2010 College Football Thread

[DMN in the House]

Nevada projects to a 5-4 Pac !0 team because it kicked the shit out of Cal? One game means nothing. They beat Cal, then they have to head to LA to play SC, then Corvallis, then Seattle, then Eugene, it's not the same as Fresno, then Ruston, then San Jose... c'mon now.

This isn't anywhere close to Stanford's best seasons, since they've been to a Rose Bowl in recent memory. They were a better team last year for fuck's sake. Zona used to be a top 10 team, and Mississippi State was really good as well. Not even close to being comparable.

Results on the field say that Pac 10 teams beat WAC teams more often than not. The SEC refuses to play anyone, so I won't go there.

You're smarter than this. I know you have this hard on to make Boise look better, but they're a damn good team, and you don't need to try and counter ESPN's bullshit with bullshit of your own.

[naiwf]

This isn't anywhere close to Stanford's best seasons, since they've been to a Rose Bowl in recent memory. They were a better team last year for fuck's sake. Zona used to be a top 10 team, and Mississippi State was really good as well. Not even close to being comparable.

If Oregon didn't have a video game offense, then Stanford would be at worst # 2 in the nation right now. They jumped out to a 21-3 lead IN Oregon, then the Ducks started hitting the X button and it was over, but the point still stands that they were about as close to a National Title this year as they've been since they won it in 1926.

[DMN in the House]

I guess I can agree with that, and if Oregon holds on, Stanford will probably go to the Rose Bowl anyway (I can't remember if they've played Arizona yet), so it's all moot.

My point re: WAC outside Boise sucking, stands. I'm not using the weakness of the WAC to downplay Boise. if they are one of two unbeatens, they deserve to go. If two of Oregon, Auburn, TCU, or Utah are ALSO undefeated, Boise should be left out.

[Powerhart]

So with the current standings, who would be playing in the National Title Game, Oregon and Auburn? Sometimes I don't get these rankings, which one is the one that ACTUALLY counts, which one doesn't, etc.

[gunnar hendershow]

So with the current standings, who would be playing in the National Title Game, Oregon and Auburn? Sometimes I don't get these rankings, which one is the one that ACTUALLY counts, which one doesn't, etc.

Yeah, that would be our matchup.

[HailtotheYo]

Results on the field say that Pac 10 teams beat WAC teams more often than not. The SEC refuses to play anyone, so I won't go there.

You're smarter than this. I know you have this hard on to make Boise look better, but they're a damn good team, and you don't need to try and counter ESPN's bullshit with bullshit of your own.

No bullshit, that's why I asked what you were basing it on. Like I said, I'm basing mine off of results on the field. I used the Nevada example for this year.

WAC/MWC wins VS Pac-10 since 08-09:

2010-11

TCU over Oregon State, 30-21

Nevada over Cal, 52-31

BYU over Washington, 23-17

2009-10

Boise St. over Oregon, 19-8

BYU over Oregon State, 44-20

Hawaii over WSU, 38-20

Utah over Cal, 31-27

2008-09

Boise St. over Oregon, 37-32

Utah over Oregon State, 31-28

BYU over Washington, 28-27

TCU over Stanford, 31-14

New Mexico over Arizona, 36-28

UNLV over Arizona St., 23-20 OT

BYU over UCLA, 59-0

Fresno St. over UCLA, 36-21

Pac-10 wins vs WAC/MWC since 08-09:

2010-11

Oregon over New Mexico, 72-0

USC over Hawaii, 49-36

2009-10

Oregon over Utah, 31-24

Stanford over SJSU, 42-17

Washington over Idaho, 42-23

UCLA over SDSU, 33-14

USC over SJSU, 56-3

2008-09

Arizona over BYU, 31-21

Cal over Colorado St., 42-7

Oregon over Utah St., 66-24

Arizona over Idaho, 70-0

- Since the 08-09 season, the Pac-10 is 5-10 vs. the MWC, and 6-5 vs. the WAC. The WAC teams the PAC-10 has beaten to get 5 of those 6 wins are SJSU/Idaho/Utah St, the worst teams in the conference over that span.

- TCU/Boise St/Utah only account for 5 of the 15 total losses to the MWC/WAC. The might PAC10 is a whopping 11-10 vs the "non big 3" from the WAC/MWC.

No, the gap is not as big as you think it is anymore.

[naiwf]

So with the current standings, who would be playing in the National Title Game, Oregon and Auburn? Sometimes I don't get these rankings, which one is the one that ACTUALLY counts, which one doesn't, etc.

The BCS rankings determine who plays for the national title. Whoever ends the year as # 1 & 2 will play each other and the winner gets the trophy. The Coaches Poll, Harris Poll and computer rankings make up the 3 components of the BCS so they're important, but all you need to keep track of is the BCS rankings.

[HailtotheYo]

So with the current standings, who would be playing in the National Title Game, Oregon and Auburn? Sometimes I don't get these rankings, which one is the one that ACTUALLY counts, which one doesn't, etc.

The BCS rankings determine who plays for the national title. Whoever ends the year as # 1 & 2 will play each other and the winner gets the trophy. The Coaches Poll, Harris Poll and computer rankings make up the 3 components of the BCS so they're important, but all you need to keep track of is the BCS rankings.

and, just because it isn't retarded enough, the AP POLL pulled itself out of the BCS Component and awards its own National Champion that is seen as a "legit" National Title.

[Blaze09]

So to prove your point, you pulled out wins against a weak Cal team (that will finish in the bottom half of the Pac 10 this year), a horrible Wazzou team from last year, and wins over ASU and UCLA, who were in the bottom half of the Pac-10 that year.

Edit: On second thought, I thought DMN said they would project to a 5-4 Pac 10 team, when it was you. My bad, but still, other than Boise (who would compete every year now if in the Pac-10), and the once in a while good Nevada and Hawaii team, the Pac-10 (sans Wazzou) is stronger overall than the WAC.

and UNLV is in the MWC, so that's one win your crediting the WAC for that doesn't belong to them.

[HailtotheYo]

He stated that the WAC wasn't any good, at all.

He also stated that Arizona St/UCLA/Washington (the bottom half of the PAC that you called me out on) would run the WAC or be favored to win it. That simply isn't true.

I never once said that the PAC wasn't better mind you, I'm arguing against DMN's stance that the WAC isn't any good at all, and that the shit teams in the PAC would just railroad the WAC.

And yes, I mistakenly bolded UNLV ... but their quality of team still holds my point true.

[DMN in the House]

I stand by my point. Outside of Boise, the WAC ISN'T any good. You can pull out miniscule sample sizes to try and prove your point, but it doesn't pass the eye test. The WAC wins game against bad/down Pac 10 teams, or when Boise plays. That doesn't make them a good conference. For fucks sake, Louisiana-Monroe beat Alabama a few years back, does that make the Sun Belt good now?

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. You seem to think mediocre equals 'good', I don't. I believe any of the teams I listed before would, easily, be favored to win the WAC if placed in Boise's position.

[naiwf]

Just to add something new to the discussion, the Big East wants to add TCU to its football ranks. We all know that the Big East sucks, but it would benefit TCU by providing an easier path to the Nat'l Title simply because it's still an AQ conference.

[HailtotheYo]

I stand by my point. Outside of Boise, the WAC ISN'T any good. You can pull out miniscule sample sizes to try and prove your point, but it doesn't pass the eye test. The WAC wins game against bad/down Pac 10 teams, or when Boise plays. That doesn't make them a good conference. For fucks sake, Louisiana-Monroe beat Alabama a few years back, does that make the Sun Belt good now?

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. You seem to think mediocre equals 'good', I don't. I believe any of the teams I listed before would, easily, be favored to win the WAC if placed in Boise's position.

You seem to have mistaken the phrase "the gap isn't as wide as people think anymore" to mean "the WAC is a really good conference."

How exactly can you name some of the bad/down PAC10 teams as being favored in the WAC, running the WAC to try and say that the WAC is absolute trash ... yet I can't name those exact teams and show them getting beaten by WAC teams but all of a sudden they don't work in the equation ? That's bullshit.

Again, my original point was that the gap between "big conference football" and everyone else simply isn't as large as people seem to think it is. You've changed the debate to "the WAC isn't good at all" ... which is something else entirely.

It doesn't pass the eye test ? WTF ? You mean showing the exact level of team that you quoted as being able to run the WAC, as NOT being able to doesn't pass the eye test ? Right.

I'm not saying that I rate the WAC on the level of the PAC, SEC, Big 12, Big 10, or even the ACC. Honestly, I'd say they have as many quality teams as the Big East does. Clearly the conference isn't at the level of the top conferences. However, the gap between the "big" and the "little" conferences has closed dramatically in the last 5 years. THAT is the point I'm making.

====================

Just to add something new to the discussion, the Big East wants to add TCU to its football ranks. We all know that the Big East sucks, but it would benefit TCU by providing an easier path to the Nat'l Title simply because it's still an AQ conference.

Personally, I think it'd be a stupid move outside of the "AQ" status. Honestly though, the next 2-5yrs will more than likely change all of that anyway. With Boise/Fresno/Nevada moving into the MWC I think the Conference will be strong enough to continue their push towards "AQ" status despite the loss of Utah/BYU. ESPECIALLY with how badly the Big East blows.

Not only that, but the Big 12 isn't done reshaping regardless of what they say. With the ACC/PAC/BIG 10 all being 12 teams and having conference title games, the Big 12 has no choice but to do the same in the relatively near future. They would be stupid not to want TCU in that mix.

TCU also needs to stay put (outside of being caught in the coming 2nd wave of conference shuffle). They're on the cusp of gaining mercenary status and there are still enough of the "good ol boys" in the NCAA and CFB that they can't afford to burn anymore bridges. This is a school that is on its 3rd conference since 2000.

I'm not even getting into the logistics of being in the Big East, which would more than likely wipe out most of the revenue they'd gain when all costs are figured in.

... here's the rest of the schools mentioned:

"UCF, East Carolina, Memphis and Temple have all been mentioned in reports as possibilities for joining the conference. The New York Post recently reported that the Big East could even be interested in moving west to TCU or Houston."

Temple should tell them to fuck off, but that's just me. For UCF/ECU/Memphis the move would make the most sense. Those schools aren't getting into the SEC and the ACC would have to boot people and I don't see that happening unless there's a major re-alignment with the ACC/Big East region (which I don't see happening either). UCF would be smart to get into the Big East with USF and build an entire other "big Florida" rivalry outside of the main 3. Ditto Memphis. With Lousville already there you've got built in storylines and can build your own story away from the big orange monster. ECU would prefer the ACC seeing as how all of the other Carolina schools are there, BUT being in an AQ conference all by your lonesome (in terms of the state) would have its own advantages.

With Villanova possibly moving up, they'd be a perfect fit as well (already a member in basketball and other sports).

TCU/Houston ? WTF, seriously ?

[naiwf]

They want TCU for obvious reasons, and at some point I can't see TPTB adding another AQ conference especially since the Pac 16 cannibalizing another superconference didn't happen. It would seem more likely that a revamped MWC would take the Big East's spot at the table if the Big East continues to suck for the next few years. I read some article that basically said TCU wouldn't really have to change all that much since they're basically as far to the east of the MWC as they would be to the west of the Big East. The travel distances would be roughly the same, they'd just be going in the opposite direction geographically.

[gunnar hendershow]

They want TCU for obvious reasons, and at some point I can't see TPTB adding another AQ conference especially since the Pac 16 cannibalizing another superconference didn't happen. It would seem more likely that a revamped MWC would take the Big East's spot at the table if the Big East continues to suck for the next few years. I read some article that basically said TCU wouldn't really have to change all that much since they're basically as far to the east of the MWC as they would be to the west of the Big East. The travel distances would be roughly the same, they'd just be going in the opposite direction geographically.

And going to a part of the country where there are more media voters and more coaches who would see them play.

[HailtotheYo]

They want TCU for obvious reasons, and at some point I can't see TPTB adding another AQ conference especially since the Pac 16 cannibalizing another superconference didn't happen. It would seem more likely that a revamped MWC would take the Big East's spot at the table if the Big East continues to suck for the next few years. I read some article that basically said TCU wouldn't really have to change all that much since they're basically as far to the east of the MWC as they would be to the west of the Big East. The travel distances would be roughly the same, they'd just be going in the opposite direction geographically.

With the AQ Status, one of two things is happening in the not too distant future:

1 - The BCS moves around who they consider "AQ" Conferences. Such as the MWC taking the place of the Big East.

2 - Combined with the conference shuffling, we get a bunch of "super" conferences and the BCS just continues to be what we've got today (only change is that all the teams will be "AQ" because all of the teams will be dissolved into big enough conferences that they'll all qualify so to speak).

Yeah, I checked into the differences for travel and found another forum where the guy had broken it down:

Using TCU's current conference lineup....the total distance to all eight schools from Fort Worth is 8,058 miles by car. Using all eight Big East schools, the total is 10,317 miles. Divided by eight..avg trip for TCU now is 1,007 miles per away game. In the Big East it would be 1,289, A difference of 282 miles per game, or about an extra 45 minutes of plane ride.

282 miles per game isn't a huge difference but it certainly is enough of a difference to notice (if you're an athlete) when you tag on the "before" and "after" flight time/etc.

And going to a part of the country where there are more media voters and more coaches who would see them play.

Yeah, possibly. I mean there are more of them there, but being in Texas TCU gets all of the eyes that they'd get out East. The big difference is that those eyes might really be paying attention. I mean TCU is already in one of the biggest markets in the nation. However, it wouldn't hurt to be playing half your games on the front lawn of the East Coast Media.

[Hajjhowe]

I can see them heading into the depleted Big 12. They are obviously very close to members there and probably should have moved there when the Big 12 was formed in the first place.

[HailtotheYo]

I can see them heading into the depleted Big 12. They are obviously very close to members there and probably should have moved there when the Big 12 was formed in the first place.

That wasn't their choice.

[DMN in the House]

Texas Governor at the time was a Baylor alum, forced Baylor in and TCU/Houston got the shaft.

[gunnar hendershow]

And 15 years later it's finally paying off since Baylor is finally good in basketball and respectable in football!