Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
truecaniac163

NCAA Football thread

Recommended Posts

I was just thinking the other day about where might we be if we'd closed the deal up in Columbus five years ago.

I still think Amato's downfall was his inability to keep his coaching staffs together. Generally the best teams have staffs that have been together for years, but it seemed like half Chuck's coaches turned over every year.

While that was a problem I think discipline issues was another large problem. I don't know about off the field but his teams seemed to lead the ACC in penalties every year he was there. Picking up more penalties than the other team is a sure fire way to loose more than you win, especially when your talent level drops. On top of that coaching staff changes when the guys aren't leaving for promotions generally says you have internal issues, like people don't like working with the Head Coach or the head coordinators. Generally it seems to me like Amato failed to run a good ship in general and went down in flames when that caught up with him. He had the elements that make good coaches great, ie he connected well with alumni at least early and had the charisma to recruit well, but if under all of that you just aren't a good coach it doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While that was a problem I think discipline issues was another large problem. I don't know about off the field but his teams seemed to lead the ACC in penalties every year he was there. Picking up more penalties than the other team is a sure fire way to loose more than you win, especially when your talent level drops. On top of that coaching staff changes when the guys aren't leaving for promotions generally says you have internal issues, like people don't like working with the Head Coach or the head coordinators. Generally it seems to me like Amato failed to run a good ship in general and went down in flames when that caught up with him. He had the elements that make good coaches great, ie he connected well with alumni at least early and had the charisma to recruit well, but if under all of that you just aren't a good coach it doesn't matter.

Hence why he quickly went back to being Bobby Bowdens lap dog as opposed to trying for another Head Coach spot else where.. heck he didnt even look, he was back in talahassee D-day + 1. Only way he can get a ring is in FSU and now even FSU is sucking it up. LOL If they hang on to ToB and dont fire him in 2 years like every other school in the world he will turn the program into something, but for goodness sake he needs time!! (big pet peeve, coaches getting fired after only one year.. its not even thier team yet)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From this Buckeye fan, pre-season polls are meaningless. I hate them and they are usually a bunch of *edit*.. I myself think Ohio State has been over-rated by the POLLSTERS!! Not the fans. We will still root hard for our guys, the same as y'all root for your teams.

As far as 5 yrs ago in Columbus, CA whoops, TA was tired and needed a seat at the 1 yd line. Outside of that, I really don't understand the haterade everyone has for Ohio State, but that's okay. I am a Buckeye and always will be. BTW, when was the last time Auburn played for a NC in football, let alone, WON ONE?!?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irregardless of the HORRIBLE call that robbed us of the winning touchdown, you should be ashamed that a no-name team took the defending National Champions to triple overtime and made them look like high schoolers.

Of course that was 5 years ago and now State is blowing chunks *blah*.

As far as always being a Buckeye, thats great.. I'm still pulling for State even though they are stumbling and bumbling... of course at State we're pretty much used to it... we take what we can get. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a little surprised to hear this morning that Florida State had jumped into the rankings.. What have they done to deserve being ranked? Two blow out wins against 1-AA opponents? Not exactly quality talent. Normally they dont suggest you play two 1-AA teams in the same season. So much for thier strength of schedule. Only one of those wins can count for a bowl, so now they will have to go 7-5 just to be eligible. Not that they can't do that, surely they can, but thats some odd scheduling.

"We got two games to tune up and see if the car would run," said FSU head coach Bobby Bowden. "Well, the car will run. It's will it run fast enough to play at that next level that we're fixin' to get into?"

With thier next game coming against #18 Wake Forest, who has wins against Baylor and Ole Miss (1-A opponents, even if they arent the best of the best) it looks like FSU could be heading into trouble.. but who knows.. FSU is always scary from a talent stand point.. can they put it together, but they have struggled the last couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From this Buckeye fan, pre-season polls are meaningless. I hate them and they are usually a bunch of *edit*.. I myself think Ohio State has been over-rated by the POLLSTERS!! Not the fans. We will still root hard for our guys, the same as y'all root for your teams.

As far as 5 yrs ago in Columbus, CA whoops, TA was tired and needed a seat at the 1 yd line. Outside of that, I really don't understand the haterade everyone has for Ohio State, but that's okay. I am a Buckeye and always will be. BTW, when was the last time Auburn played for a NC in football, let alone, WON ONE?!?!?!

Top, bolded point is a good one. Auburn didn't make the 2004 Nat'l Championship because of preseason rankings. It's complete *edit* really.

Your second point is laughable at best. The rest of the nation hates OSU because they've gotten all this credit the past three seasons and then looked awful when it all was on the line. No one in this country, outside of Columbus, ever again wants to see OSU in a national championship game. Ever. That really is the feeling right now. Why? Because you wasted two championship games for us...wasted all the credit we gave you...wasted everything really.

Oh, and BTW, Auburn would make it to more championship games and probably win a few IF we had your glorious conference schedule. Unfortunately, we face top-25 caliber teams week in, week out...so no rest for the weary. It's no surprise at all really that a team from the SEC rarely makes it out without at least one loss on the season...going undefeated is just too hard. We don't have to add top teams to our non-conference schedule (like OSU does) because there are already so many to be played in the conference itself. Of course...Alabama did have a set with Oklahoma a few years ago...Auburn with USC...LSU with VaTech...Arkansas with Texas...etc. So from time to time we do add quality non-conference opponents to our schedules...but really there's no need to. We have it tough enough as it is by just being in the SEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Top, bolded point is a good one. Auburn didn't make the 2004 Nat'l Championship because of preseason rankings. It's complete *edit* really.

Your second point is laughable at best. The rest of the nation hates OSU because they've gotten all this credit the past three seasons and then looked awful when it all was on the line. No one in this country, outside of Columbus, ever again wants to see OSU in a national championship game. Ever. That really is the feeling right now. Why? Because you wasted two championship games for us...wasted all the credit we gave you...wasted everything really.

Oh, and BTW, Auburn would make it to more championship games and probably win a few IF we had your glorious conference schedule. Unfortunately, we face top-25 caliber teams week in, week out...so no rest for the weary. It's no surprise at all really that a team from the SEC rarely makes it out without at least one loss on the season...going undefeated is just too hard. We don't have to add top teams to our non-conference schedule (like OSU does) because there are already so many to be played in the conference itself. Of course...Alabama did have a set with Oklahoma a few years ago...Auburn with USC...LSU with VaTech...Arkansas with Texas...etc. So from time to time we do add quality non-conference opponents to our schedules...but really there's no need to. We have it tough enough as it is by just being in the SEC.

The claim that SEC school's don't need to play out of conference games is interesting coming from an Auburn fan. Since they got denied playing in National Championship game in 2004 largely because their cupcakey out of conference schedule (Louisiana Monroe, LA Tech and the Citadel) that wasn't as good as USC's (@VT, vs Colorado St, @ BYU, and vs Notre Dame) or Oklahoma's (Bowling Green, Houston, and Oregon). If Auburn had played one decent out of conference game they might have been there instead of OU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The claim that SEC school's don't need to play out of conference games is interesting coming from an Auburn fan. Since they got denied playing in National Championship game in 2004 largely because their cupcakey out of conference schedule (Louisiana Monroe, LA Tech and the Citadel) that wasn't as good as USC's (@VT, vs Colorado St, @ BYU, and vs Notre Dame) or Oklahoma's (Bowling Green, Houston, and Oregon). If Auburn had played one decent out of conference game they might have been there instead of OU.

I stick by the claim. Only people in the SEC seem to understand. That was four years ago though...SEC fever hadn't set in and Auburn was really new to the NC game picture. Plus, we started so low in the polls that it was hard to displace teams like USC and Oklahoma because they were perennial powerhouses that got to start the season ranked in the top 5. I think if a team went undefeated now in the SEC then they'd be a NC game lock, no doubt about it. People now see how tough is it. Unfortunately, four years ago things were different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't necessarily be a lock that the SEC would make the BCS championship if they didn't play other BCS schools. What if USC and lets say Oklahoma or Texas go undefeated and for argument's sake the only undefeated team in the SEC is LSU? USC has a good out of conference schedule and Texas plays Arkansas and OU played @ Washington who is admittedly not very good but is still a BCS school, but LSU plays nobody from a BCS conference (App, Troy, North Texas, and Tulane). Not to mention there are 5 SEC schools ranked and 5 Big 12 schools ranked (and yes I realize that those SEC schools are on the whole higher than the Big 12 schools but not much and it is only week four so the order can and will change). The argument can be made that the Big 12 school should play for the BCS championship and lets face it when you give it up to the formula the SEC's rep doesn't mean squat.

You have to win out of conference games to remain dominant. Yes the SEC can claim dominance now but that is because it wins out of conference games, the moment they stop winning those games or even playing them their claim to the crown diminishes. If everyone in that league dropped their non-conference games against other power leagues and only played the Sunbelt, and MAC their reputation would suffer. To be the best you have to beat the best of the rest, which means playing challenging out of conference opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a guy tell me the other day that this was State's hardest schedule in several years, and I know recently they have tried playing harder teams instead of the cupcakes everybody else plays. What really hurts is when State plays OSU and Notre Dame in the same season(we didnt play them in the same season but we have played them both), loses both of them, and they dont go to a bowl but UNC who plays UNC Greensboro, Southwestern Ohio State and South Carolina A & T (yeah.. totally made up teams) wins those games and goes to a bowl.. they get all the praise and we look like *edit* but we are trying to play harder competition.. like you said.. to be the best you gotta play the best.

State started this year with 3 ranked opponents, Clemson, South Florida and Wake Forest. We already lost to Clemson, but now we have South Florida, Wake, ECU and FSU who are ranked, on top of South Carolina. Yes, William and Mary was a tune up game.. but everybody has one.. apparently FSU needed two of them. State keeps playing a super tough schedule against BCS conference teams, and we lose them all.. but sooner or later we will start winning those games.. and then we will have a chance at a bowl and teams playing Grambling and SW Ohio State will have to stay home.

*Note: I think its funny how I try to watch my langauge and use cr ap and it still bleeps it out ... LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wouldn't necessarily be a lock that the SEC would make the BCS championship if they didn't play other BCS schools. What if USC and lets say Oklahoma or Texas go undefeated and for argument's sake the only undefeated team in the SEC is LSU? USC has a good out of conference schedule and Texas plays Arkansas and OU played @ Washington who is admittedly not very good but is still a BCS school, but LSU plays nobody from a BCS conference (App, Troy, North Texas, and Tulane). Not to mention there are 5 SEC schools ranked and 5 Big 12 schools ranked (and yes I realize that those SEC schools are on the whole higher than the Big 12 schools but not much and it is only week four so the order can and will change). The argument can be made that the Big 12 school should play for the BCS championship and lets face it when you give it up to the formula the SEC's rep doesn't mean squat.

You have to win out of conference games to remain dominant. Yes the SEC can claim dominance now but that is because it wins out of conference games, the moment they stop winning those games or even playing them their claim to the crown diminishes. If everyone in that league dropped their non-conference games against other power leagues and only played the Sunbelt, and MAC their reputation would suffer. To be the best you have to beat the best of the rest, which means playing challenging out of conference opponents.

I disagree with the top. If LSU went undefeated then in no way, shape, or form would they not be in the NC game. Everyone learned from that mistake four years ago when they let Oklahoma go to the NC game only for them to blown away, and then all the public outcry of not letting Auburn go since they ran through the SEC. Also the past two years have reinforced the idea of the SEC's dominance; first a two-loss Florida team whooping an undefeated OSU squad and then a one-loss LSU team doing the same last year. The voters know it now; SEC teams are head of the class and even two losses doesn't mean they can't get in the NC game. On a side note, Oklahoma has lost several of its last bowl games so voters would be cautious to put them in. I think though you were just using them as a reference lol. :P

Your second point is very correct however. The SEC wouldn't be anything special right now without those non-conference NC game wins against OSU, and also all of the bowl success we've had recently. Went like 7-2 last season. So yeah ya gotta impress people in those non-conference games, although once again I think more and more voters see, understand, and respect SEC teams for their conference play. They realize that it ain't easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with the top. If LSU went undefeated then in no way, shape, or form would they not be in the NC game. Everyone learned from that mistake four years ago when they let Oklahoma go to the NC game only for them to blown away, and then all the public outcry of not letting Auburn go since they ran through the SEC. Also the past two years have reinforced the idea of the SEC's dominance; first a two-loss Florida team whooping an undefeated OSU squad and then a one-loss LSU team doing the same last year. The voters know it now; SEC teams are head of the class and even two losses doesn't mean they can't get in the NC game. On a side note, Oklahoma has lost several of its last bowl games so voters would be cautious to put them in. I think though you were just using them as a reference lol. :P

Your second point is very correct however. The SEC wouldn't be anything special right now without those non-conference NC game wins against OSU, and also all of the bowl success we've had recently. Went like 7-2 last season. So yeah ya gotta impress people in those non-conference games, although once again I think more and more voters see, understand, and respect SEC teams for their conference play. They realize that it ain't easy.

One last point, it is not just the voters, it is also the computers, which is what I was trying to point out with my mention of the formula earlier. Last year the computers had VT as #1, despite the head to head loss with LSU. If they had been #3 in the human polls that computer ranking probably would have been enough to put them in the BCS title game. So I wouldn't be so confident that we have any clue who will play if we see three or more teams with the same number of losses.

I used OU and Texas solely because they are ranked above LSU, play better out of conference games, and the Big 12 appears to be good this year. It is still early and there are a thousand possibilities for the season at this point, so who knows what will happen.

I just don't think you can take the SEC's dominance as a given for a title game berth. If the wrong team goes undefeated, like LSU with its cupcake out of conference schedule this year, they could be left out. Now if that SEC team is UF, U[sic]GA, Auburn or Alabama things change because they all have at least one game against a "respectable" out of conference opponent.

Frankly, I feel that past seasons are the past, and shouldn't mean squat for the title game. What you did on the field this year is what matters. So it is not (t)OSU's failure two years in a row that disqualifies them, it is their embarrassing loss to USC. I don't care what you did last year it is what have you done since August, which is why I can't stand the pre-season polls because they reward teams for past performance at the expense of teams just rounding into form. That LSU won the championship last year or that Oklahoma choked doesn't matter, it is what they do on the field during this season that should be the only determinant of if they make the BCS championship.

That is why I feel that non-conference games really do matter because they give real context to who beats who. Otherwise you have no real idea if any conference is any good from year to year. Yeah there are other things to look at, but the best thing is head to head games. And it is those context games (plus fanbase) that determine to a large extent which bowls you go to and who you play. So you can't just ignore the out of conference games when trying to pick a BCS title game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction- My beloved Oklahoma Sooners will go undefeated and win the championship this year. Stoops is tired of losing in the big one and is doing some new things this year. We put half a hundred on the first 3 teams we played (granted the first two were pretty weak, and Washington is not on top right now). We have some tough games ahead, but I think we'll continue to roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My prediction- My beloved Oklahoma Sooners will go undefeated and win the championship this year. Stoops is tired of losing in the big one and is doing some new things this year. We put half a hundred on the first 3 teams we played (granted the first two were pretty weak, and Washington is not on top right now). We have some tough games ahead, but I think we'll continue to roll.

Although I am mainly a Badger fan......

Boomer Sooner!!!!! I lived in Tulsa for 7 years!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last point, it is not just the voters, it is also the computers, which is what I was trying to point out with my mention of the formula earlier. Last year the computers had VT as #1, despite the head to head loss with LSU. If they had been #3 in the human polls that computer ranking probably would have been enough to put them in the BCS title game. So I wouldn't be so confident that we have any clue who will play if we see three or more teams with the same number of losses.

This is exactly whats wrong with the BCS system... you never know whats going to happen or why.. the last couple of years the BCS title game has been like pulling the arm of a slot machine... who gets to go? We dont know!

At least in a human voted system (which is not perfect of course) you can justify your reasons for picking a certain way and I believe humans can take into better account strength of schedule then just wins/losses and points for/points against.. you have a small team like Boise State or Hawaii that goes undefeated.. why are they not playing in the national title game? Strength of schedule plainly... But you have a 1 loss team in the title game and an undefeated team at #3 or #4 who doesnt get in, how can that happen? If they are ranked that high up, obviously thier strength of schedule is good so they should be up at the top. The computers make some weird picks sometimes.

Of course you have the humans making weird picks too sometimes, like a few years ago when USC was voted the post season #1 in the AP poll, and were then touted as National Champions, which was totally bogus since LSU had won the "National Championship Game"...Until they go to a playoff system like the 1AA or the NFL it will always be screwy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last point, it is not just the voters, it is also the computers, which is what I was trying to point out with my mention of the formula earlier. Last year the computers had VT as #1, despite the head to head loss with LSU. If they had been #3 in the human polls that computer ranking probably would have been enough to put them in the BCS title game. So I wouldn't be so confident that we have any clue who will play if we see three or more teams with the same number of losses.

I just don't think you can take the SEC's dominance as a given for a title game berth. If the wrong team goes undefeated, like LSU with its cupcake out of conference schedule this year, they could be left out. Now if that SEC team is UF, U[sic]GA, Auburn or Alabama things change because they all have at least one game against a "respectable" out of conference opponent.

Frankly, I feel that past seasons are the past, and shouldn't mean squat for the title game. What you did on the field this year is what matters. So it is not (t)OSU's failure two years in a row that disqualifies them, it is their embarrassing loss to USC. I don't care what you did last year it is what have you done since August, which is why I can't stand the pre-season polls because they reward teams for past performance at the expense of teams just rounding into form. That LSU won the championship last year or that Oklahoma choked doesn't matter, it is what they do on the field during this season that should be the only determinant of if they make the BCS championship.

Your top point couldn't be any more right. The computers are finicky, and they can choose whoever they want for the title game. With that said however, most of the computer's rankings are based upon both polls and their placement of teams. Thus, the reason why I think an SEC team that went undefeated (whether or not they had a soft non-conference schedule) would be a lock for the NC game is because the voters would place them at either #1 or #2 in both polls and therefore give them that advantage in the computer BCS rankings. See what I'm saying?

Your bottom point is also very correct, but not necessarily true in today's college football world. I absolutely agree that the rankings and bowl placements should only reflect the current season's games and outcomes, but we all know that is never the case, especially with the big-name schools with rich histories. The human voters clearly remember the past and take it into account when they are voting, and unfortunately the recent past sides completely with the SEC. Even if OSU had beaten USC this past Saturday and then run the table the rest of the way, does anyone here really think that they would've been allowed back in the NC game? No, the voters would keep them low enough to stay out of contention, maybe ranked them #3 or #4, even lower than say a one loss SEC team or Big 12 team. It's a shame that past seasons/outcomes matter like that, but the voters do remember and they'll tell you that lopsided games tend to stick with them, and on the teams that are involved in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course you have the humans making weird picks too sometimes

Or somebody voting Ohio State #1, after that sorry showing against Ohio, two weeks ago in the poll.

And Apostle's OSU argument about "credit" is spot on. When you get put on a pedastal for three years and fail to live up to the hype, it's ridiculous. 2006 against Florida? All right, one bad game. 2007 against TWO LOSS LSU?? Now there's a problem. And when the media hyped up the USC game last week, everyone saw thru it and had enough. The blowout loss affirmed what everybody already knew. And it's a joke they're even still at #13. My biased opinion says that my Troy Trojans go up to the Horseshoe this Saturday and give them all they can handle.[/OSU rant]

Now... for the Auburn/LSU game this weekend. Take the UNDER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your top point couldn't be any more right. The computers are finicky, and they can choose whoever they want for the title game. With that said however, most of the computer's rankings are based upon both polls and their placement of teams. Thus, the reason why I think an SEC team that went undefeated (whether or not they had a soft non-conference schedule) would be a lock for the NC game is because the voters would place them at either #1 or #2 in both polls and therefore give them that advantage in the computer BCS rankings. See what I'm saying?

At the least the Saragin rating system doesn't use the polls, but I don't know about the rest. I see what you are saying but the point of the computer polls is to avoid the possible biases of the two human polls, so I don't think it holds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although I am mainly a Badger fan......

Boomer Sooner!!!!! I lived in Tulsa for 7 years!!

Cool deal. I'm in Owasso, just north of Tulsa.

Sooners off to a great start. Three games and put a half a hundred on each of them.

Next up TCU, then start conference play with Baylor. Then the BIG ONE...TEXAS! Would love to see OU hang half a hundred on the horns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the game last night paired with a few others begs the question, is ECU really a contender?

I'm sure given the composition of this board I might take some heat for this but I'm pretty sure they aren't. Their biggest win is against WVU, who is falling like a stone, and their second big win is against VT who's only offense is coming from a player who didn't even play against ECU. I'm not saying they aren't good, they are, but I doubt they will be the BCS crashers it looked like they could be after their first two games.

Personally if they are going to fall, I hope the fall comes against NC State or Virginia since that will make the ACC look not as sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as they keeping winning, they're a contender.

Yup, exactly.

The thing is that college football has really changed, and there is a whole lot more parity today than there used to be. While I won't necessarily say that ECU can beat USC, they'd do a whole lot better against them than a lot of people would give them credit for. We might even get a more direct comparison when ECU plays UVA in a couple of weeks (and whom ECU beat two years ago when they played).

We already have a good comparison with Alabama with the Tulane game, which while the ECU-Tulane game may have been 'closer' when it comes to the score, Tulane is a team Alabama only scored one offensive touchdown against compared to three for ECU yet is ranked even higher. And ECU played at Tulane, while Alabama was at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wouldn't necessarily be a lock that the SEC would make the BCS championship if they didn't play other BCS schools. What if USC and lets say Oklahoma or Texas go undefeated and for argument's sake the only undefeated team in the SEC is LSU? USC has a good out of conference schedule and Texas plays Arkansas and OU played @ Washington who is admittedly not very good but is still a BCS school, but LSU plays nobody from a BCS conference (App, Troy, North Texas, and Tulane). Not to mention there are 5 SEC schools ranked and 5 Big 12 schools ranked (and yes I realize that those SEC schools are on the whole higher than the Big 12 schools but not much and it is only week four so the order can and will change). The argument can be made that the Big 12 school should play for the BCS championship and lets face it when you give it up to the formula the SEC's rep doesn't mean squat.

You have to win out of conference games to remain dominant. Yes the SEC can claim dominance now but that is because it wins out of conference games, the moment they stop winning those games or even playing them their claim to the crown diminishes. If everyone in that league dropped their non-conference games against other power leagues and only played the Sunbelt, and MAC their reputation would suffer. To be the best you have to beat the best of the rest, which means playing challenging out of conference opponents.

Doesn't hold water as far the SEC is concerned IMO. Typically to run the table in the SEC you will have AT LEAST 4 wins against top 20 foes and by virtue of that they could have played the Arizona school for the blind for their out of Conf game(s). PAC 10 You got USC and sometimes Cal or Arizona State every three years Oregon but never 4 or 5 of them in the top twenty at the same time. Big 12 would be the same as the SEC if the Sooners run the table I don't care what their non conf schedule is the will be in the NC game. Now the BCS issue will be when LSU< OU< and USC all run the table..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't hold water as far the SEC is concerned IMO. Typically to run the table in the SEC you will have AT LEAST 4 wins against top 20 foes and by virtue of that they could have played the Arizona school for the blind for their out of Conf game(s). PAC 10 You got USC and sometimes Cal or Arizona State every three years Oregon but never 4 or 5 of them in the top twenty at the same time. Big 12 would be the same as the SEC if the Sooners run the table I don't care what their non conf schedule is the will be in the NC game. Now the BCS issue will be when LSU< OU< and USC all run the table..

LSU won't be running the table though.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...