Case for South Florida and Virginia over USC, Oregon and Oklahoma? - Page 5

MyTurn2Raise · #41 10-23-2007, 05:13 PM

as to Ohio State's schedule

they do a good job at bringing in one 'name' school every year. Back when there was 3 out-of-conference games, that might have been enough. With 4 games, the Buckeyes have been doing 3-4 home games (vomit) and just adding in local mid majors and FCS teams. I understand the need to keep money in-state, but this is going too far. If they want respect, they should schedule another team from a BCS conference that has a middling history for home-and-homes. If they played one 'name' program home-and-home, one 'middling' program home-and-home, and two of their in-state punching bags at home, I think it would be a nice healthy step that most could respect. Right now, they get off scot free when the 'name' program is down, like Washington this year. If they did a middle program like NC ST with Washington as they did a few years back, 2 of Akron, Ohio, Toledo, Kent, Youngstown St, Bowling Green, and only played 3 in the 'shoe, I'm pretty sure most would not go out of their way to blast the schedule.

To be honest, the Big11Ten really needs to schedule better out-of-conference. I believe the whole payoff to smaller schools for a near guaranteed victory is hurting the ability to play schools of mediocre stature in other BCS conferences. Looking at who Penn St, Iowa, and Wisconsin have played the last few years is a bit sickening. I think the loss of a bye week is really forcing the Big11Ten to lighten their schedules as well. Don't know why the conference just doesn't go a week longer.

Again, the Pac10 is the one conference I think gets it right from a fan's perspective. They play other major conferences with a regularity. They have 9 conference games for everyone. They take on the best midmajors and will occassionally play those schools on the road. Pac10 gets mad respek.

HorridSludgyBits · #42 10-23-2007, 05:19 PM

It's much easier to sneak up on teams when no one knows who you are (e.g. USF vs. Auburn). I'm more interested in how those teams perform when they have the lofty ranking and a team is lying in wait to knock them off, which is what happened to USF vs. Rutgers.

And even though we're not talking about them, BC will have the same type of test at VT. If they can beat VT, I'll give them a lot more credit.

As far as UVA goes: Wyoming? lol

TomCollins · #43 10-23-2007, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course they are a threat to do so. But it's more likely they lose at least one more, and maybe even more likely they drop two.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to wonder if the University of Spoiled Children has more delusional fans than the Domers. I didn't think it was possible!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom,

Curious as to what part of the post you found delusional.

No USC fan, by the way, I just like watching and betting on college football.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is not. Look at Semtex's posting history for other delusional posts.

TomCollins · #44 10-23-2007, 05:32 PM

When you have to schedule 8 years out, its hard to know if Washington will be good or not. The first part of the home-and-home series was in Columbus in 2003 had Washington ranked. They had come off a 2001 Rose Bowl victory.

1999- Miami (@ NJ), UCLA
2000 - Fresno St, @ Arizona
2001 - @ UCLA
2002- Washington State and Texas Tech
2003-2004 had NC State (before they sucked)
2005-2006 had Texas
2007 @ Washington
2008 has @ USC and Troy University (pretty decent small conference team).
2009 has USC at home, and @ Toledo
2010 Miami Fl
2011 @ Miami Fl
Also on the radar
Cal, Oklahoma

But when you have to schedule 8 years out, maybe Oklahoma or Cal will be awful then, and we will get the same crap about playing a garbage schedule.

Semtex · #45 10-23-2007, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course they are a threat to do so. But it's more likely they lose at least one more, and maybe even more likely they drop two.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to wonder if the University of Spoiled Children has more delusional fans than the Domers. I didn't think it was possible!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom,

Curious as to what part of the post you found delusional.

No USC fan, by the way, I just like watching and betting on college football.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is not. Look at Semtex's posting history for other delusional posts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol i think the only 'delusional' posting i ever did was where i was arguing the Big 10 was god awful last year and could not compare to the PAC or SEC. I already admitted I was wrong about that.

I don't really think anything I have posted about USC has been delusional yet. I keep claiming USC is one of the top teams in the country. I think its delusional to believe they're not. Last year I was called a delusional homer for claiming USC was still one of the top teams in the country after losing to OSU. Last time I checked the Sagarin predictor put them #1 at the end of the season. Got anything to say to that?

MyTurn2Raise · #46 10-23-2007, 05:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's much easier to sneak up on teams when no one knows who you are (e.g. USF vs. Auburn). I'm more interested in how those teams perform when they have the lofty ranking and a team is lying in wait to knock them off, which is what happened to USF vs. Rutgers.

And even though we're not talking about them, BC will have the same type of test at VT. If they can beat VT, I'll give them a lot more credit.

As far as UVA goes: Wyoming? lol

[/ QUOTE ]

USF didn't sneak up on Auburn

there were numerous sources all off-season and in the week leading upto the game that said USF would upset Auburn

this was not surprising at all

many expected that outcome

Black Aces 518 · #47 10-24-2007, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no case. At all. The computer polls are a complete joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

The computer polls are a joke because of the retard BCS removing margin of victory. Only a drooling mongoloid thinks that how many points you win by is irrelevant to a team's strength. But the BCS thought that Nebraska shouldn't have played in the NC game in 01. So they looked and saw that if they had taken out MOV from teh computers, they would have missed it. So they just did that.

I do agree that a cap on MOV is fine, somewhere between 21 and 35 points. But beating a 1-7 team by 69 shouldn't be as punishing as beating them by 1. Similarly, beating a 7-1 team by 41 shouldn't be rewarded the same as beating them by 1. It's a complete crock and it destroys the best thing the BCS had, impartial computer polls. It blows my mind that they took out one of the most important metrics available.

TomCollins · #48 10-24-2007, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no case. At all. The computer polls are a complete joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

The computer polls are a joke because of the retard BCS removing margin of victory. Only a drooling mongoloid thinks that how many points you win by is irrelevant to a team's strength. But the BCS thought that Nebraska shouldn't have played in the NC game in 01. So they looked and saw that if they had taken out MOV from teh computers, they would have missed it. So they just did that.

I do agree that a cap on MOV is fine, somewhere between 21 and 35 points. But beating a 1-7 team by 69 shouldn't be as punishing as beating them by 1. Similarly, beating a 7-1 team by 41 shouldn't be rewarded the same as beating them by 1. It's a complete crock and it destroys the best thing the BCS had, impartial computer polls. It blows my mind that they took out one of the most important metrics available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Picture the following situation- you have a championship potential team, up by 10 with 1 minute left and no time outs for either team, and the ball on the 1. Most teams will take a knee here and win the game. If you go for it, you could risk injury of your players. But the margin of victory component means that teams should go for it here. Coaches like Spurrier that love to run it up would benefit and coaches like Tressel that know when they have won and sit on leads would be punished.

If it didn't change the way games were played, its one thing, but it does change the decisions coaches would make and there are negative impacts to the game for that. But I do think it would make the rankings more accurate.

Black Aces 518 · #49 10-24-2007, 12:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no case. At all. The computer polls are a complete joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

The computer polls are a joke because of the retard BCS removing margin of victory. Only a drooling mongoloid thinks that how many points you win by is irrelevant to a team's strength. But the BCS thought that Nebraska shouldn't have played in the NC game in 01. So they looked and saw that if they had taken out MOV from teh computers, they would have missed it. So they just did that.

I do agree that a cap on MOV is fine, somewhere between 21 and 35 points. But beating a 1-7 team by 69 shouldn't be as punishing as beating them by 1. Similarly, beating a 7-1 team by 41 shouldn't be rewarded the same as beating them by 1. It's a complete crock and it destroys the best thing the BCS had, impartial computer polls. It blows my mind that they took out one of the most important metrics available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Picture the following situation- you have a championship potential team, up by 10 with 1 minute left and no time outs for either team, and the ball on the 1. Most teams will take a knee here and win the game. If you go for it, you could risk injury of your players. But the margin of victory component means that teams should go for it here. Coaches like Spurrier that love to run it up would benefit and coaches like Tressel that know when they have won and sit on leads would be punished.

If it didn't change the way games were played, its one thing, but it does change the decisions coaches would make and there are negative impacts to the game for that. But I do think it would make the rankings more accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it changes some things. I think an individual TD in one game is going to be a very tiny part of the final rankings, so you may see teams punch it in in your spot, but not likely to see teams throwing from the 30 in a 14 point game. And even if so, why is this so bad?

I think this is much worse:

TEAM A
beats a 1-7 team 63-0
beats a 2-6 team 59-3
beats a 3-5 team 48-7
beats a 4-4 team 35-0
beats a 5-3 team 61-12
beats a 6-2 team 30-3
beats a 6-2 team 35-14
beats a 4-4 team 61-6

TEAM B
beats a 4-4 team 17-16
beats a 4-4 team 21-18
beats a 3-5 team 24-17
beats a 4-4 team 20-17
beats a 4-4 team 21-20
beats a 2-6 team 44-41 (OT)
beats a 7-1 team 28-27 on a horribly botched onside kick call
beats a 5-3 team 7-6, after the 5-3 team misses 4 FGs and commits 6 turnovers

The computers would have Team B as the best team, b/c they are both 7-0 and Team B's opps have a better record. It is a grave injustice, and quite retarded, and WAYYYY worse than a team up 10 trying to punch in one more TD late.

gusmahler · #50 10-24-2007, 01:58 PM

But there's also the situation where a team dominates a game, the other team scores a couple TDs in garbage time and the game seems a lot less impressive.

One I vaguely remember involves a Big 10 team that thoroughly dominated the other team and had a 35-7 lead very late. The opponent scores a few late TDs and 2 pointer, then scores again on the last play of the game to make it 35-29. Looks like a close game to a computer just processing the score (or to a pollster just looking at the final score).