A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
The big question is whether Chip Kelly has an answer for the best SEC defenses when they have more than a month to prepare for Oregon's basketball-on-grass. The Auburn defense that he faced two years ago was very mediocre by SEC standards. Alabama's defense will make Oregon think the game is being played in a phone booth.
jazzcyclist wrote:Alabama's defense will make Oregon think the game is being played in a phone booth.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Bama hasn't seen anything remotely like Ore's diversity and speed of attack. Bama will do fine for 3 quarters, but then the wheels could come off. Even after the first 3 fluff games, O's O looks mighty impressive:
Arizona 49-0 Washington St. 51-26 Washington 52-21 Arizona St. 43-21
Bama will get their points, but will they get enough?
jazzcyclist wrote:Alabama's defense will make Oregon think the game is being played in a phone booth.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Bama hasn't seen anything remotely like Ore's diversity and speed of attack. Bama will do fine for 3 quarters, but then the wheels could come off. Even after the first 3 fluff games, O's O looks mighty impressive:
Arizona 49-0 Washington St. 51-26 Washington 52-21 Arizona St. 43-21
Bama will get their points, but will they get enough?
We don't KNOW how Alabama would handle Oregon's offense but last year, LSU gave us a pretty good idea. Since LSU had eight months to prepare for Oregon, their defense was fully prepared for a track meet, and at the end of the third quarter they were beating Oregon's offense back to the line of scrimmage, and mocking Darren Thomas by asking him what's taking so long to get the plays off. You can't run people into the ground when they're in equal or better condition that you are. If it does end up Alabama-Oregon for the Crystal Football, Alabama's first two weeks of practice after the SEC Championship Game will more resemble track/cross country practices than football practices, with every workout being done in shorts and tee shirts.
Pego wrote:It is quite early, but here is my prediction for the national championship game. Alabama - Kansas St.
Who will beat Oregon? KsSt looked very beatable vs. a 'good' Iowa St team.
Oregon was supposed to play KSU but KSU backed out this year. I wonder WHY?
Because the coach is a genius and prefers to play as many cupcakes as possible. In my opinion absolutely the right strategy if you are an SEC, or Big 12 team. If you go undefeated you are likely in the BCS championship game regardless of who you played out of conference.
Conor Dary wrote:Oregon was supposed to play KSU but KSU backed out this year. I wonder WHY?
Because the coach is a genius and prefers to play as many cupcakes as possible. In my opinion absolutely the right strategy if you are an SEC, or Big 12 team. If you go undefeated you are likely in the BCS championship game regardless of who you played out of conference.
I don't know about that. In recent years, Alabama, LSU and Georgia haven't shied away from facing formidable opponents in their season openers, though you do have a point about Florida. And I don't know why you feel that the Big 12 has more credibility than the PAC 12, because the power rankings certainly haven't shown this in recent years. Furthermore, the PAC 12 has a conference championship game which the Big 12 doesn't have, which automatically puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to strength of schedule.
Conor Dary wrote:Oregon was supposed to play KSU but KSU backed out this year. I wonder WHY?
Because the coach is a genius and prefers to play as many cupcakes as possible. In my opinion absolutely the right strategy if you are an SEC, or Big 12 team. If you go undefeated you are likely in the BCS championship game regardless of who you played out of conference.
I don't know about that. In recent years, Alabama, LSU and Georgia haven't shied away from facing formidable opponents in their season openers, though you do have a point about Florida. And I don't know why you feel that the Big 12 has more credibility than the PAC 12, because the power rankings certainly haven't shown this in recent years. Furthermore, the PAC 12 has a conference championship game which the Big 12 doesn't have, which automatically puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to strength of schedule.
Not really trying to start a Big-12 vs Pac 12 argument. My larger point is that if you think your conference is good enough (and feel free to argue all day about which ones are good enough) to get in the BCS championship game with a undefeated season, than risking an early season loss with a really tough opponent in my opinion is just stupid. Thats just my opinion and I am certainly no football expert at all, but Bill Snyder agrees with me and I think he may be the coach who does the most with his talent of any coach in the past 30 or 40 years.
donley2 wrote:My larger point is that if you think your conference is good enough (and feel free to argue all day about which ones are good enough) to get in the BCS championship game with a undefeated season, than risking an early season loss with a really tough opponent in my opinion is just stupid. Thats just my opinion and I am certainly no football expert at all, but Bill Snyder agrees with me and I think he may be the coach who does the most with his talent of any coach in the past 30 or 40 years.
1) There are a few recent examples of teams making it to the national championship game that contradict this theory (eg. LSU in 2011, Alabama in 2009, LSU in 2007). Furthermore, if Oregon hadn't lost to USC at the end of the last season, they were in line to get another crack at LSU in the national championship game despite their season-opening lost to them.
2) For all his success at Kansas State, Bill Snyder has never gotten the Wildcats to the championship game, despite his penchant for avoiding tough out-of-conference opponents.
jazzcyclist wrote:1) There are a few recent examples of teams making it to the national championship game that contradict this theory (eg. LSU in 2011, Alabama in 2009, LSU in 2007). Furthermore, if Oregon hadn't lost to USC at the end of the last season, they were in line to get another crack at LSU in the national championship game despite their season-opening lost to them.
2) For all his success at Kansas State, Bill Snyder has never gotten the Wildcats to the championship game, despite his penchant for avoiding tough out-of-conference opponents.
Correcto. If all you play is crap teams in the non conference games it gets noticed. And you are right about Oregon getting back after an early season lost. Not the only team to do it.
I like Oregon; I really like their Nike uniforms - all 316,000 versions of them, but they shouldn't play for the national championship. Overrated conference.
Great job of KSU coming back, or should I say Schneider, but they're not great (witness WV: 69-34 Marshall, 70-63 Baylor, 48-45 Texas, and then get crushed by TxTech and KSU). They shouldn't play for the national championship. Another overrated conference.
Notre Dame should be barred from college football.
The best teams are the teams that are best able to stop the run and those teams reside in the SEC. Just make a battle royal of SEC programs and award the crystal trophy to the last team standing; no other conference or program is worthy.
College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.
preston wrote:1. Notre Dame should be barred from college football. 2. Just make a battle royal of SEC programs and award the crystal trophy to the last team standing; no other conference or program is worthy.
1. Agreed! 2. Generally speaking yes, but there are singular teams elsewhere that are perfectly capable of knocking off that 'last standing' team in a one-game series.
preston wrote:..... College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.
No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams!
(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)
preston wrote:..... College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.
No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams!
(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)
Can't argue with that. By the way it is 53 players in the NFL. Why can't the NCAA do that?
preston wrote:..... College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.
No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams!
(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)
Absolutely NOT!!!! The NCAA "balance" is preserved by shifting the financial largesse -created by usually middle/low-income white and brown boys in revenue producing sports- to give free room, board and tuition to athletically undeserving white girls. Crew, Equestrian, Field Hockey, Tennis, Golf, Softball, Swimming and Diving, Gymastics ... that's who benefits, disproportionately, from all that TV money or scholarships.
Reducing scholarships to 50? That's 35 fewer scholarships for boys at any given school. Rest assured, the extra money will only result in more undeserving girls getting full scholarships. If it was truly about equity, tennis and golf wouldn't get ANY scholarships (when you consider that a FULL men's track team only get around 12).
preston wrote:..... College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.
No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams!
(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)
Absolutely NOT!!!! The NCAA "balance" is preserved by shifting the financial largesse -created by usually middle/low-income white and brown boys in revenue producing sports- to give free room, board and tuition to athletically undeserving white girls. Crew, Equestrian, Field Hockey, Tennis, Golf, Softball, Swimming and Diving, Gymastics ... that's who benefits, disproportionately, from all that TV money or scholarships.
Reducing scholarships to 50? That's 35 fewer scholarships for boys at any given school. Rest assured, the extra money will only result in more undeserving girls getting full scholarships. If it was truly about equity, tennis and golf wouldn't get ANY scholarships (when you consider that a FULL men's track team only get around 12).
You do have a point about "undeserving girls" leeching off the blood and sweat of boys, but not all of those girls are in the "White" country club sports. The girls on the track & field and basketball teams do their fair share of leeching too, and even the Tennessee and Connecticut women's basketball teams lose money.
preston wrote:..... College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.
No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams!
(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)
Absolutely NOT!!!! The NCAA "balance" is preserved by shifting the financial largesse -created by usually middle/low-income white and brown boys in revenue producing sports- to give free room, board and tuition to athletically undeserving white girls. Crew, Equestrian, Field Hockey, Tennis, Golf, Softball, Swimming and Diving, Gymastics ... that's who benefits, disproportionately, from all that TV money or scholarships.
Reducing scholarships to 50? That's 35 fewer scholarships for boys at any given school. Rest assured, the extra money will only result in more undeserving girls getting full scholarships. If it was truly about equity, tennis and golf wouldn't get ANY scholarships (when you consider that a FULL men's track team only get around 12).
You do have a point about "undeserving girls" leeching off the blood and sweat of boys, but not all of those girls are in the "White" country club sports. The girls on the track & field and basketball teams do their fair share of leeching too, and even the Tennessee and Connecticut women's basketball teams lose money.
I would agree that track leeches but you can BET that the athletes who get scholarships in track and field who are most "undeserving" are DISTANCE RUNNERS - because often times distance coaches run the programs. Sprinters and Throwers and Jumpers don't get that.
Look at a school like Wisconsin. Big time football, men's track wins big 10 and the women can barely score anyone at the conference much less qualify athletes for NCAA's (1 or 2?). And, it's not like they're competitive...they're really not good at all.
They were 20-something last year. Back about four years ago one Wisconsin girl who went to Colorado for a year before coming back to Wisconsin was the difference in them being fourth instead of first. Few women's teams have the resume of Wisconsin, although now a lot of the scholarships go to the multis and throws etc.; there are a lot of gals on the team but they are not, by and large, getting scholarships (note the number of Wisconsin natives and the majors of many of the runners who are at school for school; many do not get the most out of their possible running because they are too busy being students).
Distance running is a bit different in that athletes compete in what are considered three sports, so the dollars go a long way.
As for football schedules, Wisconsin scheduled Oregon State back a few years ago when they were pretty good and then they were pretty mediocre for a couple years and it looked like playing them on the road was close to an easy game. Now, they are ranked in the top ten (but probably not for too much longer, as they just do not have the star-studded roster of some other teams even in the Pac-12.
26mi235 wrote:They were 20-something last year. Back about four years ago one Wisconsin girl who went to Colorado for a year before coming back to Wisconsin was the difference in them being fourth instead of first. Few women's teams have the resume of Wisconsin, although now a lot of the scholarships go to the multis and throws etc.; there are a lot of gals on the team but they are not, by and large, getting scholarships (note the number of Wisconsin natives and the majors of many of the runners who are at school for school; many do not get the most out of their possible running because they are too busy being students).
Distance running is a bit different in that athletes compete in what are considered three sports, so the dollars go a long way.
As for football schedules, Wisconsin scheduled Oregon State back a few years ago when they were pretty good and then they were pretty mediocre for a couple years and it looked like playing them on the road was close to an easy game. Now, they are ranked in the top ten (but probably not for too much longer, as they just do not have the star-studded roster of some other teams even in the Pac-12.
A few things:
1. College kids are usually 20-something 2. Badger throws and jumps are not that great even with imports. 3. Those "students" have a cost (uniforms, travel, etc) which take from the revenue makers 4. Distance runners don't compete in 3 sports, they just would like us to think that so they can soak of the redistributed "benefits" created by the revenue sports. Sucking in "3 sports" doesn't mean you should be funded.
Fact remains that Wisconsin LOST to an Oregon State program that you admit may not be very good (I disagree, but it speaks to my previous argument about "parity" and "competitiveness" and why the limit of 85 scholarships makes teams think that they are better than they are), but with 20 more scholarship players it makes it easier for them to maintain a dominant program at the expense of their women's Rowing Lightweight program.
Oregon State is good, but I doubt that they end up at #8.
Badger jumps and throws are not all that bad and generally local, although the best thrower was constrained from competing due to his very lucrative football contract (and a local boy, for sure).
preston wrote:4. Distance runners don't compete in 3 sports, they just would like us to think that so they can soak of the redistributed "benefits" created by the revenue sports.
What do you mean by that? At most schools distance certainly do compete in cross country, indoor track and outdoor track.
preston wrote:4. Distance runners don't compete in 3 sports, they just would like us to think that so they can soak of the redistributed "benefits" created by the revenue sports.
What do you mean by that? At most schools distance certainly do compete in cross country, indoor track and outdoor track.
He means they just keep doing that one athletic endeavor year-round: running distance. My school has a big athletic award at year's end: best multi-sport athlete. Should a distance runner who runs CC, iT&F, and oT&F 'very well' get that award over a kid who does almost as well at football, basketball and baseball? I think not.
preston wrote:4. Distance runners don't compete in 3 sports, they just would like us to think that so they can soak of the redistributed "benefits" created by the revenue sports.
What do you mean by that? At most schools distance certainly do compete in cross country, indoor track and outdoor track.
He means they just keep doing that one athletic endeavor year-round: running distance. My school has a big athletic award at year's end: best multi-sport athlete. Should a distance runner who runs CC, iT&F, and oT&F 'very well' get that award over a kid who does almost as well at football, basketball and baseball? I think not.
Preston, did you see what happened to Marcus Lattimore today? As soon as I saw this play, I thought about you hating on all those preppy girls on the crew, equastrian, golf and field hockey teams. Anyway, I hope his family was able to put some insurance on him before this season, and if God's willing, hopefully he'll make a full recovery and have a decent career in the NFL.
jazzcyclist wrote:Preston, did you see what happened to Marcus Lattimore today? As soon as I saw this play, I thought about you hating on all those preppy girls on the crew, equastrian, golf and field hockey teams. Anyway, I hope his family was able to put some insurance on him before this season, and if God's willing, hopefully he'll make a full recovery and have a decent career in the NFL.
The diagnosis has not been revealed yet. I hope it is not career-ending. It would be a shame.
Definitely. They barely got by BYU and Stanford at home. Their schedule really has not been that hard. The Big Ten really sucks this year and they got to play both Michigan and MSU. Oklahoma was overrated as usual. And except for USC it is easy from here on.
The only really awesome teams this year seem to be Alabama and Oregon. Though it would not surprise me to see the Ducks go undefeated and still not play in the Championship game. But that is the way it goes. The Rose Bowl is fine with me.
Conor Dary wrote:Definitely. They barely got by BYU and Stanford at home. Their schedule really has not been that hard. The Big Ten really sucks this year and they got to play both Michigan and MSU. Oklahoma was overrated as usual. And except for USC it is easy from here on.
Talk about moving the target. At the beginning of the season, you naysayers doubted they could finish 6-6 with such a brutal schedule. Now their whole schedule is full of cupcakes. Come on man.
Conor Dary wrote:The only really awesome teams this year seem to be Alabama and Oregon.
Air Force Troy Calhoun Akron Terry Bowden Alabama Nick Saban Arizona Rich Rodriguez Arizona State Todd Graham Arkansas State Gus Malzahn Auburn Gene Chizik Ball State Pete Lembo Baylor Art Briles Boise State Chris Petersen BYU Bronco Mendenhall California Jeff Tedford Central Florida George OLeary Cincinnati Butch Jones Clemson Dabo Swinney Connecticut Paul Pasqualoni East Carolina Ruffin McNeill Florida State Jimbo Fisher Fresno State Tim DeRuyter Georgia Mark Richt Houston Tony Levine Illinois Tim Beckman Indiana. Kevin Wilson Iowa State Paul Rhoads Kent State Darrell Hazell Kentucky Joker Phillips Louisiana Tech Sonny Dykes Louisiana-Lafayette Mark Hudspeth LSU Les Miles Miami (Fla.) Al Golden Michigan Brady Hoke Michigan State Mark Dantonio Middle Tennessee Rick Stockstill Nebraska Bo Pelini North Texas Dan McCarney Northern Illinois Dave Doeren Notre Dame Brian Kelly Ohio Frank Solich Oklahoma Bob Stoops Oregon State Mike Riley Rice David Bailiff Rutgers Kyle Flood San Diego State Rocky Long San Jose State Mike MacIntyre South Carolina Steve Spurrier South Florida Skip Holtz Southern Miss Ellis Johnson Texas Tech Tommy Tuberville Toledo Matt Campbell Tulane Curtis Johnson Vanderbilt James Franklin Virginia Mike London Virginia Tech Frank Beamer Wake Forest Jim Grobe Washington Steve Sarkisian Washington State Mike Leach West Virginia Dana Holgorsen Wisconsin Bret Bielema Wyoming Dave Christensen
One thing that I find interesting is that Brian Kelly still wasn't giving his team his #1 vote going into this weekend. I wonder if that changed after last night.
Conor Dary wrote:Definitely. They barely got by BYU and Stanford at home. Their schedule really has not been that hard. The Big Ten really sucks this year and they got to play both Michigan and MSU. Oklahoma was overrated as usual. And except for USC it is easy from here on.
Talk about moving the target. At the beginning of the season, you naysayers doubted they could finish 6-6 with such a brutal schedule. Now their whole schedule is full of cupcakes. Come on man.
Conor Dary wrote:The only really awesome teams this year seem to be Alabama and Oregon.
And who has Oregon played to earn such praise?
Who said they had a brutal schedule? Not eye. The Big Ten truly sucks this year, the only reason teams win in the Big Ten this year is they get to play each other. Look at the Illinois-Indiana game. They both wanted to lose but they found it was against the rules.
Navy, BYU? Stanford lost because of a lousy call. Oklahoma is always overrated.
As for Oregon they have steamrolled everyone. Games are over before the end of the first quarter. Onward....to USC!
Face it jazz. You are just jealous because you don't have your own billionaire sponsoring your team. And your team doesn't get a fancy new uniform every week. It is sad....but there you go....
Conor Dary wrote:As for Oregon they have steamrolled everyone. Games are over before the end of the first quarter. Onward....to USC!
Just wait until a real defense gets them inside a phone booth. When that happens, not only will they not match the Oregon basketball team's scores, they'll struggle to match the Oregon baseball team.
Anyway, I hope his family was able to put some insurance on him before this season, and if God's willing, hopefully he'll make a full recovery and have a decent career in the NFL.