or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tj100

Meh, they're in the Big East now, they can stop crying and start winning BCS bowls.
Not that I think it's important to own your own tannery to make good shoes (I'd rather a company focus all of their efforts on shoemaking and let somebody else master leather production), but this isn't true. Red Wing Shoes also owns it's own tanning facility.
Big XII is pretty similar to the SEC. Maybe not as high because they have no Vandy comparable. Texas is probably the best academic school in the Big XII, and it's probably in the "decent" category. Both have some pretty bad schools (Mississippi State, Texas Tech).Big East is hard to rank because of the different football / basketball memberships. My read would be that it has no "elite" schools (except non-football members, Notre Dame + Georgetown) but also doesn't have the...
Georgia looks like it'll be in pretty good shape next year; they're going to play in the "toughest" conference in college football, but they won't face Alabama or LSU (at least, not until the championship game).
I think you're confusing me with somebody else. I don't think that Bowl success is a very good measure of conference strength. I never have, mostly because I find it strange that the #5 SEC team plays the #2 ACC team.I'm not denying that it's always been this way, nor do I want to change it. I really like the Bowl system. I just don't think it should be confused with an equitable assessment of relative conference strength.
I believe I brought this up in this thread a few days ago, but the SEC has more gimmie wins than just about any other conference. The bottom 4 teams (I know I looked this up a few days ago) have a really, really, really, awful record against the other 8. So the 8 SEC teams basically walk into the season with 5 to 7 wins baked in (2 to 4 in conference gimmies plus three non-conference games against the likes of the Citadel).
Bowl success isn't a great way to measure quality of conferences for a whole variety of reasons. First is asymmetry of selections; the MWC looks great because they have very few bids (so only their very best teams go to bowls) and they play in crappy bowls (so it's their very best teams against either a low-end BCS school or another mid-major). Second is travel - almost all of the bowls take place in the southern half of the country, so travel is significantly easier for...
Yeah, the human voting wasn't that close in the Harris Poll:2nd Place VotesAlabama: 78Oklahoma State: 37
With Alabama in the title game, the sugar bowl had NO good options. They had to build a game out of:StanfordBoise StateKansas StateVirginia TechBaylorMichiganOklahoma(they also could have taken West Virginia, but why would you want to?)The Fiesta was probably lobbying hard for Stanford, and I would guess the Sugar Bowl didn't mind letting them go. I probably would have gone Michigan - Oklahoma; but Michigan - VA Tech isn't a terrible outcome.
That was written before the coach's poll came out. IF Oklahoma State flips more than 2 computers (Sagarin has already put Alabama #2), they will need 61 second place votes (out of 115 total votes) in the Harris Poll to beat out Alabama. If they don't flip two computers, they basically can't close the gap.
New Posts  All Forums: