College Football III

[Kalbear]

Carry on, all!

4 days until the most important Civil War game in their 113-game history. That's nuts to me. What's more nuts is the hope that this Oregon team - after losing their entire starting OLine, most of their defensive secondary and a good chunk of their players everywhere - could be even better than last year.

Ohio State lost, at home, to a deeply flawed USC team. If you believe that this in any way makes them the best team in the nation, I'd like some of what you're drinking.

And yeah, Florida and Alabama both haven't played anyone of note. It's pretty sad. Cinci actually has the best pedigree of the undefeated teams so far; Texas' best win was against Oklahoma, Florida's against LSU - but Cinci has beaten Oregon State and everyone else in the Big East. Pretty impressive - and no one is remotely talking about them. So odd.

[H von T]

And yeah, Florida and Alabama both haven't played anyone of note. It's pretty sad. Cinci actually has the best pedigree of the undefeated teams so far; Texas' best win was against Oklahoma, Florida's against LSU - but Cinci has beaten Oregon State and everyone else in the Big East. Pretty impressive - and no one is remotely talking about them. So odd.

You honestly think going undefeated in the Big East is a bigger accomplishment than going undefeated in the SEC? Cinci beat OSU--a very good win--but Bama thumped Virginia Tech opening weekend and the score wasn't as close as it looked. Cinci's other OOC games aren't that great. Granted, UF's and Bama's OOC games sucked, but Cinci's are nothing special other than the Beavers. And Cinci's winning touchdown against S John's Mountainers (who lost to Auburn) was shaky. Va Tech handled Cinci last year in the Orange Bowl and either UF or Bama would easily beat the Bearcats in the Sugar Bowl this year.

The Civil War is going to be great. My soon to be ex-boss is a huge Duck honk and he's taking the firm out Thursday night in downtown Portland for the game. It's going to be a blast.

[S John]

Well, really the Big East isn't that bad this year. Not as bad as everyone said it would be (again) and not significantly worse than any of the other conferences. Its all about perception. Consider that the Big East started this season with 0 ranked teams in any poll. One game from the seasons finish we have 3 (Cincy, Pitt, and WVU) that all had zero respect or zero clout to work with coming in.

Everyone says that doesn't matter, but it definitely does. Those teams have to work harder than most to get in and then they fall much harder and farther when they lose. Just look at how long it took an abysmal Oklahoma team to fall from the top 25 after repeated losses. They got the benefit of the doubt to the point of absurdity. Take the opposite of that, and that is the situation that the Big East finds itself in. And frankly its undeserved. With the exception of last years Cincy loss to VT the Big East has done very well in the post season, and fares as well as anyone out of conference.

This year Cincy is 11-0, Pitt is 9-2, WVU and Rutgers are both 8-3, USF is 7-4, and UCONN is 6-5. That is 75% of the conference with winning records and bowl eligible with a game still remaining. And even UCONN, bringing up the rear of that list, has only lost to teams ahead of them in the Big East with the exception of a very close loss to North Carolina, and UCONN did get a nice win @ Notre Dame.

I'm not saying the Big East is the greatest by any stretch, but its really not that bad. I see a conference packed with solid football teams. Would Florida or Texas be able to go through the Big East undefeated? I say probably, but I don't think it would be the weekly stompings that everyone thinks it would be and I really wouldn't be shocked if a Big East team beat one of them.

I wasnt happy about the call, but Cincy almost losing to WVU shouldnt really be an 'aha!' moment for exposing the Bearcats. Having beaten (top 10) Pitt, WVU was one score against Cincy away from taking the Big East BCS bid itself. WVU is terribly inconsistent, but certainly no slouch when they are banging on all cylinders. It was a good win for Cincy and should they beat Pitt next week they will have 3 wins over currently ranked teams. WVU, Pitt, and Oregon State.

[Rhom]

Kentucky's OT loss to Tennessee Saturday was painful to watch and knocked out the Cats hopes of going to a bowl further south than Nashville. It has opened the door to an intriguing possibility in the Music City Bowl though. Apparently, the organizers are eyeing a basketball themed match-up between Kentucky and North Carolina.

It would make for a good storyline and a lot of hype surrounding the game. It would also be a great challenge for the Cats to win their fourth straight bowl game and continue the nation's second longest OOC winning streak.

[Kalbear]

You're right - I had forgotten about the Bama beatdown of VT. I had lumped them in with Florida, whose quality OOC win is against...uh...FSU?

Still, Cinci playing well against strong OoC competition and going undefeated against fairly good teams should be getting as much press as Texas, if not Florida. Potentially going into the bowl selection we'll have no less than 5 undefeated teams. That's pretty crazy. Admittedly, 2 come from non-BCS conferences, so that's not as impressive - but 3 undefeated teams from BCS schools is a BCS nightmare of sorts.

And I kind of want Cinci to get outraged. Their OoC schedule is Illinois, Oregon State and Fresno State (and southeast missouri state...). I know that there's no Texas or Alabama on there - but how would you get those kinds of teams to play Cinci anyway? That's about as hard of an OoC schedule as you're likely to get these days. They did everything right, played about as hard a schedule as they'd be able to do, did well - and they're still going to be on the outside looking in. Meh.

[Arakasi]

I would be more sympathetic to Cincinnati if they weren't giving up 500 yards to everyone these days. Their offense is sweet, but their defense is swiss cheese. I think Texas got hurt a bit by giving up 500+ to A&M, but Cinci has been giving up big points to everyone. Hell even Illinois moved the ball with relative ease on them. TCU I think is really the class of the unbeatens after the top 3. A strong defense always carries well, and TCU has that. (plus their offense isn't that much worse than the Bearcats)

I think Oregon should win this week fairly handily. But it is the Civil War and who knows. I do like our matchups more than I did against Arizona. I felt Arizona had the bigger line which neutralized our smaller D-Line better, plus they had more big receivers and backs which don't play to our strengths. Oregon's defense is quick and speedy and I think can do a decent enough job of wrapping up Quiz. More importantly, I think Arizona has a better defense than Oregon State and won't cause us to go 2 quarters without scoring like what happened in the Arizona game. Lastly being at home with Autzen should be a big advantage.

And yes Penn State still sucks. I think the stat is they're 4-4 against defenses in the top 50. They just don't play any of them in the Big 10 other than Iowa/Ohio State, who they always lose to. PSU is a fraud who uses superior athletes to bludgeon incompetent OOC foes as well as inferior Big 10 foes and hope to get into a BCS game because of that.

[Starkimus]

All I can say is: USC 34, Clemson 17. And the game was not even that close. Carolina waits until the last game of the season to finally play a complete game. I'll take it! I was at the stadium and it was a rockin! However, I shall be gracious because who knows when our next win will be against the boys from the upstate. Good game Tigers and good luck against Georgia Tech!

How about the other ACC Champion, Georgia Tech? Yep they fell too against a middle of the road SEC team in Georgia. I do not pull for the Dawgs that often, but it was nice to see both ACC Champions go down in flames on Saturday.

Hasta!

Stark Out!

[TheHoundRules]

Kentucky's OT loss to Tennessee Saturday was painful to watch and knocked out the Cats hopes of going to a bowl further south than Nashville. It has opened the door to an intriguing possibility in the Music City Bowl though. Apparently, the organizers are eyeing a basketball themed match-up between Kentucky and North Carolina.

It would make for a good storyline and a lot of hype surrounding the game. It would also be a great challenge for the Cats to win their fourth straight bowl game and continue the nation's second longest OOC winning streak.

I am hoping for the Music City bowl. I have never been to Nashville and would like to go. I am also hearing the Chik fil a bowl is possible for UGA since the win. I would be okay with that also.

[Mike]

Switching gears a little bit, but why isn't Toby Gerhardt getting more Heisman pub? I'm a huge SEC homer, and I think Mark Ingram is a very good runningback, but he has 300 yards and 14 TDs less than Gerhardt. 14 fewer TDs. That's ridiculous. Yet Mark May is still pimping Ingram (or he was on Gameday Final Saturday night). The Heisman is supposed to go to the most outstanding college football player, not the best skill position player on the best team. Not saying that Gerhardt would get my first place vote, but he'd definitely be a big part of the conversation.

[Arakasi]

Because the SEC is the most hyped conference and the Pac 10 other than USC gets constantly disrespected. The SEC fans here are sane, rational and reasonable. But that is not the case for most, and the people who write for them are as convinced as the fans that their football is better. Aka homerism to the worst degree. It is only going to get worse now that they have two networks putting all their games on (CBS and ESPN) Why is a one loss team a shoe in to the title game, but no one loss team from anywhere else. It's just frustrating as a fan of another conference the benefit of the doubt those guys get.

Plus Heisman award is now as much of a team award as anything else. Alabama being undefeated gives them an edge over a 3 loss Stanford team. That plus the SEC bias creates that.

[BLU-RAY]

IMO it should be a two-horse race: Toby and Colt McCoy, and IMO Toby should win; that said, I've seen nearly every game he's played this year and only one or two of McCoy's. He's been an absolute horse for Stanford, and he's done it against a fairly legit schedule; he had huge games vs. USC, Oregon, and Cal (lost that one, but he had 170+ total yards and 4 TDs). I agree that Ingram really shouldn't be in the picture, but he's gotten so much hype for it this year that I think he's coasting on the residuals.

Fortunately, I think Toby got himself some pub from the Notre Dame game, and hopefully that'll be enough to carry him to the award (I posted his stats from that game somewhere upthread), but we'll see.

The other problem he's having is that the team is 8-4, but it's not like the dude can play D for us. I swear, if we had even an average defense, we'd be 10-2 or 11-1. We've only lost one game decisively.

[lokisnow]

Toby isn't getting any Heisman talk because Alabama has never had a Heisman winner.

[AndyP]

Because the SEC is the most hyped conference and the Pac 10 other than USC gets constantly disrespected. The SEC fans here are sane, rational and reasonable. But that is not the case for most, and the people who write for them are as convinced as the fans that their football is better. Aka homerism to the worst degree. It is only going to get worse now that they have two networks putting all their games on (CBS and ESPN) Why is a one loss team a shoe in to the title game, but no one loss team from anywhere else. It's just frustrating as a fan of another conference the benefit of the doubt those guys get.

Plus Heisman award is now as much of a team award as anything else. Alabama being undefeated gives them an edge over a 3 loss Stanford team. That plus the SEC bias creates that.

The problem for the Pac is the Mountain West. To many losses to what to many perceive as a weaker conference (because they are none BCS) over the years. The stinker is that the MW really isn't any weaker than the ACC and yet that BCS thing colors a lot of peoples perceptions. The team that is getting robbed this year is TCU.

As far as the Heisman I think that Tebow won't get it and expect it to go to either Ingrim or McCoy. Now it Florida wins the NC you should expect them to name an award after Tebow.

[Arakasi]

The thing is the MWC is actually you know good, at least the top half. The SEC with Bama should know that from last year. The Pac 10 plays the most OOC games against quality competition. But to play and beat quality comp you actually have to risk losing to them. Look at Oregon this year. Would anyone from the SEC ever play at Boise? No. Instead we get Chatanooga and FIU as mid November Heisman padding games. So I'd have to disagree with you that the issue is the MWC. Not like it would be this year. This year the problem is losing to Boise in the WAC.

Ingram's Heisman hopes are all because of the overhyping of the SEC. Now year in and year out they have tended to be the best conference, but there is not that much difference. Heck the Pac 10 is 11-9 against them in the BCS era. But the overexposure in the media has created this hype that they're the strongest conference in the land and just winning out in conference is enough. You don't need to play or win against good OOC teams because winning the SEC is good enough. Why has USC been disqualified for national titles for losing one game in conference but SEC teams haven't been disqualified? It makes no sense outside of the benefit of the doubt given SEC programs.

Bias against West Coast teams does sadly exist, and even apart from that the SEC does get an advantage versus all conferences because of how they've come to dominate the national media. Your MWC point just doesn't ring true. Their bowl record, their OOC regular season record (look what they've done recently versus the SEC, the Big 10 and the Big 12), their BCS record (only beaten by the SEC and thats barely) and so on are all exemplary. They should not have to constantly prove themselves. Their record stands for itself. So no its not losses to the MWC. I've seen my share of SEC fanboys and blogs and articles written by their supporters. There was never any mention of the MWC when it comes to the Pac 10. It is because a lot of SEC fans and writers have a notion that the Pac 10 is weak, they don't like the west coast and they don't have any annual bowl games or any BCS matchups that have done anything to disprove their notions.

[S John]

Heck the Pac 10 is 11-9 against them in the BCS era.

At 7-4 the Big East also has a winning record vs the SEC since conference re-alignment in 2005. Mostly thanks to WVU, who lately has scheduled an SEC team every year (next year its LSU), but still a fun little stat to throw around.

[Chodawg]

But the overexposure in the media has created this hype that they're the strongest conference in the land and just winning out in conference is enough. You don't need to play or win against good OOC teams because winning the SEC is good enough. Why has USC been disqualified for national titles for losing one game in conference but SEC teams haven't been disqualified? It makes no sense outside of the benefit of the doubt given SEC programs.

I'm not doubting that the SEC now gets the benefit of the doubt, as you said. I just want to point out that this is a relatively new development in college football, and that just a few years ago the SEC was disrespected as a conference. I'll give you three examples. 1. In 2003, LSU won the BCS Championship game, yet the media in an unprecedented move overrode the BCS rules and voted USC #1, leading to a split national title. 2. The very next year, Auburn ran the table and finished undefeated, but (like USC the year before) was left out of the BCS title game. However, unlike USC, the media did not step in to award Auburn a split title. Now, nobody will ever know if 2003 LSU was better than 2003 USC, or if 2004 Auburn was better than 2004 USC, but the point is that the rules were not consistenly applied as between the SEC and the Pac-10 in each of those years. In both years, USC was given the benefit of the doubt over the SEC.

Example 3: As recently as 2007, ESPN and the majority of the media were hyping up and posturing for a Ohio State / Michigan rematch. Arguing that, based solely on the alleged strength of the Big-10, that Michigan was the 2nd best team in the country even though it had just lost to Ohio State. Herbstreit argued this point unrelentingly, and most of the media wanted the rematch. Yeah, Florida ultimately made it into the BCS game that year, but the point is that the media generally seemed to think that it was unjustified and a failure of the BCS system. In other words, Florida and the SEC was certainly not given the benefit of the doubt as compared to the Big-10 in 2007.

Sure, the SEC now has the benefit of the doubt, and it may be unwarrated as to the conference as a whole, but let's at least acknowledge that the SEC is due some respect. They have put up with thier share of disrespect this decade, but in addition to vocally complaing about that disrespect, also did something about it by winning the BCS title games they got a chance to play. They are 5-0 in title games now. So, I think the SEC has earned at least some of the benefit of the doubt they get now, especially when it comes to the SEC champ being given a shot at the BCS title...but I also think that, like all things in college football, the shoe will be back on the other foot before we know it. Perhaps as soon as the SEC loses one of the title games.

[Arakasi]

1) The AP had no reason to support the BCS there. They are not obligated to side with the BCS, and that is among the reasons they pulled out of it. Both polls had USC number 1, but they got robbed out of the BCS game.

2) True it did average out next year with the Auburn team, but that team had played no one OOC. They deserved to be number 3. They played a pathetic OOC schedule and deserved what they got.

3) While I agree that the SEC has done their best with the BCS opportunities they've had, it is a bit disengenious to ignore the fact that being the SEC is what got them those opportunities. The Pac 10 this decade has twice been screwed out of BCS games by a Big 12 team that got crushed in their conference championship (Oregon and USC), plus a couple other times screwed out of BCS at large berths by other schools. I give credit to the SEC for winning their BCS games, but guess what, the Pac 10 has won virtually the same percentage of their BCS games. It's just that the SEC now gets every tiebreaker automatically awarded to them because they're the SEC. That is not right.

4) About Michigan and Ohio State. It never happened so I don't see what the problem was. Sanity did prevail. I hope Texas doesn't lose this week and we get this part two, because I'm sure a lot of people would want to see a rematch rather than TCU or Cinci.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, the argument that because one guy (Herb) said something means that the SEC is disrespected nationally is kind of insane - especially since nothing actually happened. I mean - do you go around complaining about that one time that that guy almost stole your parking spot at the mall but didn't?

USC being voted #1 by the AP was the AP showing that they weren't beholden to the BCS, which is as it should be. IIRC, that was the start of them being removed from the BCS calculations. As USC has shown recently, it made zero sense that they were excluded from the title matchup. Honestly, the SEC and the Pac-10 both have some reason to show umbrage, and they should both be showing that against the Big-10/12 schools. Those are the ones that have been consistently rated too high, have consistently failed to show up in bowl games, and consistently been taken over more deserving and simply better Pac-10/SEC schools.

[S John]

Chodawg, that was a good post. I certainly remember a LOT of hype around USC in the early 2000's. If you don't remember that then you've got a selective memory.

I think the thing to remember about College Football is that it is really no less effected by the media hype machine than anything else. Just like the 24 hour news networks, the story of the day gets beat to death. In 2003 and 2004 the story was USC, in 2007 - 09 its been the SEC / Tim Tebow.

When the media realizes something they like to seize it and beat you over the head with it and, generally, they keep beating you with it for a little while after its over too.

And not just that, but I think that your average college football writer is only a tiny iota more knowledgeable than your average fan, and that is only because its their job to research the sport all day while the rest of us have to do other things. Since it is their livelihood, with their reputation at stake, I think that most of them lack either the knowledge or the balls to go against the mainstream opinions. In the pre-season, I'll bet you at least half of the AP voters look at what other people have down and base their top 25 votes from that and only have actual insight on a handful of teams. Thats why you get the same teams in the pre-season top 10 every year and why it takes a colossal bed shitting for those teams to get dropped from the top 25.

Guys who make predictions for a living don't want to admit they were wrong, and contrary to what they will say, they DO NOT like an underdog story. At least not too many of them. Having a dominant SEC, or a dominant USC makes their jobs a lot easier. It means they are right more often. I get a kick out of how when its a relatively level playing field in a given year it becomes a 'down' year for college football. Its 'down' because Joe sports writer doesn't know wtf is going to happen.

By the way, I don't think that any of this is done consciously. I don't think its a big conspiracy or anything, its just how it plays out when perceptions are created in the minds of humans and not hammered out on the field.

[Chodawg]

Arakasi:

1. True, the AP wasn't obligated to follow the BCS. However, my point here was that the SEC simply wasn't given the benefit of the doubt that year. They won the BCS title game, yet were passed over by the AP. Regardless of whether its technically allowed, that sort of "disrespect" to a BCS Champion is unprecedented, and it was the SEC on the short end. I'm not saying it was or wasn't justified, just that it is an anectdotal rebuttal to the point that the SEC is always given the benefit of the doubt simply because they are the SEC.

2. Fair enough. Again though, I'm not saying it wasn't justified. I'm just pointing out another instance where the SEC didn't get the benefit of the doubt simply because they are the SEC. Here, an undefeated SEC Champion got passed over. That's hardly "getting every tiebreaker awarded to them because they are the SEC."

3. I don't think my point was disingenous, because I disagree with the premise that the SEC got those opportunities simply because they were the SEC. I'll concede that LSU 2007 may have been a stretch, but I think Tennessee 99, LSU 2003, Florida 2006 and Florida 2008 were legitimate title contenders that earned the shot on thier own merits. I agree with you that the Pac-10 has been screwed out of title games, especially by those big-12 teams that didn't win their conferences. That's more of a case of the Big-12 getting unearned tiebreakers simply based on historical significance of Oklahoma and Nebraska, though.

4. I recognize that the Ohio St. / Michigan didn't happen. The problem was the fact that Florida getting in over Michigan was such a contraversy in the media, and so highly criticized by ESPN / Herbstreit. The debate that year was Ohio State and Michigan are the two best teams in the country, but do we want a rematch of a game just played? The debate was not Florida is a better contender than Michigan because Florida won the SEC and Michigan plays in the Big-10. That's my point, Flordia's membership in the SEC wasn't giving them any benefits. Everyone clearly assumed the Big-10 was the strongest conference that year, and considered Florida an afterthough. True, sanity did prevail, but its still another example of a point in recent college football history that the SEC wasn't viewed as the conference king.

So, yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you that in the past few years the SEC seems to be given the benefit of the doubt more than other conferences. I just felt like making the point that this hasn't always the case, and the idea of SEC as King is something that's come along only in the recent years. Before that, it was clearly the Big-12 getting benefits of the doubt, and then the Big-10 with Ohio State / Michigan. It also took a few BCS losses for that mindset to be changed, and I think the idea of SEC as king will give way once it loses a few BCS title games.