College Football Week 13 discussions (In-state rivalry week/possible Black Friday)

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Matthean

So, if MSU, OSU, and Wisconsin win, who would play in the conference title game if this was next year? Would MSU be left out due to the lower BCS ranking and being one part of the only matchup that hadn't been played?

Next year, everyone plays teams in their own division, so the unplayed matchup problem wouldn't happen. Seems like you'd have to say MSU-Wisconsin, since MSU is the only team in its division with a 7-1 record, and Wisconsin beat Ohio State in the other division.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I would. They just took Arkansas to overtime and played really well in the process. Try looking at the record of the only teams to beat them.

You could do this with Michigan you know.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I would. They just took Arkansas to overtime and played really well in the process. Try looking at the record of the only teams to beat them.

Hey, I realize you are an SEC homer. But would you not consider that maybe the OT game is an indication of Arkansas more than it is of MSU?

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Matthean

You could do this with Michigan you know.

Really? Which top 10 or 15 team did Michigan just take into overtime?

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Hey, I realize you are an SEC homer. But would you not consider that maybe the OT game is an indication of Arkansas more than it is of MSU?

No, I watched both teams all season. Most people seem to think Arkansas is at least a top 15 team, some a top 10 team. I think you are in the minority if you don't think so. This is not a homer opinion.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Really? Which top 10 or 15 team did Michigan just take into overtime?

It's more in regards to the "look at who beat them" comment.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

No, I watched both teams all season.

Well then let's agree to disagree.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Matthean

It's more in regards to the "look at who beat them" comment.

If that were the only argument I made, you might have something. However, Michigan isn't a terrible team, either. I understand they have defensive issues, but it isn't as if they are Vanderbilt or something.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

If that were the only argument I made, you might have something. However, Michigan isn't a terrible team, either. I understand they have defensive issues, but it isn't as if they are Vanderbilt or something.

You obviously haven't watched Michigan this year. Or last. Or the year before that.

[MJ4H]

Do you think Vanderbilt would beat them?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

When presidents and college football big wigs start talking about "student athletes" and refer to "professionalism" as a dirty word, what they're really doing is trying to justify the sweet slave labor system they have.

Was thinking this.

[Jon]

Rutgers' Eric LeGrand update:
He has been taken off of a ventilator and is now breathing on his own. They have also reclassified his spinal cord injury from a complete spinal cord injury to an incomplete spinal cord injury. First good news out in a while.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Do you think Vanderbilt would beat them?

You might be going a little extreme with this one. However, I think it would be closer than you think. I have never seen a worse defensive team in my life than the current Michigan Wolverines. They almost lost to Indiana (probably should have), nearly lost to UMass as well (probably should have), nearly lost to Notre Dame (probably should have), and nearly lost to Illinois (probably should have). They could very easily be 3-8 and RR would probably be gone.

[MJ4H]

I haven't watched Michigan this year. Worst defensive team ever sounds pretty bad. I'll try to watch a game.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Jon

Rutgers' Eric LeGrand update:
He has been taken off of a ventilator and is now breathing on his own. They have also reclassified his spinal cord injury from a complete spinal cord injury to an incomplete spinal cord injury. First good news out in a while.

bELieve

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

When presidents and college football big wigs start talking about "student athletes" and refer to "professionalism" as a dirty word, what they're really doing is trying to justify the sweet slave labor system they have.

Ding, ding, ding.

Exactly.

Not only that, but he's ensuring his school has it great. Bash the smaller conference schools for playing a weak schedule and then say that those same schools have zero right to prove themselves in a BSC game. (because we know when the smaller schools have played in BSC games the bigger school has always destroyed them, right Oklahoma/Alabama?)

I'm sure Boise and TCU would love to improve their schedule Ohio State. Why don't you go ahead and schedule a home and home with them instead of playing Eastern Michigan?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I haven't watched Michigan this year. Worst defensive team ever sounds pretty bad. I'll try to watch a game.

Worst defensive team in college football that I have ever seen is what I said. A little different than how you phrased it. However, I would not recommend you watch a game at this point, especially this next one.

[MJ4H]

Yeah I know, I just didnt type it all out.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Ding, ding, ding.

Exactly.

Not only that, but he's ensuring his school has it great. Bash the smaller conference schools for playing a weak schedule and then say that those same schools have zero right to prove themselves in a BSC game. (because we know when the smaller schools have played in BSC games the bigger school has always destroyed them, right Oklahoma/Alabama?)

I'm sure Boise and TCU would love to improve their schedule Ohio State. Why don't you go ahead and schedule a home and home with them instead of playing Eastern Michigan?

Why would Boise State or TCU want to improve their schedule? They play scrubs all year and still get considered for the national championship game.

[Young Drachma]

Boise State's Bob Kustra says Ohio State president's comments 'wrong ... ridiculous' | Voices.IdahoStatesman.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Why would Boise State or TCU want to improve their schedule? They play scrubs all year and still get considered for the national championship game.

Is it just me or do the SEC die-hards seem especially sensitive and defensive this year? Perhaps it's bitterness that teams with a fraction of the athletic budgets (and a fraction of the cheating) are having so much success, and getting so much recognition?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Come on now, fellas. This is the president of Ohio State. If he came out and didn't say something "wrong" and "ridiculous" it would be newsworthy. The fact that he did say a bunch of things that were "wrong" and "ridiculous" is just Ohio State being Ohio State.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by molson

Is it just me or do the SEC die-hards seem especially sensitive and defensive this year? Perhaps it's bitterness that teams with a fraction of the athletic budgets (and a fraction of the cheating) are having so much success, and getting so much recognition?

I'm not exactly a SEC die-hard. I grew up on the Michigan/Ohio border and rooted for Toledo and Michigan.

Nowadays I'll root for Alabama/Auburn just because they're local but they're not exactly my favorite teams.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

Is it just me or do the SEC die-hards seem especially sensitive and defensive this year? Perhaps it's bitterness that teams with a fraction of the athletic budgets (and a fraction of the cheating) are having so much success, and getting so much recognition?

Well, he does have a point. What is the incentive to improve their schedule?

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Come on now, fellas. This is the president of Ohio State. If he came out and didn't say something "wrong" and "ridiculous" it would be newsworthy. The fact that he did say a bunch of things that were "wrong" and "ridiculous" is just Ohio State being Ohio State.

Remember, it's The Ohio State University.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The college football fan who doesn't really like the football part of it or know jack shit about it.

You mean the ones who laughably believe that Boise is anything better than a 2-3 loss team if they played in an even halfway legit conference?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

right Oklahoma/Alabama?)

Right Hawaii.

[sovereignstar v2]

Who hates Iowa?



I hate Iowa!

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Well, he does have a point. What is the incentive to improve their schedule?

Same as any other team, money, prestige, recruiting, branding, chances at the BCS and a national championship.

This is why Boise St. schedule Virginia Tech and Oregon St this season, and Georgia, Ole Miss, Michigan St. in future season, and is moving to the Mountain West. It's not their fault Tech lost to James Madison and Oregon St. crapped the bed after being ranked earlier in the season.

People have a very limited view of things that doesn't look past the single season that we're in. I'm tired of the SEC fan whining. If you don't like the setup, play fewer 1-AA schools, or leave your conference if you think you get such a raw deal.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

Same as any other team, money, prestige, recruiting, branding, chances at the BCS and a national championship.

But they are getting all of these things without improving their schedule.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You mean the ones who laughably believe that Boise is anything better than a 2-3 loss team if they played in an even halfway legit conference?

C'mon Jon you are smarter than this.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

But they are getting all of these things without improving their schedule.

Except for a chance at a title and respect for what they do on the field, you are correct.

Nobody outside of Maisel, Herbstreit, and people in the Pacific Northwest have any idea how good BSU actually is. Too bad the rest of the country (SEC and Big 10 homers in particular) can't take the blinders off long enough to see the light.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

But they are getting all of these things without improving their schedule.

They won the national championship already, awesome!

I don't understand your point. They have improved the schedule, they continue to do so, and those games, along with BCS bowl wins, have advanced the program forward, helped it increase it's general reputation and fanbase and brand recognition, and earned them an invitation into a conference ranked, by most independent criteria I've seen, ahead of at least two current BCS conferences.

[molson]

You can only define success for a team/athletic program on a case-by-case basis. Boise St. has been hugely successful by any measure. That SHOULD be a positive story - until the moment they become clearly competitive with more traditional powers that have tons of inherent advantages. Then all of the sudden they become a villian to the southern football weirdos.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Except for a chance at a title and respect for what they do on the field, you are correct.

Nobody outside of Maisel, Herbstreit, and people in the Pacific Northwest have any idea how good BSU actually is. Too bad the rest of the country (SEC and Big 10 homers in particular) can't take the blinders off long enough to see the light.

I think people understand how good their first team is. The problem is that they don't have the quality depth behind that.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Why would Boise State or TCU want to improve their schedule? They play scrubs all year and still get considered for the national championship game.

Yeah, Arkansas State, Louisiana Monroe, and Chattanooga are awesome opponents for the 2nd ranked Auburn Tigers. Wait, Alabama's schedule is better with the likes of San Jose State, Duke, and Georgia State. No, wait. Ohio State must have the toughest opponents, including Marshall, Ohio, and Eastern Michigan.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

They won the national championship already, awesome!

They are contending for a berth in the title game and are a BCS bowl regular.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

You can only define success for a team/athletic program on a case-by-case basis. Boise St. has been hugely successful by any measure. That SHOULD be a positive story - until the moment they become clearly competitive with more traditional powers that have tons of inherent advantages. Then all of the sudden they become a villian to the southern football weirdos.

Thread winner.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Yeah, Arkansas State, Louisiana Monroe, and Chattanooga are awesome opponents for the 2nd ranked Auburn Tigers. Wait, Alabama's schedule is better with the likes of San Jose State, Duke, and Georgia State. No, wait. Ohio State must have the toughest opponents, including Marshall, Ohio, and Eastern Michigan.

What are the strength of schedule ranking for Auburn, Alabama, and Ohio State?

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I think people understand how good their first team is. The problem is that they don't have the quality depth behind that.

Is there some evidence that you can point to support this common argument that SEC schools are so brutalized by their schedule that they're down to their 3rd string guys by this time of year? Or in general, are there more injuries in SEC games than games involving any other conference?

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

You can only define success for a team/athletic program on a case-by-case basis. Boise St. has been hugely successful by any measure. That SHOULD be a positive story - until the moment they become clearly competitive with more traditional powers that have tons of inherent advantages. Then all of the sudden they become a villian to the southern football weirdos.

They are not a villain to me, to be sure. My problem is with the flawed system, not Boise State.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I think people understand how good their first team is. The problem is that they don't have the quality depth behind that.

I guess that is why the 3rd and 4th string running backs are averaging between 5.4-8.9 ypc. Oh, and the two starting running backs have 9 and 10 td's between them.

Yep, no depth there.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

Is there some evidence that you can point to support this common argument that SEC schools are so brutalized by their schedule that they're down to their 3rd string guys by this time of year? Or in general, are there more injuries in SEC games than games involving any other conference?

Compare their strength of schedules. I can't believe people seriously try this argument. When Arkansas plays a team that is the caliber of team that Boise State or TCU plays almost weekly, we jokingly call it a bye week. It isn't far from the truth. We rest our starters for most of the game.

Imagine having a bye week nearly every week of the season.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I guess that is why the 3rd and 4th string running backs are averaging between 5.4-8.9 ypc. Oh, and the two starting running backs have 9 and 10 td's between them.

Yep, no depth there.

Against abyssmal competition. And showing that there is some depth at one position doesn't address every other position on the field, even if that weren't the case.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

They are not a villain to me, to be sure. My problem is with the flawed system, not Boise State.

Something we can agree upon.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

They are contending for a berth in the title game and are a BCS bowl regular.

And they'll get that title game as long as they go undefeated, AND if there's no more than exactly ONE other undefeated BCS team or fewer, AND at least a few of their opponents end up ranked at the end of the season (and even then, there's no guarantee.)

I don't think they're scheduling years in advance with that scenerio in mind as a given every year.

[bronconick]

Outside of the SEC West, there isn't exactly this pile up of great teams that Boise would struggle against in a back to back to back or even playing 3 top teams over a 5-6 week span. That bleeds over into the SEC East as far as SOS goes, since I don't think any dodge all of LSU/Arky/Auburn/Alabama.

As of right now, Ohio State has beaten one currently ranked team, for example. They had their one game vs. a top ten opponent surrounded by 3 games vs. awful Big Ten opponents.

The only real difference in beating San Jose State and beating Minnesota is how long it takes to bring the backups in if you're a legit top ten team.

Sagarin SOS rankings
Ohio State 59
Wisconsin 61
TCU 68
Boise State 73

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Something we can agree upon.

Please be careful to note that I have nothing against any of the smaller teams, nor any particular attachment to southern teams or whatever weird stuff you are attributing to me. I only argue that the system is horrible and needs changing.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Against abyssmal competition.

Really? This is your argument? See my above post regarding those awesome opponents the SEC faces week after brutal week.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Compare their strength of schedules. I can't believe people seriously try this argument. When Arkansas plays a team that is the caliber of team that Boise State or TCU plays almost weekly, we jokingly call it a bye week. It isn't far from the truth. We rest our starters for most of the game.

Imagine having a bye week nearly every week of the season.

If it's unfair for Bosie St. to be considered for BCS bowls, and if the SEC has it so darn tough - would you favor Arkansas moving to a weaker conference? Maybe the Big East?