Jump to content

College Football Week 7: Upset Special edition


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

Seriously, John, we might have a problem now :P

ETA: OK, Trojan, I can take 2-for-3.

ETA2: Seriously, five FG attempts. Four more points and this wouldn't really be a thing.

I would have felt absurdly guilty if Stanford had lost after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Oregon doesn't go for it every time in the red zone or doesn't fumble, we may also have had a game.

The short yardage conversions were just brutal for Oregon. They haven't been great all season, but wow. Just crushing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. I hate that fucking narrative.

Last year their defining moment was USC. They fucked USC up. They lost to a Stanford team that was not supposed to be that good.

2011 their defining moment was Stanford and Andrew luck coming back for the heisman and the natty. They beat Stanford by 3 tds on the road. They lost to a USC team at home that looked okay.

2010 they lost by a field goal to the national champ. That is the closest margin to a sec champ in the bcs era.

The notion that Oregon can't win the big game is just bullshit. They have a better winning record over the last 4 years than Alabama does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might hate the narrative, but it doesn't make it untrue.



When it comes to Oregon, "What if?" is the statement everybody is left with.



Last year the defining moment is the loss to Stanford, not a win over USC. That, combined with a KSU loss on the same night, shaped the season more than any other night.



Until they win that game, and a NC, that's the story of their program.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luck's defenses were pretty bad compared to this year and 2012 (the one his last year was OK, but still very, very slow in the secondary/back 7, which is a huge problem vs a read option team that can get the ball to the edge).



The one W in the Luck era was a high-scoring game, but that was the year that Gerhart ran for I-don't-know-how-many-but-a-lot of yards at Stanford Stadium. These past two wins have been entirely defense-driven.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Alabama wasn't ranked higher to start the season the loss to Stanford wouldn't have mattered.

The narrative is bullshit, cherry picking bad facts to meet some imagined story. Undefeated seasons are incredibly rare - and apparently you only get a do over if you're Alabama. Alabama also lost in 2011 and 2012. The difference between the two teams is that Alabama got a shot. Oregon didn't. Let's not make it out like it is a difference in narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't cherry picking facts to say that every time Oregon has had a chance to win a national championship they have failed. It's just fact.



In college football, more than any other sport due to its nature, losses define programs and head coaches far, far more than wins. Hell, you can be a national championship winning coach and then become more known for blowing the big games like Carr, Tressel, Stoops, and Brown than winning the NCG.



Oregon blows their chance every year. Texas recruits a lot of talent but is mediocre on the field. Ohio State beats up on lesser competition but can't hang with the big boys. Florida State bounces between what people think of Texas and what people think of Ohio State depending on the year.



There is only one way to change that perception for any of those teams, and that is to knock off whatever SEC team is heading to the NCG this year. That's it.



As far as the BCS ranking now, I'd go:



1. Alabama


2. Florida State


3. Baylor


4. Ohio State



If everybody wins out, that should hold, given that Baylor will have played better teams than Ohio State.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the top four now has to be as follows, right?

1 - Alabama

2 - Florida State

3 - Ohio State

4 - Baylor

Perhaps Baylor and tOSU are interchangeable, but that seems right. Does Stanford just sit at 5 and Oregon falls to 6?

Are we talking what it should be, or what it is? Because Stanford was ahead of Baylor in the BCS coming into tonight and just beat a higher-ranked team than Baylor did. I think Baylor will be ahead of us in the human polls probably, so we'll end up at 5 there, but I wouldn't be shocked to see us at 4 in the BCS this week. Though if Baylor wins out, they'll obviously move ahead of us.

ETA:

Dear Thread,

If you went to Utah, please do me the favor of not talking to me until February. Ugh.

Sincerely,

DVD ROTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone hear pregame reports that Mariota had a sprained MCL? ESPN's PAC-12 blog is saying there were rumors of it before the game, I hadn't heard, but I was also not trying to focus on the game today.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone hear pregame reports that Mariota had a sprained MCL? ESPN's PAC-12 blog is saying there were rumors of it before the game, I hadn't heard, but I was also not trying to focus on the game today.

I'd heard the rumors, haven't heard anything confirmed, though.

I'm starting to get hyped for a Stanford vs. Ohio State Rose Bowl. I think that could be a really terrific game. Carlos Hyde isn't the NFL talent that De'Anthony Thomas is, but he'd provide a different challenge for that great looking Cardinal D by virtue of being a pure bruiser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't cherry picking facts to say that every time Oregon has had a chance to win a national championship they have failed. It's just fact.

In college football, more than any other sport due to its nature, losses define programs and head coaches far, far more than wins. Hell, you can be a national championship winning coach and then become more known for blowing the big games like Carr, Tressel, Stoops, and Brown than winning the NCG.

Oregon blows their chance every year. Texas recruits a lot of talent but is mediocre on the field. Ohio State beats up on lesser competition but can't hang with the big boys. Florida State bounces between what people think of Texas and what people think of Ohio State depending on the year.

There is only one way to change that perception for any of those teams, and that is to knock off whatever SEC team is heading to the NCG this year. That's it.

As far as the BCS ranking now, I'd go:

1. Alabama

2. Florida State

3. Baylor

4. Ohio State

If everybody wins out, that should hold, given that Baylor will have played better teams than Ohio State.

To win a national championship? Oh, sorry - is THAT what we're talking about? Because there are precisely two teams in the last 5 years that have had even a chance to be in the national championship multiple times. One is Alabama - who ALSO LOST GAMES. And the other is Oregon.

If you want to say that Oregon's 2012 season was defined by the Stanford loss, okay. Why wasn't Alabama's defined by the Texas A&M loss? Both lost to a team that was eventually ranked in the top 10. Both lost as heavy favorites. Yet Oregon is somehow branded as 'can't win the big one' despite huge evidence to the contrary. Okay, but no - that's not factual. That's bullshit. The reason that Oregon gets branded as a team that can't win the big one and Alabama doesn't is because of pure luck and voter bias. If Oregon loses to Stanford in week 5, Oregon's at #2 when the NCG bids go out. Literally, that's all it takes - to lose earlier than Bama did. Nothing else in the season has to change! Yet somehow that's the big pressure game on Oregon (despite Oregon not worrying about the game publicly) and Oregon blowing their chance.

Why does Alabama get a second chance? Why isn't Saban a choke artist, since he's had as many undefeated seasons as Oregon has in the last 5 years? Just luck and a really fucked system for determining who goes to the NCG and who doesn't.

Hell, here's an odd statement - this may end up helping Oregon. Oregon lost first this year. Yeah, they looked bad doing so. But if we get the armageddon that we've had virtually every year since the BCS started, Oregon is shockingly in the driver's seat because they lost first and are now up there in the rankings. They might even pass Stanford, despite Stanford beating their ass and not getting to play in the Pac-12 championship. You know, the same route that Bama took in 2011 to get to the championship game.

If Oregon gets to the NCG this year and beats someone shitty like OSU, will you say they won the big one? No, you'll argue that they had to beat Bama for it to count, or some other bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wasn't Alabama defined by the aTm loss? Well, let's take a look see at what happened after that.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Alabama_Crimson_Tide_football_team



Well, golly gee! They still won their conference, making them the strongest one loss AQ team to do so, giving them a shot at ND and the national championship.



Oregon, by virtue of their loss to Stanford, failed to win their conference.



Your argument is crap, because no matter if Oregon had lost earlier, they still wouldn't have been able to achieve what Alabama did.



As to that one loss Alabama team that didn't win their conference but still got to play for the National Championship: Context is King. There was only one other one loss team from an AQ school, and the voters rightfully decided a 3 point OT loss to the number one team was a less damaging loss than a 6 point 2OT loss to a team with a losing record. In the absence of a playoff, these are the decisions that have to be made.



Also, LOL at Oregon having the same number of undefeated seasons as Alabama over the past five years. The season, no matter how much you want it to for your argument, doesn't end at the end of conference play. A quick look at how statistics are recorded in college football should clear that up for you.



Nice try at a strawman at the end as well. If Oregon by some miracle of Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Baylor, and Stanford all losing makes it to the NCG and wins(with Alabama needing not only to lose but also not win the conference), they will have done what they needed to do to shake their perception as the Buffalo Bills of college football.



You are presenting a stupid argument because you are salty after a loss. Calm down, realize that it isn't a personal attack, and move on. Your team didn't take care of its business, and now has to pay the price.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, golly gee! They still won their conference, making them the strongest one loss AQ team to do so, giving them a shot at ND and the national championship.

Oregon, by virtue of their loss to Stanford, failed to win their conference.

So how do you explain 2011, then? They didn't even win their division in 2011. They didn't even get to go to the SECCG. How does that work?

\Your argument is crap, because no matter if Oregon had lost earlier, they still wouldn't have been able to achieve what Alabama did.
That's not true; the only thing that needs to change is them not losing to Stanford. If they lose to USC instead of Stanford? They go to the P12CG. Big whoop. Or you can pick another highly rated Pac-12 team in that area - UCLA, ASU, whatever. The only reason that Alabama got in is because their loss was actually worse.


Also, LOL at Oregon having the same number of undefeated seasons as Alabama over the past five years. The season, no matter how much you want it to for your argument, doesn't end at the end of conference play. A quick look at how statistics are recorded in college football should clear that up for you.
Sorry, you're right. Alabama has ONE. Oregon has zero. Alabama has the same number as Auburn does. Again, the undefeated thing doesn't really matter; the important point that apparently you're unable to grasp is that undefeated seasons do not appear to be a requirement to make it into the NCG. Even winning your division or conference isn't a requirement. Alabama in 2011 got absurdly lucky that other teams didn't win. They didn't control their destiny as soon as they lost to LSU. They didn't as soon as they lost to TA&M, either. Do you really, truly believe that a 1-loss Bama team that lost to, say, Auburn instead of A&M would have surpassed a one-loss KState or one-loss Oregon team last year? Let's pick KState, since they did win their championship - do you think that Alabama losing late in the season would have jumped KState?


Nice try at a strawman at the end as well. If Oregon by some miracle of Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, Baylor, and Stanford all losing makes it to the NCG and wins(with Alabama needing not only to lose but also not win the conference), they will have done what they needed to do to shake their perception as a team the Buffalo Bills of college football.
How on earth is this a strawman? Seriously - read the definition of strawman. I'm not saying that you're saying this at all. I'm making a statement. I'm not attributing it to you or anyone else.

Oregon doesn't need all of those teams to lose. It needs a few of them to lose. And as we've seen in the last 10 years of the BCS, it's far more likely to happen than not. Let's say for argument's sake that all of those teams have a 90% chance of winning all their games. They don't; FSU is close, but it's much lower than that. But let's say it.


The chances of them all winning out is 59%. Now, let's change it up - let's say that they instead have a 95% chance to win each game. The chances of them going undefeated? 48%. Is it likely that Oregon gets a shot? Not really; Stanford is the big issue here; as long as they have one loss and beat Oregon, no one is going to put them behind Oregon. They do have two tough games left, however - USC and ND - and both are a style of play that isn't close to what Oregon plays.


Florida State has the best shot of running the table.


Ohio State is probably next, though MSU is looking increasingly hard.


Baylor would be next.


Then Alabama (having to play three ranked teams, two of which run the spread, may be tough on them).



Do I think that all the chips are going to fall right? Not really. But it's certainly a possibility, and it's much better to lose early rather than late. Stanford may be the biggest beneficiary here; I could easily see them making it in as the best one-loss team after having the best win of any one-loss team on there.



But dude, seriously, figure out how to use common terms.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, let's break this down again.



1. How do I explain 2011? Well, if you would read my post, you'd see this statement:



"As to that one loss Alabama team that didn't win their conference but still got to play for the National Championship: Context is King. There was only one other one loss team from an AQ school, and the voters rightfully decided a 3 point OT loss to the number one team was a less damaging loss than a 6 point 2OT loss to a team with a losing record. In the absence of a playoff, these are the decisions that have to be made."



2. You didn't lose to USC, you lost to Stanford, so now your argument is resorting to changing the facts of what happened. But to humor you, if both teams win their conference, Alabama still likely gets in ahead of Oregon by being a one loss conference champion in the SEC over a one loss Pac-12 champion. That's just something you'll have to deal with.



3. Here are a couple quotes by you now.



"Seriously - read the definition of strawman. I'm not saying that you're saying this at all. I'm making a statement. I'm not attributing it to you or anyone else. "



"If Oregon gets to the NCG this year and beats someone shitty like OSU, will you say they won the big one? No, you'll argue that they had to beat Bama for it to count, or some other bullshit."




So, according to you, attributing an argument to me is not attributing an argument to me. Now you are just being dishonest.



I think you need to read that link you posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If Oregon gets to the NCG this year and beats someone shitty like OSU, will you say they won the big one? No, you'll argue that they had to beat Bama for it to count, or some other bullshit."

Oh, was that what you were talking about? Well, since you said basically that, I think I was right. But sure, that was a strawman. The entire rest of the argument wasn't, but that one sentence? Totally was. YOU GOT ME. Sorry about that!

"As to that one loss Alabama team that didn't win their conference but still got to play for the National Championship: Context is King. There was only one other one loss team from an AQ school, and the voters rightfully decided a 3 point OT loss to the number one team was a less damaging loss than a 6 point 2OT loss to a team with a losing record. In the absence of a playoff, these are the decisions that have to be made."

And did you read my rebuttal there? Alabama got in because they got lucky and the landscape was bleak in 2011. That doesn't make them a great team. That doesn't mean they didn't fuck up their season potentially. In order for Alabama to even be in the conversation they had to have both Oregon and Oklahoma State lose. You're talking about them as this amazing team because other teams they didn't play lost. That's the shitty narrative that you're espousing - that Alabama, who had their shot at the #1 team at home and lost, somehow didn't shit the bed quite as badly as Oregon did. Okay. Looks like the same level of bedshitting to me from here.

2. You didn't lose to USC, you lost to Stanford, so now your argument is resorting to changing the facts of what happened. But to humor you, if both teams win their conference, Alabama still likely gets in ahead of Oregon by being a one loss conference champion in the SEC over a one loss Pac-12 champion. That's just something you'll have to deal with.

Alabama wouldn't have gotten in over Oregon if Oregon had lost earlier in the season. They would have had a worse BCS computer ranking and a worse overall ranking. It's pretty easy to track, actually; the marching order is very simple for voters. When voters don't have to make an immediate decision - like both teams lose in the same week - they just move everyone up a notch. But in any case, that's my point. The only reason Alabama made it in was because TA&M lost twice. Stanford didn't. So because Oregon lost to a better team and Alabama lost to a worse team, Alabama gets in. And they only do that because other teams lost ahead of them.

Again, the narrative you're stating doesn't make sense. How can Alabama lose to a better team in 2012 and yet not have thrown their season away? Well, because it turned out okay in the end due to completely unrelated factors outside their control. How can Alabama have a shot at the #1 team in the nation at home, lose, and yet not have thrown their season away? Well, because it turned out okay in the end due to completely unrelated factors outside their control.

If you - and anyone else - has the perception that Oregon loses the big game when it really matters - you appear to be empirically wrong. Or at least Alabama is in precisely the same boat as Oregon. Note that in 2010, Alabama had a great shot at beating Auburn as well - and blew it. Completely shit the bed, as they gave up a 21-point lead. Oregon lost by 3 in the national championship on a last second field goal. It is insanity to think that Alabama is somehow better than Oregon because of that. These kinds of idiotic, factually unbiased narratives are the same sort of thing that shitty radio hosts talk about. It's how, despite actual facts, we get the idea that Tony Romo is a choker.

Balefireded, feel free to think whatever you choose about Oregon. Perhaps at some point you'll think for a second about why you think these things and question them a bit. Or not. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my argument. It is the same one I have made throughout the thread, and it can't be refuted because it is observable fact.



Every time Oregon has had a chance to win a national championship they have failed.



I didn't bring up Alabama, that was you.



You then tried to present a strawman.



I called you out on it.



Then you tried to insult my intelligence.



I proved that you either have terrible reading comprehension or are a liar. Possibly both.



Don't try and cloud the argument.



When Oregon had a chance to win the national championship, were they successful in doing so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oregon as a program might be more John Cooperlike than John Cooper.

Great program, but every time they are in a really defining game, they Cooper it up.

This is what you said originally. This is what I took umbrage to. And by the way, it isn't the same argument as 'ere is my argument. It is the same one I have made throughout the thread, and it can't be refuted because it is observable fact.

Every time Oregon has had a chance to win a national championship they have failed.' The two terms are not synonymous. They are not equal. Perhaps English isn't your first language, but in English when we say that something is 'the same' it actually needs to be the same. What you made is what is called a 'different' argument. Because, you see, the words are different. The meanings don't mean the same thing.

Now, if you define 'really defining game' as 'chance to win national championship' and that's is your only definition - yes, you're kind of right. They have had precisely 3 seasons where they could meaningfully have competed for a national championship, and in each season they have lost one game - and that one game either directly cost them the national championship or ended up doing so because of results outside of their control.

Except...that if you're Alabama, you apparently can 'cooper it up' and still play for the national championship. Despite not doing anything else meaningfully different than what Oregon did. That was my point - that Oregon and Alabama are not materially different in the losses they have taken during the seasons they have played, yet one has been lucky enough to get by despite those losses and the other has not. And the reason why that has been the case has been almost exclusively because of when the teams have lost.

I don't think that a 'really defining game' means a game that knocks you out of competing for the national championship. Oregon has had a lot of 'really defining games' in the last few years. I named a few. Here are some more. The 2009 game against Boise State - and then the 2009 game where Oregon dominated the Pete Carroll led Trojans. The 2010 game against Stanford. The 2011 game against Stanford and the first win in the Rose Bowl in 95 years. The 2012 shellacking of Kansas State and the most points scored ever against USC. You moved the goalposts by saying that you really meant only national championships. I called you on that and indicated that you could make that argument about every team in the nation - including Alabama. Now you're backtracking and saying that what you really meant is that Oregon hasn't won a national championship yet.


Which, ya know, that's fine. But don't pretend that you have been saying the same thing all along. Yes, Oregon hasn't won a national championship in the last 4 years. If you're not from the state of Alabama, you can't say shit either. Here's something else Oregon hasn't done that Alabama has, balefired-ed: missed out on a BCS game in the last 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...