Cal / Texas Tech

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by JW

The truth is, if you put the top 4 or 8 or 16 teams in a hypothetical playoff and ran the playoff several times, you would have several different winners. There really isn't that much difference in the top teams. Put USC in the SEC or Big Whatever playing on the road in some truly tough venues, and they likely don't go undefeated, but would probably still be the best team in the country.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Although you're certainly right that just about anything can happen on the field when good teams play, I do actually believe that USC, OU, and Auburn would all beat all the other top teams the vast majority of the time they played them. How they would all fare against each other, however, will never be determined.

But talent is only so much of the equation. It's one thing to say such and such team has the most talent in the country - hence they're the best team in the country, but that doesn't make them the champions. A couple of years ago, I thought Miami was a better team than Ohio State, but Ohio State won and therefore they were the best team in the country. I know it's an issue of semantics, but I think there needs to be a differentiation between talent assessment and status earned. A team can have all the talent in the country and may look better on paper than OU, USC, or Auburn, but if they've lost a game while all three of those haven't, they'll never be the best team in the country.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by JW

LSU played at VT and then VT cancelled the return engagement

That's not entirely true...we just had to postpone our trip to Baton Rouge until 2007 due to joining the ACC and having to play one more conference game.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Sorry VPI, I just had to point this out

I still think Cal would beat Oklahoma...last night's game doesn't change that. But I don't mind laughing at Cal because of the way we flopped against them in last year's bowl game.

[Noop]

Well you did play at Doak at got your ass stomped to the tune of 42-3... I would quit to if I was getting owned.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Noop

I know Auburn is pure chicken for backing out the games

Agreed....Auburn backed out of an agreement with us...we're going to take it out on them on Monday night

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JW

If you check the BCS polls, you will find that Sagarin shows a decided tilt toward the Pac-10 and against the SEC, compared to all the other computer polls. You can rely on Sagarin if you want; it is just one computer poll.

And two comments on SEC teams playing patsies. It is kind of hard to schedule really tough teams when really tough teams cancel their commitments against you. Case in point is Va. Tech which scheduled a home-and-home against LSU. LSU played at VT and then VT cancelled the return engagement, forcing LSU to find a much lower ranked opponent at the last moment. Three teams have cancelled games at Baton Rouge against LSU in the past three years. I wonder why. I bet it is not because they consider LSU to be overrated. LSU continues to have trouble finding quality non-conference opponents for home-and-homes, especially non-conference opponents that will honor their agreements.

Maybe LSU needs to take a page out of USC's book and play teams on neutral fields (a la VT - which was essentially a home guy for the Hokies). Oregon State didn't mind flying out to LSU on short notice either.

But what I am talking about is a conference-wide stance. Arizona setup a home-and-home with Wisconson and played Utah this season. ASU had a home-and-home with Iowa and Northwestern. Oregon agreed to play in OKlahoma. USC has its agreement with Notre Dame in addition to plaging VT. Cal agreed to play at Southern Miss. Stanford agreed to play BYU and at Notre Dame. UCLA agreed to play a home-and-home with Oklahoma State. Washington agreed to play a Fresno State and Notre Dame on the road. So on and so forth. Almost every Pac-10 team played one very good nonconference opponent with most scheduling two. Now, many of these were on the road or part of a home-and-home, but that's what it took to get them on the schedule. You can look at the Big 12 and see a similar pattern.

The SEC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to play any decent team on the road and even shys away from a bunch of home-and-homes that come their way. Look at the schedules of Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn and LSU and you see teams that would rather play Troy, Arkansas State or the Citadel than go on the road to face a more difficult team. You realize that not one of the 12 nonconference games played by Georgia, Tenn, Auburn or LSU was on the road!

It's hard to get good people to play you when you never want to play on the road.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I still think Cal would beat Oklahoma...last night's game doesn't change that. But I don't mind laughing at Cal because of the way we flopped against them in last year's bowl game.

You didn't flop to them last year, Cal was simply better

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

Maybe LSU needs to take a page out of USC's book and play teams on neutral fields (a la VT - which was essentially a home guy for the Hokies). Oregon State didn't mind flying out to LSU on short notice either.

But what I am talking about is a conference-wide stance. Arizona setup a home-and-home with Wisconson and played Utah this season. ASU had a home-and-home with Iowa and Northwestern. Oregon agreed to play in OKlahoma. USC has its agreement with Notre Dame in addition to plaging VT. Cal agreed to play at Southern Miss. Stanford agreed to play BYU and at Notre Dame. UCLA agreed to play a home-and-home with Oklahoma State. Washington agreed to play a Fresno State and Notre Dame on the road. So on and so forth. Almost every Pac-10 team played one very good nonconference opponent with most scheduling two. Now, many of these were on the road or part of a home-and-home, but that's what it took to get them on the schedule. You can look at the Big 12 and see a similar pattern.

The SEC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to play any decent team on the road and even shys away from a bunch of home-and-homes that come their way. Look at the schedules of Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn and LSU and you see teams that would rather play Troy, Arkansas State or the Citadel than go on the road to face a more difficult team. You realize that not one of the 12 nonconference games played by Georgia, Tenn, Auburn or LSU was on the road!

It's hard to get good people to play you when you never want to play on the road.

The SEC's scheduling can be pretty bad at times, but you are shorting them too much here.

Georgia, Florida and South Carolina all have rivalry games against ACC teams and play these as home and homes each year.
Very few Pac 10 teams (outside of USC and Stanford who both play Notre Dame yearly) have these annual games that take up one of the three non-conference slots.

Outside of the rivalry games:
Georgia played Clemson in a home and home in 2002 and 2003.
Florida played Miami in a home and home in 2002 and 2003.
Tennessee just finished a home and home with Notre Dame and finished a home and home with Miami last season.
Auburn just finished a home and home with USC and plays Georgia Tech in the second half of a home and home next year.
Alabama has traditionally played a big non-conference game.
Arkansas has played Texas in a home and home.
Kentucky plays Louisville annually.

With the move back to 11 game schedules (or at least having 12 game schedules in only calendar years where 12 Saturdays fall before December 1 (or whatever the rule is), SEC schools kind of have to guarantee six home games to generate income--for teams with rivalry games, that means ensuring the other two games are at home in off-years. In seasons where there are 12 games, I think you will see SEC teams with a big non-conference game.

This year was particularly bad for the SEC in scheduling, but not all of it was their fault. For instance, Bowling Green bought out of the Auburn game to get a bigger pay day at Oklahoma.

(ick...I need a shower after defending the SEC that much.)

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

The SEC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to play any decent team on the road and even shys away from a bunch of home-and-homes that come their way. Look at the schedules of Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn and LSU and you see teams that would rather play Troy, Arkansas State or the Citadel than go on the road to face a more difficult team. You realize that not one of the 12 nonconference games played by Georgia, Tenn, Auburn or LSU was on the road!

.

But that was a fluke of scheduling this year. Tennessee and Auburn have been playing some pretty good home-and-homes the last couple of years, it was just this years schedule had Tennessee playing the home portion of a Notre Dame home-and-home, and Auburn had to rebuild their out of conference schedule with a lame-duck AD that didn't want to make any long term committments for the next guy coming in. I'll not try to defend UGA because Dooley honestly never attempted good out of conference games. Hopefully the new AD will.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Noop

If I am not mistaken many times during the 80's Florida State has played LSU at LSU. Nice to see you calling them Semihole all I asked was a question and already you start with this bullcrap. I guess that how you sister fucking mud butts handle business in the bayou.

Oh, how I long for QOTM

[JW]

Originally Posted by Noop

If I am not mistaken many times during the 80's Florida State has played LSU at LSU. Nice to see you calling them Semihole all I asked was a question and already you start with this bullcrap. I guess that how you sister fucking mud butts handle business in the bayou.

You started with an assumption, not a true question. You wrote: "Is this the same reason why you guys don't want to play Florida State?" Your assumption is simply incorrect and did not merit a legit answer.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

You didn't flop to them last year, Cal was simply better

From last summer:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

USC should wipe the floor with Virginia Tech in the first game this coming year

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I don't think you'll be with in 24 of USC

Given your history of comments re: Virginia Tech football, your opinion concerning them is pretty much worthless.

[JW]

Originally Posted by VPI97

That's not entirely true...we just had to postpone our trip to Baton Rouge until 2007 due to joining the ACC and having to play one more conference game.

Yet is necessitated LSU finding a lesser opponent at the last minute to fill that game and resulted in some people who didn't know better saying LSU had arranged an easy schedule that year.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Noop

Well you did play at Doak at got your ass stomped to the tune of 42-3... I would quit to if I was getting owned.

LMAO, yes, 1990. LSU had a terrible team that year and went 5-6. I am glad you are so proud of that win. Prove to me that LSU refuses to play FSU. I think most Tiger fans would love to play a home-and-home with FSU. It would be a great series in a couple of great stadiums with two fine teams.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by VPI97

From last summer:

Given your history of comments re: Virginia Tech football, your opinion concerning them is pretty much worthless.

So I'm about par for the course with you, right?

[JW]

Originally Posted by Arles

Maybe LSU needs to take a page out of USC's book and play teams on neutral fields (a la VT - which was essentially a home guy for the Hokies). Oregon State didn't mind flying out to LSU on short notice either.

But what I am talking about is a conference-wide stance. Arizona setup a home-and-home with Wisconson and played Utah this season. ASU had a home-and-home with Iowa and Northwestern. Oregon agreed to play in OKlahoma. USC has its agreement with Notre Dame in addition to plaging VT. Cal agreed to play at Southern Miss. Stanford agreed to play BYU and at Notre Dame. UCLA agreed to play a home-and-home with Oklahoma State. Washington agreed to play a Fresno State and Notre Dame on the road. So on and so forth. Almost every Pac-10 team played one very good nonconference opponent with most scheduling two. Now, many of these were on the road or part of a home-and-home, but that's what it took to get them on the schedule. You can look at the Big 12 and see a similar pattern.

The SEC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to play any decent team on the road and even shys away from a bunch of home-and-homes that come their way. Look at the schedules of Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn and LSU and you see teams that would rather play Troy, Arkansas State or the Citadel than go on the road to face a more difficult team. You realize that not one of the 12 nonconference games played by Georgia, Tenn, Auburn or LSU was on the road!

It's hard to get good people to play you when you never want to play on the road.

LSU beat Arizona of the Pac-10 59-13 at Arizona during its national championship run last season. It turns out that was not much of a feat, but when the game was scheduled everyone felt it would be a very good matchup. So LSU was on the road against the Pac-10 just last season. And beat Oregon St. at home this year in OT. A good Oregon St. team really should have won that game. Hmmmm. LSU is 2-0 against the Pac-10 in the last two years.

[JW]

Originally Posted by digamma

The SEC's scheduling can be pretty bad at times, but you are shorting them too much here.

Georgia, Florida and South Carolina all have rivalry games against ACC teams and play these as home and homes each year.
Very few Pac 10 teams (outside of USC and Stanford who both play Notre Dame yearly) have these annual games that take up one of the three non-conference slots.

Outside of the rivalry games:
Georgia played Clemson in a home and home in 2002 and 2003.
Florida played Miami in a home and home in 2002 and 2003.
Tennessee just finished a home and home with Notre Dame and finished a home and home with Miami last season.
Auburn just finished a home and home with USC and plays Georgia Tech in the second half of a home and home next year.
Alabama has traditionally played a big non-conference game.
Arkansas has played Texas in a home and home.
Kentucky plays Louisville annually.

With the move back to 11 game schedules (or at least having 12 game schedules in only calendar years where 12 Saturdays fall before December 1 (or whatever the rule is), SEC schools kind of have to guarantee six home games to generate income--for teams with rivalry games, that means ensuring the other two games are at home in off-years. In seasons where there are 12 games, I think you will see SEC teams with a big non-conference game.

This year was particularly bad for the SEC in scheduling, but not all of it was their fault. For instance, Bowling Green bought out of the Auburn game to get a bigger pay day at Oklahoma.

(ick...I need a shower after defending the SEC that much.)

There is some truth there. Plus in the case of LSU, LSU finally bowed to a lot of pressure a couple of years ago to play the wannabe I-A in-state schools. That was politics and opposed by a lot of fans, and has generated a lot of criticism of LSU by people wondering about the scheduling of UL-Lafayette, UL-Monroe, and La. Tech. But it is a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't thing. You get kinda tired of the La. Tech fans in particular claiming they are the equal of LSU and that LSU is afraid to play them.

That is the other side of this criticism of bigtime schools. If they don't play the up-and-comers then they are criticized for not giving the smaller schools a chance. If they do play them, they are criticized for making their schedule easier. In the case of La Tech, since LSU put 49 points on them in the first half last season, the wannabes at Ruston have not been vocal about wanting a rematch.

Nevertheless, there is some truth to the criticism of LSU's schedule, and many fans and boosters really would prefer that LSU play one bigtime out-of-conference opponent each year, someone like Texas A&M or FSU. LSU has had some good series with each of them.

[MrBug708]

What thread did you get my comments from. I tried to find it but couldn't

Thanks

[JW]

[quote=VPI97]True...I just didn't agree with the insinuation that we bailed on LSU (or any other team)...we have a hard enough time getting people on our schedule. We've had Auburn, Michigan & Tennessee bail on us over the past few years.
QUOTE]

I'll agree w/you there and stand corrected, but that change still resulted in LSU playing a much lesser quality opponent and getting criticized because of it. And you raise a good point. Conference realignments and other things result in last-minute schedule changes. LSU was heavily criticized for playing The Citadel a couple of years ago, but once again, The Citadel was the only school available and willing to play after yet another school bailed on LSU at the last minute.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by JW

Yet is necessitated LSU finding a lesser opponent at the last minute to fill that game and resulted in some people who didn't know better saying LSU had arranged an easy schedule that year.

True...I just didn't agree with the insinuation that we bailed on LSU (or any other team)...we have a hard enough time getting people on our schedule. We've had Auburn, Michigan & Tennessee bail on us over the past few years.

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So I'm about par for the course with you, right?

I have no idea what this means.

[HornedFrog Purple]

530 yards haha

#4 in the country haha

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JW

LSU beat Arizona of the Pac-10 59-13 at Arizona during its national championship run last season. It turns out that was not much of a feat, but when the game was scheduled everyone felt it would be a very good matchup. So LSU was on the road against the Pac-10 just last season. And beat Oregon St. at home this year in OT. A good Oregon St. team really should have won that game. Hmmmm. LSU is 2-0 against the Pac-10 in the last two years.

I was talking about this season. As some had said, maybe it was just a fluke. But the non-conference schedule by the SEC was laughable. So, SEC fans shouldn't be surprised when people don't give their conference a lot of credit for 04.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by JW

LMAO, yes, 1990. LSU had a terrible team that year and went 5-6. I am glad you are so proud of that win. Prove to me that LSU refuses to play FSU. I think most Tiger fans would love to play a home-and-home with FSU. It would be a great series in a couple of great stadiums with two fine teams.

If I am not mistaken you guys refused to play us at Doak. You have played us at Doak once we have played at Tiger stadium 6 times with just one return trip. Now I remember this because there was a post about on warchant... so as the story goes you guys basically got tired of losing.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Noop

If I am not mistaken you guys refused to play us at Doak. You have played us at Doak once we have played at Tiger stadium 6 times with just one return trip. Now I remember this because there was a post about on warchant... so as the story goes you guys basically got tired of losing.

Yes, a home team internet forum always has the correct info. You, sir, are mistaken. I could run down a list of major teams FSU has not played in the last ten or 20 years and ask, as you asked me, why FSU is afraid to play them. And the question would be as absurd as the one you asked me. LSU and FSU played a series of games in the 80s and early 90s and then moved on to play other folks. That is how bigtime college football works. You don't typically play the same nonconference foes year in and year out, with a very few exceptions, and there is nothing to tie LSU and FSU to such a series. But...LSU has a hole in its schedule for 2005, so you should call the FSU AD and tell them to offer up a game. You obsession with LSU is quite interesting, though.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by JW

Yes, a home team internet forum always has the correct info. You, sir, are mistaken. I could run down a list of major teams FSU has not played in the last ten or 20 years and ask, as you asked me, why FSU is afraid to play them. And the question would be as absurd as the one you asked me. LSU and FSU played a series of games in the 80s and early 90s and then moved on to play other folks. That is how bigtime college football works. You don't typically play the same nonconference foes year in and year out, with a very few exceptions, and there is nothing to tie LSU and FSU to such a series. But...LSU has a hole in its schedule for 2005, so you should call the FSU AD and tell them to offer up a game. You obsession with LSU is quite interesting, though.

You bring out teams into this it is about LSU and FSU not anyone else. Whatever your pointless... later mud butt...

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I still think Cal would beat Oklahoma...last night's game doesn't change that.

Well, I think that getting prison raped by Texas Tech, who was only 4th best team in the Big XII South Division, makes Cal beating Oklahoma a tough sell.

Cal was lucky to squeek by Oregon, while Oklahoma sleepwalked to a 35-7 win over the Ducks.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's hard to get good people to play you when you never want to play on the road.

Not true. There are a flock of mid majors who will gladly visit those schools, just to get the exposure. As Pat Hill says "Anytime, anywhere".

As for getting the second Home end of those home and home series to stick, that is another problem.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Not true. There are a flock of mid majors who will gladly visit those schools, just to get the exposure. As Pat Hill says "Anytime, anywhere".

As for getting the second Home end of those home and home series to stick, that is another problem.

I was referring to getting top level Pac-10, Big 12 and Big Ten teams to play you. If look at this season, the Pac-10, Big-12 and Big Ten had numerous home and homes and other road setups where a 7-10 place team in one conference would play on the road against a 1-3 team in one of the other conferences.

Yet, when I look at the SEC, I don't see nearly the same level of activity with these other major conferences. Again, maybe it was just an off year and the SEC will be back playing a bunch of top teams in 05. I am certainly willing to accept that. My point is that SEC fans should realize that a big reason Auburn and other SEC teams did not get the credit and/or rankings they may have felt they deserved was because the conference (as a whole) played next to no one in non-conference in 04. Hey, the Pac-10 had a similar season 3-4 years ago and got stiffed in bowls as well. It happens.

[Cuckoo]

Texas Tech may have won big against Cal, but the Big 12 hasn't exactly looked great either with the performances of A&M and Oklahoma State. We'll see how OU and Texas do, but so far the Big 12 is 3-2 but only having looked really good in one of those games.

Jury's still out on the SEC at this point, but they're looking solid I think. Georgia beat Wisconsin barely but seemed to have outplayed them, and Tennessee looked very good. LSU/Iowa's a battle.

With the way the Pac-10 has performed, and if OU or Texas or both lose, Auburn will only bolster their argument of being deserving to play in the Championship. Of course, they need to beat VT.

[Arles]

The Pac-10 is 2-2 (with USC to play), the Big 12 is 3-2 (with two left), Big Ten is 2-2 (with two left) and the SEC is 2-2 (with two left).

I don't really see any conference looking all that great or all that poor to this point.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Arles

The Pac-10 is 2-2 (with USC to play), the Big 12 is 3-2 (with two left), Big Ten is 2-2 (with two left) and the SEC is 2-2 (with two left).

I don't really see any conference looking all that great or all that poor to this point.

I disagree. You have to look at more than just the records. The Big 12 had two mid-level teams absolutely destroyed by a Big 10 and an SEC team. They had two teams beat mid-major teams less than convincingly. At this point, with two big games remaining of course, the Big 12 hasn't looked that great.

Their one big win came at the expense of the Pac-10. Combine that with a fairly mediocre performance by Arizona State and a loss by UCLA, and the Pac-10 doesn't look great.

Again, this is just right now and much can and will probably change, but I think both the Big 12 and Pac-10 need to save a little face in their remaining games. Just my $.02.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Combine that with a fairly mediocre performance by Arizona State

I think Arizona State's performance has to be somewhat excused by the fact that the QB that led them their great year was injured and not available for the game, even though Keller did not have a bad game at all.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I disagree. You have to look at more than just the records. The Big 12 had two mid-level teams absolutely destroyed by a Big 10 and an SEC team. They had two teams beat mid-major teams less than convincingly. At this point, with two big games remaining of course, the Big 12 hasn't looked that great.

Their one big win came at the expense of the Pac-10. Combine that with a fairly mediocre performance by Arizona State and a loss by UCLA, and the Pac-10 doesn't look great.

Again, this is just right now and much can and will probably change, but I think both the Big 12 and Pac-10 need to save a little face in their remaining games. Just my $.02.

The SEC is currently 2-3 (even though they have been favored in most games to this point). Not exactly a banner showing for the SEC as well.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Noop

You bring out teams into this it is about LSU and FSU not anyone else. Whatever your pointless... later mud butt...

You started this with a declaration that LSU was afraid to play FSU. You make a childish declaration and then get mad when I don't take your bait. Until you come up with the evidence, I would suggest your namecalling makes you look rather juvenile. Mud butt? LMAO. Is that all you can do? Why not show me the evidence instead?

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Arles

The SEC is currently 2-3 (even though they have been favored in most games to this point). Not exactly a banner showing for the SEC as well.

True, not a banner showing at all. I would say that none of their losses looked really bad, though, with the possible exception of Florida while Tennessee's win looked very good.

The Big 10 and the Big 12 both have really impressive wins, but the Pac-10 doesn't so far. I'll grant ISiddiqui's point about ASU's quarterback, though. Given their circumstance, they did well.