2012 College Football Thread

[tj100]



Both baylor and smu are ranked. Look I'm not saying bsu deserves to be in bcs talks. Just that there is so much. Done trying to cheapen bsu's performance and it is more often than not bad, wrong or both. Id still say bsu is one of the ten best teams in the country easy. For a school like bsu if that isn't incredible I don't know what is.

Baylor has just now cracked in at #25 (unranked at the time that TCU played them), and will be unranked after they lose to Oklahoma next week. Ironically, their biggest win is probably over TCU.

SMU is not ranked, and I don't believe has been ranked at all this year (I think they've "received votes" a couple of times).

It's an interesting question as to where Boise State falls. I think they've done an amazing job with their program, and should get an invite into a BCS Conference. They've earned it (and have the requisite NCAA violations to prove it...).

But I think the Utah-to-the-Pac12 move has given us good evidence as to just how good these "super mid major" teams are. Utah was 33-6 in 2008-2010 (Boise was 38-2 in the same span, with a win over Utah), and 6-4 in 2011 with a losing record in conference play (though they'll probably finish 5-4 in the conference, with wins in their last two games).

If I had to objectively rank Boise, it would probably be in the low teens. If they played in a BCS conference, they'd have two, maybe three, losses. I think the real Bowl unfairness for them is that if they don't get a BCS invite, they end up in some fifth tier game instead of the Cotton Bowl, which they more rightly deserve.

 

[Lord-Barrington]



Baylor has just now cracked in at #25 (unranked at the time that TCU played them), and will be unranked after they lose to Oklahoma next week. Ironically, their biggest win is probably over TCU.
SMU is not ranked, and I don't believe has been ranked at all this year (I think they've "received votes" a couple of times).
It's an interesting question as to where Boise State falls. I think they've done an amazing job with their program, and should get an invite into a BCS Conference. They've earned it (and have the requisite NCAA violations to prove it...).
But I think the Utah-to-the-Pac12 move has given us good evidence as to just how good these "super mid major" teams are. Utah was 33-6 in 2008-2010 (Boise was 38-2 in the same span, with a win over Utah), and 6-4 in 2011 with a losing record in conference play (though they'll probably finish 5-4 in the conference, with wins in their last two games).
If I had to objectively rank Boise, it would probably be in the low teens. If they played in a BCS conference, they'd have two, maybe three, losses. I think the real Bowl unfairness for them is that if they don't get a BCS invite, they end up in some fifth tier game instead of the Cotton Bowl, which they more rightly deserve.

These are all good points. I think BSU probably does deserve to join a major conference but the problem is that besides football it doesn't have much to offer. All other sports are sub-par or mediocre and it isn't an academic powerhouse either.

 

[tj100]



These are all good points. I think BSU probably does deserve to join a major conference but the problem is that besides football it doesn't have much to offer. All other sports are sub-par or mediocre and it isn't an academic powerhouse either.

Also, look at it over the last 10 years (it's amazing that they've maintained this level of play for that long):

Against BCS Opponents: 9-6 (60%)
Against Non-BCS Opponents: 105-7 (94%)

In the same period, a mediocre South Carolina team won 46% (46-54) of its BCS games, and 100% of its non-BCS games (22-0).

Drop Boise into the Pac12/SEC/Big12/Big10 and they'd likely be in the middle of the pack at best.

 

[Lord-Barrington]



Also, look at it over the last 10 years (it's amazing that they've maintained this level of play for that long):
Against BCS Opponents: 9-6 (60%)
Against Non-BCS Opponents: 105-7 (94%)
In the same period, a mediocre South Carolina team won 46% (46-54) of its BCS games, and 100% of its non-BCS games (22-0).
Drop Boise into the Pac12/SEC/Big12/Big10 and they'd likely be in the middle of the pack at best.

I can't say I disagree. I think their current program could do fairly well in the Pac 10, especially if they gained the recruiting leverage that comes with membership in a big conference. But the belief that this was somehow a top 10 football team over the last three years always seemed farfetched.

 

[edinatlanta]

I was thinking of the other SMU :
that said imposing a top 25 cutoff is so fallacious I don't put much stock into it, one way or the other.

 

[edinatlanta]

**** all yall hating ass bitches! GSU received votes in the AP Poll this week!

 

[tj100]



I can't say I disagree. I think their current program could do fairly well in the Pac 10, especially if they gained the recruiting leverage that comes with membership in a big conference. But the belief that this was somehow a top 10 football team over the last three years always seemed farfetched.

I'm not so sure that they could do well in the Pac12. They're never going to get the elite recruits from Texas/Florida/California. They're stuck with 3 star and below recruits whose alternatives are either other mid majors or BCS bottom feeders. Given the choice between going undefeated and to a BCS Bowl at Boise, or being on a crappy Arizona or Colorado team, it's easy to see why they choose Boise. Moving up to a BCS conference probably gives them a little more access to 4 and 5 star recruits, but not much. And with that access comes the loss of the "you can come to a winning school" argument. I'm not sure it makes them better off.

Should the Big East go through with its current rumored plan, I think Boise can do pretty well. I think they can contend in a remade Big East. The downside is that I'm not sure it changes their situation a whole lot - even running the table in that Big East may not be enough to get into the Championship game (though they would get a BCS berth with a loss or two, if they won the conference).

 

[tj100]



**** all yall hating ass bitches! GSU received votes in the AP Poll this week!

I believe it was one vote - singular - as opposed to "votes"...

 

[Gibonius]



**** all yall hating ass bitches! GSU received votes in the AP Poll this week!

And then you get to play Bama (well, their bench anyway) next week...

 

[FLMountainMan]

The South Carolina student section did the war chant after they beat Florida.

I hope we get to do the same!

 

[eg1]



Back to sports... Hope everyone gets off the GT bandwagon now. Also, it is funny how earlier in the year, a UGA victory over Tech would have been a good result considering their two positions. Now it just appears that 2011 will be.... well like just about every other year on the Georgia football hierarchy.

Bastard. Unfortunately, you appear to be correct ...

Of the games UGA has left, I'm most concerned about Tech. I'm really worried that, should UGA continue to win and clinch a spot in the SECCG, they could get caught looking ahead to the first weekend in December. That said, I still think UGA will hand it to Tech yet again. Our defense is so good right now that I don't have any trouble believing they could shut down Tech without too much effort.

Have you seen the open wound that is the Tech run defense? Whichever running backs you happen to have left over after all the defections and injuries are still going to rack up a crapload of yards behind that collection of adenoidal freaks you call an offensive line.

Yeah, I'm not a Georgia guy, so it's hard to understand from a thousand miles away how important any particular rivalry game is. But I get that a loss to a rival sort of deflates an entire season.
On a side note, objectively, Mark Richt is one of my favorite college football coaches. Thousands of Georgia fans beg for him to be fired every year, and he just keeps winning. Recognizing that Georgia has never been in that elite group of football schools, Richt has kept Georgia competitive in an SEC that has been at the top of its game. He's got the best winning percentage of any Georgia coach, and fans STILL want to run him out of town.
I recognize your unwillingness to think about this scenario until post-Auburn (which is the prudent thing to do), but it's a realistic possibility. Right now, probably somewhere around a 10% chance. I'm rooting for it only because of the chaos that it creates. I love college football chaos.

Didn't realize that there were any non-Georgia UGA fans. Anyway, what does all that ridiculous "fire the coach" nonsense tell you about your fellow Dawgtards?

 

[stevent]



+1. I saw the first half of the game and wasn't impressed with him at all.

East coast bias as usual. (Not saying that you have it, just the fact that there's lots of press hype but nobody has seen him play much before) He didn't have that great a game but there are plenty of reasons why he'll be the #1 pick.

 

[Gibonius]



East coast bias as usual. (Not saying that you have it, just the fact that there's lots of press hype but nobody has seen him play much before) He didn't have that great a game but there are plenty of reasons why he'll be the #1 pick.

As one of the ESPN draft loons was saying: even Peyton Manning had some bad games in college.

Considering the fact that this team lost their head coach to the NFL and was still in the National Championship picture (and well, it's Stanford, they're not exactly a recruiting powerhouse), I think that says a lot about Luck.

 

[Lord-Barrington]



As one of the ESPN draft loons was saying: even Peyton Manning had some bad games in college.
Considering the fact that this team lost their head coach to the NFL and was still in the National Championship picture (and well, it's Stanford, they're not exactly a recruiting powerhouse), I think that says a lot about Luck.

Luck is good but he's a lot more raw than people give him credit for. His delivery needs to get more compact and his arm is only average. The NFL is dominated by pocket QBs with big arms who can throw on the run. I think Luck can develop into a solid player but I am old enough to remember Peyton Manning in college and he was miles ahead of where Luck is right now. Amazing pocket presence, a huge arm, and the ability to throw every imaginable throw. Luck has been turned into a can't miss prospect but I think it's more of a product of so few pocket passers coming out of college lately.

 

[Unbreakable]



Luck is good but he's a lot more raw than people give him credit for. His delivery needs to get more compact and his arm is only average. The NFL is dominated by pocket QBs with big arms who can throw on the run. I think Luck can develop into a solid player but I am old enough to remember Peyton Manning in college and he was miles ahead of where Luck is right now. Amazing pocket presence, a huge arm, and the ability to throw every imaginable throw. Luck has been turned into a can't miss prospect but I think it's more of a product of so few pocket passers coming out of college lately.

According to most experts. Andrew Luck will win the superbowl next year... I myself think hes overrated, playing Oregon proved that. The first good team they played all year and its a 23 point loss. Also took them 3 ots to beat a bad USC team.

I too remember Peyton playing, but Im in Knoxville Also everytime I watch Woodson play I think about Peyton losing the Heisman lol. Some/most of the best QBs in the NFL has quiet college careers.

Im worried about LSU, they still have a damn good Arkansas team to beat, and a hungry UGA team to beat, very scary. Hell look at LSUs schedule this year, its insane.