College Football 2010-2011

[Rolf]

Just because there are exceptions to the rule, what exactly do you think that proves? So 4 "big name" schools manage to lose a year out of like 200 games of these sorts. Holy upset, Batman! Why does it matter if it is some sort of a "chance" if it is a chance that works out at a ratio of 1% or 2% or 3%? That is terrible.

Just because small schools are as greedy for attention as big schools is supposed to make it all okay? Every time a school hangs 52-0 or 52-3 on another school it is an embarrassment to everyone involved, especially the hard working players being wrecked with "national" exposure. Just because people care more when the little team wins the 1/50 times than the big team winning the 49/50 times does not make this situation magically different, it makes people terrible.

I think it means more than you make it out to be when a little school is able to even hold its own against big-name schools. OU's loss to BYU last year springboarded BYU (they were overrated yes, but nonetheless) into a national perspective, something that really hadn't been done since the Detmer era. That one win put BYU in a place in which it could prove its worth. That one win gave Max Hall the opportunity to play in Arizona where he lead his team to a win. And again, OU played a seemingly-helpless Utah State in what turned out to be a very close game. Even though USU couldn't pull it out in the end, it gives them a hope for the rest of the season, and possibly for a string of years, in which they will succeed based on that one success.

Admittedly, USU isn't really going anywhere with their history against ranked teams, so I get where you're coming from. But that doesn't mean that the close game won't give them hope against the weaker teams in the WAC, especially after BSU leaves, and their ability to (maybe) win the conference. It marks a change in a program.

 

[CaptKirby]

BYU is not a "little school" in terms of football power, not even close to what I am talking about. BYU has been one of the most notable mid-majors for years. I am talking the UNTs of the world, the Louisana-Monroes of the world, the FAMUs of the world. Fresno State would be another example of what I am not talking about - they have been good enough various years to take teams like USC as a powerhouse to the wire. I am talking schools that lose by 40 points any time they face any BCS school, and every school schedules two of these sorts of games a year or more (except USC and Stanford and/or Washington I forget about them).

 

[Polis4rule]

He's talking about FCS schools, not mid major FBS schools where you actually have to try and could very well likely lose.

And honestly, I'm all for that. Even if the majors just played mid major schools, that's significantly different than playing FCS schools

 

[CaptKirby]

Well I mean Division II schools mostly (whatever bullshit that is called now), but for instance for a Big 12 team (which deal with Texas a lot, and is what I know best) you might pick: Rice, UNT, SMU, UTEP, et cetera; each school knows it is probably winning easily and/or big. Even if a school has to schedule these things what 2-3 years out? You know that UNT is not turning its program around in three years. I am just so in favor of every team playing other big teams; sure, a school may finish 6-6 instead of 8-4 then, but that 6-6 will be so much more interesting and the games so much more entertaining.

 

[Alan]

Making a person eat shit naked on national television would help them out, but it would still be an embarrassment for her/him and the world at large for it happening. You can take that as hyperbole if you want, but I really do not think it is - big name colleges bully the fuck out of little ones, throw them some pitiful cash, and say "we square right?" It is a gross embarrassment to all big name colleges and to the system. No big name college should play a SINGLE little guy. All Big 12 teams should all be playing each other and the like.

hey, i didnt say it was a good idea but im just saying thats why some smaller schools do it.

 

[ThePatriot]

Im not really suprised that TCU beat OSU, although i thought that the score would have been lower. At least TCU has balls and plays a decent team for their first game.

 

[Nozizaki]

Im not really suprised that TCU beat OSU, although i thought that the score would have been lower. At least TCU has balls and plays a decent team for their first game.

I figured TCU would win it in the 4th quarter, and OSU would atleast keep it close until then, all in all a satisifying game.

Honestly, I wouldn't be suprised if TCU was the one who BCS Busted the Championship. Boise State is very good, but they have VT tomorrow and Oregon State later on.

 

[Polis4rule]

I was agreeing with you CK, to let you know.

In my opinion, Oregon State should still be ranked even after losing to TCU. They played a hell of a game, and kept it relatively close. Why shouldn't they be ranked over teams that struggled to beat the "easy" opponents?

 

[CaptKirby]

I was agreeing with you CK, to let you know.

In my opinion, Oregon State should still be ranked even after losing to TCU. They played a hell of a game, and kept it relatively close. Why shouldn't they be ranked over teams that struggled to beat the "easy" opponents?

I know you were agreeing, I was just nuancing.

No need to get ahead of ourselves on TCU, as if they are free from guilt. They are facing Tennessee Tech for their second game, and if you have no idea who they are, there is a reason for that. Almost no one is free from the guilt, although of course playing all nobodies with your nonconference schedule is worse than playing a somebody and all nobodies.

 

[WarriorPrince]

I watched the Auburn game yesterday. [ I attend the school]

They got a few turnovers, but they have a young team[defensively mostly and the Quarterback is just getting the start]. If they give it some time they may give the other Sec giants a run for their money. I doubt if they will win the SEC though. I think Alabama will win the SEC though, no doubt.

 

[Rolf]

BYU is not a "little school" in terms of football power, not even close to what I am talking about. BYU has been one of the most notable mid-majors for years. I am talking the UNTs of the world, the Louisana-Monroes of the world, the FAMUs of the world. Fresno State would be another example of what I am not talking about - they have been good enough various years to take teams like USC as a powerhouse to the wire. I am talking schools that lose by 40 points any time they face any BCS school, and every school schedules two of these sorts of games a year or more (except USC and Stanford and/or Washington I forget about them).

That makes more sense; I'm not sure what irked me about the original post now that made me reply to it anymore...

That said, I'm proud in general of the MWC performance in week one. TCU, Utah, and BYU were all able to pull out some pretty big wins even through their mistakes. Air Force is scheduled against OU in two weeks - potentially could be very good for the MWC. (Will OU fall again?) BYU is still tweaking the two quarterback thing. Personally, I'd like to see Riley Nelson play a kind of running back / direct-snap threat with Jake Heaps at a pure-QB position. I know it's not going to happen, but man that would be fun to watch. Utah and TCU are both pushing to be the possible non-AQ Championship team that could possibly show up from the MWC, and both showed up (at least decently) well at their opening games. This year could be the year.

 

[eastamazonantidote]

I was very impressed with the TCU/OSU game. One of the best-matched college football games I've seen in a long time. Kudos the OSU for not allowing the touchdown at the cost of a safety to keep the game somewhat in reach. That's smart football. Not at all like the 72-0 UO/UNM game.

 

[ThePatriot]

I want to see how Navy fares against Maryland. Im not sure how good Maryland's defense is but i know how good Navy's offense is.

Not that im a Navy fan, they are just fun to watch and always make for an entertaining game.

 

[Polis4rule]

Excited to see how Boise does in this game. I'm not exactly a fan of Boise (I prefer TCU for the non-AQ teams), but I still do want to see them perform well. If they win this game, there's a very good chance that they'll go undefeated, with only Oregon State standing in its way.

 

[UncleSam]

I think Boise is going to win today; they are just so consistent in their performances year-in and year-out, even in high-pressure situations, that I don't see Virginia Tech beating them.

Also, excited to see how Michigan-Notre Dame will end up next week, given that both won their openers.

 

[Lakers]

Even though im an ND fan im actually excited for this game against Michigan. Michigan seems to finally have turned things around a bit and this is gonna be a make or break game for ND. If Brian Kelly's 3-4 fast pace D really has turned it around (which it appeared so as they were pouring it on before that fumble recovery for a TD was brought back) then Michigan should be an easy game for them and maybe they'll jump back into the polls again

 

[Polis4rule]

I watched the VT v. Boise State game. I wasn't impressed with Boise State. They needed a lot of VT mistakes in order to keep in the game (first 17 points came from VT mistakes).

Of course I'm going to be told, "lol boy-zee state beet vt they were so much better they can beat evryone lol!!!" I mean, come on. They had a 17 point lead at the beginning of the game and then needed some help on the last drive scoring, that's what I would be worried about, especially against offensive powerhouses in Ohio State and Alabama. If you're wishing high hopes for Boise State, I don't think they'll deliver.

 

[Nozizaki]

Of course I'm going to be told, "lol boy-zee state beet vt they were so much better they can beat evryone lol!!!" I mean, come on. They had a 17 point lead at the beginning of the game and then needed some help on the last drive scoring, that's what I would be worried about, especially against offensive powerhouses in Ohio State and Alabama. If you're wishing high hopes for Boise State, I don't think they'll deliver.

Um, I'm almost certain Ohio State is completely over-rated, and will be out of the National Championship picture.

And I'm going to agree with you, Boise made mistakes and had problems, but they've been so consistent in past years.

 

[ck49]

Just watch the hawkeyes from last year, and you can what Boise State is this year. They have a strong defense and a clutch QB, and along with good skill everywhere else. They definitely have what it takes to win big, however sceptics will point out that they ONLY won by 3 points. We don't know how good Va tech is so early. They have the potential to be a top 10 team, and just because they were out of synch in the first game, that doesn't mean this game shouldn't count. The reason why college football is better than the pro game is because every game counts.

Also, I think Va tech isnt being commended enough for coming back. To get back a 13 point lead against a top 5 caliber team is nearly impossible, and they managed to do it. So congrats to them. Of course, it wasnt enough.

 

[Roy]

Texas A&M to win the Big 12 and beat Texas on their home turf. Let's go CK!

 

[CaptKirby]

Well sure it is barely possible Roy, but keep dreaming...

 

[WaterBomb]

hey buck up your school can go 6-6 and make a meaningless bowl!

Lol they always do, it's just like the Playtex Tampon bowl or something silly like that. I wish they didn't have a million bowls to delude bad teams into thinking they're worth something (my own included). It's like giving medals to everyone in the special olympics.

Wasn't there a discussion a while back about converting to a playoff-type system like the NFL? How did that turn out?

 

[CaptKirby]

The bowls have been inflated to absurdity. A 7-5 or 6-6 team that beat (like I was harping on before) two or more shitty little schools making a bowl...? Really?! This is why I am so much behind an 8/16 game playoff + bowls system. Even if the rest is a farce below 8-4, especially with a 16 game playoff, some real meaning will be added. Unfortunately, the current system makes such an ungodly amount of money, 6-6 team versus 8-4 team in a shit bowl included, that a playoff system is, from a "security" standpoint, completely unreasonable/unnecessary a risk. That is why the discussion went absolutely fucking nowhere.

MY least favorite part of this bowl bullshit is that it is usually more like a 6-6 team versus a 9-3 team. Come on!! Give us at least as many decent games as we can get. No team 8-4 or better should be playing another team that is not 8-4 and better! Even if "upsets" may be exciting, 9-3 LSU versus 9-3 Miami is the type of game everyone wants to see, not 9-3 Texas versus 6-6 Iowa or whatever it was when we played them.

 

[Lakers]

well, I think the problem with this is in a 16 game playoff, the winner is basically playing a full NFL season and they are still developing athletes. Of course, a playoff is what everyone wants to see but at the end of the day a 16 game playoff might be a bit unrealistc

 

[ck49]

yeah, capt, it was 6-6 Iowa. I remember going to my friend's house to watch that game, finding out he didnt have espn, and coming back to my house. However, iirc, that was a on possession game and Iowa had a chance to win on the last play.

I think a playoff is needed, but 16 teams. I think it should be like basketball, where the winner of each conference, and 5 extra teams are picked and put to the test. If a team like Ball state goes undefeated like a couple years ago, but are bound to get ranked around #10, so be it. If they are that good, they should be able to beat anyone regardless of seeding.