Official College Football Thread (Spoilers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with that, and here's the devil's advocate for Boise. They haven't lost by more than 3 in the last four years and they've beaten eight ranked teams in that time.

If LSU goes undefeated, they will have beaten 7 ranked teams at the time of play, if my count is correct. To top it off, 3 of those teams will likely finish in the top 10. Sorry if 8 teams in 4 years doesn't impress me.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, Auburn, as bad as they are this year, has beaten 8 ranked teams in the past two years.
Ranked teams is kind of misleading. Top 25 is ranked. Who are the ranked teams that Boise has beaten and what rank did they have? I have no idea, just asking.

Beating 8 ranked teams sounds good, but if most of them were outside the top 15 and none (or very few) of them were top 5 is not saying much, especially over 4 years.
 
I'd have to agree here. Texas A&M started the season ranked 8th (I think). Arkansas can say they beat a ranked team, but A&M has lost every big game: (2) Oklahoma St, (8)Arkansas, Missouri, (7) Oklahoma, (17) Kansas State.

Texas A&M was ranked (7) at OSU, (9) at Arkansas, (16) at Missouri, and were only UNRANKED when they lost to Oklahoma and Kansas State.

Beating a ranked team (at the time) doesn't mean much if that team ends up WAY outside the top 25 in the end.
 
The good news about this entire discussion is that nobody could ever confuse Boise's schedule of being packed with ranked teams whether its during time of game, pre-season, or season finished.
 
The good news about this entire discussion is that nobody could ever confuse Boise's schedule of being packed with ranked teams whether its during time of game, pre-season, or season finished.
I guess this discussion is "all for not" now anyway, but does pose the question...how does the Universtiy of Houston go 11 and possibly higher next week?

UCLA, North Texas, La Tech, Georgia State, UTEP, East Carolina, Rice, UAB, Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa??????!!!???

A high powered offense does not equal a high powered ranking IMO.
 
I guess this discussion is "all for not" now anyway, but does pose the question...how does the Universtiy of Houston go 11 and possibly higher next week?

UCLA, North Texas, La Tech, Georgia State, UTEP, East Carolina, Rice, UAB, Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa??????!!!???

A high powered offense does not equal a high powered ranking IMO.

They spoke about this very thing on one of the shows last night. One of the questions was "What would their record be in the SEC?". The answers? Not a single guy of the 4 answering said more than 5 wins. Whether or not its true is anybody's guess.
 
They spoke about this very thing on one of the shows last night. One of the questions was "What would their record be in the SEC?". The answers? Not a single guy of the 4 answering said more than 5 wins. Whether or not its true is anybody's guess.

I think Keenum is a good QB, but when you play a defense with maybe one person who has NFL talent, it's much easier to look good. You put Keenum and Houstons offense against a LSU or Alabama defense who are stocked with first rounders and he would not see the same success.
 
They spoke about this very thing on one of the shows last night. One of the questions was "What would their record be in the SEC?". The answers? Not a single guy of the 4 answering said more than 5 wins. Whether or not its true is anybody's guess.

Can I say I'm sick and tired of people saying "well how would they do in the SEC?" If they played in the SEC then everything would change from money, to the quality of the players they would be recruiting, everything.

I'm not a fan of Boise, and I'm happy they won't be playing in the National Championship game, but I just hate that argument.
 
They spoke about this very thing on one of the shows last night. One of the questions was "What would their record be in the SEC?". The answers? Not a single guy of the 4 answering said more than 5 wins. Whether or not its true is anybody's guess.
Agreed. Different world of game in the bigger divisions. It will never be known. The same could be said for my initial comment here. Would a team that's obviously struggled with ranked teams (Texas A&M), be undefeated in the Conference USA? Possibly. If they start the season ranked 8 and go undefeated in the USA, it would appear to some that they wouldn't fair well against teams in the Big 12, because they HAVE NOT.

Weird how the ranking works with teams in what many might say are lesser conferences. I just don't get it. I want every team to have a fair chance, but I would hope in the end it would be fair for everybody.
 
Can I say I'm sick and tired of people saying "well how would they do in the SEC?" If they played in the SEC then everything would change from money, to the quality of the players they would be recruiting, everything.

I'm not a fan of Boise, and I'm happy they won't be playing in the National Championship game, but I just hate that argument.

I get what you are saying, but when you compare one thing to another you use the best measuring stick, that being the SEC in college football.
 
I get what you are saying, but when you compare one thing to another you use the best measuring stick, that being the SEC in college football.

I understand what they are trying to say, but its simply not a fair comparison. The college football landscape is so skewed to the big teams that the little teams only have one little advantage their schedual. The SEC teams have the better players, more of them, they play much tougher scheduals, they have more money, and higher rankings due to the division they play in.

I'm not saying Boise is as good as those teams because they aren't, but if they were in the SEC then they would have SEC money, they would be able to recruit more of the 4 and 5 star SEC players and they would then be able to compete with those programs that are undoubtably the best in college football.
 
Can I say I'm sick and tired of people saying "well how would they do in the SEC?" If they played in the SEC then everything would change from money, to the quality of the players they would be recruiting, everything.

I'm not a fan of Boise, and I'm happy they won't be playing in the National Championship game, but I just hate that argument.

I understand what they are trying to say, but its simply not a fair comparison. The college football landscape is so skewed to the big teams that the little teams only have one little advantage their schedual. The SEC teams have the better players, more of them, they play much tougher scheduals, they have more money, and higher rankings due to the division they play in.

I'm not saying Boise is as good as those teams because they aren't, but if they were in the SEC then they would have SEC money, they would be able to recruit more of the 4 and 5 star SEC players and they would then be able to compete with those programs that are undoubtably the best in college football.

While I agree completely, you have to remember that they are trying to be measured by teh same stick. Dont demand the same rewards if you dont want to be compared to the same teams. You ask for a NC game despite beating nobody, then people are going to make comparisons.
 
While I agree completely, you have to remember that they are trying to be measured by teh same stick. Dont demand the same rewards if you dont want to be compared to the same teams. You ask for a NC game despite beating nobody, then people are going to make comparisons.

Oh I agree that Boise shouldn't get the same rewards as the other teams with their weaker schedual and then ask to be compared equally to the teams that play tough scheduals, I just hate that argument.
 
I understand what they are trying to say, but its simply not a fair comparison. The college football landscape is so skewed to the big teams that the little teams only have one little advantage their schedual. The SEC teams have the better players, more of them, they play much tougher scheduals, they have more money, and higher rankings due to the division they play in.

I'm not saying Boise is as good as those teams because they aren't, but if they were in the SEC then they would have SEC money, they would be able to recruit more of the 4 and 5 star SEC players and they would then be able to compete with those programs that are undoubtably the best in college football.

I really like that part of what you are saying, it will be interesting to see how Missouri and Texas A&M fare after joining the conference next year. I would think 5 years down the road they will be even better overall than they are now. We will be watching to see.
 
I really like that part of what you are saying, it will be interesting to see how Missouri and Texas A&M fare after joining the conference next year. I would think 5 years down the road they will be even better overall than they are now. We will be watching to see.
Well, that's the point for A&M to go SEC. They say they'll have better recruitment and not having to "directly" compete with "The Longhorn Network"...I mean UT. I think this was brilliant on A&M's part. I think this is a latteral move conference wise, but a huge upswing for recruiting. They can pull kids away from OU, OSU, and UT by using the SEC name (for what it's worth vs. the Big 12). Bottom line, the SEC gets WAY more hype sports wise than the Big 12.
 
Boises mistake of joining these weak conferences is what bothers me most. Why were they never asked/trying to get into the Pac12? Or any of the other big ones. Seriously the Big eat? What a joke.
 
Well, that's the point for A&M to go SEC. They say they'll have better recruitment and not having to "directly" compete with "The Longhorn Network"...I mean UT. I think this was brilliant on A&M's part. I think this is a latteral move conference wise, but a huge upswing for recruiting. They can pull kids away from OU, OSU, and UT by using the SEC name (for what it's worth vs. the Big 12). Bottom line, the SEC gets WAY more hype sports wise than the Big 12.

Hype is brought from big names or results. USC was nothing years ago, they win, they get hype. SEC did not invent this hype on their own, it was created because they have the deepest conference of capable big time winners in the country at this time. That can change of course and most likely will over time. Think back a little while when Alabama and Auburn were nothing compared to the Miami and FSU juggernauts. Nobody was saying what they are now. Winning brings the attention and unfortunately the SEC has done more than anybody in terms of that recently.
 
Boise State is a good team, but not LSU or OKst good. Unfortunately without an undefeated record, I don't think they would get a BCS at large. I would rather take a two lose team from one of the bigger conferences than a one lose Boise.
 
Hype is brought from big names or results. USC was nothing years ago, they win, they get hype. SEC did not invent this hype on their own, it was created because they have the deepest conference of capable big time winners in the country at this time. That can change of course and most likely will over time. Think back a little while when Alabama and Auburn were nothing compared to the Miami and FSU juggernauts. Nobody was saying what they are now. Winning brings the attention and unfortunately the SEC has done more than anybody in terms of that recently.
Not sure if you were explaining my "hype" sentance or you think that we disagree about it. I agree with what you've said whole heart. I think the SEC did a great job of promoting their conference as a whole and sticking together better than most (conferences). I think what makes the SEC seem like the #1 conference is that the wealth spreads out more (i.e. 2010 Auburn, 2009 Alabama, 2008 Florida, 2007 LSU) vs. Big 12 2005 Texas and 2000 Oklahoma (granted both Texas and Oklahoma have played in multiple national championship games, they haven't won)

In the end, those 2 names have been the only 2 names in recent years that have had an impact on the BCS vs. multiple squads from the SEC.
 
That is exactly what makes them the best conference in college football right now. So many big programs that could win any game any week and certainly any year. Compare that to the rest of the conferences around the country and its just not the same. It pains me that they are so good (I hate the SEC with a passion), but there is no denying their success compared to the rest of the country. The 2nd, 3rd and sometimes even 4th ranked teams are as good as anybody else in the country in my opinion.
 
That is exactly what makes them the best conference in college football right now. So many big programs that could win any game any week and certainly any year. Compare that to the rest of the conferences around the country and its just not the same. It pains me that they are so good (I hate the SEC with a passion), but there is no denying their success compared to the rest of the country. The 2nd, 3rd and sometimes even 4th ranked teams are as good as anybody else in the country in my opinion.
Is it safe to assume by the name of the newest member of your family, which I can't stand (sorry...Christian Laettner Rule) that you are an ACC fan? If so, at least the NCAA basketball season is about to start and the ACC looks like they'll be good with more than just Duke & NC. FSU should be tough.
 
Is it safe to assume by the name of the newest member of your family, which I can't stand (sorry...Christian Laettner Rule) that you are an ACC fan? If so, at least the NCAA basketball season is about to start and the ACC looks like they'll be good with more than just Duke & NC. FSU should be tough.

We did not name the dog, she was rescued with that name. However I am a FSU fan since that is where I went to school.
 
We did not name the dog, she was rescued with that name. However I am a FSU fan since that is where I went to school.
Good news for me! I didn't know that (FSU). Wrong thread for me to talk basketball...see you over there soon!
 
Texas putting up a blistering 5 points against the Big 12 bottom feeder Mizzou.

If Missouri is a "has been" in the Big 12, and beats Texas. What does that make Texas?
Yep....a 12 point win at home by Mizzu that had Texas top 3 RB's out of the game with the 4th stringer taking the ball, who probably was deep in thought at that moment about if he was going to grab some Wendy's or Taco Bell for dinner once the game was done. Not to mention our top WR who didn't play and a freshman QB still learning the ropes.

Come on war eagle.....you know your football better than that.....at least I think you do. They won....no doubt, but history shows that doesn't happen a lot for 'em.
 
Yep....a 12 point win at home by Mizzu that had Texas top 3 RB's out of the game with the 4th stringer taking the ball, who probably was deep in thought at that moment about if he was going to grab some Wendy's or Taco Bell for dinner once the game was done. Not to mention our top WR who didn't play and a freshman QB still learning the ropes.

Come on war eagle.....you know your football better than that.....at least I think you do. They won....no doubt, but history shows that doesn't happen a lot for 'em.
Im trying to find any positive of Mizzou coming to the SEC, there's not many to find though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top