Warpticon

It really is hilarious. There's no real logical connector between any of these players besides mostly being white. How in the world are John Mabry (.205/.283/.324), Garrett Atkins (.329/.409/.556) and Nick Johnson (290/428/520) on the same list for anything? What do they possibly have in common? Hell, how is Mabry on a list for an award? When I look again, I am struck by the magnitude of Mabry's sucking. Does that deserve an award? Murton was pretty under-the-radar, actually productive, and is every bit as white, if not whiter (hey, he's a redhead). Who came up with this crap?

Put me down in favor of either Wolf, Padilla, or Batista for something 3 years or less (2 for Batista, as he's considerably older) at around 4-5 mil per.

Bonderman is younger than Z, but Z was much much better at the same age. Bonderman might not be much more than a slightly better version of Jon Garland. No way would I trade Lee for just that. Sure, if he never improves again ever. Also...Lee?

Honestly, I've been quite impressed with the Razorbacks. I do think your looking at a couple more losses (UT and LSU) though I think the LSU game is very winnable and you could pull it out over us if McFadden and Jones run wild. Really though, this season is why I thought the great desire to fire Houston Nutt was kind of odd. He's a great coach who had some problems after Auburn and LSU picked things up. I don't think there's any reason to fire Nutt, especially after this year. Nor I. I said, looking at the schedule, the advancement of all the young players from last year, and all, that the Razorbacks should win, at least 8 games this season, and 10 if things go smoothly. They've thus far exceeded my upper end expecations, as they'll likely go into Tennessee 8-1. the big issue with the Nutt-haters is basically that he took over a program in limbo, and after two losing seasons, they were still basically in limbo. There have also been a lot of people questioning his play calling and conservatism offensively. For the most part, though, he seems to get a lot out of lesser talent, and you'll never hear *him* say his talent is lesser, but the recruiting base for Arkansas leaves it usually in the upper botttom half of the SEC schools. I think the only thing that might shut those people up is if they can climb to the top and hang around, eventually bringing in some top out-of-state recruits and play the role of perennial powerhouse. With their youth and their current performance, they're in position to open next season ranked, possibly as high as top 10. That'd be new.

Random Arkansas babbling, ignore if you choose. Basically just externalizing my thought process. This is probably the most talented overall Arkansas team I've seen since the SWC days when they put Wayne Martin, Steve Atwater and Barry Foster into the NFL over the course of a couple of years. Over the last decade or so, they've been solid and competitive, but haven't had that upper end talent to push them to championship caliber. Even when they won the West back when Stoerner, Lucas, and Cobbs ran the offense, they haven't produced a lot of NFL talent. Shawn Andrews, Matt Jones, and Ahmad "Batman" Carroll are the only first rounders in the Nutt era. I suspect that will be changing soon. The Hogs are a very young team. Most of their major contributors are freshmen to juniors, and only 19 seniors look to be departing after this season. Of the current batch, without predicting anything for the freshmen, I feel like there are 8 to 10 NFL players on the squad: RB Darren McFadden, So. RB Felix Jones, So. OT Tony Ugoh, Sr. WR Marcus Monk, Jr. CB Chris Houston, Jr. DE Jamaal Anderson, Jr. DT Keith Jackson Jr., Sr. (haha) LB Sam Olajubutu, Sr. * FB Peyton Hillis, Sr. McFadden and Jones are two of the most explosive and dangerous backs in all of college football. I don't see any way McFadden stays past his junior year if he stays healthy. Jones would probably stay for one season as The Man , even though FR Michael Smith will be getting big-time carries by that time, most likely. Ugoh's stock has been steadily climbing this season, and has been the best lineman the Hogs have had in years. Monk is a giant, lanky receiver with good hands who can snag just about anything. he suffers a little for playing in a lesser passing offense (especially last year when the pass offense was horrible most of the season), so he has to avoid the periods of drops like he had against USC. He's got an NFL body, and a rep for great hands developed over the next two years could propel him into the late first/early 2nd rounds despite his lack of blazing speed. Anderson is a converted wide reciever (which I find hilarious, really) who is now a 6-6, 280 pound defensive end. Has an NFL body, plays smart, and moves well. Not a huge play disruptor type, but a very dependable type of player with an NFL build who will almost certainly play at the next level. Jackson (yes, the tight end's son) has gotten tremendously better over his Arkansas career. Arkansas hasn't produced a lot of dominant linemen lately, but they do manage to create a number of solid, dependable types. KJ is one of those. Short, round, and effective. Not a high pick, but will probably advance and play. Olajubutu may be the best LB in the SEC, but at 5'9, 225, probably can't play a regular LB in the NFL. He'll probably get picked up in a late round or as a free agent and become a stud special teamer. Hillis is a wildcard. He was the featured guy in his freshman year until he broke his leg. Since then, he's been surpassed by McFadden and Jones as the primary backfield residents, and he's had a hard time finding a role in the team now, which is a shame, because he's an excellent receiver out of the backfield (led the team in catches last year). He caught five balls against Ole Miss, so hopefully he's finding his role. He's got the skills. You can now return to your regularly scheduled actual football discussion.

If Alabama did the same exact thing as the Razorbacks have do you think they'd be #14? No way would they IMO. It's like all the press watched the USC game and wrote them off until they win their 9th or 10th game. Alabama went 10-2 last season. There was a lot more certainty about th e level of play Alabama would put up than there was for an Arkansas team that went 4-7 last year with no wins over meaningful opponents.. They went 4-7 with a lot of high quality, extremely young talent and a lot of coaching turnover, and were really competitive against a lot of good teams (3 point loss to Georgia, 2 point loss to LSU, 3 point loss to SC), but they still didn't beat anybody last season. I don't blame anybody for being skeptical at the jump. Think of it this way. Auburn was 3 weeks ago. Arkansas was unranked at that point. They've moved up to 13/14 since then. I can't really see it as disrespect at this point. I think they should be ahead of LSU, but besides that, I think they're right around where they should be.

Arkansas has won its last 3 by a 120-20, and that will just get worse this year before they go into their final stretch against SC, Tennessee, MSU and LSU.

You could put West Virgina in there too. My guess is they will be playing for the national championship after Michigan loses to OSU and ND beats USC. I'm sure all the ND fans will be crying about it too even though Michigan destroyed them. Regardless, no one touches OSU this year. USC is going to lose to Cal and maybe ND. If OSU loses it will be to Michigan. I certainly wouldnt put that in the win column for OSU yet. I agree that West Virginia is going to end up in the title game. I also think it is going to be well deserved even with all the SEC crying foul. WV still has undefeated Louisville and Rutgers left and the backyard brawl with Pitt. It isn't an easy schedule left to play by any means and that goes for Louisville too. Also, South Florida for some strange reason has Louisville's number so that may be a very tough game for them as well. We could end up with the three undefeateds in the BE knocking each other off. That would be something. WV is a running team and if they fall behind a team with a good offense it could be interesting. I think Louisville will pull it out because of their balance offensively and their defense but you're right, they might just knock each other out. Which of WVU and Louisville do you think Rutgers has the best chance against?

He's also one of, if not THE best shortstop not in the HOF. I've always wondered what was keeping him out, considering the era he played in. Trammell and Whitaker were a beastly double play combo.

You could put West Virgina in there too. My guess is they will be playing for the national championship after Michigan loses to OSU and ND beats USC. I'm sure all the ND fans will be crying about it too even though Michigan destroyed them. Regardless, no one touches OSU this year. USC is going to lose to Cal and maybe ND. If OSU loses it will be to Michigan. I certainly wouldnt put that in the win column for OSU yet. I agree that West Virginia is going to end up in the title game. I also think it is going to be well deserved even with all the SEC crying foul. WV still has undefeated Louisville and Rutgers left and the backyard brawl with Pitt. It isn't an easy schedule left to play by any means and that goes for Louisville too. Also, South Florida for some strange reason has Louisville's number so that may be a very tough game for them as well. We could end up with the three undefeateds in the BE knocking each other off. That would be something.

The Sportsline 119 poll is just weird and confusing. I can't make heads or tails of it. http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/polls/119 For example, how is Arkansas #20 when they apparently are #4 in strength of schedule?

Overrated != bad

I thought they were 25 in the coaches last week? Anyway, the more I look at it, the more I figure UGA probably is a little more deserving than Oregon, though neither should be a top 25. Just nobody that's actually deserving left. Ah, missed that. And yeah, basically it's a matter of the least of many evils. there's a real clusterphysicalintimacy down there in the 20-30 range.

Louisvile really needs to lose, they don't deserve that seed IMO. congrats to clemson for cracking the top 10 finally. Unfortunately since they play no one from here on out, they won't get a chance to move up and will probably fall to #13-#15 by the end of the year At least all the teams ahead of them are competitive. I'd say the SC game could be a big one, but their schedule is murder the next three games, so they may be a non-factor by that point. And If Clemson can just tread water through season's end, somebody ahead of them wil slide. Tennessee still has to play SC, Arkansas, and LSU. Auburn has Georgia and Alabama. If Clemson takes care of business, they could run up one or two spots before bowl season.

It's nice to see Arkansas finally move past two-loss LSU in one poll. Wonder how long LSU will be allowed to skate on their two quality losses dew, UGA isn't "still in" the polls. They fell out after the Vandy loss, and got back in. I'd take Georgia over should've-been-3-loss Oregon right now. I think Mizzou, A&M, and Wisconsin should all be ranked higher--certainly ahead of the two-loss teams directly in front of them. I'd also take Oregon out and put in Wake.

Well let's see. Air Force lost by one to Tennessee at Tennessee so you're right, Navy must be a bad team. as is Tennessee then. Since Tennessee is a bad team how are they in the top 10? I'm just using your criteria Truffle. No, you're not. Geez, how hard is it? He named ALL of Navy's wins to show that none were particularly impressive; you named one close game for Tennessee and said they were a bad team. Ridiculous. He's calling Navy a bad team while they beat Air Force at Air Force while Tennessee wins at home by one. Not only that but in the last seconds. What makes Tennessee so much better? I don't know, maybe the other seven games?

The new polls are interesting. AP: 1 Ohio State 2 Michigan 3 Southern California 4 West Virginia 5 Texas 6 Louisville 7 Auburn 8 Tennessee 9 Florida 10 Clemson 11 Notre Dame 12 California 13 Arkansas 14 LSU 15 Boise State 16 Rutgers 17 Wisconsin 18 Boston College 19 Oklahoma 20 Nebraska 21 Georgia Tech 22 Texas A&M 23 Missouri 24 Wake Forest 25 Oregon Coaches/USA Today: 1. Ohio State (63) 8-0 1,575 2. USC 6-0 1,469 3. Michigan 8-0 1,454 4. West Virginia 7-0 1,394 5. Texas 7-1 1,308 6. Louisville 7-0 1,205 7. Auburn 7-1 1,178 8. Florida 6-1 1,051 9. Tennessee 6-1 1,046 10. Notre Dame 6-1 1,019 11. Clemson 7-1 962 12. California 7-1 923 13. LSU 6-2 923 14. Arkansas 6-1 700 15. Boise State 8-0 667 16. Rutgers 7-0 557 17. Boston College 6-1 530 18. Wisconsin 7-1 525 19. Oklahoma 5-2 450 20. Nebraska 6-2 328 21. Georgia Tech 5-2 264 22. Texas A&M 7-1 263 23. Missouri 7-1 229 24. Oregon 5-2 228 25. Georgia 6-2 163

Well let's see. Air Force lost by one to Tennessee at Tennessee so you're right, Navy must be a bad team. as is Tennessee then. Since Tennessee is a bad team how are they in the top 10? I'm just using your criteria Truffle. No, you're not. Geez, how hard is it? He named ALL of Navy's wins to show that none were particularly impressive; you named one close game for Tennessee and said they were a bad team. Ridiculous.

No. No.

Can I just throw out that Georgia and Ole Miss are F***** dog**** teams and would struggle to win the MAC? And I can't help but mention that warpticon trumped these claims by saying the Big 12 was in the running as the best conference, when it seems to clearly be in the running as the worst of the BCSers. PAC 10 Big 10 SEC Big East Big 12 ACC I said Big 10, not Big 12. If I did say Big 12 at any time, it was an accident. Georgia is not a dog-bleep teem. They're not as good as they started off, but saying they'd struggle in the MAC is just being ridiculous.

I'd have Clemson 9, Florida 10, and Cal 11. Otherwise, same.

There's simply no way this is true. There are 3 downright bad teams out of only 8. I skipped over that. I'd wager that if a league were constructed of the bottom 3 in the SEC (Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State) and the bottom 3 in the Big East (Cinci, Syracuse, UConn), the SEC teams would win 6 out of 10 games. The Big East is a very top-heavy conference. They really have no mid tier, and the bottom tier is as bad as any bottom tier, and takes up too big a percentage of the total teams to be considered top. The only conferences I could see getting serious consideration are the Big 10 (too weak at the bottom) and the Pac-10 (I have no problem with the claim that they're better because their mid-tier is extremely strong and deep).

And that's why I awnt to see 4-5 undefeated teams survive. The more absurd scenarios, the more outcries, and the more likely reform becomes.

I didn't say Vanderbilt was a world beater, just that they were competitive. Yes, there's a part of the idiotic system that affords credit based on presumption. That's what creates scenarios like #2 undefeated Auburn a few years ago. I'ts not really fair, but that's part of the package. And really, what top level conference doesn't play scrubs? The Big East teams play weak nonconference teams, too. The SEC teams largely blow out their scrubs, while the Big East lower tier teams flirt with losses. Not that that means all that much, but it doesn't really validate your cliam of superiority. Football is football, and a win's a win. But 10 point wins over Akron, Miami (OH), or Wyoming aren't really any better than blowout victories over Temple or Tulane.

Auburn #2? They lost a game. I was being sarcastic. The SEC is so good they might as well just have the top 2 teams play for he National Championship. it's not that good, but it's the best conference in college football. it's hard to argue otherwise. Why? Cuse, Auburn does not have a national championship team...I can vouch for that...but there are about 5 other SEC teams that are just as good as Auburn. They may not have the best team in the nation, but they are deeper than other conferences. I understand that they don't have strong extra-conference schedules this season. Let's revisit this in late December and early January. They also have 12 teams in their conference. If Louisville, WV and Rutgers were undefeated playing the exact same schedules but they played in the SEC they would be in the top 5. IMO, too many people give them (SEC) way too much of the benefit of doubt or credit and since they play the D2 schools they pump up their stats. If I have to hear how good Auburns D is after playing the Blind Nuns of St. Marys and the like I'm going to be sick, I mean really, who's D wouldn't look good after playing teams like that? I don't deny they are a talented conference and I think Arkansas is the best team in it, thus proving to me that the "proven" SEC teams get all the votes from the good ole boys. I guess it just bugs when when people just hand the SEC this award and the reward for doing what they do without proving it. Add to that the bottom 4 completely stink. We'll see in the bowls as you said and I look forward to it. Nah, the bottom 3 completely stink. Vandy is competitive. They just have a pretty brutal schedule. Speaking of which, so does SC. Their last 5 games are Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Tenn St., and Clemson. Ouch. If they pull off 2-3 in that batch, I'll be impressed.