Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2008/9 COLLEGE Football Thread

Well, I finally just came out of my media bomb shelter because I had to record the game last night and only just watched it. :)

I knew it was going to be a low-scoring game, but I was really hoping Tebow would get his comeuppance. There's always next year.

Not much else to say about the game, so on to the final rankings!

I'm pretty proud of the non-BCS. We almost had THREE teams in the top ten! I'm disappointed that Oregon passed Boise State being as though we beat them in their house, but I wasn't surprised. But three teams in the top 11 is pretty impressive as well. Go non-BCS! :D

Seems there's a decent chance Boise State will begin next season pre-ranked in the top ten.

For a year that was dubbed "rebuilding" at the beginning of the season I'm pretty happy for my Boys in Blue!

Here's to next season!

:D
 
Detroit

majordude said:
Ironically, you're making him sound like Jesus. :rolleyes:

And it's pretty bad when people would rather be a Florida Gator for free than a Detroit Lion for $38 million dollars. :eek:
Click to expand...

Even if Tebow had entered the draft, I don't think he'd be headed to the Lions. They'll probably pick up Stafford, who fits into the role of NFL passer better than Tebow.

What I do know is that it's great to be a Florida Gator! I've got to get my rear in gear and put up my photos from Miami.
 
obey908 said:
those are final according to fox. i hate fox. they don't broadcast college football all year, then we get stuck with them and their crappy announcers for the bowls

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex ...thats the real final
Click to expand...

I'm happy with the rankings, no matter who's making them. :) Now, once Harvin and Spikes announce their intentions, I can relax until September. Well, relax might not be the right word.
 
obey908 said:
those are final according to fox. i hate fox. they don't broadcast college football all year, then we get stuck with them and their crappy announcers for the bowls
Click to expand...

I agree. Plus their NFL "A Team" with Joe Buck is bad. He has no emotion and isn't a football guy either.

AND... their sporting events are 720 instead of 1080 HD! Grrrr! :mad:
 
Honestly if there was a NCAA playoff,I would miss bowl games.Unless they did something like play bowl games,then have the #1 and #2 teams after bowl season play a final championship game.

But we gotta remember these are school kids playing,and we gotta be careful how many games we make them play in.
 
Look at the NFL. No one is happy that the Eagles or Cardinals are playing for their conference championship. The Chargers had a poor record as well. This is what happens with a playoff system. The regular season means nothing.

Frankly, with bowl viewership up an average of 3%, the BCS isn't going anywhere.

Bowl TV Ratings (with increase/decrease from last year)
BCS Title Game, 15.8 (+10%)
Rose, 11.7 (+5%)
Fiesta, 10.4 (+35%)
Sugar, 7.8 (+11%)
Capital One, 6.4 (-30%)
Orange, 5.4 (-27%)
Champs Sports, 4.5 (+41%)
Cotton, 4.4 (+26%)
Gator, 4.1 (+58%)
Emerald, 4.0 (+29%)
Meineke Car Care, 3.9 (+22%)
Alamo, 3.9 (+70%)
Holiday, 3.9 (+5%)
Chick-fil-A, 3.4 (-23%)
Poinsettia, 3.2 (+88%)
Outback, 2.7 (-7%)
Hawaii, 2.6 (+100%)
Music City, 2.4 (-29%)
Liberty, 2.3 (-34%)
Sun, 2.2 (-4%)
New Mexico, 2.2 (+29%)
Las Vegas, 2.2 (+5%)
Motor City, 2.1 (-9%)
Humanitarian, 2.1 (+200%)
EagleBank, 1.9 (New Bowl)
International, 1.8 (+29%)
Papajohns.com, 1.7 (-12%)
GMAC, 1.7 (+70%)
Armed Forces, 1.4 (-18%)
St. Petersburg, 1.1 (New Bowl)
Independence, 0.8 (-50%)
New Orleans, 0.7 (-50%)
Insight, 0.4 (0%)
Texas, 0.1 (-67%)
 
johnmartin78 said:
Bowl games bring in a ton of money for the schools too.
Click to expand...

That's a lie, most Schools end up having to pay money from their athletic funds just to attend Bowl Games. The Poinsettia Bowl between Boise State and TCU this year, which was regarded as the most exciting non-BCS bowl going into bowl season; only pays $750,000 to teams attending. After the team, the marching band, the equipment and all that goes along with it is shipped to the location and kept there for a few days that money is all but gone, and many times it is gone and the University is left with a bill.

It's essentially only the BCS games that actually end up being profitable for the schools. And even then, if it's a non-BCS school the profits are not what I'd call "tons of money for the school"

SLC
 
SLC Flyfishing said:
It's probably because we have an overwhelmingly winning record against BCS schools.
SLC
Click to expand...

Hardly overwhelming.

Since 2000, Utah is 17-10 (.629) versus BCS schools. Pretty good, but let's dig deeper by looking at each season, I'll post the opponent, their opponent's overall record that year, and the outcome.

2000
Arizona (5-6) L
California (3-8) L
Washington St. (4-7) L

2001
Indiana (5-6) W
Oregon (11-1) L
USC (6-6) W

2002
Arizona (4-8) L
Indiana (3-9) W
Michigan (10-3) L

2003
Cal (8-6) W
Oregon (8-5) W
S. Miss (9-4) W
Texas A&M (4-8) L

2004
Arizona (3-8) W
N. Carolina (6-6) W
Pitt (8-4) W
Texas A&M (7-5) W

2005
Arizona (3-8) W
Georgia Tech (7-5) W
N. Carolina (5-6) L

2006
UCLA (7-6) L

2007
Louisville (6-6) W
Oregon St. (9-4) L
UCLA (6-7) W

2008
Alabama (12-2) W
Michigan (3-9) W
Oregon St. (9-4) W

So in summary, your 'overwhelming' wins came against teams with a combined record of 109-100 (.521). In fact, Alabama is the only BCS school that Utah has beaten who had more than 9 wins. Over half of the wins (9) came against teams with a non-winning record. Your losses came against teams with a record of 62-57 (.521). Over half of the losses (6) came against teams with a non-winning record. Utah has lost to opponents which have the same winning percentage to those that they beat, both of which are mediocre. The combined record of BCS opponents Utah faced in these 27 games is 171-157 (.521). That translates to Utah winning against mediocre teams and losing against mediocre teams.

SLC, all you talk about is the number of wins that Utah has: 12-0 this year, and a winning record against BCS schools. You always fail to incorporate the quality of opponent that goes into those numbers. Frankly, Utah just doesn't stack up. I'm sorry, but the fact that Utah is 17-10 against teams that only have winning records of .521 (meaning the middle to lower schools of the BCS conferences) is indeed 'overwhelming', overwhelmingly mediocre and unimpressive that is. It proves nothings. Until you play BCS schools week in and out, and against the best teams at that (not the crappy schools of the BCS conferences), Utah has no argument that they play an equivalent schedule.
 
gibbz said:
Hardly overwhelming.

Since 2000, Utah is 17-10 (.629) versus BCS schools. Pretty good, but let's dig deeper by looking at each season, I'll post the opponent, their opponent's overall record that year, and the outcome.

2000
Arizona (5-6) L
California (3-8) L
Washington St. (4-7) L

2001
Indiana (5-6) W
Oregon (11-1) L
USC (6-6) W

2002
Arizona (4-8) L
Indiana (3-9) W
Michigan (10-3) L

2003
Cal (8-6) W
Oregon (8-5) W
S. Miss (9-4) W
Texas A&M (4-8) L

2004
Arizona (3-8) W
N. Carolina (6-6) W
Pitt (8-4) W
Texas A&M (7-5) W

2005
Arizona (3-8) W
Georgia Tech (7-5) W
N. Carolina (5-6) L

2006
UCLA (7-6) L

2007
Louisville (6-6) W
Oregon St. (9-4) L
UCLA (6-7) W

2008
Alabama (12-2) W
Michigan (3-9) W
Oregon St. (9-4) W

So in summary, your 'overwhelming' wins came against teams with a combined record of 109-100 (.521). In fact, Alabama is the only BCS school that Utah has beaten who had more than 9 wins. Over half of the wins (9) came against teams with a non-winning record. Your losses came against teams with a record of 62-57 (.521). Over half of the losses (6) came against teams with a non-winning record. Utah has lost to opponents which have the same winning percentage to those that they beat, both of which are mediocre. The combined record of BCS opponents Utah faced in these 27 games is 171-157 (.521). That translates to Utah winning against mediocre teams and losing against mediocre teams.

SLC, all you talk about is the number of wins that Utah has: 12-0 this year, and a winning record against BCS schools. You always fail to incorporate the quality of opponent that goes into those numbers. Frankly, Utah just doesn't stack up. I'm sorry, but the fact that Utah is 17-10 against teams that only have winning records of .521 (meaning the middle to lower schools of the BCS conferences) is indeed 'overwhelming', overwhelmingly mediocre and unimpressive that is. It proves nothings. Until you play BCS schools week in and out, and against the best teams at that (not the crappy schools of the BCS conferences), Utah has no argument that they play an equivalent schedule.
Click to expand...

Wow Gibbz, how much effort did you put into researching all that information? You seem to be really bent out of shape about this Utah talk that's been going around. I'd suggest giving up on it!

SLC
 
benthewraith said:
So your only response to someone who posts statistics is an ad hominem? Right. Not helping your case for Utah.
Click to expand...

What case for Utah?
If you are referring to them deserving a shot at the national title, then the case for Utah doesn't need any help. Especially not from this message board or it's readers. Anyone who's intellectually honest knows that they were robbed by a corrupt system, and that they have the single most compelling case to be allowed to play for the title, yet were not even considered.


SLC
 
And if you look at the numbers for the past 5 seasons, Utah is 13 and 4 against BCS schools. Utah's football team has really come into it's own since 2003 when Urban Meyer turned the program around.

Utah's BCS opponents since 2003 have had a record of 120 and 103 (0.538) and these teams represent the "higher caliber" conferences that Utah needs to play in in-order to be a legitimate title contender? All I see is a bunch of mediocre teams that seem weaker than the contenders in Utah's own Mountain West Conference.

SLC
 
SLC Flyfishing said:
Wow Gibbz, how much effort did you put into researching all that information? You seem to be really bent out of shape about this Utah talk that's been going around. I'd suggest giving up on it!

SLC
Click to expand...

Not much effort really. The internet is a vast expanse of information. I am not bent out of shape about anything. Utah is not the national champion and won't be this year, as much as it may hurt you to hear. Florida is the national champion (as much as it hurts me as a sooner fan to hear), which they won by a system that everyone played in.

I have nothing to get over. I simply provide stats to make my case instead of empty rhetoric such as "Anyone who's intellectually honest knows that they were robbed by a corrupt system." I don't know that everyone knows, show me some stats. You still never defended the stats I gave for the MWC here or here.

SLC Flyfishing said:
And if you look at the numbers for the past 5 seasons, Utah is 13 and 4 against BCS schools. Utah's football team has really come into it's own since 2003 when Urban Meyer turned the program around.

Utah's BCS opponents since 2003 have had a record of 120 and 103 (0.538) and these teams represent the "higher caliber" conferences that Utah needs to play in in-order to be a legitimate title contender? All I see is a bunch of mediocre teams that seem weaker than the contenders in Utah's own Mountain West Conference.

SLC
Click to expand...

Interesting logic. You try to discredit the "higher caliber" conferences by saying that your BCS opponents have had a winning percentage of only .538, implying that they are weak. Well I agree, your opponents have been weak because Utah has for the most part only played the lower tier teams of the BCS conferences. Until Utah routinely plays teams like Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Georgia, USC, etc in the regular season, like the true contenders do, your twisted logic fails.
 
Photos from the BCS National Championship

I've posted some photos from the BCS NC in South Florida:

http://gallery.me.com/jimothy/100288

http://gallery.me.com/jimothy/100305

http://gallery.me.com/jimothy/100295

My shots from the game aren't anything all that great; go to Sports Illustrated for that. But taking pictures of the fans before, during, and after the game was great fun. Obviously, you'll see a Gator bias in these shots, but I do have a few pictures of smiling Oklahoma fans. Obviously, the smiles were before the game.
 
Hey Badandy - what do you think of Sanchez's decision to enter the draft? Pete didn't seem to think it was a good call, and I tend to agree. But I only saw three USC games this season - I figure I'd ask the resident USC jacka...errr...expert. :) :)
 
dmr727 said:
Hey Badandy - what do you think of Sanchez's decision to enter the draft? Pete didn't seem to think it was a good call, and I tend to agree. But I only saw three USC games this season - I figure I'd ask the resident USC jacka...errr...expert. :) :)
Click to expand...

Bradford not leaving cleared up one more spot in front of him. Maybe this was his best year to go. I agree that it doesn't seem like a good call.
 
dmr727 said:
Hey Badandy - what do you think of Sanchez's decision to enter the draft? Pete didn't seem to think it was a good call, and I tend to agree. But I only saw three USC games this season - I figure I'd ask the resident USC jacka...errr...expert. :) :)
Click to expand...

I think it's probably a good call. Not many people are mad at him on campus. You have to realize that while it's nice and all to want these kids to finish their education or stay "one more year", it's a business decision in the end. Put frankly, Sanchez is a very good quarterback, but not a once in a lifetime player like Reggie Bush. With players like Reggie Bush, they can come out whenever they want and get picked number 1 or 2. With Sanchez, I think the outside environment dictated his decision more than anything.

As the poster above me said, Bradford not coming out was pretty big in my opinion. The less competition the better and if he waited another year he'd have to compete with both Bradford and McCoy rather than just Stafford. I think he made the right decision for himself although it might hurt USC a little bit. Remember though, we have Mitch Mustain, Aaron Corp, and Matt Barkley, vying for the spot so it's not like we're in any trouble...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back