Thread: NCAA football

  1. #2781
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by xuros View Post
    Nothing at all to be honest.

    - - - Updated - - -



    ^^THIS all day^^
    based on what? FSU barely squeaked by a very bad auburn defense. what do you think MSU could do to them?

  2. #2782
    Legendary! muto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Inside a Bubble
    Posts
    6,267
    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    based on what? FSU barely squeaked by a very bad auburn defense. what do you think MSU could do to them?
    Well considering they gave up 28 points to Michigan, Nebraska (back up QB) and Indiana, I like the Heisman winner's chances. And let us also not forget FSU has the best points against defense, and offense scoring wise in the league.

  3. #2783
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Well considering they gave up 28 points to Michigan, Nebraska (back up QB) and Indiana, I like the Heisman winner's chances. And let us also not forget FSU has the best points against defense, and offense scoring wise in the league.
    when did they give up 28 points to Michigan? and for the record, 14 of those 56 points to Nebraska and Indiana were in garbage time, with 3rd string players in.

    Nebraskas backup QB had been playing all season.

  4. #2784
    I give up on this thread, it's pretty apparent that these SEC fans have given up on their team and rally behind whichever team is on top of the bandwagon. Their best team lost, their second best team lost, now they rally to the arbitrary "# of teams in the AP". Whooptedo. Their favorite teams below:

    Baseball: American League
    NCAA F: SEC
    Pro F: NFC South
    Basketball: Eastern Conference

  5. #2785
    Pit Lord Packers01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkaholic View Post
    I give up on this thread, it's pretty apparent that these SEC fans have given up on their team and rally behind whichever team is on top of the bandwagon. Their best team lost, their second best team lost, now they rally to the arbitrary "# of teams in the AP". Whooptedo. Their favorite teams below:

    Baseball: American League
    NCAA F: SEC
    Pro F: NFC South
    Basketball: Eastern Conference
    Spot on. How pathetic do you have to be to root for a whole league, and then talk shit about it?
    Everyone's an atheist, some people just take it one god further.


    You can't kill a debt collector and you shouldn't kill a child-Mall Security

  6. #2786
    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    why is the big 12 left on an island?

    system should be:
    8 team playoffs.
    SEC/ACC/Big 12/Big 10/Pac 12 Winners in.
    3 Wild Cards.
    How can you win a conference with no conference championship game?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by gismo7354 View Post
    I'm really tired of the quality loss. Looking at you A&M on this one. I'm also tired of as soon as a non-SEC team loses a game they are now considered exposed and overrated.
    works both ways. People are calling the SEC over rated even though they still have 7 ranked teams and 4 in the top 10. But honestly I think only SC and Auburn earned a top 10 finish. Missouri didnt really beat anyone. Sure GA, Ole Miss, MS St, and FL were all ranked at the time but all finished the season unranked so those are just garbage wins. Auburn should still be top 10 because they only lost to a #14 LSU. Say what you want about LSU losing to Florida but its still a stupid hard place to play in. Also Auburn was supposed to lose by double digits and if the game was only 59:30 long they would have won. SC beat 6 bowl winners including 2 BCS bowl winners, and went 3-0 against top 10 ranked teams during the season. Im talking teams that finished the season in the top 10 not some over rated scrub that started top 10 then ended up unranked. Thats better than the 3 teams ranked ahead of them. Yet people are so butt hurt over SC being #4. Seriously who else won their bowl and also beat 3 top 10 teams and 6 bowl winners?

    With a 4 team playoff using this season's final rankings it would have been Mich St, SC, Auburn, and FSU. I think that would have made for some pretty good games. FSU vs SC and Auburn vs Mich St in the first round. Probably ends up being FSU vs Mich St in the NCG.
    Last edited by Lilly32; 2014-01-08 at 11:46 PM.

  7. #2787
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilly32 View Post
    How can you win a conference with no conference championship game?

    - - - Updated - - -



    works both ways. People are calling the SEC over rated even though they still have 7 ranked teams and 4 in the top 10. But honestly I think only SC and Auburn earned a top 10 finish. Missouri didnt really beat anyone. Sure GA, Ole Miss, MS St, and FL were all ranked at the time but all finished the season unranked so those are just garbage wins. Auburn should still be top 10 because they only lost to a #14 LSU. Say what you want about LSU losing to Florida but its still a stupid hard place to play in. Also Auburn was supposed to lose by double digits and if the game was only 59:30 long they would have won. SC beat 6 bowl winners including 2 BCS bowl winners, and went 3-0 against top 10 ranked teams during the season. Im talking teams that finished the season in the top 10 not some over rated scrub that started top 10 then ended up unranked. Thats better than the 3 teams ranked ahead of them. Yet people are so butt hurt over SC being #4. Seriously who else won their bowl and also beat 3 top 10 teams and 6 bowl winners?

    With a 4 team playoff using this season's final rankings it would have been Mich St, SC, Auburn, and FSU. I think that would have made for some pretty good games. FSU vs SC and Auburn vs Mich St in the first round. Probably ends up being FSU vs Mich St in the NCG.
    people are calling the SEC overrated because the fans act like there conference is 3-4 notches above every other conference. i just watched 9 SC beat 19 Wisconsin by 10. with wisconsin using its backup QB.
    i watched Nebraska (unranked) beat #22 Georgia
    and i watched Iowa (unranked) give #16 LSU all it cuold handle.

    furthermore, Alabama lost to OU and Auburn managed to lose despite having an 18 point lead at halftime, and gave up 21 points in the 4th quarter alone.

    they aren't several notches above the rest of the conferences, they are a notch.

  8. #2788
    gonna say the same thing I have said 1000 times here and to my friends. Rankings are total bullshit. So a higher ranked team only beat a lower or even unranked team by 7-10 points. A win is a win. You dont get bonus points for winning by 50. You can't take the extra points and add them to the next game. Also so what if you lost to a lower ranked team or even an unranked team during the season? A loss is a loss. If you lost to a #6 team and they finished the season unranked how is that any different from losing to an unranked team? If two teams are 12-2 then it shouldnt matter who those losses are to. If there was a proper playoff system in place who you lost to wouldnt matter as long as you still won your conference. Obviously if there was some crazy 3 way tie at the end of the season then yes strength of schedule should come in but only after all other tie breakers are exhausted

    Hell the Patriots only beat the garbage Texans by 3 points and gave up 31 points. They also only beat the Jets by 3 in one game and then lost in the second game. Both the Saints and the Seahawks only beat a 4-12 Bucs team by 3. Panthers 12-4 and #2 seed in the NFC lost to the 6-10 Bills. Are they all horrible teams and over rated? No and thats because there is no retarded ass ranking system in the NFL that rates wins and losses.
    Last edited by Lilly32; 2014-01-09 at 12:07 AM.

  9. #2789
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,379
    so if a loss is a loss and thats all that matters, why is auburn still #2?

  10. #2790
    Quote Originally Posted by marcelos11 View Post
    so if a loss is a loss and thats all that matters, why is auburn still #2?
    because they lost the title game. Im talking during the regular season. If you lose to a 2-10 team how is that different than a 10-2 team? If they are going to use conference winners as automatic seeds into the playoff then just win that. As long as you have rankings then everyone is still going to go. "OMG the winner of the Big 10 lost to two unranked teams and got in while a Pac-12 team with the exact same record lost to the #7 and #16 but didnt get in." It should always come down to "OK yes you both had the same records but they won their conference and you didnt." Their should be no discussion of how you lost or who you lost to only that you lost
    Last edited by Lilly32; 2014-01-09 at 12:27 AM.

  11. #2791
    Scarab Lord Roose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tuscaloosa
    Posts
    4,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkaholic View Post
    I give up on this thread, it's pretty apparent that these SEC fans have given up on their team and rally behind whichever team is on top of the bandwagon. Their best team lost, their second best team lost, now they rally to the arbitrary "# of teams in the AP". Whooptedo. Their favorite teams below:

    Baseball: American League
    NCAA F: SEC
    Pro F: NFC South
    Basketball: Eastern Conference
    I guess all things are arbitrary to those that refuse to follow reason.

    The official division of SEC fans in baseball is the NL East, duh. Shows how much you know...

  12. #2792
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilly32 View Post
    because they lost the title game. Im talking during the regular season. If you lose to a 2-10 team how is that different than a 10-2 team? If they are going to use conference winners as automatic seeds into the playoff then just win that. As long as you have rankings then everyone is still going to go. "OMG the winner of the Big 10 lost to two unranked teams and got in while a Pac-12 team with the exact same record lost to the #7 and #16 but didnt get in." It should always come down to "OK yes you both had the same records but they won their conference and you didnt." Their should be no discussion of how you lost or who you lost to only that you lost
    you just said it your self. no discussion of who or who you lost to. only that you lost. Auburn blew an 18 point lead. Auburn barely squeeked by its 2 last games in the regular season games.

  13. #2793
    Scarab Lord Roose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tuscaloosa
    Posts
    4,945
    Auburn blew an 18 point lead to the national title favorite. You know what that means? It means that at one point they were beating the favored team by a lot. Regardless of win or loss, how does exceeding expectations lead to underperformance? Does that mean that Auburn is bad or that FSU is simply better? Also, if only winning matters, then wtf does it matter how Auburn won their two games to finish the season? Last I checked it took a miracle by FSU to win the game, so where is the depreciation in their win? At least be consistent.

    It is mind boggling how some of you think that a loss is a loss. Maybe that why you have such a hard time understanding or accepting rankings. It DOES matter who you lose to, just like it matters who you have beaten. It matters a ton. You can't lose to mediocre teams and expect to get the same treatment as a team that loses to a strong team.

    If you want quality of opponents not to matter, go watch pro sports. In college sports rankings matter, and that means that you have different degrees of loss, just like wins. It matters in both football and basketball, and I imagine the same goes for the less popular sports as well.

    Quality of wins and losses will matter even more next season when the selection committee chooses the final four teams.

  14. #2794
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Roose View Post
    Auburn blew an 18 point lead to the national title favorite. You know what that means? It means that at one point they were beating the favored team by a lot. Regardless of win or loss, how does exceeding expectations lead to underperformance? Does that mean that Auburn is bad or that FSU is simply better? Also, if only winning matters, then wtf does it matter how Auburn won their two games to finish the season? Last I checked it took a miracle by FSU to win the game, so where is the depreciation in their win? At least be consistent.

    It is mind boggling how some of you think that a loss is a loss. Maybe that why you have such a hard time understanding or accepting rankings. It DOES matter who you lose to, just like it matters who you have beaten. It matters a ton. You can't lose to mediocre teams and expect to get the same treatment as a team that loses to a strong team.

    If you want quality of opponents not to matter, go watch pro sports. In college sports rankings matter, and that means that you have different degrees of loss, just like wins. It matters in both football and basketball, and I imagine the same goes for the less popular sports as well.

    Quality of wins and losses will matter even more next season when the selection committee chooses the final four teams.
    personally, i don't follow the "a loss is a loss" mantra. i am using his arguement against him to point out his flaws. it's standard debate tactic.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Michigan fires Al Borges - good for them.
    Michigan hires Doug Nussmeier - good for them.

    Michigan fans are already claiming the end of Sparty's reign over the state of Michigan.
    seriously. how delusional is this fan base? changing your OC isn't going to change things enough to erase a 23 point defecit, especially when your only good offensive lineman are going away, your run game still sucks, and your best wide reciever is leaving.

  15. #2795
    Quote Originally Posted by Roose View Post
    It is mind boggling how some of you think that a loss is a loss. Maybe that why you have such a hard time understanding or accepting rankings. It DOES matter who you lose to, just like it matters who you have beaten. It matters a ton. You can't lose to mediocre teams and expect to get the same treatment as a team that loses to a strong team.

    If you want quality of opponents not to matter, go watch pro sports. In college sports rankings matter, and that means that you have different degrees of loss, just like wins. It matters in both football and basketball, and I imagine the same goes for the less popular sports as well.
    What if you lose to a team when they are unranked but they end up being ranked? Then was it a bad loss because they were unranked at the time even though they were ranked a few weeks later? No it doesnt you drop a lot of ranks because you lost to an unranked team. Losing to a unranked team who ends up being ranked 2-3 weeks later isnt the same even though you lost to the same team. Lets look at Texas A&M. They were #7 when they played Auburn who was #24 at the time. A&M loses and falls to #16 just for losing to the team who played in the NCG and finished #2 all because at the time they were only #24. It was still the same damn team. They didnt start eating their wheeties and doing roids to magically become #2 at the end of the season. There were good the entire time. Thats what Im trying to make with rankings being bullshit. Losing to Auburn when they were #24 is no different than if they were #2. Yes A&M did go on to have a bad season only having 1 win vs ranked teams but thats a different discussion and can even be used against Auburn saying A&M shouldnt have even counted as beating a top 10 team which ended up boosting Aubrun from #24 all the way to #11

    The ranking system is so flawed its ridiculous to think it actually does any good. Lets use FSU's schedule as an example. First game of the year somehow GA is already a top 5 team having not even played a single game. Clemson beats GA. Now Clemson is obviously going to move up. Florida State then comes in a few weeks later and absolutely destroys Clemson. So now the people who do the rankings are going holy shit FSU is legit they just crushed Clemson who beat a top 5 SEC team in GA. During the second week unranked Miami beats a #12 Florida Team. Again people are gong OMG The U was unranked and beat a ranked SEC team. Up goes their ranking until eventually they are ranked #7 when FSU and Miami meet. FSU blows out another top 10 team so by now people are going holy shit these guys are the real deal.

    Now lets look back on those so called big time wins with the season over. GA, FL, Miami all unranked and had horrible seasons. Miami got crushed in their bowl game and Florida lost to GA Southern. This is why rankings are bad. 3 very very bad teams basically had a hand in catapulting FSU into the title game. How can those be considered quality wins if the teams are unranked? Granted Clemson is still ranked in the top 10 but how much of that is the boost they got by being preseason top 10 and beating #5 GA on opening day? How much did it help FSU by already being ranked #11 before even playing a game? Rankings give unfair advantages to teams regardless of the conference. If you are bad but start out preseason ranked high like GA and FL did then you give a boost to the teams that beat you even though in reality they only beat a very bad team since both are unranked now.

    The SEC favoritism helps or hurts people not even in the SEC. FSU ended up in the title game only because they beat over rated teams who got over rated for beating other over rated SEC teams like FL and GA if that makes any sense. Now could they have still gotten in as the conference winner in a playoff system? Sure they could have. The point Im making is with the current ranking system beating over rated teams only helps you. At the end of the season people arent going to adjust your ranking because those top 10 teams you beat arent ranked anymore.
    Last edited by Lilly32; 2014-01-09 at 05:26 PM.

  16. #2796
    Scarab Lord Roose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tuscaloosa
    Posts
    4,945
    FSU ended up in the title game because they went undefeated. Simple as that. SEC had nothing to do with FSU being in that game.

    As far as ranking changes due to over/under rated teams, that is all taken into consideration in the final rankings. No, it is not perfect, but that is all that we can do. When the committee selects the teams for next year's playoffs they will be looking at overall bodies of work. Those ranking discrepancies will be factored in when making the selections. That is when the quality of wins and losses are evaluated. There was a good reason that the BCS rankings did not release until about halfway through the season.

    Be ready to hate Bama more than ever because we may just pick up Lane Kiffin as our new OC. Not many fans here are too happy about it, but they will get over the hire if Saban makes it.

    Good luck in the offseason, folks.

  17. #2797
    Moderator Pendulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    12,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Roose View Post
    Be ready to hate Bama more than ever because we may just pick up Lane Kiffin as our new OC. Not many fans here are too happy about it, but they will get over the hire if Saban makes it.
    No. The wrath of a thousand suns if this happens.

    General Off-topic/Fun Stuff/Diablo 3/Sports & Fitness mod(rules)------KUPO --------Sig by Elyssia------- Say hello to a world of marigolds

  18. #2798
    i really dont understand recruiting at all. Reading over rivals.com and the rankings just baffle me and just make no sense at all.

    Alabama, Ohio State, and Florida State are 3 of the top 4. OK I will buy that. Tennessee is #3 and are actually ahead of FSU. How the hell does having a terrible season where you finished unranked get you a better recruiting class than the national champions? Notre Dame is #7. They havent been relevant since Lou Holtz was there. Miami is #9. Yea their season was awesome unranked and blown out in their bowl game. Florida is #10 and GA Southern says Hi. Kentucky is #12 which is ahead of both Clemson and SC. I guess running the tables in reverse in conference play makes you a better team than the #4 and #7 teams in the country.

    So when do the rankings at Rivals actually start to get believable because there are some terrible teams with better recruiting classes than teams that finished the season ranked in the top 10.

  19. #2799
    Scarab Lord AceofHarts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Dabrix32 View Post
    i really dont understand recruiting at all. Reading over rivals.com and the rankings just baffle me and just make no sense at all.

    Alabama, Ohio State, and Florida State are 3 of the top 4. OK I will buy that. Tennessee is #3 and are actually ahead of FSU. How the hell does having a terrible season where you finished unranked get you a better recruiting class than the national champions? Notre Dame is #7. They havent been relevant since Lou Holtz was there. Miami is #9. Yea their season was awesome unranked and blown out in their bowl game. Florida is #10 and GA Southern says Hi. Kentucky is #12 which is ahead of both Clemson and SC. I guess running the tables in reverse in conference play makes you a better team than the #4 and #7 teams in the country.

    So when do the rankings at Rivals actually start to get believable because there are some terrible teams with better recruiting classes than teams that finished the season ranked in the top 10.
    because unfortunately recruiting is tied mainly to your name and not your actual performance. look at michigan. always in the top 10. look at there performance.

  20. #2800
    Moderator Stommped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    1,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Dabrix32 View Post
    i really dont understand recruiting at all. Reading over rivals.com and the rankings just baffle me and just make no sense at all.

    Alabama, Ohio State, and Florida State are 3 of the top 4. OK I will buy that. Tennessee is #3 and are actually ahead of FSU. How the hell does having a terrible season where you finished unranked get you a better recruiting class than the national champions? Notre Dame is #7. They havent been relevant since Lou Holtz was there. Miami is #9. Yea their season was awesome unranked and blown out in their bowl game. Florida is #10 and GA Southern says Hi. Kentucky is #12 which is ahead of both Clemson and SC. I guess running the tables in reverse in conference play makes you a better team than the #4 and #7 teams in the country.

    So when do the rankings at Rivals actually start to get believable because there are some terrible teams with better recruiting classes than teams that finished the season ranked in the top 10.
    The majority of next year's recruits are committed and signed before the season even begins. There's a handful that wait until Sept/Oct/Nov, but not many. This most recent college season will have the biggest impact on 2015/16 recruits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •