NCAA Football 2012 Season Catch-All

Fedaykin98 wrote:

What was that no-nothing college football fan bullsh*t I heard about the Big 12 upgrading through A&M's departure? Huh?

I said it was the loss of A&M AND Mizzou. I'll admit that A&M was way better than I, and well, anyone else in college football thought. I'll still take WVU and TCU over the pair.

And the computer rankings still show the SEC and Big 12 as pretty even. A&M's win tonight might jump the Big 12 in front again. Thanks Aggies!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...

Wow, that is a new personal best in the category of terrible football posts. I didn't think it could be done!

The SEC has half of the teams in the top 10 of the BCS. Half.

The Big 12 has one.

Nah...

Terrible is hoping Alabama wins out so A&M doesn't get to play in the SEC championship game. Solidarity, man!

Also, we're like the person on their second marriage who is extra committed and really sees all the positive because our ex was abusive.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Hey baby, I pull for your Badgers EVERY week, for love of you, okay? You want me to cheer against them in their biggest game of the year? :nicekiss:

If you're talking to me you done screwed up again by saying my "Badgers".

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Roll Tide the rest of the way, Grump!

And yeah, it would be Cotton, but at this point, and I can't believe I'm saying this, that bowl would be a disappointment.

Pulling for the rest of the undefeateds to lose, so the Ags don't cost the SEC a chance at 7 in a row.

I was going to congratulate you on the win, but then you had to go and post that. Gotta love sticking with the SEC your first season in. Is it possible the SEC is overrated as well as A&M being good? Hopefully we get 1 non-SEC team in the BCS championship so we can find out.

Carlbear95 wrote:

So what does all this mean? This means #2 Oregon is going to come to Cal, as the "assumed" #1, and LOSE and the program will unravel just like Cal's did that season...

I believe!

Also, I don't know what it is about the PAC 12 network, but their coverage seems to leech any emotion from the game. Maybe it's crowd noise or something.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Wow, that is a new personal best in the category of terrible football posts. I didn't think it could be done!

The SEC has half of the teams in the top 10 of the BCS. Half.

The Big 12 has one.

Jayhawker's right though. Top to bottom, the Big 12 is better. At the top the SEC is.

There are only 2 losing teams in the Big 12 in Baylor and Kansas. 1 at .500, Iowa St.

The SEC has 4 losers (UT, UK, Ark, Aub) and 2 .500s (Mizz, Miss).

So the Big 12 has 6/10 winners, for 60%.

SEC has 8/14 winners, only 57%.

Once again, having MORE teams doesn't make you a better conference. It just means you have more teams. That includes at the top, the middle, and the bottom. So yes, while 'Bama, LSU, UF and Ga might all be top 10 teams (see below), the bottom of the conference is so awful they bring the overall rating down. Plus the pansy out of conference schedule.

Lastly, don't forget the unbalanced conference schedule. If Miss St got to play UF, Ga or SC instead of some of the teams they did, they'd be down with the losers too. Heck after today, you might wonder what Alabama would do against the Gators or Bulldogs. If LSU and Ga played, one of them would have lost and might not be in the top 10.

Hey baby, I pull for your Beavers EVERY week, for love of you, okay? You want me to cheer against them in their biggest game of the year?

DSGamer wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

Hey baby, I pull for your Beavers EVERY week, for love of you, okay? You want me to cheer against them in their biggest game of the year? :nicekiss:

If you're talking to me you done screwed up again by saying my "Badgers". :)

Nothing to see here...

One of the real negatives about expansion has been the inability to play all the teams within your conference. It leads to unfair schedules.

The best number for football is probably nine teams. With 10 teams in the Big 12 everybody plays everybody. The downside is that nine games means an unequal amount of of home and away games.

But with 14 teams, and the drive to 16, conferences lose all semblance of fairness. Even with 12 teams there were significantly easier and harder schedules each season.

Mizzou joined the SEC, but Alabama will make it to Columbia once ever six years. A&M will see Florida the same. The brand is diluted. Some players will play all four years and never get to play in Baton Rouge or Gainesville.

I should have realized this would hit the net. Tuberville looses it on his assistant after a substitution was screwed up when they were going to go for it on 4th and 1. Things were so screwed up that the team lined up with too man men on the field before punting and lost another five yards.

Fresno State beat Nevada to stay in the chase for the MWC title.

Obviously the biggest story of the day.

*Legion* wrote:

Fresno State beat Nevada to stay in the chase for the MWC title.

Obviously the biggest story of the day.

Honestly, that's what makes me the most bummed about the BCS. I've been watching college football since roughly 1982 so I remember when it used to be a big deal for your given team to beat their rival or to win their conference. I grew up in Idaho travelling to games in Provo, Utah to watch BYU. I saw one giant game there, when Ty Detmer and the Cougars beat the #1 Miami Hurricanes. Otherwise it was just fun to watch BYU compete for the WAC title. The biggest casualty of the BCS is that there's so much controversy about the BCS standings, etc. that we lose sight of the fact that college football is a joy without ever going to a BCS game. That most teams will never get to compete in the BCS and therefore just winning their conference or going to a bowl game is a big deal.

Some of my best memories of Oregon State and BYU (the two teams I've followed most closely) are random games and moments in the middle of mediocre season. And, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that as an Oregon State fan I still remember that game when Oregon State was ranked in the top 5 and Fresno State punched them in the mouth the first game of the season. I didn't like the outcome, but it's always exhilarating to see a smaller program step up.

The BCS really has nothing to do with it. Blame ESPN and the internet. The BCS grew out of the public demand for focus on the top tier programs.

Jayhawker wrote:

The BCS really has nothing to do with it. Blame ESPN and the internet. The BCS grew out of the public demand for focus on the top tier programs.

Fair enough. I wouldn't disagree with that. I think the BCS enables that attitude, though, be semi-legitimizing a "champion" and making that the sole focus of fans, myself included at times.

DSGamer wrote:

And, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that as an Oregon State fan I still remember that game when Oregon State was ranked in the top 5 and Fresno State punched them in the mouth the first game of the season. I didn't like the outcome, but it's always exhilarating to see a smaller program step up.

I was at that game - my first season ticket game after I started attending Fresno State.

I'll never forget that game, and the pre-game hype of Ken Simonton.

Nobody called him "Heismanton" after that game.

*Legion* wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

And, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that as an Oregon State fan I still remember that game when Oregon State was ranked in the top 5 and Fresno State punched them in the mouth the first game of the season. I didn't like the outcome, but it's always exhilarating to see a smaller program step up.

I was at that game - my first season ticket game after I started attending Fresno State.

I'll never forget that game, and the pre-game hype of Ken Simonton.

Nobody called him "Heismanton" after that game. :)

That's cool. That's just the thing, some of the biggest games I remember watching in person or on TV had little to no national importance in the end.

DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

The BCS really has nothing to do with it. Blame ESPN and the internet. The BCS grew out of the public demand for focus on the top tier programs.

Fair enough. I wouldn't disagree with that. I think the BCS enables that attitude, though, be semi-legitimizing a "champion" and making that the sole focus of fans, myself included at times.

Jeez, Jayhawker makes personal worst and now best football posts on successive days. I'm getting whipsawed, here.

On the subject of conference strength: Although I'm rooting for Oregon to lose, I'm even more hoping for K State and Notre Dame to lose. Why? No championship game. Inherently easier path to the title game.

Would LOVE to see Oregon undefeated vs 1-loss SEC team that jumps the undefeated team or teams that play fewer games.

On the subject of conference strength: Although I'm rooting for Oregon to lose, I'm even more hoping for K State and Notre Dame to lose. Why? No championship game. Inherently easier path to the title game.

Well, had the Big 10 let Notre Dame into their conference back in the early 20th century, ND would probably be playing in the Big 10 championship game this year. Just sayin...

On the subject of conference strength: Although I'm rooting for Oregon to lose, I'm even more hoping for K State and Notre Dame to lose. Why? No championship game. Inherently easier path to the title game.

I don't buy it. Sounds good at face value, but it's based on weak logic:

1) The other team in the conference championship doesn't necessarily have to be good, just the team with the best conference record on the other side of the conference.

2) Notre Dame has only played FBS teams, and those have been reasonable teams, by and large. This is not true of many SEC or Pac-12 teams.

However, I'm looking at Georgia's schedule. As a one-loss SEC team headed to the conference championship, who is there next opponent? #7 Georgia Southern. Yes, #7 in the FCS.

Two of their out of conference games were 3-7 Buffalo and 3-7 Florida Atlantic. In conference they've played 4-6 Tennessee, 5-5 Missouri, 2-8 Auburn, and 1-9 Kentucky. They've played two top-10 teams so far, South Carolina and Florida, splitting those games.

Notre Dame has played three teams that were in the top 10 when they played them (Michigan, Oklahoma, Stanford). Sure, they're now in the stretch of the schedule in which they play Boston College and Wake Forest, but those teams are probably not much worse than Kentucky at this point. I'd also place my bets on BC to win a match with Georgia Southern.

Alabama's schedule? One great win over LSU before running into A&M. Their early schedule included Michigan (as did ND), a spunky Western Kentucky team, then 4-6 Arkansas, 5-5 Ole Miss, 3-7 Florida Atlantic, 5-5 Missouri, 4-6 Tennessee. Then they played what I think is a highly overrated Mississippi St. team.

Alabama's next two opponents? 1-9 Western Carolina from the FCS, and 2-8 Auburn.

So, your argument doesn't hold water, at least in this case. You can't just say that the addition of one conference championship game entails an intrinsically-harder route to the BCS and expect that to be a valid argument, given the rest of the schedules.

Between now and the SEC championship game, Alabama effectively has a 2 week bye, where W. Carolina and Auburn come to visit and have some tea.

Jayhawker wrote:

I should have realized this would hit the net. Tuberville looses it on his assistant after a substitution was screwed up when they were going to go for it on 4th and 1. Things were so screwed up that the team lined up with too man men on the field before punting and lost another five yards.

Holy cow! I'll bet that will be something Tuberville will be regretting come Monday morning! Nothing like striking a subordinate on national television to get a personal call from the university president!

So the SEC has now improved to 6 of the top 10 in the BCS, but it's all a conspiracy. Coaches (among others) all over the country, most of whom are NOT in the SEC, know nothing about football. Damn those guys.

And one detail, firesloth: Let's talk about final rankings. We all know initial rankings are ridiculous - people post about that every year. Look at USC, and countless others. Early season rankings are only slightly less ridiculous, followed by mid-season rankings.

Anyway, you are technically right that more games aren't always harder - just most of the time. Someone can link some comprehensive strength of schedule stats if we want to dive that far down the rabbit hole. Wait, those are meaningless thanks to the SEC-inflation conspiracy too, right?

Fedaykin98 wrote:

So the SEC has now improved to 6 of the top 10 in the BCS, but it's all a conspiracy. Coaches (among others) all over the country, most of whom are NOT in the SEC, know nothing about football. Damn those guys.

And one detail, firesloth: Let's talk about final rankings. We all know initial rankings are ridiculous - people post about that every year. Look at USC, and countless others. Early season rankings are only slightly less ridiculous, followed by mid-season rankings.

Anyway, you are technically right that more games aren't always harder - just most of the time. Someone can link some comprehensive strength of schedule stats if we want to dive that far down the rabbit hole. Wait, those are meaningless thanks to the SEC-inflation conspiracy too, right? ;)

Yeah, really SOS should not be noted until the end of the season. It is inflated because all those ranked teams (like Michigan!) can drop down and change quite a bit. It should basically be based on w-l and quality of opponent based on offensive and defensive stats. Ah, one day maybe

Fedaykin98 wrote:

So the SEC has now improved to 6 of the top 10 in the BCS, but it's all a conspiracy. Coaches (among others) all over the country, most of whom are NOT in the SEC, know nothing about football. Damn those guys. :razz:

That's not what I said. Not even close to what I said, actually.

What I said was that that one can't simply say an extra game makes one conference champ's schedule obviously harder than another. That was your argument.

What I also did say was that there are some bottom feeders on those SEC giants' schedules. Lots of them. The competition in the SEC hasn't been what it usually is in the SEC this year, as well (I'm looking at you, Arkansas).

At this point many highly-rated schools have cupcakes on the schedule.

And yes, there are some unwritten rules about how far a team should fall after a defeat, whether it's fair to rank a 1-loss team above an undefeated school (take the Notre Dame-Alabama case this week), etc.

And one detail, firesloth: Let's talk about final rankings. We all know initial rankings are ridiculous - people post about that every year. Look at USC, and countless others. Early season rankings are only slightly less ridiculous, followed by mid-season rankings.

Anyway, you are technically right that more games aren't always harder - just most of the time. Someone can link some comprehensive strength of schedule stats if we want to dive that far down the rabbit hole.

I completely agree with the early-season rankings. My argument didn't depend on when the rankings were done, and it was a mistake to put that "top-10 when ND played them" in the comments.

However, the point still stands. I'm on the record as saying that outside of LSU or A&M, 'Bama hasn't played anyone more difficult than the schedule ND has played. I'd wager one of LSU or A&M finishes the year ranked similarly to Oklahoma or Stanford.

As I pointed out, while they have to play some tough teams, Alabama and Georgia also play some pansies. So, arguing as you did that it's a straightforward fact that any team has a harder path to the championship game because of a conference championship game is not right.

ND (but I should have included a lot of teams around the country) is playing a schedule not obviously weaker than, e.g., Bama's. While Bama has now played two top-10 teams (well, according to this week's standings), they have some really weak opponents on there, too. Hence, given that many major-conference teams schedule FCS teams for their non-conference games, your blanket statement was not valid in all cases.

Wait, those are meaningless thanks to the SEC-inflation conspiracy too, right? ;)

Feel free to dismiss my argument with this tripe all you want, but I'm not an SEC hater and din't bring this up at all. I didn't make any mention of the SEC being overrated, with the exception of Mississippi St., and I doubt you want to argue they're top-10 material at this point. (Remember when they were Alabama's big test?) So, you're attacking an argument I didn't make.

Look, I used ND as an example because I know them (and pull for them). I don't think they should be in the top 2 at this point.

If they win out and no one else does? or one of the top 2 loses before the end? Yup. But in part because we have an imperfect system that doesn't allow any direct comparison on the field, and the unwritten rules of the rankings say you should give teams that are unbeaten a leg up.

Still, for the record? Alabama and Notre Dame defenses have allowed the same number of points per game this year, tied for first in the FBS at 11.1. So, ND is doing something right.

(And, wtf? Notre Dame is better on the road than at home, allowing only 7 points per game...versus 15.2 at home.)

If we wish to talk meaningful metrics, I suggest football outsider's FEI.
Any ranking system will always have it's own individual issues, but FEI is better than most.

Furthermore with the advent of google, statements like:

Someone can link some comprehensive strength of schedule stats

should best be saved for offline conversations.

The part not addressed to you was not addressed to you, bro.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

The part not addressed to you was not addresses to you, bro. ;)

Sorry, misinterpreted. By the way, I just took exception to your blanket statement, and shouldn't have made that first post as long as I did. (I just got into it and found those schedules sort of extraordinary this year, given the season that some of the weaker SEC teams are having.)

Then I thought you were saying something (that you evidently weren't) about something I didn't say (but thought you thought I did). Isn't the internet wonderful?

I'm not going to post more about this, as I don't think we're too far off.

I'm not arguing about Bama's SOS, though let's remember they scheduled Michigan, who were supposed to be good - not pulling the "ranked X at the time" card, just saying at the time they were scheduled, that was what we thought we knew.

And it's not like they pick their conference games. That's luck of the draw.

And lastly, they are the defending national champs. Doesn't mean much, but it ought to buy them some credibility, imho.

Fedaykin wrote:

And it's not like they pick their conference games. That's luck of the draw.

Absolutely. And, the bottom of the SEC has been uncharacteristically weak this year. Maybe it's the dilution that comes about because of their expansion, but I didn't myself foresee Auburn, for example, being that bad. Not that I know anything about their team.

And lastly, they are the defending national champs. Doesn't mean much, but it ought to buy them some credibility, imho.

This is one of the unwritten rules. However, we're now 10 games into the season. I think last year's success should be forgotten, if we're to be fair about things. (This gets back to how nice it will be once there is at least a 4 team playoff.)

I'm not arguing about Bama's SOS, though let's remember they scheduled Michigan, who were supposed to be good...

And, to be fair, I'm sure they thought Western Carolina and Florida Atlantic would be good, too.