posted
You think? I don't know. I'm expecting Florida to lose by 17 or so.
Then again, I expected Wake to lose by at least 21, so I may not be the best one to judge.
But the games I've seen Florida play this year haven't been the most impressive. 21-14 over FSU... 17-16 over SC... 25-19 over Vandy... Florida hasn't won by more than 10 points over a Div 1A school since October 7th, when they won by 13.
They're not the most explosive scoring offense in the world (32nd nationally, including blowouts of W Carolina and C Florida). Add to that the fact that OSU's scoring defense is the best in the country, and their total defense is the second best Florida has seen all year.
And while their defense has been very good, Michigan's was better until OSU put up a relatively easy 42 points on them.
My prediction is 35-17 OSU, or thereabouts. But again, I could be very wrong - my Orange bowl prediction was 35-7 Louisville.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, ND got a spanking. How long is it going to take the college football world to accept that they're no longer a major football power?
They haven't won a bowl in 12 years, losing 9 games by an average of 17.7 points. They didn't beat a team ranked higher than 19th this year (Penn St), and got blown out by their only three challenges (USC by 20, Michigan by 26, and LSU by 27).
Yet, they'll likely be ranked in the preseason Top 25 again, even after losing Brady Quinn and Jeff Samardzija.
I just don't get how everyone is still so blinded by the gold helmets.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My opinion on ND's general high rankings and bowl appearances: "Rabid and very affluent fan base"
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish they'd get out of the Big East. When the world starts waking up and not inviting them to BCS bowl games, they get to take Big East bowl slots because of their affiliation with the conference in basketball.
Well, we've got 16 basketball teams. I don't think we'll miss them if we say, "You want to be independent? Fine, be independent. Good luck."
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still expect Florida to lose, couldn't stand Urban Meyer either, apparently he wasn't familiar with Florida's title from the '96 season, and the Michigan loss was not a product of Michigan being overrated, in my view it was a combo of 3 factors, USC being a big game team (every single loss they've had during their run to promise has been an upset loss by a lower power, the only one that wasn't was last years win by Texas that was a product of stupendous play from VY, and two eggregious foul ups by the refs that gave Texas a minimum of 10 unearned points), Michigan choking in all big games under Carr of late (3 straight OSU+Bowl Defeat games), and Michigan's heart not being in it after being hosed by voter fraud.
This is one of those years where a playoff really could have made an enormous difference, Oklahoma and Michigan almost certainly would have shown more, USC always plays big in big games, and then teams like Boise State, Florida, Ohio State, West Virginia and the like, all fighting for a chance to truly win it all.
As it is, I see OSU winning by double digits, I dont think the Michigan game really will mean much of anything. OSU is special, Florida is a year away from reaching their potential (and in the SEC, w/o a playoff, your conference winner more often than not will be screwed because there are so very few truly weak teams), and OSU will get the job done in my view. I see something along the lines of 24-10, 31-14, something like that. I'm 19-9 picking the games so far, so take that for what its worth. Could be nonsense. Of all the biggest games starting on January 1st, I hit on Auburn, Wisconsin, LSU, and West Virginia straight up, and Auburn, Wisconsin, LSU and Boise State against the Spread. So I've been a bit hit and miss.
How have the rest of you done picking this stuff?
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want Florida to win. I don't think they will, but I want them to. For a few reasons, actually.
First, there is this story, which shows that Ohio State is a big part of the "problem" rather than part of the solution in the academic question surrounding college football.
Second, a loss by OSU might potentially tip a big recruit Rutgers' way - and I'll take any edge we can get.
Third, while OSU is a great team, a win by them just shows that preseason ranking is all that matters. Had they been unranked going into week 1, they might not even be playing for the national championship (as had been speculated an undefeated Rutgers might have been left out in favor of one-loss teams that had started in the preseason top five).
And finally, I like Florida's 2-QB setup.
So, while I'd enjoy watching a Florida victory, I just don't think it will happen.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Are people still talking about football? Don't you guys know it is basketball season now - you know, that college sport that DOES have a meaningful postseason?
Unfortunately, the college basketball postseason makes the regular season useless. The BCS is very messed up, but I want my team to go out there on Saturday and know that their entire season is on the line.
Of course I say that and I am an OU fan. OU has made it a habit to throw away games the past two or three years (I'm not taking anything away from BSU, so don't get your panties in a wad).
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Third, while OSU is a great team, a win by them just shows that preseason ranking is all that matters. Had they been unranked going into week 1, they might not even be playing for the national championship (as had been speculated an undefeated Rutgers might have been left out in favor of one-loss teams that had started in the preseason top five).
OSU is not often going to be unranked going into the season, so it isn't an issue. That's just a fact whether it's fair or not. I understand your displeasure with the problem though. Had Rutgers gone unbeaten, they deserved a better shot at a title than any one loss team, and Boise State did as well.
College football needs a playoff. I don't think it makes the entire regular season irrelevant because the powerful teams in the regular season tend to do just as well in the postseason. Sometimes there are bracket busters, like George Mason, that pulled it together and made it through, but that doesn't usually happen.
quote:the games I've seen Florida play this year haven't been the most impressive. 21-14 over FSU... 17-16 over SC... 25-19 over Vandy... Florida hasn't won by more than 10 points over a Div 1A school since October 7th, when they won by 13.
That's meaningless. They won, just like they needed to. Ohio State won the 2002 title the same way, unless you think they won that title because of a refs bad call (I don't think it was, but I'm biased). To that I say . If Miami wanted to win, they should have played better offense than they did. I know they were good enough to keep the game out of overtime, and they didn't.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm loving it. Florida is handing OSU their behinds. I'd love to see Florida win this game 60-24. Better yet, 70-24. Run up the score and show how preseason rankings are worthless.
This game is awesome.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just awesome. I love it. And we got Anthony Davis to commit to RU! I bet he's loving that decision about now! Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
For all those who said Florida doesnt deserve to play on the same field looks like they were right, florida needed better compettition.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And once again, there really needs to be a playoff system. The OSU team we saw out there showed no indication whatsoever that they belonged in a national championship game. As I see it, there are two alternatives. Either they really were that bad, in which case a playoff would have weeded them out. Or they were rusty from so much time off, in which case a tournament would allow them to warm up on easier teams before the big game.
No matter what, it is complete bull that they just pick two teams that they happen to think are good and call it the national championship.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since i saw both of them play pretty much all year, a tournament wouldnt give us the true #1 anyway. David can kill Goliath any day of the week, a tournament will just allow more chances of seeing teams with less regular season "respectability" get through. It would also downplay the significance of season games, especially with conference champions going in, you can have 4 loss teams playin for a championship game. The BCS is flawed but after hearing the arguements agains a playoff im thinking its really the only way that you can have that many teams and let them showcase in front of the public and yet still declare a mostly definitive national champ.
Uf was clearly better, just because one man gets injured, or because they had 2 extra weeks with no opponant (which s their fault for not scheduling a by, and the conference fault for not having a championchip game) should not mean you forget how to play. UF demonstrated championship poise throught the year and then showed that they still cared enough to play at the end.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the NCAA requires 12 teams for a championship game - which is the prime reason the ACC raided the Big East, to raise their number from 9 to 12. Unless Notre Dame agrees to settle in a conference (ha), I don't see the Big 10(11) gaining a new member soon. Though I could be wrong - they might have their eye on Ohio, or something.
As for a playoff, I like the "plus one" concept quite a bit. Basically, the four BCS bowls happen without a NC game (heck, we can even bump it to five bowls without a NC game). Then, the results of bowl season are factored into one last round of rankings - at which time the #1 and #2 are determined for the NC.
Just as an aside: Urban Meyer proved me wrong, and showed a lot of class towards BSU. Some quotes...
quote:"Let's go play 'em next week," Florida coach Urban Meyer said with a laugh about Boise State. "I love Boise State, but I wouldn't want to do that. We're done."
quote:"There's only one way to figure out who the better team is and that's go play the game," Meyer said.
posted
Kirk Herbstreit has Rutgers as his preseason #5!
I'd love to have us slide in at preseason #9 or #10. That'd be awesome. Our O-line for the next few years is going to be fantastic - and I hope Teel keeps up the performance he's had the last three games of this year.
Rutgers could be a force to be reckoned with.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My top five for next year: 1. Florida 2. USC 3. Texas 4. WVU 5. Oklahoma or OSU (Can't decide)
Out of curiosity, how do you explain leaving LSU off of this list when they'll finish #3 this year and return more starters than all 5 of your top 5? (not to mention they're just flat out better than 3-5).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps because they are losing both JaMarcus Russell and Dwayne Bowe and finished third in the SEC this year with two losses, only to go to a bowl game because the bowl organizers knew they'd sell more seats than Auburn or Arkansas who finished ahead of them in the conference?
Just a possibility.
Personally, I wouldn't put a specific SEC team in the top five. I'd just say "The winner of the SEC" and leave it at that - in any given year, that could be pretty much anybody.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, a loss to the nat'l champ and to the one team who did beat the nat'l champ. *snort*
<editted because it was snarkier than I intended. Though totally valid>
I'm not sure what their bowl selection or season record has anything to do with, anyway.
And they're better equipped than any team in the nation to replace a star QB: two excellent backups, 4 really good RBs, and a completely intact OL.
quote:Personally, I wouldn't put a specific SEC team in the top five. I'd just say "The winner of the SEC" and leave it at that - in any given year, that could be pretty much anybody.
That's true, although completely irrelevant. It's not a preseason ranking if you just say: 1)SEC #1 2)Big 10 #1 3)PAC 10 #1 etc.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just saying that there are very valid reasons to keep LSU out of the top five.
No offense, but LSU could easily drop 4-5 games next year... or they could go undefeated. It's the nature of the SEC. They lost two huge weapons and their signature win was against this year's most overrated team.
Is that a good enough resume for the top five? For me, sure. But I understand why people might leave them out of the top five. They're certainly not a no-brainer, at least imho.
quote:That's true, although completely irrelevant. It's not a preseason ranking if you just say:
Actually, I think preseason rankings are completely irrelevant - but they unfortunately determine who ends up in BCS bowls. If you're not "in the club" at the start of the year, it is very hard to fight your way in by the end.
I'd love to see preseason polls done away with entirely, with the first rankings coming out in week five or six.
quote:No offense, but LSU could easily drop 4-5 games next year... or they could go undefeated. It's the nature of the SEC. They lost two huge weapons and their signature win was against this year's most overrated team.
There's no team in college football that this doesn't also apply to. Your arguments are spurious, stretched so thin that you can see right through them. But that's one of the fun things about college football -- it leads to endless debates and there's really no way to be wrong because the teams from different conferences don't play each other except in rare instances.
But LSU in the top 5 certainly is a no-brainer*, at least as far as such things go. Preseason rankings being, as you hinted, fairly arbitrary.
*assuming you have some knowledge of college football and aren't a total homer. As in, I'd be surprised if any college football analyst does not include them. Just as I'd be surprised if any analyst doesn't include USC (a team to whom your objections against LSU all apply even stronger).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My main and only reason for keeping LSU off my top 5 is the loss of Russell. They've also lost their offfensive coordinator, Jimbo Fisher, to FSU.
In the tough SEC they lost two games this year; lose a QB like Russell and an OC and things don't look good for them next year.
Flyingcow, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of preseason rankings.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. I was just curious if you had a reason or if it was an oversight.
From what I'm hearing there's a chance they might lose their DC, too. Supposedly he's under serious consideration for the Minnesota job.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you could arbitrarily pick five teams out of a hat from the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, USC, LSU, Florida, Texas, WVU, and Auburn to round out your top 5. And other outlying teams are apt to creep in, as well.
I don't think LSU has a lock on the preseason Top 5 at all - as meaningless as such a designation is. I mean, they're #3 right now, and lost their two biggest threats (and OC). Mix into those big losses the fact that three of their 6 conference wins were by 5 points or less, and it makes me hesitant to rank them that high.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have to put them in your preseason top 5 (nor does Mig). In fact, I encourage you not to. I think you should put Rutgers, L'ville, and WVU as 1-3.
I'm just saying I'll be very surprised if anyone who's both knowledgable and unbiased doesn't have them top 5.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oy, where's the chip on your shoulder coming from, JT?
LSU is going to be a very solid team next year. They'll also be a very different team, with a different offensive look. They'll have a talented but inexperienced QB running an offense designed by someone else without their star receiver. I wish them the best - mainly because I love how they smacked around ND, and because we don't have to play them.
But I'm not going to say "ZOMG TEH TIGERZ R TEH ROXXORZ!!!111oneoneone" and say they're one of the best five teams in the country before anyone's played a single down. It's just silly.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oy, where's the chip on your shoulder coming from, JT?
No chip. I just get sick of the rampant homerism that there's sort of no way around in college football. As much time as I spent defending LSU to people outside the SEC, I spent probably an equal (if not moreso) amount of time defending mid-majors to people in the South. I didn't mean to imply that you (or anyone in this thread) is not knowledgable and unbiased, btw. That was poorly worded. I meant that sentence to refer to the hypothetical fan who watches with interest but has no strong team or school affiliations.
quote:say they're one of the best five teams in the country before anyone's played a single down. It's just silly.
Of course it is. But I might advise you to not comment on preseason rankings if that's how you feel.
p.s. -- I'd really lay off the Dwayne Bowe angle if I were you. He will not be missed. He's a good blocker who routinely dropped the third down catch only to make the fourth down catch, and I think they're better off without him. LSU has a trio of youngsters and I don't think they'll see any dropoff at receiver.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:LSU has a trio of youngsters and I don't think they'll see any dropoff at receiver.
For this, I am totally sympathetic. We didn't get to our good receivers until, well, our first five went out for the season.
quote:But I might advise you to not comment on preseason rankings if that's how you feel.
How about just plain old preseason expectations? I *expect* that LSU will be good, but that they will be a step or two behind where they ended up this year. At least until their new QB gets a lot of game reps and the veterans get used to a new OC (and potentially DC, you said? yikes). That is, of course, what the OoC schedule is for, though, neh?
Personally, I'm very excited for Rutgers next year, all ranking nonsense aside. We've kept the core of our team, and have some great young talent coming in to fill in the gaps. Our recruiting class this year is the best ever, and we've sold out our season tickets for the first time ever. Unfortunately, our OoC schedule is pretty weak, but that gives us the potential to start the season 6-0 or better again.
And with Louisville taking a punch in the mouth from Petrino, our most challenging away game becomes that much less scary.
Heady times for a program that won a whopping 8 games in my four years as an undergrad. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Rutgers is poised for a very good year, too.
And I think Louisvulle lost a lot more than a coach when Petrino split. Bush has already declared for the draft and I expect Brohm to do the same. I don't know what they have in the cupboard, but they could be in for a biiiig dropoff.
As for LSU, who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if they lose 3 games, but I also wouldn't be surprised if Flynn (who hung 40+ on Miami in last year's Peach Bowl) or Perilloux (who was #1 QB recruit in the nation two years ago) step in and they roll to the N.C. game. And I think the former is only slightly more likely than the latter.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Louisville also lost a big commit from Matt Simms when Petrino left, which does not bode well for the program. He was going to be Brohm's legacy in two years. Now their program is going to have a hard time getting over this speed bump.
WVU is up for a good year, as well, with a lot of key returners - and Pitt has a lot of potential in 2008 with a fantastic recruiting class this year.
I'd love to have SEC/Big East dominance for a few years, with repeated spankings of the ACC and Big 10. Unlike a lot of other Big East fans, I like the SEC and give it a lot of respect - I reserve my ire for ND, BC, and State Penn. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, I'd like to point out, that while some analysts have LSU as high as 2 (which I feel is probably generous), Mark Shlabach has them at 13 (which I feel is probably a bit off the mark).
posted
Thanks for the link, good article, and putting LSU at 13 is not too far off the mark, Considering that their likely to have more losses than this year's two, it's not unreasonable to put them out of the top ten.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
If that's how you feel, Mig, I'd be happy to make a friendly wager with you that LSU does not finish out of the top 10 next year.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. If Miami wanted to win, they should have played better offense than they did. I know they were good enough to keep the game out of overtime, and they didn't.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
