2010-2011 College Football Thread

[Silencio]

All right now! Nice to see some Stanford talk in here. Guess that comes with ascending to the top 10 for the first time in a while.

They've played out the weakest part of their schedule, but they haven't slipped up against teams they should have beaten, and they beat them all pretty easily, and they've gotten big wins on the road where historically they've struggled (@ UCLA, @ ND). The big positive so far has been the defense, which last year was a real weakness but now actually looks like a strength. Even last year's dire defensive backs seem to have improved a lot. After this weekend's results, Stanford's shutout of UCLA at the Rose Bowl suddenly looks more impressive.

The offense isn't quite firing on all cylinders yet. Andrew Luck hasn't been as laser sharp with his throws as he is capable of. Ryan Whalen, their best receiver, is still out injured. Owusu, their second best receiver and deadly kick returner, is also not 100% yet. Running back is going to be a committee job all year, as you can't replace a Toby Gerhart that easily; Stepfan Taylor looks pretty decent so far, though Stanford's offensive line will make an average back look very good. They could be the best OL in the country.

Probably not going to be able to watch the Oregon game, but it should be a good one!

 

[mcrain]

But we still pulled out the win, and we were still in control the entire time. 3-0 is a good start.

Good start? Unless Nevada ends up ranked, isn't that their entire season? Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not their fault they play a weak schedule.

Kind of ironic coming from a Boise fan.

vs #7 Florida
at #19 South Carolina
at #12 LSU
vs #10 Auburn

Every one of those teams is better than Boise's "Super Bowl" opponent from three weeks ago.

+1

I've decided that I'm no longer going to bother trying to convince anyone that Boise State is a good team. There is so much outspoken hate for Boise State in the media that I've grown quite tired of it.

It's not hate, it's reality. You acknowledge they play a completely weak schedule, which is basically a 4 month training camp for one bowl game. That's just not fair, or a realistic determination of how good they are. I will happily admit BS looks incredibly talented. In fact, I wouldn't want to play them. But, how are they ranked #3 when they haven't proven anything?

Our schedule is our schedule, and our conference is our conference. Nothing more can be done about it.

True, and that sucks for them, but the rankings are supposed to be a guess of which teams are the best in the nation, and if you play crap teams, that's just how it is, and nothing more can be done about it. Right?

So you agree, then, that a one-loss Alabama team would deserve a bid to the BCS Championship Game over an undefeated Boise?

(For the record, I think Boise is a great team with such a ****** schedule that they deserve to be Auburned if it comes down to it, even though the schedule is "not their fault".)

A one loss Alabama should play a one loss Ohio State before BS gets a sniff of the national championship game. In pro-golf they make you walk all 18 holes. In college football, to play for the national champtionship, you should at least play some of the other teams who are in the hunt.

That being said, Virginia Tech looked tough on paper. Nevada may be ranked soon. The game this weekend was against a good opponent.

Again, BS looks really good, but my problem isn't with them, but the rankings.

 

[dmr727]

I keep looking back on Saturday's scores in the hope that somehow it was all one big horrible dream.

Nope.

Dammit.

 

[Mr Kram]

USC finally moved up in the polls after winning.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I keep looking back on Saturday's scores in the hope that somehow it was all one big horrible dream.

Nope.

Dammit.

I think the folks at the Austin American Statesman are taking the same view. Check out the post game report card...

QUARTERBACK: C

RUNNING BACKS: C

RECEIVERS: B

OFFENSIVE LINE: B

DEFENSIVE LINE: B

LINEBACKERS: A

DEFENSIVE BACKS: A

KICKER/SPECIAL TEAMS: A-

OFFENSE AS A WHOLE: C

DEFENSE AS A WHOLE: A-

How you can give anyone on the defense (let alone the whole squad) an "A" after they gave up 34 points and 264 yards rushing (almost 200 of it in the second half) to a mediocre, one-dimensional Pac-10 team is completely beyond me.

And check out those offensive grades. Should be "D"s and "F"s across the board. But a "C" for a unit that scored its first TD, against a very mediocre defense, with 2:32 in the game is ridiculous.

 

[dmr727]

^^^ I don't know what they're smoking. Being Austin, it's likely they're smoking something.

We'll know more about the Longhorns as the season goes on, but the team I watched on Saturday has no business being in the Top-25 - hell, I don't think they belong in a bowl game.

 

[steve2112]

I think the folks at the Austin American Statesman are taking the same view. Check out the post game report card...



How you can give anyone on the defense (let alone the whole squad) an "A" after they gave up 34 points and 264 yards rushing (almost 200 of it in the second half) to a mediocre, one-dimensional Pac-10 team is completely beyond me.

And check out those offensive grades. Should be "D"s and "F"s across the board. But a "C" for a unit that scored its first TD, against a very mediocre defense, with 2:32 in the game is ridiculous.

Yeah, I've seen homerism by reporters before, but that is pretty blatant. Like you said, any defense that gives up 264 yards rushing and 34 points to a team that got shut out last week deserves an F. And how many turnovers did the offense have? Bevo's performance may be the only aspect that deserves more than an F, but I didn't how well he did.



(Forgot to do multiquote at first)

USC finally moved up in the polls after winning.

Yeah, wouldn't it be cool if they could run the table and make it back to the BCS...err, nevermind.

 

[iJohnHenry]

Homerism??

Don't forget the Alumni pay big bucks into the athletic program.

I think the answer is there.

 

[Mr Kram]

Yeah, wouldn't it be cool if they could run the table and make it back to the BCS...err, nevermind.

i like how the AP doesn't count anymore. it's only been the standard for 20 years and now it's irrelevant. in any case, i doubt USC runs the table or comes close to it.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Homerism??

Don't forget the Alumni pay big bucks into the athletic program.

I think the answer is there.

What does that even mean? While I'm sure there are plenty of UT-Austin grads working for the Statesman, it's still a real newspaper (though that report card certainly casts doubt on that).

 

[steve2112]

What does that even mean? While I'm sure there are plenty of UT-Austin grads working for the Statesman, it's still a real newspaper (though that report card certainly casts doubt on that).

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I'm not sure what the alumni thing means, though I did have to do a double take to make sure that was the Austin paper and not the UT campus newspaper. The theory is the journalists are supposed to be unbiased. Then again, I suppose certain news networks have proven that wrong.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I'm not sure what the alumni thing means, though I did have to do a double take to make sure that was the Austin paper and not the UT campus newspaper. The theory is the journalists are supposed to be unbiased.

There is certainly "homerism" going on all over the state in favor of the boys from Austin, but the reality is that negative articles about the team are what UT-Austin's fanbase really wants after a loss, especially an ugly one.

Before you object, you need to remember that these are the same people that wanted to fire Mack Brown back in 2002 (because they didn't think he could beat Stoops or win championships) despite the fact that, after almost two decades of futility (most of the 80's and 90's), Brown went 49-15 in his first five years and only finished ranked outside the Top 15 once (they finished somewhere around 20th in his second year).

Then again, I suppose certain news networks have proven that wrong.

What do you mean "certain"? They've all got an agenda...

 

[echeck]

So you agree, then, that a one-loss Alabama team would deserve a bid to the BCS Championship Game over an undefeated Boise?

(For the record, I think Boise is a great team with such a ****** schedule that they deserve to be Auburned if it comes down to it, even though the schedule is "not their fault".)

Ditto about Oregon-Stanford. That could be the game of the year in the Pac-10.

Yep, I agree!

And I love how you used Auburn as a verb. Heh heh.

But, how are they ranked #3 when they haven't proven anything?

Because of pre-season polls, and how we finished last year. Like I've said before, Boise State (and TCU) have found ways to exploit the system.

And Nevada is already ranked at #25. I suspect they may be a top 20 team when we meet them in Reno in November. I think I might be making the trip down to Reno for that one.

 

[steve2112]

There is certainly "homerism" going on all over the state in favor of the boys from Austin, but the reality is that negative articles about the team are what UT-Austin's fanbase really wants after a loss, especially an ugly one.

Before you object, you need to remember that these are the same people that wanted to fire Mack Brown back in 2002 (because they didn't think he could beat Stoops or win championships) despite the fact that, after almost two decades of futility (most of the 80's and 90's), Brown went 49-15 in his first five years and only finished ranked outside the Top 15 once (they finished somewhere around 20th in his second year).

Heh. Glad to know it's not just us. Message boards were imploding after our loss to LSU. But coaches get fired with that kind of winning percentage all the time, though. Just ask John Cooper from tOSU or Frank Solich. Cooper routinely won 9-10 games, but couldn't beat Michigan or win bowl games and it cost him his job.

Two of my favorite examples of this type of stupidity happened right in my home state. Jeff Bower, head coach for the Southern Miss Golden Favres...err, Eagles, "resigned" in 2007. In truth, he was forced out by alums and university higher ups. All he did was have 14 consecutive winning seasons, and go to a bowl 10 out of his last 11 years and win 4 CUSA titles. People were complaining about him only winning 7-8 games. His successor Larry Fedora has gone 7-6 in his two seasons. Then there is David Cutcliffe. A certain school in state fired him after his first losing season. They hired...Ed Oregon, who proceeded to win a total of 3 SEC games in 3 years.

What do you mean "certain"? They've all got an agenda...

I dunno, I find the BBC to be pretty unbiased in their coverage of U.S. news.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Just ask John Cooper from tOSU or Frank Solich. Cooper routinely won 9-10 games, but couldn't beat Michigan or win bowl games and it cost him his job.

That's a little different. Cooper was there for about a decade before people started calling for his head and Solich had to replace a legend. Mack was barely into a rebuilding job. He had such success initially that a few 9- and 10-win seasons made them forget that 4-7 in 1997 and how bad it sucks to suck, but he never got credit for it until they won the back-to-back Rose Bowls a couple of years later. Even today, many UT-Austin fans credit Vince Young and discount Mack Brown for that championship.

 

[steve2112]

That's a little different. Cooper was there for about a decade before people started calling for his head and Solich had to replace a legend. Mack was barely into a rebuilding job. He had such success initially that a few 9- and 10-win seasons made them forget that 4-7 in 1997 and how bad it sucks to suck, but he never got credit for it until they won the back-to-back Rose Bowls a couple of years later. Even today, many UT-Austin fans credit Vince Young and discount Mack Brown for that championship.

I have to admit I was in that boat for his first few years. I thought he was going to be like Cooper and be unable to beat the big rival. But then he kept winning a ton of games. Eventually, I figured he must be a pretty good coach. At the very least, he or somebody on his staff are amazing recruiters. But I have heard people say stuff like "good talent overcomes bad coaching" when talking about Brown. No. For a good example of that, see Mike Dubose and the 1999 Alabama team. Dubose hadn't done much before that, and some amazing talent won them the SEC championship.

 

[dmr727]

What does that even mean? While I'm sure there are plenty of UT-Austin grads working for the Statesman, it's still a real newspaper (though that report card certainly casts doubt on that).

The Statesman, at least while I was living in Austin, didn't seem to pull any punches when it came to Texas. There might have been some homerism when it came to recruiting (every region of the country thinks its high school kids are the best), but overall never anything like that bogus report card. Like I said, I don't know what they were smoking!

 

[Tomorrow]

I watched the game start to (almost) finish - there were two drives where Texas started to look good, but then they pissed it away with a turnover or something. Otherwise, they looked incredibly mediocre - I mean, every other facet of their game looked like a middle-of-the-pack Big 12 team, not what I would have expected from Texas.

On top of that, they made UCLA - a middle-of-the-pack PAC-10 team - look really good.

I think this was a hiccup for Texas. We probably won't see that kind of performance from them again this year.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

The Statesman, at least while I was living in Austin, didn't seem to pull any punches when it came to Texas. There might have been some homerism when it came to recruiting (every region of the country thinks its high school kids are the best), but overall never anything like that bogus report card. Like I said, I don't know what they were smoking!

Yeah that's what I was getting at in my other post. They've always been very pro-whorn, but typically were harder on them than maybe they should have been when things weren't going so well. That's what made the report card all the more vexing.

I think this was a hiccup for Texas. We probably won't see that kind of performance from them again this year.

I think they'll get better as the year goes along because they are so young, but that offense has a long, long way to go. A bad OL, no great RB, and an over-hyped, inexperienced QB don't add up to good things. I do think Muschamp will have the defense playing better as early as this week, though I don't think that will be enough for them to take out OU.

Possibly some more bad news for Boise State courtesy of TCU and the New York Post.

Having survived the most recent wave of expansion intact, the Big East Conference is studying ways to bolster its position and has targeted TCU as very attractive candidate to help strengthen its football league

Also, a very interesting blog post about the forthcoming book Death to the BCS, which is high on my list of must-reads just as soon as I get some time to read "recreationally" again.

A couple of excerpts...

According to a South Florida Sun-Sentinel report, for winning the 2009 national title, Florida made just $47,000 after coaches’ bonuses, required ticket purchases, travel costs and other expenses were figured in.

the Sugar Bowl in fiscal year 2007 brought in $34.1 million in revenue while spending only $22.5 million. So it made $11.6 million tax-free and finished the year with $37 million in assets. This would be problematic enough, but consider that, according to the authors, the “non-profit” Sugar Bowl took $3 million in direct funding from the Louisiana state government and “gave nothing” back that year. “Not a buck to the Hurricane Katrina reconstruction effort. Not a dime to a New Orleans afterschool program. Not a penny to Habitat for Humanity.”

 

[echeck]

I've never understood why BCS Bowl's are given non-profit status.

/shakes head

 

[HE15MAN]

Florida and all SEC teams lose a ton of money from Bowl Games because of the simple fact they divide all profits between the 12 schools. But that is what helps all the schools be so competitive and stay away from issues like the Big 12 is/was having.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Well tonight's the first real test for Texas A&M and Oklahoma St. My gut tells me the Aggies are the better team (despite Okie St.'s #24 ranking in the Coaches' Poll), but A&M hasn't fared well on a big stage lately. The Cowboys are a 3-point favorite in Vegas, which essentially means that the bookies don't know who to favor, either. I honestly have no feel for how this is going to go.

 

[HE15MAN]

Giving Trey some love!

 

[dmr727]

Arrggh...looks like I'll be working during much of the A&M game. I'll probably be able to catch the beginning and end of it though. Should be a good one!

 

[Mr Kram]

is a&m playing tonight? i'll have to call my sister-in-law and give her grief. hopefully the cowpokes destroy them.