2008 National Champions (NCAAF)

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]
ummm....Sagarin predictor is #1 at forecasting game outcomes

that is the only measure that counts in my eyes.

PS...I don't see what is glaringly wrong with that top25...seems better than the human polls

[/ QUOTE ]

In the top 10 alone:
5 Louisville
7 Cal
10 Tenn
Those look right to you? If so we have different idea of what a good football team is. In my opinion teams would be dogs to alot of the teams ranked 11-30

[MyTurn2Raise]

that looks fine

I think Louisville might be the best team in the nation that just had one bad half.

[Caldarooni]

Cal was a much better football team this year than their final record indicated. Just as teams can overachieve, this one underachieved imo.

[bigt2k4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also don't think the SEC is the deepest conference, though they are the most overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you dispute either of these statements?

The SEC was the best conference in the country this year.
The SEC is the best conference in the country year-in-year out. (not every year, but consistently)

What do you mean by overrated? Most people argued that the SEC was below the Pac 10 this year. However looking back now on the whole season and the Bowls, it's pretty obvious the SEC was #1. They also have the most players on NFL rosters, so it's not just some media bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do people continue to say the SEC is overated? This blows my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they're fans of the big10/pac10/big12 and hate how people say that a conference other than their own is so tough (in the big10's case how it is so weak), so they get mad and jealous and turn things around saying the SEC is overrated.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The way the BCS works, Wisconsin has no reason to play a non-conference game harder than a Washington State type team when their conference schedule has Penn State, OSU, and Michigan. There just isn't an incentive there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait what? I thought the point of the BCS was the exact opposite of what you are saying. In the old days (I am a Husker fanatic FWIW) Nebraska would pay Lincoln High school 5 times (hyperbole) and then their Big 12 schedule and the way the AP polls worked was the best record went to the title game, the purpose of the BCS is to eliminate soft schedules and to actually take a look at who you play in case when the season ends and you have three undefeated teams or 4 1-loss teams etc.

This is also the reason USC was going to the title game above all 1-loss teams this year if they were to beat UCLA in that last game b/c they had a schedule like this:

09/02 at Arkansas
09/16 #19 Nebraska
09/23 at Arizona
09/30 at Wash St
10/07 Washington
10/14 Arizona St
10/28 at Oregon St
11/04 at Stanford
11/11 #21 Oregon
11/18 #17 California
11/25 #6 N Dame
12/02 at UCLA

Arkansas, Nebraska and ND non-conference games puts them in the title game. Bowling Green, SDSU, Buffalo and W. Illinois puts you in a non-BCS bowl with one loss. USC went to the Rose with 2 losses b/c of who they played, and there is a HUGE difference. So you simply can't say there isn't incentive b/c there is 12.75 MILLION dollars worth of incentive (between the Rose and Capital One Bowl).

But you probably also know that if Wisconsin played USC's schedule they aren't a 1 loss team too though right?

[/ QUOTE ]

USC went to the Rose Bowl because they won the Pac-10, it had nothing to do with their non-conference schedule. If a team like USC or Wisconsin goes undefeated, they go to the national championship regardless of what their non-conference schedule was because they are from the Big Ten/Pac Ten. If USC plays all cupcakes in non-conference they still go to the Rose Bowl this year. If they would have had all cupcakes and gone undefeated, they go to the national championship over a 1 loss Florida team. There is zero incentive to have a tough non-conference schedule if you're from a BCS conference not named the Big East.

[Jack of Arcades]

I'm a fan of the SEC, and it sucked in 2005 and 2004.

[capone0]

USC actually split the conference title with Cal but won the tie breaker with the HU win. Cal beats Zona but loses to USC and they would have gone. Both teams had 2 in-conference losses.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
USC actually split the conference title with Cal but won the tie breaker with the HU win. Cal beats Zona but loses to USC and they would have gone. Both teams had 2 in-conference losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what you're saying is USC won the Pac 10 title? thanks.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The way the BCS works, Wisconsin has no reason to play a non-conference game harder than a Washington State type team when their conference schedule has Penn State, OSU, and Michigan. There just isn't an incentive there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait what? I thought the point of the BCS was the exact opposite of what you are saying. In the old days (I am a Husker fanatic FWIW) Nebraska would pay Lincoln High school 5 times (hyperbole) and then their Big 12 schedule and the way the AP polls worked was the best record went to the title game, the purpose of the BCS is to eliminate soft schedules and to actually take a look at who you play in case when the season ends and you have three undefeated teams or 4 1-loss teams etc.

This is also the reason USC was going to the title game above all 1-loss teams this year if they were to beat UCLA in that last game b/c they had a schedule like this:

09/02 at Arkansas
09/16 #19 Nebraska
09/23 at Arizona
09/30 at Wash St
10/07 Washington
10/14 Arizona St
10/28 at Oregon St
11/04 at Stanford
11/11 #21 Oregon
11/18 #17 California
11/25 #6 N Dame
12/02 at UCLA

Arkansas, Nebraska and ND non-conference games puts them in the title game. Bowling Green, SDSU, Buffalo and W. Illinois puts you in a non-BCS bowl with one loss. USC went to the Rose with 2 losses b/c of who they played, and there is a HUGE difference. So you simply can't say there isn't incentive b/c there is 12.75 MILLION dollars worth of incentive (between the Rose and Capital One Bowl).

But you probably also know that if Wisconsin played USC's schedule they aren't a 1 loss team too though right?

[/ QUOTE ]

USC went to the Rose Bowl because they won the Pac-10, it had nothing to do with their non-conference schedule. If a team like USC or Wisconsin goes undefeated, they go to the national championship regardless of what their non-conference schedule was because they are from the Big Ten/Pac Ten. If USC plays all cupcakes in non-conference they still go to the Rose Bowl this year. If they would have had all cupcakes and gone undefeated, they go to the national championship over a 1 loss Florida team. There is zero incentive to have a tough non-conference schedule if you're from a BCS conference not named the Big East.

[/ QUOTE ]

The incentive to play a tough non conference schedule is twofold. Second, you want to put yourself in a position to play for the national title if you have one loss. That will never happen with a schedule like Wisconsin's. 80% of the time if USC goes 11-1, they will play for the NC. The first, and more important incentive is, you want to give yourself the best chance to play in one of the other four BCS bowls. You need a strong schedule to make it as an at large team, especially with two losses.

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]
that looks fine

I think Louisville might be the best team in the nation that just had one bad half.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't really believe this. Take a look at the ranked opponents (at the time of the game)

Miami - terrible this year
West Virginia - Over rated
Rutgers - loss
Wake Forrest - seriously Wake Forrest should not be in the top 20

The best thing Louisville has going for them is the band kid in the wheel chair