Who's the best in nation ???

Scratch South Florida, they just got beat by the State University of New Jersey.

 

like this - exactly like this

damn VP - I hope someday I can be as good as you coaxing collin into making a complete fool of himself.

well done

 

Scratch that first one.

 

Hawaii blows. Did you see the game against San Jose State? I think if they played all the SEC and ACC teams they'd beat Duke...and that may be it.

 

It'd be interesting to see. I wonder if any of the SEC/ACC teams have refused to play Hawaii?

 

LMAO. I’m not defensive about anything, and that is quite clear to everyone reading. However, it is quite telling that when someone disagrees with you so often accuse them of getting defensive or emotional.

Back to the point though, you showed me what constitutes some big games based solely on what you define as a big game. And, as you will see later, your logic on what is and is not a big game is obviously flawed.

I would say that a big game would be one that pulls in the casual fan. And as you have taken great care to point out on multiple occasions, I would be a much better source on what the casual fan thinks than you would. The types of games I had in mind when I made my initial comment were the TX-OSU games a few years ago and the LSU-VT game this year. Not LSU/MTSU.

So, no, you have not proven wrong about anything, but thanks for playing.

There are 15 Others Receiving Votes (ORV) in this weeks AP and 18 ORV. That’s roughly 25% of all the teams in 1-A. I think that is a bit much.

You already agreed with me on this issue, so why would you keep discussing it?

It was my initial point, which got lost in you defining what constitutes a big game and then telling me I was wrong.

Was it meant to be a complete list? Regardless, see below.

No, what you said was that a matchup between a top 25 team and a generally solid team constituted a big game. LSU and Louisville are in the top 25, correct? You said that MTSU was solid team, correct?

Ergo, LSU or Louisville v. MTSU is a big matchup – at least as defined by you.

And as you like to say, I am not emotional at all – I am simply using facts. So far, you have presented nothing but your opinion on matters – including the lynchpin of the whole discussion of the definition of what a big game is.

I actually tried to pull the power rankings for ’06 but couldn’t find them, but it really doesn’t matter anymore.

I agree on limiting the human component, but the current system is so dependent on the preseason polls that it makes the possibility of a team from outside thepreseason top 10-15 making it to the BCS championship game almost nil.

I don’t recall saying that a playoff would mean that the best team would win. But you keep ignoring the hole in your logic that the teams listed as numbers one and two ARE the best two teams. I think that the USC/LSU/OU fiasco of a few years ago shoots quite a nice hole in that little theory. My guess is that we are going to be in for a similar problem this year, because it has been such a crazy year.

And often, the best team is not seeded number 1 - one of the ones that sticks out in my mind is the Miles Simon Zona teams of a few years ago that steamrolled through 3 number 1 seeds to win it all.

 

I still think LSU, Florida, and USC are the top 3. Not necessarily in that order, but those are my picks. I don't think Ohio State is better than any of those 3.

Last night was the first time I watched South Florida, but they looked totally unimpressive to me. I really wish I could have seen the USC/Stanford game. I cannot believe USC lost that one.

 

It's easier to pretend you aren't getting your ass kicked in an argument when you try to redefine the topic halfway through.

It's clear that you just don't want to admit the fact that you were proven wrong about there being only "a few big games on any football schedule," but since you insist on playing semantics, let's look at the rest of your sentence. You said "There are currently on a few big games on any football schedule - the rest is just filler." Whether or not you want to quibble about the definition of a "big game," you certainly would have to admit that the evidence I provided showed that those games are not "just filler." So can you at least admit that you were wrong about that?

Or how about this? In that same post, you said "aside from established rivalries, there are almost no intra-sectional games in football anymore." Not even you can pretend that I didn't prove that wrong, because you can't hide behind how you define "intra-sectional games." So will you admit that you were wrong about that?

Top 25 teams cannot just play other top 25 teams. When you try to use that impossible standard as "evidence" that scheduling is not as tough as you think it should be, it becomes obvious that you realize you lost the argument and are just looking for a way out. I went through the trouble of providing a list of games between quality opponents that proved you wrong. I also went through the trouble of listing basketball schedules for two prominent teams that showed how many "cupcakes" they have.

We do not agree. You claim that aside from "a few big games on any football schedule - the rest is just filler." The truth, as I have shown, is that only a few games on a top 25 team's schedule are "filler."

You claimed that a playoff would offer more incentive for teams to play "big games." Not only did I show that they already play plenty of "big games," but I also showed that a playoff would make it less likely for top teams to play each other in non-conference match-ups, not more.

No, you're outright lying because you realize that you've hopelessly lost this argument and you don't have the integrity to admit it. I never said that LSU or Louisville versus MTSU was a big match-up. You are lying when you claim that I did. My point regarding MTSU was that you might think that they're just a cupcake because you're largely ignorant about college football, when they are not actually a cupcake.

You have not providing a single fact to support your position. I am the one who has gone through the effort of listing schedules to prove that you were wrong about how "there are almost no intra-sectional games in football anymore," or that college basketball featured a higher percentage of "big games." I provided the facts and proved you wrong, and because you're upset about that, you're hiding behind semantics and whining instead of demonstrating some integrity and admitting that you said something dumb.

Once again you are spectacularly wrong. I would think that at this point you'd just stop even posting in the college football forum because it's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. In this case, South Florida was not even ranked to start the season and they were obviously #2 until the lost to Rutgers. Had they run the table in the Big East, they quite clearly would have easily made the championship game. So the possibility was much, much greater than "almost nil." And by the way, Boston College was not ranked in the preseason poll either and they'll be sitting #2 next week.

Oklahoma lost that game 21-14, so I don't know that you could definitively say that USC would have been more deserving. I think the Auburn/OU/USC triumvirate the following season would have made for a better case. Regardless, I'm not suggesting that human polls always pick the best two teams to play each other. I am saying that they pick better ones that survive through the luck-influenced results of any playoff. It's not at all unusual for the #1 ranked team heading into the NCAA tournament to end up not making the final, while the same has only been true once in the BCS. I'm sure that some of those #1 ranked teams were not, in fact, the best teams in the country. But the overriding fact remains that playoffs reward teams that get hot during a certain time, even if they were clearly inferior during the regular season. So if a college football playoff was theoretically held at the beginning of the season and then followed by conference and rivalry games (like the NIT or something), then you'd have a completely different winner. To me, I'd rather see the actual best team over the course of the season be rewarded, and while no system will ever do that with perfect accuracy, the current BCS model is a hell of a lot better at it than a playoff.

A great tournament run does stick in people's minds, and it's obviously impressive that Arizona beat three #1 seeds in route to the national championship in 1997. But they were only a #4 seed because they were solid but not exceptional during the regular season. And I doubt that anyone remembers how Arizona trailed both South Alabama and College of Charleston by double digits earlier on in the tournament (I certainly didn't). So was Arizona the best overall team in college basketball that season? I don't know, maybe. Certainly the way they finished the season is compelling. But all too often those hot teams at the end were ones that were clearly inferior during the regular season.



And just because it's bound to get lost in all the verbiage, I want to point out again that you said "There are currently on a few big games on any football schedule - the rest is just filler," and "aside from established rivalries, there are almost no intra-sectional games in football anymore." Whether or not you want to quibble about the definition of "big game," there's no question that I provided sufficient proof to show that you were wrong about "the rest is just filler" and "almost no intra-sectional games." It would be nice if you could acknowledge that.

 

USC is not a great team. You can tell that when you watch them; they're just living off of reputation this year. I fully expect Oregon and Cal to both beat the Trojans.

 

A mediocre Alabama team played a Hawaii team that was probably better all the way around (especially on defense) and beat them last year. That's all I know about SEC teams and Hawaii. Now what happens if everyone ends up with a loss. What a crazy situation that would be. It'd be LSU vs. ?