OT- Ohio State #3 in the new BcS!
 

HUZZAH!!! All Ohio State fans on the board can cheer with me ;)

If OSU wins their last two games, I think they deserve to play for the championship.

If these three things happen, I think it'll be enough to put OSU over USC.

1)OSU wins out (duh)

2)LSU needs to lose so OSU jumps to #3 in the polls

3)Georgia loses (so USC doesn't get the win bonus)

Think this would be enough? It'd be darn close if the above 3 things happened. We'll see.

GO BUCKS!!! :D

USC is better :p.

I still contend that the two polls (AP and ESPN/Coaches) are much more accurate than the BCS poll.

I think USC is a far better team.

Which is probably why USC is at a solid #2 in the real polls while OSU is at #4.

Yup, probably.

Re: OT- Ohio State #3 in the new BcS!
 

USC will be playin if they win out. How does USC get a win bonus if the 'dawgs lose?

I am an LSU fan. Accordingly, I want them to play for the BCS championship.

I have no better argument concerning why they belong in the Sugar Bowl as opposed to USC or OSU, but I do feel that I am at least more honest than most fans.

It's not really that surprising to me that OSU is at number 3. I think it is definitely realistic that LSU could lose either against Ole Miss, or in the SEC title game, if they get there. But to me there is a much bigger chance that USC will go undefeated the rest of the way than Ohio State. I really do think they will lose at least one of the last two, and possibly both.

I would disagree. I think there is a problem when Florida State is ranked ahead of Miami in both polls, despite the fact that Miami beat FSU at FSU.

I also have a problem with Ole Miss being ranked behind Florida, even though Ole Miss is 1.5 games better, and beat Florida at the swamp.

Pittsburgh is also below VT and Tennessee is only 1 spot ahead of Miami in 1 poll, despite destroying them.

I am sure there are other errors.

ummmm no. the fact that they aren't as good as Oklahoma, USC, LSU, Michigan, and Georgia, but besides those teams, they might deserve to get in. Their pretty good, just not nearly good enough to get into the Championship game

Overrated.

Yeah USC plays in that Pac 10 conference that doesnt believe in defense. Put them in any other top conference and they would not fair that well. OSU doesnt win by convincing fashion but they win. It doesnt matter who is 2nd because Oklahoma will destroy anyone they play.

If enough believe that, than that's why subjectives polls are better (not perfect, Mac). Sometimes you have to go on gut feel like in saying that there are 5 teams better than OSU.

I am a Gopher fan, and i believe they should play for the national championship because they beat the Badgers.

Wait a minute, wrong thread.

I think TCU should play if they refuse to lose.

Battle of the Unbeatens is how it should be, good conference or not (to a point).

Surprised?

you are a tool

I'm a USC alum through and through, but I currently work for LSU so I find myself rooting for them as well. However, I truly believe USC is at least the 2nd best team in the nation and the only team which could make the national title game interesting at this point. I hope the Trojans don't get overtaken by the Buckeyes in the BCS poll.

:rolleyes:

(hint: punch up the numbers on the "no defense" Pac-10 sometime)

CR

I'm a Buckeye fan and obviously a homer, but if OSU wins out, it will give them wins over 4 teams that are currently ranked, and 2 that are currently in the Top 10. The only other team on your list that can match that would be Michigan, and they're out of it assuming a loss to Ohio State. Am I saying that OSU is the best team in the country right now? Not hardly, but they have a pretty good case for a Suger Bowl berth if they win out.

Winning out is a pretty big if, but you're dismissing them far too easily.

Number can be decieving. Penn St is has one of the highest ranked passing defenses but that is because their run defense stinks. Numbers can be misleading but i though you might already know that.

According to CNNSI

Pac 10 Scoring Defenses

23 Wash St 19 ppg
25 USC 19.4 ppg
35 UCLA 21.0 ppg
43 Oregon St 22.0 ppg
58 Washington 24.3 ppg
59 California & Stanford 24.5 ppg
78 Oregon 28.4 ppg
80 Arizona St 28.7 ppg
106 Arizona 35.6 ppg

With 117 teams in the division 1-a the Pac 10 has half its conference in the top half of scoring defense which isnt that bad. When considering that they dont have anyone in the top 20 that doesnt look too good. Look at the big ten, they have 4 teams in the top 11 in scoring defense. The Pac Ten does play a more upbeat style of offense, but to say they have quality defensive teams is a little crazy too.

Numbers can be misleading, which is why you have to be careful when you use them.

Making baseless comments like the "no defense" Pac-10 without backing that up also makes that comment misleading and worthless, though. For instance, on what do you base this on? Some local writer told you that? Because you only saw scoring highlights Sunday morning from Pac-10 night time games? Because football isn't played west of the Rockies? I would enjoy hearing why you think this, and please, provide some factual support for the stance.

The fact is, it is a myth and very much not true. It's a different game out west, yes, but I don't think Pac-10 teams are any worse at defense than other conferences.

I could just as easily say the Big Ten is this stodgy, low-offense boring conference where the most exciting play is when the big back moves the pile four yards instead of three. Would that be fair to the Big Ten? Or remotely accurate? No. But that's the impression many get about the Big Ten.

The point is, you have to be diligent enough to look deeper at the numbers and not just make assumptions because a talking head told you so.

If you don't think the Pac-10 has defenses, then you must have missed all of USC's, Wazzu's and UCLA's games for instance, since they are three of the better defenses in football. Pretty odd to have three good defenses like that in a "no defense" league, eh?

CR

The fact they have to face those quality offenses is more than a little important, don't you think?

You called the Pac-10 the "no defense" league. I see some pretty solid numbers there for a no defense league.

How can you just throw out the numbers and not consider what they are going up against?

CR

I dont see really solid number so you say. Maybe there is a reason that the teams score so much on each other...ever think of that? Having half the league in the lower half doesnt show well for great defenses.

I agree.

Since Conference games are a bad sample for this lets look at the OOC schedule for the Pac 10.

ND 29
Wash St 26
The best defense in the Pac 10 gives up 29 to ND, a 3-6 team.

Kansas St 48
Cal 28


Wash 47
Colorado 26

Utah 31
Calif 24

USC 61
Hawaii 32
The best team in the Pac 10 gives up 32 to an okay Hawaii team. I can see this one, Hawaii has an explosive offense.

Purdue 59
Arizona 7
An inept Big Ten offense puts up 59 on Arizona.

Michigan 27
Oregon 31
Another Big Ten offense puts up almost 30 on a good Pac Ten team.

Oklahoma 59
UCLA 24
It could have been worse. At least it wasnt 77.

USC 45
ND 14
Good showing here (Seriously :D )

I am not saying that the Pac 10 defensively is terrible but I dont think it is as good as you say.

Pac-10 Scoring Offenses

6 USC 40.2
25 Oregon State 31.9
32 Washington State 31.3
45 Califonria 29.4
52 Washington 27.8
67 Oregon 26.1
73 Arizona State 25.1
91 UCLA 20.4
92 Stanford 20.0
103 Arizona 17.4

Avg Scoring Offense Rk = 58.6 av rk
Avg Scoring Offense Pt = 27.0 ppg

Big-10 Scoring Offenses

5 Minnesota 40.9
10 Michigan 37.0
41 Michigan State 29.8
49 Purdue 28.5
58 Iowa 26.9
63 Wisconsin 26.4
74 Ohio State 25.0
98 Northwestern 19.2
105 Penn State 17.1
109 Illinois 16.6
113 Indiana 15.4

Avg Scoring Offense Rk = 65.9 av rk
Avg Scoring Offense Pt = 25.7 ppg

The Pac-10 defenses would fare better, too, if they got to go against the awe-inspiring offenses of Northwestern, Penn State, Illinois and Indiana.

CR

You see if you would read my posts i was not turning this into a Pac Ten - Big Ten debate. But no matter what I say you still wont believe me. I NEVER said they they were terrible defensively I just dont believe that they are as good as you think. I guess we will wait till bowl season to see.

Your individual scores mean nothing, logically. They are single examples. You need to look at the whole numbers.

Also, scoring isn't necessarily an indicator of solid, effective defense. Scoring encompasses all facets of football, including special teams scoring and defensive touchdowns, not to mention turnovers leading to quick scores that aren't necessarily an indictment of the defense which had to walk on the field into a sudden red-zone situation.

For example, you point out the Oklahoma-UCLA game, but make no effort to point out that three OU touchdowns came on punt return scores by Antonio Perkins. Being a little misleading, aren'y you?

Please, stick to logically and statistically valid arguments. I'm not going to get into this if you're just going to bring up irrelevancies.

CR

But you would say the Big Ten plays good defense wouldn't you? I seem to recall it was you that brought up the "four Big Ten teams in the top 11" comment. Did I misread that?

CR

That was just an example. I would divulge into more conferences but i neither have the time nor the energy to sit here and try to go through it all.

Give me a break. I dont know why I even try to argue with you anymore.

It's frustrating when someone actually demands you to back up your assumptions with statistically valid evidence, isn't it? Your'e right that would frustrate me, too, if I didn't know how to do it.

And, yes, I am pretty sick of arguing with you, too.

CR

whoever posts lasts wins

lol...let's not establish that rule. Since I know Brian is stubborn and so am I, this could go on forever if we do that. :)

CR

What isnt valid from what I posted. I didnt just pull those numbers out of my ass. You just think they are irrelevent because they dont back your arugement.

Like I said we will get a better sample of all of this come bowl season. There we wont have the crappy teams like Arizona, Illinois, PSU, and other crappy teams clutters the stats. Until then I am out.

They are statistically irrelevant against the numbers as a whole, because the season stats provide a far more accurate picture than individual games picked out. I could do the same, exact thing and pick out games that support my argument, but I don't because I know that would logically and statistically invalid and irrelevant to do so.

I fall back on the numbers on a whole, which, as I have demonstrated, back up what I was saying more than they do what you're saying.

I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass, Brian, and I would hope by now you would have more respect for what kind of faith I put intot his stuff, considering some of the other numbers-heavy things I have done in our related communities. Unfortunately, you just assume I am discounting what you're saying because it disagrees with me. Rather than resorting to ad hominems, why don't you actually provide a statistically-valid supporting argument for your stance (or one to take away from mine)?

CR

This thread sounds a lot like last year's Miami will kill OSU thread.

Ditto.



Don't rip on the Illini, it's a rebuilding year....a REBUILDING year. :( ;)



:(


GO TCU!

Yeah, the bowl games will decide it. :rolleyes:

Did your college actually require you to take logic or statistics? Mine did. I thought it was pretty common to see this sort of stuff in most universities general curriculum. I guess I was wrong.

CR

I never said you were pulling the stuff ou t of your ass. You seem to think i am pulling the numbers i am getting out of mine. Once again like you tell me to do...read my posts.

I will put up my college education against yours any day. Give me a friggin break.

Heh...I actually like the Illini. It was a very tough, close game at the Rose Bowl this year. We were lucky to pull that one out. I think you guys are rebuilding fine. Obviously, these things take time.

Funny, heh? The final score of that UCLA-Illinois game was 6-3. I guess that would be one of the games I would use if I used bsak's method of proving his point.

CR

Please, please, show me where in this thread I have told you you are pulling these numbers out of your ass? I am pointing out that they are statistically irrelevant. I am not discounting that they happened. I am just pointing out that against the weight of other evidence, they are relatively insignificant.

CR

Great, now you want it to be a "my dick is bigger than yours" argument. Fine. You win. You got the bigger dick. I don't want to do that.

I am just pointing out that there is very little of logic or statistical validity in your arguments here. And without them, all you have is essentially your own unfounded opinion.

CR

You see Chief I will enlighten you on this one. In college football bowl games you will not see conferences play each other. You claim that the Pac Ten plays a "different" style of football leading to their high scoring matches. That leads to them statistically giving up more yards and points to their opponents.

Here is where the hard part is, sit down take a deep breath and read. By playing teams from the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, and whatever conference they will play in the bowl season they will get to see if they really are a great offensive conference as you claim. If they are than your arguement will be true, if they dont score much or give up a lot of points to teams that arent as good offensively as you claim than your arguement isnt as valid.

Also, here is the kicker, we will eliminate the worst teams that might skew the statisitcs ie PSU, Arizona, Indiana, Rutgers, whoever else. Then we can look at the cream of each conference and can get a better sample. If you would like me to draw a diagram let me know.

Yeah too bad all the games i looked at are from this year.

I have a degree from Syracuse and they are the National Basketball Champs, so I would say my dick is about an inch longer than either of you two pussies. :)