PDA

View Full Version : After Week #6, who should be the new #1?



cdj
10-10-2010, 06:23 AM
After Week #6, who should be the new #1?

- Auburn
- Boise State
- LSU
- Nebraska
- Ohio State
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- TCU
- Other

Rudy
10-10-2010, 06:35 AM
What the heck, I'll show Boise St. some love. Boise, OSU and Oregon are my top 3 right now.

CLW
10-10-2010, 07:15 AM
Ohio St.

morsdraconis
10-10-2010, 08:51 AM
Ohio St.

A Ohio State team that has played absolutely no one worth a shit at all except for a completely shit Miami team? Good god...

HWill
10-10-2010, 10:38 AM
I voted for Oregon and then I have Ohio St. and Boise behind them.

JeffHCross
10-10-2010, 06:32 PM
A Ohio State team that has played absolutely no one worth a shit at all except for a completely shit Miami team? Good god...Yeah, 'cause Toledo and Virginia Tech look so much better than Marshall and Miami. I don't really think Ohio State is the #1 team either, but it's not "Good god" worthy. No one has a very good resume right now.

morsdraconis
10-10-2010, 07:07 PM
Yeah, 'cause Toledo and Virginia Tech look so much better than Marshall and Miami. I don't really think Ohio State is the #1 team either, but it's not "Good god" worthy. No one has a very good resume right now.

At least they have an Oregon State team that can kick the shit out of their own overrated conference on their schedule. Who the hell does Ohio State play? More overrated shitty Big Ten schools. (rolls eyes)

In the end, if Boise State goes undefeated, it will be the biggest travesty EVER to not have them in the BCS Championship Game. I don't give a shit who is and isn't undefeated.

All this shit about them being able to play with anyone because it's a once a year thing is a crock. These teams have 2 months to prepare for them. Boise State routinely uses all of their trick plays so it's not like they're doing something they've never done before (ala the game against Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl - Boise State had done the very same play at least 5 times during that season so it's not like it was a surprise or anything). Boise State can play with anyone anywhere. They basically played AT Virginia Tech (even though it was a bullshit "home" game for Boise State) and still won against a crowd that was basically all VT fans.

I don't see any of these other "big" programs manning up and playing someone worth a shit away from their stadium occasionally (and when they do, they kick the shit kicked out of them). I get so sick of the bullshit elitism of these schools.

JeffHCross
10-10-2010, 07:33 PM
At least they have an Oregon State team that can kick the shit out of their own overrated conference on their schedule. Who the hell does Ohio State play? More overrated shitty Big Ten schools. (rolls eyes)Methinks you have a tad bit of bias.

A combined 5 point victory over Zona and Zona State does not a "kick the shit out of" make.

JBHuskers
10-10-2010, 08:22 PM
My top 10:

1. Oregon (2)
2. Ohio State (3)
3. Boise State (3)
4. Nebraska (6)
5. TCU (5)
6. Oklahoma (7)
7. LSU (NR)
8. Michigan State (10)
9. Auburn (8)
10. Utah (NR)

Others receiving a thought or two: Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, Florida State, Nevada

Oregon was my #2, so naturally they go into the #1 slot. I give Ohio State over Boise based on them finally waking up against previously unbeaten Indiana. Boise blew out Toledo, so I'm keeping them ahead of Nebraska, and TCU who both won convincingly. If Nebraska wins convincingly over Texas, and Boise sputters, good chance I'll vault them into 3rd as Boise really has no game of even mediocre note until Idaho in mid-November.

LSU winning on the road has me jumping over previously ranked Michigan State and Auburn, as it's not easy to win in the swamp.

JBHuskers
10-10-2010, 08:26 PM
Here's my take on Boise. To get serious consideration, they need more than two good non-conference games. They're going to need to go out and make all three non-conference games against non-BCS schools. On top of that I think they need to schedule at least one if not two of those games towards the end of the year. That could be easier said than done, but it would make going undefeated much more of an achievement.

morsdraconis
10-10-2010, 10:41 PM
Methinks you have a tad bit of bias.

Bias? Nah. Sick and tired of BCS snobbery.


A combined 5 point victory over Zona and Zona State does not a "kick the shit out of" make.

Oregon State played Zona at their place and still came away with the victory. 2 points is meaningless, they won against a "superior" team.

Ohio State has played:

Marshall (pfft)

Indiana (who has lost to Michigan and previously beat their MAC whipping boy in Akron and Western Kentucky and Townson :rolleyes:)

Miami (who got absolutely annihilated by a pretty poor Florida State team, beat a Clemson team that can't get out of their own way to win games, a Pittsburgh team that's always atrocious, and Florida A&M)

Ohio (their annual lets kick the shit out of the MAC game)

Illinois (the ONE away game they've had out of the FOUR they'll have all season and they NEARLY lost against a meh team)

So those weigh better than Boise State kicking the shit out of Wyoming, Oregon State, New Mexico State, and Toledo how? Nevermind Virginia Tech (who are still undefeated in the ACC mind you).

How are Ohio State's wins better than Boise State's? Cause they beat the hell out of two poor Big Ten schools? :rolleyes:


Here's my take on Boise. To get serious consideration, they need more than two good non-conference games. They're going to need to go out and make all three non-conference games against non-BCS schools. On top of that I think they need to schedule at least one if not two of those games towards the end of the year. That could be easier said than done, but it would make going undefeated much more of an achievement.

That's all well and good JB, but coming from the perspective of WVU who has been the class of the Big East for a good 8 years now, we are JUST NOW getting teams to come to our stadium and we're in a god damn BCS Conference!

You can't blame Boise State for not being able to get a decent BCS school to play them (mainly because those BCS schools are too damn scared to play them at Boise even once). As I've said before, there's no god damn way I'd agree to only play at the BCS school's stadium. That's bullshit.

So, Boise State has to play the teams that they have on their schedule and listen to all the bullshit BCS snobbery give hollow explanations as to why their 40-50 point victories aren't good enough. :rolleyes:

JBHuskers
10-10-2010, 11:38 PM
I think Boise is just as much to blame for not getting anyone to come up there. We offered a 2-for-1 to Boise and they declined. Just because they've won a lot of games, they're still beating up a very bad conference. If you want notoriety, you need to take offers like that.

morsdraconis
10-10-2010, 11:53 PM
I think Boise is just as much to blame for not getting anyone to come up there. We offered a 2-for-1 to Boise and they declined. Just because they've won a lot of games, they're still beating up a very bad conference. If you want notoriety, you need to take offers like that.

Yeah JB, but that's crap. A program that has propelled itself into the limelight like Boise State doesn't deserve a 2-for-1 when they should be getting 1-for-1s. That type of deal clearly benefits Nebraska more than Boise State in my opinion.

steelerfan
10-11-2010, 01:34 AM
It's week 6. It's an extreme longshot to think that the current #1 and #2 will play for the title. There's a lot of football left before anyone can make a clear case. I don't see any point in arguing this early.

I'm hoping, in the end, Boise gets a shot. But, if there are 2 other unbeatens, they won't.

JBHuskers
10-11-2010, 02:35 AM
Yeah JB, but that's crap. A program that has propelled itself into the limelight like Boise State doesn't deserve a 2-for-1 when they should be getting 1-for-1s. That type of deal clearly benefits Nebraska more than Boise State in my opinion.

Yeah it should benefit Nebraska because they're in a better conference.

Looking at their recent "propelling into the limelight":

2006 - Sacramento St., Oregon St., Wyoming, Utah
2007 - Weber St., Washington, Wyoming, Southern Miss
2008 - Idaho State, Bowling Green, Oregon, Southern Miss
2009 - Oregon, Miami OH, Bowling Green, UC Davis, Tulsa
2010 - Virginia Tech, Wyoming, Oregon State, Toledo

Their limelight is due to two things, blue turf and an easy conference paired with a lot of non-conference crap in those four years. I don't think a 2-for-1 with any type of upper tier team from a power conference is not that much of a stretch for a school in the WAC.

JBHuskers
10-11-2010, 02:45 AM
I'm all for a team like Boise in the national title picture, but they need to step up their non-conference. A move to the MWC will help somewhat, but they need at least three good non-conf games to have a legitimate gripe when being on the outside looking in.

Rudy
10-11-2010, 05:40 AM
Yeah JB, but that's crap. A program that has propelled itself into the limelight like Boise State doesn't deserve a 2-for-1 when they should be getting 1-for-1s. That type of deal clearly benefits Nebraska more than Boise State in my opinion.

That 2 for 1 offer may not be fair but it's the kind of deal they have to do if they want to gain more respect and get a shot at the title game. Quite frankly, Boise St. is actually sitting pretty good. They have done well enough in the bowl games and the 1-2 big games they play all year that pollsters do respect them. They won't get in over any other undefeated team but they probably get in over a 1 loss BCS program from the ACC, Big East and possibly the other guys other than the SEC. The odds of them going undefeated are pretty good and then they have a decent shot at slipping in. The odds of making a title game for them are just as good as if they were playing in a big conference and had to run the table to get in.

cdj
10-11-2010, 06:47 AM
I think Boise is just as much to blame for not getting anyone to come up there. We offered a 2-for-1 to Boise and they declined. Just because they've won a lot of games, they're still beating up a very bad conference. If you want notoriety, you need to take offers like that.


Yeah JB, but that's crap. A program that has propelled itself into the limelight like Boise State doesn't deserve a 2-for-1 when they should be getting 1-for-1s. That type of deal clearly benefits Nebraska more than Boise State in my opinion.

NU also offered a home and home as well as just one game in Lincoln. The problem was that Boise wanted $1M+ for the game in Lincoln. That's unreasonable....but sadly, there are school who will (and have) paid that amount. It's a couple hundred thousand more than what I consider the standard rate.

JeffHCross
10-11-2010, 06:59 AM
Bias? Nah. Sick and tired of BCS snobbery.Uhm, that's bias.

How are Ohio State's wins better than Boise State's? Cause they beat the hell out of two poor Big Ten schools? :rolleyes:Did I say it was better? No. All I said that it wasn't "Good god" worthy. No one has a #1 worthy resume right now. You're the one that managed to turn that into a rant of epic proportions.

And yeah, when you think the Big Ten is on par with the Sun Belt (as you appear to think), you're not going to think very highly of Ohio State's schedule.

And yes, Virginia Tech is undefeated in the ACC (who only holds OOC wins versus the Big East, mind you), but they lost to James Madison.

JBHuskers
10-11-2010, 08:32 AM
NU also offered a home and home as well as just one game in Lincoln. The problem was that Boise wanted $1M+ for the game in Lincoln. That's unreasonable....but sadly, there are school who will (and have) paid that amount. It's a couple hundred thousand more than what I consider the standard rate.

Well then Boise really has no reason to complain if they get shut out of the BCS Title game....they've had plenty of time over the past five years to set things up and they still play two crap non-conference games and (this year) what seemed to be a decent VT matchup and Oregon State that really has never done anything with consistancy.

I'm definitely one for a playoff system so these teams at least have a chance to win two or three games on the field, but until that happens, they're going to have to sacrifice and step up.

Coachdenz
10-11-2010, 08:52 AM
I went with Ohio State with Oregon 2nd.

Rudy
10-11-2010, 11:19 AM
NU also offered a home and home as well as just one game in Lincoln. The problem was that Boise wanted $1M+ for the game in Lincoln. That's unreasonable....but sadly, there are school who will (and have) paid that amount. It's a couple hundred thousand more than what I consider the standard rate.

If anything Nebraska is being unreasonable in that $1 million is more than a fair offer. This isn't Utah St or Western Michigan they are playing. This is Boise St which has been a ranked team for a long time (higher than most BCS teams the last five years) and a big budget that pays it's head coach over $1 million a year. Michigan paid a division 2 school $450,000 or $500,000 last year to come to Michigan to get beat on. The reason those teams pay that money is they keep all the gate. Even if Nebraska pays Boise St. $1 million for a one and done at home they still keep all the gate from the 86,000 fans that will be in Lincoln. In no way is Boise St. being unreasonable by demanding more money than the typical crap team Nebraska would bring in. I side with Boise on this one.

Nebraska is simply trying to maximize it's profits to the fullest by scheduling a loser school and keeping all the money. Can't blame them entirely for that but they still make a ton more money than Boise St. in any scenario.

steelerfan
10-11-2010, 11:25 AM
cdj, refresh our memories. How much did you say NU paid Idaho? IIRC, it was quite a bit. Also, it would be interesting to know the timeline between the offers to Idaho and Boise.

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 12:03 PM
Uhm, that's bias.
Did I say it was better? No. All I said that it wasn't "Good god" worthy. No one has a #1 worthy resume right now. You're the one that managed to turn that into a rant of epic proportions.

And yeah, when you think the Big Ten is on par with the Sun Belt (as you appear to think), you're not going to think very highly of Ohio State's schedule.

How can I think very highly of Ohio State's schedule when they only have FOUR road games? FOUR! Talk about cupcake bullshit right there.

Your conference ALWAYS has bullshit cupcake OOC games. ALWAYS.

Just look at this year's:

Florida Atlantic, Western Michigan, Northern Colorado, Marshall, Ohio, Eastern Michigan, Eastern Illinois, Ball State (X2), Western Illinois, Toledo, @ UNLV, San Jose State, Austin Peay, Massachusetts, Bowling Green, Illinois State, @ Rice, Central Michigan, Southern Illinois, Northern Illinois (X2), @ Fresno State, Towson, @ Western Kentucky, Akron, Kent State, Temple, Youngstown State, @ Middle Tennessee, and South Dakota

Now, the good and "good" teams:

Notre Dame (X3), Miami (FL), @ Arizona, Arizona State, Connecticut, @ Vanderbilt, @ Missouri, @ Alabama, and USC.

So ONE good or "good" OOC team per school and a LOT of MAC and Div II teams to kick the shit out of (or lose to depending on the school).

How can I have any respect for a conference that does that? How is that any different than Boise State having to play the conference that they're in (which they are doing something about mind you by moving to the at least semi more prestigious MWC and getting out of the sucky WAC)?

The Big Ten has always been about beating the shit out of lesser competition to make their own conference look better than it really is.


If anything Nebraska is being unreasonable in that $1 million is more than a fair offer. This isn't Utah St or Western Michigan they are playing. This is Boise St which has been a ranked team for a long time (higher than most BCS teams the last five years) and a big budget that pays it's head coach over $1 million a year. Michigan paid a division 2 school $450,000 or $500,000 last year to come to Michigan to get beat on. The reason those teams pay that money is they keep all the gate. Even if Nebraska pays Boise St. $1 million for a one and done at home they still keep all the gate from the 86,000 fans that will be in Lincoln. In no way is Boise St. being unreasonable by demanding more money than the typical crap team Nebraska would bring in. I side with Boise on this one.

Nebraska is simply trying to maximize it's profits to the fullest by scheduling a loser school and keeping all the money. Can't blame them entirely for that but they still make a ton more money than Boise St. in any scenario.

Exactly Rudy and my reasoning for saying a 2-for-1 with Nebraska is bullshit. That's bush league crap that you offer a shitty MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt school. Not someone that has built their stature up like Boise State.

JBHuskers
10-11-2010, 12:22 PM
Well the difference is Boise schedules a lot of crap and has a conference that is crap. There were many instances where the Big XII has had 3 top 10 teams....Big Ten has had some instances where there were at least two.

JBHuskers
10-11-2010, 12:26 PM
Simply put, Boise has to sacrifice in order to shed the conference they play in. They need to schedule three CONSISTANT top 15-20 schools, at least. Not Viriginia Tech who chokes the beginning of many of the past few seasons, and Oregon State who has never really done much.

AustinWolv
10-11-2010, 01:19 PM
The Big Ten has always been about beating the shit out of lesser competition to make their own conference look better than it really is.
Right, because no other conference does that. *cough*Big12SEC*cough* See, when you play a real conference schedule, the OOC schedule is naturally going to be weak.
Because Coastal Carolina, Wofford, Eastern Washington, East Carolina, WMU, Marshall, Liberty, Syracuse, and UNLV are soooo good.

steelerfan
10-11-2010, 01:22 PM
Well, isn't that the pot (Big East fan) calling the kettle (Big 10 schools) black?

If the top Big 10 schools were in the Big Least, I'd agree they shouldn't schedule garbage OOC. There's not one powerhouse in that BCS shitstain. Furthermore, if the top Big 10 schools played Boise's conference schedule, I'd feel the same.

Money drives the ship, and Boise knows they can't step out too far or they might get exposed and lose all their recognition early in the season (like when UGA bitch-slapped them). Boise should join the Pac-10 if they really want to be taken seriously. Instead, they beat a couple (or one) big boys (and not even the biggest boys on their respective blocks) and then beat down the sisters of the poor the rest of the year and play the "whoa is me, I'm 12-0 and the big boys won't play me" card and cash their BCS Bowl check. It's a genius business model, really.

I don't care how you spin it, playing Ohio St, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State etc. week-in and week-out is a difficult task. It's easy to have an off week and drop one no matter how good you are. But, Boise only has 1-3 challenging games each year, and never back-to-back. They get by those, whine alot, gain public sympathy, and cash that check!

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 01:57 PM
Hey, I never said the Big East was good so you can just leave that at the door. We're the ugly stepchild of the BCS conferences, mainly because WVU is the only team worth a damn in the whole conference that can handle the pressure of playing with the big boys. Pittsburgh just shits themselves with their tails between their legs and everyone else just follows suit.

I've wanted nothing more than for WVU to get the hell out of the Big East for years (except for basketball of course).

JBHuskers
10-11-2010, 02:00 PM
Hey, I never said the Big East was good so you can just leave that at the door. We're the ugly stepchild of the BCS conferences, mainly because WVU is the only team worth a damn in the whole conference that can handle the pressure of playing with the big boys. Pittsburgh just shits themselves with their tails between their legs and everyone else just follows suit.

I've wanted nothing more than for WVU to get the hell out of the Big East for years (except for basketball of course).

Thanks to their AD that threw our program in a pile of shit that we're finally going to dig out of after this year (the last year Steve Peterson's shit scheduling is on the schedule). You won't see us play an FCS school again. I can't believe Pitt took him back...I guess he got them on the national map for a day or two, but now they're just irrelevant.

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 02:00 PM
Right, because no other conference does that. *cough*Big12SEC*cough* See, when you play a real conference schedule, the OOC schedule is naturally going to be weak.
Because Coastal Carolina, Wofford, Eastern Washington, East Carolina, WMU, Marshall, Liberty, Syracuse, and UNLV are soooo good.

We've tried to get Notre Dame, Michigan or Ohio State to play us but they won't. What more can we do? We take what we can get. I'd be willing to bet that LSU is better than ANY team that your piece of shit conference has played this year outside of maybe Alabama (that still remains to be seen) so you can just take your dumb ass Michigan team with it's shitty defense and go back home with that.

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 02:03 PM
And comparing the Big Ten to the Big East is just laughable anyway since your conference supposedly has SO MUCH history. You'd think they'd actually play teams worth a damn instead of willingly scheduling shitty MAC schools every year to beat the hell out of. You'd think they'd at least play shitty BCS schools, but I guess not.

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 02:05 PM
Thanks to their AD that threw our program in a pile of shit that we're finally going to dig out of after this year (the last year Steve Peterson's shit scheduling is on the schedule). You won't see us play an FCS school again. I can't believe Pitt took him back...I guess he got them on the national map for a day or two, but now they're just irrelevant.

Pitt will never do anything as long as the Stash is their coach. He's the one coach in the conference that I think is actually worse than Bill Stewart (and I can't wait until we dump his dumb ass).

steelerfan
10-11-2010, 02:16 PM
your piece of shit conference

Our "piece of shit conference" does not boast that the "only team worth a damn" is one coming off consecutive 9-4 seasons.

Hello Pot, my name is Kettle.

AustinWolv
10-11-2010, 03:27 PM
Toasted again.

Good job taking the high road by resorting to attacks, mors. Very mature. But since you gonna go there......

mors, you proved our point by your own admission, 'only team worth a damn'.......don't quit your day job to become a defense lawyer.

WVU was irrelevant until a portion of this decade. I'll take a couple shitty seasons out of 40 instead of being consistently mediocre so laugh all you want at Michigan. WVU has never been Michigan and surely won't be anytime soon, and THAT is why your team is in a shit conference and has to play some OOC opponents to outweigh the suck of your program and conference. Because the BIG conferences know that WVU is an also-ran, a waterboy on the junior varsity team that nobody notices.
And THAT is why the BIG conferences play weaker OOC schedules because they play real teams for 8-9 games per season. See, people know the teams in the BIG conferences are worth a damn and thus are invited to the party, whereas teams like yours have to go and prove themselves because they are the geeks that didn't get the invite to the party and instead whacked off to pics of the hot chicks in the yearbook alone in their rooms.

LSU is your trophy to hold up? Solid, talented, yet very lucky LSU. Try again.

As for Big East teams since 1980:
0.55099 - Syracuse
0.42794 - Rutgers
0.64067 - WVU
0.53161 - Louisville
0.46387 - Cincy
0.53846 - PITT
0.62963 - USF
0.51667 - Conn

Wow, WVU is beating up on a bunch of teams only a bit over .500 over the past 30 years and yet one of their fans has the audacity (or ignorance, take your pick) to talk shit about other programs and conferences......and they weren't even noticed nationally until a certain coach got them there. But yet they hate. The self-loathing is just sad, so knock it off and grow up.


You'd think they'd at least play shitty BCS schools, but I guess not.
Glass houses.

Because Coastal Carolina, Wofford, Eastern Washington, East Carolina, WMU, Marshall, Liberty, Syracuse, and UNLV are soooo good.

We done here? Because the nice thing about this site is the lack of stuff like you started up.....

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 04:13 PM
And i said it but i'll fucking say it again, i never said the big east was good.

Can you not fucking read?

It's hilarious to you have to make fun of my shitty conference instead of having any REAL proof that the Big Ten is worth a damn.

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 04:18 PM
But whatever. You're elitist attitudes will never change so whatever. I've got better things to do than wax illogical with Big Ten fans.

steelerfan
10-11-2010, 05:05 PM
But whatever. You're elitist attitudes will never change so whatever. I've got better things to do than wax illogical with Big Ten fans.

What conference is good, in your opinion? The WAC?

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 05:23 PM
What conference is good, in your opinion? The WAC?

Being a smart ass will get you no where.

The SEC is basically the only truly good conference with really only Vanderbilt, Tennessee, and maybe Kentucky as pushover teams.

But, when you have Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, LSU, Auburn, and Arkansas all playing incredibly good football, that's going to happen.

steelerfan
10-11-2010, 07:15 PM
Being a smart ass will get you no where.

But dropping as many "fucking", "motherfucking", "god damn", "bullshit" and "shit" references as possible will?

Dude, there are a lot of different opinions here. You're the only one who can't accept anyone else's.

AustinWolv
10-11-2010, 07:49 PM
And i said it but i'll fucking say it again, i never said the big east was good.

Can you not fucking read?

It's hilarious to you have to make fun of my shitty conference instead of having any REAL proof that the Big Ten is worth a damn.

You already showed earlier in the thread that you weren't going to consider a different view and instead started running your mouth about other teams and conferences.
There is no reason for me to play Capt. Obvious in presenting all the evidence that the B10 is a solid conference, especially when you are trying to stake your claim based on a weak OOC schedule when every other 'power' conference does the same thing. Others in the thread get it, so wasting my time trying to explain it to a close-minded single person is not worth my time.

Like I said, don't become a defense lawyer or join a debate team. Your opponents would thank you though.


You're the only one who can't accept anyone else's.
Truth.

JeffHCross
10-11-2010, 08:10 PM
How can I think very highly of Ohio State's schedule when they only have FOUR road games? FOUR! Talk about cupcake bullshit right there.So, Ohio State should have gone out of their way to schedule a road game this year just to satisfy you? So be it that our home-and-home with Miami just happened to have a home game this year.

Let's be real, mors. If anybody in the ACC had an Out-of-conference schedule of Wyoming, New Mexico State, Toledo, and Oregon State, and they'd beaten Virginia Tech, no one would be touting them for a #1 ranking. That schedule proves nothing.

The only reason any of these teams are in this discussion is because they started the season that way. No one has a #1 resume yet.

steelerfan
10-11-2010, 08:21 PM
No one has a #1 resume yet.

So very true.

Again, there's no reason to argue about #1 or #2 when it's Week 6. We all know that the entire landscape will be very different when it counts.

JBHuskers
10-11-2010, 08:27 PM
So very true.

Again, there's no reason to argue about #1 or #2 when it's Week 6. We all know that the entire landscape will be very different when it counts.

But it has brought out the most TGT voters in a while :D

steelerfan
10-11-2010, 09:42 PM
But it has brought out the most TGT voters in a while :D

Carry on then. :D

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 11:18 PM
The only reason any of these teams are in this discussion is because they started the season that way. No one has a #1 resume yet.

Well, because they started that way, you have to take last season into account (the whole reason that Alabama was preseason #1 and Boise State was #3).

This will be the first time EVER since the BCS bullshit started that a team has continued to go down in the rankings even though they've won every game they've played. Take that for what it is.

Boise State is the only other team to be undefeated last season. Combined with this season's performance against better competition, and they're the clear choice for #1 right now, not Ohio State, and not Oregon. Why Alabama get's the benefit of last season's performance and Boise State doesn't boggles my mind.

Of course, it all really comes back to how total bullshit the BCS system is to begin with and how teams not named Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, or Florida have to basically hope and pray that all of the previous teams have bad seasons, otherwise they don't have a freakin' prayer of playing in the MNC game anyway. How a league like NCAA Football can let opinion polls dictate who wins what while every other sport on the planet uses a playoff system to determine that is just plain retarded. But, money talks, and the previous teams certainly have that covered.

morsdraconis
10-11-2010, 11:21 PM
Let's be real, mors. If anybody in the ACC had an Out-of-conference schedule of Wyoming, New Mexico State, Toledo, and Oregon State, and they'd beaten Virginia Tech, no one would be touting them for a #1 ranking. That schedule proves nothing.

I would be if they started out at #3 and had went undefeated the previous year and got the most bullshit copout of a BCS bowl game setup EVER. But, that would never happen to the ACC or the Big East if that were the case. They'd get the bowl game that they deserved (and probably a very good chance at the MNC) and not a matchup against another non-BCS school to make the game as meaningless as possible.

Rudy
10-12-2010, 05:38 AM
I've been critical of the garbage schedules the Big 10 teams plays. Other than playing overrated Notre Dame, OSU has been the only team to schedule tough ooc games in recent years. They have done home and homes with Texas, USC and now Miami. That deserves some credit. Furthermore, the Big 10 did schedule some better games this year. Penn State finally took on a tough opponent in Alabama. Iowa went on the road to Arizona.

And the Big 10 may not be considered as good as the SEC (who is?) but I'll put the conference up against any other conference out there. The Big 12 had one good year and it sucked in those bowls showing they were a bit overrated. That conference is Texas and Oklahoma and nobody else. The ACC sucks. The Big East sucks. The PAC 10 is getting better. The Big 10 did well in it's bowl games last year. The main reason people people bitch about the Big 10 is the beat down OSU took at the hands of Florida. The LSU title game wasn't even that bad.

JeffHCross
10-12-2010, 05:50 AM
Well, because they started that way, you have to take last season into account (the whole reason that Alabama was preseason #1 and Boise State was #3).You can't rail on who we've played this season, yet also say we need to take last year into account. That doesn't work.

Kwizzy
10-12-2010, 08:19 AM
This will be the first time EVER since the BCS bullshit started that a team has continued to go down in the rankings even though they've won every game they've played. Take that for what it is.

Hence the whole reson Boise St needs to get off this high horse & decide what they want to be: A) Are they a big boy school who wants to play with the big boys? or B) Do they always wanna be the best of the underdog little guys?

Boise knew the BCS formula before the season started (for years actually) same as everyone else. If they really wanted to be A, then you take the home and home offered by Nebraska (just as they should've taken similar offers for this season and last season) without making ridiculous monetary demands as well. Big boy schools trade home and homes. Boise wants to be a big boy school, but get payed like the little guy still. Well they're about to see the result of that line of thinking.

They have no one to blame but themselves, it's simple math really. 2 decent non-conference games are not enough when you play in such a weak conference. That hasn't changed since the BCS started and shame on them for just assuming things would be different instead of going out and doing something about it!

AustinWolv
10-12-2010, 11:16 AM
I've been critical of the garbage schedules the Big 10 teams plays. Other than playing overrated Notre Dame, OSU has been the only team to schedule tough ooc games in recent years. They have done home and homes with Texas, USC and now Miami. That deserves some credit. Furthermore, the Big 10 did schedule some better games this year. Penn State finally took on a tough opponent in Alabama. Iowa went on the road to Arizona.

I'm pretty sure that criticism could be leveled at every conference if we start pulling up schedules since 2005.

JeffHCross
10-12-2010, 08:48 PM
And for the weekly check into Scott Wolf's poll ...


Rank Team
1 TCU (Highest)
2 Oklahoma
3 Oregon
4 Boise State
5 LSU (Highest)
6 Ohio State
7 Auburn
8 South Carolina
9 Nebraska
10 Alabama
11 Arkansas
12 Stanford
13 Utah
14 Air Force (Highest)
15 Florida State
16 Florida
17 West Virginia (Highest)
18 Oregon State
19 Arizona
20 Michigan State
21 Iowa (Lowest)
22 Nevada
23 Oklahoma State
24 Missouri
25 Wisconsin

For LSU at #5, I think he should be voted off AP Poll Survivor Island.

Jon Wilner (http://www.pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=13&p=26&t1=&t2=&v=35&w=7&r=V) and Mark Anderson (http://www.pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=13&p=26&t1=&t2=&v=392&w=7&r=V) are also head-scratching.

morsdraconis
10-12-2010, 09:58 PM
Wow, he is straight up off his rocker.

SmoothPancakes
10-12-2010, 10:09 PM
Wow, he is straight up off his rocker.

The one thing ALL of us can agree on! He has been one of the absolute worst voters, if not THE worst voter, every single week, clear back to the first (preseason) AP poll. Which, like I said last week, I cannot understand how the hell the AP has not revoked his voting privileges and given them to someone who can actually vote worth a damn.

JeffHCross
10-12-2010, 10:21 PM
Smooth, you should look at the two other polls I linked. They may actually be worse than his this week.

EDIT: I just discovered that Jon Wilner is the same guy from the Mercury News that I used to send into the Utopia Poll. I actually liked his ballot then. Now, not so much.

I've given a lot of thought over the last year to how EA uses a computer to simulate the Media Poll voting, and how it must be actually pretty difficult to do something like that. Mainly because most, if not all, of the "computer polls" that are documented out there are intentionally created to eliminate bias that's present in media voting.

After reading some of the AP voting over these last few weeks, I'm convinced it's utterly impossible to introduce voting differences that drastic.

JeffHCross
10-20-2010, 11:23 PM
They'd get the bowl game that they deserved (and probably a very good chance at the MNC) and not a matchup against another non-BCS school to make the game as meaningless as possible.Wanted to go back to this comment for a minute. The one thing we have to look forward to is if a Pac-10 or Big Ten team makes it to the MNC game, the Rose will be required to pick a non-automatic qualifier if one is available. So, if either Boise or TCU don't get in the MNC game, fans of non-AQ teams should probably hope for Oregon to get there, just to force a game other than TCU/Boise to happen.

morsdraconis
10-21-2010, 04:01 PM
Wanted to go back to this comment for a minute. The one thing we have to look forward to is if a Pac-10 or Big Ten team makes it to the MNC game, the Rose will be required to pick a non-automatic qualifier if one is available. So, if either Boise or TCU don't get in the MNC game, fans of non-AQ teams should probably hope for Oregon to get there, just to force a game other than TCU/Boise to happen.

I fuckin' hope so. If they do Boise State vs TCU again, then there really is no justice for non-BCS teams in the MNC and BCS Bowl selection processes...

Rudy
10-21-2010, 06:44 PM
The thing is the Boise vs. TCU game had decent ratings I think. Better than some bigger name matchups. I think people are willing to watch those teams but it would be a lot better if a bigger name school was in the title game.

JeffHCross
10-21-2010, 06:54 PM
I fuckin' hope so. If they do Boise State vs TCU again, then there really is no justice for non-BCS teams in the MNC and BCS Bowl selection processes...Looking for 'justice' in the BCS seems like a logical fallacy.

morsdraconis
10-21-2010, 09:31 PM
The thing is the Boise vs. TCU game had decent ratings I think. Better than some bigger name matchups. I think people are willing to watch those teams but it would be a lot better if a bigger name school was in the title game.

Why would that be a lot better? You're telling me you wouldn't watch Boise State or TCU play Oregon or Oklahoma in the MNC game? Imagine the drama! It would be the most anticipated game EVER.


Looking for 'justice' in the BCS seems like a logical fallacy.

Oh, I know. Truthfully, I hope there's 5 or 6 undefeated teams at the end of the year so we can just stop all this nonsense of the BCS Bowl setup being a reasonable setup at all. Bowl games are killing college football, whether people want to admit it or not (and not only because of the whole Championship thing - these schools that travel clear across the country to play in some shitty bowl are getting absolutely SCREWED financially and, in some cases, are close to LOSING money even if they win the bowl game all the while these bowl sponsor tycoons are raking in the dollars, no matter how shitty the attendance is since schools HAVE to buy half the tickets).

JeffHCross
10-21-2010, 10:30 PM
It would be the most anticipated game EVER.Honestly ... I love the MWC and WAC schools ... but no, no it wouldn't be.

Bowl games are killing college footballOkay, seriously? I can accept you not liking the BCS. I can accept you thinking that the BCS conferences have unacceptable levels of preference compared to the non-AQ conferences. But come on. The bowls are killing college football? The things that define college football, and have been part of the game since 1902 are killing college football? That's like saying Joe Paterno is killing college football.

You want to say there are too many? Fine. You want to say that the payouts for the non-BCS bowls are too small? Fine. But killing college football? Good grief.

Just ... no.

JBHuskers
10-22-2010, 02:19 AM
There are too many when over half of D-I gets in a bowl. At this point it's less about the prestige of getting into a bowl as it is getting the paycheck for getting into one.

Rudy
10-22-2010, 05:42 AM
That's not what I meant. I said people would be fine watching Boise OR TCU in the title game but would prefer if ONE of the title teams was a big name like Oregon or OU. I didn't mean they didn't want to see either. I think a Boise St. Oregon matchup would be fun to watch. I'm not nearly as interested in Boise vs. TCU.

morsdraconis
10-22-2010, 05:08 PM
Okay, seriously? I can accept you not liking the BCS. I can accept you thinking that the BCS conferences have unacceptable levels of preference compared to the non-AQ conferences. But come on. The bowls are killing college football? The things that define college football, and have been part of the game since 1902 are killing college football? That's like saying Joe Paterno is killing college football.

You want to say there are too many? Fine. You want to say that the payouts for the non-BCS bowls are too small? Fine. But killing college football? Good grief.

Just ... no.

It's killing college football because these teams out of the WAC, MWC, Sun Belt, and even some of the lower BCS schools are LOSING money by going to these bowl games. Remember when Pittsburgh played Utah a few years back? Both those schools ate a HUGE amount of money in ticket sales alone because neither team's fans traveled to the game but the schools still had to buy the tickets to have available to sell to the fans. It's that type of stuff that is killing college football.

More and more schools are losing money even with all the grants and such that they get from the government. It's costing more and more to run these programs and, overall, schools aren't making money on the lower bowl games. They just aren't.

Where as, the tax exempt and government funded Bowl game committees for those bowl games are making a fuckin' killing. Just like everything else that revolved around the BCS and the bowl system, it's about the bottom dollar and nothing else.

It is most definitely that the payouts for the lower bowl games are too small (or those bowl games just shouldn't exist). These games between two 6-6 teams isn't going to have a huge fanbase following to the game so those schools are going to just lose money by going to those bowl games.

Someone posted somewhere with a link about this stuff (can't remember exactly where) but there's a book about it written by some of the guys that have been reporting about college football for years.

JeffHCross
10-22-2010, 06:40 PM
You know ... those schools can decline invitations. So if they're truly losing money, they only have themselves to blame.

I absolutely agree there are too many and that the lower tier bowls probably don't deserve to be played.

But "killing college football" is drastically overstating things.

Rudy
10-23-2010, 06:11 AM
Bowls are great for college football. I think it's fair to debate the number of them since it's grown to a crazy amount but bowl season should always exist. One more reason for me to be dead set against any playoff format greater than 4 teams.

SmoothPancakes
10-23-2010, 09:33 AM
Bowls are great for college football. I think it's fair to debate the number of them since it's grown to a crazy amount but bowl season should always exist. One more reason for me to be dead set against any playoff format greater than 4 teams.

Yeah, bowl season is still great for the sport. It's the one time of year that I have a chance to literally watch a bunch of teams that I never would see at all. Even teams that I don't give a damn about, I'll sit there watching every second of each bowl game (flipping constantly back and forth when multiple games are on). As well the national exposure every team gets by being on TV for bowl games, which always helps with recruiting.

Plus it's that much more college football on TV as the season slowly winds to another end. And in the middle of December, it's not exactly like there are a ton of sports on TV. Your only options pretty much are NFL on Sundays and most likely a selection of Lakers/Celtics/Heat/Magic/one or two other big name teams of NBA action in the evening on TNT and whatever other channels two or three nights a week.

I do however agree about there being way to many. If I remember correctly, there are bowl slots for 70 teams. Last year, there were only 71 eligible teams, to fill 68 bowl slots. Only 72 eligible teams in 2008 for 68 slots, etc, etc. Which is why I couldn't believe the NCAA added another bowl after last year. They only had 3 extra teams out of bowls last season. That, in my opinion, was cutting it too damn close to potentially having a 6-7 or 5-7 team slipping into a bowl game just to fill slots. I say chop off at least 3-5 bowl games (if you go even just 5, you knock the available slots down to 60 so only a total of 50% of the teams make it to the bowl season) and only add new games as new teams in the future jump up to DI-A, allowing a maximum of only 50% of teams to get into bowl games, never more than that.

Of course that will never happen. It's all about the mighty dollar. Just watch, some day that dollar is going to be so irresistible that the NCAA will expand it to 60 bowl games, everyone will play in one, and afterwards, everyone will receive blue participation ribbons.

jaymo76
10-23-2010, 11:09 PM
Man Michigan St keeps on winning. I just love watching this team play.... er... well... okay the new uniforms are hidious but they play a fun game of football.

JeffHCross
10-23-2010, 11:24 PM
I don't like the shoulder / collar stripe, but the new helmet has grown on me.

Rudy
10-24-2010, 06:19 AM
I like MSU's new uniforms.