NCAA College Football 2012

[bonehead]

"...he [Alvarez] is about to face a meat grinder with Stanford and Wisconsin is not as good as last year when they came up short with Oregon."

Silly. How did that meatgrinder do against the Huskies? Seven point home winners against a 3-9 Washington State and all of 4 points against Oregon State on the farm. Wisconsin? Five losses this year by a total of 19 points. Three in overtime. To say we're not as good as last year is fair. To imply that we're over-matched. I doubt it.

Nebraska might have been though...

Hehe. I thought that would get your attention.

I am not alone in my assertion. After the regular season Stanford is ranked #6. Wisconsin is.......?
Stanford also lost a heart breaker vs ND in overtime and did beat the ducks. A lot will hinge on how well Alvarez takes ahold of a team that was not his. Coaches bring in talent that suits their coaching style. Very few coaches can successfully change their coaching style to the current team's talent. Especially with a one and done format.

[Minskaya]

My picks...

NC - Defense wins championships. I'll take the Irish
Rose - Stanford
Cotton - Texas A&M
Sugar - Florida
Fiesta - Oregon
Orange - For the first time ever, the Northern Illinois Huskies are in a BCS bowl. NIU QB Jordan Lynch does it all and led the nation in total yards. As much as I like a good Cinderella story, I'll take Florida State.

[S2]

bonehead Reply

"I am not alone in my assertion. After the regular season Stanford is ranked #6...Stanford also lost a heart breaker vs ND in overtime..."

Opened by beating the mighty San Jose State Spartans at Stanford by 3. They have their good and bad days. So have we. Alvarez is VERY close to that program and I'd suggest throwing eight passes (none in the 2nd half) against Nebraska is something with which he might be familiar. Stanford is welcome to stay home but we'll be there for the third year in a row...and I suspect ready to play.

Enjoy your Fiesta while you can. When Oregon comes down on probation ol' Chip will be gone to the pros.

[bonehead]

"I am not alone in my assertion. After the regular season Stanford is ranked #6...Stanford also lost a heart breaker vs ND in overtime..."

Opened by beating the mighty San Jose State Spartans at Stanford by 3. They have their good and bad days. So have we. Alvarez is VERY close to that program and I'd suggest throwing eight passes (none in the 2nd half) against Nebraska is something with which he might be familiar. Stanford is welcome to stay home but we'll be there for the third year in a row...and I suspect ready to play.

Enjoy your Fiesta while you can. When Oregon comes down on probation ol' Chip will be gone to the pros.

Heard that one before. The NCAA has been eyeballing the program for about two years now and...nothing. I like to think that Chip is a step above Pete Carroll but we will see if/when anything happens. Personally I don't give much thought to Chip going to the pros. Not that he isn't good enough but I do not see those over payed egomaniacs in the NFL conditioning themselves to Chip's system of play. College players are hungrier.

[SonnyCorleone]

I'm an SEC fan. Went to South Carolina. My opinion may be a little (a lot) biased but I don't think the SEC will lose a single bowl game this year, including Bama over Notre Dame.

In particular, let's look at Notre Dame. They played 4 ranked teams, not counting pre-season #1 SoCal. First game, #10 Michigan State went on to be unranked 6-6 Michigan State the only team that can proudly say they are the most mediocre school in the Big Ten. Next up was #18 Michigan, a 4 loss team that went into the first game thinking they were something and left the season knowing they were nothing when they lost to a penalized Ohio State and didn't even get to their championship game. Stanford at #17 was arguably the best team they played all year but even then the Cardinal showed signs that they weren't all that. A close game to Arizona led to another close game with Notre Dame. They then went on to barely beat Oregon (another overrated team) and barely beat Pittsburgh (a Big East team) and once again BARELY beat UCLA which even though it was in their conference championship is still not considered a PAC-12 powerhouse. That leaves us finally with Oklahoma, who at the time was #8. Their schedule was weak, possibly weaker than Stanford. Their only non-Notre Dame loss was to Kansas State who was destroyed later on by Baylor. Their second toughest game was to Oklahoma State which had to go into OT. Okie State isn't even that good this year. So when you compare the strength of schedule of everyone that Notre Dame beat you start to unravel their own schedule.

Notre Dame is an overrated no loss team like Hawaii was in 2008. You can be undefeated for an entire season if you play enough bad teams and get lucky when it counts. When it comes to SEC football you better have a strong program to back up that luck, otherwise you'll get pummeled. For those that watched the SEC Championship game you saw how luck factored into the last few second of the game where Georgia didn't spike the ball, leading to a Bama victory. This was after 4 intense quarters of two colossus programs rammed heads in a game that could be called without a doubt a clash of titans.

This picture sums it up best:

[bonehead]

Sure but in the end ND played and won all of those games and they did play some good teams, including Stanford who finished 6th according to the computers. Alabama dropped one at home vs Texas A&M who is now ranked 12th. That is huge. Other than the title game the SEC dodged a bullet. They do not have to play any PAC-12 teams.

[SonnyCorleone]

The PAC is a weak conference. Their top 3 teams have been SoCal, Stanford, and Oregon. Even UCLA isn't considered to be a powerhouse. Every other team in the PAC can be ignored for being fodder.

Notre Dame did beat those teams, yes, but as I said before an undefeated schedule does not make you a good team. Hawaii went undefeated and then got DESTROYED by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. Last year Houston was #6 according to the BCS in Week 13 and then lost their first game, going 12-1 in Week 14. They dropped from #6 to #19 because when they evaluated their games they felt that they had such a weak schedule there was little doubt they went that long undefeated.

If you evaluate everyone Notre Dame played vs who Alabama played you'd see who plays better football. Ignoring Michigan, who I've already said collapsed, there were plenty of ranked teams that Bama had to beat. Miss State isn't ranked anymore and that's only because they lost to top 10 teams. It happens. When you have a division full of titans not everyone is going to be able to win. That doesn't make Miss State a bad team, it makes them struggle against those who happen to be extraordinary. LSU was a great game, Bama put a lot of work in to not repeat last year's field goal fiasco. Then they tried to recover as quickly as possible to take on Texas A&M but ultimately failed. T A&M is a top 10 school right now, has the Heisman winner, and is under great Coach Sumlin. Losing to A&M was a legitimate loss. A&M only lost to LSU and Florida who are both top 10 teams and interchangeable. The Georgia game was a lot of skill mixed with a lot of luck. That was an amazing display for football prowess. You can't say Alabama will lose against Notre Dame because they struggled against Georgia. That makes Georgia look weak. You can say that Notre Dame will struggle because they have to face the behemoth that took down Georgia.

Bama, Georgia, LSU, A&M, Florida, SCAR. Take one of those teams against Notre Dame and they'd win.

[bonehead]

The PAC is a weak conference. Their top 3 teams have been SoCal, Stanford, and Oregon. Even UCLA isn't considered to be a powerhouse. Every other team in the PAC can be ignored for being fodder.

Notre Dame did beat those teams, yes, but as I said before an undefeated schedule does not make you a good team. Hawaii went undefeated and then got DESTROYED by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. Last year Houston was #6 according to the BCS in Week 13 and then lost their first game, going 12-1 in Week 14. They dropped from #6 to #19 because when they evaluated their games they felt that they had such a weak schedule there was little doubt they went that long undefeated.

If you evaluate everyone Notre Dame played vs who Alabama played you'd see who plays better football. Ignoring Michigan, who I've already said collapsed, there were plenty of ranked teams that Bama had to beat. Miss State isn't ranked anymore and that's only because they lost to top 10 teams. It happens. When you have a division full of titans not everyone is going to be able to win. That doesn't make Miss State a bad team, it makes them struggle against those who happen to be extraordinary. LSU was a great game, Bama put a lot of work in to not repeat last year's field goal fiasco. Then they tried to recover as quickly as possible to take on Texas A&M but ultimately failed. T A&M is a top 10 school right now, has the Heisman winner, and is under great Coach Sumlin. Losing to A&M was a legitimate loss. A&M only lost to LSU and Florida who are both top 10 teams and interchangeable. The Georgia game was a lot of skill mixed with a lot of luck. That was an amazing display for football prowess. You can't say Alabama will lose against Notre Dame because they struggled against Georgia. That makes Georgia look weak. You can say that Notre Dame will struggle because they have to face the behemoth that took down Georgia.

Bama, Georgia, LSU, A&M, Florida, SCAR. Take one of those teams against Notre Dame and they'd win.

Actually the top 3 teams in the PAC 12 are Stanford, Oregon and OREGON STATE. Secondly, Oregon only lost to Stanford in overtime while Alabama was embarrassed by an even lower ranked team. By your reasoning, that would give Oregon and Florida credence to be in the big game instead of Alabama as the teams they lost to are ranked higher than Texas A&M, but preconceived perceptions still persist in the system. You might want to educate yourself a wee bit before making such conclusions.

[SonnyCorleone]

I consider Texas A&M to be better than Stanford. Oregon State might be ranked higher than SoCal but SoCal is overall a much stronger team.

Rankings are biased because it's based off of wins, not strength of schedule. So many good teams aren't ranked because they lost to much better teams. Mississippi State and Vandy are unranked when they are infinitely better than some 15-25 teams. Teams like Boise State (who I think is overrated) is better then #15 Northern Illinois who is now going to a BCS Bowl game. Texas A&M, Florida, LSU, and Georgia are better than any of the other ranked teams under Bama. After them I'd maybe put Notre Dame and then South Carolina. But Oregon and Stanford? They get all their fame because they play crap teams year in and year out and still end up having losses that are ignored.

[bonehead]

I consider Texas A&M to be better than Stanford. Oregon State might be ranked higher than SoCal but SoCal is overall a much stronger team.

Rankings are biased because it's based off of wins, not strength of schedule. So many good teams aren't ranked because they lost to much better teams. Mississippi State and Vandy are unranked when they are infinitely better than some 15-25 teams. Teams like Boise State (who I think is overrated) is better then #15 Northern Illinois who is now going to a BCS Bowl game. Texas A&M, Florida, LSU, and Georgia are better than any of the other ranked teams under Bama. After them I'd maybe put Notre Dame and then South Carolina. But Oregon and Stanford? They get all their fame because they play crap teams year in and year out and still end up having losses that are ignored.

Interesting point of view. Oregon's single loss dropped them behind Alabama and Florida so just maybe the loss IS being counted. Alabama and other SEC teams are well known for having soft NC schedules. To be fair Oregon has traveled to Tennessee and to a "neut" site in Texas to play LSU. So far the SEC has not returned the favor. Now YOU may consider Texas A&M a better team than Stanford but a battery of coaches and computers have a different point of view. Just maybe all that isn't as as biased as your rankings.

How can you rate SC higher than Oregon State? Not only do the Beavers have a better conference record they were in the better half of the conference. The beavers also beat not one, but two teams that beat SC. Again, when all is said and done Oregon State is at #13 and SC is not even in the top 25. Substance over hype. SC will in all likely hood continue being an underachieving team until Kiffin is booted.

[bonehead]

I know how you feel S2.....

[S2]

"I know how you feel S2....."

Tell me because I'm not at all sure right now.

[bonehead]

Last November I was feeling kind of numb. It was a game Oregon could have won but noooooo. Stanford can play up or down to their opponent but they usually get the win.

[Minskaya]

My picks...

NC - Defense wins championships. I'll take the Irish
Rose - Stanford
Cotton - Texas A&M
Sugar - Florida
Fiesta - Oregon
Orange - For the first time ever, the Northern Illinois Huskies are in a BCS bowl. NIU QB Jordan Lynch does it all and led the nation in total yards. As much as I like a good Cinderella story, I'll take Florida State.

2 for 2 so far

[bonehead]

2 for 2 so far

Nice. I am hoping you are right about the Fiesta bowl too. Right now #3 Florida is stinking up the place so depending on the N.C. game Oregon can finish #2 or #3 when the dust settles. With luck ND wins that handily and we can put this SEC dominance BS behind us so the polls next year will be more realistic. Still pulling for an 8 game playoff though.