +1 system will inevitably lead to a team that clearly isn't on the same level as the #1 ranked team winning the national title. Then everyone will whine that this team even had a chance and how the regular season means nothing. Then we'll get to a tournament and college football won't be as popular anymore.

 

Only four spots for 120 teams. Honestly, 90% of the time the #1 ranked team is not the best team in football. However, most of the time the best team in football is ranked in the top 4.

 

Your math is fuzzy--USC is ranked #1 more than 10 percent of the time.

[TruffleShuffle]

The Cardinal (5-4, 4-2 Pac-10) overwhelmed the overmatched Cougars (1-8, 0-6) in front of only a few thousand fans who braved the elements in a driving rain storm. The victory was the biggest for Stanford since a 63-0 victory over Idaho in 1949 and first shutout in conference play since beating Oregon 17-0 in 1974.

 

The Cougars were shut out for the second straight game after going 280 straight contests scoring at least once. That streak ended two weeks ago in a 69-0 loss to Southern California and Washington State has now been outscored 172-0 since late in the first half against Oregon State on Oct. 11.

 

The Cougars set a single-season record for most points allowed in Pac-10 play at 350, surpassing the 1981 Oregon State team that gave up 330 points in conference action.

 

Washington State has been outscored 350-33 in six conference games, giving up at least 58 points in five of them.

 

 

:lol:

[SpongeWorthy]

What a deep ball by Harrell.

[OleMissCub]

well the games before Ole Miss? 30-6 over Tennessee, their worse loss of the season, 26-3 over Miami, their worse loss of the season, 56-10 over Hawaii, their worse loss of the season. Again, a missed PAT against Ole Miss doesn't make them any worse. If Florida hits that PAT, they're probably #1 in the country and we're not having this conversation. That's the only PAT they've missed all season.

 

But they didn't make the PAT. They missed it. And because of that they lost a game to a team that isn't very good. You play to win the game. Losing the game is a bad thing, no matter how it happened.

 

And as was addressed, the fact that they were in the position to play to OT against Ole Miss is embarrassing enough already.

 

Look, if anyone on this board likes to attack Ole Miss football, it's me. They've made me sick my entire life, but Ole Miss isn't bad this year. They beat Florida at Florida and came real damn close to beating Alabama at Alabama. Two of their losses came not because they were outplayed by the other team, but because they played like a bunch of howryheads. Against Vandy, Ole Miss had 385 yards to Vandy's 202 yards, but because the dumbasses had six turnovers and 82 yards worth of penalties, they lost. Pretty much the same story in their 31-24 loss against South Carolina. They had two absurd redzone fumbles within the 10 yard line and another fumble that was picked up and returned like 50 yards for a touchdown.

 

Of course I realize that teams often lose in a fashion like that and I'm not really whining about it, but I'm just trying to point out that Ole Miss is better than their 5-4 record suggests.

 

It's not like Florida got beat by Mississippi State or something.

[Butterscup1679666578]

35 points in one quarter. Wat.

[B]

It's probably safe to say that Pat Hill hates coming to Ruston.

[TruffleShuffle]

It's probably safe to say that Pat Hill hates coming to Ruston.

 

can't say i blame him

[B]

Texas Tech has dominated this game so far.

[SpongeWorthy]

LOL, UW "returns" a kickoff to the 2 yard line.

 

The catch was not muffed in anyway.

[RedFlash]

Of course I realize that teams often lose in a fashion like that and I'm not really whining about it, but I'm just trying to point out that Ole Miss is better than their 5-4 record suggests.

 

It's not like Florida got beat by Mississippi State or something.

 

You got a believer in this Bama fan. Ole Miss by all rights should be closer to 8-2, or 7-3 at worst. If Snead can developed into a consistant passer, you guys would have won. Not to mention I love Ole Miss's RBs, McCluster, and Davis, I can't think of the third one, but he is a good one, also.

[B]

It's probably safe to say that Pat Hill hates coming to Ruston.

 

can't say i blame him

Yeah, there's not much to do there. He loses there alot too.

[TruffleShuffle]

Of course I realize that teams often lose in a fashion like that and I'm not really whining about it, but I'm just trying to point out that Ole Miss is better than their 5-4 record suggests.

 

It's not like Florida got beat by Mississippi State or something.

 

You got a believer in this Bama fan. Ole Miss by all rights should be closer to 8-2, or 7-3 at worst. If Snead can developed into a consistant passer, you guys would have won. Not to mention I love Ole Miss's RBs, McCluster, and Davis, I can't think of the third one, but he is a good one, also.

 

if you're playing the "could have" game then you also have to count the florida game as one that they easily could have lost.

[SpongeWorthy]

That punt is the best play Texas has made all night.

[Mephistopheles]

for comparison: final BCS rankings for top teams by sagarin predictor the bcs years and rankings for title games

 

1998:

Title Game: #2 Tennessee vs #3 Florida State

#1: Ohio State (BCS: #4)

 

1999:

Title Game: #1 Florida State vs #3 Virginia Tech

#1: Florida State (BCS #1)

 

2000:

Title Game: #2 Florida State vs #1 Oklahoma

#1: Florida State (BCS #2)

 

2001:

Title Game: #1 Miami vs #4 Nebraska

#1: Miami (BCS #1)

 

-----

Margin of Victory Removed from BCS Computers

-----

 

2002:

Title Game: #8 Ohio State vs #4 Miami

#1: Kansas State (BCS #8)

 

2003:

Title Game: #1 Oklahoma vs #2 LSU

#1: Oklahoma (BCS #1)

 

2004:

Title Game: #1 USC vs #7 Oklahoma

#1: USC (BCS #1)

 

2005:

Title Game: #2 USC vs #1 Texas

#1: Texas (BCS #2)

 

2006:

Title Game: #2 Ohio State vs #4 Florida

#1: USC (BCS #5)

 

2007:

Title Game: #4 LSU vs #10 Ohio State

#1: West Virginia (BCS #9)

 

2008:

Title Game: #4 Texas vs #7 Alabama

#1: USC (BCS #5)

[Andy]

This one is tough to get over.

 

I really don't like college overtime. I never have. Too often, the game, like today's, ends up being "whose field goal kicker can make more". That said, OC Mike Haywood should be ashamed of himself for taking the ball out of all of our 3 best players' (Clausen, Floyd, Tate in that order) hands and setting Walker up for failure. He's a suspect kicker, and counting on him to beat Pitt was a stupid, stupid idea. I don't like NFL overtime either, but there has to be a better way. The more I think about it, just alternating regular possessions instead of starting from the 25 seems sensible.

 

Jimmy did not look good today. Only 23/44.

 

I'm going to bring this up of my own accord - ND's last win over a team that finished with a winning record was Penn State, 2006. Charlie Weis has proven - with one exception, MSU 2005 - that if he has the better football team in a game, he will win. He has not by any means proven he can beat a team that's on ND's level or above. I guess his job is to keep bringing in top-rated classes so that as many teams as possible are below our level. We should probably win the next three - BC isn't good, Navy doesn't have much of a defense and Syracuse is awful.

 

Golden Tate's mid-air diving double-tipped catch in the 2nd quarter was one of the most unbelievable things I have ever seen.

 

And in alma mater news, Ball State will be moving up another spot as FSU went down to GT.

[Mephistopheles]

A +1 system will inevitably lead to a team that clearly isn't on the same level as the #1 ranked team winning the national title. Then everyone will whine that this team even had a chance and how the regular season means nothing. Then we'll get to a tournament and college football won't be as popular anymore.

 

Only four spots for 120 teams. Honestly, 90% of the time the #1 ranked team is not the best team in football. However, most of the time the best team in football is ranked in the top 4.

 

Your math is fuzzy--USC is ranked #1 more than 10 percent of the time.

 

i meant at the end of the season BCS. i was just throwing the number out there. upon further review it's about 60 percent of the time since the BCS was neutered.