VeeshanVault

Overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rattttttttttttteddddddddddddddddddddd

GOGO USC

Ouch, we played very badly. Congrats USC.

Everyone has a bad game (USC vs UCLA).

From watching the Michigan/OSU and Michigan/USC games, it's apparent that Michigan isn't going anywhere until they can stop the pass against the top offenses. USC just ignored the running game altogether. I can't remember a running play in the second half.

Need to keep pushing for a College Football Playoff format.

Boise State's looking good so far in the Fiesta Bowl.

Im just glad Mich. Wasnt in the title game like everyone thought they should of been.

Cartalas wrote:Im just glad Mich. Wasnt in the title game like everyone thought they should of been.

Wait, if everyone thought they should have been, they would have been ranked above Florida...

Winnow wrote:Need to keep pushing for a College Football Playoff format.

Boise State's looking good so far in the Fiesta Bowl.

A Boise State win may make the justification of a playoff system easier. Even if it didn't, I would love to see them beat Oklahoma

It suddenly got very quiet from the north-east.. some whining noise seems to have gone away..

What a great game! (Boise St vs Oklahoma)

Games like the Fiesta bowl are the reason why I'm getting into college football more and more... Outstanding fuckign game and i'm glad Boise won.. Did anyone see the RB propose to his girlfriend on the field after the game? Someone get that guy a fuckin parachute so he can jump off cloud 9 when he wants!

I give Carr 1 more year to choke in a bowl game before he is fired. Im willing to bet, if he loses to Ohio next year, hes out.

I'm halfway around the world so I apologize for the lateness of this post but:

SCOREBOARD!

I believe that makes Michigan/OSU a combined 1-12 in their last 13 games (bowl or regular season) vs USC. Both Michigan and OSU losing six games each (Michigan having the one win)

OSU signed a contract with USC to play in 4 regular season games starting in 2008 I believe.

Penn State vs USC since 1993 is 3-1!

Penn State vs Arizona State:

I can't find a score for the linked game between ASU and Penn State but from the look of the pictures I'd say ASU won!

http://www.dcsundevils.org/football/ffbpsupics.htm

That's got to be @ Penn State...nice field upkeep!

Hi Sueven!

hey winnow, what happened in the 1997 rose bowl?

Hey Noel, I am in Roma, where are you?

Heading to Florence tomorrow then Innsbruck Friday and Munich Saturday.

With that said,

Ouch Michigan, that had to hurt.

I wonder how a USC/Ohio State game would have gone if USC did not choke against the Bruins?

anyway, back to vacation. Happy New Years all. And let me tell you, they sure know how to celebrate a New Year in Innsbruck!!!

Absinthe for all.

If Florida gets hammered by Ohio State, does that mean that Louisville or Boise State deserved the spot now?

As impressive as Boise St. was, I still don't think they'd warrant it. The talk should probably wait until after we see how Florida plays, but if it goes how my gut says it will, I think USC probably should have been in there. It's unfortunate that they blew that game against UCLA.

Carr is a bad coach. With all the NFL talent that's gone through that program, to have a losing record in bowl games is unacceptable.

Michigan needs the Boise St coach and more razzle dazzle to their play calling.

ASU's stuck with Dennis Erickson for the next few years. I'm not too excited about that.

Assuming he stays, I don't think he's a bad hire at all. The guy has a good track record in college-- good enough that he got TWO shots in the NFL. If he sticks around, he could really elevate ASU's program. Let's face it-- despite scattered past success, ASU is NOT an elite program. You could have gone the hotshot-youngster route, but ASU is not a destination for elite coaches. If you were looking for someone with prebuilt credibility, Erickson is as good as you could get.

If I had to pick a non-Michigan and non-Florida team to be in the title game right now, I think I'd pick Louisville. Boise State was impressive, but I just don't think they're quite good enough-- every trick in the book plus the kitchen sink was juuust barely enough to beat Oklahoma. USC may very well be better than Louisville, but I can't ignore the fact that they lost twice (and I know Boise State didn't lose, apparently I assign a one-loss weight to playing outside the BCS conferences). Being Big East champion looks a lot more impressive when you look at how the conference will end its season-- three 11 win teams (only the Big 10 and SEC can boast that, assuming LSU wins), three top 15 teams (again alongside the Big 10 and SEC), undefeated thus far in bowl games. The quality of the Big East's big 3 is even more impressive when you consider that the conference is only 8 teams large. A full 50% of the Big East's teams won 9 games or more, matched only by the SEC (half the Big Ten didn't even go .500).

So, in conclusion, the Big East is the #3 conference in the nation this year, and, as it's 1-loss champion, Louisville trumps other contenders.

Even with two losses, I think USC's performance in their numerous out-of-conference games this year has shown how tough they are. Not to mention what they've been doing the last 4 years or so. I think it might have been you that actually convinced me after the last go-round a few weeks ago. I don't know what caused them to drop games against "easier" opponents (you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the Oregon State loss had anything to do with them being a better/tougher team than SC rather than a brain fart or something on SC's part), but they have looked really strong against the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and that Catholic school in Indiana. That said, they lost to a team that lost to Boise State, so maybe I'm totally wrong.

Sueven wrote:The quality of the Big East's big 3 is even more impressive when you consider that the conference is only 8 teams large. A full 50% of the Big East's teams won 9 games or more, matched only by the SEC (half the Big Ten didn't even go .500).

I'm not sure I follow why having fewer teams makes that more impressive? If you said it spoke to the parity of the conference, that would make sense to me, but the quality?

And just a minor nitpicking, the Big East has 4/8 teams with 9 wins, while the SEC has 5/12 and the Big 10 has 4/11.

Sylvus wrote:I'm not sure I follow why having fewer teams makes that more impressive?

Because a more significant percentage of the league is top-notch. It's a lot easier to have 3 great teams when you have 12 total than when you have 8 total. It also is a testament to the quality of the conference. The Big 10 has three awesome teams also, but they have 6 teams that didn't mange to hit .500, while the Big East has 2.

Basically, it would be more impressive if 2 South Dakota natives were playing in the pro bowl this year than it would be if 2 California natives were playing in the pro bowl this year.

Sylvus wrote:while the SEC has 5/12

Florida + Tennessee + Georgia + Arkansas + Auburn + LSU = 6.

Sylvus wrote:I think USC's performance in their numerous out-of-conference games this year has shown how tough they are.

You're definitely right about that. I guess what I'd say is that, subjectively, I think USC is a better team, but objectively, I think Louisville deserves a higher ranking.

I think the more prestigious the college is for their football program, the more to blame the coaches are for failing to win because those colleges are assured of getting top talent. For that reason, I'd argue for canning Michigan's coach because either he, or his staff, can't get that talent to perform in the big games. I'm not one for overreacting but the pattern seems to be there.

Sueven wrote:

Sylvus wrote:I'm not sure I follow why having fewer teams makes that more impressive?

Because a more significant percentage of the league is top-notch. It's a lot easier to have 3 great teams when you have 12 total than when you have 8 total. It also is a testament to the quality of the conference. The Big 10 has three awesome teams also, but they have 6 teams that didn't mange to hit .500, while the Big East has 2.

I don't really agree with that, I think you're assigning some value to a relatively meaningless statistic, at least in regard to the Big East. I would be more inclined to agree with a larger conference with a higher percentage speaking to its quality, but when one of the teams you're talking about is Southern Florida that just doesn't sit right with me.

Sylvus wrote:while the SEC has 5/12

Florida + Tennessee + Georgia + Arkansas + Auburn + LSU = 6.

My mistake, the SEC must not have updated the records on their site to be current with bowl games, like most of the other conferences have.

Sylvus wrote:I think USC's performance in their numerous out-of-conference games this year has shown how tough they are.

You're definitely right about that. I guess what I'd say is that, subjectively, I think USC is a better team, but objectively, I think Louisville deserves a higher ranking.

The only argument I'd have with that is that while USC's losses were to worse teams than Louisville's was, Louisville has maybe one win that approaches the caliber that USC has like 4 of. I hate the rankings though.

And finally, in other news, Charlie Weis is not a good football coach. Is he ever going to beat a quality opponent?

He'll probably get lucky and notch one sometime. Robert Smith hit it on Sportscenter-- Notre Dame loses all their bowl games because they're overrated every year, and so they play in a bowl game that's too good for them every year.

I don't really agree with that, I think you're assigning some value to a relatively meaningless statistic, at least in regard to the Big East

Look at it this way. Let's say you're a good but not great Big East team (like South Florida or Cincinnati). You play seven conference games. Three of those are against teams that'll finish the year in the top 15. Two others are against solid teams, while two more are against shitty teams. So you have 3 games you should lose, 2 dicey games where you're playing a similar team, and 2 games you should win.

Compare that to a Big 10 team of similar quality, say Purdue. The Big 10 is appropriate because it, similarly, has a real strong top 3 and a sharp dropoff thereafter. Purdue had to play only 1 of those top 3 (Wisconsin), along with two teams of similar caliber (Penn State and Iowa) and 5 lower quality teams. So, their conference schedule yields a 1-2-5. The Big East's 3-2-2 is much more difficult. Some Big 10 teams (like Penn State) had to play all of the big 3, but even Penn State's schedule was a 3-1-4.

That's why I think the Big East's smaller membership is significant in this context.

Tyek wrote:Hey Noel, I am in Roma, where are you?

Heading to Florence tomorrow then Innsbruck Friday and Munich Saturday.

With that said,

Ouch Michigan, that had to hurt.

I wonder how a USC/Ohio State game would have gone if USC did not choke against the Bruins?

anyway, back to vacation. Happy New Years all. And let me tell you, they sure know how to celebrate a New Year in Innsbruck!!!

Absinthe for all.

At the time of my posting I was in Taiwan, but I'm back now.

Hope you enjoyed Europe!