College Football - Week 4 (Sept. 25th)

[Warpticon]

Wow Iowa kinda plummeted. Not cool

 

Honestly, I think they're too high. Consider that there are four one loss teams in the top 25. Miami was semi-competitive with Ohio State on the road; Oregon State lost to #4 TCU: Penn State got wrecked by #1 Alabama. What justification is there for ranking Iowa above Miami? It's really hard to justify a 1 loss team being in the top 20 this early, actually.

[Warpticon]

Auburn was really disappointing in the first half against Clemson...they won't be able to forget to show up in the first half against South Carolina and still win. South Carolina has an excellent running defense, but I don't see how you can really defend against Cam Newton's scrambling ability. This game will matchup probably the best two true freshman running backs in the nation in Marcus Lattimore and Mike Dyer....should be a fun game to watch.

 

There sure are a lot of huge, raw, big-armed QB prospects playing college football right now. Pryor, Newton, Foles, Johnson, Kapaernick...

 

Regarding Arkansas's chances against Alabama, I don't think it's as bad as the naysayers call it. Alabama is the more solid, deeper team, but I see it as about a 6-4 matchup in favor of Bama...maybe 5.5-4.5 due to Arkansas's home field advantage.

[hawkeyecub]

It's really hard to justify a 1 loss team being in the top 20 this early, actually.

 

Nonsense and I'm talking in general, not just Iowa. A top 10 team that schedules a tough road, non-conference game against another ranked team shouldn't be banished from the top 20 automatically while others get to hang around because they scheduled cupcakes.

 

What reason is there for anyone to schedule anything but guarantees if you're going to punish teams that much for challenging themselves?

[Guest]

It's really hard to justify a 1 loss team being in the top 20 this early, actually.

 

Nonsense and I'm talking in general, not just Iowa. A top 10 team that schedules a tough road, non-conference game against another ranked team shouldn't be banished from the top 20 automatically while others get to hang around because they scheduled cupcakes.

 

What reason is there for anyone to schedule anything but guarantees if you're going to punish teams that much for challenging themselves?

 

Because it's about the sum of your schedule. Right now a team with a loss doesn't really deserve to be in the Top 25, there's only been 3 games in the season. If Iowa or Florida State or Penn State or whoever keep winning, the sum of their schedule will have them right where they belong by using the same principles.

[UMFan83]

Bowling Green's starting QB will likely miss the game against Michigan with a shoulder injury. Shouldn't be a huge test for Michigan's defense, but that perhaps makes their meeting with Indiana all the more intriguing. Indiana's offense vs. Michigan's defense could be pretty telling about the rest of the season for both teams.

 

We shoulda beaten Michigan last year. IU keeps talking about how they need to run the ball. I say, run be damned. Throw the ball every play if you need to. Got four freaking 6'3+ WRs.

 

We intercepted that ball fair and square. :)

[Andy]

Andy, thanks for not putting the Ole Miss game in "games of interest" like you normally do, because I have no interest anymore. I'm not exactly sure what rock bottom is, but losing to a I-AA team for the first time in school history and losing AT HOME (anywhere for that matter) to Vandy is pretty damn close. Although the last time we lost to Vandy at home we ended up going to and winning the Cotton Bowl....but this time won't even win 3 more games in my opinion.

I caught the error earlier when putting together the schedule for the week after this one but it didn't click that it meant they weren't in this week's schedule.

 

This doesn't look like a particularly interesting crop of games either, really, apart from Bama/Arkansas. But then last week had some good games when it looked underwhelming on paper.

[Tracer Bullet]

It's really hard to justify a 1 loss team being in the top 20 this early, actually.

 

Nonsense and I'm talking in general, not just Iowa. A top 10 team that schedules a tough road, non-conference game against another ranked team shouldn't be banished from the top 20 automatically while others get to hang around because they scheduled cupcakes.

 

What reason is there for anyone to schedule anything but guarantees if you're going to punish teams that much for challenging themselves?

 

Because it's about the sum of your schedule. Right now a team with a loss doesn't really deserve to be in the Top 25, there's only been 3 games in the season. If Iowa or Florida State or Penn State or whoever keep winning, the sum of their schedule will have them right where they belong by using the same principles.

 

BS. You don't kick out every team that loses for teams with no losses, no matter how high the 1-loss team was ranked and no matter who it lost to. That makes absolutely no sense. Rankings are not just a matter of wins and losses.

[Guest]

It's really hard to justify a 1 loss team being in the top 20 this early, actually.

 

Nonsense and I'm talking in general, not just Iowa. A top 10 team that schedules a tough road, non-conference game against another ranked team shouldn't be banished from the top 20 automatically while others get to hang around because they scheduled cupcakes.

 

What reason is there for anyone to schedule anything but guarantees if you're going to punish teams that much for challenging themselves?

 

Because it's about the sum of your schedule. Right now a team with a loss doesn't really deserve to be in the Top 25, there's only been 3 games in the season. If Iowa or Florida State or Penn State or whoever keep winning, the sum of their schedule will have them right where they belong by using the same principles.

 

BS. You don't kick out every team that loses for teams with no losses, no matter how high the 1-loss team was ranked and no matter who it lost to. That makes absolutely no sense. Rankings are not just a matter of wins and losses.

 

In a 3 game season they are primarily a function of wins and losses.

[Guest]

It's really hard to justify a 1 loss team being in the top 20 this early, actually.

 

Nonsense and I'm talking in general, not just Iowa. A top 10 team that schedules a tough road, non-conference game against another ranked team shouldn't be banished from the top 20 automatically while others get to hang around because they scheduled cupcakes.

 

What reason is there for anyone to schedule anything but guarantees if you're going to punish teams that much for challenging themselves?

 

Because it's about the sum of your schedule. Right now a team with a loss doesn't really deserve to be in the Top 25, there's only been 3 games in the season. If Iowa or Florida State or Penn State or whoever keep winning, the sum of their schedule will have them right where they belong by using the same principles.

 

BS. You don't kick out every team that loses for teams with no losses, no matter how high the 1-loss team was ranked and no matter who it lost to. That makes absolutely no sense. Rankings are not just a matter of wins and losses.

 

In a 3 game season they are primarily a function of wins and losses.

I'd actually argue the opposite. In a long season, they are primarily a function of wins and losses because the record tells you (most) everything you need to know in that case. However, in a short season when there is not yet enough track record developed, the rankings should be much more subject to perception.

[hawkeyecub]

Yeah sorry I can't get on board with that.

 

Imagine the debates Meph and TT would have about early season rankings.

[Tracer Bullet]

It's really hard to justify a 1 loss team being in the top 20 this early, actually.

 

Nonsense and I'm talking in general, not just Iowa. A top 10 team that schedules a tough road, non-conference game against another ranked team shouldn't be banished from the top 20 automatically while others get to hang around because they scheduled cupcakes.

 

What reason is there for anyone to schedule anything but guarantees if you're going to punish teams that much for challenging themselves?

 

Because it's about the sum of your schedule. Right now a team with a loss doesn't really deserve to be in the Top 25, there's only been 3 games in the season. If Iowa or Florida State or Penn State or whoever keep winning, the sum of their schedule will have them right where they belong by using the same principles.

 

BS. You don't kick out every team that loses for teams with no losses, no matter how high the 1-loss team was ranked and no matter who it lost to. That makes absolutely no sense. Rankings are not just a matter of wins and losses.

 

In a 3 game season they are primarily a function of wins and losses.

 

that's just not true. some voters think W/L controls, some clearly do not.

[Guest]

Yeah sorry I can't get on board with that.

 

Imagine the debates Meph and TT would have about early season rankings.

 

The alternative is exposing yourself even more to the biases that everyone spends the whole season complaining about.

 

"This 2-1 team is better than this 3-0 team"

 

"Why"

 

"The team they lost to is really good, better than anyone the other team played"

 

"Why"

 

"Because that's what we thought before any of the games were played"

[Tracer Bullet]

Yeah sorry I can't get on board with that.

 

Imagine the debates Meph and TT would have about early season rankings.

 

The alternative is exposing yourself even more to the biases that everyone spends the whole season complaining about.

 

"This 2-1 team is better than this 3-0 team"

 

"Why"

 

"The team they lost to is really good, better than anyone the other team played"

 

"Why"

 

"Because that's what we thought before any of the games were played"

 

trying to do rankings now is pretty difficult. but it's not like the information we have coming into the season is completely worthless (though it's obviously flawed). Going strictly by W/L record isn't an answer that makes a great deal of sense though.

[Guest]

Yeah sorry I can't get on board with that.

 

Imagine the debates Meph and TT would have about early season rankings.

 

The alternative is exposing yourself even more to the biases that everyone spends the whole season complaining about.

 

"This 2-1 team is better than this 3-0 team"

 

"Why"

 

"The team they lost to is really good, better than anyone the other team played"

 

"Why"

 

"Because that's what we thought before any of the games were played"

So you'd rank an undefeated FCS team higher than either Iowa or Miami at this point? Would you really expect those teams to win those matchups on a neutral field?

[Warpticon]

Still trying to figure out where the notion of never ranking a 1 loss team higher early under any circumstances came from.

[Guest]

So you'd rank an undefeated FCS team higher than either Iowa or Miami at this point? Would you really expect those teams to win those matchups on a neutral field?

 

I didn't say that. Like was mentioned earlier, there's nearly 30 undefeated teams that have a win over a BCS school. None of those are FCS schools, and roughly 20 of them are BCS conference schools.

[Guest]

Still trying to figure out where the notion of never ranking a 1 loss team higher early under any circumstances came from.

There's a ranking theory that attempts to eliminate as much bias from the system as possible by ignoring any pre-season information and going purely off results for the current season. In theory, this system will give you a truer picture by the end of the season on who has really had the best years without being influenced by things like, "OMG - it's Florida, dude!"

 

While I like the information it will provide downstream, I think it's pretty worthless at this point of the year.

[dew1679666265]

Haven't seen much SEC football yet this year: Does Arkansas have a chance?

 

If Arkansas can turn the game into a shootout, I think they have a chance. They've got some really nice weapons and I don't like McElroy that much. Arkansas can move the ball down the field and has a shot to outmatch Alabama down the field if they can turn it into a shootout.

 

However, with how good Alabama's defense and running game are, I don't see a shootout as being likely. I think Bama will win, but it shouldn't be a blowout.

[fiver]

I think Bama will win, but it shouldn't be a blowout.

 

Vegas agrees...the early lines are anywhere from Bama -6 to Bama -7.5.

[fiver]

Miami is favored by 3 points at Pitt

Stanford is a 4.5 favorite at Notre Dame

Texas is a 15 point favorite at home vs. UCLA

Auburn is a 2.5 favorite at home vs. South Carolina

LSU is favored by 8.5 at home vs. West Virginia

Oregon is an 11.5 favorite at Arizona State

[NonProfitCow]

Thinking about going down to watch the Arkansas and Alabama game, but I don't really care for Arkansas and hate Alabama. Don't get many chances to watch two top 10 teams around here, even if it's just week 4.

[fiver]

NCAA PASSING EFFICIENCY

Individual leaders

 

Rank Player, team Rating

1. Greg McElroy, Alabama 200.03

2. Dan Persa, Northwestern 192.63

3. Andrew Luck, Stanford 192.31

4. Cameron Newton, Auburn 187.66

5. Ryan Mallett, Arkansas 186.50

[rawaction]

NCAA PASSING EFFICIENCY

Individual leaders

 

Rank Player, team Rating

1. Greg McElroy, Alabama 200.03

2. Dan Persa, Northwestern 192.63

3. Andrew Luck, Stanford 192.31

4. Cameron Newton, Auburn 187.66

5. Ryan Mallett, Arkansas 186.50

 

Andrew Luck and Nick Foles are going to make a couple NFL teams extremely happy this time next year or this time in 2012. I'm in love with them as prospects.

[hawkeyecub]

NCAA PASSING EFFICIENCY

Individual leaders

 

Rank Player, team Rating

1. Greg McElroy, Alabama 200.03

2. Dan Persa, Northwestern 192.63

3. Andrew Luck, Stanford 192.31

4. Cameron Newton, Auburn 187.66

5. Ryan Mallett, Arkansas 186.50

 

Andrew Luck and Nick Foles are going to make a couple NFL teams extremely happy this time next year or this time in 2012. I'm in love with them as prospects.

 

Foles was really impressive last week. He had a couple of big throws that he had to squeeze in on the money and it seemed like he did it every time.

[Jon]

Persa was pretty out of sync with his receivers in the first half Saturday night and threw 7 incompletions (the nerve), but he had just 1 in the 2nd half. They're also not just short passes. He's averaging over 10 yards a passing attempt.

 

And the closest he came to being picked off was a huge 3rd and long completion on a perfect throw over a defender.