11-11-06 Upset Thread

[bartshan-83]

They proved it. And please tell me you ranked ND #4 in the other thread.  Who does ND play next week, the Coast Guard? 

835001[/snapback]

I'm sorry, they proved that the only two teams in all of college football capable of beating them are Michigan and Ohio St.? When did they do that?

 

They proved that they are *probably* the best team in the Big East. But that doesn't change the fact that you talk so much sht about them, but then still predict them to lose on gameday.

[IBTG81]

I'm sorry, they proved that the only two teams in all of college football capable of beating them are Michigan and Ohio St.?  When did they do that?

 

They proved that they are *probably* the best team in the Big East.  But that doesn't change the fact that you talk so much sht about them, but then still predict them to lose on gameday.

835336[/snapback]

 

I'm honest in my assessments. I am not a blind homer like thr rest of you guys are. You talk so much crap about ND, Faustus pretty much wants to blow Urban Mayer, and BF talked like Texas was/is the second coming of Christ.

[Chilly]

I'm honest in my assessments. I am not a blind homer like thr rest of you guys are. You talk so much crap about ND, Faustus pretty much wants to blow Urban Mayer, and BF talked like Texas was/is the second coming of Christ.

835495[/snapback]

 

Ed - There's a reason why everyone on this board sees stuff differently from you, and its not because everyone else is a "blind homer". Its because you are. Just because you're honest in your assessments doesn't mean you are seeing them correctly.

 

Before Ohio State, perhaps I talked a bit like that, when I thought that my #2 Longhorns were the best team in the country and thus talked that way, but I found out after the Ohio State game that they needed to mature.

 

What happened to Texas on Saturday sucked and was a combination of injuries and our secondary not showing up to play. Nothing I can defend against there, they just weren't ready and should pay the price for it in a game that they should've won easily. I still think they're better then how they played, and could beat any team in the top 10 on any given Saturday.

 

I've always this season pointed out my issues with this Texas team and my feelings on them aren't much different then the entire national media/college football fan base.

 

Faustus has said that Florida doesn't deserve to be in the National Championship game based upon how they've played, but no other team really does either at this point besides Ohio State and Michigan.

 

Bart has consistently ranked Notre Dame in the bottom half of the top 10 all year long after their loss. Yeah, he talks so much crap about a team who is very talented yet for some reason can't put it all together.

 

You, however, think that you are not being a homer and that everyone else is wrong because you are so much of a freaking homer that you can't accept that Rutgers, a team which is having an outstanding season, just might be taken a bit skeptically because they are: A.) Having their first meaningful season in a while, B.) Playing a weak schedule, and C.) In the weakest BCS conference around.

 

On top of this, you make outlandish statements that Rutgers would only lose to Ohio State and Michigan, and then completely change your point of view when it actually comes down to game time.

 

And yeah, everyone else on this board is the problem except you. Thats it Ed, keep telling yourself that.

[bartshan-83]

Ed - There's a reason why everyone on this board sees stuff differently from you, and its not because everyone else is a "blind homer".  Its because you are. Just because you're honest in your assessments doesn't mean you are seeing them correctly.

 

Before Ohio State, perhaps I talked a bit like that, when I thought that my #2 Longhorns were the best team in the country and thus talked that way, but I found out after the Ohio State game that they needed to mature.

 

What happened to Texas on Saturday sucked and was a combination of injuries and our secondary not showing up to play.  Nothing I can defend against there, they just weren't ready and should pay the price for it in a game that they should've won easily.  I still think they're better then how they played, and could beat any team in the top 10 on any given Saturday.

 

I've always this season pointed out my issues with this Texas team and my feelings on them aren't much different then the entire national media/college football fan base. 

 

Faustus has said that Florida doesn't deserve to be in the National Championship game based upon how they've played, but no other team really does either at this point besides Ohio State and Michigan.

 

Bart has consistently ranked Notre Dame in the bottom half of the top 10 all year long after their loss.  Yeah, he talks so much crap about a team who is very talented yet for some reason can't put it all together. 

 

You, however, think that you are not being a homer and that everyone else is wrong because you are so much of a freaking homer that you can't accept that Rutgers, a team which is having an outstanding season, just might be taken a bit skeptically because they are:  A.) Having their first meaningful season in a while, B.) Playing a weak schedule, and C.) In the weakest BCS conference around. 

 

On top of this, you make outlandish statements that Rutgers would only lose to Ohio State and Michigan, and then completely change your point of view when it actually comes down to game time.

 

And yeah, everyone else on this board is the problem except you.  Thats it Ed, keep telling yourself that.

835550[/snapback]

Wow...um, perfect.

[IBTG81]

And yeah, everyone else on this board is the problem except you.  Thats it Ed, keep telling yourself that.

835550[/snapback]

 

It's OK that you don't believe in Rutgers. I mean, you believed in your team and look what happened?

Bart should be crapping himself, because ND is about to drop out of the top 10 (they would have awhile back had they not played every single military academy ). I'm waiting for them to schedule the Air National Guard next year.

 

Even the BCS computers have RU ranked at #2.

 

That's OK though. We'll just continue to prove everybody wrong.

[bartshan-83]

It's OK that you don't believe in Rutgers. I mean, you believed in your team and look what happened?

Bart should be crapping himself, because ND is about to drop out of the top 10 (they would have awhile back had they not played every single military academy  ). I'm waiting for them to schedule the Air National Guard next year. 

 

Even the BCS computers have RU ranked at #2. 

 

That's OK though. We'll just continue to prove everybody wrong.

836182[/snapback]

Jesus, Brandon...you are losing it.

 

1. ND hasn't played every service academy yet.

2. What's this I see:

CBS: Rutgers 33rd SOS, ND 22nd

Sagarin: Rutgers 66th, ND 22nd

Greenfield: Rutgers 81, ND 66th

Massey: Rutgers 45th, ND 13th

 

835742[/snapback]

 

Keep telling yourself that Rutgers is this best team in the country...but don't forget to pick Cinncinati this weekend.

 

What's sad is Rutgers is actually a very good football team with a great future ahead of them. You just can't see that they need to earn their respect with more than a one big win.

[IBTG81]

1.  ND hasn't played every service academy yet.

2.  What's this I see:

Keep telling yourself that Rutgers is this best team in the country...but don't forget to pick Cinncinati this weekend.

 

What's sad is Rutgers is actually a very good football team with a great future ahead of them.  You just can't see that they need to earn their respect with more than a one big win.

836197[/snapback]

 

ND has played Navy, Air Force, and they will be playing Army this week. Who did I forget? The Coast Guard?

 

Show me where I said RU was the best team in CF.

 

The BE also has the best winning % of any conference outside of their own.

[Chilly]

The BE also has the best winning % of any conference outside of their own. 

836213[/snapback]

 

Wrong, the SEC does.

[bartshan-83]

ND has played Navy, Air Force, and they will be playing Army this week. Who did I forget? The Coast Guard?

836213[/snapback]

Well I guess they haven't played all of them yet then have they?

Show me where I said RU was the best team in CF.

836213[/snapback]

Well seeing how you think that only the #1 and #2 teams in the nation could possibly beat Rutgers, I'd say that is a pretty strong endorsement.

 

Nice how you say ND plays nobody but then completely ignore the SOS.

[IBTG81]

Wrong, the SEC does.

836214[/snapback]

 

You're right: The BE is 2nd by 0.33%

[smokinandjokin]

The BE also has the best winning % of any conference outside of their own. 

836213[/snapback]

 

"I swear the Big East is relevant! I swear they are! I don't understand how you guys even have an argument when the Big East has gone 4-0 against Conference USA, 6-0 against the MAC, and 6-0 against 1-AA teams. And Rutgers beat Illinois AND North Carolina!"

 

22-20 against South Florida, Ed. USF. But even that doesn't matter. It's impossible to compare across conferences, or say Rutgers beat X, and X beat Y, so Rutgers would destroy Y. It doesn't work.

 

I watch games. I watch teams. Rutgers and the Big East are a glorified MAC or ConfUSA. Hell, the Big East IS ConfUSA. The players are not as good as the players on other major programs. I'm sure the best 3-4 players on any team could find their way into the lineup at even the best football factories. But overall, there is a huge talent gap from top to bottom. That's not a knock, and that's not saying that Rutgers couldn't beat Michigan once if they played ten times. They're just on different levels.

 

Different time, different team, I know- but UB beat Rutgers 34-10 in 2002, and then Rutgers won 24-10 in 2003. Come on man. Now they're supposedly ready to play in a national championship game? Great story, but not likely.

[IBTG81]

Different time, different team, I know- but UB beat Rutgers 34-10 in 2002, and then Rutgers won 24-10 in 2003.  Come on man.  Now they're supposedly ready to play in a national championship game?  Great story, but not likely.

836385[/snapback]

 

Then you don't obviously follow CF as closely as you say you do. Look when Schiano came in. Terry Shea ran this program into the ground. Schiano couldn't fix it overnight. It takes time.

The funny thing, is that RU is YOUNG. We have a great recruiting class for next year, and Anthony Davis is supposed to sign on soon.

If you don't believe in Schiano, look what he did with that Miami defense in '99-00.

[KD in CA]

While Ed is making it very difficult to root for the Rutgers cinderella story, there is a point here. Pre season ranking are entirely about reputation and it is almost impossible for an unranked team to move up in the polls to a position where they have a shot at a championship.

 

They stopped doing BCS rankings until mid season. Maybe they should stop with the polls too (impossible I know because of the need for TV to generate viewers by hyping rankings).

 

That said, there also needs to be a rule about non-conference play. There should be a required # of wins against not only 1-A schools but BCS conference schools.

[IBTG81]

Different time, different team, I know- but UB beat Rutgers 34-10 in 2002, and then Rutgers won 24-10 in 2003.  Come on man.  Now they're supposedly ready to play in a national championship game?  Great story, but not likely.

836385[/snapback]

 

Turnaround

 

[smokinandjokin]

Then you don't obviously follow CF as closely as you say you do. Look when Schiano came in. Terry Shea ran this program into the ground. Schiano couldn't fix it overnight. It takes time.

The funny thing, is that RU is YOUNG. We have a great recruiting class for next year, and Anthony Davis is supposed to sign on soon.

If you don't believe in Schiano, look what he did with that Miami defense in '99-00.

836694[/snapback]

 

Trust me, I know the difference. Rutgers would beat UB 42-0 this Saturday. That's why in my post I said "I know- different teams, different times." I wasn't trying to compare the two.

 

Right or wrong, Rutgers WAS a UB-type team just four years ago, and that reality isn't just overlooked because they beat Louisville. Schianno has done an incredible job fostering a winning environment. But like you said, that takes time. Taking Rutgers from "UB" to "Ohio State" takes a LOT longer than three years. The players who considered attending Rutgers are not narrowing it down between LSU, Ohio State, USC, and the Scarlet Knights. Maybe now they will, but they certainly haven't been.

 

UConn also made a similar transformation to their program, where they went from a bottom-feeder to a respectable squad. The Big East facilitates that possibility because it is, in general, a very weak football conference. They won a bunch of conference games and had an NFL-caliber QB. Never, ever, would they have been mistaken with a top-tier team.

[IBTG81]

Trust me, I know the difference.  Rutgers would beat UB 42-0 this Saturday.  That's why in my post I said "I know- different teams, different times."  I wasn't trying to compare the two.

 

Right or wrong, Rutgers WAS a UB-type team just four years ago, and that reality isn't just overlooked because they beat Louisville.  Schianno has done an incredible job fostering a winning environment.  But like you said, that takes time.  Taking Rutgers from "UB" to "Ohio State" takes a LOT longer than three years.  The players who considered attending Rutgers are not narrowing it down between LSU, Ohio State, USC, and the Scarlet Knights.  Maybe now they will, but they certainly haven't been.

 

UConn also made a similar transformation to their program, where they went from a bottom-feeder to a respectable squad.  The Big East facilitates that possibility because it is, in general, a very weak football conference.  They won a bunch of conference games and had an NFL-caliber QB.  Never, ever, would they have been mistaken with a top-tier team.

836813[/snapback]

 

Rutgers did get lucky in some areas. Ray Rice was committed to Syracuse and Paul P got the boot.

Leonard came to RU after Rutgers was the only school to ffer his brother a scholarship.

Schiano had great success recruiting from S. Florida. Guys who didn't get offers from the big 3 down there were rip for the picking.

Now, we have the local Jersey kids (NJ is fertile recruiting grounds) pretty much throwing themselves at us.

[Tux of Borg]

Further proof that the BCS needs to be blown up.

 

I don't care about SOS or rankings. If Rutgers and Boise State go undefeated, they both deserve a shot to play for the national championship on Jan 8th. Ofcourse neither team will get in and we'll be stuck with Ohio State vs Michigan II.

[smokinandjokin]

Further proof that the BCS needs to be blown up. 

 

I don't care about SOS or rankings.  If Rutgers and Boise State go undefeated, they both deserve a shot to play for the national championship on Jan 8th. 

837125[/snapback]

 

Why? Going undefeated earns you what? That's an idotic statement, and a good way to ensure that we never see incredible games like 2005's Ohio State vs. Texas ever again. But I suppose you'd rather see non-conference matchups like Michigan beating Eastern Illinois 56-0, just so they can try to maintain their all-important undefeated record.

 

You didn't enjoy the USC-Texas game last year? That was a result of the BCS. Blow up the BCS and you have two undefeated teams who don't play at the end of the year, and everyone misses out on one of the greatest games ever, and then sportswriters vote on the champion.

 

Everyone dogs the BCS without ever mentioning the good things it's done. It involves computers so it sucks. Well guess what- at least the computers attempt to account for every variable. There are plenty of coaches and AP beat writers who rank college teams but don't watch two games on Saturday.

 

I would love an NCAA playoff. Everyone would. It's so clear that it's the best option that it stings. But how do you do it? Four teams? Eight teams? How do you decide those eight? Maybe every Division 1A conference champion gets a bid? So you leave out an 11-1 SEC runner-up in favor of San Jose State? What do you do with the current bowl system, whose benefactors are very influential? If we're "blowing it up," you better throw some alternatives out there.

 

The BCS is the best we've got RIGHT NOW. Hopefully improvements are made in the future, like this past offseason when they made an improvement by adding a game. That gives more teams from the lighter conferences a shot at a big money bowl game. More often than not, the two best teams end up playing each other for the title. Every regular season game is a playoff game. It forces schools to schedule aggressively. It maintains the tradition of the classic college bowl games. If you think Rutgers and Boise State deserve to be there for the simple fact that they went undefeated, that's rediculous. At least 15-20 other schools in the country would have gone undefeated playing those schedules.

 

The BCS is not perfect. But to simply say "Blow it up" and offer zero solutions (besides three teams playing in a title game, like you have above) makes your argument moot.

[Ramius]

Why?  Going undefeated earns you what?  That's an idotic statement, and a good way to ensure that we never see incredible games like 2005's Ohio State vs. Texas ever again.  But I suppose you'd rather see non-conference matchups like Michigan beating Eastern Illinois 56-0, just so they can try to maintain their all-important undefeated record.

 

You didn't enjoy the USC-Texas game last year?  That was a result of the BCS.  Blow up the BCS and you have two undefeated teams who don't play at the end of the year, and everyone misses out on one of the greatest games ever, and then sportswriters vote on the champion.

 

Everyone dogs the BCS without ever mentioning the good things it's done.  It involves computers so it sucks.  Well guess what- at least the computers attempt to account for every variable.  There are plenty of coaches and AP beat writers who rank college teams but don't watch two games on Saturday.

 

I would love an NCAA playoff.  Everyone would.  It's so clear that it's the best option that it stings.  But how do you do it?  Four teams?  Eight teams?  How do you decide those eight?  Maybe every Division 1A conference champion gets a bid?  So you leave out an 11-1 SEC runner-up in favor of San Jose State?  What do you do with the current bowl system, whose benefactors are very influential?  If we're "blowing it up," you better throw some alternatives out there.

 

The BCS is the best we've got RIGHT NOW.  Hopefully improvements are made in the future, like this past offseason when they made an improvement by adding a game.  That gives more teams from the lighter conferences a shot at a big money bowl game.  More often than not, the two best teams end up playing each other for the title.  Every regular season game is a playoff game.  It forces schools to schedule aggressively.  It maintains the tradition of the classic college bowl games.  If you think Rutgers and Boise State deserve to be there for the simple fact that they went undefeated, that's rediculous.  At least 15-20 other schools in the country would have gone undefeated playing those schedules.

 

The BCS is not perfect.  But to simply say "Blow it up" and offer zero solutions (besides three teams playing in a title game, like you have above) makes your argument moot.

837355[/snapback]

 

I'm for an 8 team playoff. An to keep emphasis on the regular season, i'd give each BCS conference an auto-bid, provided they have a conference championship game. the winner gets an auto bid. This would make conferences like the big 10 add a championship game. Also, then you'd have 2 at large bids for any non-BCS teams or "bubble teams".

 

The reason i like the championship game auto-bid method is that it puts emphasis on conference play, but still allows for non-conference battles like ohio st-texas, and ND-USC. These games could be played without penalizing the loser as much as it does now.

[smokinandjokin]

I'm for an 8 team playoff. An to keep emphasis on the regular season, i'd give each BCS conference an auto-bid, provided they have a conference championship game. the winner gets an auto bid. This would make conferences like the big 10 add a championship game. Also, then you'd have 2 at large bids for any non-BCS teams or "bubble teams".

 

The reason i like the championship game auto-bid method is that it puts emphasis on conference play, but still allows for non-conference battles like ohio st-texas, and ND-USC. These games could be played without penalizing the loser as much as it does now.

837664[/snapback]

 

I like it. I also prefer an 8-team playoff. Your idea of forcing conference championship games could work. Only half would have to comply- the Big East, the PAC 10, and the Big Ten. The others are already there.

 

The sticky part would be deciding the #7 and #8 seeds....Do we take an 11-1 LSU who lost in the SEC title game, or do we take a 12-0 Boise State? What's the method of determining that? I'm not sure what the answer would be. Possibly something close to the current BCS-ranking formula we have. I have said many times, it will always be better to go to the pollsters & computers to determine the #7 and #8 seeds in an eight-team playoff, rather than determining who is #2 versus who is #3. A committee modeled after the NCAA hoops could also determine the wild cards, as well as the seeding.

 

The other sticky part (which I'm also not sure how to handle) would be dealing with the current Bowls and their deep pockets and sponsors. I can't imagine that the Granddaddy Of Them All would be too excited about hosting a potential Florida vs. Ball State quarterfinal matchup. Maybe play the 1st round at the higher seed's home stadium, and then take the four big ones (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar) and make them the semi-finals, 3rd place, and title game on a rotating basis. Yeah, it would suck to host the 3rd place game, but each would do it once every four years. I'm not sure how interested American fans are in a consolation game in any sport, but it could be interesting in College FB. For example, if this system was in place this year and Florida lost in the semi's, I'm sure Gator fans would love to see Tebow start and play a full game against big-time competition, even though the game is 'semi-meaningless.'

[Chilly]

Any discussion about a playoff system is mute without taking into account University Presidents.

 

They are the ones that are interfering in this - not the ADs.

[Tux of Borg]

The BCS is not perfect.  But to simply say "Blow it up" and offer zero solutions (besides three teams playing in a title game, like you have above) makes your argument moot.

837355[/snapback]

 

I didn't realize I had to point out an obvious solution. I mean, Division II and III seem to have figured it out all on their own.

[smokinandjokin]

I didn't realize I had to point out an obvious solution.   I mean, Division II and III seem to have figured it out all on their own.

838343[/snapback]

 

You're right. I can't believe NOBODY ever considered that. The NCAA should just set up a D1 playoff like D2 and D3, and pretend that none of the roadblocks to making that happen actually exist.

 

Unfortunately, in Realityland, we can't just say something and make it true. Big time college football is incomparable to the lower levels, even D1-AA, for the following reasons:

 

1. Money

2. Bowl games dating back to pre-WWI which resonate the game's tradition.

3. Lucrative TV contracts

4. Lucrative sponsorship deals

5. Much, much wider range of talent between the major and minor conferences. Who makes the playoffs?

6. Public interest and scrutiny

7. Greedy, disagreeable university presidents

8. Money

 

Trust me, I want a playoff. And I'm not saying that most or all of those issues couldn't be overcome, or even made better, with a playoff system. An example is: more games seems to equal a more lucrative TV deal, which seems to equal more money. However, those are all things that must be figured out. How do you do it? I'm not asking you to solve the problem. It's quite a quandry, as there are many factors to consider. But when you trash the current system, which is MUCH better than 10 years ago, at least make a suggestion for improvement, like Ramius did.

 

Don't just say something silly, like "Do it like Division III does it." A bit oversimplifying, don't you think?

[/dev/null]

Any discussion about a playoff system is mute

838142[/snapback]

 

i think you mean moot

mute means no sound, like deaf

M-O-O-N, that spells deaf and dumb

[Chilly]

i think you mean moot

mute means no sound, like deaf

M-O-O-N, that spells deaf and dumb

838405[/snapback]

 

Yeah I did.

 

I have to blame that on my alcohol consumption which was occurring in preparation for the Sabres game.