College Football II

[stupidguy]

Updated predictions:

ACC: some crazy shitmwill happen and miami will end being the champin somewhow

Big 10: Ohio st will kill iowa and psu to get the championship

Big 12: texas will walk away with the title. thre only comp will by OKState

big east: cincy will fuck up somewhere and wvu will probably be the champs

pac10: usc wil beat oregon

sec: florida will either lose to FSu or someone shitty lie GA or SC but beat an undefeated Alabam team int he confaerece championshaip and get to the BCS titile game based on sec media hype

other conferences: bosie st will win out, tcu will fuck up, not dame will get a bcs bid because they will wimn out and because they are ND not abecause they are any good

fiest bol: boise st once again works there magc against the big 12

Boise st: 34 OKST 31

orange bowl: miami ricks the house against an undeserving notre dame team

maimi 34 nothre dam 10

sugar bowl: alabama once again sputters out in the end.

west virginia 27 Alabama 20

rose bowl: as usual usc is the best team in the country but alwaus screws up and losed to a crappy pac 10 team they beat by 30 ponts thus ending there championship hoopes. as usual they kill the big 10 champ

USC: 42 ohio st: 10

championship: even thpough Colt Coy doesnt have theat championship QB aura about him they are undenaibly the vest team on the county besides usc and will beat one of the most overrated plyers (Tebow who I love by the way) and most overrated teams ever

texas: 38 Florida: 14

[Xalinor]

Notre Dame will not play Miami in the Orange Bowl. Neither team is likely to be playing in the BCS this season.

Miami is now 5-2 and 2-2 in their own conference. Miami will not win the ACC, and there will be several at large teams that would be picked ahead of the Hurricanes.

Notre Dame is 5-2, but has an atrocious defense and will lose at least one more game this season.

Miami would NEVER beat the Irish 34-10. There is no way in hell they could hold Jimmy Clausen and the Notre Dame offense to ten points. Golden Tate and Michael Floyd are two of the best receivers in college football. Miami could not stop the Irish offense. They might win, but they would not hold the Irish to ten points.

[stupidguy]

Notre Dame will not play Miami in the Orange Bowl. Neither team is likely to be playing in the BCS this season.

Miami is now 5-2 and 2-2 in their own conference. Miami will not win the ACC, and there will be several at large teams that would be picked ahead of the Hurricanes.

Notre Dame is 5-2, but has an atrocious defense and will lose at least one more game this season.

Miami would NEVER beat the Irish 34-10. There is no way in hell they could hold Jimmy Clausen and the Notre Dame offense to ten points. Golden Tate and Michael Floyd are two of the best receivers in college football. Miami could not stop the Irish offense. They might win, but they would not hold the Irish to ten points.

anyone that knows anything about college football would know that ND is given preferential teretment. i think they will win out because there schedule is weak and they get all the calls.

GT will mess up somewhere down the line as will VTU twice. Miami beats GT in a tiebreaker. They will beat whichever jabroni chump they play in the ACC champinship thus earning an automatic bid to the BCS

They will kill ND because ND sucks

[Xalinor]

anyone that knows anything about college football would know that ND is given preferential teretment. i think they will win out because there schedule is weak and they get all the calls.

GT will mess up somewhere down the line as will VTU twice. Miami beats GT in a tiebreaker. They will beat whichever jabroni chump they play in the ACC champinship thus earning an automatic bid to the BCS

They will kill ND because ND sucks

Golden Tate and Michael Floyd might be the two best receivers in college football (very debatable, but they are definitely two of the top four). Jimmy Clausen is one of the, if not the best quarterback in the nation. Miami will not "kill" Notre Dame. Seeing as how Christian Ponder tore the Miami secondary apart without the weapons that Clausen has, it's safe to assume Clausen can do the same.

Notre Dame will lose at least one more game, to Pittsburgh or Stanford.

[lokisnow]

i love that Iowa is number one in all the computer rankings and that it's only the human error that's keeping them from a higher BCS ranking. :D

[Mike]

Haven't made it over here in a while because I've been reeling from Auburn's complete meltdown - that doesn't look to let up any time soon. Our offense hinges totally on the QB, and ours has a bum shoulder. Bad quarterback = bad offense. We're looking at 6-6, 7-5 if we can luck out and beat Ole Miss or Georgia.

As for the Big 12 v. SEC/Texas v. Alabama debate going on, I am almost in total agreement with Arakasi. With the exception of one point: Texas can beat Alabama. A great passing team led by a great quarterback can beat that Alabama defense. Saban will blitz his corners and safeties a lot and leave his middle LBs in zone coverage to clean up any mistakes the harried quarterback makes. His corners play tight man coverage when the LBs blitz, but he'll also rush 3 and play a full zone to throw the QB off - the DL is good enough to apply some pressure without a blitz. If McCoy can recognize these blitzes and coverages then he can eat that defense alive. Utah did it last year in the Sugar Bowl. McCoy has a quick release and Shipley is the kind of deep threat that can beat their marginal corners one on one. It just depends on recognition. Another thing that will give them problems is McCoy's feet. McCoy isn't an easy sack, and if he can avoid the initial rush on those blitzes, he'll find his guys open against either LBs or one-on-one with a CB or S without any help. And if they are playing man, McCoy will run all day long.

I'm not saying it is guaranteed that Texas will beat Alabama, but they'll have a great shot at it with McCoy at the helm.

[Celtigo]

New BCS rankings from the LA Times:

The new BCS rankings:

1. Florida, 0.9726

2. Alabama, 0.9450

3. Texas, 0.8927

4. Iowa, 0.8249

5. USC, 0.7944

6. TCU, 0.7890

7. Boise State, 0.7752

8. Cincinnati, 0.7735

9. LSU, 0.7030

10. Oregon, 0.6456

I have no connection to the Big East or any loyalty to the University of Cincinnati, but they're truly getting screwed here, especially by the "voters" in the coach's poll. I'd wager they have a better resume than either Florida or Texas, but remain stuck behind Boise State and a team that already lost.

[S John]

I have no connection to the Big East or any loyalty to the University of Cincinnati, but they're truly getting screwed here, especially by the "voters" in the coach's poll. I'd wager they have a better resume than either Florida or Texas, but remain stuck behind Boise State and a team that already lost.

Well with Pitt at #15 and WVU at #21 in the BCS, Cincy has more ranked teams remaining on its scedule than Alabama, Florida, or Iowa and is equal to Texas and USC.

WVU plays USF and Louisville before playing Cincy mid-November. Pitt plays Syracuse, Notre Dame, and WVU before playing Cincy in December for the final game of the regular season. So, theres a good chance that both Pitt and WVU will be ranked higher than they are now when they meet Cincinatti, which can only help them in the rankings should they win those games. Depending on what teams go down it is quite possible that both WVU and Pitt will be in the 10 - 15 range when they play the Bearcats. It should sort itself out, and I think Cincy will be a legit title contender if they can win out. Thier second half of the season is as stacked as anyones and better than a lot of the current top 10. Thier main obstacle is that thier jerseys say Cincinnati.

Theyve been winning in convincing fashion, and if they beat both West Virginia and Pittsburgh I think they'll leap TCU and Boise at the least. Either Alabama or Florida will be eliminated, USC still has to play Oregon, Iowa has just barely been skating by and still has Ohio State. If Cincy keeps it up they could be right there at the end. Sucks though that NO Big East teams started in the top 25 preseason. Cincy right now is a good example of why I was bitching about that two months ago. Big East = criminally under-rated to start the season.

The Big East race could be interesting at the end. Unless WVU beats both Pitt and Cincy a lot will hinge on the game between those two on December 5th. For example, if Pitt loses to WVU, but Cincy beats WVU, then Pitt will be in the exact same position they were in in 2007...... with chance to play spoiler to a potential NC contender from the Big East.

[Maithanet]

New BCS rankings from the LA Times:

The new BCS rankings:

1. Florida, 0.9726

2. Alabama, 0.9450

3. Texas, 0.8927

4. Iowa, 0.8249

5. USC, 0.7944

6. TCU, 0.7890

7. Boise State, 0.7752

8. Cincinnati, 0.7735

9. LSU, 0.7030

10. Oregon, 0.6456

Why is it that everyone is talking about TCU leaping Boise State , and how that could potentially ruin Boise's BCS hopes? Is there actually a rule that says there can't be more than one non-BCS conference team represented among the TEN in BCS games (with an exception for Notre Dame, of course)? How can that be justified? It's not like TCU or Boise are avoiding good teams (they aren't). You can argue they aren't in the top two teams in the country, and you'd probably be right (although it's difficult to be sure). But to say that the ten best college football teams couldn't have two teams from other conferences looks absolutely absurd.

[Kalbear]

To my knowledge there's no rule saying two non BCS teams can't go - but bowls are only obligated to get one. And bowls would rather get a shitty ND team over another small market school.

[Arakasi]

Yeah I'd agree with Mike on the Bama/Texas thing. Bama earlier on was playing much better and Texas was playing worse. But with McCoy improving and McElroy regressing that game would probably be a toss up. Texas's better O versus Bama's better defense. I think if they played we might see something like the LSU/OU game of 2003.

TCU and Boise likely don't travel very well. So without the automatic qualifier, bowls aren't going to be clamoring to get them in. I hope Pitt and Stanford play up to their capability and beat ND thoug.

Cinci is yes underrated. They aren't ahead of Iowa now, but if they both go unbeaten given their closing schedule if Cinci doesn't pass Iowa I'd be disappointed.

[Green Apple Fossoway]

I think Nebraska's offense took a step back. I knew going into the season that the D would have to keep us in games, but I figured we would see weekly improvement. In the final tally Nebraska was on the wrong side of a turnover margin of .... 8. That's right. Lost 8 turnovers and got 0.

Yeah, thanks for that. It helped us quite a bit.

On the bright side we only lost by 2 points, even after that! Go Big Red!

Don't get too excited about that. We didn't have either our starting quarterback or starting RB for that game. A lot of the players were evidently sick as well.

[lokisnow]

Is there actually a rule that says there can't be more than one non-BCS conference team represented among the TEN in BCS games (with an exception for Notre Dame, of course)?

Yes.

also, wait til the end of the year, many will argue that undefeated non BCS teams will not deserve even the one spot they get because it's taking away a spot from a 'more deserving' one, two or three loss BCS team. Like when people didn't want Hawaii to be given the opportunity of a BCS bowl when they went undefeated a few years ago.

[Kalbear]

Like when people didn't want Hawaii to be given the opportunity of a BCS bowl when they went undefeated a few years ago.

To be fair, those people were pretty much right on the money.

[TheHoundRules]

The more this season has gone on, the more I am convince their is no dominant team. Take the top 10 to 15 teams and throw them in a hat. Some are better then others, but not by much. Every team has some issues.

GA - Florida week. My favorite week of college football. Right now, I think I have a ticket and a place on Jacksonville Beach. I hope it does not fall through.

[lokisnow]

To be fair, those people were pretty much right on the money.

but they still were more deserving of the opportunity than a team that had already dropped several games. Saying they don't deserve even a chance at a BCS bowl (because we all know all the non BCS teams are permanently banned from the championship game for all eternity) is what galls me most.

The reality is that if TCU played and defeated Florida, Alabama, Texas and Iowa as their non conference slate, and went undefeated in conference and every other FBS team had at least four losses, TCU still would not be allowed to play in the Championship Game and pundits wouldn't have them higher ranked than fifth.

[Kalbear]

I don't think that's true, locke. Hawaii looked suspect, and they are. I don't think that an undefeated TCU is better than even a 1-loss Florida, USC, Alabama, Texas or the like - but it's certainly debatable. Same for BSU.

But yeah, sorry - if you have a weak conference, chances are you've got to look more impressive. Sucks to be in those conferences as the big fish in a small pond, but so it goes.

[S John]

The reality is that if TCU played and defeated Florida, Alabama, Texas and Iowa as their non conference slate, and went undefeated in conference and every other FBS team had at least four losses, TCU still would not be allowed to play in the Championship Game and pundits wouldn't have them higher ranked than fifth.

Even better than that is that if TCU were allowed to play, and they won.... you'd then hear every excuse in the book for why the better team (your Florida, Texas, Bama, etc) lost. Instead of lauding the underdog for overcoming the odds pundits would talk about how X team was expecting a better opponent and didn't adequately prepare, or they would discuss a key injury of one player that enabled the underdog to win, or they would lament that it was such a down year in CFB that someone not in the pantheon of exalted programs actually won. Which, as I've ranted on before, irks the shit out of me.

Case in point is Mark Schlabach's article today at ESPN.com crying about how terrible this season has been, featuring gems such as these:

"This was supposed to be a college football season to remember."

"With apologies to Boise State, Cincinnati, Iowa and TCU, the 2009 college football season has been a flop by most accounts."

"As bad as the first eight weeks of the 2009 college football season turned out, the final six weeks might be as memorable. With as many as a dozen teams having a chance to play for the BCS national championship, no one really knows how they'll play out."

Really, a flop? Why exactly?

I just feel like this guy is missing the point entirely. Seems to me that he is crying about parity, that he's upset that the same handful of teams are not as dominant this year as in years past. I think this attitude comes from a sportswriter who doesnt remember what its like to be a fan anymore, or maybe never was one. If my team isnt in the NC race on a given year that doesnt mean that I want to default back to watching the same teams every single year. Your average fan gets sick to death of any team that has a prolonged stay at the top. Unless that team happens to be your favorite, it doesnt take long for you to start rooting for thier demise in favor of some new blood.

I think the sports media outlets really like the years with the big dominant programs bullying everyone as usual becuase it makes thier jobs easier. But as a fan, I personally enjoy seeing things get shaken up. I think a lot of sports media has lost that part of thier soul that roots for the little guy in favor of the ratings and reliability of the big dogs

[Kalbear]

It's been a disappointment partially because this season was supposed to be the Season of the Awesome Heisman Quarterbacks.

And...it really hasn't been. Tebow, Bradford, McCoy have all been meh compared to prior years and sometimes in general. It's been getting done with defense and with squeakers. And there's been quite a bit of parity too; the good teams haven't dominated and have often lost, the bad teams have beaten each other up.

I love seasons like this, but for a sportsperson who wants the USC/Texas matchup of the century part 2 (as they all do; gets better ratings) this season isn't as hot.

For me it's great. The Pac-10 has three good teams who are in contention and who haven't played each other yet (USC, Oregon and Arizona). The last time that kind of race happened was back in 2000. The Big-10 has Iowa yet to face OSU. The Big East actually has a good team. Miami's doing better and VT is strong, and the ACC is still fairly open. Only the Big-12 is full of suck and boringness, though Texas does have a couple hard contests potentially.

A lot of times the conferences are all but decided, and only a fluke game will cost someone the championship. This year things seem to be coming down to late games, and that's great.

[Arakasi]

but they still were more deserving of the opportunity than a team that had already dropped several games. Saying they don't deserve even a chance at a BCS bowl (because we all know all the non BCS teams are permanently banned from the championship game for all eternity) is what galls me most.

The reality is that if TCU played and defeated Florida, Alabama, Texas and Iowa as their non conference slate, and went undefeated in conference and every other FBS team had at least four losses, TCU still would not be allowed to play in the Championship Game and pundits wouldn't have them higher ranked than fifth.

I don't agree that going unbeaten is the end all and be all. Being a zero loss team doesn't mean you should be better than one loss teams. And I don't necessarily agree with BCS teams getting spotted 2 wins over non BCS teams and 1 game over the Big East and the MWC.

Iowa I am rooting for them and love their story. But I'm afraid if they get in to the title game it will be a repeat of previous year's experiences.

I don't know when things will change, but I believe in ranking teams based on a combination of SoS, conference rankings, OOC schedule and margin of victory. One of them isn't enough, teams need to excel in several to be worthy in my eyes. And while losses matter, I'm not that huge a fan of punishing teams for a loss, given that they excel in the other factors. If you favor teams too much on no losses, it just favors teams that schedule cupcake OOC schedules.

On the matter of the season, Kal has it. Teams have played weakly at QB and it has made for an uneven season. Some great games but a lot of clunkers caused by poor qb play.