Week 10 Rank'em

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
USC is good? They don't deserve to squeak in anywhere. USC lost to Stanford for god sakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great logic. Classic. So you think both Oklahoma and Michigan are terrible as well and neither deserves a BCS bowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see. Oklahoma beat one top ten team in Sagarin's top 10 and another in his top 30. USC hasn't beaten a top 30 team. Stanford (3-6) is worse than Colorado (5-5) according to his rankings (78th vs 43rd). So, based on that, Oklahoma cannot currently be considered as bad as USC.

[/ QUOTE ]
i'm not saying oklahoma is terrible, i'm just trying to use his terrible logic against him.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Kansas
2. Ohio State
3. Oregon

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you can justify KU at #1 considering the best team they've beaten is 6-4 Texas A&M by 8.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
USC is good? They don't deserve to squeak in anywhere. USC lost to Stanford for god sakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great logic. Classic. So you think both Oklahoma and Michigan are terrible as well and neither deserves a BCS bowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see. Oklahoma beat one top ten team in Sagarin's top 10 and another in his top 30. USC hasn't beaten a top 30 team. Stanford (3-6) is worse than Colorado (5-5) according to his rankings (78th vs 43rd). So, based on that, Oklahoma cannot currently be considered as bad as USC.

[/ QUOTE ]
i'm not saying oklahoma is terrible, i'm just trying to use his terrible logic against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to use Michigan, but leave OU out of it. Btw, we'll both be hoping for Michigan to be good enough to beat OSU. Personally though, I'd love to Oregon to be on the outside at the end of the year, just based on that screwing OU got at Oregon last year! :-)

[dms]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Kansas
2. Ohio State
3. Oregon

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you can justify KU at #1 considering the best team they've beaten is 6-4 Texas A&M by 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

[iggymcfly]

Well, actually Kansas State >>> Texas A&M, but I agree with the general sentiment that KU hasn't faced one really solid team this year and probably doesn't quite belong in the Top 3 yet. The fact that their defense gave up 39 to Nebraska and their offense got held under 20 by both Colorado and Texas A&M makes them look pretty vulnerable to me. I think that if they faced a team with a good defense that could also throw the ball (like say... Missouri or Oklahoma), they'd probably get beaten.

I look at it like this:

1. Ohio State (impressive in every win but one, hasn't given up more than 17 points in a game all season)
2. LSU (strong resume, 4-1 against the Sagarin Top 30 including 3-0 at home, only loss came on the road in 3OT)
3. Oregon (probably the most talented team in the country, but has faced a slightly weaker schedule than LSU and lost to Cal at home; losing at home <<<<<< losing on the road)
4. Oklahoma (schedule is weak in parts and they do have a bad loss to Colorado, but they also have the huge win vs. Missouri and have been more impressive MOV-wise than anyone but Oregon)
5. West Virginia (also extremely talented and played a dominant, complete game against Rutgers, but are still somewhat untested; I couldn't argue putting Kansas ahead of them though)
6. Kansas
7. Missouri
8. Arizona State
(no more legitimate championship contenders below this point)

[capone0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
USC is good? They don't deserve to squeak in anywhere. USC lost to Stanford for god sakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great logic. Classic. So you think both Oklahoma and Michigan are terrible as well and neither deserves a BCS bowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Michigan but I think they are terrible as well and DON'T deserve a big bowl. Please give me 1 reason why USC deserves to be in a BCS bowl.

Wow they beat Nebraska on the raod and haven't beaten a decent team all year. Struggled vs Zona and Washington.

Michigan doesn't deserve to be in a BCS bowl either, but that doesn't mean b/c Michigan sucks, USC deserves to be in one. Maybe if they win out do they deserve it. Even then Cal, ASU, UCLA isn't as tough as it once seemed.

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
USC is good? They don't deserve to squeak in anywhere. USC lost to Stanford for god sakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great logic. Classic. So you think both Oklahoma and Michigan are terrible as well and neither deserves a BCS bowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Michigan but I think they are terrible as well and DON'T deserve a big bowl. Please give me 1 reason why USC deserves to be in a BCS bowl.

Wow they beat Nebraska on the raod and haven't beaten a decent team all year. Struggled vs Zona and Washington.

Michigan doesn't deserve to be in a BCS bowl either, but that doesn't mean b/c Michigan sucks, USC deserves to be in one. Maybe if they win out do they deserve it. Even then Cal, ASU, UCLA isn't as tough as it once seemed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where exactly does decent start? OSU is number 31 according to the Sagarin predictor and SC beat them pretty handily. The only other decent team they have even played yet is Oregon (predictor #1), and I don't think anyone can argue that they didn't play them well. Will it be a real shocker to you if USC beats Cal? How about ASU? Their defense is one of the best in the country, and the loss to Stanford was a total fluke due to injuries. Booty throws zero INTs first half. Booty breaks finger. Booty throws 4 INTs in the second half, one of which was returned for a TD, and USC loses in a one point game. C'mon. Not to mention they were missing at least 4 other starters in key positions, many of which are back now.

[capone0]

So you think b/c of those reasons they deserve to play in a "big bowl." I guess the definition of those teams that deserve to play in them are pretty lax then.

The fact of the matter is the top of college football is much weaker than it's been the last 5 years. And you still have pointed to me, other than your homer reasons, of why USC, who isn't that good deserves to be in a decent bowl.

USC probally deserves to be above UCONN and I guess Florida and Texas but it looks like USC is abolutely getting killed in some of the computer rankings. They are 24/24/23/23 in 4 of the 6 computer rankings.

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
So you think b/c of those reasons they deserve to play in a "big bowl." I guess the definition of those teams that deserve to play in them are pretty lax then.

The fact of the matter is the top of college football is much weaker than it's been the last 5 years. And you still have pointed to me, other than your homer reasons, of why USC, who isn't that good deserves to be in a decent bowl.

USC probally deserves to be above UCONN and I guess Florida and Texas but it looks like USC is abolutely getting killed in some of the computer rankings. They are 24/24/23/23 in 4 of the 6 computer rankings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I guess all I'm saying is its too early to that they DON'T deserve to, just because everyone else has played the hard part of their schedule already and USC hasn't. About the computer rankings thing, USC is not ranked well at all in anything except the predictor (#10). But ELO-CHESS is looking like a load of doodie, and if the others are similar I don't really trust them either. I refuse to believe that North Dakota State is a ten place better team than USC.

[Semtex]

Also capone, which 2 loss teams do you think are better than usc? you said you'd give me texas, but you don't think usc is better than VT, Mich, or Georgia?