NCAAF Rank' Em (approaching Week 13) - Page 9

AngusThermopyle · #81 11-20-2007, 09:52 PM

Kansas non-conference sched:

Home vs Central Michigan (6-5) MidAmerican, Sagarin #89
Home vs SE Louisiana (3-8) Southland, #182
Home vs Toledo (5-6) MidAmerican, #117
Home vs Florida Int'l (0-10), Sun Belt, #159

Maybe that is what makes people wonder.

Missouri at least traveled to Illinois and Ole Miss.

Gregatron · #82 11-20-2007, 10:00 PM

Illinois was neutral site. [/nit]

AngusThermopyle · #83 11-20-2007, 10:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Illinois was neutral site. [/nit]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, just did a quick glance at the records on ESPN.

BobJoeJim · #84 11-21-2007, 05:01 AM

Kansas did beat those four (admittedly terrible) teams by a combined margin of 214 to 27 though. It's not hard to blow out any of those teams at home, for any decent (say, top 25) type squad... but to do it to all four of them without even a hint of a hiccup is much more unusual. Add in the 58-10 shellacking of Baylor and the 45-7 beatdown of Iowa State, and that's six times a *complete* cupcake has come to Lawrence without one slip up, without one close game, without one hint of being a challenge.

Personally, the consistency impresses me even while the schedule doesn't. I look at Missouri beating Illinois State 38-17, and only beating Iowa State by 14, while Kansas just goes out and beats every cupcake they see by 32+. I think that this is a relevant piece of information that is lost in the "weak schedule" argument.

Certainly it doesn't prove anything by itself, but when coupled with road wins over four solid (not great, not top 30 as people love to point out, but solid) opponents, none of which were as close as the scores indicated (I watched them... did you?), and I am impressed.

Yeah, Missouri beat Illinois. And they knocked off 3-win Ole Miss on the road, by 13. 41-10 over Texas Tech is a much better home win than anything Kansas has and they had a much better trip to Colorado (55-10) than the Jayhawks. They also lost a game though, and even on the road against Oklahoma that can't just be discounted.

Obviously it's close. Anyone who thinks EITHER team wins this game more than 60% is retarded. Personally, when I break it down, I feel the Kansas blowouts are being overly discounted due to SoS, and that Kansas is being minorly underrated because of it. I therefore feel that Kansas should be a 2-4 point favorite (currently the line is 2.5, unless it moved in the last half hour or so), and that Kansas wins probably 55% of the time or so. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what happens, hopefully it will be a fantastic game that lives up to the hype. It's kind of sad (but kind of fun) that we can have all these arguments and never know who's really right. Football is a high enough variance game that it's entirely possible that I'm right about Kansas winning 55% of the time, while Missouri still wins this particular game by 40. We shall see...

BobJoeJim · #85 11-21-2007, 05:09 AM

Also, regarding the Nebraska game, a lot of people point to the 39 points allowed and question the Kansas defense because of it. Keep in mind that Kansas had 13 possessions that game (excluding the one play before the end of the half, and running out the clock at the end of the game). Possession 1 was a three-and-out. Possession 12 was a missed field goal. Possessions 2-11 and 13 were touchdown drives, 8 of which took less than two and a half minutes.

In other words, the defense had to spend a LOT of time on that field, I don't think it's too much of a knock that they gave up some points along the way. Kansas won by 37, so just give them credit for a good game and move on, their offense was insane that day.

teamdonkey · #86 11-21-2007, 06:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't blow out Texas A&M, which many would consider a bad team. I certainly do. 19-14 over Colorado is hardly a blowout as well. Giving up 39 to Nebraska is a bit concerning too.

[/ QUOTE ]

i keep seeing this, and it's dumb. Nebraska is 16th in yards/game and averaging 32 points a game. Their offense is not the problem, it's the defense (111th in yards allowed/game) that sucks. In a game where the Jayhawks put up a rediculous 76 points, and thus gave the other team a bunch more possessions than normal, giving up 39 to a good offense is not a bad result.

88jayhawks · #87 11-21-2007, 06:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the Nebraska game, a lot of people point to the 39 points allowed and question the Kansas defense because of it. Keep in mind that Kansas had 13 possessions that game (excluding the one play before the end of the half, and running out the clock at the end of the game). Possession 1 was a three-and-out. Possession 12 was a missed field goal. Possessions 2-11 and 13 were touchdown drives, 8 of which took less than two and a half minutes.

In other words, the defense had to spend a LOT of time on that field, I don't think it's too much of a knock that they gave up some points along the way. Kansas won by 37, so just give them credit for a good game and move on, their offense was insane that day.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is very well said. i think its interesting to compare the common games between KU ans MU. where MU has scored more points, i think an important thing to remember is that KU has done what needs to do in those road wins. they do what it takes to win the game, and thats all that matters right now, imo.

also, saturday is a high of 44 and low of 27. with the game being played at night and probably more towards the low of 27, does this change anything for either team, specifically the offenses?

BigSoonerFan · #88 11-21-2007, 09:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the Nebraska game, a lot of people point to the 39 points allowed and question the Kansas defense because of it. Keep in mind that Kansas had 13 possessions that game (excluding the one play before the end of the half, and running out the clock at the end of the game). Possession 1 was a three-and-out. Possession 12 was a missed field goal. Possessions 2-11 and 13 were touchdown drives, 8 of which took less than two and a half minutes.

In other words, the defense had to spend a LOT of time on that field, I don't think it's too much of a knock that they gave up some points along the way. Kansas won by 37, so just give them credit for a good game and move on, their offense was insane that day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kansas had about 33 minutes of time-of-possession that game, so I'm not sure the defense being tired is a valid argument. Missouri also had aoubt 33 minutes of TOP against Nebraska. The Kansas D gave up two touchdowns in the first two Nebraska drives (10 plays for 46 yards and 3 plays for 70 yards). That didn't tire them enough to stop Nebraska (3 and out) the next two drives. At that point, they shouldn't have been tired, but they gave up two more long drives in the second quarter (4 plays for 80 yards and 8 plays for 70 yards/FG). Nebraska even scored on the first drive of the second half (9 plays/78 yards). The defenese THEN stepped up to stop Nebrasks the next four drives. If anything, they would've been tired then.

KUJustin · #89 11-21-2007, 10:12 AM

SoonerFan, that Nebraska team was playing with a new QB. One that scored 70+ against a not-good, but not-bad KSU in his 2nd game. Also, I wish they played their butts off every down but you have to get real and realize that a defense isn't going to give "110%" when the offense has scored TDs on 9 straight possessions.

BigSoonerFan · #90 11-21-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
SoonerFan, that Nebraska team was playing with a new QB. One that scored 70+ against a not-good, but not-bad KSU in his 2nd game. Also, I wish they played their butts off every down but you have to get real and realize that a defense isn't going to give "110%" when the offense has scored TDs on 9 straight possessions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were they giving "110%" when they allowed Nebraska to score on its first two possessions (and lead 14-7) or when they gave up the third touchdown to make it 21-14? At what point did they decide not to give "110%"?