NCAA Football 2008 Discussion - It All Starts Here.
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
Texas HAS played teams earlier. Arkansas and Colorado at home. Arkansas just upset the 20th team in the nation.
Plus, do you understand rivalries? Anything happens in a rivalry game. Look at Oregon State and USC. It was one thing for Texas to win against Arkansas but another to completely blow out Arkansas.
Penn State and Missouri's rankings were high because they beat Illinois. This'll be a good test for Penn State coming up against Michigan and Ohio State.
Texas has proven as much if not more than Missouri and Penn State, so I don't know why people are arguing about their rankings before the OK game.
That wasn't my point (my point was you're being hypocritical) but I'll play. Arkansas is 3-3 having beaten Western Illinois by 4, LA-Monroe by 1 and Auburn by 3. They were blown out by three ranked teams, including Texas. Colorado is also 3-3 with one notable win over West Virginia with decisive losses to Texas, FSU and Kansas.
So if our measure is beating teams who are 3-3 or better, Penn State has played Illinois (beat UM, lost to Mizzou, PSU, and by a TD to Minnesota) and Oregon State (losses to Utah and Stanford, beat Hawaii, USC and Washington State).
I don't see how Texas's wins prior to Oklahoma are that much better than PSUs.
Yes, I do. Penn State has no real rivalry games, having recently joined the Big Ten, but they blew out 5 of 7 opponents so far, including Oregon State (who you just noted beat the #1 team, which is more impressive than beating the #20 team in theory).
Wrong. Penn State and Missouri were (are) ranked high because they kept winning, while teams ahead of them lost. They moved up. Nothing to do with beating Illinois specifically.
Last edited:
So does that mean you admire Cal since they did go out and play?
It's not the going across the country part that was a bad idea, IMO, but playing the game so relatively early. I think a 3PM EST start would have been much better. However, the game was played and Cal was not the better team on the field that day.
Hell, I think that Cal playing OOC opponents across the country is great for national exposure, I think that they just overlooked a detail this time. This was the earliest start time for a Cal game in my memory. Hell the game was almost over when I rolled out of bed on Saturday.
No, but the near-certainty that the Buckeyes will fold like a Bangkok hooker punched in the gut once they face a team with impressive speed will.
Illinois ... Florida ... LSU ... USC ... and, in all likelihood, Penn State in two weeks. Enjoy the renascence; it's likely to be brief.
[But they're better than Rutgers!]
Renaissance? Not really. That happened back in 2002. Plus, when you've been consistently one of the winningest programs for the past several seasons, not to mention 5th all-time I think, what needs to be reborn?
But from what I've seen of OSU and PSU, there is no question PSU has to be favored and significantly so. Home field isn't going to be much of an advantage for OSU, seeing as PSU has now won back-to-back conference games on the road for maybe their first time ever in the Big Ten. The defense is coming together nicely, but the offense is still missing in action ... which is just mind-boggling. PSU's win over Oregon St is looking more impressive, given Oregon St.'s win this weekend. Granted, they may be considered a different team today form then, but still... it makes you think.
As to #1.... I have no problem at all with Texas being vaulted up there. They clearly were the better team against the previous #1. Was Oklahoma a consensus #1, btw? Regardless, Bama Looked lethargic against a game but inferior Kentucky team in their last game before this weekend. Being inactive hurt them. Texas on the other hand has dominated everyone they played with the exception of the #1 team. Whom they beat on the road and looked good doing it, taking every punch the Sooners could throw.
But being #1 this early in the season isn't all that, particularly for a big program like Texas who's won a national title recently. It's significant alright, since it gives them mor eroom for a place in the national title game. But still....
Not tht I'm disputing you, but you misundertand me. I mean what happened to the Gators when they looked less than impressive last weekend?
No kidding!Neroon, I see you picked Wisconsin in the pick'em. You should have listened to me!
But in my defense that was more a case of thinking that Wisconsin would cover the spread, not an outright Badgers win.
Nice to see Cal back in the top 25, despite having a Bye. Really wish they hadn't lost to Maryland though.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
No I am not. I am reasoning, especially with JMC or whatever his name is that continues to bash Texas and putting in snide marks how they don't deserve to be that high, especially since they blew out a huge rival, another conference rival in Colorado (a tough team for Texas on the road) and then made a huge statement against Oklahoma. The Big 12 is a very competitive league this year. Especially with Baylor actually doing something. FSU and Texas are damn good teams, Colorado shouldn't feel bad losing to them.
It's the quality of the team as well. Penn State doesn't have rivalries as you said. They will come. Those are emotional games on both side of the ball and things happen. Look at the Texas-Texas A&M games.
Because Arkansas and Colorado are tough matches for Texas. Colorado at home. Arkansas because their rivalry goes back one-hundred years. Most analysts I've read said they wouldn't be surprise to see Texas actually lose or come close to losing to Arkansas. They didn't predict a 52-10 blowout. Especially since Arkansas lost the week before.
Wrong. Penn State and Missouri were (are) ranked high because they kept winning, while teams ahead of them lost. They moved up. Nothing to do with beating Illinois specifically.[/quote]
Actually, yes it does. It'll also factor in with the BCS. So if teams keep winning, why isn't Notre Dame or Minnesota in the rankings? Granted, Minnesota lost to OSU but no matter. Notre Dame continues to win and finally cracked the rankings. Where's Tulsa? they are 6-0. And why did Ohio State sink so far after losing to USC?
They played a fairly decent game against Ohio State, so if you acknowledge a quality loss as proof of a team's caliber, they're certainly a Top 40 if not quite a Top Twenty-Five squad.
So does that mean you admire Cal since they did go out and play?
Absolutely, though a victory would have been even more admirable.
Again you are wrong. Minnesota had an abysmal seasons last year and didn't start on the preseason radar (unlike PSU and Mizzou) so it's taking a little more for voters to accept them as valid. They have started receiving votes. Notre Dame - and I don't even know why you chose them as an example - hasn't been winning. They lost to UNC Saturday and are 4-2. In case you care to look at the rankings, there aren't any 2-loss teams ranked in the Top 25. Nor should there be, at this point. Tulsa is nearly ranked, but wasn't on anyones preseason radar, like Minnesota.
Ohio State sunk because voters are punishing them for consistently losing big games. They also lost by a wide margin.
You're acting like the Illinois win gave PSU some huge boost. We went from 12 to 6. Of the teams ahead of PSU, USC went down that week, as did Georgia, Wisconsin and Florida. PSU jumped ahead of South Florida, Texas Tech, and BYU.
No ... renascence. I say what I mean, and I'm not talking about Italian artists.
Not really. That happened back in 2002. Plus, when you've been consistently one of the winningest programs for the past several seasons, not to mention 5th all-time I think, what needs to be reborn?
The ability to win when it really counts, perhaps?
And let's not get started on the phantom championship of 2002, handed to them by incompetent officiating, mmmkay?
Since Alabama was my previous number one, that point is of significantly less importance to me. Texas wouldn't have beaten 'Bama, in my opinion, which is why I still have UT at number two, behind a 'Bama team that's done more, and more impressively, if not more recently. Body of work trumps "What have you done for me lately," because the Tide has two big wins and Texas only one.
So does that mean you admire Cal since they did go out and play?
Absolutely, though a victory would have been even more admirable.
Touche.
Goes to show that a solid offensive front is critical to success in college football. Over the last two years, Rutgers has graduated three linemen (Stephenson, Sosa, Zuttah) that are now playing in the NFL, a fourth (Fladell) who will probably break through eventually, and a tight end (Harris) who's made the rounds and is a staple on practice squads—to say nothing of Leonard and Rice. Is it any wonder Clemson, which, like the Knights, possesses excellent playmakers at the offensive skill positions but a patchwork o-line, is struggling?
So, I wanted to get opinions on this from the BBS. My school paper, at the end of one article, says "but voters elsewhere may have teams jump Penn State even if the Lions are unbeaten just for the sake of pushing Paterno toward leaving the sidelines." Do you think this has any validity?
Last edited:
Oklahoma State rocks. Nuff said. 
Not only that, the offensive coordinator has left, and two very highly rated verbal recruits are now considering other schools. OTOH, the quarterback has apparently already thrown Bowden under the bus by saying "it's what he (Bowden) deserved."
Wow!
Last edited:
No, if Penn St remains undefeated, an SEC or Big 12 team with one loss won't jump them. They will, however, be left out if both conferences produce unbeaten champions. A Penn St team with one loss has no chance. All of this is because the Big 10 is down, not because of Joe Paterno.
I'm not sure you're correct, DaleC76: I think that, alone of the SEC and Big 12 teams, Florida could eventually leapfrog the Lions—especially if their win over Ohio State isn't particularly convincing. The Gators have yet to play the Bulldogs, Commodores, Gamecocks and Seminoles. If they defeat a one-loss Georgia, a two-loss Vanderbilt, a two-loss USC and a one or two-loss FSU headed to the ACC championship game, then thrash a previously unbeaten #2 Alabama in the SEC title tilt, they and their Heisman Trophy winning quarterback will be a much, much sexier pick for a title shot than stolid, solid Penn State. This is shaping up as a potential split championship, with the SEC winner taking out the Big 12 champ and grabbing the coaches' trophy, while unbeaten Penn State whups USC in the Rose Bowl and grabs the AP title.
Speculation of the day: Assuming that Texas Tech, Texas or Oklahoma State runs the table and secures a BCS championship game berth, which team do you think should oppose them: a one-loss SEC champ, or unbeaten Penn State?
Speculation of the day: Assuming that Texas Tech, Texas or Oklahoma State runs the table and secures a BCS championship game berth, which team do you think should oppose them: a one-loss SEC champ, or unbeaten Penn State?
Last edited:
