Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, November 01, 2012

OT: November College Football Thread.

Alabama Is still Ranked #1.  Will they hold steady to repeat? Make it to the title game?  Or does another team claim the Crystal ball in Miami in January.

odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 01:43 PM | 3408 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: college football

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 13 of 35 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›
   1201. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:29 AM (#4309494)
Michigan and Michigan State played two very good teams OOC (ND for each, plus Bama and Boise). Of course, they went 1-3, and played zero very good teams during the conference portion of the schedule.


The Big-10, like the SEC, had 4 OOC games each. From a cursory glance it looks like they made a little more effort to play some tougher games out of conference.
   1202. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:39 AM (#4309503)
Nebraska: UCLA (loss)
Michigan: Alabama, Notre Dame (2 losses)
Northwestern: Vanderbilt, Syracuse?
Michigan State: Notre Dame (loss), Boise State. Boise state did not beat anyone good this year except possibly BYU (7-6), and might not be that good right now.
Ohio State: (none)
Penn State (none)
Wisconsin: Oregon State (loss), Utah State
Purdue: Notre Dame (loss)

It's really not much better than the SEC. What happened is that Notre Dame decided not to suck bad this year, and they seem to be a de facto Big-10 member.

Edit: Notre Dame only played those 3 Big-10 teams, but they also played 2 from the Pac-12 and 3 from the ACC.
   1203. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:58 AM (#4309511)
Didn't Notre Dame traditionally always play the same 3 Big 10 teams?

In the old days they would always play Michigan, Michigan ST, Purdue, USC, Stanford, Pitt, Navy, Penn State and one other service academy. That gets you to 9 games leaving 2 to 3 games for other opponents which usually went to a Florida and or Texas team and BYU or Boston College.
   1204. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:06 AM (#4309515)
mccoy you are correct. however the um game was played much less often because nd tried to join the conference and mich led the effort to deny them
   1205. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:09 AM (#4309516)
Well, they did not play Penn State, but they had the other 8 you mentioned. (although 4 of those schools you mentioned are Big-10 now, if they weren't always).

They also had Boston College, BYU, and Miami. Apparently not much has changed.

The last team they had this year was Wake Forest.

Edit: I see Penn State joined in 1990.
   1206. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:14 AM (#4309518)
Well, they did not play Penn State, but they had the other 8 you mentioned.

Notre Dame and Penn St entered into an agreement to play each other each year from 1981 to 1994. That arrangement ended because Penn State joined the Big Ten and so the agreement was cut short after the 1992 season though ND wanted to continue the rivalry.
   1207. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:20 AM (#4309521)
Pretty much it seems like each team has one decent OOC rival to play, and teams occasionally (but seldom) schedule a second tough OOC opponent. There's not much difference between conferences in this regard.

Now there are some teams (*couch* Mississippi State *cough*) that have a rivalry with an in-conference team and make no effort to schedule a decent OOC team. I think you can make a case that these teams deserve our scorn.
   1208. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:32 AM (#4309524)
That reminds me. I kept hearing from people like Musburger how Notre Dame scheduled especially tough opponents this year. But as has been pointed out, these seem to be their traditional opponents. Now, these are decent but not spectacularly difficult opponents (Sagarin has their schedule as 30th most difficult. Of other top 10 teams, Stanford, Oklahoma, and Florida have significantly harder schedules, but no one else does). However, it doesn't seem to be the case that Notre Dame did anything differently by scheduling them: they just happen to be pretty good this year.

There is no particular reason to give Notre Dame credit for that beyond the fact that going undefeated is always impressive, no matter who you play.

Edit: no top 10s have significantly EASIER schedules except Georgia and Alabama! But that should change after they play each other, so maybe it will even out a bit).
(Ohio State too, but I didn't count them)
   1209. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:40 AM (#4309529)
ND generally picked the same good teams to match up against and it isn't like they got lucky this year that those teams were good.

In the 80's when I was growing up the teams they played were virtually set in stone every single year and a bunch them were really good teams. Most of those teams they still play to this day and most of those teams are still pretty good. Having said that Oklahoma and Wake Forest are not traditional opponents for ND and they haven't played BYU since 2005 and I believe they haven't played Miami in a non bowl game since 1990.
   1210. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:53 AM (#4309536)
scheduling I-A is not easy. I used to be knee deep in stuff like this, and while the proliferation of games vs FCS opponents is mostly a post 1999 thing, enhanced by the addition of a 12th reg season game a few years later, it has always been tough to assemble a OOC schedule. On one hand you have programs that are all about 7 home games. Mostly because a home game is 3-5 million bucks in revenue for the home team (big time BCS teams) and there's an increasing incentive to schedule like this, as bowl games become a expectation, and no better way to get to 6 wins than by bringing in directional U to your stadium for a beating.

Just glancing at some old Nebraska OOC schedules from the 80s (Iowa, Auburn, Florida State, Penn State in 1981 OOC) those days are so over. Nebraska would definitely play a dog #### I-A team in most seasons, but I don't think they went *FCS until 2005 when most others followed suit thanks to the 12 game schedule (sans USC, UCLA and ND).

don't forget a number of these 'power schools' were Independent as late as the mid 90s.

edit: I think Nebraska played Middle Tenn St. in '92 cuz somebody backed out, I can't remember who, wasn't a power program, I think colo st, which came back in '96.
   1211. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:54 AM (#4309537)
Oh right. What they did this year versus what they "traditionally" did (according to what you wrote above) is replace a service academy with Oklahoma and/or Wake Forest (I realize all teams schedule a game or two more now). Since the service academies are generally not too good, that is a significant upgrade.

In the end though, it has only put them on a par (or still perhaps just slightly below) with teams from the (currently) "good" conferences: Big-12, Pac-12, SEC. Replace Oklahoma with Army and the schedule would be relatively easy.

Edit: I deleted Oklahoma the first time somehow
   1212. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 03:04 AM (#4309541)
However, it doesn't seem to be the case that Notre Dame did anything differently by scheduling them: they just happen to be pretty good this year.


They don't normally play a team the caliber of Oklahoma in addition to their normal slate of games. They should get some credit for that, particularly because it was on the road.

EDIT: Cokes, but I just finished mine.

no top 10s have significantly EASIER schedules except Georgia and Alabama!


Agreed, but, and I'm going to sound like an SEC fanboy for this, ugh, Georgia and Alabama's regular opponents happen to be pretty bad this year. Criticize their out of conference schedule all you want (it deserves it), but it's a down year, to say the least, for Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri. It's not their fault those teams which are usually at least respectable all stink. 4 of them fired their coach and a fifth canned a coordinator in-season. Twelve months ago those schedules looked a lot better than they do now.
   1213. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 03:11 AM (#4309545)
edit: I think Nebraska played Middle Tenn St. in '92 cuz somebody backed out, I can't remember who, wasn't a power program, I think colo st, which came back in '96.

I was going to say that I thought Nebraska played some none Division 1-A team in the 90's but couldn't remember which year and against whom.

I seem to recall in the 80's and at least in the early 90's quite a few Division 1-A teams would play a game against a none Div 1-A. I'm not saying they would do it every year and it would happen 112 times a year but I seem to recall about a dozen or so mid tier Div 1-A teams playing out of division teams each year. Plus wasn't it more common to happen for the bottom rung teams back then as well?
   1214. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 26, 2012 at 08:20 AM (#4309579)
Can college football finally stop sucking on the teat of the SEC?


Yeah, Notre Dame is back now.




The real legitimate complaint is that the SEC only schedules 8 games in conference. That really should be changed to 9, like the other decent conferences, unless they schedule a few more tough OOC opponents. Perhaps then we could have seem a more fully tested Georgia and Alabama before this SEC championship.


This, the SEC needs to move to 9 conference games. Unfortunately they put it off for another season. And guess what! Alabama gets to miss the current "big 3" again in the SEC East. But if you move to 9 conference games you hopefully lose that FCS game.

I like the way Alabama schedules besides the FCS opponent. Big marquee game early in the year-though 2013's big marquee opponent fell apart this season-part of the issue of scheduling games sometimes, 2 non-BCS teams, I just wish they replaced that FCS game with a lower-type BCS team (like when they played Duke)....

And as someone else said-major BCS teams want 7 home games, making it harder to schedule non-conference games.
   1215. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 26, 2012 at 08:22 AM (#4309580)
Agreed, but, and I'm going to sound like an SEC fanboy for this, ugh, Georgia and Alabama's regular opponents happen to be pretty bad this year. Criticize their out of conference schedule all you want (it deserves it), but it's a down year, to say the least, for Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri. It's not their fault those teams which are usually at least respectable all stink. 4 of them fired their coach and a fifth canned a coordinator in-season. Twelve months ago those schedules looked a lot better than they do now.


This-Arkansas was a top 10 team supposedly. Tennessee, Auburn, and Missouri were all suppose to be bowl caliber teams. In Missouri's case I think injuries took a toll on there season (QB, OL). Auburn just quit. Tennessee-no defense.
   1216. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 26, 2012 at 09:57 AM (#4309595)
Agreed, but, and I'm going to sound like an SEC fanboy for this, ugh, Georgia and Alabama's regular opponents happen to be pretty bad this year. Criticize their out of conference schedule all you want (it deserves it), but it's a down year, to say the least, for Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri. It's not their fault those teams which are usually at least respectable all stink. 4 of them fired their coach and a fifth canned a coordinator in-season. Twelve months ago those schedules looked a lot better than they do now.

They don't deserve blame for their schedule turning out much easier than expected, that's not on them. However, they also don't deserve credit for playing a tough schedule, b/c they didn't.
   1217. hokieneer Posted: November 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM (#4309611)
I like the way Alabama schedules besides the FCS opponent. Big marquee game early in the year-though 2013's big marquee opponent fell apart this season-part of the issue of scheduling games sometimes,


Hmmm, I thought Bama-WVU was in 2014.

   1218. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4309626)
Also sam i hope we play georiga so its a blow out amd finally shut you up.


1. The MNC will be similar to 2006, with ND playing the part of OSU.
2. You, #######, are not going to play in any of the games. Your use of the universal "we" is pathetic.
   1219. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4309636)
Edit: no top 10s have significantly EASIER schedules except Georgia and Alabama! But that should change after they play each other, so maybe it will even out a bit).


Part of the reason the SEC schedules weaker OOC opponents is because to get through the SEC Championship game with just one win is nigh friggin' impossible.

(UGA & Alabama) don't deserve blame for their schedule turning out much easier than expected, that's not on them. However, they also don't deserve credit for playing a tough schedule, b/c they didn't.


When did Mizzou's QB and O-line go down? Before or after the UGA game? If they played against the good QB, does the SOS arguments account for the fact that the Mizzou team to start the year was better by degrees than the Mizzou team is now?
   1220. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4309648)
Hmmm, I thought Bama-WVU was in 2014.


Well that is another one. We got Virginia Tech in 2013 though.
   1221. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4309668)
It sucks that Missouri is the only D-I team hurt by injuries.
   1222. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4309671)

1. The MNC will be similar to 2006, with ND playing the part of OSU.


Better hope it's not OSU in 2002.
   1223. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4309674)
It sucks that Missouri is the only D-I team hurt by injuries.


Is this an attempted swing at me? Because if so, it's really fantastically stupid.
   1224. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4309681)
After the SEC championship is taken into account, Georgia and Alabama will probably have schedules just as difficult as Notre Dame and Oregon.

Complaining about the SEC getting a representative this year is pretty silly. The 1 loss team with the hardest schedule is clearly Florida. By the time Alabama beats Georgia in the SEC championship game, their schedule difficulty might not be too far behind Oregon and Kansas State.

   1225. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4309687)
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/60340/big-12s-depth-will-go-unnoticed-again

Argue the "best" all you want. The deepest is not up for debate. The SEC has six teams in the top 12 of the polls? Congratulations. The rest of the SEC's record against those six teams: 0-30. Not a single win by the bottom eight teams in the SEC against the top six.


   1226. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4309688)
Sam I will continue to use WE when referring to ND, I have a family connection to that program and school. Whats pathetic is the way you are trying to argue that ND doesnt deserve to be there
   1227. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4309689)
West Virginia is not a good football team. They'd be not good in virtually any real conference. They might look good in WAC or Mountain West or something like that.
   1228. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4309690)
Sam I will continue to use WE when referring to ND, I have a family connection to that program and school.


Yeah, I'd have never guessed you were in the tank. Regardless, you have never played a single day for any Notre Dame athletic program. It's just pathetic wishcasting on your part to use the universal "we."

Whats pathetic is the way you are trying to argue that ND doesnt deserve to be there


I've merely stated the pretty obvious fact that ND isn't nearly as good as nutter fan-boys like you think they are.
   1229. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4309693)
Argue the "best" all you want. The deepest is not up for debate.


Is anyone really arguing SEC depth this year? This entire article is a case of straw-manning.
   1230. hokieneer Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4309696)
Well that is another one. We got Virginia Tech in 2013 though.


Michigan, then VT, then WVU... that's a bad turn of fortunes of the marquee OOC for Bama.


   1231. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4309697)
Yeah, I'd have never guessed you were in the tank. Regardless, you have never played a single day for any Notre Dame athletic program. It's just pathetic wishcasting on your part to use the universal "we."

This seems like a pretty stupid and petty argument to have.
   1232. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4309698)
Argue the "best" all you want. The deepest is not up for debate. The SEC has six teams in the top 12 of the polls? Congratulations. The rest of the SEC's record against those six teams: 0-30. Not a single win by the bottom eight teams in the SEC against the top six.


It looks to me like the computer rating systems have the 2 conferences at a virtual tie this year for overall "best", which I assume is a measure of average conference strength.

What does "Deepest" even mean? Most well balanced, top to bottom? That is not the same as overall best. To most people, "best" is some measure of AVERAGE conference strength, with actually some small amount of bonus points for being top heavy (after all, what people are looking for are great teams, not a bunch of slightly above average ones).

In other words, most well balanced, without being best on average, is really nothing to brag about.

Both the Big-12 and the SEC are excellent conferences this year, just balanced slightly differently.
   1233. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4309703)
Yeah, I'd have never guessed you were in the tank. Regardless, you have never played a single day for any Notre Dame athletic program. It's just pathetic wishcasting on your part to use the universal "we."

Your right I never did play for them, but when did I claim that I did?
   1234. hokieneer Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:36 PM (#4309705)
West Virginia is not a good football team. They'd be not good in virtually any real conference. They might look good in WAC or Mountain West or something like that.


FWIW: Sargin has WVU ranked 31st (42 predictor, 21 ELO_CHESS) which would put them in the top half of the SEC, ACC, B10, BE, and on down the list of "lesser" conference. Yet they are precisely the 8/10 in the B12.

Not a great team by any stretch, but not a bad team either.
   1235. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4309708)
Just got up. Lane Kiffin fired yet?
   1236. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4309710)
Listening to you guys talk I was under the impression that the SEC played an inordinate number of FCS teams. According to Colley's website, they have played 15 FCS opponents while the Big-12 has played 9. Of course, the SEC has 14 members and the Big-12 has 10. Except for whichever SEC team(s) is playing two FCS opponents, what exactly is the point that is being made here?

Edit: the SEC team that played two was Texas A&M, and one of the two was Sam Houston State, which is actually decent.
2nd Edit: and the Big-12 team that played none was Texas. Texas A&M and Texas ended up with schedules very similar in strength.
   1237. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4309714)
Your right I never did play for them, but when did I claim that I did?


That's what "we" means, son.
   1238. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:51 PM (#4309717)
Edit: the SEC team that played two was Texas A&M, and one of the two was Sam Houston State, which is actually decent.


Huh. I was just giving the ND fan-boys benefit of the doubt and assuming Buffalo was a FCS school, but turns out, nope.
   1239. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4309720)
Sam, it means I'm with or aligned with the university, not playing for it, son
   1240. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4309722)
Of course I forgot that Texas's schedule is about to get a lot tougher. Nevertheless, A&M's schedule is ranked at least as hard as Notre Dame's, and by most rankings is ranked harder.
   1241. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4309723)
Sam, it means I'm with or aligned with the university, not playing for it, son


It means you align your identity with an entity that you have no relationship with, because you prefer to live vicariously through the accomplishments of others.
   1242. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4309725)
I think Joe is rubbing off on Sam.
   1243. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4309726)
For the record, the reason UGA scheduled Georgia Southern (their one FCS opponent) was because they run Paul Johnson's triple option offense and Richt is still smarting from the beat down his team took the first year they played against that unprepared.
   1244. SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4309727)
Huh. I was just giving the ND fan-boys benefit of the doubt and assuming Buffalo was a FCS school, but turns out, nope.


You can't turn Georgia's schedule into something more than it was. They played two very good teams. They got hammered by one of them. When Vandy's your second-best win, you haven't exactly run any gauntlet. Georgia's schedule, to date, is not comparable to Notre Dame's. It simply isn't, even if you apply that SEC math to make yourself feel better.

When UGA gets waxed by Bama, its 2012 slate will be more impressive, but the Dawgs themselves will be less so.

   1245. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4309728)
Sam, I do have a relationship with ND thats what you dont seem to understand here.
   1246. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4309731)
Using "we" for a team that you root for but otherwise have no actual connection to (alma mater, played for, worked for) is lame, but it's not worth fighting about.
   1247. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4309736)
You can't turn Georgia's schedule into something more than it was.


I'm not trying to. I haven't argued much about UGA's schedule. I've mostly argued that ND's schedule wasn't nearly as tough as the fan-boys make it out to be. I don't see a lot of difference between beating Pitt and beating UK.
   1248. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4309738)
I do have a relationship with ND


I assume they touched you inappropriately.

Using "we" for a team that you root for but otherwise have no actual connection to (alma mater, played for, worked for) is lame, but it's not worth fighting about.


Dude; internet. If we reserved the fights for things worth fighting about we'd all be doing work right now.
   1249. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4309740)
1248. Rickey is oversampling the Poles Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4309738)

I do have a relationship with ND



I assume they touched you inappropriately.


Not quite, though now we know what you hate ND the priests wouldnt touch as a kid and now your jealous eh
   1250. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4309741)
West Virginia is not a good football team. They'd be not good in virtually any real conference. They might look good in WAC or Mountain West or something like that.

WV is two points away from being 8-3 in the Big 12. They would probably have a better record in every other conference, maybe not the PAC-12, since they would do just fine against patsies. They get their first joke game since conference play started this week.

31 sounds right, and maybe that's not good, but I think they could have easily been better this year.
   1251. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4309742)
Not quite, though now we know what you hate ND the priests wouldnt touch as a kid and now your jealous eh


If I really hated Notre Dame I'd suggest that you were a graduate and that this was their level of academic turnout.
   1252. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4309743)
SEC fanboys making cornpone arguments against 12-0 teams from outside the South.

Plus ca change ...

Oh, and by the way, the playoff isn't going to change any of this, it's only going to worsen it -- look at the "Number 3" and "Number 4" teams in the polls. Utterly predictable.
   1253. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4309744)
Sagarin's ratings for Georgia and Notre Dame opponents, by rank


004 Florida
010 South Carolina
029 Vanderbilt
033 Ole Miss
043 Missouri
054 Tennessee
063 Georgia Tech
084 Auburn
092 Kentucky
099 Georgia South
127 Florida Atl
135 Buffalo


008 Stanford
009 Oklahoma
016 USC
020 Michigan
037 BYU
039 Michigan State
052 Miami
062 Purdue
066 Pittsburgh
073 Navy
113 Wake Forest
121 Boston College


   1254. SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4309747)

I'm not trying to. I haven't argued much about UGA's schedule. I've mostly argued that ND's schedule wasn't nearly as tough as the fan-boys make it out to be. I don't see a lot of difference between beating Pitt and beating UK.


It's a good schedule, better than several good SEC teams (Bama and Ga.), worse than others (Fla., LSU and A&M). The most commendable thing about the Irish schedule is that it generally doesn't include any true patsies or blatant money grab games - FCS schools or bottom-rung mid-majors - with the exception of Army when the Golden Knights are on ND's schedule). And, more important, ND went through that good schedule unbeaten, which is something none of the others did.

The ND fanboys (of which there's only one here) haven't made nearly as many preposterous statements in this thread as you have.
   1255. bunyon Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4309748)
For the record, Wake Forest ended up on Notre Dame's schedule because, in no particular order:

a) Wake had a couple of good years around a time when Notre Dame did not.
b) Wake gained a president who had spent his career at Notre Dame, moving up the academic ranks.
c) Wake looked to the future and thought it would need a landmark OOC opponent but, preferably, one that wasn't strong.
d) ND thought it needed to dial down the level a bit without it looking like they were.

Match made in heaven. It's worked out well for one of them.
   1256. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4309749)
Drop Alabama down on the top of that list, and they look very similar.
   1257. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4309751)
Oh, and by the way, the playoff isn't going to change any of this, it's only going to worsen it -- look at the "Number 3" and "Number 4" teams in the polls. Utterly predictable.


Georgia will lose to Alabama and drop out of the 4 team picture. It would then be Notre Dame vs Oregon and Alabama vs Florida. If not for tattoos Ohio State would be in there somewhere after they beat Nebraska.
   1258. SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4309753)
Drop Alabama down on the top of that list, and they look very similar.


And still not as good as Florida's, I'd imagine.

Of course, after you drop Alabama on the top of that list, you're looking at a 2-loss Georgia team and no one will care all that much about the strength of their schedule. There's nothing that improves a schedule's strength quicker than losing.
   1259. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4309766)
So, for all of the crap about "only school not to play a FCS opponent," Georgia Southern actually outranks four of the FBS schools on the UGA/ND schedules.

Of course, after you drop Alabama on the top of that list, you're looking at a 2-loss Georgia team and no one will care all that much about the strength of their schedule.


No one has suggested that Alabama isn't a well earned favorite in the SEC championship.
   1260. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4309775)
WV is two points away from being 8-3 in the Big 12. They would probably have a better record in every other conference, maybe not the PAC-12, since they would do just fine against patsies. They get their first joke game since conference play started this week.

31 sounds right, and maybe that's not good, but I think they could have easily been better this year.


They also only beat Maryland who was playing a true freshman at QB by 10 points while allowing MD to score 21 points, beat Texas by a FG in a game in which Texas missed a FG and had WVU turn around and score a TD after the missed FG in the 4th quarter, and beat Iowa St by a TD, a TD they got to take the lead in the 4th Q with 6 minutes to play.

One could also argue that WVU was a bounce or two away from going 3-8 or we could simply leave them at their record and say the bounces evened out.
   1261. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4309779)
So, for all of the crap about "only school not to play a FCS opponent," Georgia Southern actually outranks four of the FBS schools on the UGA/ND schedules.


Of course, it depends on who is doing the rankings. Sagarin's "pure points" rating actually has Georgia South as 86th. On the other hand, Peter Wolfe, the only other of the BCS poll rankings that publishes FCS rankings as well, has Georgia South at 125th, one spot below Boston College.

I think it's safe to say Georgia South is not very good, but they are as good as the other worst teams on most schedules, and should not be singled out.
   1262. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4309780)
Frankly, I love that the major privates (Stanford, NW, Rice, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame) play each other a lot, and I'm not going to criticize them for it. Its one of the good things in recent college football.


   1263. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4309787)
They also only beat Maryland who was playing a true freshman at QB by 10 points while allowing MD to score 21 points, beat Texas by a FG in a game in which Texas missed a FG and had WVU turn around and score a TD after the missed FG in the 4th quarter, and beat Iowa St by a TD, a TD they got to take the lead in the 4th Q with 6 minutes to play.

They were in control of the Maryland game the whole way, but yeah, that wasn't a great performance. They were A LOT of bounces away from losing that game.

They were up ten and Texas scored a TD with ~10-20 seconds left. Texas never had the ball with an opportunity to tie it at the end. And WV also missed a field goal.

The Iowa St. game was a seven point victory that ended with WV controlling the ball. They way outgained Iowa St. and the only reason it was close is because the team had 107 penalty yards, including a two personal foul calls that set up their last score. It was close, but a lot would have had to go right for Iowa St. at the end of the game for them to win.

One could also argue that WVU was a bounce or two away from going 3-8 or we could simply leave them at their record and say the bounces evened out.

Well, not honestly. Two points /= 10. Maryland was never a game they were in danger of losing. Their wins over Iowa St and Texas were far more convincing that their losses to Oklahoma (OU goes up 1 with 20 seconds left by converting on fourth down) and TCU (2 OT by one point).

WV is who their records says they are. They are a sloppy team with a shitty defense. But they are clearly capable of playing with the best teams in the deepest conference in the country and the bounces it would take for them to be 8-3 are a lot less in number than it would for them to be 3-8 (or 4-7 if you wanted to make a reasonable point). And they would be competitive in every conference in the country.
   1264. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4309788)
Of the 6 computer polls, Sagarin's is not particularly favorable to the SEC:

Georgia/Notre Dame schedule rank by poll

Sagarin: 42/30
And&Hest;: 34/30
Billingsley (does not say, but unlike Sagarin, has SEC as toughest conference)
Colley: 51/15
MAssey: 31/17
Wolfe: (also does not say, but has SEC as significantly best conference)
   1265. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 26, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4309790)
I guess I thought Tennessee and West Virginia were more similar, perhaps they were not...but I wonder what their records would be if they switched schedules...
   1266. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4309793)
As I mentioned earlier Georgia Southern beat Elon by a FG at home and were able to preserve the lead when Elon fumbled the ball at GSU's 12 yard line with a 1:38 left on the clock. Elon went 3-8 this year. They also needed triple OT to overcome 6-5 Chattanooga. GSU lost 3 games this year. One was against Georgia and the other two were against the two other teams that finished with the same record as them in their conference. They couldn't the two best teams in their conference, had trouble with some of the mediocre to bad teams in their conference, and beat up on the bad teams in their conference. That isn't a ringing endorsement of their quality level.
   1267. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4309796)
and Notre Dame beat Pittsbugh after a missed 35 yard field goal. Touche.
   1268. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4309800)
They were in control of the Maryland game the whole way, but yeah, that wasn't a great performance. They were A LOT of bounces away from losing that game.

They were up ten and Texas scored a TD with ~10-20 seconds left. Texas never had the ball with an opportunity to tie it at the end. And WV also missed a field goal.


This issue isn't what could have happened at the very end but that the game was a bounce or two away in the 4th quarter from turning a tossup instead of a win for WVU.

Well, not honestly. Two points /= 10. Maryland was never a game they were in danger of losing. Their wins over Iowa St and Texas were far more convincing that their losses to Oklahoma (OU goes up 1 with 20 seconds left by converting on fourth down) and TCU (2 OT by one point).


You're ignoring why the MD was never in danger of being lost. Part of that reason is because of the QB situation in MD and their wins against Iowa ST and Texas may have been more convincing than their close losses but that doesn't change the fact that WVU could have easily lost both those games and possibly the MD game had things happened just a little bit differently.

Which is the point. WVU is not a very good team that leaves no doubt. They are a team in which a bounce here or there can swing a game one way or the other and it appears you understand that so I'm not really sure what the issue is here. A mediocre team with lots of luck all season long fluking into a 8-3 record doesn't make them a good team this year.

   1269. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4309802)
Pitt lost to Youngstown State by more than they lost to Notre Dame. We can play this game all day.
   1270. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4309803)
and Notre Dame beat Pittsbugh after a missed 35 yard field goal. Touche.

I'm not sure what the touche actually addresses. Pitt is probably a better team than GSU.
   1271. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4309815)
Yes, but by your logic, Notre Dame cannot possibly be good, if they needed luck to win a game against an inferior opponent. The reason they have computer rankings is to make unbiased assessments, not cherry pick the specific facts you like to prove your point.
   1272. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4309847)
Yes, but by your logic, Notre Dame cannot possibly be good, if they needed luck to win a game against an inferior opponent.


UGA cake walked over GSU. ND needed the morning doves of the Lord to away from Pitt (at home) alive.
   1273. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 26, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4309872)
UGA cake walked over GSU. ND needed the morning doves of the Lord to away from Pitt (at home) alive.

Well, Pitt was only in that situation because the morning doves of the Lord caused ND to have second and goal from the half yard line and come away with zero points due to a fumble. I think that's statistically more unlikely than missing a thirty-something yard field goal at the college level.

Anyway, the Irish out-gained Pitt by 214 yards and had 20 more first downs (margins greater than the Georgia vs. Georgia Southern matchup, btw). Pitt enjoyed the lion's share of the luck that afternoon.
   1274. Lassus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4309882)
Anyway, the Irish out-gained Pitt by 214 yards and had 20 more first downs (margins greater than the Georgia vs. Georgia Southern matchup, btw).

This is the weird thing about Sam's argument. Are you going to go with pitcher wins next, Sam?
   1275. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4309904)
This is the weird thing about Sam's argument. Are you going to go with pitcher wins next, Sam?


No, but I sure as #### will take real results over run differential.
   1276. cmd600 Posted: November 26, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4309906)
After reading through the weekend's post, I find it still hilarious that the most adamant argument that ND is coming from a Georgia fan. I'll agree that ND has had some iffy performances that make you question them being #1 overall, but, besides Alabama, I'm not sure who you would put them behind that you can't make the same argument against as well. ND is just like that 2002 Ohio State team that had a rock solid defense, and could get way too conservative on offense because they know that they only need 20 points to win. It's not a beauty contest.
   1277. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4309907)
Yes, but by your logic, Notre Dame cannot possibly be good, if they needed luck to win a game against an inferior opponent. The reason they have computer rankings is to make unbiased assessments, not cherry pick the specific facts you like to prove your point.

So you cherry pick the computer rankings and tell me what I'm thinking? That's the better way?
   1278. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4309911)
After reading through the weekend's post, I find it still hilarious that the most adamant argument that ND is coming from a Georgia fan. I'll agree that ND has had some iffy performances that make you question them being #1 overall, but, besides Alabama, I'm not sure who you would put them behind that you can't make the same argument against as well. ND is just like that 2002 Ohio State team that had a rock solid defense, and could get way too conservative on offense because they know that they only need 20 points to win. It's not a beauty contest.

This has been pretty much my point from the beginning. ND won all of their games, beat several tough teams that could have been playing for the national championship if it wasn't for ND, and are in the same boat as all the other "best teams" in the NCAA when it comes to schedule and such. Just because they don't have a flashy offense doesn't mean they can't hang with the other "best teams" as ND as proven numerous times this season.

Heck, the Bears in 2006 had an average to slightly below mediocre offense but went all the way to the Super Bowl because of their defense and special teams.
   1279. SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4309917)

Heck, the Bears in 2006 had an average to slightly below mediocre offense but went all the way to the Super Bowl because of their defense and special teams.


And their conference was super crappy. That helped considerably.

   1280. AuntBea Posted: November 26, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4309920)
So you cherry pick the computer rankings and tell me what I'm thinking? That's the better way?


I never cherry-picked the rankings. Not once. I gave you all the relevant info from them, leaving out nothing. Feel free to disagree with them, but if all you can do is say that they are wrong because of some cherry-picked bullshit, your response is worthless.

By the way, I think both Georgia and Notre Dame are fairly weak. I think Oregon, Stanford, Alabama, Florida, and possibly Kansas State would all be better, and you can probably throw in some other SEC, Pac-12, and Big-12 teams as well. That was not the point of my posts.

The way the college system is currently set up, the teams that have a shot at the title right now are the ones that most deserve it. Notre Dame is undefeated, and either Georgia/Alabama will win their excellent conference, which is something that Oregon failed to do. The only potential limited gripe I can see is that Kansas State might also win their excellent conference with one loss. To that I can only say that at least Georgia's blow out loss was to a top 10 team.
   1281. Kurt Posted: November 26, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4309923)
No, but I sure as #### will take real results over run differential.

Really? You haven't carped on the "run differential" in the ND/Pitt game about twenty times do far in this thread?
   1282. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4309942)
And their conference was super crappy. That helped considerably.

Well, every division in the NFC that year was "super crappy". Division winners besides the Bears were 10-6 and 9-7 and the only non-division winning team in the NFC with a winning record was the Cowboys at 9-7.
   1283. SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4309950)
Well, every division in the NFC that year was "super crappy".


Hence, the "conference was super crappy."
   1284. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4309962)
After reading through the weekend's post, I find it still hilarious that the most adamant argument that ND is coming from a Georgia fan.


What's hilarious is that I'm not a Georgia fan. I'm the opposite of that, in fact.

Notre Dame isn't the 2006 Bears. They're the 2010 Falcons.
   1285. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4309964)
Really? You haven't carped on the "run differential" in the ND/Pitt game about twenty times do far in this thread?


Not really. Is English your second language or something?
   1286. cmd600 Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4309967)

What's hilarious is that I'm not a Georgia fan. I'm the opposite of that, in fact.


That is pretty rich. Fine, I'll change it to blind non-Alabama SEC homer. Every single non-Alabama SEC team has either a weak schedule or a few results that you look ugly.

And you certainly make a cogent argument defending your second point.

Pretty much the best argument for ND belonging in the title game is that, as of today, if they weren't in it, Georgia would be the next team taken.
   1287. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4309970)
That is pretty rich.


This is me. Look closely.
   1288. cmd600 Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4309982)
1287 - Well that's nice. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing how that trumps any of the nonsense you've spewed over the past few pages.

Beating Mizzou in Columbia is as impressive as beating Stanford in South Bend
can only be taken a couple ways, and they're all pretty similar.
   1289. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4309992)
1. How bad was Mizzou at the start of the year? Had they lost their starting QB yet?
2. Home field advantage is real, especially in college sports.
3. Travelling west to east exacerbates home field advantage in South Bend.
4. ND hasn't actually beaten Stanford on the merits. It's still tied after one overtime.
   1290. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 26, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4310000)
I realize you probably have your own motivations for your declarations regarding the Stanford/ND game but here is a diagram of the last play. The head linesman is well onto the field before Taylor's final surge. The Pac-12 officiating crew blew the play dead because his forward progress was stopped.
   1291. cmd600 Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:04 PM (#4310006)
1 - Mizzou, [edit for fixing an error] who lost to Vanderbilt and got blown out by S Carolina, was bad all year. The same QB who played against Georgia needed OT to beat Tennessee and lost to Syracuse.

2/3 - Home field advantage being real doesn't make up the huge difference in talent between Mizzou and Stanford. This is like saying (name your league-average starting pitcher who plays for a team in a hitter's park) is as good as Matt Cain because the latter plays in a great pitcher's park. It's not something to be ignored, but being at home doesn't suddenly make just any team a good one, and going on the road doesn't suddenly make a top 10 team a mediocre one.

4 - here
Very close, but it looks like the elbow is down, and there certainly is no evidence that actually got in. The "the ref should have called this instead of that" game is the last resort of a lost argument. Instead of advancing the discussion, it's a ploy to say "every opinion is equal, so who knows". Besides I thought you said you were the one arguing to look at "real results".
   1292. Srul Itza Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4310011)
With Chad Owens' Toronto Argonauts winning the Grey Cup, this is the year of the Hawaiian in non-NFL Football.

Look for Manti Te'o to lead the Irish to victory!
   1293. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4310012)
Arizona State DT Will Sutton named Pac-12's DPoY. Dude is an absolute beast; has yet to decide on NFL vs. senior season.
   1294. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4310013)
Missouri beat Arizona State....with their backup QB (Franklin did not play in it). Franklin got hurt in the Georgia game.
   1295. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4310016)
1 - Mizzou, who also lost at home to Arizona St and Vanderbilt and got blown out by S Carolina was bad all year. The same QB who played against Georgia needed OT to beat Tennessee and lost to Syracuse.
Wot now? No, Mizzou won that, 24-20.
   1296. cmd600 Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4310018)
My apologies, obviously that's incorrect, but that result still points that Mizzou isn't a good football team.
   1297. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4310019)
Missouri beat Arizona State....with their backup QB (Franklin did not play in it). Franklin got hurt in the Georgia game.


And he only threw 9 passes against Vanderbilt, the backup threw 30.

That said, Stanford is and was better than Missouri.
   1298. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4310021)
That said, Stanford is and was better than Missouri.


No one has argued otherwise.
   1299. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4310022)
Why the #### are we talking about Missouri and the national title game.

http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm - Massey ratings compilation, a huge sample size, which all appear to use margin of victory, has ND #1. Case closed.
   1300. DA Baracus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4310023)
No one has argued otherwise.


Let me clarify. Stanford is so much better than Missouri that beating Stanford at home > beating Missouri on the road.
Page 13 of 35 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-31-2014
(10 - 11:03am, Oct 31)
Last: Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(88 - 11:01am, Oct 31)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(641 - 11:01am, Oct 31)
Last: HMS Moses Taylor

NewsblogMLB -- It's time to back off on manager bashing - ESPN
(5 - 11:01am, Oct 31)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogA Visit to Madison Bumgarner Country, and a Proud Father's Home - NYTimes.com
(2 - 11:00am, Oct 31)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4796 - 10:59am, Oct 31)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(21 - 10:57am, Oct 31)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogBoston.com: Youk Retires
(10 - 10:48am, Oct 31)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(65 - 10:46am, Oct 31)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogDeadline: World Series Ratings: Game 7 Scores Home Run For Fox
(6 - 10:44am, Oct 31)
Last: McCoy

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(23 - 10:42am, Oct 31)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(116 - 10:41am, Oct 31)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogNo, Alex Gordon wouldn't have scored an inside the park home run
(147 - 10:38am, Oct 31)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(21 - 9:55am, Oct 31)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogNY Times: In Rare Film, White Sox Before They Were Black Sox
(1 - 9:38am, Oct 31)
Last: T.J.

Page rendered in 0.9741 seconds
53 querie(s) executed