2012 College Football


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby donley2 » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:05 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
donley2 wrote:
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
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:58 pm

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
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:32 am

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.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:58 am

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
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:46 am

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! :D
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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby gh » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:48 am

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! :evil:

(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:51 am

gh wrote:
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! :evil:

(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?
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:21 am

gh wrote:
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! :evil:

(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
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:59 am

preston wrote:
gh wrote:
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! :evil:

(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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:16 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:
gh wrote:
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! :evil:

(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.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:09 pm

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
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:21 am

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.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:38 am

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).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:45 am

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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:01 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:33 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
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.

Exactly, Marlow.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:19 pm

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. :lol: 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
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:27 pm

Does anyone still doubt the

Fighting Irish?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jhc68 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:13 pm

Irish, eh?
SC will be them if the Trojans can keep their penalties down to only, say, 6 or 8 in each half of the game :shock:
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Pego » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:00 am

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. :lol: 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.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:48 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Does anyone still doubt the

Fighting Irish?


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
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:04 am

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?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:17 am

For those who are interested, here's a list of the voters in the Coaches Poll:
Code: Select all
 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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:23 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
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
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:52 am

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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:52 am

Perusing the front pages of some of today's college town newspapers makes me realize how out of whack the South's priorities are when it comes to college football. Arizona, Notre Dame, Washington and Georgia all defeated top 10 football teams yesterday. Here are the front pages of those schools' hometown newspapers:

The Seattle Times

Arizona Daily Star

South Bend Tribune

Athens Banner-Herald

It goes without saying that if LSU beats Alabama on Saturday, the front page of next Sunday's Baton Rouge paper will look a lot more like the Athens paper, than the South Bend, Tucson or Seattle papers.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:06 am

Pego wrote:The diagnosis has not been revealed yet. I hope it is not career-ending. It would be a shame.

:cry: :cry: :cry:
South Carolina running back Marcus Lattimore appeared to suffer one of the worst leg injuries we’ve ever seen, and early reports suggest the injury was every bit as bad as it looked. . . . .

Bryan VanOchten shared the word circulating around the press box at the Alabama-Mississippi State game that Lattimore suffered a broken femur and tore all four of his knee ligaments — the PCL, LCL, MCL, and ACL. Payne Insider adds that he has a chipped knee cap.

http://larrybrownsports.com/college-foo ... mur/160198
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Dutra5 » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:08 am

Living in an area in which Saturday's paper is headlined often by stories of the previous evening's High School games and Sunday by the previous day's "local" college team's games, it's not surprising that the more Southern paper would focus on the Georgia game vs. Florida.

It's possible that the ND game ended too late for the paper to get a headline story prepared other than the final.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:24 am

I was watching the South Carolina game when Lattimore got hurt...what a shame. I know people are talking about what happened with McGahee, but they also need to remember what happened with Napoleon McCallum. Btw, I wouldn't watch the replays; I never watch athletes get hurt.

For me to be a believer in Notre Dame I would have to believe that they could play Alabama within 2 touchdowns. I don't. They can't. The Big 10 is HORRIBLE this year; Stanford and Oklahoma are the best teams they've played and they're both overrated. Notre Dame wouldn't be top-5 in the SEC. Yup, I said it. "Sacriligious U" has a great defense but QB play and overall offense is way too inconsistent. No way they can throw on AL, LSU, FL, GA and maybe even SC and MSU; and all those teams are great at stopping the run. And, next year they join the sorry-assed ACC. Hopefully, Oregon or KSU will win out and play Alabama; and KSU or Oregon (or another SEC team) will play "S U" and beat the stuffing out of them.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:03 am

If Bama, Ore, KsSt and ND win out, which well they could, won't the BCS (not yet plus-one) have a melt-down? :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:11 am

preston wrote:IFor me to be a believer in Notre Dame I would have to believe that they could play Alabama within 2 touchdowns. I don't. They can't.

Who do you believe can stay within 2 touchdowns of Alabama?
preston wrote:The Big 10 is HORRIBLE this year; Stanford and Oklahoma are the best teams they've played and they're both overrated.

And I'm sure that when Notre Dame beat USC, you'll talk about how overrated they are too.
preston wrote:Notre Dame wouldn't be top-5 in the SEC. Yup, I said it. "Sacriligious U" has a great defense but QB play and overall offense is way too inconsistent. No way they can throw on AL, LSU, FL, GA and maybe even SC and MSU; and all those teams are great at stopping the run.

How do you think those teams would do against Notre Dame's defense? Notre Dame has proven they can win dogfights when both teams struggle to score double-digits. They would love for the game to takle place in a phone booth. I also know that LSU fans would trade Zach Mettenberger for Everett Golson in a heart beat.
preston wrote:And, next year they join the sorry-assed ACC. Hopefully, Oregon or KSU will win out and play Alabama; and KSU or Oregon (or another SEC team) will play "S U" and beat the stuffing out of them.

If all four of those teams go undefeated, I pray that the BCS won't cheat the fans and the teams by not matching up the two left-out undefeated teams (presumably #3 & #4) against each other.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:14 am

Marlow wrote:If Bama, Ore, KsSt and ND win out, which well they could, won't the BCS (not yet plus-one) have a melt-down? :D

Under that scenario, I don't think any of those schools would object to moving up the introduction of the plus-one system from 2014 to 2012.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:33 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:The Big 10 is HORRIBLE this year; Stanford and Oklahoma are the best teams they've played and they're both overrated.

And I'm sure that when Notre Dame beat USC, you'll talk about how overrated they are too.

USC isn't overrated? They LOST to Stanford! Syracuse played them within 13 and they allowed Arizona to score 39 points in a loss this week to the Wildcats! I think you have me confused with someone else. All of them are overrated! (not screaming, just my usual hyperbolic flourish).

But, this is what I'm talking about: there used to be dominant teams like Alabama but now there is just a bunch of mediocre teams that haven't lost; very few of them are "bankable/bettable". They're all the same because of the 85 scholarships; it makes it harder to lock up all the talent - unless you're a Saban type coach (something the other schools can't really claim to have).

jazzcyclist wrote:How do you think those teams would do against Notre Dame's defense? Notre Dame has proven they can win dogfights when both teams struggle to score double-digits. They would love for the game to takle place in a phone booth. I also know that LSU fans would trade Zach Mettenberger for Everett Golson in a heart beat.

Good point, but slug-fests are usual in the SEC - GA, SC, GA, AL, LSU and MSU can play defense. In addition when their offenses are on they're a lot better than ND's offense at it's best. In a 7 team league of the 6 SEC teams listed above and ND; ND would be at best 2-4, though I would expect 1-5 (they might take MSU on name alone, but it would be closer than most would think).

jazzcyclist wrote:If all four of those teams go undefeated, I pray that the BCS won't cheat the fans and the teams by not matching up the two left-out undefeated teams (presumably #3 & #4) against each other.

If all 4 teams win out, then they will all play the top 2 games. Why? Because of the reason why I hate ND: ND has special circumstances that allow it to be bowl-eligible and BCS-eligible doing less than every other school (even Hawai'i lost the one game advantage they used to have). All that said, as president of the ND hater's club, if ND wins out they should play (but I feel that if you go undefeated that you get to play [Louisville is about to get screwed]; I don't care if you're Boise St, Ok, State or GA State - I know...they're FBS...more hyperbole).
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby gh » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:26 pm

Georgia-Florida story on espn.com

<<It was unwatchable and compelling all at the same time. You didn't know whether to lean forward in your seat or switch to an infomercial for ear wax dissolver....>>

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... all-season
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:26 pm

preston wrote:Good point, but slug-fests are usual in the SEC - GA, SC, GA, AL, LSU and MSU can play defense. In addition when their most offenses are on they're a lot better than ND's offense at it's best. In a 7 team league of the 6 SEC teams listed above and ND; ND would be at best 2-4, though I would expect 1-5 (they might take MSU on name alone, but it would be closer than would think).

1-5? :lol:
Now that's some serious anti-Notre Dame hyperbole.
preston wrote:If all 4 teams win out, then they will all play the top 2 games. Why? Because of the reason why I hate ND: ND has special circumstances that allow it to be bowl-eligible and BCS-eligible doing less than every other school (even Hawai'i lost the one game advantage they used to have). All that said, as president of the ND hater's club, if ND wins out they should play (but I feel that if you go undefeated that you get to play [Louisville is about to get screwed]; I don't care if you're Boise St, Ok, State or GA State - I know...they're FBS...more hyperbole).

You obviously don't understand the BCS selection process. There are no special rules for Notre Dame's bowl eligibility. They have to win six games just like everynody else.

EDIT: Also, if Louisville wins out, they're guaranteed an automatic BCS bid.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Pego » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:27 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:The diagnosis has not been revealed yet. I hope it is not career-ending. It would be a shame.

:cry: :cry:
South Carolina running back Marcus Lattimore appeared to suffer one of the worst leg injuries we’ve ever seen, and early reports suggest the injury was every bit as bad as it looked. . . . .

Bryan VanOchten shared the word circulating around the press box at the Alabama-Mississippi State game that Lattimore suffered a broken femur and tore all four of his knee ligaments — the PCL, LCL, MCL, and ACL. Payne Insider adds that he has a chipped knee cap.

http://larrybrownsports.com/college-foo ... mur/160198


If true, this sounds bad :( .
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:50 am

jazzcyclist wrote:You obviously don't understand the BCS selection process. There are no special rules for Notre Dame's bowl eligibility. They have to win six games just like everynody else.

EDIT: Also, if Louisville wins out, they're guaranteed an automatic BCS bid.

jazz, hyperbole is my specialty...I'd suggest that you stick to the facts. :wink: Please google "BCS Notre Dame rule" ... read up on whatever comes up, and don't report back...we don't need you to start sliding, qualifying and saying "what I had meant to say was"... The fact remains that there are special rules for ND.

Also, I recognize that Louisville will be guaranteed a BCS game; however you said...

jazzcyclist wrote:If all four of those teams go undefeated, I pray that the BCS won't cheat the fans and the teams by not matching up the two left-out undefeated teams (presumably #3 & #4) against each other.

If they were to win out, Louisville would feel screwed for being left out of a game with an undefeated team. That's all I am referring to. They would be just as "entitled", in my reasoning, to play Alabama as Oregon, KSU or Sacriligious U. Actually, priority should be given to Louisville over ND for playing in a conference or not having the letter "d" in their name.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:13 am

preston wrote: google "BCS Notre Dame rule" ... read up on whatever comes up, and don't report back...we don't need you to start sliding, qualifying and saying "what I had meant to say was"... The fact remains that there are special rules for ND.

I follow your reasoning (though the rule refers to any independent), but I'm amused by one of the first google hits:

Meanwhile, some delusional non-Irish fans think that somehow, someway Notre Dame has a BCS “rule” that bestows preferential treatment. Nothing is further from the truth.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:06 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote: google "BCS Notre Dame rule" ... read up on whatever comes up, and don't report back...we don't need you to start sliding, qualifying and saying "what I had meant to say was"... The fact remains that there are special rules for ND.

I follow your reasoning (though the rule [DOES NOT refer] to any independent), but I'm amused by one of the first google hits:

Meanwhile, some delusional non-Irish fans think that somehow, someway Notre Dame has a BCS “rule” that bestows preferential treatment. Nothing is further from the truth.

Marlow,

Your post is so wrong that I purposely amended it so that others reading it don't begin to believe it. Notre Dame, not "any" independent, has it's own tie-in. You need to google further.

-preston the delusional :twisted:
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:59 am

preston wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:You obviously don't understand the BCS selection process. There are no special rules for Notre Dame's bowl eligibility. They have to win six games just like everynody else.

jazz, hyperbole is my specialty...I'd suggest that you stick to the facts. :wink: Please google "BCS Notre Dame rule" ... read up on whatever comes up

I would suggest that you quit confusing hyperbole with facts, unless you can show me where Notre Dame can become bowl eligible with only five wins.
preston wrote:Also, I recognize that Louisville will be guaranteed a BCS game; however you said...

If they were to win out, Louisville would feel screwed for being left out of a game with an undefeated team. That's all I am referring to. They would be just as "entitled", in my reasoning, to play Alabama as Oregon, KSU or Sacriligious U. Actually, priority should be given to Louisville over ND for playing in a conference or not having the letter "d" in their name.

I'm going to go out on the limb and say that you're the only college football fan in America that has any interest in seeing Louisville matched up with an undefeated Alabama, Oregon, Kansas State or Notre Dame. Louisville should be grateful to even play in a BCS bowl with so many close wins despite their pathetic schedule.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests