Cal / Texas Tech

[Cuckoo]

Wow, interesting. TT has played pretty well so far. Can they hold on?

[Cuckoo]

31-14.

I'll say this much. If TT wins, we'll hear from IMTG, I'm sure. Then again, he might wait until after the Rose Bowl. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm hoping this keeps going just the way it's going.

[Cuckoo]

I wasn't even going to watch this one, figured it wouldn't be much of a game...

[Arles]

This has happened a few times where a team spurned by the BCS doesn't get motivated for their smaller bowl game and gets beat. Plus, the injuries at WR have really hurt Cal.

[Cuckoo]

This has happened a few times where a team spurned by the BCS doesn't get motivated for their smaller bowl game and gets beat. Plus, the injuries at WR have really hurt Cal.

Well I can't speak for their motivation, but I can say their WRs have little effect on the fact that their defense is just being shredded.

[IMetTrentGreen]

for what its worth, texas beat tech, in lubbock, like 800-3. it was never close

[IMetTrentGreen]

why? texas had a better regular season in every measurable way

in response the to post below me, somehow

[DeToxRox]

The great teams are ready to play all the time. Cal is not a great team. The way they out played USC should've had them winning by two scores, and they lost. Then tonight, they're just being run off of the field vs Texas Tech.

Is Cal good, yes?

Was Cal worthy of the Rose Bowl?

Taking tonight into consideration, not a chance.

[Cuckoo]

I'm waiting to hear the Texas fans come out and say, "I told you so". I laugh if they did. I love how the announcers are drumming up Texas and downing Cal based on tonights game. I just want to punch them, not because I think Cal should be in the Rose Bowl (I like to see Cal-Michigan, but both teams have equal claim (Cal and Texas), but he's judging the team on the bowl game, not the regular season which they play for the bowls.

I agree with you to an extent. No team should be judged solely by their bowl game performance. Any given (name a day of the week) as they say.

But, I think the announcer's point is that maybe the bowl games are showing what some have been saying this year, that the Pac-10 isn't as good as people thought. I still think Cal is better than this, regardless of whether they win or lose to TT, but I do think that the Pac-10 has been a bit overrated.

[IMetTrentGreen]

cal almost slipped at an awful oregon team

[IMetTrentGreen]

what is up with this ordering? this thread makes no sense now

[SunDancer]

I'm waiting to hear the Texas fans come out and say, "I told you so". I laugh if they did. I love how the announcers are drumming up Texas and downing Cal based on tonights game. I just want to punch them, not because I think Cal should be in the Rose Bowl (I like to see Cal-Michigan, but both teams have equal claim (Cal and Texas), but he's judging the team on the bowl game, not the regular season which they play for the bowls.

[SunDancer]

for what its worth, texas beat tech, in lubbock, like 800-3. it was never close

And Texas almost slipped to an awful Kansas team.

[IMetTrentGreen]

one thing people dont get about talent in texas is that there might not be a faster group of players anywhere. speed grows on trees here, unlike any place other than florida. i mean, tech gets the leftovers of the big-12 pretty much and they are just running right by the cal defense. i thought cal woudl win, because cumbie was so bad in the big games, but i guess i over estimated how good the cal defense was

also, techs pass rush has been great. rodgers looks like jason white back there. i've never seen that from a tech pass rush before. nice job,cal

[DeToxRox]

Craig James is trashing the whole Pac-10.

He's been destroying them. I do find it kind of amusing.

[SunDancer]

what is up with this ordering? this thread makes no sense now

I hate this timestamp issue. I am even confused in looking at my posts, and into what I even responded too.

[GrantDawg]

Craig James is trashing the whole Pac-10.

[cthomer5000]

go Cal! that's the way to show the BCS!

[SunDancer]

Craig James is trashing the whole Pac-10.

I heard that, The Pac-10 isn't great, but its not awful. USC is I think the best team in the country, and Cal is damn good. Arizona State did very well this year. Oregon State went bowling and upsetted LSU. I just hate how they base their thoughs on one game, the bowl game. A bowl game is a reward. A regular season is where they really play hard and fight for the bowls, trophies, ect.

[DeToxRox]

I heard that, The Pac-10 isn't great, but its not awful. USC is I think the best team in the country, and Cal is damn good. Arizona State did very well this year. Oregon State went bowling and upsetted LSU. I just hate how they base their thoughs on one game, the bowl game. A bowl game is a reward. A regular season is where they really play hard and fight for the bowls, trophies, ect.

If you're fighting to get in a bowl game, shouldn't you be judged on how you play in the game? Just getting there means nothing if you plan on phoning one in.

[SunDancer]

If you're fighting to get in a bowl game, shouldn't you be judged on how you play in the game? Just getting there means nothing if you plan on phoning one in.

True, but it just seems that the announcers are judging Cal solely on tonight's game.

[GrantDawg]

True, but it just seems that the announcers are judging Cal solely on tonight's game.
And bowl games are bad gauges of how good a team was a month ago.

[Arles]

Craig James is trashing the whole Pac-10.
Imagine that, two primary Big-12/SEC announcers trashing the Pac-10 in a bowl game. Say it isn't so ;)

To people like James there are only really two conferences in college football - the SEC and Big 12. Everyone else is just the minor leagues.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Paging Jeff Tedford ... paging Jeff Tedford ... your reality check is ready.
Next time, whine less -- prepare more.

[Noop]

Still think Cal would beat Texas.

[Senator]

this is greatness.

[Vegas Vic]

cal almost slipped at an awful oregon team

Oklahoma beat Oregon 35-7. I'm starting to think that the Orange Bowl might not be as close as I had originally thought it was going to be.

[IMetTrentGreen]

why? am i being graded? am i getting my point across? o no, i upsit teh engrish gawd

texas was a high school team last year. this year they got to him and he sucked. every team that has ever gotten to him made him look foolish. im not going to go over this again, so i'll say it once. its easy to look good when you have 6 seconds to throw to wide open recievers

[duckman]

rodgers looks like jason white back there.
Um, Jason has beaten Texas three times in his career. How can you say that when he made the Longhorns look like a high school team last season? Also, he's had two a two game losing streak ONCE and still make him sound like an average college quarterback. :rolleyes:

By the way, learn to use punctuation and the shift key.

[IMetTrentGreen]

f this timestamp shit. this site has bad software and worse posters

[vex]

f this timestamp shit. this site has bad software and worse posters
I agree.

[sooner333]

Still think Cal would beat Texas.

I mean, I guess this could somehow be a valid point, but I want to know why.

I can tell you why I disagree and that is because Texas Tech was the 4th place team in their division. They are a solid offense, and their defense did get better throughout the year, but Texas also played them late. I do know Texas has a better defense than Tech and Cal probably wouldn't have reached the 30's if they played UT. Cal had a few weeks to prepare for Leach's spread, and it was still too difficult.

Not that you said it, Noop, but to the others who have said it: Cal not getting to the BCS is not an excuse for losing to Texas Tech. Cal had a lot to prove to the nation, and they failed...much the same as they did against Southern Miss in Hattesburg. Texas Tech had to prove that they were even playing in the game (because they were talked about very little) and they proved a lot. Both teams had motivation, one team outshined the other.

[VPI97]

True, but it just seems that the announcers are judging Cal solely on tonight's game.Didn't many people boost Cal's claim to the Rose Bowl based on their performance vs. USC?

[VPI97]

dola -

I forgot to laugh at Cal for their flop in tonight's game.

LOL

Okay, I'm done.

[DeToxRox]

Didn't many people boost Cal's claim to the Rose Bowl based on their performance vs. USC?

And thats what is frustrating. How can you claim you should be in the Rose Bowl when you dominated a team and couldn't win?

Like I've been saying, a truly great team would've probably beaten USC by two TD's if they had those kind of #s Cal did vs USC.

[Easy Mac]

And thats what is frustrating. How can you claim you should be in the Rose Bowl when you dominated a team and couldn't win?

Like I've been saying, a truly great team would've probably beaten USC by two TD's if they had those kind of #s Cal did vs USC.
And how can you have a claim to the Rose Bowl when you were uttrerly smacked around by a team like Oklahoma... basically, no one has a claim to the Rose Bowl. I'd rather have a team that dominated but lost than a team that was dominated and lost.

And btw, seeing as how the Championship is at the Orange Bowl, I woulld have been highly surprised if a truly great team ended up in the Rose, since that wasn't even the game's purpose this year.

[Noop]

I mean, I guess this could somehow be a valid point, but I want to know why.

I can tell you why I disagree and that is because Texas Tech was the 4th place team in their division. They are a solid offense, and their defense did get better throughout the year, but Texas also played them late. I do know Texas has a better defense than Tech and Cal probably wouldn't have reached the 30's if they played UT. Cal had a few weeks to prepare for Leach's spread, and it was still too difficult.

Not that you said it, Noop, but to the others who have said it: Cal not getting to the BCS is not an excuse for losing to Texas Tech. Cal had a lot to prove to the nation, and they failed...much the same as they did against Southern Miss in Hattesburg. Texas Tech had to prove that they were even playing in the game (because they were talked about very little) and they proved a lot. Both teams had motivation, one team outshined the other.
I don't if they were 8th place I still think Cal would beat Texas.

[JW]

Cal nearly lost to a very ordinary Southern Mississippi in their last regular season game. Most people have known all along that Cal was a good team but an overrated team. There high ranking is part of the Pac-10 overhyping that has gone on all year. Now there seems to be a backlash by the very same people like ESPN who have been hyping the Pac-10 all year. It will be real embarassing for a lot of people if Oklahoma beats USC, which is entirely possible. USC probably is the best team in the country, but they are no superteam like a lot of the media have been trying to say. I think some media people are getting nervous.

As for Cal, if Cal was really a great team, they would have shown the BCS how wrong it was be demolishing USM and TT. But not to worry. News reports today say the AP has declared Cal the winner of the Holiday Bowl.

[SunDancer]

Cal nearly lost to a very ordinary Southern Mississippi in their last regular season game. Most people have known all along that Cal was a good team but an overrated team. There high ranking is part of the Pac-10 overhyping that has gone on all year. Now there seems to be a backlash by the very same people like ESPN who have been hyping the Pac-10 all year. It will be real embarassing for a lot of people if Oklahoma beats USC, which is entirely possible. USC probably is the best team in the country, but they are no superteam like a lot of the media have been trying to say. I think some media people are getting nervous.

As for Cal, if Cal was really a great team, they would have shown the BCS how wrong it was be demolishing USM and TT. But not to worry. News reports today say the AP has declared Cal the winner of the Holiday Bowl.

Again, Texas barely held off against I think a worst team in Kansas. Don't compare a bowl game against Texas Tech against a regular season conference game against Texas Tech. You got nearly a whole month layoff.

[Arles]

According to the Sagarins, the Pac-10 was the 2nd rated conference in the nation (behind the Big 12). There's not much media bias in that ranking:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc04.htm

CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS
1 BIG 12 (A) = 78.09 79.06 ( 1) 12
2 PAC-10 (A) = 77.36 78.13 ( 2) 10
3 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 77.07 77.24 ( 3) 11
4 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 76.60 76.60 ( 4) 2
5 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 74.41 74.42 ( 5) 12
6 BIG TEN (A) = 74.11 73.72 ( 6) 11
7 BIG EAST (A) = 72.47 71.92 ( 8) 7
8 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 71.84 72.66 ( 7) 8
9 WESTERN ATHLETIC (A) = 67.94 69.17 ( 9) 10
10 ATLANTIC 10 (AA)= 66.00 65.41 ( 11) 12

[JW]

Pac-10, overrated, even by Sagarin. Any rating that puts the SEC #5 is on the face of it wrong. As for Cal, a good team, overrated from the start, and their last TWO games prove it. Cal's high ranking was in part media bias towards USC. The media has wanted to annoint USC since the beginning of the season.

[Arles]

Pac-10, overrated, even by Sagarin. Any rating that puts the SEC #5 is on the face of it wrong.
The SEC was 0-10 against top 10 opponents in the Sagarin and Auburn had the 68th toughest schedule (compared with USC at 17 and OU at 19). Only Arkansas had a top 30 schedule (No. 25) with most SEC teams falling in the 40-80 range in schedule difficulty. The top 15 teams in SOS were almost entirely made up of the Big 12 and Pac 10.

What the numbers show is that the SEC didn't beat one top nonconference team and the conference, as a whole, played a bunch of patsies. Both the Big 12 and Pac 10 had brutal nonconference schedules and that why they get the nod over the SEC. Maybe next season the SEC should schedule fewer Citadels, Louisiana-Monroes, Georgia Southerns, Eastern Michigans and Middle Tennessees and get more Oklahomas, Iowas, Wisconsins and Virginia Techs like the Pac 10 did.

[Cuckoo]

dola -

I forgot to laugh at Cal for their flop in tonight's game.

LOL

Okay, I'm done.


Sorry VPI, I just had to point this out:

The only reason I have Oklahoma ahead of Cal is because they're unbeaten. If they played, I think Cal would easily win.

If OU beats USC, I'll come back with a few more from that thread. If OU loses, I'm sure you'll get me with a couple too. :D

[Cuckoo]

DOLA

I do think that given Southern Miss and Texas Tech, maybe Cal was a bit overrated, not by everyone of course, but by some. I heard several talking heads at one point saying that Cal was the second best team in the country behind USC. I'm not even judging on one game alone when I say that appears to be decidedly not true.

I also think maybe the Pac-10 overall is a little overrated this year. That does not mean that USC is overrated. They're a dang good football team who has played some mediocre games just as Oklahoma and Auburn have. The only thing this game does for me really is add a little bit of credibility to the theory that there really wasn't as much difference between the top three teams as some had thought when they put USC above the debate.

[JW]

The SEC was 0-10 against top 10 opponents in the Sagarin and Auburn had the 68th toughest schedule (compared with USC at 17 and OU at 19). Only Arkansas had a top 30 schedule (No. 25) with most SEC teams falling in the 40-80 range in schedule difficulty. The top 15 teams in SOS were almost entirely made up of the Big 12 and Pac 10.

What the numbers show is that the SEC didn't beat one top nonconference team and the conference, as a whole, played a bunch of patsies. Both the Big 12 and Pac 10 had brutal nonconference schedules and that why they get the nod over the SEC. Maybe next season the SEC should schedule fewer Citadels, Louisiana-Monroes, Georgia Southerns, Eastern Michigans and Middle Tennessees and get more Oklahomas, Iowas, Wisconsins and Virginia Techs like the Pac 10 did.

If you check the BCS polls, you will find that Sagarin shows a decided tilt toward the Pac-10 and against the SEC, compared to all the other computer polls. You can rely on Sagarin if you want; it is just one computer poll.

And two comments on SEC teams playing patsies. It is kind of hard to schedule really tough teams when really tough teams cancel their commitments against you. Case in point is Va. Tech which scheduled a home-and-home against LSU. LSU played at VT and then VT cancelled the return engagement, forcing LSU to find a much lower ranked opponent at the last moment. Three teams have cancelled games at Baton Rouge against LSU in the past three years. I wonder why. I bet it is not because they consider LSU to be overrated. LSU continues to have trouble finding quality non-conference opponents for home-and-homes, especially non-conference opponents that will honor their agreements.

[JW]

DOLA

I do think that given Southern Miss and Texas Tech, maybe Cal was a bit overrated, not by everyone of course, but by some. I heard several talking heads at one point saying that Cal was the second best team in the country behind USC. I'm not even judging on one game alone when I say that appears to be decidedly not true.

I also think maybe the Pac-10 overall is a little overrated this year. That does not mean that USC is overrated. They're a dang good football team who has played some mediocre games just as Oklahoma and Auburn have. The only thing this game does for me really is add a little bit of credibility to the theory that there really wasn't as much difference between the top three teams as some had thought when they put USC above the debate.

I agree there. USC has a good claim to #1 and probably is the best team in the country. However, there has also been a built-in USC bias all year long, especially by AP, i.e., the media. What we heard last night on ESPN was a little fear that the season-long annointment of USC as one of the great college teams might be a little premature.

However, it should be noted that the majority of the computer polls used by the BCS show Oklahoma #1, not USC.

One should remember that just last year the media was calling OU one of the greatest teams ever right up until their conference championship game. I assume most people here have not forgotten that. The media has a great tendency to pick a team and build that team up unreasonably. And the human polls have always reflected human bias.

The truth is, if you put the top 4 or 8 or 16 teams in a hypothetical playoff and ran the playoff several times, you would have several different winners. There really isn't that much difference in the top teams. Put USC in the SEC or Big Whatever playing on the road in some truly tough venues, and they likely don't go undefeated, but would probably still be the best team in the country.

[JW]

Is this the same reason why you guys don't want to play Florida State? I know Auburn is pure chicken for backing out the games so if you may why hasn't LSU ever played at Doak.

Big assumption, totally wrong. I could just as easily ask why the Semiholes are afraid to play at Tiger Stadium. I am ready to hear the evidence concerning LSU's unwillingness to play the Semiholes.

[Noop]

If you check the BCS polls, you will find that Sagarin shows a decided tilt toward the Pac-10 and against the SEC, compared to all the other computer polls. You can rely on Sagarin if you want; it is just one computer poll.

And two comments on SEC teams playing patsies. It is kind of hard to schedule really tough teams when really tough teams cancel their commitments against you. Case in point is Va. Tech which scheduled a home-and-home against LSU. LSU played at VT and then VT cancelled the return engagement, forcing LSU to find a much lower ranked opponent at the last moment. Three teams have cancelled games at Baton Rouge against LSU in the past three years. I wonder why. I bet it is not because they consider LSU to be overrated. LSU continues to have trouble finding quality non-conference opponents for home-and-homes, especially non-conference opponents that will honor their agreements.
Is this the same reason why you guys don't want to play Florida State? I know Auburn is pure chicken for backing out the games so if you may why hasn't LSU ever played at Doak.

[Noop]

Big assumption, totally wrong. I could just as easily ask why the Semiholes are afraid to play at Tiger Stadium. I am ready to hear the evidence concerning LSU's unwillingness to play the Semiholes.
If I am not mistaken many times during the 80's Florida State has played LSU at LSU. Nice to see you calling them Semihole all I asked was a question and already you start with this bullcrap. I guess that how you sister fucking mud butts handle business in the bayou.

[Cuckoo]

The truth is, if you put the top 4 or 8 or 16 teams in a hypothetical playoff and ran the playoff several times, you would have several different winners. There really isn't that much difference in the top teams. Put USC in the SEC or Big Whatever playing on the road in some truly tough venues, and they likely don't go undefeated, but would probably still be the best team in the country.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Although you're certainly right that just about anything can happen on the field when good teams play, I do actually believe that USC, OU, and Auburn would all beat all the other top teams the vast majority of the time they played them. How they would all fare against each other, however, will never be determined.

But talent is only so much of the equation. It's one thing to say such and such team has the most talent in the country - hence they're the best team in the country, but that doesn't make them the champions. A couple of years ago, I thought Miami was a better team than Ohio State, but Ohio State won and therefore they were the best team in the country. I know it's an issue of semantics, but I think there needs to be a differentiation between talent assessment and status earned. A team can have all the talent in the country and may look better on paper than OU, USC, or Auburn, but if they've lost a game while all three of those haven't, they'll never be the best team in the country.

[VPI97]

LSU played at VT and then VT cancelled the return engagementThat's not entirely true...we just had to postpone our trip to Baton Rouge until 2007 due to joining the ACC and having to play one more conference game.

[VPI97]

Sorry VPI, I just had to point this outI still think Cal would beat Oklahoma...last night's game doesn't change that. But I don't mind laughing at Cal because of the way we flopped against them in last year's bowl game.

[Noop]

Well you did play at Doak at got your ass stomped to the tune of 42-3... I would quit to if I was getting owned.

[VPI97]

I know Auburn is pure chicken for backing out the gamesAgreed....Auburn backed out of an agreement with us...we're going to take it out on them on Monday night :)

[Arles]

If you check the BCS polls, you will find that Sagarin shows a decided tilt toward the Pac-10 and against the SEC, compared to all the other computer polls. You can rely on Sagarin if you want; it is just one computer poll.

And two comments on SEC teams playing patsies. It is kind of hard to schedule really tough teams when really tough teams cancel their commitments against you. Case in point is Va. Tech which scheduled a home-and-home against LSU. LSU played at VT and then VT cancelled the return engagement, forcing LSU to find a much lower ranked opponent at the last moment. Three teams have cancelled games at Baton Rouge against LSU in the past three years. I wonder why. I bet it is not because they consider LSU to be overrated. LSU continues to have trouble finding quality non-conference opponents for home-and-homes, especially non-conference opponents that will honor their agreements.
Maybe LSU needs to take a page out of USC's book and play teams on neutral fields (a la VT - which was essentially a home guy for the Hokies). Oregon State didn't mind flying out to LSU on short notice either.

But what I am talking about is a conference-wide stance. Arizona setup a home-and-home with Wisconson and played Utah this season. ASU had a home-and-home with Iowa and Northwestern. Oregon agreed to play in OKlahoma. USC has its agreement with Notre Dame in addition to plaging VT. Cal agreed to play at Southern Miss. Stanford agreed to play BYU and at Notre Dame. UCLA agreed to play a home-and-home with Oklahoma State. Washington agreed to play a Fresno State and Notre Dame on the road. So on and so forth. Almost every Pac-10 team played one very good nonconference opponent with most scheduling two. Now, many of these were on the road or part of a home-and-home, but that's what it took to get them on the schedule. You can look at the Big 12 and see a similar pattern.

The SEC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to play any decent team on the road and even shys away from a bunch of home-and-homes that come their way. Look at the schedules of Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn and LSU and you see teams that would rather play Troy, Arkansas State or the Citadel than go on the road to face a more difficult team. You realize that not one of the 12 nonconference games played by Georgia, Tenn, Auburn or LSU was on the road!

It's hard to get good people to play you when you never want to play on the road.

[MrBug708]

I still think Cal would beat Oklahoma...last night's game doesn't change that. But I don't mind laughing at Cal because of the way we flopped against them in last year's bowl game.

You didn't flop to them last year, Cal was simply better

[digamma]

Maybe LSU needs to take a page out of USC's book and play teams on neutral fields (a la VT - which was essentially a home guy for the Hokies). Oregon State didn't mind flying out to LSU on short notice either.

But what I am talking about is a conference-wide stance. Arizona setup a home-and-home with Wisconson and played Utah this season. ASU had a home-and-home with Iowa and Northwestern. Oregon agreed to play in OKlahoma. USC has its agreement with Notre Dame in addition to plaging VT. Cal agreed to play at Southern Miss. Stanford agreed to play BYU and at Notre Dame. UCLA agreed to play a home-and-home with Oklahoma State. Washington agreed to play a Fresno State and Notre Dame on the road. So on and so forth. Almost every Pac-10 team played one very good nonconference opponent with most scheduling two. Now, many of these were on the road or part of a home-and-home, but that's what it took to get them on the schedule. You can look at the Big 12 and see a similar pattern.

The SEC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to play any decent team on the road and even shys away from a bunch of home-and-homes that come their way. Look at the schedules of Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn and LSU and you see teams that would rather play Troy, Arkansas State or the Citadel than go on the road to face a more difficult team. You realize that not one of the 12 nonconference games played by Georgia, Tenn, Auburn or LSU was on the road!

It's hard to get good people to play you when you never want to play on the road.
The SEC's scheduling can be pretty bad at times, but you are shorting them too much here.

Georgia, Florida and South Carolina all have rivalry games against ACC teams and play these as home and homes each year.
Very few Pac 10 teams (outside of USC and Stanford who both play Notre Dame yearly) have these annual games that take up one of the three non-conference slots.

Outside of the rivalry games:
Georgia played Clemson in a home and home in 2002 and 2003.
Florida played Miami in a home and home in 2002 and 2003.
Tennessee just finished a home and home with Notre Dame and finished a home and home with Miami last season.
Auburn just finished a home and home with USC and plays Georgia Tech in the second half of a home and home next year.
Alabama has traditionally played a big non-conference game.
Arkansas has played Texas in a home and home.
Kentucky plays Louisville annually.

With the move back to 11 game schedules (or at least having 12 game schedules in only calendar years where 12 Saturdays fall before December 1 (or whatever the rule is), SEC schools kind of have to guarantee six home games to generate income--for teams with rivalry games, that means ensuring the other two games are at home in off-years. In seasons where there are 12 games, I think you will see SEC teams with a big non-conference game.

This year was particularly bad for the SEC in scheduling, but not all of it was their fault. For instance, Bowling Green bought out of the Auburn game to get a bigger pay day at Oklahoma.

(ick...I need a shower after defending the SEC that much.)

[GrantDawg]

The SEC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to play any decent team on the road and even shys away from a bunch of home-and-homes that come their way. Look at the schedules of Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn and LSU and you see teams that would rather play Troy, Arkansas State or the Citadel than go on the road to face a more difficult team. You realize that not one of the 12 nonconference games played by Georgia, Tenn, Auburn or LSU was on the road!

.
But that was a fluke of scheduling this year. Tennessee and Auburn have been playing some pretty good home-and-homes the last couple of years, it was just this years schedule had Tennessee playing the home portion of a Notre Dame home-and-home, and Auburn had to rebuild their out of conference schedule with a lame-duck AD that didn't want to make any long term committments for the next guy coming in. I'll not try to defend UGA because Dooley honestly never attempted good out of conference games. Hopefully the new AD will.

[ISiddiqui]

If I am not mistaken many times during the 80's Florida State has played LSU at LSU. Nice to see you calling them Semihole all I asked was a question and already you start with this bullcrap. I guess that how you sister fucking mud butts handle business in the bayou.

Oh, how I long for QOTM :D

[JW]

If I am not mistaken many times during the 80's Florida State has played LSU at LSU. Nice to see you calling them Semihole all I asked was a question and already you start with this bullcrap. I guess that how you sister fucking mud butts handle business in the bayou.

You started with an assumption, not a true question. You wrote: "Is this the same reason why you guys don't want to play Florida State?" Your assumption is simply incorrect and did not merit a legit answer.

[VPI97]

You didn't flop to them last year, Cal was simply better
From last summer:
USC should wipe the floor with Virginia Tech in the first game this coming yearI don't think you'll be with in 24 of USC
Given your history of comments re: Virginia Tech football, your opinion concerning them is pretty much worthless.

[JW]

That's not entirely true...we just had to postpone our trip to Baton Rouge until 2007 due to joining the ACC and having to play one more conference game.

Yet is necessitated LSU finding a lesser opponent at the last minute to fill that game and resulted in some people who didn't know better saying LSU had arranged an easy schedule that year.

[JW]

Well you did play at Doak at got your ass stomped to the tune of 42-3... I would quit to if I was getting owned.

LMAO, yes, 1990. LSU had a terrible team that year and went 5-6. I am glad you are so proud of that win. Prove to me that LSU refuses to play FSU. I think most Tiger fans would love to play a home-and-home with FSU. It would be a great series in a couple of great stadiums with two fine teams.

[MrBug708]

From last summer:

Given your history of comments re: Virginia Tech football, your opinion concerning them is pretty much worthless.

So I'm about par for the course with you, right?

[JW]

Maybe LSU needs to take a page out of USC's book and play teams on neutral fields (a la VT - which was essentially a home guy for the Hokies). Oregon State didn't mind flying out to LSU on short notice either.

But what I am talking about is a conference-wide stance. Arizona setup a home-and-home with Wisconson and played Utah this season. ASU had a home-and-home with Iowa and Northwestern. Oregon agreed to play in OKlahoma. USC has its agreement with Notre Dame in addition to plaging VT. Cal agreed to play at Southern Miss. Stanford agreed to play BYU and at Notre Dame. UCLA agreed to play a home-and-home with Oklahoma State. Washington agreed to play a Fresno State and Notre Dame on the road. So on and so forth. Almost every Pac-10 team played one very good nonconference opponent with most scheduling two. Now, many of these were on the road or part of a home-and-home, but that's what it took to get them on the schedule. You can look at the Big 12 and see a similar pattern.

The SEC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to play any decent team on the road and even shys away from a bunch of home-and-homes that come their way. Look at the schedules of Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn and LSU and you see teams that would rather play Troy, Arkansas State or the Citadel than go on the road to face a more difficult team. You realize that not one of the 12 nonconference games played by Georgia, Tenn, Auburn or LSU was on the road!

It's hard to get good people to play you when you never want to play on the road.

LSU beat Arizona of the Pac-10 59-13 at Arizona during its national championship run last season. It turns out that was not much of a feat, but when the game was scheduled everyone felt it would be a very good matchup. So LSU was on the road against the Pac-10 just last season. And beat Oregon St. at home this year in OT. A good Oregon St. team really should have won that game. Hmmmm. LSU is 2-0 against the Pac-10 in the last two years.

[JW]

The SEC's scheduling can be pretty bad at times, but you are shorting them too much here.

Georgia, Florida and South Carolina all have rivalry games against ACC teams and play these as home and homes each year.
Very few Pac 10 teams (outside of USC and Stanford who both play Notre Dame yearly) have these annual games that take up one of the three non-conference slots.

Outside of the rivalry games:
Georgia played Clemson in a home and home in 2002 and 2003.
Florida played Miami in a home and home in 2002 and 2003.
Tennessee just finished a home and home with Notre Dame and finished a home and home with Miami last season.
Auburn just finished a home and home with USC and plays Georgia Tech in the second half of a home and home next year.
Alabama has traditionally played a big non-conference game.
Arkansas has played Texas in a home and home.
Kentucky plays Louisville annually.

With the move back to 11 game schedules (or at least having 12 game schedules in only calendar years where 12 Saturdays fall before December 1 (or whatever the rule is), SEC schools kind of have to guarantee six home games to generate income--for teams with rivalry games, that means ensuring the other two games are at home in off-years. In seasons where there are 12 games, I think you will see SEC teams with a big non-conference game.

This year was particularly bad for the SEC in scheduling, but not all of it was their fault. For instance, Bowling Green bought out of the Auburn game to get a bigger pay day at Oklahoma.

(ick...I need a shower after defending the SEC that much.)

There is some truth there. Plus in the case of LSU, LSU finally bowed to a lot of pressure a couple of years ago to play the wannabe I-A in-state schools. That was politics and opposed by a lot of fans, and has generated a lot of criticism of LSU by people wondering about the scheduling of UL-Lafayette, UL-Monroe, and La. Tech. But it is a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't thing. You get kinda tired of the La. Tech fans in particular claiming they are the equal of LSU and that LSU is afraid to play them.

That is the other side of this criticism of bigtime schools. If they don't play the up-and-comers then they are criticized for not giving the smaller schools a chance. If they do play them, they are criticized for making their schedule easier. In the case of La Tech, since LSU put 49 points on them in the first half last season, the wannabes at Ruston have not been vocal about wanting a rematch.

Nevertheless, there is some truth to the criticism of LSU's schedule, and many fans and boosters really would prefer that LSU play one bigtime out-of-conference opponent each year, someone like Texas A&M or FSU. LSU has had some good series with each of them.

[MrBug708]

What thread did you get my comments from. I tried to find it but couldn't

Thanks

[JW]

[QUOTE=VPI97]True...I just didn't agree with the insinuation that we bailed on LSU (or any other team)...we have a hard enough time getting people on our schedule. We've had Auburn, Michigan & Tennessee bail on us over the past few years.
QUOTE]

I'll agree w/you there and stand corrected, but that change still resulted in LSU playing a much lesser quality opponent and getting criticized because of it. And you raise a good point. Conference realignments and other things result in last-minute schedule changes. LSU was heavily criticized for playing The Citadel a couple of years ago, but once again, The Citadel was the only school available and willing to play after yet another school bailed on LSU at the last minute.

[VPI97]

Yet is necessitated LSU finding a lesser opponent at the last minute to fill that game and resulted in some people who didn't know better saying LSU had arranged an easy schedule that year.True...I just didn't agree with the insinuation that we bailed on LSU (or any other team)...we have a hard enough time getting people on our schedule. We've had Auburn, Michigan & Tennessee bail on us over the past few years.


So I'm about par for the course with you, right?I have no idea what this means.

[HornedFrog Purple]

530 yards haha

#4 in the country haha

[Arles]

LSU beat Arizona of the Pac-10 59-13 at Arizona during its national championship run last season. It turns out that was not much of a feat, but when the game was scheduled everyone felt it would be a very good matchup. So LSU was on the road against the Pac-10 just last season. And beat Oregon St. at home this year in OT. A good Oregon St. team really should have won that game. Hmmmm. LSU is 2-0 against the Pac-10 in the last two years.
I was talking about this season. As some had said, maybe it was just a fluke. But the non-conference schedule by the SEC was laughable. So, SEC fans shouldn't be surprised when people don't give their conference a lot of credit for 04.

[Noop]

LMAO, yes, 1990. LSU had a terrible team that year and went 5-6. I am glad you are so proud of that win. Prove to me that LSU refuses to play FSU. I think most Tiger fans would love to play a home-and-home with FSU. It would be a great series in a couple of great stadiums with two fine teams.
If I am not mistaken you guys refused to play us at Doak. You have played us at Doak once we have played at Tiger stadium 6 times with just one return trip. Now I remember this because there was a post about on warchant... so as the story goes you guys basically got tired of losing.

[JW]

If I am not mistaken you guys refused to play us at Doak. You have played us at Doak once we have played at Tiger stadium 6 times with just one return trip. Now I remember this because there was a post about on warchant... so as the story goes you guys basically got tired of losing.

Yes, a home team internet forum always has the correct info. You, sir, are mistaken. I could run down a list of major teams FSU has not played in the last ten or 20 years and ask, as you asked me, why FSU is afraid to play them. And the question would be as absurd as the one you asked me. LSU and FSU played a series of games in the 80s and early 90s and then moved on to play other folks. That is how bigtime college football works. You don't typically play the same nonconference foes year in and year out, with a very few exceptions, and there is nothing to tie LSU and FSU to such a series. But...LSU has a hole in its schedule for 2005, so you should call the FSU AD and tell them to offer up a game. You obsession with LSU is quite interesting, though.

[Noop]

Yes, a home team internet forum always has the correct info. You, sir, are mistaken. I could run down a list of major teams FSU has not played in the last ten or 20 years and ask, as you asked me, why FSU is afraid to play them. And the question would be as absurd as the one you asked me. LSU and FSU played a series of games in the 80s and early 90s and then moved on to play other folks. That is how bigtime college football works. You don't typically play the same nonconference foes year in and year out, with a very few exceptions, and there is nothing to tie LSU and FSU to such a series. But...LSU has a hole in its schedule for 2005, so you should call the FSU AD and tell them to offer up a game. You obsession with LSU is quite interesting, though.
You bring out teams into this it is about LSU and FSU not anyone else. Whatever your pointless... later mud butt...

[Vegas Vic]

I still think Cal would beat Oklahoma...last night's game doesn't change that.

Well, I think that getting prison raped by Texas Tech, who was only 4th best team in the Big XII South Division, makes Cal beating Oklahoma a tough sell.

Cal was lucky to squeek by Oregon, while Oklahoma sleepwalked to a 35-7 win over the Ducks.

[Glengoyne]

It's hard to get good people to play you when you never want to play on the road.
Not true. There are a flock of mid majors who will gladly visit those schools, just to get the exposure. As Pat Hill says "Anytime, anywhere".

As for getting the second Home end of those home and home series to stick, that is another problem.

[Arles]

Not true. There are a flock of mid majors who will gladly visit those schools, just to get the exposure. As Pat Hill says "Anytime, anywhere".

As for getting the second Home end of those home and home series to stick, that is another problem.
I was referring to getting top level Pac-10, Big 12 and Big Ten teams to play you. If look at this season, the Pac-10, Big-12 and Big Ten had numerous home and homes and other road setups where a 7-10 place team in one conference would play on the road against a 1-3 team in one of the other conferences.

Yet, when I look at the SEC, I don't see nearly the same level of activity with these other major conferences. Again, maybe it was just an off year and the SEC will be back playing a bunch of top teams in 05. I am certainly willing to accept that. My point is that SEC fans should realize that a big reason Auburn and other SEC teams did not get the credit and/or rankings they may have felt they deserved was because the conference (as a whole) played next to no one in non-conference in 04. Hey, the Pac-10 had a similar season 3-4 years ago and got stiffed in bowls as well. It happens.

[Cuckoo]

Texas Tech may have won big against Cal, but the Big 12 hasn't exactly looked great either with the performances of A&M and Oklahoma State. We'll see how OU and Texas do, but so far the Big 12 is 3-2 but only having looked really good in one of those games.

Jury's still out on the SEC at this point, but they're looking solid I think. Georgia beat Wisconsin barely but seemed to have outplayed them, and Tennessee looked very good. LSU/Iowa's a battle.

With the way the Pac-10 has performed, and if OU or Texas or both lose, Auburn will only bolster their argument of being deserving to play in the Championship. Of course, they need to beat VT.

[Arles]

The Pac-10 is 2-2 (with USC to play), the Big 12 is 3-2 (with two left), Big Ten is 2-2 (with two left) and the SEC is 2-2 (with two left).

I don't really see any conference looking all that great or all that poor to this point.

[Cuckoo]

The Pac-10 is 2-2 (with USC to play), the Big 12 is 3-2 (with two left), Big Ten is 2-2 (with two left) and the SEC is 2-2 (with two left).

I don't really see any conference looking all that great or all that poor to this point.

I disagree. You have to look at more than just the records. The Big 12 had two mid-level teams absolutely destroyed by a Big 10 and an SEC team. They had two teams beat mid-major teams less than convincingly. At this point, with two big games remaining of course, the Big 12 hasn't looked that great.

Their one big win came at the expense of the Pac-10. Combine that with a fairly mediocre performance by Arizona State and a loss by UCLA, and the Pac-10 doesn't look great.

Again, this is just right now and much can and will probably change, but I think both the Big 12 and Pac-10 need to save a little face in their remaining games. Just my $.02.

[ISiddiqui]

Combine that with a fairly mediocre performance by Arizona State

I think Arizona State's performance has to be somewhat excused by the fact that the QB that led them their great year was injured and not available for the game, even though Keller did not have a bad game at all.

[Arles]

I disagree. You have to look at more than just the records. The Big 12 had two mid-level teams absolutely destroyed by a Big 10 and an SEC team. They had two teams beat mid-major teams less than convincingly. At this point, with two big games remaining of course, the Big 12 hasn't looked that great.

Their one big win came at the expense of the Pac-10. Combine that with a fairly mediocre performance by Arizona State and a loss by UCLA, and the Pac-10 doesn't look great.

Again, this is just right now and much can and will probably change, but I think both the Big 12 and Pac-10 need to save a little face in their remaining games. Just my $.02.
The SEC is currently 2-3 (even though they have been favored in most games to this point). Not exactly a banner showing for the SEC as well.

[JW]

You bring out teams into this it is about LSU and FSU not anyone else. Whatever your pointless... later mud butt...

You started this with a declaration that LSU was afraid to play FSU. You make a childish declaration and then get mad when I don't take your bait. Until you come up with the evidence, I would suggest your namecalling makes you look rather juvenile. Mud butt? LMAO. Is that all you can do? Why not show me the evidence instead?

[Cuckoo]

The SEC is currently 2-3 (even though they have been favored in most games to this point). Not exactly a banner showing for the SEC as well.

True, not a banner showing at all. I would say that none of their losses looked really bad, though, with the possible exception of Florida while Tennessee's win looked very good.

The Big 10 and the Big 12 both have really impressive wins, but the Pac-10 doesn't so far. I'll grant ISiddiqui's point about ASU's quarterback, though. Given their circumstance, they did well.