College Football

Pac 10 went 8-2 (losses by Oregon, Washington, very impressive win by Cal).

Washington's in a total rebuild mode and still gave a ranked LSU a game. Oregon or Oregon State always lose to Boise State. It's the one game of the year that Boise prepares for (besides the bowl). I'd like to see these games at the end of the season rather than the beginning, but that's just my personal preference. Other than Georgia's embarrassment at the hands of Ok. St., I though the SEC looked to be the best conference IN WEEK ONE.

Sagaranian, you are not qualified to give your opinion.

Does any conference do a better job than the SEC in terms of distracting top level sprinting talent away from track? Likely not.

Note, not blaming the players, just relating a likely fact.

You are right, SEC does have A LOT of top level sprinting talent on the football field.

big 12 wrote:

Sagaranian, you are not qualified to give your opinion.

Unless, of course, I'm lauding the Big 12 and will have four of them ranked in the top six like someone else did last year, right? Doofus.

Good conference though. Too bad they just can't topple the SEC in meaningful bowl games as a general rule.

What are the graduation rates of most of the major conferences? Does the NCAA keep stats on that? Also, what do most D-1 football players major in? In my solely anecdotal experience, most cross country runners majored in sciences, math or business, and most football players majored in general studies, sociology and criminal justice.

Well consider, D1 football players, for the most part, will go pro ASAP, and that runners will likely stay all 4-5 years... I would assume football players graduation rates are significantly lower.

Football players go to college to make it to the NFL (general case not for all)

Sagaranian, you said the SEC looked the best the first week, just as I said that the Big 12 would have 4 ranked in the top 8 at a certain week last year, and they did. You keep bringing that up as a plus for your argument, but it was never stated that they would have 4 at the end of the year. They beat each other up. Since you are such a stat master, pull up the non-conference and bowl games in which the big 12 and sec went head to head since the big 12 started, and I think you will see the big 12 did just fine (as they did last week against GA). Go back to the big 8 years and it is not even close. Texas was the Big 12 Champs last year and didnt get to play Fla, so again, your argument has no merit.

really, for the most part go to NFL ASAP? not ASAP, not at all, for most

big 12 wrote:

Sagaranian, you said the SEC looked the best the first week, just as I said that the Big 12 would have 4 ranked in the top 8 at a certain week last year, and they did. You keep bringing that up as a plus for your argument, but it was never stated that they would have 4 at the end of the year. They beat each other up. Since you are such a stat master, pull up the non-conference and bowl games in which the big 12 and sec went head to head since the big 12 started, and I think you will see the big 12 did just fine (as they did last week against GA). Go back to the big 8 years and it is not even close. Texas was the Big 12 Champs last year and didnt get to play Fla, so again, your argument has no merit.

I don't want to get back into this "She said, she said" thing again, and I have no idea why you even teed this up to begin with. However, you said the Big 12 SHOULD, not merely would, have four of the top SIX last year, and that, my friend, is laughable.

I'm not disagreeing that the Big 12 is a solid conference depth wise. I already said I believe it is the best offensive conference and one of the two top conferences in any given year for probably at least three years running now, if not much longer. Unfortunately, the Big 12 representative in the BCS championship has won how many of the last ten championships exactly? (I can remember the poignant OU loss to USC when Auburn went undefeated and snubbed as well as the Texas victory that came over USC with a little help from the referee, the Reggie Bush cockiness, and despite being outyarded. But it was a fair victory nonetheless.) As for last year, recount how many of the Big Four (OU, Texas, TTU, and Ok. St.) that SHOULD'VE, to "borrow a phrase" been in the top six ended up winning their bowl games? And remember that Texas barely won with the help of a phantom "roughing" call toward the end of the game.

I graduated from a Big 12 school. But I don't let that cloud my judgement.

big 12 wrote:

Sagaranian, you said the SEC looked the best the first week, just as I said that the Big 12 would have 4 ranked in the top 8 at a certain week last year, and they did. You keep bringing that up as a plus for your argument, but it was never stated that they would have 4 at the end of the year. They beat each other up. Since you are such a stat master, pull up the non-conference and bowl games in which the big 12 and sec went head to head since the big 12 started, and I think you will see the big 12 did just fine (as they did last week against GA). Go back to the big 8 years and it is not even close. Texas was the Big 12 Champs last year and didnt get to play Fla, so again, your argument has no merit.

Oh, and by the way, I have been the biggest "touter" of Ok. St. this year, long before the Georgia game. You just joined the board late.

grif wrote:

What are the graduation rates of most of the major conferences? Does the NCAA keep stats on that? Also, what do most D-1 football players major in? In my solely anecdotal experience, most cross country runners majored in sciences, math or business, and most football players majored in general studies, sociology and criminal justice.

We all know that runners have a higher graduation rate than footballers. Who cares about those stats? What point are you trying to make?

It really matters what you do after college. A small percentage of college football players make it to Sunday and are sitting pretty. NFL league min: 285k. Even guys who make the practice squad and don't dress make over 100k How many runners ever make those salaries?

However, the large amount of football players who don't make it, don't graduate, and/or get some bullshit degree have a tougher time in the real world than most runners.

On another note, the SEC is the top conference at the moment. Maybe not the brightest conference when it comes to academics, but there atheltic ability is unmatched.

Big Ten? wrote:

Big Ten, did go 10-1, but did not face any ranked opponents...also Iowa (22) almost lost to an unranked opponent (17-16) Ohio State (6) almost lost to an unranked opponent (31-27) and another went to overtime... clearly Big Ten is great

Didn't say the Big 10 was great brother...only that they went 10-1 on the first weekend.

The strength of schedule debate rages even among fans of the same team. I'm a UGA fan and some dawgvent posters love the tougher out of conference schedule and some hate it. The theory goes a tougher out of conference schedule helps under our current BCS system, but the flip side is it hurts if you can't win those tough out of conference games. (see last Saturday) Some people say just schedule cupcakes, screw the critics and laugh all the way to the BCS title game (see Florida's schedule)

UGA obviously plays 8 conference games, always has Ga Tech on the schedule so that leaves 3 non conf games to play with on the schedule. Like most teams they'll schedule one BCS opponent and two cupcakes. So with Ga Tech every year that's two BCS games and two cupcakes. This year just happened to work out that Okie St and Ariz St were on the schedule together. They've got Colorado next year, Louisville and Oregon in the years after that. Remember too that they don't schedule cupcakes JUST for the easier comp but they need home games where they don't have to make a return trip to the visitor so then a Tenn Tech will come to Athens, collect their check, lose and everyone is happy.

Here's what I have a problem with. Alot of teams (in fact most) play their "traditional rival" or end of the season game against a conference opponent so unlike Fla/FSU or UGA/Ga Tech or Clem/S.C or ND/USC they'll have four out of conference opponents they can schedule with whomever they choose. When you see FOUR cupcakes scheduled then - well, that's just wrong.

Agreed. Nebraska (though not this year) generally has the same bad habit. CU, with the exception of this year, and USC generally do a good job of scheduling worthy nonconference opponents.

Like I said, you'll never have parity until all conferences have the same number of teams, play ( relatively speaking) the same strength of non-conference opponents, and all play or don't play a conference championship game.

Two years ago, OSU and KU both played weak-ass regular and non-conference schedules. Both only had one loss as a result, and one of them got into the BCS championship game and one of them drew a BCS bid, despite not playing in the conference championship game, essentially not even winning the North division, and losing the last game of the season to the team (Mizzou) whose spot they essentially stole in the BCS because Mizzou lost that very conference championship game they EARNED by beating KU! KU should've played OSU that year. They were the same damn team.

UGA did not get the SEC memo entitled "do not travel and/or only play cupcakes in non-conference games, then we will fall back on the "our conference is so tough we don't have to play anyone" argument and there will be no evidence to the contrary" UGA travels out of their time zone, and gets smacked. LSU plays a team who has lost 14 in a row gets outgained 480-331 and wins b/c the other team can't execute in red zone.

The SEC is overrated period. They are a good conference, and SOMETIMES the best, but over a period of 10 yrs they are not better, as a conference than the PAC 10, Big 12 or Big 10-ish.

UF was no better than Okla, and quite possibly not as good as USC or Texas last year, yet won the NC. Partially due to the media's love for the SEC and partially due to not playing USC or Texas.

We need a damn playoff system.

Sagarin wrote:

big 12 wrote:

Sagaranian, you are not qualified to give your opinion.

Unless, of course, I'm lauding the Big 12 and will have four of them ranked in the top six like someone else did last year, right? Doofus.

Good conference though. Too bad they just can't topple the SEC in meaningful bowl games as a general rule.

Didn't Ole Miss embarrass Texas Tech with the "best offense in the nation" last year? Big 12 is nasty good, but the SEC is still a couple of notches ahead.

piedmontcat wrote:

Didn't Ole Miss embarrass Texas Tech with the "best offense in the nation" last year? Big 12 is nasty good, but the SEC is still a couple of notches ahead.

Yeah, that's part of my point (I said early on that TTU was vastly overrated last year). The only one of the Big Four that "should've been ranked in the top six" at one point in the season last year (which I think was complete bullshit, even for that week) who won a bowl game was Texas, and they needed help from the referee to do it.

There's no question we need a playoff, and devoid of similarly strong nonconference schedules, conference championship games for every major conference, and the same number of teams, we will never have clarity on parity. It's all meaningless opinion. Otherwise, at least have a plus one, which would've been USC-SEC for three years running. But, in the scenario I have suggested about playing off the top eight in the four major bowls and then taking the four winners, seeding them, and playing them off, you will have your victor. Drop a meaningless nonconference game if the season's too long. Last year we would've had Florida, Texas, Utah, and USC. All probably pretty close and all deserving of a shot.