College Football 2010: So it begins

[Boris Godunov]

A team they struggled to beat, and it's Stanford, a PAC 10 team. My question is why OSU at 2? Because the rule is that no BCS team ever falls despite winning.

They didn't struggle to beat Stanford. The only reason they were up 21-3 in the first quarter was because of two terrible Oregon turnovers close to their own goal line. Oregon outscored the Cardinal 49-10 from the 2nd quarter. They shut them out in the second half of the game. If that's "struggling," then Boise's mere 33-30 win over VA Tech was a nightmare for the Broncos.

You yourself ranked Stanford #9 in the country. So the attempt to dismiss them for being a PAC 10 team is ludicrous (didn't you notice Stanford's destroying non-PAC 10 opponents like Notre Dame?).

As for the claim that "no BCS team ever falls despite winning," once again you state something that is categorically false. A quick look at the AP poll over the past 5 weeks makes it easy to prove that assertion wrong. For example: Florida was ranked #8 in week 1, and then fell to #10 in week 2, despite being 2-0.

There is no subject about which you can ever be right.

[Ben Kenobi]

You yourself ranked Stanford #9 in the country.

Yep, sure did. They are a good team, no doubt about it. You go down 21-3 to anyone that raises eyebrows. It tells me that Oregon is vunerable and shouldn't move up in the rankings.

Boise fought a nailbiter, but it was never lopsided, and they came out ahead. BTW, VT won again and somehow Boise is still paying the price.

So the attempt to dismiss them for being a PAC 10 team is ludicrous (didn't you notice Stanford's destroying non-PAC 10 opponents like Notre Dame?).

They are a 4-1 PAC 10 team. That puts them unranked right now. Don't see any difference between them and similarly ranked Seminoles who were unranked last week and remain unranked this week. Or between the Buffalos in the Big 12 who are also 3-1 and knocked off a big team this week.

As for the claim that "no BCS team ever falls despite winning," once again you state something that is categorically false. A quick look at the AP poll over the past 5 weeks makes it easy to prove that assertion wrong. For example: Florida was ranked #8 in week 1, and then fell to #10 in week 2, despite being 2-0.

I don't agree with that. You win, you stay. You lose, you fall, and fall hard. I think that's the fair way to go. Keep winning, you move up in the ranks. Play a big team and lose, you fall. I don't care who you play. You can only beat the team out in front of you.

Oregon is a good team. I have them ranked 5th behind BSU, TCU, Utah and Alabama. I might move the Sooners up, or OK State depending on how they do. Maybe Auburn or LSU.

I'm not impressed with the strength of the PAC 10 this year. BSU and TCU crushed Oregon State.

[Boris Godunov]

Yep, sure did. They are a good team, no doubt about it. You go down 21-3 to anyone that raises eyebrows. It tells me that Oregon is vunerable and shouldn't move up in the rankings.

Isolating the first quarter of one game as a sign of problems when two scores came as a result of unusual turnovers is ridiculous. You simply cannot ignore the fact that the Oregon came back to win the game by 21 points. Oregon dominated the remaining 3 quarters of the game, and didn't allow Stanford to score again in the entire second half. The ability to maintain composure, outlast opponents and roar back to a triumphant win after being down by 18 points is impressive in and of itself.

Boise fought a nailbiter, but it was never lopsided, and they came out ahead. BTW, VT won again and somehow Boise is still paying the price.

Exactly! They barely won against an opponent that is now 3-2 and went on to lose by a larger margin to JMU! The VT win seems utterly unimpressive compared to Oregon's dismantling of Stanford.

They are a 4-1 PAC 10 team. That puts them unranked right now. Don't see any difference between them and similarly ranked Seminoles who were unranked last week and remain unranked this week. Or between the Buffalos in the Big 12 who are also 3-1 and knocked off a big team this week.

Stanford is still ranked, idiot. They're #16 now, because losing to the #4 team in the country is not exactly a huge shock. And Florida State was never "similarly ranked," it was #17 in week one and that is it.

But Stanford is now 4-1. VT is 3-2. According to your own inane system of rankings, any 4-1 team > any 3-2 team. And certainly, a 4-1 team whose only loss was to the #4 team in the country should be considered far superior to a team that lost to JMU. So your own stupid logic means you should be considering Oregon the better team than BSU because Oregon's toughest opponent so far > BSU's toughest opponents so far.

I don't agree with that. You win, you stay. You lose, you fall, and fall hard. I think that's the fair way to go.

Which is stupid, because it punishes teams for playing tough opponents and rewards them for having cupcake schedules, which apparently you find impressive. A 4-1 team that lost to the #4 team in the country deserves to be ranked above a 5-0 team that has played nothing but crap teams.

At any rate, your point was to try and and illustrate some sort of BCS nefariousness for dropping BSU a slot as if it meant bias, but since I've shown it also happens to BCS teams, I am guessing you're retracting the point? Good.

Oregon is a good team. I have them ranked 5th behind BSU, TCU, Utah and Alabama. I might move the Sooners up, or OK State depending on how they do. Maybe Auburn or LSU.

Er, wait... why would you move those teams up ahead of Oregon if Oregon keeps winning games? You just whined that teams that win should keep their place, no matter what. So you can't "move up" any teams, you can only drop teams that lose games. If those teams don't lose--no matter the quality of the teams they play!--you say you can't move them down. Jesus, I know I shouldn't be surprised that you don't see how ****ing stupid your "system" is, but there it is...

I'm not impressed with the strength of the PAC 10 this year. BSU and TCU crushed Oregon State.

First, "crushed?" No. Neither BSU nor TCU "crushed" Oregon State. TCU beat them by 9 points, BSU by 13, in home games. Those are hardly "crushing victories," especially since Oregon State led TCU for much of the first half of that game (hey, if you can tout Stanford's momentary first quarter lead on Oregon to make a point, then we all get to be selective about what quarters we look at). If you define those as "crushing," then you have to say Oregon utterly destroyed Stanford, given the 21-point margin.

Second, how the hell is Oregon State representative of the entire PAC-10? They are a middling PAC-10 team, although it looks like Katz is starting to come into his own and they are likely improving as the season goes on, as they usually do. Touting early victories over them and claiming that means the PAC-10 has a whole is weak is as stupid as using Ole Miss as proof the SEC is weak this year.

[SpencerH]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Highlight shows are for, well, highlights. The Oregon-Stanford game had more highlights. The polls, however, will reflect Alabama's dominance--I'd be rather surprised if they didn't receiving every single first place vote in both polls, save a token one or two for BSU, OSU, or Oregon.

My point is that the media bias against the SEC style of play isnt something new or something I invented. The media focus on high-scoring (ie no defense) games or teams such as Boise State who dont play quality opponents and so wrack up "record" scoring stats is perverse IMO. There are lots of highlights in a game between no 1 and no 7, its just a question of what the media prefer to emphasize.

[SpencerH]

I fully give Alabama respect as the No. 1 team, but to suggest as you do with your "quotes" that the Oregon-Stanford game wasn't exciting is just silly. It was an incredibly entertaining game. What else could it be when a team goes from down 21-3 to a 52-31 win? The Duck's scoring drives averaged less than 2 minutes each--they put on a scintillating display of fast, agile offense. Even so, Stanford was still in the game until mid-4th quarter, while Alabama put Florida away early and that game lost any drama before halftime.

I'm glad you enjoyed it but I find games played with no defense to be as 'exciting' as games with no offense. I'll admit that Alabama's domination of Florida robbed the game of drama though (I suppose it was quid pro quo for the LSU-TENN drama).

[Guynemer]

I'm sorry, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

There are going to be fewer highlights in a 31-6 laugher than a game that was competitive into the fourth quarter and featured 80+ points. Period.

Moreover, it is taken as an article of faith than even a one-loss SEC Champion will finish 1 or 2 in the rankings, even if other teams (such as Boise State) finish undefeated.

There is no bias against the SEC in the media. The very idea of such a thing is utterly laughable. The media fellates the SEC all the time, with good reason--they are, top to bottom, the best conference. (Although they may be down just a bit this year; alternatively, they may just appear to be down in relation to insanely-good Tide.)

[SpencerH]

They didn't struggle to beat Stanford. The only reason they were up 21-3 in the first quarter was because of two terrible Oregon turnovers close to their own goal line. Oregon outscored the Cardinal 49-10 from the 2nd quarter. They shut them out in the second half of the game. If that's "struggling," then Boise's mere 33-30 win over VA Tech was a nightmare for the Broncos.

I'd argue that Oregon's ability to come back from such a deficit to win against a decent team is a sign of their actual quality, not the other way round.

[SpencerH]

I'm sorry, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

There are going to be fewer highlights in a 31-6 laugher than a game that was competitive into the fourth quarter and featured 80+ points. Period.

Moreover, it is taken as an article of faith than even a one-loss SEC Champion will finish 1 or 2 in the rankings, even if other teams (such as Boise State) finish undefeated.

There is no bias against the SEC in the media. The very idea of such a thing is utterly laughable. The media fellates the SEC all the time, with good reason--they are, top to bottom, the best conference. (Although they may be down just a bit this year; alternatively, they may just appear to be down in relation to insanely-good Tide.)

As I believe I said/implied, it depends on what one counts as a highlight; a long throw that is caught against a pathetic defense or one that is stopped by a skilled defense. Personally, I vote to see skill.

We must watch different talking-heads on TV.

[Tuberski]

So defense is all about skill, but offense isn't. Gotcha.

ACK!

[Boris Godunov]

I'm glad you enjoyed it but I find games played with no defense to be as 'exciting' as games with no offense. I'll admit that Alabama's domination of Florida robbed the game of drama though (I suppose it was quid pro quo for the LSU-TENN drama).

No defense? What do you call holding a team to 0 points in an entire half?

[SpencerH]

ESPN commentator on Alabama's destruction of Florida "the SEC is a one team league". A one team league with six teams in the top 25! Geez!

[SpencerH]

No defense? What do you call holding a team to 0 points in an entire half?

Given the 31 points allowed in the first half, I call it lucky.

[Guynemer]

Oregon's defense has given up a total of 7 points in the second half all season, Spencer.


The COUNTRY is a one-team country, given how ahead of the pack the Tide appears to be.

[Boris Godunov]

So it's not enough for Tide fans to have their team be universally acknowledged as the #1 in the country: if there isn't sufficient effusive media fawning, they're getting a raw deal. Holy ****, Spencer, I don't think you realize how pathetic your whining about this looks. I can at least understand where the griping from BSU fans comes from.

[Boris Godunov]

Given the 31 points allowed in the first half, I call it lucky.

No, this just shows you didn't watch the game and don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about. First, 14 of those 31 points were actually lucky on Stanford's part--they were the result of turnovers, one of which based on the replay probably shouldn't have been counted since the Cardinal let the ball hit the ground before he got control over it. At any rate, in the first quarter, the Ducks D didn't put any pressure on Luck. They got better in the 2nd quarter, allowing only 1 TD and then holding Stanford to a field goal (while the Oregon offense racked up 21 points). In the second half, there were noticeable adjustments made to the Oregon defense, and that's what accounted for the shut out. Aliotti is, as Guy pointed out, well-known for his second-half adjustments that shut down Oregon's opponents.

It's just plain stupid to assert a team holding a top-ten ranked team to 0 points for a half has "no defense."