NCAA Football - Any fans here?
- 03-29-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
no doubt. and i see ayoob is supposed to be a stud too.
all i wanna know is wtf happened against t-tech. i know they were upset about being shafted, but geez that sucked. i remember watching that game with a buddy of mine and we were stunned, cause cal was better than that.
- 03-29-2005, 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by lvtrojan
03-29-2005, 04:18 PM
He'll be a junior this season, and he does that in every game simply amazing. I can only imagine how good he could be with an arm.Originally Posted by yankees3
03-29-2005, 04:20 PM
We still own OU for overall wins. It really doesn't bother me too bad, more than half of their team is from Texas.Originally Posted by utk1976
03-29-2005, 05:09 PM
Yea he is still going to be quarter back, pretty much before he even returned had the position of starting qb, imo. His competition for the spot was not that great unless we had some awesome recruits(which I will say we did get a lot of the top recruits in VA, but no qb's that would be able to come in and be good enough). Sean Glennon the backup last year will probably stay at backup or may even take a backseat to Cory Holt, a guy that is not talked about as much but is really good. He is really athletic, and probably better than Glennon.Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
03-29-2005, 08:10 PM
Okay, I've got a VT question. What the heck is that thing on the side of Frank Beamer's face? I'm not cracking on him, I'm just curious. Was he badly burned or something?Originally Posted by jaymode
03-29-2005, 08:22 PM
03-29-2005, 08:39 PM
I am not really sure either, but that would be my guess.Originally Posted by Grassroots082
THe funny thing is, is when he appears in person it does not look as bad as it does on TV. I did not notice it when I saw him speak in front of the students for a pep rally thing but definitely saw it on tv, its weird.
03-30-2005, 12:26 PM
Someone will probably take a run at me for saying this, but here goes... USC is the new Miami. They play in a weak, underpowered conference with no real competition other than Cal (who they almost lost to). Also, their non-conference opponents are typically weak. V. Tech was the exception last year - and Tech came very close to winning that game.Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
If USC had to play in the Big 12, Big 10, the new ACC, or the SEC, they wouldn't enjoy the same success. In those conferences you play a quality team almost every week, and injuries are more prevalent. USC only plays about 4 "big games" a year - and the rest are just cupcakes.
That's my $.02.
03-30-2005, 02:22 PM
I agree about the conference thing but they're destroying people in bowl games. Maybe it would be a little different if they played in a conference like the Big 10 where teams spend all season pounding the snot out of each other and the competition is so fierce everyone can beat anyone on any given week.Originally Posted by utk1976
03-30-2005, 02:27 PM
True, they're in a conference where only Cal and possibly Oregon or Washington can be good from time to time. They still SLAUGHTERED Oklahoma when it counted most. They're recruiting classes are almost too good to be true as well, they're finally doing what the other California schools couldn't do which is keep all the top California athletes in the stateOriginally Posted by utk1976
03-30-2005, 04:45 PM
I agree completely that they destroyed OU. Recruiting has been and will be the cornerstone of USC's success. I don't think P. Carroll is some sort of coaching genius - he and his staff just recruit like crazy. Cali is talent-rich. I know that the Vols mine SoCal as much as possible (perhaps to their detriment -----> Casey Clausen). In the bowl game USC was soooo much faster than OU, and that's something that you can't coach.Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
But let me ask you this...would you be willing to trade USC's schedule for an SEC schedule? (or ACC, Big 10, etc.) I have the Vols' schedule right in front of me... It starts out like this...
1. Alabama- Birmingham: Easy
2. Florida: ?
3. LSU: ?
4. Ole Miss ?
5. Georgia ?
Other than UAB, there's not an easy win in there. Now for USC:
4. Az. State
See my point?
03-30-2005, 04:55 PM
I'm someone...Originally Posted by utk1976
2002 - auburn, @ colorado, @ kansas st., ND
2003 - @ auburn, @ ND, BYU, Hawaii
2004 - @ VTech, @ BYU, colo st., ND
Last year Oklahoma played bowling green, houston, and oregon ALL at home. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, citadel (WTF!), and louisiana tech ALL at home. No freaking way can you say that SC plays a weak OOC, compared to the other BCS teams.
All conferences go through up and down years. Last year the Pac 10 was down. It will improve: new coaches all over the place.
And dont give that crap about "if SC played in this conference or that conference" , Oklahoma, Iowa, and Michigan all had plenty of time to rest before getting their asses stomped.
03-30-2005, 06:51 PM
I'm not really sure that Hawaii and BYU are all that great, but okay. Also, I agree that conferences are up and down from year to year and that the P10 will get better. Plus it's tough to know how good an opponent will be when you finally play, since the games are scheduled a year or two in advance. In a roundabout way, you reveal a larger issue regarding non-conference games. Since strength of schedule was removed from the BCS calculation, there's no real motivation for teams to schedule big-time DI opponents as their non-con games. This is illustrated by your point that Auburn and OU also played weak non-con teams. Bro, if it were up to me a team would be penalized for scheduling LaTech or Citadel. Hell, why not just roll out the local high school team and play them.Originally Posted by lvtrojan
Also, I think that there's too much of a penalty for losing on the road against good teams. Two years ago my Vols lost at Auburn after being a TD favorite. That was an Auburn team that Jesus and ten of his buddies couldn't beat that day.
I'm not sure I follow re: OU, Iowa, and Michigan having time to rest but still losing. My point was that USC had a luxury last year that most teams didn't in that they could build a 1st half lead and then let the scrubs play. Also, there was no need to come with full-on, do-or-die, balls-to-the-walls intensity every week. In contrast, the Big10 for example is a meat-grinder every single week with no let-up.
03-30-2005, 07:30 PM
We pretty much agree then.Originally Posted by utk1976
I still think their is some motivation to schedule decent teams in that the AP and ESPN polls are major BCS factors, and you will earn points/votes for beating better teams.
The other point i was trying to make is that SC has beaten the best of the Big 10 and Big 12, when they should have been reasonably at full strength and not beaten up from conference play, thats all.
03-30-2005, 08:24 PM
03-30-2005, 08:27 PM
Not saying that OU and Michigan would have beaten USC, especially since OU seemed really weak in normal games that werent big in their books. But if USC was in a conference with better competition, to where its a dogfight every game to get a winner, then things might be different at the end of the season.Originally Posted by lvtrojan
03-30-2005, 09:21 PM
California has great talent, and as long as USC gets those players then they will dominate. I do believe though that Texas, and Florida are more "fertile" when it comes to talent. All of the Florida teams demonstrate this, and every team in the big 12 has mainly Texas athletes on their rosters.
The pac-10 has been weak, but it is one of the dominate conferences, just look at their past. Although I don't agree with the lack of a conference championship game, which would have been nice if Cal played USC again. Things may have been different.
03-30-2005, 09:32 PM
BTW, look for the PAC-10 to remain weak besides Cal and USC because they aren't gonna let the California kids go to Oregon, Washington, Washington St, Arizona St, or Oregon St anymore.
03-30-2005, 09:37 PM
this probably should be in a different thread, but I for one would rather have a playoff system like DI-AA and others have rather than the bowl game championship crap.
03-30-2005, 09:45 PM
Everyone would agree with you except the fat cats that run the NCAA. I'd say the top 8 teams play in a playoff, the next controversy would be how do we decide who advances to the play-offsOriginally Posted by jaymode
03-30-2005, 10:03 PM
Every conference plays a championship game, then take those winners, and a couple at-large.Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
03-30-2005, 10:07 PM
Yeah that's not bad because if you get conference champions than the whole rankings BS is not a factor. The NCAA's response to that would be "That tournament takes too long and the kids would miss too many classes"Originally Posted by BOHICA
03-30-2005, 10:17 PM
Also, they need to toss out preseason rankings, or at least not have them count for anything. They shouldnt implement rankings until say half way through conference play. Then teams who end up with 4 losses and still end up ranked 15th or under because they started out ranked really high wont get that. Helps rank everyteam by their current season, and not previous.
03-30-2005, 10:29 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By Whacked in forum SupplementsReplies: 951Last Post: 06-21-2016, 05:02 PM
- By enhanced in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 12-02-2011, 02:33 AM
- By grock in forum Sports TalkReplies: 15Last Post: 10-25-2005, 07:08 PM
- By Odessa14 in forum General ChatReplies: 43Last Post: 03-20-2005, 11:29 AM
- By Swedeguy in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 07-07-2004, 02:42 PM