2009/10 College Football Thread

[Tomorrow]

That's 3 losses to the WAC and the MWC in the past 5 years against one of the most dominant teams in all of college football, and 2 out of those 3 losses came in the early part of the season when Oklahoma should have been strongest not gone through the "Big 12 Gauntlet" yet.

But Oklahoma is 2 and 3 against the two conferences in the last 5 years. That should be telling enough. Most people talk the line that they should be 5 and 0.

Where's the dominant big 12 play?

Okay, so your argument against the BCS can be summed up as follows:

Over the course of the past five seasons, OU has lost to the best team in the WAC and two of the three best teams in the MWC. Nevermind that OU beat TCU in a rematch last year. And that's your argument for saying that the entire WAC and MWC have risen to the same level as the Big 12 overall?

Wow.

Riddle me this - aside from Boise State, what other teams in the WAC have been dominant over the BCS conferences? And I don't mean winning a game here or there (like, say, once in five years), but truly been dominant?

Same goes for the MWC. Utah and TCU have been great at times over the past few seasons, and BYU is clearly on the rise. Aside from those teams, who has been truly dominant over the Big 12?

I'll give you some time to think about it.

 

[dukebound85]

^^ CSU beats CU every now and then


GOOOO RAMS!

 

[DiamondMac]

The loss of Bradford certainly hurt, but I think OU's horrible OL decided the game

You can think that all you want, anyone with an objective opinion knows that Bradford going down was the deciding factor in the game.

To think otherwise means you have some other motive in the argument.

If Tebow gets injured in the first half of the Tenn/Florida game and Florida loses in a close, low-scoring game....the only people who will be arguing that Tebow's injury wasn't the deciding factor are UT fans or UF haters.

 

[dmr727]

Someone said high six figures.

UT paid $850K to its cupcake. As an aside, I hate how we schedule. It's basically a scrimmage - I mean, what have we learned about UT yesterday? Jack squat. Ugh. I'm generally envious of the Pac-10 and how you guys schedule.

Anyway, about the MWC (or WAC) deserving to be in the BCS - the NCAA and the BCS have one purpose and one purpose only, and that's to make money. The MWC can be world beaters and it won't mean squat if it doesn't translate to ticket sales and television ratings. It's going to take more than a couple of marquee wins to get people excited about MWC football. Ask yourselves this - who draws more viewers and fans to a bowl game: an undefeated Utah, or a four loss Notre Dame?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's fair. But I see that as the issue here - not wins and losses between conferences.

 

[P-Worm]

You can think that all you want, anyone with an objective opinion knows that Bradford going down was the deciding factor in the game.

To think otherwise means you have some other motive in the argument.

If Tebow gets injured in the first half of the Tenn/Florida game and Florida loses in a close, low-scoring game....the only people who will be arguing that Tebow's injury wasn't the deciding factor are UT fans or UF haters.

I would have to say that BYU's loss of their offensive line (and I'm not talking one guy here, I'm talking three Offensive line starters) and their star for running the ball was incredibly bad as well. I'm not saying Bradford's loss wasn't a factor, it was. But to say that determined the entire game is pretty silly.

Tell me, if Bradford was so important to the game, why wasn't OU up by more than 3 points at the end of the half? Why did OU suffer so many 3-and-outs in the first half? I guess Bradford "Just didn't want to be there?"

P-Worm

 

[P-Worm]

Anyway, about the MWC (or WAC) deserving to be in the BCS - the NCAA and the BCS have one purpose and one purpose only, and that's to make money. The MWC can be world beaters and it won't mean squat if it doesn't translate to ticket sales and television ratings. It's going to take more than a couple of marquee wins to get people excited about MWC football. Ask yourselves this - who draws more viewers and fans to a bowl game: an undefeated Utah, or a four loss Notre Dame?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's fair. But I see that as the issue here - not wins and losses between conferences.

Thank you. I can't disagree with what you have said because it is 100% truth. It just bugs me when people say we don't belong to even be considered because of our talent. It's obvious that a lot of these small time conferences are producing some great teams.

P-Worm

 

[P-Worm]

Hey dukebound, your rams are looking much improved this year! In fact, I would say they are looking great. They're very composed and focused. If CSU keeps this up, it looks like they will be the surprise challenge int the MWC.

Go Rams!

P-Worm

 

[DiamondMac]

I'm not saying Bradford's loss wasn't a factor, it was. But to say that determined the entire game is pretty silly.

In your mind, maybe so....in the minds of 99.9% of the country that has no bone in the game....it was.

I understand you want to try your best to legitimize your conference but trying to pass off the Bradford injury only makes you all seem unable to grasp reality with the situation.

The Heisman winning QB went down and people are trying to act like it wasn't a huge factor in the game? What planet are some people living on? Like I said before, it is about as stupid as trying to argue an injury to Tebow wouldn't be a decisive factor.

Tell me, if Bradford was so important to the game, why wasn't OU up by more than 3 points at the end of the half?

Does the game end at halftime? If not, why would I care about what is done midway through the game? I saw OU struggling like hell to beat Cincy at halftime last year (21-13) only to blow them out after that. I saw OU put a 40 spot on OSU in the 2nd half alone last year....I am sure I could find many more times where 2nd halves or just halves in general produced big spots.

The loss of Bradford was the game for OU and allowed BYU to win the game. Those trying to downplay it will only get laughter from those wanting an objective look at the game.

 

[P-Worm]

The Heisman winning QB went down and people are trying to act like it wasn't a huge factor in the game? What planet are some people living on? Like I said before, it is about as stupid as trying to argue an injury to Tebow wouldn't be a decisive factor.

Why do you keep forgetting the incredibly cripling injuries that BYU faced? The simple fact of the matter is that BYU rose above their injuries and OU didn't. You make it sound like OU lost just because they were unlucky when, in fact, they just got outplayed.

P-Worm

 

[echeck]

You can think that all you want, anyone with an objective opinion knows that Bradford going down was the deciding factor in the game.

To think otherwise means you have some other motive in the argument.

Ha ha ha! What other "motives" could I have? Ha ha ha!

So, do you actually read my posts? Because it would seem like you only pick out bits and pieces of my posts and conveniently leave out the rest.

Talk about ulterior motive.

To just come out and attack my opinion like that proves to me that you have no other intent than to "ruffle my feathers". So thankfully there is an "ignore" feature on this board, I just didn't think I would meet anyone so ridiculous and disrespectful that I would need to use it. Congratulations, because you proved me wrong!

Happy posting, especially for me because now I don't have to read your drivel.




Oh, and my worthless opinion is the same as some other very well respected sports journalists. Look in to it.



EDIT:

Why do you keep forgetting the incredibly cripling injuries that BYU faced?

If you haven't noticed yet, it's what he does.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Tell me, if Bradford was so important to the game, why wasn't OU up by more than 3 points at the end of the half? Why did OU suffer so many 3-and-outs in the first half? I guess Bradford "Just didn't want to be there?"

Because he sucked in the first half. But Heisman winners are those special players that can get it together and put up 40 the next half. Sure, he wasn't spectacular in the first half, but he's one of the best 3 quarterbacks in the nation. You really think they would have only scored 13 if he played the whole second half?

Why do you keep forgetting the incredibly cripling injuries that BYU faced? The simple fact of the matter is that BYU rose above their injuries and OU didn't. You make it sound like OU lost just because they were unlucky when, in fact, they just got outplayed.

Sure, BYU has some injuries. And I agree, those injuries are important, and obviously they were outplayed (look at the score!). But to even suggest the outcome wouldn't have been different if the Heisman winner played the whole game is, frankly, ridiculous. I don't *think* DiamondMac or myself ever said OU is a better team at full health than BYU at full health. The whole problem is that, you, among others, seem to think that Bradford staying wouldn't have changed the outcome. We know, both teams have injuries. That still doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't have ended like it did with Bradford in.

Ha ha ha! What other "motives" could I have? Ha ha ha!

So, do you actually read my posts? Because it would seem like you only pick out bits and pieces of my posts and conveniently leave out the rest.

Talk about ulterior motive.

To just come out and attack my opinion like that proves to me that you have no other intent than to "ruffle my feathers". So thankfully there is an "ignore" feature on this board, I just didn't think I would meet anyone so ridiculous and disrespectful that I would need to use it. Congratulations, because you proved me wrong!

Happy posting, especially for me because now I don't have to read your drivel.




Oh, and my worthless opinion is the same as some other very well respected sports journalists. Look in to it.



EDIT:


If you haven't noticed yet, it's what he does.

I think you need to calm down. It's a college football thread, and, if my '****ing with people' detector is working correctly, you're falling into his trap of riling you up.

 

[dukebound85]

Hey dukebound, your rams are looking much improved this year! In fact, I would say they are looking great. They're very composed and focused. If CSU keeps this up, it looks like they will be the surprise challenge int the MWC.

Go Rams!

P-Worm

Take that CU!

Seriously, MWC is already 2-0 against the Big 12....

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

.....That still doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't have ended like it did with Bradford in......

A statement of fact about something that never happened eh? For all you know, with Bradford in the game could have ended up 47-13. For you to say it's a fact that OU would have won with Bradford in is hilarious.

Is that how they teach you to operate at USC?

Oh and by the way, GO CSU!!!! And suck it Big 12!

SLC

 

[steve2112]

Did anyone see the "Mike Vick" under eye tape Terrelle Pryor had on yesterday? It seems some reporters asked him about Vick. His response was

"Not everybody is a perfect person in the world.Everyone kills people, murder people, steals from you, steals from me,whatever."

Uh, what? Look, I realize he is still a young kid, but still. Wow.

Here's the story: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...rses-Michael-Vick-relativism?urn=ncaaf,187516

 

[canes960]

Roll Tide

 

[dmr727]

It's obvious that a lot of these small time conferences are producing some great teams.

And as long as those teams keep winning, more and more people will tune in to watch them. It just takes time to change people's perceptions. As far as I'm concerned, parity is a good thing.

 

[dukebound85]

segregation laws should be applied to cfb

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

A statement of fact about something that never happened eh? For all you know, with Bradford in the game could have ended up 47-13. For you to say it's a fact that OU would have won with Bradford in is hilarious.

My statement of fact was fairly conservative. "It would not have ended the way it did." By definition, with it ending with different players on the field, it wouldn't have ended the same way! I never said it's a fact that OU would have won with Bradford in. That is unknowable (since he wasn't in). I merely said that the notion the outcome (the team who won and the score) wouldn't have changed with a Heisman winner in for another half is ridiculous, and it is. The players who win the Heisman are outstanding players with a lot of influence on how a game plays out.

I was responding to someone who said that the win shouldn't be discounted. Of course it should!

Consider the following situation:

The Phoenix Suns are playing the Chicago Bulls. They were tied with the Bulls at half-time and MJ wasn't having his usual game. He wasn't playing well at all in the first half but the Phoenix Suns were also depleted because of their injuries. Then, right before the half, MJ sustains an injury that prevents him from playing the second half. In the second half, the Bulls offense is even more anemic and they narrowly lose to the Phoenix Suns.

Now, are you going to sit there and tell me that the outcome would have been the same even if Mike played the whole game? Remember, I'm not saying the Bulls definitely would have won, but it would have been different.

All I'm saying is that the win *should* be discounted, not invalidated. To say it shouldn't be discounted is unbelievable. The Suns still get the win, but as a predictor of which basketball team is better? Inconclusive.

Is that how they teach you to operate at USC?

Great dig.

 

[echeck]

I think you need to calm down. It's a college football thread, and, if my '****ing with people' detector is working correctly, you're falling into his trap of riling you up.

You're exactly right. He's been trying to push my buttons for a while, and I finally got fed up with it. So I ignored him. It's wonderful!

So I predict Dan Hawkins will be out of Boulder next offseason. I see another losing season for the Buffs.

And speaking of Buffs, there was a Buff in the buff! A streaker ran through the CSU Marching Band during halftime while they played "The Saints Go Marching In". Heh.

"And they call him The Streak!!"

 

[dukebound85]

All I'm saying is that the win *should* be discounted, not invalidated. To say it shouldn't be discounted is unbelievable. The Suns still get the win, but as a predictor of which basketball team is better? Inconclusive.
.

you think the win should be discounted? wtf

a win is a win is a win

theres no asterisk next to the result

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

you think the win should be discounted? wtf

a win is a win is a win

theres no asterisk next to the result

It's almost as if you didn't even read my post.

Phoenix Suns, injured, play the Bulls. MJ having a bad game. Tie game at half. MJ gets injured, doesn't play second half. The Suns barely beat the Bulls.

The game's outcome was heavily influenced by

A) The guy in the first row screaming
B) The best player in the game getting injured
C) Some Phoenix Suns players being injured
D) Nothing! This win not only proves the superiority of the Suns over the Bulls, it provides an accurate framework for any future meetings between the two! In fact, this game will also provide a good means by which both the Suns and the Bulls should be ranked in comparison to other teams in the NBA by the time the end of the season rolls around.

I'm arguing for B and C. Everyone here seems to think the answer is D.

And by the way, there is an asterisk next to the result. It will be on every voter's mind when they rank the teams.

 

[dukebound85]

It's almost as if you didn't even read my post.

Phoenix Suns, injured, play the Bulls. MJ having a bad game. Tie game at half. MJ gets injured, doesn't play second half. The Suns barely beat the Bulls.

The game's outcome was heavily influenced by

A) The guy in the first row screaming
B) The best player in the game getting injured
C) Some Phoenix Suns players being injured
D) Nothing! This win not only proves the superiority of the Suns over the Bulls, it provides an accurate framework for any future meetings between the two!


And by the way, there is an asterisk next to the result, for anyone who looks back at that game when trying to rank them for bowl games at the end of the season. Sure, it's not official, but it's there. And it should be.

Oh I read it and its a load of bull

So if OU loses every game narrowly while Bradford is out, should all those losses be asterisked? Should they still be considered title contenders?

Gimme a break

Injuries are part of the game

Rankings are not based on the "potential" talent of the team, but rather by how the team performs on the field

This is measured by wins and losses, nothing more nothing less. Great teams find a way to win

Heck, most could even argue that the backup QB to OU is of higher caliber than most starting QB's in the nation, especially those crappy MWC teams....

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Oh I read it and its a load of bull

Maybe I should have charged you with reading comprehension ineptitude rather than the accusation of just not reading it at all.

So if OU loses every game narrowly while Bradford is out, should all those losses be asterisked? Should they still be considered title contenders?

No, because that's not how college football works.

Injuries are part of the game

I know! But you're here sitting there pretending that the most outstanding player in the nation wouldn't have affected the second half. I never said OU would have won for sure, I said that everyone was being flat-out delusional to not discount the win.

This is measured by wins and losses, nothing more nothing less

Then just wait until another 11-1 team with a good win gets compared to BYU at the end of the season.

Oh, and you never answered my multiple choice question. Convenient.

 

[dukebound85]

must be great to always use injuries as excuses to say the favored team is really better when they "lose"

too bad thats not how college football works

Frankly, I am getting tired of excuses every time when a MWC team beats a team from a big conference

The media, the bcs conference team fans, everyone who is not connected to the non BCS treats these as flukes and says its always the other team not performing.

Never do they give credit where it's due and never do they say that the bcs school played well but was simply out-played. to think this is actually possible simply does not exist in the minds of bcs school supporters

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

I'll make this simpler for you.

BYU's win last night not only proves the superiority of the Cougars over the Sooners, it provides an accurate framework for any future meetings between the two! In fact, this game will also provide a good means by which both the Cougars and the Sooners should be ranked in comparison to other teams in the college football world by the time the end of the season rolls around.

True [ ]
False[ ]

I have only argued that the answer is false, nothing else. If the answer is "false" then the win is discounted by definition because it doesn't provide a definitive answer to which team is better.

After USC beat Ohio State last year, there was little doubt as to which team was better. BYU-OU game? Inconclusive. That's all I'm saying and it's all I've ever said.

PLEASE, just answer the above question.