2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Like the title says, anything and everything else goes here. As long as it follows the forum rules.

Moderator: Raccoon

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:30 pm

New season, new thread...

Wow did Florida look horrible. Had they been playing against a team with an offense, they would have started the season 0-1.

Ohio State looked great on Thursday and seem like they finally deserve their starting rank. Next week against Miami should be a really good game.

I didn't stay up to watch the USC game, but I read the recap and they seem like they're going to struggle defensively. But it doesn't matter because of their post season ban. (Oh how I love to see bad things happen to USC)

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:15 pm

thacon wrote:New season, new thread...

Wow did Florida look horrible. Had they been playing against a team with an offense, they would have started the season 0-1.

Ohio State looked great on Thursday and seem like they finally deserve their starting rank. Next week against Miami should be a really good game.

I didn't stay up to watch the USC game, but I read the recap and they seem like they're going to struggle defensively. But it doesn't matter because of their post season ban. (Oh how I love to see bad things happen to USC)
Agreed on all accounts.

Looks like my team (Purdue) will have an interesting season. They might be bringing back basketball on grass. Not sure what kind of record will result.

I'm interested in seeing how Boise St. and TCU do this season. I wasn't a fan of them facing each other in a bowl game last season.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:12 pm

Stanford looked good against their cupcake, but the defense seemed weak. I hold out hope for a chance at winning the PAC-10, but it seems unlikely.

User avatar
Manendra
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Manendra » Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:17 pm

We covered the spread against Florida! We were 39.5 point underdogs, but still!

It's still early. But god DAMN Florida did look bad. These cupcake games are so annoying. Conference games, plz!
Image

User avatar
bleary
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:07 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by bleary » Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:23 pm

Can't say I was particularly happy with the sloppy play in the Northwestern - Vandy game, but I'm pleased by the outcome.
Image

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:48 am

Here's my Pac-10 roundup:

USC -- wow, Hawaii actually gained more yards than usc did. That's not a good sign for the Trojans defense considering how many high-powered Pac-10 offenses there are this year. But since I despise the Trojans, I'm looking forward to this season. :lol:

Oregon -- it's actually embarrassing when you score 59 points by halftime. Scheduling cupcakes like New Mexico and then clobbering them is a "bully" school kind of thing to do.

Oregon State -- the Beavers were in the game until the late fourth quarter botched snap/safety. Still, I respect Oregon State for playing tough teams rather than cupcakes. If Cal can't win the Pac-10, then I'm going to hope that the Beavers do.

UCLA -- losing to Kansas State?!?

Cal -- same story as with Oregon. WTF, UC Davis? What's next, playing against UC Irvine???

I didn't pay attention to the other games. . . .
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
Eigenbasis
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Eigenbasis » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:33 am

A bit off-topic, but do enough people care about college hockey (besides me and Manny) for me to start a thread when the season starts?
"Have you ever heard the expression, ‘When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then throw it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you originally asked for?’"

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:54 am

What's hockey? Is that the game where people knock around a glowing blue dot?

User avatar
bleary
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:07 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by bleary » Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:53 pm

thacon wrote:What's hockey? Is that the game where people knock around a glowing blue dot?
6-on-6 ice Pong? I've seen that.
Image

User avatar
zombiepops
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:18 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by zombiepops » Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:38 am

bleary wrote:
thacon wrote:What's hockey? Is that the game where people knock around a glowing blue dot?
6-on-6 ice Pong? I've seen that.
ice pong? I thought this was a thread about hand egg?
I'm brainy for Zombiepops!

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:11 pm

Boise St. v. Virginia Tech was a sweet game to watch! Also, I almost missed this, but Oklahoma almost losing to Utah State?! Crazy.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:16 pm

Boise St. v. Virginia Tech was indeed a great game to watch, but I don't understand why so many games end like that. Team A takes the lead with only a few minutes left in the game. Team B continues with their game plan, calls the plays that have been working for them, and methodically moves down the field, scores, and retakes the lead. Team A gets the ball back, throws all their strategy out the window, and throws 4 incomplete long bombs and loses the game. VT had plenty of time to run some short(ish) yardage plays and pick up the field goal.

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:08 am

I did find that odd as well, though I don't know if it was the play-calling or Taylor's decision making (or both) that caused all those long balls at the end.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:43 pm

How the hell is USC 18th in the AP poll (with 481 votes)? They didn't even get 1 vote in the USA Today poll!

ETA: I just looked back at the previous polls and they're similar. Was part of their sanctions that they're excluded from the USA Today poll?

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:46 pm

Stanford has looked awesome. I think they have a real shot at the PAC-10. I'll be at their game against USC in a few weeks, god I hope we fucking destroy them.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:10 pm

The Oregon game will be a big hurdle.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:28 pm

thacon wrote:The Oregon game will be a big hurdle.
Yup. It's in Oregon too. But we have a chance!

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:55 pm

stupac2 wrote:Stanford has looked awesome. I think they have a real shot at the PAC-10. I'll be at their game against USC in a few weeks, god I hope we fucking destroy them.
That's something we can agree on!
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
transplanted_entwife
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:49 pm
Location: Nebraska

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by transplanted_entwife » Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:57 pm

As a PAC-10 native stuck in the nation's flyover zone I find this conversation a welcome respite from the constant Husker hype. Thank you. :twisted:
Image

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:20 pm

Thoughts from this week:

The most exciting part of the OSU v OU blowout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=577hN8tQM6g

I can't believe I missed the Michigan State game. What a finish!

When is Florida just going to lose already?

Both Arizonas provided some excitement!

Michigan was close to another really embarrassing loss. Too bad.

I still hate USC - no real change there.

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:57 pm

thacon wrote:I can't believe I missed the Michigan State game. What a finish!
That game was incredible, I'm glad I decided to watch that instead of playing Starcraft 2.
I still hate USC - no real change there.
5 touchdowns for 32 points. Too bad they were playing Minnesota instead of a team that would put up more of a fight. Looks like they'll get pounded by Oregon, though.

Also, where are all the upsets? I demand chaos in the polls!

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:11 pm

I cannot wait for Stanford-USC. I want to destroy them. TWO WEEKS.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:02 pm

Man, the Big-10 is a wussy conference. . . .

Hmm . . . three Pac-10 teams are playing non-conference games today:

Stanford (#16) at Notre Dame

UCLA at Texas (#7)

Oregon State (#24) at Boise State (#3)

Two top-10 opponents and a historically dominant team (though one that's been mediocre recently), all on the road. Meanwhile, here's the Big-10's non-conference schedule:

Wisconsin (#11) vs. Austin Peay (who???)

Purdue vs. Toledo

Northwestern vs. Central Michigan

Michigan State (#25) vs. Northern Colorado

Michigan vs. Bowling Green

Iowa (#18) vs. Ball State

Penn State (#23) vs. Temple

Ohio State (#2) vs. Eastern Michigan

Indiana vs. Akron

Minnesota vs. Northern Illinois

Zero ranked opponents, all games at home, and all against weak opponents. . . .

You might notice that there are only three Pac-10 non-conference games. What's the rest of the conference doing? Well, Washington has a bye week, but the rest of the teams are playing conference games. You see, the Pac-10 plays a full round robin conference schedule. No dodging any conference team. With 10 teams in the conference, that means 9 conference games, not 8. Oddly, the Big-10, which has 11 teams, plays only 8 conference games. For some reason, the Big-10 would prefer to schedule a week like today rather than play an extra round of conference games.

I submit this as another example of why the Pac-10 is better than the Big-10.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
Eigenbasis
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Eigenbasis » Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:43 pm

Unranked UCLA beat #7 Texas. Derp.
"Have you ever heard the expression, ‘When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then throw it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you originally asked for?’"

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:58 pm

Stanford destroyed ND, although it was close until that awesome TAINT. Next week is probably the most meaningful PAC-10 game of the year.

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:21 pm

Raccoon wrote:Stanford (#16) at Notre Dame
I fail to see why this should be mentioned. Three Big Ten teams have already played Notre Dame. Only two Pac-10 teams will do so.

Also, does Washington State really count as a conference game? A 13 and 21 point loss being the closest games in conference. Really? MAC teams have put up a greater fight than the Cougars have.

Also also, how about that Rose Bowl game?

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:42 pm

Pet Rock Steve wrote:
Raccoon wrote:Stanford (#16) at Notre Dame
I fail to see why this should be mentioned. Three Big Ten teams have already played Notre Dame. Only two Pac-10 teams will do so.
Notre Dame is a much better fit geographically for the Big-10 than for the Pac-10. I mentioned it only because it represents the weakest non-conference game played by the Pac-10 today, but would easily be the toughest non-conference game by a Big-10 team today. It's fair enough for you to point out that a few Big-10 teams have already played Notre Dame, which is some evidence that the rest of the Big-10 schedule is not as lame as today's schedule. Similarly, Pac-10 teams have had some lame non-conference opponents as well.

Still, it's quite striking how different the schedules are today.
Also, does Washington State really count as a conference game? A 13 and 21 point loss being the closest games in conference. Really? MAC teams have put up a greater fight than the Cougars have.
Do you really want to get into an argument about which conference has the greater number of gimme conference opponents?
Also also, how about that Rose Bowl game?
You mean from last season? Sheesh, I'm talking about this season. I mean, we could go unearth Michigan's pathetic Rose Bowl record too. . . .
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:47 am

Raccoon wrote:Do you really want to get into an argument about which conference has the greater number of gimme conference opponents?
Not really. There are plenty of bad teams in every conference. Additionally, it seemed like the teams in each conference play only one or two tough non-conference teams each year. In terms of scheduling, I think this week was poorly set up (if Penn State switched their games against Temple and Alabama, we might not be discussing this) and makes for easy cherry picking. The only reason I brought up Washington State is the extra conference game. If we are trying to judge the conference's strength of schedule, I'd propose a comparison of the extra conference game against an extra non-conference game. I don't know a good way to decide who to compare, so I went with a comparison of the worst conference team against the typical non-conference team. The reasoning being that a team facing either opponent expects to win that game. There are probably many better ways to compare the schedules, but that was the quickest.

As a side note, I believe the extra non-conference game generates more revenue per team (even after paying a team to visit) than splitting the revenue of the conference game. I use similar reasoning for my belief that there won't be a playoff system for a long while (the revenue would have to be split among all divisions, plus what would happen to the bowl games).
Also also, how about that Rose Bowl game?
You mean from last season? Sheesh, I'm talking about this season. I mean, we could go unearth Michigan's pathetic Rose Bowl record too. . . .
I brought it up as it was the top two teams in each conference playing each other, which is a fair comparison. There is typically ebb and flow of conference strengths, so we can disagree on how many (if any) previous Rose Bowl outcomes should be considered. We could compare the head to head games played this year to determine which conference is more powerful. Pac-10 is up 2-1 in those games, though I would add that the teams playing each other were not necessarily equally powerful (though probably close enough, as trying to weight the teams is too much of a hassle at 1:40 a.m.).

Edit: Apologies for the stream of consciousness beginning of this reply.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:05 am

Pet Rock Steve wrote:Not really. There are plenty of bad teams in every conference. Additionally, it seemed like the teams in each conference play only one or two tough non-conference teams each year. In terms of scheduling, I think this week was poorly set up (if Penn State switched their games against Temple and Alabama, we might not be discussing this) and makes for easy cherry picking. The only reason I brought up Washington State is the extra conference game. If we are trying to judge the conference's strength of schedule, I'd propose a comparison of the extra conference game against an extra non-conference game.
Hmm, there are a number of things in there that I disagree with, but the Temple/Alabama scheduling is a good point.

First, the only truly bad team in the Pac-10 is Washington State. Last season, Arizona State went 2-7 in the conference (4-8 overall), but its 8 losses included heartbreaking losses to #17 Georgia (17-20), Cal (21-23), #13 USC (9-14), and Arizona (17-20). UCLA was 3-6 in the conference but had a 7-6 overall record, including a 19-15 win over Tennessee on the road. Washington was 4-5 in the conference (5-7 overall) but had victories over #3 USC and #19 Cal. Everyone else in the conference had winning records in the conference and overall, and no worse than 8-5.

Compare that to four pretty bad teams in the Big-10: Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan(!). Based on its history, I'll grant that Michigan is not a pushover, but that's still three gimmies. Six Big-10 teams had losing records overall.

Second, it's true that every other Pac-10 team gets to beat up Washington State, whereas not every Big-10 team gets to beat up Indiana or Minnesota or Illinois. On the other hand, every Pac-10 team has to play Oregon (8-1, 10-3), Oregon State (6-3, 8-5), Arizona (6-3, 8-5), Stanford (6-3, 8-5), USC (5-4, 9-4), and Cal (5-4, 8-5). By contrast, in the Big-10, pretenders like Iowa and Wisconsin -- pretty good teams but not Ohio State -- will sometimes get easy schedules where they do play Illinois, Minnesota, and Indiana, and get to skip Ohio State and/or Michigan.

(Of course, all this will change when the conferences expand and have two divisions. But even then, the Pac-10 is still superior, because it will become the Pac-12. The Big-10 will have 12 teams but still be the Big-10 . . . and the Big-12 will have 10 teams but still be the Big-12(?). Innumeracy.)
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sun Sep 26, 2010 3:12 am

Raccoon wrote:First, the only truly bad team in the Pac-10 is Washington State. Last season, Arizona State went 2-7 in the conference (4-8 overall), but its 8 losses included heartbreaking losses to #17 Georgia (17-20), Cal (21-23), #13 USC (9-14), and Arizona (17-20). UCLA was 3-6 in the conference but had a 7-6 overall record, including a 19-15 win over Tennessee on the road. Washington was 4-5 in the conference (5-7 overall) but had victories over #3 USC and #19 Cal. Everyone else in the conference had winning records in the conference and overall, and no worse than 8-5.

Compare that to four pretty bad teams in the Big-10: Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan(!). Based on its history, I'll grant that Michigan is not a pushover, but that's still three gimmies. Six Big-10 teams had losing records overall.
While this is all true, the year before, there were still Big Ten teams (Indiana, Purdue >.<, Illinois, and Michigan's first losing record in years) with a losing record compared to six from the Pac-10, while 2007 had 1 and 3 and 2006 had 3 and 2, respectively. We'll see in due time which year this season more closely resembles.
Second, it's true that every other Pac-10 team gets to beat up Washington State, whereas not every Big-10 team gets to beat up Indiana or Minnesota or Illinois. On the other hand, every Pac-10 team has to play Oregon (8-1, 10-3), Oregon State (6-3, 8-5), Arizona (6-3, 8-5), Stanford (6-3, 8-5), USC (5-4, 9-4), and Cal (5-4, 8-5). By contrast, in the Big-10, pretenders like Iowa and Wisconsin -- pretty good teams but not Ohio State -- will sometimes get easy schedules where they do play Illinois, Minnesota, and Indiana, and get to skip Ohio State and/or Michigan.
Agreed. Some more thought would have to go into that comparison. As is, the comparison really only says that strength of schedule is not completely dominated by the Pac-10. Ideally, the conferences would schedule a lot of non-conference games (almost everybody as opposed to 3) and/or more bowl match-ups to give a more clear picture of how the conferences compare.
(Of course, all this will change when the conferences expand and have two divisions. But even then, the Pac-10 is still superior, because it will become the Pac-12. The Big-10 will have 12 teams but still be the Big-10 . . . and the Big-12 will have 10 teams but still be the Big-12(?). Innumeracy.)
Stupid branding of Big Ten (spelled out instead of numerals). I also have no clue what the Big 12 will call itself next year. I propose "Mess With Texas."

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:51 am

Anyway...

I saw only ten seconds of Cinci v Oklahoma, but I feel really bad for Cinci based on the D.J. Woods fumble at the five. He must feel terrible losing by 2 to the #8 team when he should have had that touchdown. My first thought was that it was a Leon Lett moment, but Lett deserved it for showboating. Woods was running his heart out.

And how 'bout that Arkansas/Alabama game? What a disappointing 4th quarter for Arkansas. Mallett really made a mess of things.

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:08 pm

How is the Oregon v. Stanford game not on in my area? The replacements (ND v. BC and USC v. Washington) don't interest me.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:10 pm

Pet Rock Steve wrote:How is the Oregon v. Stanford game not on in my area? The replacements (ND v. BC and USC v. Washington) don't interest me.
It's not on ESPN2? Damn, that sucks. Getting ready for it here with some sausages, chip and dip. It's going to be great (I hope).

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:05 pm

stupac2 wrote:
Pet Rock Steve wrote:How is the Oregon v. Stanford game not on in my area? The replacements (ND v. BC and USC v. Washington) don't interest me.
It's not on ESPN2? Damn, that sucks. Getting ready for it here with some sausages, chip and dip. It's going to be great (I hope).
Nope. ABC has ND while ESPN2 has USC. At least my internet is fast enough this evening for me to stream the game.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:56 pm

Pet Rock Steve wrote:How is the Oregon v. Stanford game not on in my area? The replacements (ND v. BC and USC v. Washington) don't interest me.
Same crap here!

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:23 pm

I AM SAD.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:28 pm

What an awesome college football day! Wins by UCLA and the decent to good Pacific Northwest schools (Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington), and of course, losses by USC and Stanford. (Sorry, Snarkypoo and Stupoo, but I will root for Stanford to throttle USC next week.)
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
slaphappy snark
Widdle Fudge Bunny
Posts: 2689
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:27 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by slaphappy snark » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:57 pm

:(

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:02 am

How far do you think Florida will fall? They were never in that game, and they were mainly ranked #7 due to their preseason rankings.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:20 am

Pet Rock Steve wrote:How far do you think Florida will fall? They were never in that game, and they were mainly ranked #7 due to their preseason rankings.
Given the usual East Coast/South bias in the rankings, I'd expect that Florida would stay in the top 20. After all, the game was at Alabama, and Alabama was ranked #1. The previous #7 ranked team was Texas, who lost at HOME against an unranked team, yet Texas dropped only to #21. And UCLA's beat-down of Texas wasn't as gaudy scorewise, but it was otherwise just as convincing, if not more so. Statwise, Florida played Alabama pretty close -- more yards of offense, one fewer first down.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:15 am

Another great day in college football!

Cal throttles UCLA (causing a little bit of tension in the Raccoon household, as Mrs. Raccoon is a double Bruin, but #1 son and I were both rooting for Cal)

Oregon State knocks off Arizona (go NW teams!)

Oregon beats Washington State (two NW teams, but let's face it, Pullman is more like Idaho than Portland/Seattle/Vancouver)

Alabama gets upset!

And Stanford beats USC, but just barely. Best play of that game was when the Stanford RB fumbled the ball, the USC linebacker picked it up to run, and Stanford QB Luck just plowed into the USC defender and knocked him on his ass.

I guess Washington could've won too, but hey, no day is perfect, eh?
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:44 am

I don't watch college football, and for the most part, I don't care about college football. But I like Alabama losing, b/c it's one step closer to my dream final: Boise vs. TCU. Please, dear lord, I won't believe again, but I'll doubt slightly less vociferously if you just make OSU lose more.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:12 am

top1214 wrote:my dream final: Boise vs. TCU.
Why is it your dream final? Two teams that have little to no competition and small fan bases playing in a game that will be largely ignored. (Although, that being said, Boise St. v Oklahoma was one of my favorite bowl games of all time) I think they need to get rid of rankings all together during the regular season then seed the teams and play a tournament. Anything else is unfair.

ETA: The rankings just came out and I can't remember ever seeing so many different teams get #1 votes.

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:38 pm

thacon wrote:
top1214 wrote:my dream final: Boise vs. TCU.
Why is it your dream final?
Why not? Is it any different than rooting for underdogs in the NCAA tournament?
thacon wrote:Two teams that have little to no competition and small fan bases playing in a game that will be largely ignored.
Why does #2 or #3 matter? AS for #1, that's part of the problem of college football. Also, 2007 OSU...was that a great schedule? I don't feel like you can or should punish teams for the conference they play in.
thacon wrote:I think they need to get rid of rankings all together during the regular season then seed the teams and play a tournament. Anything else is unfair.
Agreed. Undefeated season should be one way to get in.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:42 pm

You should definitely punish teams for the conferences they're in. Boise shouldn't be #1 when they basically play 11 games against the Utah State University for the Blind and Deaf. They score 100 points a game! Yeah, against a squad of paraplegics. Even their hard games aren't that hard, VT and Oregon State aren't exactly the toughest opponents.

Anyway, that Stanford game was fun to be at, but we should have put the nail in their coffin on our second-to-last drive. Fumbling there is fucking inexcusable. Also, lulz @ Luck forcing a fumble, that bastard can really tackle.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:09 pm

stupac2 wrote:You should definitely punish teams for the conferences they're in. Boise shouldn't be #1 when they basically play 11 games against the Utah State University for the Blind and Deaf. They score 100 points a game! Yeah, against a squad of paraplegics. Even their hard games aren't that hard, VT and Oregon State aren't exactly the toughest opponents.
I mostly agree with this, except that Boise State has, I believe, attempted to schedule some "real" non-conference opponents without success. I mean, if you're, say, Ohio State or Michigan (to pick two teams from a kind of wussy conference), why would you schedule a game against Boise State? If you win, you don't get much credibility, because people will think you should have won anyway. And if you lose, you're going to get really trashed in the rankings.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:29 pm

That's (one of) the problem(s) with college football as it's set up, there's no reason to schedule games against hard opponents.

Kelemvor
AFH
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:36 am

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Kelemvor » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:45 pm

stupac2 wrote: Anyway, that Stanford game was fun to be at, but we should have put the nail in their coffin on our second-to-last drive. Fumbling there is fucking inexcusable. Also, lulz @ Luck forcing a fumble, that bastard can really tackle.
Whenever something like that happens, I like to imagine the ribbing that dude gets in the locker room afterward and at practice the next week. Wind sprints, whee!

Anyway, that was a heck of a game. Nice work by the kicker making up for his earlier gaff. Goat to hero, woo!

User avatar
Eigenbasis
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Eigenbasis » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

stupac2 wrote:That's (one of) the problem(s) with college football as it's set up, there's no reason to schedule games against hard opponents.
There is if you're a good team in a shitty division, but if you're in a good division already.

The BCS needs a playoff system. All bowl games except the national championship are pretty meaningless.
"Have you ever heard the expression, ‘When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then throw it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you originally asked for?’"

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:43 pm

top1214 wrote:Why not? Is it any different than rooting for underdogs in the NCAA tournament?
Because they're both underdogs, you have no reason to root for one over the other, and it proves nothing. You'd be much better off hoping for an unbeaten Boise State to have faced an unbeaten, dominant team like Alabama, and then rout them. That way you get to root for the underdog and they get to prove themselves.
top1214 wrote:Also, 2007 OSU...was that a great schedule?
Exactly my point. Ohio State had absolutely no place being in that game. They only made it to the championship as a result of the broken BCS system. Had there been a proper playoff instead of a "just don't lose" ranking system, they never would have made it to the title game.
Last edited by thacon on Sun Oct 10, 2010 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Manendra
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Manendra » Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:57 pm

Raccoon wrote:I mostly agree with this, except that Boise State has, I believe, attempted to schedule some "real" non-conference opponents without success. I mean, if you're, say, Ohio State or Michigan (to pick two teams from a kind of wussy conference), why would you schedule a game against Boise State? If you win, you don't get much credibility, because people will think you should have won anyway. And if you lose, you're going to get really trashed in the rankings.
This right here is the problem. Nobody wants to play Boise, so they couldn't play a tougher schedule if they wanted to (and they do). That said, I understand that their schedule is crap. But we're seeing football factory powerhouse schools struggle against teams they should beat, too. At least BSU and TCU are blowing out the cupcakes they play.

Also, I could probably characterize half the teams in the Big Televen as blind parapalegics this year, for that matter. Is the Big Least really that much better than the MWC?

Bottom line, the BCS is broken as fuck.
Image

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sun Oct 10, 2010 5:58 pm

thacon wrote:I think they need to get rid of rankings all together during the regular season then seed the teams and play a tournament.
I hate the idea of a playoff. I love seeing games, even among the lesser teams, that pit the conferences against each other in games that are theoretically evenly matched. Bowl games also give some measure of conference supremacy, as just going by the top team is meaningless. I also don't believe a playoff will ever happen, as most major football schools can make more $ by playing an extra home game (even after paying a cupcake team to lose to them) than they would from the entire playoff system.

NOTE: I also don't really feel the need to actually *have* a "championship" game when the NCAA doesn't recognize it (a playoff would be necessary). This is especially true when the AP can anoint a different team the championship than the team who won the "championship" game.

User avatar
Eigenbasis
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Eigenbasis » Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:34 pm

Basketball has a tournament, as does... pretty much every other college sport. Hockey, lacrosse, baseball, etc. It should work for football too.
"Have you ever heard the expression, ‘When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then throw it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you originally asked for?’"

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:40 pm

In regards to scheduling, how far ahead does your team schedule your non-conference games? I checked Purdue's, and they are booked through 2015. They also have two teams scheduled for '16 and '17 with Notre Dame booked though 2019.

I wonder how non-top teams in major conferences decide their non-conference schedules. What reason is there for them to schedule a tough non-conference schedule? What reason is there for another major conference team to play them if they are not serious competitors for the conference championship?

I can see having a game or two that is tougher than mid-majors as prep for conference game intensity, but unless you need to wow the coaches/AP there seems to be no need for a really tough game. Here "need to wow" means that winning your conference with 0 or 1 loss overall will not automatically make you a BCS title contender. I would even posit that the number of teams that fall into this category is pretty slim as perennial powerhouses seem to get the benefit of the doubt (provided the continue to do well in bowl games) and the number of teams that really compete for the conference championship each year is fairly small. If every major conference averages three competitive teams per year and one is considered a perennial powerhouse, there are only 12 teams that "need" to have a tough non-conference schedule. These numbers may be on the conservative side, but they do consider the Big East and ACC in those calculations (powerhouses may also be low), so it may even out.

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:03 pm

Eigenbasis wrote:Basketball has a tournament, as does... pretty much every other college sport. Hockey, lacrosse, baseball, etc. It should work for football too.
It does, for every division except IA. (Screw FCS and FBS, long live IA and IAA!)

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:12 pm

Interesting that this report projects Boise State to top the BCS poll (if it were out this week) with Ohio State at #5 -- due to Boise State's stronger strength of schedule to this point.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:54 pm

Right - to this point - which is largely meaningless.

Raccoon
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1975
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:33 am
Location: somewhere on the West Coast

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Raccoon » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:58 pm

thacon wrote:Right - to this point - which is largely meaningless.
True.

I should have offered it to explain that it reinforced the point that Boise State's weak schedule was due to its being stuck in a weak conference, not because it scheduled cupcakes for non-conference games. To be fair, Ohio State did play Miami, so it's not like it had a total cakewalk, but the computers obviously think more of Boise State's non-conference opponents.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/mad_hamish/raccoonsig.jpg[/img]

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:05 am

I think Boise State had, far and away, the most difficult non-conference schedule of the unbeaten (it looks like VT's second loss is more of an aberration each week). I would then say TCU and Oklahoma come next in some order, but all the rest only seemed to play one major non-conference game.

User avatar
MonsterERB
AFH
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:58 am
Location: St. Louis, MO (USA)

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by MonsterERB » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:27 am

M-I-Z!!!

Z-O-U!!!

Well, that was certainly a nice result... a bit unexpected, as OU has been "drinking our milkshake" for about 50 years now... but damn, did that feel good to see OU going down. Plus, WTF is Bob Stoops thinking? You're down by 9 points, with about 2 minutes to go, 4th-and-10 from your own 10-yard line, out of timeouts. WHY ARE YOU PUNTING???!??!?? Sure, it's a bad situation... but you are conceding defeat by punting. Your only chance to WIN THE FREAKING GAME is to convert the 4th down, get a quick score (either TD or FG), then recover an onside kick. That is absolutely one of the most gutless coaching decisions I have ever seen. I don't care if it's 4th-and-46, you (as Herm Edwards would say) PLAY TO WIN THE GAME. Instead, Stoops played to keep the margin of defeat at 9 points, instead of 16 points, so that their fall in the polls might be one or two spots less. Absolutely gutless.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/dvmaprezson/AFHV1.gif[/img]

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:48 am

Agreed, MERB. I was thinking the same thing when he decided to punt. Gutless. That being said, at least he didn't throw away a legitimate shot at a win like Iowa did. Had they spiked the ball like the team seemed ready to do, they could have taken a quick shot up the field, called a time out, and kicked the game winning field goal.

Both Wisconsin and Michigan State should have lost yesterday. I felt like I watched the same game twice. (Come from behind taking advantage of a fake on special teams to go ahead in the final minutes and then have the other team botch their chance to come back for the win.)

I love upsets and it would be fun to see #1 go down 4 weeks in a row, but I just don't think I can bring myself to root for USC.

User avatar
stupac2
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 3027
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by stupac2 » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:54 am

Oregon will curbstomp USC. They have no defense. I think they stopped Stanford like twice, and I think we put up more rushing yards than passing. James will run all over them.

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:32 pm

Ok, the BCS is totally broken. WTF? Oregon is #2 because the computers are ranking them no higher than 6th and as low as 11th?!

And the computers are ranking Missouri #2 on average? It must have been because of the victories over the traditional football powerhouses like Miami (OH), Illinois, McNeese State, and San Diego State.

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:39 pm

thacon wrote:Ok, the BCS is totally broken. WTF? Oregon is #2 because the computers are ranking them no higher than 6th and as low as 11th?!

And the computers are ranking Missouri #2 on average? It must have been because of the victories over the traditional football powerhouses like Miami (OH), Illinois, McNeese State, and San Diego State.
Careful or you'll anger Merb (and just amuse me!:-D)

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:07 pm

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Mizzou. Just the opposite, actually. I went to high school with Gary Pinkel's son when Pinkel was coaching the Rockets, so I always root for them. I think even MERB will agree that they've faced their fair share of cupcakes though.

User avatar
Pet Rock Steve
Pie in the Sky
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Pet Rock Steve » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:43 pm

thacon wrote:Ok, the BCS is totally broken. WTF? Oregon is #2 because the computers are ranking them no higher than 6th and as low as 11th?!

And the computers are ranking Missouri #2 on average? It must have been because of the victories over the traditional football powerhouses like Miami (OH), Illinois, McNeese State, and San Diego State.
I think that is more because other than Stanford, Oregon's tough opponents are at the end of the schedule. Additionally, Stanford is the only team they've played so far that currently has a winning record. Meanwhile, of Missouri's played opponents only Colorado and McNeese State have a losing record (and the computers like Oklahoma more than Stanford at the moment). A similar round of reasoning applies to Auburn. The result might be different if margin of victory is taken into account.

As there are 7 undefeated teams and an additional 11 with one loss in the top 25, I think the BCS rankings are rather meaningless these numbers dwindle some. With that in mind, ROOT FOR CHAOS!

User avatar
Manendra
My Pie Blown Sky High
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by Manendra » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:48 pm

thacon wrote:Ok, the BCS is totally broken. WTF? Oregon is #2 because the computers are ranking them no higher than 6th and as low as 11th?!

And the computers are ranking Missouri #2 on average? It must have been because of the victories over the traditional football powerhouses like Miami (OH), Illinois, McNeese State, and San Diego State.
Don't be trashing Miami. We will destroy you.
Image

User avatar
MonsterERB
AFH
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:58 am
Location: St. Louis, MO (USA)

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by MonsterERB » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:50 pm

thacon wrote:Ok, the BCS is totally broken. WTF? Oregon is #2 because the computers are ranking them no higher than 6th and as low as 11th?!

And the computers are ranking Missouri #2 on average? It must have been because of the victories over the traditional football powerhouses like Miami (OH), Illinois, McNeese State, and San Diego State.
Agreed that the BCS is broken. Computer rankings are wacky, because they don't WATCH the games, they merely consider opponents' records, records of your opponents' opponents, victory margin, conference strength, et cetera. Mizzou has played what I'd call an average schedule... a cupcake or two (which is true of pretty much every top-25 program), but mostly quality opposition. PS - Illinois is not a cupcake this year. They're actually pretty darn good; 4-3 record, and the three losses are to Mizzou (#7 AP), Ohio State (#10 AP), and Michigan State (#5 AP). PPS - I spent 7 years at grad school in Champaign. Criticize UIUC at your own peril.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/dvmaprezson/AFHV1.gif[/img]

User avatar
thacon
Fiendishly At Large
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by thacon » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:08 am

That's a fair point, MERB. And Illinois probably should have beaten OSU. I'm looking forward to more posts at http://deathtothebcs.com/blog/

User avatar
top1214
Oh my! Guy with Pie!
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:10 am
Location: St Louis, MO, USA

Re: 2010-2011 College Football Discussion

Post by top1214 » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:23 am

Actually MERB, part of the problem w/computers is they don't take margin of victory into account. They used to, but the BCS doesn;t include them any more if they do.

Post Reply