2009 College Football: Week 1 Discussion

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

They do - it's called "out of conference scheduling". Credit to BYU for scheduling Oklahoma, and as a result of that decision, they are now in the hunt for a BCS title game spot.

Credit to Boise as well for scheduling Oregon, but that's not quite as impressive as Oklahoma, and given they are in the WAC, they could use as many impressive OOC opponents as they can get.

Strength of schedule matters.

Would people feel differently if BSU beat Oregon in Eugene? Oh wait, they did that last year.

[Blade6119]

I think Boise would beat BYU, I really do... and I think TCU will beat BYU this year...Im sorry, but beating OU without arguably its two best players isnt nearly as impressive as people are making it out to be. Great win, yes, but it wasnt like they looked as talented(they didnt) and it wasnt like they didnt need a lot of late luck(they did). Boise on the other hand walked up and down the field on Oregon, a team that was supposed to be top 15 this year(which is where an OU team without Bradford and Gresham would fall into as well pre-season)

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I think Boise would beat BYU, I really do... and I think TCU will beat BYU this year...Im sorry, but beating OU without arguably its two best players isnt nearly as impressive as people are making it out to be. Great win, yes, but it wasnt like they looked as talented(they didnt) and it wasnt like they didnt need a lot of late luck(they did). Boise on the other hand walked up and down the field on Oregon, a team that was supposed to be top 15 this year(which is where an OU team without Bradford and Gresham would fall into as well pre-season)

I wouldn't be shocked if TCU beat BYU at all. But, I'm going to give BYU some credit here--they were tied with OU 7-7 with less than ten seconds in the half before Bradford went down. BYU had a solid gameplan against an inexperienced OU line and OU had a pretty uncreative gameplan and lack of response to the blitzes the whole game. Gresham was out the whole game, but him alone doesn't take OU down to the top 15 rather than the top 3 (although, it could easily be argued that top 15 is where this team should be anyway).

Boise State looked mighty impressive. I think we need to see how BYU handles Florida State before we go making assumptions of who is better. Both teams will probably lose a game somewhere. If neither does, it would easily be BYU that had the better schedule, if only because of the MWC.

[molson]

Boise St. has really outgrown the WAC. It would very, very surprising at this point if they don't finish the season undefeated.

Maybe they should just go independent (in football), if the Mountain West doesn't want them.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Gresham was out the whole game, but him alone doesn't take OU down to the top 15 rather than the top 3 (although, it could easily be argued that top 15 is where this team should be anyway).

No, but I was a firm believer that a team losing that much talent on the O-line should have been lower then top 3, and the only reason you were up there was Bradford(Just as I was a firm believer Mizzou returning that much talent on the O-line should have been ranked higher, and the only reason they were ranked that low was the loss of skill position talent).

Im always a big believer in winning starts from the lines out, and I really believe that the OU line the past 2 years was one of the best ive seen in a long time. It just mauled anyone and everyone(I even think they did a great job in the title game, but some other players didnt come through like they should have).

Same logic applies to BYU, who is working with a new o-line...I think Max Hall is a good QB, and a great guy in real life from the few times I met him at ASU before he transferred, but that O-line will get them killed one day. McCoy was dominating them, but the OU secondary couldnt hold up. Like I said before, all credit for a great win, but its not an elite one by any means.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I think Boise would beat BYU, I really do... and I think TCU will beat BYU this year...Im sorry, but beating OU without arguably its two best players isnt nearly as impressive as people are making it out to be. Great win, yes, but it wasnt like they looked as talented(they didnt) and it wasnt like they didnt need a lot of late luck(they did). Boise on the other hand walked up and down the field on Oregon, a team that was supposed to be top 15 this year(which is where an OU team without Bradford and Gresham would fall into as well pre-season)

Agreed. BYU looked pretty damn good against OU, but if we are going to be realistic here, doesn't OU always fail to live up to its reputation/ranking/talent level?

Originally Posted by sooner333

I wouldn't be shocked if TCU beat BYU at all. But, I'm going to give BYU some credit here--they were tied with OU 7-7 with less than ten seconds in the half before Bradford went down. BYU had a solid gameplan against an inexperienced OU line and OU had a pretty uncreative gameplan and lack of response to the blitzes the whole game. Gresham was out the whole game, but him alone doesn't take OU down to the top 15 rather than the top 3 (although, it could easily be argued that top 15 is where this team should be anyway).

Boise State looked mighty impressive. I think we need to see how BYU handles Florida State before we go making assumptions of who is better. Both teams will probably lose a game somewhere. If neither does, it would easily be BYU that had the better schedule, if only because of the MWC.

I think FSU beats BYU by at least 2 td's. They will be pissed after losing to Miami, and they appear to be a much faster team than Oklahoma, at least right now.

Originally Posted by molson

Boise St. has really outgrown the WAC. It would very, very surprising at this point if they don't finish the season undefeated.

Maybe they should just go independent (in football), if the Mountain West doesn't want them.

You are absolutely correct. BSU outgrew the WAC several years ago. I don't see anyone beating them going forward unless they fail to show up for a game at some point. Not sure the MWC is even a good fit for BSU at this point, but it is most definitely an upgrade over the WAC. I don't see them going the Independent route because of all the money they would lose, although one would think the WAC would be very afraid of losing BSU, their only real BCS threat these days.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Same logic applies to BYU, who is working with a new o-line...I think Max Hall is a good QB, and a great guy in real life from the few times I met him at ASU before he transferred, but that O-line will get them killed one day. McCoy was dominating them, but the OU secondary couldnt hold up. Like I said before, all credit for a great win, but its not an elite one by any means.

I think OU's secondary, minus the huge mistake by Franks on the BYU 2nd half TD drive held up okay. I know that the stats look bad, but that's pretty much the way OU plays defense--a run stopping zone that will give up some passing yards and then shore up just outside of field goal range. The key is stopping guys in front of you--which is where Franks failed by being out of position on the sideline where there was nobody to help.

OU is going to win games this year because of defense and if Bradford comes back in an effective manner because of the mix of strong runners and passers (insofar as the line can protect them...there WILL be shakeups in the upcoming weeks, Eldridge is moving back to TE because he's much better than Ratertree at catching and blocking, and Brandon will be out for his SIX OFFENSIVE PENALTIES as an individual). But defense is the strong suit. BYU's line was getting blown up by McCoy because he's a beast. And you can't just double team him because the rest of the line is so good and so deep. The linebackers are very good (Travis Lewis might be the best player on defense). The secondary is pretty good too, although Proctor and Carter are new safeties.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

but if we are going to be realistic here, doesn't OU always fail to live up to its reputation/ranking/talent level?

I'm not going to say it hasn't been disappointing over the past years, but if winning one and playing in four of the last nine BCS championship games is failing to live up to anything, I must have picked the right team to root for.

[Blade6119]

Believe me, after watching good Mizzou teams get killed by great OU teams, I know the talent is there on both sides of the ball. But it takes time to gel, and mature into play-making quality. Im simply saying that take away Bradford and Gresham, this early in the season, and OU is a top 15 team, not top 3(and now they are ranked closer to where they belong). Thats not to say by the end of the year they wont be top 3, but the team BYU beat was not of that level. Thats all im saying, no need to defend your vaunted sooners.

Gotta be able to take criticism mate, as this is about as mild as its going to come

[Dr. Sak]

Don't be surprised if you see Boise State in the Mountain West in a year or two. Especially with the BCS reevaluating the conferences coming up. The Mountain West can bring in Boise State and take credit for their rankings the past few years even without them being in the conference.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I'm not going to say it hasn't been disappointing over the past years, but if winning one and playing in four of the last nine BCS championship games is failing to live up to anything, I must have picked the right team to root for.

Ohio State's another one of those programs that "doesn't live up to expectations". Only one team wins the title every year despite at the very least a handful in the hunt.

Oh that we all had such disappointing teams

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Don't be surprised if you see Boise State in the Mountain West in a year or two. Especially with the BCS reevaluating the conferences coming up. The Mountain West can bring in Boise State and take credit for their rankings the past few years even without them being in the conference.

I suppose if I'm Boise State and if that happens (MWest in BCS)- it's the ideal place. But, heck, why shoot small? They'd be the 2nd or 3rd most prestigious school in the Pac-10 over this recent run.

SI

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I suppose if I'm Boise State and if that happens (MWest in BCS)- it's the ideal place. But, heck, why shoot small? They'd be the 2nd or 3rd most prestigious school in the Pac-10 over this recent run.

SI

But what value does the Pac-10 gain by adding Boise? Its got a good football team, sure, but they already have a BCS spot...and adding the Boise TV market is not all that appealing.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I'm not going to say it hasn't been disappointing over the past years, but if winning one and playing in four of the last nine BCS championship games is failing to live up to anything, I must have picked the right team to root for.

Not putting down OU, just pointing out how they have fallen short of expectations at times. Still better than 98% of college football.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ohio State's another one of those programs that "doesn't live up to expectations". Only one team wins the title every year despite at the very least a handful in the hunt.

Oh that we all had such disappointing teams

SI

See above. As a Michigan fan, I am hoping for a return to prominence soon. Those 9-4 & 8-5 seasons were getting old. And don't get me started on last year.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I suppose if I'm Boise State and if that happens (MWest in BCS)- it's the ideal place. But, heck, why shoot small? They'd be the 2nd or 3rd most prestigious school in the Pac-10 over this recent run.

SI

I would love to see BSU join the Pac-10, just don't see it happening. I don't think they have the academics first of all, and I also am pretty sure that they don't offer enough of the other sports (men's baseball is a big one) to be taken seriously in a conference like the Pac-10.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Would people feel differently if BSU beat Oregon in Eugene? Oh wait, they did that last year.

What does beating them last year have to do with this year?

Playing one BCS conference school when you play in one of the weakest FCS conferences is not the way to earn respect and gain entry to the BCS title game. Seriously, check out the rest of Boise's OOC schedule:

Miami, OH
@ Bowling Green
UC Davis (FBS)
@ Tulsa

If Boise State wants a shot at the BCS title game, they have to schedule tougher opponents than this. People like to compare Boise State in football to Gonzaga in basketball, but give the Zags credit for scheduling tough OOC games to counter their weak in-conference slate.

BYU on the other hand is in a tougher conference and with a stronger OOC list:

@ Tulane
Florida State
Utah State

Granted, Tulane and Utah State are no great shakes, but Florida State is a respectable BCS conference team.

If BYU wins out, they deserve to be in the title game. Boise State, not necessarily - I could very easily support a 1-loss BCS conference school over Boise State, depending on the school, their schedule and how each team played over the course of the season.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Dick Butkus isn't too happy about the beating that Illinois took on Saturday. Called out the kids and their pride for giving up........

Zook doesn't need Dick Butkus to tell him Illinois is against a wall - Dr. Saturday - NCAAF - Yahoo! Sports

Speaking of kids, your alma mater Illinois didn't look so hot this past Saturday. Are you still satisfied with the direction the program is going in?

DB: Do I have to answer that question? I have to admit, I was forced to turn the darn [game] off. ... I was very disappointed. Very disappointed in their effort, not whether they were overmatched or whatever, but their effort left me … I don't understand it. I really don't. Their effort was abysmal.

You would know better than anyone that lack of effort leads back to coaching, does it not?

DB: Well, it could be. It could be. ... I was very disappointed with [Illinois'] effort. Now if you want to equate that to their coaching, fine. I'm three times seven, I'll take the heat for that, but you can't tell me these kids can't get up and try to play hard, even if they're out-manned. I don't get it. Illinois shouldn't be that way.

FYI to the Mizzou fans. Athletic Department is expecting a sellout for Bowling Green this weekend. Looks like that opening win has the fan base pretty excited. Game is also available on PPV for $30.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Dick Butkus isn't too happy about the beating that Illinois took on Saturday. Called out the kids and their pride for giving up........
.

You mean the same Dick Butkus that took a coaching job from a guy who needed it at Montour High School in Pittsburgh for an ESPN reality show. Then quit on the team half way through the season? Didn't coach at all, just yelled!

Pot meet kettle.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

You mean the same Dick Butkus that took a coaching job from a guy who needed it at Montour High School in Pittsburgh for an ESPN reality show. Then quit on the team half way through the season? Didn't coach at all, just yelled!

Pot meet kettle.

Didn't know about this. I'll have to google. Sounds brutal.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

What does beating them last year have to do with this year?

It has everything to do with it. The refusal to give BSU credit for its accomplishments is ridiculous. Every season, they get bashed for their schedule. Last I checked, they cannot control the rest of their conference and how good/bad the teams are. They have tried to schedule better opponents, and still try to do so. The problem:

1) Few of the big schools want to travel to Boise and play on the blue turf
2) None of the big schools want to even play BSU for fear of, well, what has happened more times than not (ask Oregon)

I think it was last year or two years ago, BSU tried to schedule a game in Ann Arbor and the Wolverines wanted no part of it because of the chance of losing. Can't say I blame them to be honest, but it makes things really hard for a program like BSU.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

It has everything to do with it. The refusal to give BSU credit for its accomplishments is ridiculous.

Who's refusing to give them credit? Last year they edged a 10-3 Oregon team at home. Good for them. It was the only win they had over a decent team. How much more credit should they get?

You want to bring up their win over Oregon at Oregon last year as part of the discussion for why they should be considered for the BCS title game this year? Fine. Let's also bring up their loss to TCU. Let's bring up their loss in 2007 to a bad Washington team.

Fact is, the only season where they were even in the discussion for BCS consideration is 2006. Give credit for them going undefeated and edging Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. But also recognize that they had 3 very close calls in a weak in conference schedule that year, and Oregon State and (maybe) Fresno State were the only good wins they had at the conclusion of their regular schedule that year.

Every season, they get bashed for their schedule. Last I checked, they cannot control the rest of their conference and how good/bad the teams are.

So we're supposed to just overlook the fact they play in a weak conference?

They have tried to schedule better opponents, and still try to do so. The problem:

1) Few of the big schools want to travel to Boise and play on the blue turf
2) None of the big schools want to even play BSU for fear of, well, what has happened more times than not (ask Oregon)

I think it was last year or two years ago, BSU tried to schedule a game in Ann Arbor and the Wolverines wanted no part of it because of the chance of losing. Can't say I blame them to be honest, but it makes things really hard for a program like BSU.

I'm having a very hard time believing they can't fill out their schedule with more BCS conference teams if they're willing to play on the road. Fact is, until Boise beat Oregon last year in Autzen, Boise hadn't ever beaten a BCS conference school as the visiting team.

And they'd get more consideration for home and home series if they expanded their stadium beyond the current 33,500 - there's not a lot of financial incentive for a BCS school to travel there other than a possible TV payout.

Look, I understand Boise is in a tough spot, but that doesn't change the fact that their strength of schedule is pretty weak year-in, year-out. They have to be willing to be road warriors, and they have to obliterate their in-conference slate - not just go undefeated in their conference, but avoid close calls to bad teams.

Do they have a harder road than BCS conference schools? Yes, but they have to pay their dues and earn the level of respect they aspire to.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Didn't know about this. I'll have to google. Sounds brutal.

Butkus leaves Montour

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Who's refusing to give them credit? Last year they edged a 10-3 Oregon team at home. Good for them. It was the only win they had over a decent team. How much more credit should they get?

Sorry, but I have to call a foul here. Every year, Florida and Texas (2 specific examples) play absolute candy-ass opponents outside of conference. And don't tell me how hard their conference games are. Yes, as a conference, the SEC and Big 12 are better than the WAC (duh!), but playing Charleston Southern Virgin of the Lake and winning by 50 points...? C'mon.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You want to bring up their win over Oregon at Oregon last year as part of the discussion for why they should be considered for the BCS title game this year? Fine. Let's also bring up their loss to TCU. Let's bring up their loss in 2007 to a bad Washington team.

Fact is, the only season where they were even in the discussion for BCS consideration is 2006. Give credit for them going undefeated and edging Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. But also recognize that they had 3 very close calls in a weak in conference schedule that year, and Oregon State and (maybe) Fresno State were the only good wins they had at the conclusion of their regular schedule that year.


So we're supposed to just overlook the fact they play in a weak conference?


I'm having a very hard time believing they can't fill out their schedule with more BCS conference teams if they're willing to play on the road. Fact is, until Boise beat Oregon last year in Autzen, Boise hadn't ever beaten a BCS conference school as the visiting team.

And they'd get more consideration for home and home series if they expanded their stadium beyond the current 33,500 - there's not a lot of financial incentive for a BCS school to travel there other than a possible TV payout.

Look, I understand Boise is in a tough spot, but that doesn't change the fact that their strength of schedule is pretty weak year-in, year-out. They have to be willing to be road warriors, and they have to obliterate their in-conference slate - not just go undefeated in their conference, but avoid close calls to bad teams.

Do they have a harder road than BCS conference schools? Yes, but they have to pay their dues and earn the level of respect they aspire to.

I understand your points here. BSU has close calls in their conference because they will get the BEST effort every week. Every other team in the WAC wants to take down the "mighty BSU" each and every week. I agree they should not have these close calls, but this is the situation they are faced with.

Yes, their schedule is pretty easy, but there is just not much they can really do about it. I know that they have tried to schedule tougher opponents, but nobody wants to play them. What does an Oklahoma, Nebraska, Florida State, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc., have to gain by playing a BSU in a weak conference? They have everything to lose by losing the game ("forget a national championship now") and very little to lose by winning ("you should have won, they are in the WAC!!").

Yeah, BSU can't win right now. Maybe a move to a stronger conference will help them.

[molson]

BSU to the Mountain West makes so much sense for both sides its ridiculous. The Mountain West would be a clearly superior conference than the big east if that happened (if they're not already). That could have some big implications for the BCS and the Big East and all of college football. (It's not hard to see the Big East lose their BCS spot, and then have the stronger remaining teams then try to bail for BCS conferences, or make a desperate grab for the best remaining non-BCS schools to create some kind of super mid-major conference).

It's also worth noting that changing conferences in football doesn't mean you have to change conferences in every other sport. Not that I think anyone will be able to crash the PAC-10, since that's a kind of private club that's been around forever, but beyond that, there's all kinds of arrangements out there now, and in the past, involving football-only conference membership, or everything-but-football conference membership.

Anyway, it'd be interesting to see it all shake out.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Sorry, but I have to call a foul here. Every year, Florida and Texas (2 specific examples) play absolute candy-ass opponents outside of conference. And don't tell me how hard their conference games are. Yes, as a conference, the SEC and Big 12 are better than the WAC (duh!), but playing Charleston Southern Virgin of the Lake and winning by 50 points...? C'mon.

Sure, there are a lot of BCS schools that have some weak teams on their OOC schedule. As a Pac-10 fan, and a Washington fan in particular (Washington has never played a team that wasn't Division 1-A/FBS), I find it pretty laughable some of the weak sister teams other schools have on their schedules.

But let's be clear here - the OOC slate for most BCS conference schools is pretty comparable to the in-conference slate for Boise State. And the in-conference slate for BCS conference schools is quite a bit harder.

There's a big difference between playing 8 WAC teams and playing 8 SEC teams. When you have 8-9 in conference games in a BCS conference, you don't need to schedule 3-4 more really tough OOC games. Maybe one tough one, one mediocre one and one weak one.

Yes, their schedule is pretty easy, but there is just not much they can really do about it.

Again, I have a really hard time believing it's that hard to schedule away games with high level BCS conference schools.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

Not that I think anyone will be able to crash the PAC-10, since that's a kind of private club that's been around forever, but beyond that, there's all kinds of arrangements out there now, and in the past, involving football-only conference membership, or everything-but-football conference membership.

At the risk of continuing to take this thread somewhat off-topic...

It seems pretty clear at this point that the Pac-10 is interested in expansion only if it includes the right schools. When the SWC was breaking up, the Pac-10 was interested in bringing in Texas and Colorado. When Texas decided to join up with the Big-8 to help form the Big-12 (and Colorado elected to stay put) that was the end of expansion talk.

At this point, I think the only way the Pac-10 expands is if they can lure Utah and Colorado in. Those two would add to the Pac-10's media reach by adding the SLC and Denver metro areas, and neither school would drag down the conference's athletic or academic reputation.

On the off-chance that both schools would be willing to move to the Pac-10, one of the chain reactions would likely be the MWC inviting Boise State to join.

But ultimately, I'm not sure the Pac-10 expands any time soon. The conference likes the fact that all teams play every other team every year in football and basketball, and expanding would muck that up.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

BSU to the Mountain West makes so much sense for both sides its ridiculous. The Mountain West would be a clearly superior conference than the big east if that happened (if they're not already). That could have some big implications for the BCS and the Big East and all of college football. (It's not hard to see the Big East lose their BCS spot, and then have the stronger remaining teams then try to bail for BCS conferences, or make a desperate grab for the best remaining non-BCS schools to create some kind of super mid-major conference).

The Big East has won 3 of its last 4 BCS games and has a non-conference record of 83-44 since '05. The MWC's non-conference record since then is 58-60. The Big East also tops the MWC in attendence, recruiting base, media market, depth, and just about every category you can think of.

Even if you add Boise to the MWC it doesn't improve things enough to make it more attractive than the Big East. The conference would still be stuck with 6 schools that couldn't crack the top 6 in the Big East even under the best scenario.

For some reason the MWC taking the Big East's BCS slot has become a talking point at ESPN for writers but it makes zero sense. The MWC may be deserving of an auto bid for the BCS, but suggesting it happen at the Big East's expense is laughable.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The Big East has won 3 of its last 4 BCS games and has a non-conference record of 83-44 since '05. The MWC's non-conference record since then is 58-60. The Big East also tops the MWC in attendence, recruiting base, media market, depth, and just about every category you can think of.

Even if you add Boise to the MWC it doesn't improve things enough to make it more attractive than the Big East. The conference would still be stuck with 6 schools that couldn't crack the top 6 in the Big East even under the best scenario.

For some reason the MWC taking the Big East's BCS slot has become a talking point at ESPN for writers but it makes zero sense. The MWC may be deserving of an auto bid for the BCS, but suggesting it happen at the Big East's expense is laughable.

Bingo. Especially when you look at things like attendance and media markets. What does the Mountain West have to compete with areas like Pittsburgh, the NYC area, Louisville/Cincy, Tampa, etc?

[Logan]

And you can make a case for the ACC's bid to go before the Big East's.

Isn't there a good chance another BCS game will be added in the near future at the new Dallas Stadium? That will be the MWCs shot.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The conference would still be stuck with 6 schools that couldn't crack the top 6 in the Big East even under the best scenario.

Can you explain this please? I will give you the standings right now (mostly as a reference point for all of the teams in these 2 conferences).

Mountain West Conference

Air Force 0-0 1-0
Brigham Young 0-0 1-0
Colorado State 0-0 1-0
UNLV 0-0 1-0
Utah 0-0 1-0
Wyoming 0-0 1-0
TCU 0-0 0-0
New Mexico 0-0 0-1
San Diego State 0-0 0-1

San Diego State and New Mexico are not good. At all. Wyoming and UNLV are not much better. Air Force and Colorado State can at least be competitive. That leaves BYU, Utah, and TCU as the good teams in this conference.

Big East Conference

Cincinnati 1-0 1-0
Connecticut 0-0 1-0
Louisville 0-0 1-0
Pittsburgh 0-0 1-0
South Florida 0-0 1-0
West Virginia 0-0 1-0
Syracuse 0-0 0-1
Rutgers 0-1 0-1


Rutgers, Syracuse, and West Virginia are awful. Connecticut is unproven, as is Louisville. Pitt has an awful coach and usually loses at least 2 games to pathetic teams. South Florida and Cincinnati appear to be the only 2 teams in the Big East that are even decent.

I don't understand how you can state the above with a straight face.

[ISiddiqui]

Rutgers is awful based on one game?! Have we forgotten how they concluded last season already? And how is West Virginia awful?! WTF?

[Logan]

Wow.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Rutgers is awful based on one game?! Have we forgotten how they concluded last season already? And how is West Virginia awful?! WTF?

I would say a team that lost by 32 points at home is awful. While Cincinnati is a decent team, what does that say about Rutgers?

Oh, I guess WVU is a good team because they beat Liberty by 13 points. At home.

Are we going on past results and school name, or what happened this first week of the season?

[ISiddiqui]

So you are basing everything on Week 1? Nice.

You know I tend to back the mid major conferences, but then super homers like you show up and I tend to just say fuck 'em. I imagine it's like when those of us who sympathize with the KC Royals read MBBF's posts (kidding!!)

[sterlingice]

Oh, sure, just keep kicking us when we're down

SI

[ISiddiqui]

I'm a Big East fan. I feel your pain!

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So you are basing everything on Week 1? Nice.

You know I tend to back the mid major conferences, but then super homers like you show up and I tend to just say fuck 'em. I imagine it's like when those of us who sympathize with the KC Royals read MBBF's posts (kidding!!)

Ha...super homer?

All I am pointing out is the obvious. How can I not base things on week 1? The college football season is pretty short to begin with. Anyone here think that Oklahoma still has a chance at a national championship? Without their starting QB and TE?

Don't tell me how great Rutgers is and that the Big East is the shit when it clearly is not. I will take the MWC against the Big East any time.

[Logan]

In that case, Navy is gonna storm the BCS this year!

You calling Cincinnati decent shows you know nothing. They have an NFL QB and a great WR group, led by a guy who will be a 1st round pick. The only reason they haven't matched their ranking from last season (yet) is because they replaced 10 starters on defense. Like I said in my (way off) preview of the game, there is plenty of talent replacing those guys.

BTW, this may be the first time I've heard someone claim that someone is crazy for saying that Rutgers is good because of (not despite) their history. Thanks!

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Are we going on past results and school name, or what happened this first week of the season?

Is this a serious question?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Ha...super homer?

All I am pointing out is the obvious. How can I not base things on week 1? The college football season is pretty short to begin with. Anyone here think that Oklahoma still has a chance at a national championship? Without their starting QB and TE?

Don't tell me how great Rutgers is and that the Big East is the shit when it clearly is not. I will take the MWC against the Big East any time.

You answered my question. You're just an idiot.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Logan

In that case, Navy is gonna storm the BCS this year!

You calling Cincinnati decent shows you know nothing. They have an NFL QB and a great WR group, led by a guy who will be a 1st round pick. The only reason they haven't matched their ranking from last season (yet) is because they replaced 10 starters on defense. Like I said in my (way off) preview of the game, there is plenty of talent replacing those guys.

BTW, this may be the first time I've heard someone claim that someone is crazy for saying that Rutgers is good because of (not despite) their history. Thanks!

Ok, but Navy lost. That statement makes no sense. Cincinnati is decent/good, but not great...at least yet. Beating up on an obviously overrated Rutgers team is nice, but c'mon. Boise State would beat Cincinnati, as would BYU.

your welcome for Rutgers.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Don't tell me how great Rutgers is and that the Big East is the shit

Rutgers, Syracuse, and West Virginia are awful.

YOU are the one using hyperbole, not anyone else.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You answered my question. You're just an idiot.

Well played. Nothing like personal insults to get out of a good debate, eh?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Well played. Nothing like personal insults to get out of a good debate, eh?

Show me the good debate here and I'll gladly discuss things with you. The piles of shit you just posted lead me to believe this is a Jas_lov alias, though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

You calling Cincinnati decent shows you know nothing. They have an NFL QB and a great WR group, led by a guy who will be a 1st round pick.

I dunno, "decent" seems pretty fair at this point. I mean, we're talking about a team sitting 23rd in both polls at the moment & I'm not at all convinced you could go much stronger than "decent" for many of the teams above & belows them.

Notre Dame? Georgia Tech? TCU? These are the company Cincy keeps right now, along with Kansas, Nebraska, and Georgia to pick on a few others.

"Decent" seems fair enough right now, with a chance to be "pretty good" by season's end and topping out around "good" for any & all of 'em. I just don't see many teams who deserve something like "very good" out there on the landscape at the moment.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Show me the good debate here and I'll gladly discuss things with you. The piles of shit you just posted lead me to believe this is a Jas_lov alias, though.

I disagree with you so I am an idiot who posts piles of shit.

late.

[DeToxRox]

Rutgers will be a 8 win team. They're not awful by any means but they are going to have to play Tom Savage rather then continue to put Natale out there. They'd be smart to take the lumps now with the frosh and build to a great 2010.

My main problem vs Cinncy is Rutgers D should have been their strength, especially in an opener, and it looked very exploitable. It'll get fixed but the offense isn't good enough with Natale to convince me they can win double digits.

[yacovfb]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Ok, but Navy lost.

So did Liberty but for some reason you think that means WVU sucks (as a Pitt fan, I hope that turns out to be the case, but come on...). By the same logic, I guess Iowa is absolutely terrible this year, and much worse than WVU since they didn't even win their game against an FCS team by 13.

While the BE lacks a top team that competes with the other BCS conferences, they should be fairly deep and competitive this year. Cincy might end up being that top team, although I'd give my team and S Fla a shot as well. Rutgers should end up being decent, Schiano's a good enough coach. WVU will win 6-8 games, Syracuse might even surprise a bit as they played Minnesota close. I think UConn and Louisville should suck, but they won't approach the bottom of the Mountain West teams and I'd say they're even better than the bottom ACC teams.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I dunno, "decent" seems pretty fair at this point. I mean, we're talking about a team sitting 23rd in both polls at the moment & I'm not at all convinced you could go much stronger than "decent" for many of the teams above & belows them.

Notre Dame? Georgia Tech? TCU? These are the company Cincy keeps right now, along with Kansas, Nebraska, and Georgia to pick on a few others.

"Decent" seems fair enough right now, with a chance to be "pretty good" by season's end and topping out around "good" for any & all of 'em. I just don't see many teams who deserve something like "very good" out there on the landscape at the moment.

Fair enough, but you've put it in the right context (you define "decent" as a certain area within the top 25). I'm not going to argue how you classify teams into those sorts of tiers, we'd have different ranges within each one. His ridiculous responses on this topic showed me how he doesn't have a clue. He's placed Cincy and USF side by side and no one who follows college football would make that same mistake.

I don't think Boise State would beat Cincinnati, and BYU against them would be a coin flip. Just my opinion.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I disagree with you so I am an idiot who posts piles of shit.

late.

No, you post hyperbole and personal feelings as facts and somehow think this is proof.

You use 1 week as a sample size.

Based on your above feelings I'd guess you believe the BCS auto-bids should be reshuffled every year based on which conferences are up and which are down the previous season.

You somehow think a team that has never cracked the top 3 in the Big East is decent while WVU is awful.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Rutgers will be a 8 win team. They're not awful by any means but they are going to have to play Tom Savage rather then continue to put Natale out there. They'd be smart to take the lumps now with the frosh and build to a great 2010.

My main problem vs Cinncy is Rutgers D should have been their strength, especially in an opener, and it looked very exploitable. It'll get fixed but the offense isn't good enough with Natale to convince me they can win double digits.

I already posted my thoughts on the defense so I obviously agree. Schiano held the DC duties last year, and now it's shared among two coaches. I'm hoping *something* got completely fucked up in the planning/execution process to explain what happened. You can't get that much worse and look so confused compared to the prior year when the talent on the field hasn't changed much.

I'd be amazed if Savage isn't starting from here on out. Rutgers fans were really shocked last season that Schiano wasn't getting Natale into games after they were decided, and now we understand why.