College Football - Week 12 (Nov. 17)

[Guest]

Bama has only played 2 really good teams (1-1)

I'm gonna stop you right there

 

I missed this earlier and the whole thing is even better.

 

Bama has only played 2 really good teams (1-1) and they were both close games (Miss St doesn't seem like a good team - that's a really empty 8 wins). ND has played at least 3 good teams and won them all with varying degrees of success.

 

I'm assuming your third team for Notre Dame is Michigan. So if that's the case, why are we not counting Michigan as a good win for Bama? Especially when:

 

-Bama won at a neutral side, Notre Dame won at home

-Bama won by 27 (and seeing as they were up 31-7 at half, it probably could have been worse), while Notre Dame only won by 7

 

And I love the add-in of "at least three good teams" for Notre Dame. Who's the fourth? The rest of the schedule is 7-4 Navy (you want to talk about empty wins, look no further), 5-6 Purdue, 5-6 Michigan State, 6-5 Miami, 6-5 BYU, 4-6 Pittsburgh, 2-9 BC, 5-6 Wake Forest.

 

I'd even throw Michigan into the same vein as Mississippi State. They both lost to the only good teams they played and haven't beaten a ranked team.

[shnsajax]

So who came first last night, Andy or Mariner?

[Guest]

I also think that something that is not being talked about much is how the new 4 team playoff would be really a mess if it was implanted this season. I hope the powers to be take notice.

 

There's still some shuffling to be done. Right now, there is one undefeated team and seven one-loss teams (I'm excluding the Big East and the non-BCS conferences). Alabama and Georgia play each other as do Florida and Florida State. So for sure, we're going to be down to six undefeated or one-loss teams. Two other one-loss teams (Oregon and Clemson) both have tough games that they very easily could lose. So it's conceivable that we end up with only four undefeated or one-loss teams.

[Tracer Bullet]

Bama has only played 2 really good teams (1-1)

I'm gonna stop you right there

 

I missed this earlier and the whole thing is even better.

 

Bama has only played 2 really good teams (1-1) and they were both close games (Miss St doesn't seem like a good team - that's a really empty 8 wins). ND has played at least 3 good teams and won them all with varying degrees of success.

 

I'm assuming your third team for Notre Dame is Michigan. So if that's the case, why are we not counting Michigan as a good win for Bama? Especially when:

 

-Bama won at a neutral side, Notre Dame won at home

-Bama won by 27 (and seeing as they were up 31-7 at half, it probably could have been worse), while Notre Dame only won by 7

 

And I love the add-in of "at least three good teams" for Notre Dame. Who's the fourth? The rest of the schedule is 7-4 Navy (you want to talk about empty wins, look no further), 5-6 Purdue, 5-6 Michigan State, 6-5 Miami, 6-5 BYU, 4-6 Pittsburgh, 2-9 BC, 5-6 Wake Forest.

 

I'd even throw Michigan into the same vein as Mississippi State. They both lost to the only good teams they played and haven't beaten a ranked team.

 

That was a mistake on my part. I think UM is better than Miss St, however. Miss St has no good wins. UM at least has NW. Miss St hasn't beaten even a decent team, that I can see.

 

As I said before, Stanford and Oklahoma match up well, SOS-wise, with Bama's top opponents (LSU and TA&M).

[Guest]

Can't believe Georgia is ahead of Oregon.

 

Don't think FSU and Clemson should be ranked as high as they should.

[Exile on Waveland]

It was probably a "misguided idea" to believe Alabama would crush LSU in last year's title game. And yet . . .

Not really. Alabama was basically a better version of that LSU team, and Les Miles is by all accounts a terrible coach.

 

So your argument is that because last year Alabama was a consensus favorite, a blowout wasn't surprising; yet, because this year Alabama would be a consensus favorite, a blowout would be surprising?

 

You can make all the rationalizations you want, but it wouldn't be terribly surprising if, at this time next year, we were saying "Alabama was playing a team that barely beat a crappy Pitt team at home."

Edited November 18, 2012 by Exile on Waveland

[Exile on Waveland]

It was probably a "misguided idea" to believe Alabama would crush LSU in last year's title game. And yet . . .

Crush? Maybe. But I think the general consensus - or at least it seemed to me - was that Bama was the better team in the first matchup, so them winning was hardly surprising.

 

By that logic, it was silly to think Kansas State would beat a 4-5 Baylor team that can't play defense.

 

I'm not sure why you think your second paragraph supports your argument and not mine. In a sport where blowouts sometimes happen for seemingly no reason, one would think a blowout would be, at least, on the table when: (1) the computers like one team better; (2) the eye test supports that same team; (3) the same team crushed a common opponent on a neutral field while the other team barely beat the common opponent at home; etc.

 

For the record, if Alabama plays Notre Dame, I don't expect a "crushing" because I think Notre Dame's defense is too good for that. I think Alabama by ten-ish points would be likely though.

[Andy]

It was probably a "misguided idea" to believe Alabama would crush LSU in last year's title game. And yet . . .

Crush? Maybe. But I think the general consensus - or at least it seemed to me - was that Bama was the better team in the first matchup, so them winning was hardly surprising.

 

By that logic, it was silly to think Kansas State would beat a 4-5 Baylor team that can't play defense.

 

I'm not sure why you think your second paragraph supports your argument and not mine. In a sport where blowouts sometimes happen for seemingly no reason, one would think a blowout would be, at least, on the table when: (1) the computers like one team better; (2) the eye test supports that same team; (3) the same team crushed a common opponent on a neutral field while the other team barely beat the common opponent at home; etc.

 

For the record, if Alabama plays Notre Dame, I don't expect a "crushing" because I think Notre Dame's defense is too good for that. I think Alabama by ten-ish points would be likely though.

You act as if I say there is no possible set of circumstances under which Alabama would destroy Notre Dame in a football game. That isn't what I said. I said it shouldn't be expected or assumed that they would, which several people seem to be doing.

[Exile on Waveland]

It was probably a "misguided idea" to believe Alabama would crush LSU in last year's title game. And yet . . .

Crush? Maybe. But I think the general consensus - or at least it seemed to me - was that Bama was the better team in the first matchup, so them winning was hardly surprising.

 

By that logic, it was silly to think Kansas State would beat a 4-5 Baylor team that can't play defense.

 

I'm not sure why you think your second paragraph supports your argument and not mine. In a sport where blowouts sometimes happen for seemingly no reason, one would think a blowout would be, at least, on the table when: (1) the computers like one team better; (2) the eye test supports that same team; (3) the same team crushed a common opponent on a neutral field while the other team barely beat the common opponent at home; etc.

 

For the record, if Alabama plays Notre Dame, I don't expect a "crushing" because I think Notre Dame's defense is too good for that. I think Alabama by ten-ish points would be likely though.

You act as if I say there is no possible set of circumstances under which Alabama would destroy Notre Dame in a football game. That isn't what I said. I said it shouldn't be expected or assumed that they would, which several people seem to be doing.

 

Fair; agree on that, it shouldn't be expected. Alabama isn't some juggernaut -- hey, I won a good deal of money betting that they wouldn't finish undefeated -- and Notre Dame's defense is excellent. But I think Alabama is definitely superior, so I just don't think it's unreasonable for someone to take the information we have now and think Alabama would win big.

[Smack]

Wow, Minnesota player meltdown.

 

http://ajbarker82.tumblr.com/

[minnesotacubsfan]

Meh, clearly a nobody

[Smack]

Meh, clearly a nobody

 

Dime a dozen?

[minnesotacubsfan]

Had at least 5 at Northern Illinois

[Smack]

Had at least 5 at Northern Illinois

 

I didn't realize he coached Bart Scott, that had to be fun.

[Flames24Rulz]

Kind of surprising. Everybody at SIU loved him. Bart Scott has credited his whole career to Jerry Kill.

 

I think this guy might be exaggerating a bit, at least, I hope that's the case.

[Guest]

Sponge, it sounds like Monte is going to "retire" when the season ends.

[dew1679666265]

So there's apparently a rumor floating around locally from a guy who doesn't report on things without pretty solid sources that Bob Stoops has expressed interest in Tennessee through "back channels."

 

I can't believe that would be true, but if it is, wow . . .

[Andy]

So there's apparently a rumor floating around locally from a guy who doesn't report on things without pretty solid sources that Bob Stoops has expressed interest in Tennessee through "back channels."

 

I can't believe that would be true, but if it is, wow . . .

Speaking as someone who was in that spot three years ago, I can tell you there is pretty much no shot. Stoops and/or his agent seem to love inserting his name into any high-profile college football job opening, then staying at Oklahoma.

[dew1679666265]

Speaking as someone who was in that spot three years ago, I can tell you there is pretty much no shot. Stoops and/or his agent seem to love inserting his name into any high-profile college football job opening, then staying at Oklahoma.

 

That's kind of what I was figuring, but it's really nice to think about. The guy who reported it generally doesn't report rumors unless he's got a reliable source from inside the athletic department telling him, though.

[TruffleShuffle]

isn't bob stoops always rumored for every high-profile job that opens up, mostly because everyone wants him to coach their team? i can't imagine why he'd leave oklahoma, where he gets all kinds of recruits and can pretty much name his salary, for a program that he has no connection to and has been thoroughly mediocre for the past 5 years.

[CubInOK]

isn't bob stoops always rumored for every high-profile job that opens up, mostly because everyone wants him to coach their team? i can't imagine why he'd leave oklahoma, where he gets all kinds of recruits and can pretty much name his salary, for a program that he has no connection to and has been thoroughly mediocre for the past 5 years.

OU fans are used to this.

[dew1679666265]

isn't bob stoops always rumored for every high-profile job that opens up, mostly because everyone wants him to coach their team? i can't imagine why he'd leave oklahoma, where he gets all kinds of recruits and can pretty much name his salary, for a program that he has no connection to and has been thoroughly mediocre for the past 5 years.

 

All good points and exactly the reasons why I can't imagine this is true. Honestly, the guy who's reporting it is the only reason I give it any credence at all.

[Guest]

isn't bob stoops always rumored for every high-profile job that opens up, mostly because everyone wants him to coach their team? i can't imagine why he'd leave oklahoma, where he gets all kinds of recruits and can pretty much name his salary, for a program that he has no connection to and has been thoroughly mediocre for the past 5 years.

 

I'm guessing Stoops is looking for a pay raise from Oklahoma.