Official 2007 NCAA Football Season

[Hellfire]

Fuck you guys, BC is great...or at least pretty good. I'll take pretty good if it's being offered.

[DMN in the House]

I'd accept, and endorse, pretty good, but not National Championship Game good.

[OGpistolpete]

Fantastic performance by Oregon, and my sleeper UConn is showing up against Rutgers.

[sahyder1]

Fantastic performance by Oregon, and my sleeper UConn is showing up against Rutgers.

[HailtotheYo]

Yes, the Ducks are good and I have no doubt that they are one of the 4 best teams in the nation. This game however, was more of the usual late season let down of ASU (they've done this many, many times before) as it was a 'proving' how good Oregon is. With UCLA flopping again, and the Pac leveling itself in it's usual mediocre manner ... those wins for ASU look less impressive (some were already sketchy at best). So, Oregon is king of a mediocre conference. As I said, I have no doubt that they are one of the four best teams in the nation.

That said, I'd still take my chances with LSU. After seeing them again today, OSU is growing on me no matter how much I hate to say it. Their defense is outstanding. The ducks would match up better against OSU rather than LSU. Saying LSU couldn't handle the Ducks is a joke. They aren't bigger, nor faster than any team that LSU has faced and beaten this year. It would be a hell of a game in my opinion.

Other than that, I love the fact that Kansas and Uconn keep rolling. Holy hell it's March Madness in November.

[naiwf]

R.I.P. Boston College

[HailtotheYo]

yeah, way to go FSU ... show up nine games in, thanks. freakin weatherford, THAT is how he should be playing every damn week.

[oldskool]

Oregon should leapfrog LSU, but they won't. Decisive win over a somehow-top-15 Michigan team, a dismantling of the #4 team in the nation and they beat USC.

[OGpistolpete]

God damnit, I had this feeling that FSU was going to win. But I didn't want to predict it on here to look like a fool if they lost.

[TheSqauredCircleMessiah]

Oregon should leapfrog LSU, but they won't. Decisive win over a somehow-top-15 Michigan team, a dismantling of the #4 team in the nation and they beat USC.

[OGpistolpete]

APPARANTLY...my sister's boyfriend's friend is friends with a relative of Lloyd Carr, and my sister told me her boyfriend's friend was told that Lloyd Carr is going to retire after the season, and Les Miles is going to come up from LSU to coach Michigan.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Interesting, a rumour that's been rumoured in the press for weeks and has no risk. But, my cousin's step-sister's boyfriend's window-washer's dogwalker has a dog that was once owned by a person whose new dog is related to Tony Dungy's dog and he said that Tony Dungy REALLY wants to win this one.

[ROC]

Goddammit. LSU lost that game no sooner than we could've won it. While I'm not a huge fan of Oregon, if LSU keeps playing ridiculously sloppy penalty ball, they're not winning that title. I know Miles plays aggressive ball, and to his credit it both hurt the team and then managed to get them out of the game with a win, but there's a difference between aggressive and retarded, and Oregon would probably take them...much less Ohio State, who is maybe the only example of a team playing dominantly in a consecutive pace this year.

[MyKILLv2.0]

Oregon should leapfrog LSU, but they won't. Decisive win over a somehow-top-15 Michigan team, a dismantling of the #4 team in the nation and they beat USC.

The media LOVES the SEC and LSU has beaten like 5 ranked teams. I highly doubt they'll leapfrog LSU, but nothing is guaranteed. Especially with Ohio State having to play at Michigan and LSU is going to have a tough one in the SEC Championship Game. Again, all more reasons for a playoff.

[HailtotheYo]

Exactly. In a sport in which you are suppose to have so called "impressive victories" LSU's only claim to fame is a defeat at home agaist a top 15 team in VaTech. Outside of that, LSU has had to struggle against every single good team they have faced. If Oregon was in the SEC and LSU was in the Pac 10, Oregon would be the solid number two team in the country.

LSU has beaten five ranked teams. ONE LSU opponnet has a losing record.

What's Oregon's claim to fame ? Beating a previously undefeated ASU team that has perinially flopped in the late stages of the season when they've had 'good' team ? Or maybe beating a USC squad that is decidedly a rung lower than they've been the last five years ? Beating a Michigan team that lost to App St ? Oregon has had the luxury of playing three teams that have only three wins.

Look at your last statement again. Why do you think that is ? Competition in the SEC is better than in the Pac-10. That's why LSU is rated above Oregon.

[DMN in the House]

Oregon would drop 40 on LSU. You're anti-Pac 10 bias is getting really old, especially as the Pac 10 keeps looking great, and the SEC keeps looking... good.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Exactly. In a sport in which you are suppose to have so called "impressive victories" LSU's only claim to fame is a defeat at home agaist a top 15 team in VaTech. Outside of that, LSU has had to struggle against every single good team they have faced. If Oregon was in the SEC and LSU was in the Pac 10, Oregon would be the solid number two team in the country.

LSU has beaten five ranked teams. ONE LSU opponnet has a losing record.

What's Oregon's claim to fame ? Beating a previously undefeated ASU team that has perinially flopped in the late stages of the season when they've had 'good' team ? Or maybe beating a USC squad that is decidedly a rung lower than they've been the last five years ? Beating a Michigan team that lost to App St ? Oregon has had the luxury of playing three teams that have only three wins.

Look at your last statement again. Why do you think that is ? Competition in the SEC is better than in the Pac-10. That's why LSU is rated above Oregon.

[HailtotheYo]

Bias ? Call it what you will, yet I continue to point out facts with each statement I make. I have yet to be shown anything outside of USC's stage that points to the Pac-10 being a "GREAT Conference" or "The BEST Conference." I have NEVER said that good TEAMS haven't come out of the Pac-10. I'm talking about the entire conference here. Maybe pointing something out, rather than just spoiuting personal opinion, would bring something to light.

And how exactly does the Pac-10 continue to look great ? Please, show me how.

Cal and USC (while good) have disappointed. ASU (as I've mentioned before) is good, but just showed their usual late season inability to perform. Oregon (as I've stated) is a very good football team. UCLA has fallen off the map (check that ND W/L record). Stanford/WAZU/WASH suck. Oregon

State has dissapointed as well. Arizona doesn't know which way is up.

So, a conference with 4 of its 10 teams having a losing record looks great ? How ? While I agree with the fact that Oregon is damn good, their signature win is against ASU (who hadn't beaten anyone but disappointing Cal). Not exactly something that impresses, but I also know better. I also know that LSU has played better competition. From top to bottom the teams in the SEC are better. Hell, the SEC is going to have 11 bowl eligible teams. Miss is the only team that has no shot at a winning or five hundred record. All but one team in the SEC is good. There are three bonafied CRAP teams in the Pac and one that is barely above CRAP.

So please, show me how they're great.

Oh, and apparently dropping 40 on LSU wouldn't be very hard. They've given up 20 or more 4 times. Although, Oregon has given up 20 or more six times.

[DMN in the House]

I don't see why you keep bringing up UCLA, other than I happen to be a UCLA fan, and an unabashed one at that. Yes, they lost to Notre Dame. With a walk-on QB playing 95% of the snaps in that game. Its not a fair assessment of the team. No team in the Pac 10 has as many injuries at this point as UCLA, except maybe Oregon, and USC earlier in the season, although they're getting healthier.

You continue to portray the Pac 10 as a weak conference, and ask who these teams have played, but, really, who has LSU played? A three loss Florida team, who got barely beat Ole Miss? Oh, but they have Tim Tebow, who is good, but dosen't deserve to be in Heisman talk, so they must be good, right? Kentucky fell off the map, Alabama lost to FSU, South Carolina lost to Vanderbilt, so the more you look at it, their 'quality win' is... Virginia Tech? Oh, but I suppose, because all those teams are in the SEC, that automatically makes their losses 'better' than losses suffered by anyone Oregon has played, right? Conference losses are conference losses.

Oregon has beat everyone but Cal, who lost to an, at the time, undefeated Arizona State team, who, as of yet, has not 'swooned' as you keep trying to claim, because they only have one loss, to the, AT WORST, number three team in the nation, a pretty healthy UCLA team, as in, they had one of their two 'starting' QBs in, and lost a bad game to Oregon State, when they played with a freshman QB. Oh, that Cal team also BEAT Tennessee, decisively. It was also a game Oregon could easily have won. They beat a Michigan team, who, besides a bad loss to Appalachian State, has beat everyone else but Oregon. They beat USC, they beat ASU, who beat Cal, who beat Oregon.

Trying to argue conference strength is stupid. When you look at Oregon vs. LSU, Oregon's wins are 'better', because they're more decisive. Oregon's loss to Cal is easily comparable to LSU's loss to Kentucky, except I'd say Cal is BETTER than Kentucky. The Pac 10 has a bunch of mediocre teams that beat up on each other, a few good teams, and one VERY GOOD team. The SEC has a bunch of mediocre teams that beat up on each other, a few good teams, and one VERY GOOD team. The only difference in record is that the OOC teams that the Pac 10 plays, with the lower ranges being the WAC and Mountain West, are better than the OOC teams that the SEC plays, which are usually Sun Belt teams.

So, yeah, I'd say you have an anti-Pac 10 bias, because its the only reason I can think of for you to keep dissing the conference.

[HailtotheYo]

You are determined to be anti-Pac-10, aren't you?

Sure, ASU may have flopped late in other seasons, but I'm at a loss to explain how you know that this loss is the beginning of their flop this season rather than...oh, in a pinch, Oregon being BETTER than ASU. And sure, USC aren't their ass-raping selfs but they're still a good few rungs above most other college programmes. And holy shit, I know Michigan lost to Appalachian State but pointing to that as the sole reason the Oregon victory over them can be discounted is just fucking asinine. Oregon would be #2 if they were in the SEC, if not #1. The reason they're not #2 is because they're in the Pac-10 and the pollmakers are filled with people like you, who have a massive hardon for the SEC and probably jerk off over a picture of Tim Tebow.

No more than anyone is determined to find a reason that the SEC isn't as good as they've proven to be year after year. I'm actually a Big 12 fan.

Thank you for echoing the things I said about USC. I mean, I did infact say that they were a good football team. The thing with ASU, is that I have no reason to think that they'll finish strong this year as opposed to the other years when they flopped. Why ? Because THE OTHER YEARS THEY FLOPPED. Yeah, Oregon is better than they are. Congrats captain obvious. Again, part of the point I was making. ASU faced their first honest top level comp, and got shown the door.

Please point out where I said that the sole reason Oregon beat Michigan is because Michigan lost to App St. I'll wait. Ok, now that you're back without that quote (because it isn't what I said), I'll elaborate. I think anybody that counts a win against Michigan this year as a 'marquee' moment of the season is a joke. They lost to a 1-AA team. I can't take them seriously at all. They still wouldn't be ranked if I actually had a vote in the polls. I just can't give them any cred whatsoever.

Now for the bolded part of your statement. I have no hardon for the SEC. I don't jerk off over a picture of Tim Tebow (his chick maybe). I hate Florida actually, I'm an FSU fan. What I do back though, is good football. Top to bottom, the SEC does it better than the Pac-10. If Oregon went through the top to bottom level of comp that LSU has so far and had the same record, they'd be in the same spot as LSU now. LSU would be in the same spot as Oregon if everything was equal and LSU was in the Pac. It's because the conference as a whole doesn't stack up to the SEC.

Why is it that a couple of good teams makes all of you Pac lovers forget about the 3 teams that suck out loud ? Why is it that a couple of good teams makes you think that they equal an entire conference ?

If you were making the argument that the top 2/3 teams in the Pac were better than the top 2/3 teams in the SEC ... we'd have a hell of a debate. That isn't the case here. We're talking about the entire conference. The Pac simply doesn't stack up top to bottom. A conference as a whole is only as good as its bottom teams. The Pac's bottom is FAR worse than the SEC's bottom.