November 25, 2007
College Football Top 25 Polls - Week 14
The college football top 25 polls for game played through week 14 (November 24, 2007).
Bowl Champ. Series
1. Missouri
2. West Virginia
3. Ohio State
4. Georgia
5. Kansas
6. Virginia Tech
7. LSU
8. USC
9. Oklahoma
10. Florida
11. Boston College
12. Hawaii
13. Arizona State
14. Tennessee
15. Illinois
16. Clemson
17. Oregon
18. Wisconsin
19. Brigham Young
20. Texas
21. South Florida
22. Virginia
23. Cincinnati
24. Auburn
25. Boise State
AP Top 25
1. Missouri (45)
2. West Virginia (20)
3. Ohio State
4. Georgia
5. LSU
6. Virginia Tech
7. Kansas
8. USC
9. Oklahoma
10. Florida
11. Hawaii
12. Boston College
13. Arizona State
14. Tennessee
15. Illinois
16. Clemson
17. Texas
18. Oregon
19. Wisconsin
20. Cincinnati
21. Brigham Young
22. Virginia
23. Auburn
24. Boise State
25. South Florida
USA Today
1. West Virginia (37)
2. Missouri (17)
3. Ohio State (6)
4. Georgia
5. Virginia Tech
5. Kansas
7. LSU
8. Oklahoma
9. USC
10. Hawaii
11. Florida
12. Boston College
13. Arizona State
14. Illinois
15. Tennessee
16. Wisconsin
17. Clemson
18. Texas
19. Brigham Young
20. Oregon
21. Auburn
21. Virginia
23. Boise State
24. Cincinnati
25. Arkansas
Harris Interactive
1. Missouri (57)
2. West Virginia (45)
3. Ohio State (11)
4. Georgia
5. LSU
6. Kansas
7. Virginia Tech
8. Oklahoma
9. USC
10. Hawaii (1)
11. Florida
12. Boston College
13. Arizona State
14. Illinois
15. Tennessee
16. Wisconsin
17. Texas
18. Clemson
19. Oregon
20. Brigham Young
21. Cincinnati
22. Boise State
23. Virginia
24. Auburn
25. South Florida
Master Coaches Poll
1. Missouri (12)
2. West Virginia (1)
3. Ohio State (4)
4. LSU
5. Georgia
6. Oklahoma
7. Kansas
8. Virginia Tech
9. USC
10. Florida
11. Hawaii
12. Boston College
13. Illinois
14. Tennessee
15. Arizona State
16. Wisconsin
17. Clemson
18. Texas
19. Virginia
20. Oregon
21. Cincinnati
22. Boise State
23. BYU
24. Auburn
25. Texas Tech
Comments:
wvu-togo said:
posted on November 25, 2007 2:52 PM — 65.73.217.125 — link — abuse?
1st_and_Nole
I can promise you it isn't the popular opinion according to most in the college football blogs, i.e. low SOS, weak conference, weak OOC games etc. As a big WVU fan I find it refreshing to hear from someone that isn't so negative about their preformance this season. Are they NC material? I guess we will just have to wait and see how we do against Pitt next week. If we do play for the NC, I hope we do it with the same class and integrity coach Rod & the team has shown all season.
College Pigskin Fan said:
posted on November 25, 2007 2:59 PM — 4.244.209.34 — link — abuse?
If I'm reading the USA Today poll right, Ohio State got six votes for best team in the nation???
So six people are going to tell me that a team that sites in front of their TV and watches the No #4 team, beat the No #2 team is more worthy of a higher ranking?
Ohio State boosters passing money around to get their team some votes??
My mom always taught me, common sense isn't so common.
College Pigskin Fan said:
posted on November 25, 2007 3:05 PM — 4.244.209.34 — link — abuse?
Let me make my second paragraph more clear.
So six people are going to tell me that a team that isn't playing, and is ranked No #5 or #6, deserves to be No #1, instead of the No #4 that just beat the No #2 team?
Yeah. Right.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 25, 2007 3:37 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
said:
College Pigskin Fan (#5):
What does OSU not playing have anything to do with...anything? If that's so "important", then I'll highlight the fact that Missouri had 1 bye week, West Virginia had 2 bye weeks and Ohio State had 0 (that's right, ZERO) bye weeks. OSU played 12 games just like Missouri and West Virginia did. It doesn't matter when they're played, and it shouldn't matter when teams lose. But in this crappy system in College Football for determining a champion, that's what we all have to deal with.
I would say Missouri losing to Oklahoma is a "better" loss (if you can call a loss better) than OSU's loss to Illinois, and certainly "better" than West Virginia's loss to South Florida.
The crappy system is what the crappy system is. We'll have to deal with it until we get a playoff someday. But if I hear one more person like John Saunders repeat the stupid argument that "each regular season game is a playoff game", my head is going to explode. If that's the case, let's get rid of every sports playoff system in America, and install a judging system--just like figure skating--to be the main system for determining which 2 teams go to the Championship Game in each sport. That would be a freaking disaster.
Hotty Toddy said:
posted on November 25, 2007 3:59 PM — 75.105.128.57 — link — abuse?
Worst-case scenarion in my mind:
Missouri loses to Oklahoma, and Ohio State leap-frogs into the national title with West Virginia. I think I just threw up a little.
Wouldn't mind somehow seeing Georgia vs. Ohio State in there, though.
posted on November 25, 2007 4:00 PM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue
said:
@Tom - I rate your comment a 6.7, with degree of difficulty added. Bro, a rating system is EXACTLY what we have -- and always have. It's called the polls, right? That said - I fall into the "every game is a playoff game" school.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 25, 2007 4:02 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
Seeing any 2-loss team make it in would make me throw up a lot.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 25, 2007 4:20 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
K-Hue (#8):
LOL! You could've at least given me an 8! ;-)
I know where you stand. The problem with the "every game is a playoff game" is, you don't play the top teams every week. In a playoff, you are guaranteed to. Case in point--Youngstown State was a playoff game for OSU? Illinois State for Missouri was a playoff game? East Carolina for West Virginia was a playoff game? Seriously?
Let me just tell you about my experience with OSU's "playoff" games with Youngstown State, Akron, and Kent State. I ended up playing golf before the final seconds ticked away in each one. Plus, I don't have the Big Ten Network, so I ended up listening to them on the radio. Yeah, super "playoff" games. I was sooo dying to get a ticket for those monumental matchups! ;-)
And please, before anybody brings this up, everyone knows the Appy State game was statistically bound to happen.
NCAA basketball has it right. The regular season is very important (and yes, very interesting, or you're not a real fan); teams that don't do well don't make the dance or get a low seed. There still are the OOC crap games, but that's simply unavoidable.
Like I said, if the system College Football is so good, why don't we use it for every other sport in America? Because it sucks.
Sorry Kev, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. :-)
Big Tide said:
posted on November 25, 2007 5:51 PM — 12.208.88.211 — link — abuse?
The only thing worse than my Tide's play this season is the LOUSY way college football tries to determine a champion. The same group of losers who were trying to tell us OSU was the best team in the land for weeks (ditto LSU) still have no clue. How exciting would it be right now if the major BCS conference champions were about to have a real playoff. The regular season still matters and we could use the opinions for the matchups.
Honestly, I don't know if there really is a championship team this year. Cetainly someone will take home the crystal but all of the Top 10 teams are flawed....more so than normal. If Georgia wins the SEC title game I would take them against anyone in the Top 10.
Bevo Boy said:
posted on November 25, 2007 7:18 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
Big Tide, what about if a 7-5 team makes it to their conference championship game and then upsets an undefeated #1 team after losing to them earlier in the year? You're saying that the 7-5 should get into the playoff instead?
Autigerman said:
posted on November 25, 2007 7:57 PM — 72.205.222.229 — link — abuse?
Bevo
Just out of curiosity when was the last time a team finished 7-5 and still won a conference? 4 losses last year i think won. Has it ever happened?However in a system like the BCS they would get a huge bowl game payoff anyway.
For the system to work well they have to first fix some other problems ...ie the six week layoff before the championship game is totally rediculas.
Also for a team from a non BCS conference to win it has become almost impossible. Seems every year there is at least one undefeated team left out.Utah won there BCS game a few years ago, Boise State last year and perhaps Hawaii this year.ALL were non bcs undefeated teams....oh yea and a little team named Auburn. In light of whats happened this year whos to say that Hawaii shouldnt get a chance to play for the title.
With scholarship limits in place and young guys looking to go where they can play early i think this is just the begining of what i call NFL type parity in the college ranks. No longer can you pull the old Bear Bryant trick and sign a kid to keep him off someone elses roster.
3 years and then sign with the pros. Still healty
enough to play a while. Why come back for a senior year and prehaps get hurt except to improve your draft rank.
Glen Dorsey is a perfect example of a senior season that almost ended in tragedy.He would never do it but if i were the coach id sit him now that the NC chances are gone. Why risk it.
He has had a stellar career and its just not worth the risk.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 25, 2007 8:07 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
Bevo Boy (#15):
How plausible is it that a 7-5 team gets into a championship game? I say, if they somehow do manage to get into the championship game (the rest of those teams in that division of the conference must really stink) and beat the other team, by all means, they should qualify for the playoff instead of the more "popular" selection. IMHO, let them earn it on the field.
While you're thinking about that, let's just say for example that 7-5 team had lost a key player (or players)to injury earlier in the year. Then, that same team gets those players back later in the year, and start playing like they're capable, and win the championship game. Would you still be willing to deny that team entry into the playoff?
posted on November 25, 2007 8:21 PM — link — abuse? said:
Don't look now - but if Hawaii can stay in the top 12, then they would automatically qualify. Tennessee's game with LSU should help raise them in SOS. That, coupled with an impressive ASU win, could cause both teams to leapfrog the idle Warriors (who have a rather dismal UDub team next week).
Hawaii fans should be Missouri, VaTech, UCLA and LSU rooters this week.
Bevo Boy said:
posted on November 25, 2007 8:29 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
Tom, you make a good point but if they should earn it on the field, as you said, then wouldn't those five losses prove that they can't earn it? Even if they lost a key player, a true contender would be able to strategize to work around that problem and still win most of their games. Even if that player is as important as Dennis Dixon, the coaching staff should give the backup quarterback reps with the first string offense in practice and the fourth quarter of blowouts against D-II teams. So, IMO, teams that truly deserve a shot at the national championship. Just my opinion, but that's what you wanted to know.
GA Boy said:
posted on November 25, 2007 8:32 PM — 97.89.26.241 — link — abuse?
Kev
Don't care much where Hawaii ends up myself. I know I am a big Oklahoma, Pittburgh and Tennessee fan this week. This has been one crazy season. You never know! I know GA could beat anyone right now, especially if it was for a national championship. When these boys get fired up, they can't be stopped. Ask Tebow and Brandon Cox if you don't believe me!GO DAWGS!!
Bevo Boy said:
posted on November 25, 2007 8:46 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
GA Boy, I don't know if Georgia could stop the Missouri offense. They showed that they could beat a solid defense both with the run and with the pass. Also, the Missouri defense was capable of getting a lot of pressure on Reesing with just a four man attack. It would be a great game but I'd give Mizzou the edge.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 25, 2007 8:57 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
Bevo Boy (#20):
I understand what you're trying to say, but I disagree. Don't you think if they find a way to get to the championship game and win it, that they're doing just what you said, and working around the problem? Why would you ignore the fact that the team won (i.e., earned it) 7 times? If 7-5 is good enough to get to a championship game and beat the other team, then they got the job done. Period. Otherwise, why even have a championship game in the first place? Just give the championship to the "prettier" team--again just like in figure skating--and be done with it.
Also, you may want to rethink this statement: "Even if they lost a key player, a true contender would be able to strategize to work around that problem and still win most of their games."
A 7-5 team has won most of their games.
Plus, as I and others have pointed out, it's not likely a 7-5 team gets to the championship game anyway. Even an 8-4 team isn't likely to do it.
c-dogg said:
posted on November 25, 2007 8:58 PM — 76.188.186.49 — link — abuse?
The best thing to happen to Ohio State is NOT playing a conference championship game. They want no parts of a possible rematch with Illinois.
Also, OSU gets to sit back and watch LSU, Kansas, & Missouri (most likely vs. OU) loose to squeeze in the title game. Is it fair?...probably not. But that's the system in the Big 11.
How about tweaking the BCS one more time to give teams with no conference championship game no chance @ the big game....just a thought.
Go Canes....get some recruits.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 25, 2007 10:24 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
c-dogg (#26):
How's it hangin', bro?
"They want no parts of a possible rematch with Illinois."
Hogwash. Any good athlete worth his or her salt wants a rematch. Now, that's not to say Illinois doesn't match up well with OSU, or that the result wouldn't be similar, but I don't believe any team with quality athletes would shy away from a challenge. That's what it's all about, isn't it? We'll see if Illinois can put together an effort like that every game next year (and in this year's bowl game).
Personally, I think Illinois had to play a perfect game to win, and OSU had to have a bad game for Illinois to win, and I think the game and score reflected that. Truth be told, I'm betting Illinois couldn't perform that well against OSU again. But, that doesn't really matter because Illinois did what it took to win and OSU didn't. And, there won't be a rematch this year. Props to the Illini for taking it to the Buckeyes, and at the 'Shoe no less.
Just my 2 cents.
:)
Tom Blogical
posted on November 25, 2007 10:38 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
c-dogg:
I forgot.
"How about tweaking the BCS one more time to give teams with no conference championship game no chance @ the big game....just a thought."
Good luck getting that by the man who controls College Football, which is--Jim Delaney, President of the Big 10. He's also the same person holding up the playoff system, which might be somewhat ironic to a lot of people around here. :-)
wveersfan said:
posted on November 26, 2007 8:52 AM — 216.230.70.238 — link — abuse?
Sorry, but Mizzou will lose to OU and the MNC will be WVU's dream matchup of WVU-OSU. We have mostly sucked hind-tit in recruiting the same players as OSU, as well as lacking tradition and respect when compared to the Buckeyes.
Trust me, WVU fans want this game more than any other possible matchup. That way, at least half of the morons who need the same 5 teams in the top 5 of the polls at the end of the season get their wish. Plus, a win vs. OSU sure would go a lot further than beating Mizzou.
And, yes, we CAN beat OSU. Call it the Josh Jenkins/Terrelle Pryor sweepstakes.......
posted on November 26, 2007 9:03 AM — link — abuse? said:
Projected BCS Matchups (If Missouri beats Oklahoma)
Allstate BCS National Championship Game
Missouri (Big 12 champ) vs. West Virginia (Big East champ)
The Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi
Ohio State (Big Ten champ) vs. USC (Pac-10 champ)
FedEx Orange Bowl
Virginia Tech (ACC champ) vs. Georgia (at-large)
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl
Kansas (at-large) vs. Arizona State (at-large)
Allstate Sugar Bowl
LSU (SEC champ) vs. Hawaii (at-large)
Projected BCS Matchups (If Oklahoma beats Missouri)
Allstate BCS National Championship Game
West Virginia (Big East champ) vs. Ohio State (Big Ten champ)
The Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi
USC (Pac-10 champ) vs. Illinois (at-large)
FedEx Orange Bowl
Virginia Tech (ACC champ) vs. Georgia (at-large)
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl
Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) vs. Arizona State (at-large)
Allstate Sugar Bowl
LSU (SEC champ) vs. Hawaii (at-large)
Spartacus
posted on November 26, 2007 10:54 AM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
A little help here?
L.S.U. 48 Virginia Tech 7
And Virginia Tech is ranked # 6 and LSU is ranked #7 in the BCS poll? Somebody please try and convince me. Let's hear about some convoluted logic on this one!
Tommie Trojan
TampaTiger said:
posted on November 26, 2007 11:16 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Hello all....just arrived back from my trip to the Iron Bowl!! What a sloppy game, but never the less, a win for Auburn! I would like to say that I had a great gameday experience. There were many Bama fans seated around where I was sitting and they were a good bunch of folks. We all had a good time bantering back and forth and when it was all said and done, they were the first to shake my hand and give us congrats for the win.
With that said, Kevin, I do feel the need to bring a story to light. Sometime between 1 and 2 a.m., a few (not representative of the entire Bama fan base) drunk Bama fans set Toomer's Corner on fire. I do have a picture of the tree as it is up in flames. I drove by Toomer's on my way out of town Sunday and the damage appeared to be not too too bad. It appears as though the fire department was able to extinguish the fire before permanent damage was done to the tree. I have searched and searched for a story on this incident, but have been unsuccessful. Has anyone else come across more info on this. Again, I want to make it clear that I am not projecting the acts of a few bad fans over the entire Bama nation. Those of you fans in college football that can't lose with class, do us all a favor and stay home. When you come to someone elses home, you respect their traditions.
posted on November 26, 2007 11:29 AM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse? said:
Playoff? Not going to happen, beyond a final four arrangement.
What if a final four, using two of the 5 current BCS bowls as semi finals, of four conference champions was established?
If any mid major teams finish undefeated, the top such team in the BCS standings would earn a spot.
The remiaming spots would be filled with the top conference champions in the BCS standings.
This year would feature Hawaii and Ohio State, but the other two spots would still be wide open.
Missouri and West Virginia would be in if they win. If one should lose, VT would have a chance to get in. If VT should lose, LSU Oklahoma and USC would have a chance once the dust settled.
What about traditional conference Bowl tie ins? Lets face the fact that the only Bowl strongly clinging to this is as an absolute is the Rose Bowl.
Let the 3 other traditional BCS Bowls rotate the semi finals, with the exception that if the PAC 10 and Big 10 champions both qualify the Bowl that hosted a semifinal the year before yeilds its semi final to the Rose Bowl.
Assume each of the BCS conferences has an equal chance of being in the top of the standings and the non BCS fields a team 75% of the time, but never the top 2.
This would give the Rose Bowl a semi final game 35% of the time. (80% if no non BCS teams qualify, 20% if one does). 16.6% of the time the Rose bowl would feature PAC 10 vs BIG 10 champions when neither qualified for the semi finals (1.7% if no non BCS teams qualify, 20 % if one does).
Altogether this yeilds 51.6% of the time the Rose Bowl features BIG 10 vs PAC 10 champions. The current system yields 69.4% with the same assumptions.
Since the Rose Bowl would still have the first selection of an at large team, a Pac 10 vs Big 10 game could be guaranteed, as long another team from the semifinal eligible conference is BCS eligible. In this case the Rose Bowl would have a low ranked conference champion and the second team from the other conference. If one of the conferences has an off year this would likely be a more competitive than the two champions would have been.
By allowing the BCS bowls to arrange the four semi-finalists to make a more compelling first round, a politically workable semi-final system can be attained within the current Bowl structure.
Sweet Home Alabama said:
posted on November 26, 2007 11:32 AM — 75.120.244.210 — link — abuse?
Tampa Tiger, there are always a few white trash fans associated with every teams. Glad that you didn't see fit to lump us all in that category. It was a boring game no matter which side you were on.
Great turnaround of you season. At the beginning it looked like it might be a very long one.
Congratulations and good luck in your bowl game.
TampaTiger said:
posted on November 26, 2007 11:38 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
SHA - I definately don't think that the actions of a few are representative of the whole Bama nation. Like I said, I actually had a really great time interacting with several Bama fans around me throughout the game. Hope you guys get a bowl bid, and if so, good luck in your game. See you guys in T-Town next year!
Tom Blogical
posted on November 26, 2007 11:39 AM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
Spartacus/Tommie Trogan (#33):
For the same reason WVU is ahead of OSU in the polls, despite the fact that WVU's loss is to a low-ranked South Florida team and OSU's loss is to a higher-ranked Illinois team.
OSU and LSU lost later in the season than did West Virginia and Virginia Tech. That is your convoluted logic, brought to you by the crappy polling system.
Do I think OSU is better than WVU or that LSU is better than Virginia Tech? I don't have a clue, but if we're stuck with this system, it should at least make sense, and I'm with you, it doesn't make sense. There's not much difference between the top 10 teams, so I think they should all settle it on the field.
Spartacus
posted on November 26, 2007 11:58 AM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
Tom Blogical:
Fortunately for you - that Buck defense is gonna get to try and slow down WV. I'm sure that they can probably win the game. I don't think you'll be gettin' So Cal in the Rose (as I think that Oklahoma will handle Missouri again) and your chances of bringin' home the bacon look real good right now. Yes, I agree. Losing to Illinois, late in the season after the Illini have improved dramatically, isn't really too bad. I can't understand why they dropped OSU to #7 and leave Kansas as #5. That Kansas team was as crappy as I have seen - and they will lose again. And, I don't get Georgia as #4 either. That team has played ten points less, consistantly all year long, than any other Top Ten teams have. They definately are not #4 in the country. If we can get them in the Rose Bowl - everybody will find out how far off they really are.
Tommie Trojan
VTBobb
posted on November 26, 2007 12:21 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
Spartacus/TT,
VT is playing significantly better than they were at the beginning of the year. I know, you are probably going to say that the entire year should be taken into account. But remember, ANY playoff system determines the best team AT THE END OF THE YEAR, unless you want to come up with a season long playoff system. Any ideas?I've posted this thought before: Isn't the logical result of builing parity in the college footbal world the NEED for a playoff system? Some of the stupid rules aside, I think the NCAA has done a great job building parity, giving the Virginia Tech's of College Footbal the opportunity to build a succesful program. But ONCE ALL THE TEAMS ARE NEARLY EQUAL, the ONLY way to truly determine a NC will be to have the contenders in a given year square off, head to head.
If nothing else, this year has shown that the POLLS CAN NOT be relied on to RANK teams precisely enough to account for the PARITY in college football.
Spartacus
posted on November 26, 2007 12:37 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
VTBobb:
I know Bobb. VT has improved by 20 points and LSU is 21 points worse than they were, right. Virginia Tech would beat LSU today, right? Let's see if you can get by BC this time. We'll see how much you can improve over them first. Okay? According to my calculations - VT should be able to beat BC by around 35 points, this time, right?
Tommie Trojan
VTBobb
posted on November 26, 2007 12:59 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
TT, obviously you didn't watch the BC game. VT let up too early. They were the better team by far, but gave it to them at the end. BC deserved to win because they played 60 minutes, VT did not. That being said, VT won't have to improve much to win that game.
BTW, how much did your calculations show that USC should have beat STANFORD by? Better check your math! By your logic, Stanford should be ahead of USC!
posted on November 26, 2007 1:01 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
As much as I think Georgia is the best tean in the SEC right now, since they won't win the SEC title, I don't think it would be fair to reward them with a NC title game, if the right teams were to lose and all the planets aligned just right.
Missouri and Ohio State in the title game...
Tom Blogical
posted on November 26, 2007 1:27 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
War Eagle Atlanta (#43):
When I read, "Missouri and Ohio State in the title game...", I literally said "Whoa!" out loud--I kid you not.
Not that it's a stretch to me that Missouri would beat Oklahoma, because I think that'll be a close game. But, I think the Backyard Brawl is going to consist of West Virginia putting a whuppin' on Pitt. Not just taking them out to the woodshed, mind you...an old fashioned whuppin'. Like, opening a 55 gallon drum of whoopass kind of whuppin'.
Did I say whuppin'?
Spartacus
posted on November 26, 2007 1:42 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
Now for some rants on the Missouri-Kansas game!
Kansas was the worst team I have seen lately. They are no better than Arizona - maybe. Their QB is a "midget". The RB is the slowest runner I have ever seen. He's big - but he goes down like a 2-bit ho' on skid row. The only decent thing that I saw from this team was the spectacular grabs by some of those WR's. And, the only reason that happened was because Reesing could not put it in the vicinity of where they were. That's because, once contained in the pocket, he could not see over any of the linemen. Pathetic! This team will lose to whoever they play in a bowl game.
Missouri was somewhat more impressive. I did not see any great team speed. Temple was a powerful RB who should play on Sunday. Maclin is a special talent who can really play. Chase Daniel is a great QB. I was not too impressed with the defense - as Kansas was really beginning to light them up in the 2nd half. I think that Kansas may have just run out of time.
Oklahoma will dismantle this Missouri team. They are not much different that Kansas is. Very slow and not very good on defense. Oklahoma will put the ball in Patrick's hands and control the clock on this team. Daniel will feel pressured to "make something happen" and will probably make a couple of mistakes.
Oklahoma 35 Missouri 27
Tommie Trojan
Spartacus
posted on November 26, 2007 2:04 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
VTBobb:
I don't know why I'm blabbering at you. I am being facetious. But, if you must know, USC was a -38 point favorite over Stanford. Do you think that was the "spread" because Stanford should have won? Point is: Southern Cal lost to the "worst team" that any of the top teams lost to (by only one point) - therefore they are downgraded in the rankings. I can't make the argument that they need to be ranked higher than 8th - really. And, I don't beleive that you can possibly make the argument that Virginia Tech should outrank LSU. You lost by 41 points. Do I think LSU is 41 points better than VT? No way! That was a fortunate day for LSU. Has VT improved? Yes they have. How many other teams around the country have improved also? Many many! Normally, LSU should be favored by around 9-10 points over VT on a neutral field. But, they should not outrank LSU right now. Should LSU lose their CCG and Virginia Tech win theirs - then you might have an argument.
Tommie Trojan
VTBobb
posted on November 26, 2007 2:15 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
TT, I mostly agree. VT-LSU on a neutral field? Not quite a 9-10 point underdog. I'd say MAYBE 3, based on how they are currently playing. But in my mind a #6 vs. a #7 should be a virtual coin toss anyway.
Anyway, we could beat this to death. My real point is the poll/BCS system is inadequate to determine a NC. See post 48.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 26, 2007 2:17 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
Spartacus/Tommy Trojan (#49):
"But, if you must know, USC was a -38 point favorite over Stanford."
Really? I thought it was -44. *shrug*. I'll take your word for it. Oh, and just because, my 3-year-old daughter loves Lazy Town and Sportacus--she's watching it right now. Worthless info, I know, but whenever I see the name Spartacus, that's what I think of. :-)
If the OSU and USC matchup doesn't happen this year, it'll be a fun buildup to the game next year!
Spartacus
posted on November 26, 2007 2:44 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
My Top Ten:
1. West Virginia (me thinks South Florida is the strongest team to have lost to)
2. Ohio State (only one loss and Illinois was a pretty good team at 9-3)
3. LSU (two losses to Kentucky and Arkansas - both good teams)
4. Oklahoma (two losses to Colorado and Texas Tech - not quite as good as LSU's losses)
5. USC (Stanford was a bad loss and Oregon was the toughest to lose to at the time)
6. Georgia (Beat Florida)
7. Florida (best three loss team ever?)
8. Missouri (will probably lose to Oklahoma)
9. Virginia Tech (bad loss to LSU)
10. Arizona State (best losses to Oregon & USC)So, I'm playing "who did you lose to"? Since losing is all that matters, right? It's a shame that Florida may be left out of the BCS games. I think that should Missouri and West Virginia lose - then only three teams can be discussed at that point. Those three would be LSU, Oklahoma and USC - who all have one remaining game (to meet Ohio State).
Tommie Trojan
CaneNation said:
posted on November 26, 2007 3:08 PM — 65.223.143.99 — link — abuse?
TT #54:
If you're playing the "who did you lose to" game then how do you have USC ahead of Virginia Tech? Tech's losses were to the current #7 and # 11 in the BCS...those are much better losses than USC's. Stanford??? Come on!!!
VTBobb
posted on November 26, 2007 3:13 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
Spartacus,
I'm not IrishJT. I don't think my team is the best "year in/year out". Parity hopefully prevents any team being the class of a conference EVERY year.Your rankings are full of bias. Is a close loss to an unranked team, at home, better than a blow out loss to the #2 team on the road, particularly early in the seaosn? If you are playing "who did you lose to", VT has lost 2 games this year, both to the team that was the #2 ranked team in the country at the time. Yet the 3 teams you say should be waiting in the wings all have lost to UNRAKED teams, with LSU and USC losing to unraked teams AT HOME, and eah team has lost a game since VT lost their last game.
Talk about faulty logic.
Spartacus
posted on November 26, 2007 3:33 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
CaneNation:
Do you really think that So Cal loses to LSU by 41 in Baton Rouge? Try and be somewhat honest. The two losses were by a combined 8 points while Booty had a broken finger. He doesn't have one now. So, did you miss the Arizona State game? One of the losses was to Oregon - who was arguably playing the best ball in the country (until Dixon went down). People accuse me of being bias. I don't think so. Although Virginia Tech is playing real well right now - they have not quite ascended into Top Five territory. After Southern Cal destroys somebody (Ohio State, Georgia or Missouri) in the Rose Bowl - what say you then? I know - luck, right?
Tommie Trojan
CaneNation said:
posted on November 26, 2007 3:46 PM — 65.223.143.99 — link — abuse?
Using your logic then I can say there is no way Va Tech loses to Stanford. Tech lost AT Baton Rouge to a very good LSU team...you can't compare that to losing to Stanford. I wouldn't put Tech in the top 5 either but they clearly should be higher than USC.
VTBobb
posted on November 26, 2007 3:48 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
Spartacus,
VT wouldn't loose by 41 to LSU if they played now. I also don't think VT would loose to Stanford at home. Speaking of injuries, Tech had a decimated offensive line and a starting running back with some nagging injuries when they lost to LSU, both of which aren't true now.Spartacus
posted on November 26, 2007 3:59 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
People:
I never said that VT could not be ranked higher than USC. I said that VT cannot be rated higher than LSU. Are inbred hillbillies that fugin' stupid, really. Let's see: USC is 68-8 over the last six years, 65-6 in the last 71 games, and you morons are gonna really bring up that tired old sheeit? No, I'm not IrishJT. My team will kick the crap outta any of your dayum teams - and you know it. There is a world of difference between me and IrishJT. It's just too bad that we're not gonna get either Virginia Tech or Miami this year. That's when you cornholer's shoot your mouths off the best - when you kniow that you won't have to play the game. Seems like we snuffed VT just a few years ago. Am I mistaken? Or, are you gonna pretend that it was even a game? Oh, I forgot, your improved now.
Tommie Trojan
posted on November 26, 2007 4:14 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Tom Blog: Sorry. Per your request, I will remove Ohio State from consideration in my title game prediction. You're right. West Virginia and that vaunted Big East schedule trumps anything the Big 11 can offer. :-)
OU Ron: Yea, yea, what can I say? I'm a bandwagoner. I know that OU has owned Mizzou of late, but the Tigers did have a chance in that last game with you. Perhaps they have some momentum going with their newly minted #1 crown.
Unfortunately for you, if the Sooners win, I don't believe that will carry enough weight to springboard them into the title game. Or maybe it will. Who knows?
CaneNation said:
posted on November 26, 2007 4:22 PM — 65.223.143.99 — link — abuse?
Sparty -
LOL...good one. Maybe it's that SoCal sun or something but what you said was that should Mizzou & WV lose then only 3 teams should be mentioned for the NC game...LSU, Oklahoma, and USC (#54) and had VT lower than USC in your "rankings" which is what I questioned. But whatever, I'm done.
VTBobb
posted on November 26, 2007 4:33 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
TT, I'm just using your own arguments to point out that your rankings are biased. I never said anything about USC ranked ahead of VT or vice versa. You, however, did put USC ranked ahead of VT in your personal daydream rankings. So, before you call me a "fugin' stupid" "inbred hillbilly" try getting your head out of your butt long enough to reread you rown posts. You know, while you say you're not IrishJT, you sure are resorting to his tactics of:
1. Name calling when someone uses their wit and your own arguments to form a well reasoned argument against you.
2. Invoking past glories to justify why they are such a powerhouse now.
And by the way, rewatch that USC-Tech game. Tech was not only in the game, but it took an imaginary offesnsive pass interference call to shut down VT's momentum as they were driving to INCREASE their lead.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 26, 2007 5:30 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
War Eagle Atlanta (#63):
LOL!! Much better! I'm a huuuuge OU fan this week!
Tom Blogical
posted on November 26, 2007 5:50 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
War Eagle Atlanta (#69):
I suppose. I think the game is over just after kickoff though. Then again, this has been one super silly season...aw, who am I kidding? WVU has this one locked up. :-)
My "pro" team is the Bengals. Ugh. Although they did well beating the Titans yesterday.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 26, 2007 5:51 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
Oops. I meant (#70). Whatever.
Spartacus
posted on November 26, 2007 5:58 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
SWA:
My family is all peckerwoods, bro! They all hail from Fresno, Missouri and Oklahoma, son! You know I can take some crap from some Hokie fan who has pride in his team - but isn't this blog reserved for people who are fans of teams who win games? Where do you get off jumpin' into conversations about ranked teams? When was the last time that your team finished ranked?
VTBobb: VT is a great program. They win ten every year. I've never said that they were not good. I think your the one knockin' my team down. I respect the idea that you have pride in your team. What I like about VT is that defense. Never been thrilled with the "O" - but that defense is probably the best year in and year out.
CaneNation: Are you new? Your the 1st Cane fan who has not been able to understand what I am talkin' about. I expect ignorance from people whose teams have never won. They don't know what it is like to carry that bullseye. Did you miss the twenty years of "the U" dominating the college game? If not - you ought to be able to understand that great programs always find ways to win big games.
Tommie Trojan
OU-Ron
posted on November 26, 2007 6:25 PM — 72.198.24.199 — link — abuse? said:
@63 War Eagle, we're not playing for the NC game, we're playing for another BCS Bowl, the Fiesta, I'm not saying that that Mizzou will lose, I'm saying that if they win, you can say that they deserve it because it's not gonna be a cakewalk...
posted on November 26, 2007 6:38 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Tom Blog: There's a few old auburn players playing for the Bengals. I hated that Kenny Irons tore his ACL before the season even started. What's up with Rudi Johnson? Why isn't he getting the same playing time as last year? Getting too old?
Big Tide said:
posted on November 26, 2007 6:40 PM — 12.208.88.211 — link — abuse?
Bevo Boy #15; yes the 7-5 team should move forward, because if an undefeated #1 loses to a 7-5 that tells me a heck of a lot about the #1 team. Let's rewind a second. No offense to Sooner fans, but wasn't it 2003 when K State stuck it to you guys in the Big 12 Championship and then you played LSU in the Sugar Bowl? That was just wrong and the eventual victory by LSU did not include the AP National Championship because the media darlings love USC. LSU should have played USC that year for the title game and we would have had a clearer (not completely clear, but clearer champion). After the lose to K-State it was obvious the Sooners peaked early in the year. They probably played their best football that season in October. The mark of a great team and a quality coaching staff is to improve with each game. That type of improvement is rewarded in every sport that has a playoff.
I have a feeling that this weird season still has some strange twists and turns before all the dust settles.....
Lennie Collins
posted on November 26, 2007 7:26 PM — 68.92.150.142 — link — abuse? said:
Hey OU Ron {Comment #79} Oklahoma is favored over Missouri because of past records. Oklahoma has a big advantage over Missouri head to head in the past BUT this is the present! I still pick Oklahoma BIG over Missouri. Crimson and Cream True! Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!
Tom Blogical
posted on November 26, 2007 7:32 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
War Eagle Atlanta (#76):
Yeah, it hurt that Irons tore his ACL. So did all the other injuries and suspensions.
Rudi Johnson had a bad hamstring pull most of the season and is just now getting back into the starting rotation.
Losing David Pollack is the one that really hurt on defense, as well as losing Odell Thurman.
Sigh. Maybe next year. I've said the same thing for almost 20 years.
GA Boy said:
posted on November 26, 2007 8:33 PM — 97.89.26.241 — link — abuse?
Tommie T
You know I have always had great respect for your Trojans. I really would love to see the DAWGS travel out to the the West Coast to the Rose. Not going to happen though. Big Money won't let us go that far. They are going to stick us in the Orange to face the Mighty Hokies again. We won't have to come back on them this year. It will be a route from the start.I really think you would be suprised by the speed of the DAWGS if we did play you. I agree with your analysis of the Big 12 teams. They are too slow. If it ends up Mizzou and WVA, you will see just how slow the boys from the Big 12 are.
GO DAWGS!!
Bevo Boy said:
posted on November 26, 2007 8:44 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
Big Tide #78, I'm not saying I disagree with your thought there, but there would be a lot of teams that would complain if they were 9-3 and left out because they didn't win their conference and a 7-5 team did solely because they won their conference.
GatorMatt
posted on November 26, 2007 11:48 PM — 70.171.18.91 — link — abuse? said:
#86,
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ap-bcsconfusion&prov=ap&type=lgnsSpartacus
posted on November 27, 2007 1:40 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
OU Ron:
Let me say this. The boyz in Vegas don't give a dayum about any BCS rankings. They only go by who they "know" is the better team. I might add - they are really good at setting that line. Try and win more than 50% some time. It's almost impossible. They use a "pure points" system in figuring out who is better than who. Common sense tells you that Oklahoma has better players (recruits better), has better coaches (pays more money) and has way more tradition than Missouri does. It's real likely that Oklahoma wins the game by an "average" of three points. It doesn't matter that everybody (mostly media) has jumped on the Missouri bandwagon. Oklahoma is Oklahoma and Missouri is still Missouri. This is what "the smart money" always knows. The way that you lose money in these "Big Games" is to get all caught up in "the hype". Last week the most over-hyped team in America was Kansas. I took Missouri. This week the most over-hyped team in America is Missouri. I'll take Oklahoma and give away the three. This is college football and recruiting does matter. Oklahoma and Texas out-recruit everybody in the Big-12 year in and year out. This is the time of year that that recruiting shows up. Keep in mind: all teams and all players need time to mature. The cream always rises to the top.
Ohio State started out last year as the most experienced team in the country. Florida, with two great recruiting classes behind them, were a very young team mixed with some veterans. Florida struggled early on - while Ohio State pounded everyone in sight. By the end of the year, Florida had gained tons of experience, and proceeded to pound Ohio State into oblivion. This goes on in every conference every year. Ojklahoma has more pure talent than any team in the Big-12.There is nothing new under the sun. Here are some of the pre-season prognosis to win each conference championship:
ACC: 1. Virginia Tech 2. Florida State (Virginia Tech has been the most talented team in this conference for awhile now - and will continue to be that. Today they are right where they are supposed to be).
Big-12: 1. Oklahoma 2. Missouri (not much to say here)
Pac-10: 1. U.S.C. 2. Oregon (So Cal has again emerged as the likely Rose Bowl participant).
SEC: 1. L.S.U. 2. Georgia (only Georgia is not there - but should be).
Big 10: 1. Michigan 2. Ohio State (flip a coin in any year)
Big East: 1. West Virginia 2. Louisville (Louisville fell off badly - new coach).
WAC: 1. Hawaii 2. Boise State (what can you say here?)
MWC: 1. T.C.U. 2. B.Y.U. (take your pick with the Cougs usually winning anyway)
That's a rough idea. The only teams that did not perform up to snuff were Michigan, Florida State, T.C.U. and Louisville.
Anyway, this is why Oklahoma will be favored over Missouri on any day of the week, in any year, no matter what the BCS or any voters think.
Tommie Trojan
Spartacus
posted on November 27, 2007 5:00 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
OU-Ron:
I can assure you that it would be a much closer ranking. Have a look. Early in the season they (the pollsters) had South Florida overrated. Then wasn't it Boston College? Now they have BC going upward again. Then, it was Kansas. Now, it's Missouri. You could include Oregon, who has no depth at QB, and completely came undone when Dixon went down. How bout Arizona State? Did they look overrated on Turkey Day?
I'll put it to you this way: if you flipped a coin on all 52 games per week ATL (without any prior knowledge of anything about any team) then you'd hit 50% of the games and lose some money. In fact: these guys are so good that if you added up the line on every game played for a whole season, against what the actual outcome was, you'd find out that those oddsmakers were under 0.50 of point off on all games played. That's how close they really are.
Here is something interesting: would you consider that any team that was 10-2 was a really good team? Let's just say they play that way all the time forever. This is an example. Thing is: these kinda teams are favored in every game. Why do they ever lose? The fact is that they do lose about 16.7% of the time. Even the great teams lose games. Why? Why are there so many upsets in college football?
Back to the betting line. You have to win about 67.0% of your games in order to return a profit of 27.9% on your money. Sounds easy enough, right? It is interesting that the amount over 50% that you need to hit to make a decent return (17.0%) is about exactly what the amount of "upsets" in college football are (16.7%). How is this? Well, if there were 54 games being played each week - you'd only have to manipulate the score on nine of those games (16.7%). Only nine games would do the trick and nobody could ever win against the house.
Do you really think that the refs are that pathetic? They are not. They do it in every single game so that you "get used to it". They even offer you treats like "instant replay". But, what is not reviewable are "holding, pass interference and unsportsmanlike conduct" calls. I surmise that these "upsets" are not really upsets at all. They are supposed to "happen". Ever scratch your head and wonder "how in the world could that team lose to them"? One in six games are "manipulated" and can cause teams to lose games. The most important fact is: record after a straight-up-loss. Rarely will these clowns gaff a team twice in two weeks. Most teams do well after a SUL.
So your mission Ron, should you choose to accept it is: figure out who is gonna win each game, decifer which nine games that they'll gaff some team on, and then either stay away from it or decide which way they'll swing the game. Yes, the oddsmakers know all!Tommie Trojan
GOVOLS1020 said:
posted on November 28, 2007 1:15 PM — 207.191.187.20 — link — abuse?
I am so sick of hearing "Georgia should be in SEC Championship." The thing is your not. You got taken behind the woodshed by a good Tennessee team and you will be sitting in athens not atlanta watching the game. I think it is a joke to even consider them for the national championship. Ask Erik Ainge, and Eric Berry what they think about it? GO VOLS!!!!!!!!!
gatorstud said:
posted on November 28, 2007 1:45 PM — 69.95.111.248 — link — abuse?
govols1020......uhm....didn't your volunteers get taken behind the woodshed by florida......again......
try to use some other kind of analogy..cause the one you used doesn't hold water......
congrats on a good season though...i think lsu is going to give you guys a handful......should be a good game.....
go gators..and hokies
GOVOLS1020 said:
posted on November 28, 2007 3:29 PM — 207.191.187.20 — link — abuse?
Yeah,
I understand what you are saying. My only point is if Georgia deserves to be in the SEC championship, then why didn't they beat Tennessee? I take nothing away from Florida. Just shows how crazy of a year it has been.
Neville said:
posted on December 2, 2007 12:22 AM — 70.164.69.146 — link — abuse?
The MNC matchup will be Ohio State and LSU. LSU is going over Georgia, take it to the bank. The Colley Matrix computer poll will read like this tomorrow:
1. LSU
2. Va Tech
3. OSU
4. GeorgiaIn general, I'd say expect LSU to be be about #1-#2 in the computers and Georgia to be about #4. That will push LSU way over the top, regardless how close the human voting is.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
1st_and_NOLE
said:
posted on November 25, 2007 1:48 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?This may not be the popular opinion but...
To me, WVU is clearly the #1 team in the nation. They deserve to be ranked where they are and I'd put my money on them if they played anyone else in the top 10.