User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5950 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
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.
Oops - yeah, forgot that one.
Setting aside probation and assuming they win the B1G title game?
Yes - I guarantee that the national title game would be OSU-ND.
I'm mystified that folks think any one loss team would play a title game over an undefeated...
Like it or not - the title game isn't always the two "Best" teams playing anymore than the '87 Twins were the 'best' team in baseball despite the fact that they won the WS.
I agree with you, zonk. Record is paramount in CFB which is the driving force behind the decline in good OOC matchups.
well, it's a moot point.
but given how the big10 is currently perceived i see the voters working to keep osu's bcs ranking out of the top 2. the big10 needs a string of wins in what are perceived as 'big games' to get back into the national title discussion
i do not believe a national title game appearance should be a goal. the goal of the big10 is to send a team to the rose bowl that wins.
i am personally disappointed that wisconsin has failed to meet that standard now multiple times
I agree with this. It isn't just that the Big 10 was woeful, but Ohio State was so thoroughly unimpressive in getting to 12-0 that tells me they might have been shut out.
i understand that only one of those teams won but the other two games were in doubt until the final minute or so.
i guess my definition of 'woeful' is not the same as others.
completely agree that the lesser teams in the big10 fit that adjective
They did play well yesterday, all of them. That doesn't erase the previous 16 weeks or so of football, when the conference was indeed woeful (Compared to how it usually performs. Compared to the Big East or MAC, it was OK).
Obviously, as a B1G guy -- you'll get no catcalls from me...
Michigan got pasted by Alabama, but they could have beaten ND, lost by just a TD to OSU, etc.
Wisconsin 5 regular seasons losses included what... 2? 3? OT losses and of their 6 losses -- 4 came by a field goal (and the other 2 by a TD).
The B1G had a bad year... but there are alternate universes where a bounce here, a flag there, or a dropped pass on the other side means you might have seen, say... an undefeated Wisconsin playing an undefeated Northwestern for the B1G title, with the winner going to the title game.
CFB is a season long tournament.... you lose, you go into the single elimination loser's bracket and need help to get back in the game...
I just don't see any way that an undefeated OSU gets shut out of a title game in favor of a one loss team - not in the current schema.
No kidding.
Surely it's "slunk"?
are you quoting the grinch now?
So do you think the computers were underrating OSU because they were on probation? It's possible that the humans look more favorably upon this OSU team had they been street legal, enough to vault it past Bama, but I don't see how it's a guarantee. The Big Ten was way down, and Ohio State was an unimpressive as a team can be in getting to 12-0.
I really do think that the B1G is hurt by conference parity... I suppose a pessimist can look at the glass as half empty, but I tend to look at it as half full.
Indiana is really the only woeful program left in the conference -- yeah, yeah Illinois was awful but they've got at least some semblance of a history and if they could get a decent turnaround coach...
The Legends division is just murderous -- Nebraska and Michigan are (still, I think) perennial national powers, even if they're faded a bit of late... Northwestern, Michigan State, and Iowa have all become perennial regional powers - and quite dangerous in their 'up' years. Minnesota is a step behind, but let's face it -- they're not a woebegone program.
The Leaders division always has a couple perennial national powers in OSU and PSU, as well as a regional power that occasionally has up years where they run with the big dogs (Wisconsin)... and then a couple of programs that take their turns as spoilers (Purdue and sometimes Illinois).
Indiana is really the only hopeless program in the conference - and that's a simple matter of the school really caring more about hoops than anyone else.
Well, it's hard to game out -- so much would be different without an OSU probation (for one thing, Tressel is probably still coaching... for another, I might imagine a few NFL bound from last year stay put)...
But if we can imagine a non-probation OSU -- yes, I think OSU starts the season somewhere in the top 20, ends up spending most of the second half of the year in the conversation with KSU, OU, Bama, and ND, and ultimately ends up in the same place every major conference undefeated ends up... playing the other (if it exists) major undefeated for the title.
Again - this is just how things work in CFB.... It's a season long tournament, for better or worse. Ever since the PAC/B1G/Rose got on board with the BCS/FCS -- the idea is that never again would we see "split titles" because some conference wasn't able to send an undefeated team to the title game.
I would readily concede that Alabama is a better team than OSU... OU and maybe KSU might even be "better teams" than OSU.
...but OSU is a major, historical power that went undefeated -- I find it completely impossible to think they'd have been shut out of a title game if they were one of only two undefeateds... it just wouldn't have happened.
And I don't think the computers care about any of that. Like I said, it's possible, but by no means guaranteed. I see this OSU team as similar to the Boise States and Utahs and Cincinnati's that went unbeaten and didn't make the title game.
to put penn state ahead of wisconsin, well that's just silly. what the h8ll has penn state done of significance over the last 5 years?
one rose bowl.
whoopdedoo
I didn't watch LSU-Clemson, but UGA had Nebraska "put away" by the fourth quarter. It took 2.5 quarters for the UGA defense to show up, but once they got their heads in the game, UGA took control. And if we're giving credit for effort and trying hard, UGA was a dropped pass by T. King away from a three TD win. (It was perfectly delivered by Murray, who should have had six TD passes on the day.)
I expect about the same result from the NC as we saw in the Capital One bowl. ND will hold close in the first half. Bama's line will wear them down in the 2nd and win comfortably.
Boise State, Utah (prior to joining the PAC 10) and Cincy aren't from traditional major FB conferences.
The computers alone do not select the title game participants.
The idea that the BCS powers that be would put any one loss team ahead of an undefeated Big 10/Pac 10/ACC/SEC/Big12/maybeBig East/ND team is ludicrous.
Right or wrong - you win one of the big conferences with a spotless record and you play for the title... things only get messy when you've only got one undefeated team that meets that criteria and you have to select a one-loss team from that pool.
Sorry - I was just using national championships as shorthand... OSU, Michigan, Nebraska, and Penn State have them and within the modern age... Wisconsin doesn't.
National hardware matters and it alone means you get a permanent membership to the "national powers" club.
No, but they play a role, and they correctly viewed OSU similar, or worse, to how they viewed Boise and Utah.
If it were as simple as that, then sure, I'd agree. But it isn't. This amorphous "they" don't just pick the teams they want in there. It don't work that way.
Well that's disingenuous considering it was a tie game heading into the 4th. (Though Georgia was on the Nebraksa 24 and would score on the first play of the 4th.
Yessir.
Of course - if they did, they'd probably just toss USC, ND, Alabama, Texas, Nebraska, FSU, OSU, etc into a hat and pick two of them annually to play for the title because the 10-12 'premier' programs travel well, fill stadiums, and draw good TV.
All the complex BCS 'system' does is ensure that the teams on the outside looking in -- where 'outside looking in' means teams that don't play in the traditional power conferences, but having objectively power seasons - don't get shut out of the BCS bowls. In effect - the computers don't pick the title game -- the computers ensure that, say... NIU gets to play in one of the big bowls.
When it comes to the title game - the BCS is very traditionalist and very based on the idea that the entire season is a tournament... So long as the BCS is around, I can guarantee that the title game will always match up two undefeated teams rather than leave one of those undefeateds to play a consolation game.
Again... you're mixing up the "best" teams with the system as it stands now. If you go undefeated and play in one of the 5 (or 6... or 6 + ND) major FB conferences, the only way you don't play in the title game is if there are three undefeateds and people/computers try to determine who the best two of those three teams are.
you're not alone in this. He's always been a coaches water carrier, and oddly spends a fair amount of time on Badger message boards, which is funny since he's such a defensive snarky prick.
I think the computer ranking is accurate but I also believe that OSU was third in the AP because there is a kind of artificial ceiling there. The writers do not want to give them the benefit of the doubt and deal with split title talk.
Anyway, this is all moot and purely theoretical. I think Alabama is quite a reasonable choice from among the one loss teams and there are a hand full of one loss teams I think are better than OSU.
EDIT: and the computers are only 1/3 of the formula so it only really matters if the two human polls are undecided or very very close between 2 & 3. If OSU wins the Big Ten championship game they get another little bump in their computer ranking.
I'm not mixing up anything. There's a formula. It's possible that OSU is able to overcome its computer disadvantage (not sure how a second beating of Nebraska helps, but it's obviously going to benefit the Buckeyes) with its human poll performance, but it is by no means certain, no matter how many empty "ludicrouses" or "guarantees" you want to toss around.
And you don't think it would be very close between 2 and 3? I think it's obvious that, after the SEC title game, no one's finishing ahead of Bama for the No. 3 spot, so it's safe to say that's their floor. Are you so sure that every voter out there would ignore what every one of us have agreed upon, that Bama is in fact better than Ohio State? That doesn't pass my smell test (especially since we already have one poll where Ohio State was considered, and they didn't even finish ahead of Bama in that one).
Midway through the third the UGA defense figured out Nebraska's offense and started shutting them down. At that point, with Nebraska having no answer to stop the UGA offense, the game was done. Admittedly, UGA should have one by 3+ touchdowns, not merely two. They didn't come to play defensively in the first half.
Well, I don't claim to be sure of anything but the past conventions of the human polls strongly suggest to me that OSU would be #2 in both of them and the computer gap wouldn't have been enough. It might have been sufficient to keep Florida State down (IIRC, they were in the teens).
EDIT: and all the pundits are saying Alabama is going to win on Monday but that didn't stop ND from being the heavy winner in the polls.
A few pages upthread, Harveys:
And I was curious as to how one would go about doing this. Seems to me like special teams are almost entirely reactive with the possible exception of gimmick plays. Please correct me. (I know one possible corrective might be a reference to the Bears return game prior to the moving of the kickoff).
The Illini have not been consistently relevant since the 80's and even that was a brief flowering under a coach/AD regime that was apparently rather loose with the rules. Sure, Illinois has been in a couple of BCS bowls, but then, so has Kansas.
Sure, but here we have a group of voters, not unlike those that make up the Harris and Coaches polls, who were free to rank Ohio State ahead of Alabama, and they didn't just put Alabama ahead of the Buckeyes, but OSU was closer to No. 6 Georgia than it was to No. 2 Bama. I just don't see how one can be certain (which, to be fair, you aren't being certain the way zonk is) that simply making Ohio State eligible is enough to overcome the existing evaluations of their worth.
Clemson out gained them 445 to 219 and won first down battle 32 to 9. LSU was +1 in the turnover battle.
>?? They needed Miles to throw three passes with under 2 to play, and a miracle 4th and 16 to squeak out a last second FG to win by one.<
32 first downs to 9. 445 yards to 219. Perhaps I should have said dramatically outplayed statistically.
Also, there is no "first down battle". Yards, yes, but "first downs"? Those are Not Needed. Nor is Time of Possession. If the score is tied it just means the construct of your scoring is different - it doesn't mean you are being "outplayed". I guess "running more plays" could be a definition of "outplayed".
Clemson won on gifts - they did need to capitalize on them, and did so in an exciting fashion.
Those numbers only matter when its the SEC team on the left side of the ledger. (-:
Those things aren't complete garbage - they are just the batting average of offense - they things that construct how the yards were gained and points were scored.
Time of possession? Sure. First downs? To a lesser extent? Yards? Absolutely not. Yards gained is the building block. You can luck your way into an edge in points much easier than you can luck your way into a 2-1 advantage in yards gained. You know, the one Clemson had.
teams with good special teams exploit coverage and blocking gaps all the time. you set up a special return. you call a block. you try an onside. you set up a specific coverage to pin your opponent even closer to its goal line
michigan state blocks a kick in every game against wisky because of its ability to exploit issues with wisky's blocking approach on punts
I think Ohio St. would have made it, but I think the second part is the important part: if an undefeated Ohio St. was left out of the title game for a one-loss team, we'd have a new system next year. Which I guess is happening anyways.
//cue being told this is a byproduct of the yards gained and not a goal which i will grant but posted these facts to tweak the poster
TOP doesn't mean squat, neither do total 1st downs.
This game was a month or two later than the first one.
From the Hidden Game, I think 12 yards is a point. So Clemson had 100 yard advantage, which is about 8 points, but they gave 4 back with the turnover margin, so the game says Clemson by about 4, and they won by 1. And they *really* needed that last 60 yards that Miles can prevent if he runs the ball on second and two or third and two - at a minimum burning Clemson's timeouts.
If....
And like I said, had the numbers been reversed, the SEC worshippers wouldn't be doing any digging to explain the overwhelming disparity. For evidence, read any of the nonsense Sam has posted in this thread (beating Missouri is the same as beating Stanford, doncha know).
2. Sam is a crackpot.
3. I was pulling for Michigan and Clemson. I *expect* SoCar and LSU to pull those games out - because even in close games, talent can win - and if Miles doesn't shoot himself in the foot with less than 2 min, they will beat Clemson despite is yardage difference - well, partly because the yardage gap would be closer to 40 yards, and LSU had the extra TO. Even just Hopkins dropping the sliding 4th and 16 and Clemson loses.
Hey, I had the little smiley thing in there first.
But if you don't want to lumped in with crackpots, you should include your disclaimer at the beginning of joining the thread. (-:
For the record, you're overstating the return yardage edge. Clemson kicked off four times. One went for a touchback, which is an extra 25 yards to add to UT's total. UT kicked off five times, three went for touchbacks, which is an extra 75 yards. The Tigers also had one fewer touchback on punts, so the return gap was really only 30 yards, not 100.
you have been pretty consistent on the point that the sec is the only conference worth watching and all other conferences are filled with pond scum and rat droppings
and i am paraphrasing to spare the youngsters your smut talk
It seems like most college teams don't manage the clock well. I think you ought to be surprised when a team does a good job of it.
Sam is also always right.
I saw a NW game where Randy Walker managed the clock brilliantly (he started calling his timeouts with the lead and the opponent in field goal range but before they got inside the 15), and the Cats ended up winning with their own FG at the gun. It stood out because of how rare it was.
Then he died, while Les Miles just kept on chugging along. So maybe it's not a very good idea.
as with long snappers, you don't notice the good ones, same with proper clock mgmt.
Just some real WTF stuff.
i did not. still devastated over wisconsin gacking away another rose bowl
Which makes sense. The conference made it a double dip in the UCONN at Marquette game last night too, when they totally ###### up the beginning of overtime. They had the teams going to the wrong baskets for a possession, then when MU goaltended a UConn shot attempt they said, 'ah nevermind,' and switched the teams sides and took away UConn's basket and resumed play. The explanation from the league was particularly timid.
I haven't seen or heard anything in response to the measurement. Spurrier said he was later happy it happened, otherwise we don't get to see Clowney knock the guy's helmet off the TV screen and just snatch the ball like a handful of mixed nuts.
Both egregious officiating errors, and while human, I have never seen either in my life.
whatchagonnado?
This is a joke, right? Humor? Did you watch the game at all?
LSU had two plays all game, the forced fumble that led to their first TD, and the long TD run. Two. They were utterly dominated the entire remainder of the game.
Much ado is made of the fourth down pass made by Clemson, but really LSU was far more relient on big plays in the game than Clemson was. Take away either the fumble or the long TD run by Hill and LSU would have been sunk. What "gifts" did Clemson get in the game? I can't think of many/any, unless you conclude that it was cheritable of LSU to repeatedly let Clemson drive the length of the field or to let Clemson force repeated three and outs.
I generally concede SEC supremecy, but I just don't see how someone could watch that game and think LSU was the better team. They emphatically were not.
No kidding. I was watching with my wife and I said, "maybe I don't understand which part of the chain actually means it's a first down." She replied, "well I'm pretty sure the 50 football players standing there yelling at the official know the rule."
That play by Jadeveon Clowney was as good a defensive effort as I've ever seen. I particularly enjoyed this interpretation of events.
It reminded me a little bit of
this.
LSU had two plays? Then how did they score four times?
That makes no sense. Did you see any of this: LSU gets the ball with 2 min, and surprises Clemson's stacked line with a pass for 8 yards. HAHA! So 2nd and two. Well, Jeremy Hill has been cruising this game, so get a first down, causing Clemson to burn a TO, right? Not even clock management, but "keep the clock running" management. Nope, Miles tries to surprise Clemson with ANOTHER PASS! Incomplete - clock stops. Well, okay, lets get the first down and start the clock again, right? Nope ! Surprise! Another pass! Incomplete, clock stops again, and then a punt.
If you don't think that was charitable, perhaps you are unfamiliar with football strategies. Oh, no, that was Clemson "forcing" a three and out.
Let Clemson repeatedly drive the length of the field and not score? Did you miss the fact that it took the last tick for Clemson to lead?
The three SEC teams and FSU.
I didn't watch the game, but I'm not sure I'd include that as a point in LSU's favor.
Refs should have whistled it dead, but they didn't. I can't comment on the helmet to helmet thing, I missed that one replay angle.
Well, the ball was on the ground, so at that point it's either incomplete or down. But whatever, it's moot.
Florida's defense is looking pretty good when it isn't third down.
Ah, good call.
Clemson allowed about one yard in the fourth quarter and scored twelve consecutive points. They're tempo utterly cooked LSU's defense. LSU essentially scored half of their points on two plays. Clemson repeatedly drove the field. LSU was the worse team and lost. They trailed in total yardage and score. WHAT MORE DO PEOPLE WANT.
I watched Clemson lose to South Carolina. Clemson was worse than Carolina. Clemson was better than LSU.
It wasn't clear it was on the ground though. I think it was appropriate to let the play go on.
You do realize only one of those numbers is small?
Let's not hold our breath here.
At least UF's offense is moving. That's a pretty good sign, even if they're only getting three out of this.
So...yeah, I don't know.
So minus the O Line, recent vintage Alex Smith?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main