College Football Week 6 Thread

[Swaggs]

I don't have much of a problem with Oregon being ranked ahead of WVU right now, as I think they have more quality wins, but what I don't get is how they leapfrog us in a week where we have a 55-14 win over a conference team and they have the week off.

I also like how Stanford received four points in the coaches' poll.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Interesting thoughts. Looking forward to seeing some more discussion on this.

I guess Clemson is really more of a Southern, football school--particularly when comparing it to (for lack of better terms) more "Northern, Southern schools" like the North Carolina teams, the Virginia teams, and Maryland (and even GT is sort of an academic, inner-city private school, so it is different).

There is an interesting occurrence going on in the ACC right now. I was looking at the coaching records on this site (a pretty awesome college football site to bookmark, btw): http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data.../acc/index.php

When you look at those middle tier ACC teams like Maryland, UVA, GT, Clemson, NC State (before they completely fell off the last couple of years), Boston College, and even VT (although they have been able to get to that 10-win mark pretty regularly), there are a lot of teams that have been between good and very good for a number of years.

It is kind of a chicken and egg thing, to me, as to whether or not they have kind of "topped out" due to coaching or other prohibitive factors or if they are just beating up on each either and preventing one another from reaching that next "level" because they are all at fairly similar levels of prestige/talent/program potential.

Here in lies the problem.

Of those middle pack teams, Clemson is the only one in the top 15-18 Nationally in attendance, top 10 nationally in terms of donor fund raising, Just completed a 22 million dollar addition to a stadium(BTW which 10mill of which came from PRIVATE donorr funding), and has the historical significance to expect more.

Clemson has won a NC,Hell John Heisman himself was their coach, the first football player to earn all american honors was a tiger, they founded the first athetic donor contribution system (IPTAY)

In my and most all Clemson fans minds there is no excuse for us to not be in the discussion with the Florida, FSU, USC, Oklahoma's of the world EVERY YEAR.

People often overlook the draw and pull that Clemson has. Remember when Tommy Bowden was hired he was the #1 up and coming coach in America. Lou Holtz was interviewed, Frank Beamer actuvely stated he WANTED to come to Clemson, those and several others were turned down in favor of TB.

Simply put he is a great man. I worked for him for my final year as a GA, I think tons of the man, but I think its tim for a change.

Clemson routinely has the ability to draw top 5-20 nationally ranked recruits, yet they dont produce on the field.

[Chief Rum]

Wanna trade coaches?

[Galaril]

Nice BC has quietly moved up to 6-0 first time since 1944 and #4 ranking. QB Matt Ryan definitely is in the running for the Heismann and I think his stats are going to improve though the schedule gets much tougher after next week.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Wait, so why didn't Dorrell pull the redshirt? Obviously the walk-on isn't any better. Dorrell's gotta save his job...he can't lose to teams he has no business losing to. Even if he didn't have to save his job, you need to win the game and you have no idea how long Olsen is out.

Dorrell's job can not be based on any given game, it has to be measured by the strength of the program as a whole.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Got it. It was humor to bait me. Well, we all had a good laugh, didn't we? You're a pretty shitty human being.

I wish the mods would just ban Noop, he's a dipshit troll who, afaict, contributes nothing whatsoever to this board.

[st.cronin]

Dola, UCLA fans have lost their mind if they think Dorrell is a problem.

[Swaggs]

There are some good discussions going on in this thread.

The Noop-centric one is not one of them. It would be nice if you guys could either take it to PM or just agree to disagree and move on.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Here in lies the problem.

Of those middle pack teams, Clemson is the only one in the top 15-18 Nationally in attendance, top 10 nationally in terms of donor fund raising, Just completed a 22 million dollar addition to a stadium(BTW which 10mill of which came from PRIVATE donorr funding), and has the historical significance to expect more.

Clemson has won a NC,Hell John Heisman himself was their coach, the first football player to earn all american honors was a tiger, they founded the first athetic donor contribution system (IPTAY)

In my and most all Clemson fans minds there is no excuse for us to not be in the discussion with the Florida, FSU, USC, Oklahoma's of the world EVERY YEAR.

People often overlook the draw and pull that Clemson has. Remember when Tommy Bowden was hired he was the #1 up and coming coach in America. Lou Holtz was interviewed, Frank Beamer actuvely stated he WANTED to come to Clemson, those and several others were turned down in favor of TB.

Simply put he is a great man. I worked for him for my final year as a GA, I think tons of the man, but I think its tim for a change.

Clemson routinely has the ability to draw top 5-20 nationally ranked recruits, yet they dont produce on the field.

You guys are a sleeping giant. If you can get a coach similar to Urban Meyer who knows how to take talent and give them that certain extra thing to push them over top you guys would be in the discussion of one of the football programs in the country.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Mizzou with a really nice #11 but they look really strong. They have to avoid that loss to a random crap team this year, tho. Going to be a big game next week for them at Oklahoma.

SI

Really looking forward to this one. If it was at Mizzou, I'd maybe even give them a slight edge. As it is, I expect a pretty high-scoring game because Daniel and the Missouri offense present a match-up problem for OU in a lot of ways. And though I haven't seen much of the Tigers this year (except for what looked like a very good performance against Nebraska), I keep hearing their defense is suspect.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not sure I understand South Carolina being ranked 12th in the Coaches Poll. Their only loss was to the #1 team in the county and knocked off Georgia and Kentucky so far.

[Young Drachma]

Seems to me the pollsters try to keep the 'name' teams as close to the top as possible so when it gets later into the season they have a legit rationale for putting them into the national title game based on "well, we know what they're about."

That's the reason the system itself sucks.

But it's still almost comical to see the upsets each week or just the close games that are played and wonder how they're going to spin it from week to week.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by TroyF

FWIW, the stats pretty much back what Chief is saying. Heading into the ND game, UCLA was 17th in the country in rushing defense. They were 13th in sacks. They were 4th in third down percentage against. They were 30th in tackles for loss. Yet they were 55th in total defense. That tells me they have plenty of talent, but are prone to giving up the big play. Probably a hole or two in the secondary.

The stats don't suggest a "soft" defense either. They suggest a fairly stout front seven with the weakness being in the back line.

Those problems are both likely to come to the forefront next week when they face a big play Cal team that is likely to make them pay for their assignment mistakes and exploit every flaw they have in the secondary.

Doesn't all of that suggest exactly what noop was arguing? While i think he was trying to entice chief due to what chiefs been involved in over the past few weeks, he may be right. I think he went about it in poor fashion, and im not trying to argue that point, but i don't believe he was necessarily wrong about his view of why UCLA was losing. Im not trying to get chief angry here, merely debate the point about a UCLA defense that has seemed slow to me this year(my best friend is at UCLA, so i have to watch most of their games).

Your statistics show, which they rightfully should be given quite a bit of credit for, they have a stellar D-line. Bruce Davis will be playing on Sundays, and i think Brown has the talent too as well. Their linebackers are a bit of a conundrum to me, as some like taylor has the instincts but not the physical tools, while i feel carter and whittington have the talent but lack the killer instinct.

The problem i see is in the secondary, like you said. Brown is a solid starter, but after him i'm not so sure. Van, Horton, and Keyes are all more run-support type players from what i've seen, and though Verner has flashed some nice cover skills i don't think he gets enough playing time.

This would all be moot if the offense could generate like its supposed to, but im merely commenting that from the games ive seen, and my interactions with my buddies who have been to all the home games, the defense has played slow and have largely focused on the run. That may be a product of their competition's tendencies(BYU aside i would say), but it has exposed their secondary to looking highly mediocre and rather slow when attempting to stop the pass. That, considering they get to play USC, Cal, Oregon, and ASU, is a very bad sign(lol, maybe not USC, since JDB doesn't know his receivers aren't 100 feet tall). I don't want to make chief or bug mad, just debating the topic at the root of the argument. I don't have any doubt they run fast 40 times. What i do doubt is their ability to translate that to the field, or at least utilize it to stop the pass.

[Blade6119]

weird, when i use spell check on my comments, and it corrects dont by adding the apostrophe, it somehow ends up donut. Ive tried to correct the ones i saw, but i have no idea how long thats been happening.

[Blade6119]

And i posted that before i read the rest of the thread...noop, you are an ass. Dont take my post as defense of your actions...

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Dola, UCLA fans have lost their mind if they think Dorrell is a problem.

The problem is the adminstration. But Dorrell is one of the results to this problem and it needs to be fixed. UCLA should be a fixture in the Top 20 and outside of a couple 4 or five game runs, have been irrelevant in college football

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

The problem is the adminstration. But Dorrell is one of the results to this problem and it needs to be fixed. UCLA should be a fixture in the Top 20 and outside of a couple 4 or five game runs, have been irrelevant in college football

Much like Michigan in basketball. Sadly I've resigned myself that it isn't going to happen if Bieline isn't the answer.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Much like Michigan in basketball. Sadly I've resigned myself that it isn't going to happen if Bieline isn't the answer.

Howland had to take a paycut to come from Pitt to UCLA. Sad as that sounds for UCLA basketball, it was true. *sigh*

[Blade6119]

Has he been given a pay bump due to his success?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

UCLA should be a fixture in the Top 20

Says who? Your sense of entitlement is hilarious.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm not sure I understand South Carolina being ranked 12th in the Coaches Poll. Their only loss was to the #1 team in the county and knocked off Georgia and Kentucky so far.

With those losses to SC, both UGA & UK have become questionable themselves.
Until South Carolina plays Florida, I'd say they're going to stay pretty much in the neighborhood they're in right now.

On the other hand, they're up to 7th in the other poll.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

With those losses to SC, both UGA & UK have become questionable themselves.
Until South Carolina plays Florida, I'd say they're going to stay pretty much in the neighborhood they're in right now.

On the other hand, they're up to 7th in the other poll.

I think the AP poll is a better measure of where SC should be. If anything, the team they lost to is better than the teams that West Virginia and Oklahoma lost to.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Says who? Your sense of entitlement is hilarious.

I wasn't saying it as a sense of entitlement. Location, weather, academics, athletic tradition, fertile recruiting grounds, venue, facilities and other various reasons make UCLA in a much better position then almost any school. To think otherwise would be foolish at best

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Has he been given a pay bump due to his success?

1.5 in salary plus whatever incentives he reaches. I'd say he's close to 1.8 per year. Which is probably still grossly underpaid due to cost of living

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Says who? Your sense of entitlement is hilarious.

Bug just said it best, so I defer to his statement. But I'm not sure in saying this you realize just how much UCLA has going for it. How primed for success all of the factors involved are for it. About the only serious negative outside of the administration/lack of spending that I can think of is that, like most SoCal sports fans with so many entertainment options, UCLA fans tend to be fairweather. But if USC can get 100K to South Central, UCLA can get the same to Pasadena.

Even the academic limitations put on recruiting are only a slight limitation when you consider the quality of the education is also a strong enticement for players who want a good education in addition to playing for a (ideally) strong football program.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Doesn't all of that suggest exactly what noop was arguing? While i think he was trying to entice chief due to what chiefs been involved in over the past few weeks, he may be right. I think he went about it in poor fashion, and im not trying to argue that point, but i don't believe he was necessarily wrong about his view of why UCLA was losing. Im not trying to get chief angry here, merely debate the point about a UCLA defense that has seemed slow to me this year(my best friend is at UCLA, so i have to watch most of their games).

Your statistics show, which they rightfully should be given quite a bit of credit for, they have a stellar D-line. Bruce Davis will be playing on Sundays, and i think Brown has the talent too as well. Their linebackers are a bit of a conundrum to me, as some like taylor has the instincts but not the physical tools, while i feel carter and whittington have the talent but lack the killer instinct.

The problem i see is in the secondary, like you said. Brown is a solid starter, but after him i'm not so sure. Van, Horton, and Keyes are all more run-support type players from what i've seen, and though Verner has flashed some nice cover skills i don't think he gets enough playing time.

This would all be moot if the offense could generate like its supposed to, but im merely commenting that from the games ive seen, and my interactions with my buddies who have been to all the home games, the defense has played slow and have largely focused on the run. That may be a product of their competition's tendencies(BYU aside i would say), but it has exposed their secondary to looking highly mediocre and rather slow when attempting to stop the pass. That, considering they get to play USC, Cal, Oregon, and ASU, is a very bad sign(lol, maybe not USC, since JDB doesn't know his receivers aren't 100 feet tall). I don't want to make chief or bug mad, just debating the topic at the root of the argument. I don't have any doubt they run fast 40 times. What i do doubt is their ability to translate that to the field, or at least utilize it to stop the pass.

Actually, I agree with almost all of this. It's a pretty accurate summation of the UCLA defense. Our line is very quick and fast. The linebackers, outside of Taylor, are also very fast and Taylor is the smartest player on the defense, and instinctive as heck. It's the secondary where things falter. Brown is steady and a gamer, but he is maybe just slightly better than average in his quickness. Horton and Keyes are powerful hitters, but they aren't good in coverage. They have the strength, but speed is lacking. And Verner has the speed--he should be starting. But he's not. Van is a talented player who just hasn't panned out, more often than not.

All that said, the defense is getting much better at stopping the big plays judging from the last three weeks. By the end of the year, some of even these shortcomings may be answered.

noop said this defense had no speed and talent, and that was the point I argued against him. I would say the secondary lacks overall speed and quickness. But the front seven is much quicker than most in the country. So to say the defense doesn't have speed is ridiculous. Davis might be the fastest DE in the country (or at least in the conversation).

And as for talent, as you said, Davis and Brown will play in the NFL. Harwell, too, if he can heal up. Carter has NFL talent if he takes appropriate steops to improve his technique. And Brown will find a spot in the NFL at least for a short while. I also think Horton will get a look because of how good a run defender he is, and Verner has the talent to be a high end (first day) pick if he gets to start and play to his ability.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I wasn't saying it as a sense of entitlement. Location, weather, academics, athletic tradition, fertile recruiting grounds, venue, facilities and other various reasons make UCLA in a much better position then almost any school. To think otherwise would be foolish at best

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Bug just said it best, so I defer to his statement. But I'm not sure in saying this you realize just how much UCLA has going for it. How primed for success all of the factors involved are for it. About the only serious negative outside of the administration/lack of spending that I can think of is that, like most SoCal sports fans with so many entertainment options, UCLA fans tend to be fairweather. But if USC can get 100K to South Central, UCLA can get the same to Pasadena.

Even the academic limitations put on recruiting are only a slight limitation when you consider the quality of the education is also a strong enticement for players who want a good education in addition to playing for a (ideally) strong football program.

That's true of well more than 20 different schools. There is no program in the country, not today, that should be a perennial top 20 fixture. That's just way too high a standard.

[Buccaneer]

I was curious about UCLA's place in history, thinking they were never an elite team (esp. playing the shadows of mighty USC). I found this list of the top 25 programs all-time. What do you think?

1. Notre Dame...began play-1887...win/loss-821/270...12 NT's(national titles).
2. Michigan....1879...860/284....8 NTs
3. Alabama....1892....780/308....10 NTs
4. Oklahoma...1895...765/295...7 NTs
5. Ohio State...1890...787/301...5 NTs
6. USC...1888...743/300....9 NTs
7. Nebraska....1890....812/326....5 NTs
8. Texas....1893...810/316...4 NTs
9. Tennessee...1891...761/316....2 NTs
10. Penn State....1887....781/343....2 NTs
11. LSU...1893...681/376...2 NTs
12. Georgia...1892...703/379....1 NT
13. Miami(FL)...1926....532/297...5 NTs
14. Auburn...1892...674/384...1 NT
15. Florida State....1947....433/211...2 NTs
16. Florida....1906....619/368....2 NTs
17. Washington...1889....649/377...1 NT
18. UCLA...1919...521/351...1 NT
19. Georgia Tech...1893....649/436....3 NTs
20. Arkansas...1894...636/434...----
21. Texas A&M...1894...648/418...1 NT
22. Minnesota...1882...627/440....6 NTs
23. Michigan State...1896...596/412...2 NTs
24. Pitt...1890...640/463....5 NTs
25. Colorado...1890...653/412...1 NT

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's true of well more than 20 different schools. There is no program in the country, not today, that should be a perennial top 20 fixture. That's just way too high a standard.

No program? I think you underestimate the staying power of the country's true giants. And there are current powerhouses who are, IMO, succeeding consistently with far less exterior positive factors than UCLA has. In fact, I would enjoy seeing your list of 20 programs that enjoy all of the positive factors Bug mentioned in his post. I didn't see a single one that was arguably not true about UCLA.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I was curious about UCLA's place in history, thinking they were never an elite team (esp. playing the shadows of mighty USC). I found this list of the top 25 programs all-time. What do you think?

1. Notre Dame...began play-1887...win/loss-821/270...12 NT's(national titles).
2. Michigan....1879...860/284....8 NTs
3. Alabama....1892....780/308....10 NTs
4. Oklahoma...1895...765/295...7 NTs
5. Ohio State...1890...787/301...5 NTs
6. USC...1888...743/300....9 NTs
7. Nebraska....1890....812/326....5 NTs
8. Texas....1893...810/316...4 NTs
9. Tennessee...1891...761/316....2 NTs
10. Penn State....1887....781/343....2 NTs
11. LSU...1893...681/376...2 NTs
12. Georgia...1892...703/379....1 NT
13. Miami(FL)...1926....532/297...5 NTs
14. Auburn...1892...674/384...1 NT
15. Florida State....1947....433/211...2 NTs
16. Florida....1906....619/368....2 NTs
17. Washington...1889....649/377...1 NT
18. UCLA...1919...521/351...1 NT
19. Georgia Tech...1893....649/436....3 NTs
20. Arkansas...1894...636/434...----
21. Texas A&M...1894...648/418...1 NT
22. Minnesota...1882...627/440....6 NTs
23. Michigan State...1896...596/412...2 NTs
24. Pitt...1890...640/463....5 NTs
25. Colorado...1890...653/412...1 NT

That's about right

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I was curious about UCLA's place in history, thinking they were never an elite team (esp. playing the shadows of mighty USC). I found this list of the top 25 programs all-time. What do you think?

1. Notre Dame...began play-1887...win/loss-821/270...12 NT's(national titles).
2. Michigan....1879...860/284....8 NTs
3. Alabama....1892....780/308....10 NTs
4. Oklahoma...1895...765/295...7 NTs
5. Ohio State...1890...787/301...5 NTs
6. USC...1888...743/300....9 NTs
7. Nebraska....1890....812/326....5 NTs
8. Texas....1893...810/316...4 NTs
9. Tennessee...1891...761/316....2 NTs
10. Penn State....1887....781/343....2 NTs
11. LSU...1893...681/376...2 NTs
12. Georgia...1892...703/379....1 NT
13. Miami(FL)...1926....532/297...5 NTs
14. Auburn...1892...674/384...1 NT
15. Florida State....1947....433/211...2 NTs
16. Florida....1906....619/368....2 NTs
17. Washington...1889....649/377...1 NT
18. UCLA...1919...521/351...1 NT
19. Georgia Tech...1893....649/436....3 NTs
20. Arkansas...1894...636/434...----
21. Texas A&M...1894...648/418...1 NT
22. Minnesota...1882...627/440....6 NTs
23. Michigan State...1896...596/412...2 NTs
24. Pitt...1890...640/463....5 NTs
25. Colorado...1890...653/412...1 NT

Seems like an accurate list, about where I would expect them. We're carried a little by Donahue's steady strong porgram (if not over the top excellent) and by some of the teams from the 50s and 60s.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's true of well more than 20 different schools. There is no program in the country, not today, that should be a perennial top 20 fixture. That's just way too high a standard.

Different schools I'm sure have different "ranks" to each thing but I don't think many will top UCLA in overall. But we can just agree to disagree.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

No program? I think you underestimate the staying power of the country's true giants. And there are current powerhouses who are, IMO, succeeding consistently with far less exterior positive factors than UCLA has. In fact, I would enjoy seeing your list of 20 programs that enjoy all of the positive factors Bug mentioned in his post. I didn't see a single one that was arguably not true about UCLA.

LSU finished 2002 unranked.
Ohio State finished 2001 unranked.
USC finished 2001 unranked.
Texas finished 1997 unranked.
Oklahoma finished 1999 unranked.
Michigan finished 2005 unranked.

The University of Florida has been ranked every year going back to I think 1990. So, other than the Gators, there is basically no program that is perennially in the top 20. That is an insane standard. All good programs have losing seasons, and lose games they should win.

UCLA's real problem is that they compare themselves to USC, and ask "why not us." But USC's level of success is not one you can reasonably expect to attain.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

LSU finished 2002 unranked.
Ohio State finished 2001 unranked.
USC finished 2001 unranked.
Texas finished 1997 unranked.
Oklahoma finished 1999 unranked.
Michigan finished 2005 unranked.

The University of Florida has been ranked every year going back to I think 1990. So, other than the Gators, there is basically no program that is perennially in the top 20. That is an insane standard. All good programs have losing seasons, and lose games they should win.

UCLA's real problem is that they compare themselves to USC, and ask "why not us." But USC's level of success is not one you can reasonably expect to attain.

Indeed. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to have a losing season here or there, but how many times have we finished in the Top 25 under Dorrell? Once?

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think the AP poll is a better measure of where SC should be. If anything, the team they lost to is better than the teams that West Virginia and Virginia Tech lost to.

Our only loss is to the exact same team that beat South Carolina. Yeah, we lost by more, but a) it was a night game when we played LSU and b) they were a lot healthier in our game (Doucet didn't play vs SC). Not that it matters, though...I just thought your comment was a little funny.

[dime]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The University of Florida has been ranked every year going back to I think 1990. So, other than the Gators, there is basically no program that is perennially in the top 20. That is an insane standard. All good programs have losing seasons, and lose games they should win.

UCLA's real problem is that they compare themselves to USC, and ask "why not us." But USC's level of success is not one you can reasonably expect to attain.

pretty sure florida fell out of the rankings during the zook years...

also, USC was a pretty mediocre program immediately prior to pete carroll. they were going 6-5 just like ucla every year when they had john robinson's second go-round and paul hackett. they lost to nd and ucla every year as well.

I don't see why ucla couldn't get to where usc is. it just takes a lot of money, a good location and a good recruiter/coach.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Indeed. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to have a losing season here or there, but how many times have we finished in the Top 25 under Dorrell? Once?

Once in four years, correct. He has also consistently been near the top of the Pac 10 in terms of recruiting. If you fire him, your program goes nowhere, unless you hit a home run in hiring his replacement. If you keep him, your program should gradually move forward, as Wisconsin's did under Alvarez, and K-State's did under Snyder, as WVU's did under Rodriguez, as VaTech's did under Beamer, etc...

Edited "at" to "near".

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by dime

pretty sure florida fell out of the rankings during the zook years...

They were out of the top 20, but not the top 25:

http://cfreference.net/cfr/show_all_...inal_polls/443

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Our only loss is to the exact same team that beat South Carolina. Yeah, we lost by more, but a) it was a night game when we played LSU and b) they were a lot healthier in our game (Doucet didn't play vs SC). Not that it matters, though...I just thought your comment was a little funny.

EEP!! Sorry, I must have had VTech on the mind. I meant to say Oklahoma!

[Swaggs]

Almost all football fans have a pretty big sense of egocentrism, where they think their team should be or could be a powerhouse if just a few things fell into place. Obviously, UCLA and Clemson fans feel that way. I know many, many WVU fans feel that way and I know a lot of Pitt fans (they of the five national championships) believe their situation is similar to that of Miami, FL and cannot undertand why they are not a national power.

That was kind of my main point with the ACC argument--even if you get things up and running very, very well, there are going to be a lot of other programs out there that are doing likewise and some of them are going to some type of inherent advantage (be it location, coaching, having your own television contract, being in a more prestigious conference or being in a less competitive conference, recruiting area, academics or lack of academic standards, etc.). There are only so many spaces in the rankings and, for every team that wins, someone else has to lose.

I agree with stcronin about the number of schools that feel that they should be perennial top 20 programs or that it is unacceptable that they are currently not. I'm sure that at least 2/3rds of the SEC feel that they should be, probably half of the Pac 10/B10/ACC, Notre Dame feels that way, the top handful of schools in the BE and B12 feel that way.

[BishopMVP]

couple thoughts.... brennan is a good qb, not 1st round, franchise quarterback good, but from what i've seen he's a jeff garcia-level solid backup qb/occasional starter in the nfl. the kid is more accurate than 99% of college qb's, and while the system helps him put up stats, anyone thinking he's merely a system qb is misguided.

also, i love lsu and would have a hard time saying they shouldn't be favored against anyone, but if there is one team it's usc if they play sanchez. if they stick with/go back to booty, they won't do it. jdb may have "earned it" by being a patient backup to leinart, but he's not the best qb on that team.

[Galaxy]

How is USC ranked 7th?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

couple thoughts.... brennan is a good qb, not 1st round, franchise quarterback good, but from what i've seen he's a jeff garcia-level solid backup qb/occasional starter in the nfl. the kid is more accurate than 99% of college qb's, and while the system helps him put up stats, anyone thinking he's merely a system qb is misguided.

FWIW, I'm not saying he's only a system qb, but that he only has gaudy stats because of the system.

I buy your assessment of Brennan - that he could be a NFL quality QB that has a significant backup role and maybe some starting time.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by wade moore

FWIW, I'm not saying he's only a system qb, but that he only has gaudy stats because of the system.

I buy your assessment of Brennan - that he could be a NFL quality QB that has a significant backup role and maybe some starting time.

As for the Heisman picture, in most years I could see where the system took him out of the picture (or to 4th/5th place), but this year there really is no one looking good. McFadden is the best player, but Arkansas will probably have at least 4 losses, LSU has 1 standout player (Dorsey) and a DT simply isn't winning, Grothe or Ryan are darkhorses, but I don't think it'll happen. Oh, and if you want a system player putting up ridiculous stats, how about Michael Crabtree from Texas Tech? 70-1074-17 in 6 games? That's absurd.

[k0ruptr]

just to chime in, I completely admit and am in agreement about the Colt - Jeff Garcia comparison, seems very spot on to me. I'm not sold on him being a first round pick (although I hope he is , for his sake) IMO hes one of the most accurate passers in College Football history, but that sidearm delivery needs to change in the pros, I think he could do well in a system like the Colts have set up, or Patriots, or even Seattle.

also I'm not to worried about Hawaii's chances at the BCS, they just have to take it 1 game at a time, the really good thing is Boise St. is the 2nd to last game of the year, followed by the UW game. so 2 semi quality opponents to end the year hopefully should be enough to propel us into the top 12 (BCS) if we are undefeated and remain that way. I was at the game last nite so didnt see any of these posts. What another great day of college football!

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I just don't see it at all. I'd rather play Colorado on the road than OSU or A&M. OSU is questionable, tho- they seem to have the capacity of high highs and low lows so maybe we get lucky and catch them on a bad day. I think A&M is a much better team than Colorado but, again, maybe I'm just badly underestimating Colorado or overestimating A&M. Then again, we have a perfectly legit chance of losing all three.

Guess we'll see in 2 weeks and on

SI

I'm an OSU alum and an OSU fan.

Oklahoma State currently has the #97 defense in the country. They were slaughtered by Troy. Their three wins are over Sam Houston State, Florida Atlantic and a win against Texas Tech where TT gained 718 yards of total offense.

Texas A&M beat a pathetic Fresno State team in OT at home, a pathetic OSU team by one at home and was throttled by bad Miami, Fla. team. They are the 54th ranked defense in college football, even with a weak as hell schedule.

CU has the 14th ranked defense in the country. They held OU to 230 total yards of offense and Malcom Kelly to a zero catch day. They have the best QB Kansas will see all year not named Chase. (Hawkins is the second best QB in the north and is better than either OSU or A&M's QB. Better than KState's as well.

I'm sure it'll sound to some like I'm a homer, but I'd MUCH, MUCH rather face OSU or A&M on the road than I would CU right now. The CU fans suck, but I can promise you they are going to be out full force after the OU win and facing a nationally ranked team. I think you are running into a buzz saw.

Like you said, we'll see.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

One interesting thing to watch is how Hawaii has stagnated in the coaches' poll the past three weeks. The have been between 15-17 for the past several weeks and, right or wrong, I'm sure there are a number of BCS coaches that are hesitant to put them much higher and give them an opportunity to take away one of the at-large BCS spots from their conference. It is probably somewhat unethical, I cannot see how coaches are able to not have it influence their votes. I will be surprised if we don't keep seeing teams like Missouri, Cincy, whichever ACC/Pac10/B10/SEC team is low in the polls and upsets a higher ranked in conference team, etc. leapfrogging Hawaii into the top 15 or so.

I don't see this situation as unethical. One of the major problems with the college polls, especially in football, is they're so simple. You win you move up, you lose you move down. Its not really judging who the best teams are. If you look at Hawaii's schedule, ranking them 16th is a joke right now. Their opponents are 7-28. Not only that, none of them are from a major conference and 2 of them are 1-AA schools.

It sucks for the Hawaii players, because it really would be interesting to see what they could do against some quality opponents, but to have them anywhere near the top 20 with that schedule shows one of the major problems with how the polls work.

[k0ruptr]

well Hawaii won and moved down in the coaches poll.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't see this situation as unethical. One of the major problems with the college polls, especially in football, is they're so simple. You win you move up, you lose you move down. Its not really judging who the best teams are. If you look at Hawaii's schedule, ranking them 16th is a joke right now. Their opponents are 7-28. Not only that, none of them are from a major conference and 2 of them are 1-AA schools.

It sucks for the Hawaii players, because it really would be interesting to see what they could do against some quality opponents, but to have them anywhere near the top 20 with that schedule shows one of the major problems with how the polls work.

Unethical is probably not the right word or phrase. My point is that allowing coaches to vote in a poll that plays a big part in determining who (both teams and conferences) earns or is given a huge amount of money, exposure, and prestige is pretty questionable, in my opinion.

What prevents the coaches from one of the larger BCS conferences from bumping their teams up a few spots and knocking the competing conferences or non-BCS teams down a few undeserved spots, when an additional conference member invited to the BCS puts a ton of extra money in your school's and conference's pocket? For example, say the Big East finishes the season with USF and WVU in the top 12 of the BCS and WVU and Hawaii (keep in mind only two schools per conference, maximum, are allowed to be invited to BCS bowls) are under consideration for the last BCS bowl spot. Wouldn't it serve the BE coaches much more to rank WVU much higher than deserved and Hawaii much lower than deserved, so that the BE schools get an extra share of BCS money? That's why I think it is pretty messed up that the coaches' poll is part of the BCS formula.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Unethical is probably not the right word or phrase. My point is that allowing coaches to vote in a poll that plays a big part in determining who (both teams and conferences) earns or is given a huge amount of money, exposure, and prestige is pretty questionable, in my opinion.

What prevents the coaches from one of the larger BCS conferences from bumping their teams up a few spots and knocking the competing conferences or non-BCS teams down a few undeserved spots, when an additional conference member invited to the BCS puts a ton of extra money in your school's and conference's pocket? For example, say the Big East finishes the season with USF and WVU in the top 12 of the BCS and WVU and Hawaii (keep in mind only two schools, maximum, are allowed to be invited to BCS bowls) are under consideration for the last BCS bowl spot. Wouldn't it serve the BE coaches much more to rank WVU much higher than deserved and Hawaii much lower than deserved, so that the BE schools get an extra share of BCS money? That's why I think it is pretty messed up that the coaches' poll is part of the BCS formula.

That I definitely agree with.

Stuart Mandell for SI has an AP vote and last week he mentioned in his online column that there had been so many upsets already this season that he tore up his poll from the previous week and just started from scratch. I wish more voters would do this. You'd see more flucuation in the polls, but the polls would better reflect the best teams.