Interesting Article

[YAZ]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1924527

 

[GAVol]

Stoops and Tuberville need to shut their pie holes. There is still a lot of football to be played before any of this even matters. History says that 1 of the 3 teams will probably NOT be undefeated by the end of the year.

This all reminds me of Jimmy Johnson talking about why Miami should be #1 . . . right before his team got taken apart by us in the '86 Sugar Bowl.

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by GAVol@Nov 17, 2004 10:54 AM
Stoops and Tuberville need to shut their pie holes. There is still a lot of football to be played before any of this even matters. History says that 1 of the 3 teams will probably NOT be undefeated by the end of the year.

This all reminds me of Jimmy Johnson talking about why Miami should be #1 . . . right before his team got taken apart by us in the '86 Sugar Bowl.

I agree... they need to just play football.

But the article did point out that Stoops complains about ESPN... but he seems to forget the BigXII has a contract with ABC... which owns ESPN.

Funny you mentioned the '86 Sugar Bowl. Tuberville was a defensive coach with the Miami 'Canes in the mid-to-late '80s. Hopefully he did not learn from his head coach then and he spouts that garbage off the week of the SECCG. I would love to see a repeat of the Sugar Bowl score. Tennessee 35, Auburn 7. :clap:

 

[kiddiedoc]

Originally posted by allvol@Nov 17, 2004 11:41 AM
Funny you mentioned the '86 Sugar Bowl. Tuberville was a defensive coach with the Miami 'Canes in the mid-to-late '80s. Hopefully he did not learn from his head coach then and he spouts that garbage off the week of the SECCG. I would love to see a repeat of the Sugar Bowl score. Tennessee 35, Auburn 7. :clap:

Heck yeah!

If we could pull off the improbable in the SECCG, how do you think that victory would rank in comparison to other big wins in Vol history? Given that we'll be well into the double-digits underdogs, you've got to put it near the top. Any takers?

 

[dan4vols]

it would be a fantastic upset to be sure doc. Stoops has a fine career in politics looming if he ever decides to quit coaching. He says ESPN has contracts with the SEC holding them to obligations then turns around and says hes not implying anything. That falls under the 'who ya gonna believe ...me or your lying eyes' catagory. Kinda makes you wonder if hes been in contact with CPF asking...'anything I can do to help you upset Auburn?' unoffically of course on a scrambled frequency, coded as well. Thats all the talk here in Oklahoma...Folks see me wearing a vols hat and they smile and say go vols! Still I cant blame him for engaging in politics thatll help his team, everyone else does it. All this would be averted if the NCAA would implement a true playoff and dump the BCS crap. But that will happen when and ONLY when those who make obscene amounts of $ on the BCS/bowl systems now would make even more $ with a playoff system. THAT is what drives the BCS and nothing else, the Kansas coach was exactly right for saying so after Texas beat them, then did an about face afterwards and apologized. Obviously due to a chewing out from his AD after his AD got a call from the powers that be in the BCS.

 

[Georgia Vol]

:bow: Absolutely right about the BCS and the $$$. As for comparisons to the '86 team, when you factor in the adversity at the QB situation and the underrated defense that has no stars but is wicked as a unit. If we win the SEC, I would put this team just one notch below the 86 and 98 teams. Should we win our BCS bowl (a guy can dream... and if we can beat Auburn, why not), it's on the same level.

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by dan4vols@Nov 17, 2004 12:31 PM
... All this would be averted if the NCAA would implement a true playoff and dump the BCS crap. But that will happen when and ONLY when those who make obscene amounts of $ on the BCS/bowl systems now would make even more $ with a playoff system. THAT is what drives the BCS and nothing else ...

True. The current system allows the conferences to make the maximum amount of money from the BCS. And the SEC usually makes more than anyone else... so guess who came up with the BCS.... the SEC commissioner at the time, Kramer.

That's why all the non-BCS conferences have been so upset of late. It's not that they are not allowed to 'compete' in the BCS.... because they know that they would get beaten badly 9-of-10 times.... they are upset because they aren't getting any of the $$$.

The BCS conferences don't want to share the $$$. If the NCAA goes to the playoff format... the NCAA controls the money and how to distribute the $$$ to the conferences.

There have also been rumors of the big conferences splitting from the NCAA into a kind of super-league... and then developing a playoff that keeps the money within the big conferences?

The NCAA is already taking measure to reduce the number of IA schools. There are currently 117 schools... but that number will decrease because of a new rule that requires all IA schools to average at least 15,000 in home attendance during a season to stay IA. Currently, there are 5 teams that do not meet the standards: Ball State, MTSU, Kent State, San Jose State, and Buffalo. There are another 5 schools which barely meet the requirements: W.Michigan, Ohio, Miami (OH), Akron, and North Texas.

The original draft required schools to average 17,000 but was later reduced. There are currently 17 schools that do not meet this average. There are 4 more that barely meet that requirement. In all... there are 24 schools that average less than 20,000 in attendance.

 

[allvol]

Oh yeah, and the Vols are 2nd in average attendance with 107,342.
Michigan is first at 111,025 and Ohio State is 3rd at 104,760.

Half the teams in the top 10 attendance are SEC..... Georgia is 5th, LSU is 6th, Florida is 7th, and Auburn is 10th.

 

[DownNDirty]

Stoops is acting like a fool. He's so spooked over what he thinks will happen in the polls he is losing it. He made himself look bad this weekend by running up the score on Nebraska. Good for Callahan for driving down the field and stopping the clock with one second to go to kick that field goal.

Now, he's accusing ABC/ESPN of being in cahoots with the SEC or whatever. I think BOB needs to remember that the Big 12 also has a contract with them, and they have a contract with Fox Sports AND TBS too. He also needs to remember that last year his Sooners got beat in the Big XII title game and what happened but they "still" got the NC BCS Bowl bid. I think it's funny because with all this negative publicity they are getting over this I think it will hurt OU in the end if all 3 teams win out. What if OU loses and AU loses to UT? Cal vs USC in a rematch for the NC? Hey, what if all 3 lose? Wouldn't that be interesting? I love college football.

DD

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by DownNDirty@Nov 17, 2004 5:43 PM
What if OU loses and AU loses to UT? Cal vs USC in a rematch for the NC? Hey, what if all 3 lose? Wouldn't that be interesting? I love college football.

DD

Out of USC, OU, and Auburn... if 2 of them lose... I really think Utah deserves a shot if they finish undefeated. Cal's schedule is not that much stronger than Utah. Utah beat a ranked Texas A&M (BigXII) team 41-21... they also beat a Pac10 team, Arizona... they beat North Carolina (ACC) 46-16 -- the same NC team that beat Miami... and they've pretty much beaten every team in the MWC fairly convincingly.

Utah's opponents that they've beaten have a record of 35-49 (.417); Cal's are 31-36 (.463).

Cal's out of conference opponents have been
Air Force (MWC)
New Mexico State (WAC)
Southern Miss (CUSA)

Utah's out of conference opponents have been
Texas A&M (BigXII)
Arizona (Pac10)
North Carolina (ACC)
Utah State (Sun Belt)

 

[GAVol]

Originally posted by DownNDirty@Nov 17, 2004 5:43 PM
I think it's funny because with all this negative publicity they are getting over this I think it will hurt OU in the end if all 3 teams win out.

I totally agree. Just think how easy it will be now for the a coach to look at all 3 teams and think "I'm going to slip Oklahoma down to 3rd because Stoops is a crybaby." It will only take a few guys to do this to make a difference.

 

[donsargegolf]

I cannot understand why every year the media, coaches, fans and the rest get so impatient on the BCS. The games must be played to determine records to see where everyone goes. How many times do THREE teams go undefeated? Rarely. I bet one of the Top Three lose before this year is done. Relax world, it will sort itself out.

 

[milohimself]

I think ESPN does have a bias towards Auburn. Check out the parts boxed in red:

 

[milohimself]

Originally posted by allvol@Nov 17, 2004 2:57 PM
Out of USC, OU, and Auburn... if 2 of them lose... I really think Utah deserves a shot if they finish undefeated. Cal's schedule is not that much stronger than Utah. Utah beat a ranked Texas A&M (BigXII) team 41-21... they also beat a Pac10 team, Arizona... they beat North Carolina (ACC) 46-16 -- the same NC team that beat Miami... and they've pretty much beaten every team in the MWC fairly convincingly.

Utah's opponents that they've beaten have a record of 35-49 (.417); Cal's are 31-36 (.463).

Cal's out of conference opponents have been
Air Force (MWC)
New Mexico State (WAC)
Southern Miss (CUSA)

Utah's out of conference opponents have been
Texas A&M (BigXII)
Arizona (Pac10)
North Carolina (ACC)
Utah State (Sun Belt)

No way. Arizona is very much like the Vanderbilt of Pac-10, this year. North Carolina, even despite the Miami win, is not that good. We've seen them play, you know it, I know it. The rest of the Mountain West is a joke. The only slightly legitimate team they've played is Texas A&M, who did have an embarassing loss to Baylor, should you want to hold it against them.

Cal, however plays in the Pac-10, and I have proven this before, IS A VERY STRONG CONFERENCE. The Bears even came within jabbing distance of a victory over USC (who, by the way, will be the National Champs ).

Utah, or Cal? Cal.

 

[Memphis_Volunteer]

The Bears even came within jabbing distance of a victory over USC (who, by the way, will be the National Champs ).

If OU faces USC in the NC, the Trojans will win, but if AU faces USC in the NC, the Tigers will take it. USC better hope either Bama or Tennessee upset AU.

 

[milohimself]

I think it could go either way... Auburn would definitley have a shot at USC, that's for sure. But these are two teams who play in conferences with similar strengths (although, remember USC did dominate Virginia Tech who isn't the easiest team to face, and will hopefully dominate Notre Dame who has pulled out victories against Michigan and Tennessee).

I believe, in a contest between AU and USC, neither team has the edge. I would be thrilled to see that game for the NCG.

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Nov 17, 2004 9:05 PM
I think ESPN does have a bias towards Auburn. Check out the parts boxed in red:

However is the 3rd place team would be getting the 'snub' headlines. Controversy sales... and right now the 3rd place team is left out.

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Nov 17, 2004 9:23 PM
No way. Arizona is very much like the Vanderbilt of Pac-10, this year. North Carolina, even despite the Miami win, is not that good. We've seen them play, you know it, I know it. The rest of the Mountain West is a joke. The only slightly legitimate team they've played is Texas A&M, who did have an embarassing loss to Baylor, should you want to hold it against them.

Cal, however plays in the Pac-10, and I have proven this before, IS A VERY STRONG CONFERENCE. The Bears even came within jabbing distance of a victory over USC (who, by the way, will be the National Champs ).

Utah, or Cal? Cal.

The Bears even came within jabbing distance of a victory over USC (who, by the way, will be the National Champs

So Stanford (4-6) and Oregon State (5-5) should get a shot over Utah too?

USC 31, Stanford 28
USC 28, Oregont State 20

No way. Arizona is very much like the Vanderbilt of Pac-10, this year. North Carolina, even despite the Miami win, is not that good. We've seen them play, you know it, I know it. The rest of the Mountain West is a joke. The only slightly legitimate team they've played is Texas A&M, who did have an embarassing loss to Baylor, should you want to hold it against them.

Here are the opponents that each teams has beaten and BCS ranking. And assuming that each team wins its remaining games.

UTAH 11-0
20 Texas A&M
27 North Carolina
47 New Mexico
53 BYU
58 Wyoming
75 Colorado State
79 Air Force
83 San Diego State
88 Arizona
95 UNLV
108 Utah State

CAL 10-1
14 Arizona State
27 Oregon State
36 UCLA
42 Southern Miss
54 Oregon
66 Stanford
70 New Mexico State
79 Air Force
88 Arizona
105 Washington

Utah's last opponent is No. 53 BYU.... Cal's last 2 opponents are No. 66 Stanford and No. 42 Southern Miss. Assuming both teams win out... Utah would be 11-0.... Cal would be 10-1..... so comparing each teams top 10 wins and average rank of the opponents.... Cal's avg opp. rank is 58.1 and Utah's is 62.5. Close enough in my book to give Utah a shot at playing USC. Cal already had their shot and lost.

Utah, or Cal? Cal.

Utah, or Cal? Utah, because they scheduled non-conference opponents from BCS conferences to compensate for a weaker MWC schedule. However, the Seattle Times ranking (Anderson & Hester) used in the BCS formula has the MWC rated very close to the SEC in terms of conference strength. Its rated behind 5 of the BCS conferences and ahead of 1 BCS conference (Big East).... and the schedule strength of the conference is 2nd rated only behind the Pac-10. And I chose the A&H ranking because they tend to favor the Pac-10 more than any of the other computer rankings.

 

[rwemyss]

It's all a moot point if USC doesn't slip up... the Rose Bowl will take Cal to get their Big11- Pac10 matchup they like to protect. Then who gets the other at large? Especially if the Vols beat AU! Would you take Utah over Auburn? No way. How about this scenario... EXTREMELY slim chance, but... what if a 5-6 win team from the big 12 North beat OU? A 6-7 win team in a BCS BOWL?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING?

And the smaller confrences need to shut their yaps... before the BCS they didn't even have a CHANCE of getting into those bowls thanks to tie ins... now at least there's a greater than 0% chance.

I'm still for an 8 team playoff though.

And, I'm off my soapbox.

 

[allvol]

Originally posted by rwemyss@Nov 18, 2004 1:35 PM
It's all a moot point if USC doesn't slip up... the Rose Bowl will take Cal to get their Big11- Pac10 matchup they like to protect. Then who gets the other at large? Especially if the Vols beat AU! Would you take Utah over Auburn? No way. How about this scenario... EXTREMELY slim chance, but... what if a 5-6 win team from the big 12 North beat OU? A 6-7 win team in a BCS BOWL?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING?

And the smaller confrences need to shut their yaps... before the BCS they didn't even have a CHANCE of getting into those bowls thanks to tie ins... now at least there's a greater than 0% chance.

I'm still for an 8 team playoff though.

And, I'm off my soapbox.

We were talking about if Utah was 1 of 2 undefeated teams left.... should Utah or Cal get the shot at playing the No. 1 team? If Utah finishes in the top 6 of the final BCS standings... they are guaranteed a BCS bowl.... so if the Vols beat Auburn and Utah is in the top 6.... sorry Aubie.

 

[DownNDirty]

Well, we still have football to play but I don't mind talking about "what ifs" either. I honestly think that if somehow Auburn gets beat by Alabama or UT and Oklahoma goes down in the Big XII title game that Utah should get the chance to play for a National Championship. The reason has been pointed out already, Cal had a chance at USC and lost, bottom line. I don't think that a rematch would be as attractive for the casual or hardcore fan. A much more enticing matchup would be Utah in the title game. Everybody would watch to see if the Utes could do the impossible and they would probably have millions of casual fans on their side because they are the underdog and we just love an underdog.

The Big XII North picture is pretty interesting and here's a blurb stolen from ESPN:

# Iowa State wins the North by winning its last two games against Kansas State and Missouri.

# Iowa State would also win the North if it loses to Kansas State, beats Missouri and Nebraska beats Colorado.

# If Iowa State beats Kansas State and loses to Missouri, there could be a three-way tie at 4-4 involving Iowa State, Missouri and the Colorado-Nebraska winner.

In that scenario, if Nebraska beats Colorado, Nebraska would hold the tiebreaker and go to the Big 12 title game. (The Big 12 tiebreaker would be wins over the next-highest finisher Colorado, eliminating Iowa State. Nebraska would hold the head-to-head win over Missouri.) If it's Colorado over Nebraska, in the three-way tie scenario, Missouri would win the North because it has beaten both Iowa State and Colorado.

# Nebraska wins the North if Iowa State loses its final two games and Nebraska beats Colorado.

# Colorado wins the North with a win over Nebraska and a loss by both Iowa State and Missouri.

# Missouri wins the North if it beats Kansas as well as Iowa State and Colorado beats Nebraska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like Iowa State has the inside track but with mediocrity running wild in the Big XII North anything could happen. With Stoops running his mouth the past few weeks nothing would make me laugh harder than for one of these so so teams to beat the mighty Sooners and send them home with their tail between their legs. Who's the Fiesta Bowl's worst nightmare? A Big XII North team!

DD

 

[milohimself]

So Stanford (4-6) and Oregon State (5-5) should get a shot over Utah too?

USC 31, Stanford 28
USC 28, Oregont State 20

No. "Barely losses" are a point of logic I see quite often, and while I don't hugely support that way of thinking as far as rankings go, I used it to satisfy whoever might bring that sorta thing up.

UTAH 11-0
20 Texas A&M
27 North Carolina
47 New Mexico
53 BYU
58 Wyoming
75 Colorado State
79 Air Force
83 San Diego State
88 Arizona
95 UNLV
108 Utah State

CAL 10-1
14 Arizona State
27 Oregon State
36 UCLA
42 Southern Miss
54 Oregon
66 Stanford
70 New Mexico State
79 Air Force
88 Arizona
105 Washington

Utah's last opponent is No. 53 BYU.... Cal's last 2 opponents are No. 66 Stanford and No. 42 Southern Miss. Assuming both teams win out... Utah would be 11-0.... Cal would be 10-1..... so comparing each teams top 10 wins and average rank of the opponents.... Cal's avg opp. rank is 58.1 and Utah's is 62.5.

First off, you have both North Carolina and Oregon state at 27. Just letting you know, if it's a typo or whatever. I just got the mean of Utah's opponnent's rankings, and it is 66.6, based on the info you provided. A wider gap than the one you provided. And if you throw USC into the mix? 52.1 average opponent ranking for Cal. 14 point gaps ain't exactly close, especially if Utah's forgiven there and Cal's schedule considered weaker than it actually is. I think the Pac-10 is very widely disrespected.

Close enough in my book to give Utah a shot at playing USC. Cal already had their shot and lost.

Too bad this little bit isn't factored into rankings.

Utah, or Cal? Utah, because they scheduled non-conference opponents from BCS conferences to compensate for a weaker MWC schedule. However, the Seattle Times ranking (Anderson & Hester) used in the BCS formula has the MWC rated very close to the SEC in terms of conference strength. Its rated behind 5 of the BCS conferences and ahead of 1 BCS conference (Big East).... and the schedule strength of the conference is 2nd rated only behind the Pac-10. And I chose the A&H ranking because they tend to favor the Pac-10 more than any of the other computer rankings.

Utah scheduled weak opponents from BCS conferences. While Cal did not, they already had to face tough teams within a strong BCS conference of their own. And even though saying the Mountain West is better than the Big East is a pretty extreme statement, IMO, I will roll with it. Who else did they beat out? C-USA? WAC? Sun Belt? Mid-American? So?

Cal, or Utah? Still Cal.

 

[allvol]

First off, you have both North Carolina and Oregon state at 27. Just letting you know, if it's a typo or whatever.

No typo... they both have the same BCS points.

I just got the mean of Utah's opponnent's rankings, and it is 66.6, based on the info you provided. A wider gap than the one you provided. And if you throw USC into the mix? 52.1 average opponent ranking for Cal. 14 point gaps ain't exactly close, especially if Utah's forgiven there and Cal's schedule considered weaker than it actually is. I think the Pac-10 is very widely disrespected.

If you read very carefully my post, the mean was for each team's top 10 wins.... since Cal will only have 10 wins. I didn't count USC because it was a LOSS. I was trying to compare apples to apples. I don't have a dog in this hunt... I am neither a Pac10 fan nor MWC fan... so I don't feel I am biased in comparing these 2 teams. If you want to count Utah's 11 games... to me that is a bonus victory and helps Utah more than Cal. As far as the Pac10 being disrespected... I think that most of the computers rate them very highly.... however, similar to the SEC... the Pac10 will be unable to fill all its bowl slots this year. There are currently only 4 teams in the Pac10 with winning records. Just to be fair, the MWC has only 3 teams with winning records.

Utah scheduled weak opponents from BCS conferences. While Cal did not, they already had to face tough teams within a strong BCS conference of their own. And even though saying the Mountain West is better than the Big East is a pretty extreme statement, IMO, I will roll with it. Who else did they beat out? C-USA? WAC? Sun Belt? Mid-American? So?

Utah scheduled Texas A&M NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WEAK, North Carolina NOT WEAK, and Arizona PAC10. If you have an argument that says that the Pac10 is strong and then also say that Arizona is very weak? I agree Arizona is very weak... as is Washington. Besides USC, Cal, and Arizona State... which Pac10 teams are top 25 worthy? In the rankings I gave above... ASU's rank of 14 is based upon BCS formula.... that's better than the rank of 20 they are getting in the human polls. Like I said before... I have nothing vested in either team nor either conference. But Utah has put forth an effort to play a tough out-of-conference schedule.... the MWC is the toughest "non-BCS" conference.... and Utah is not just winning... but winning big.

Cal has only 2 wins over teams with winning records. Utah has wins over 3 teams with winning records.

 

[Volstorm]

It will all come down to the last day of the season.

 

[milohimself]

allvol, I think we're going to have to agreeably disagree. While Utah has pretty much dominated their own conference like no other team has dominated their own conference before, it is a weaker non-BCS conference. Do I think they should be top ten? Absolutely. Once you start getting into the grey area of other tough teams in stronger conferences, though, then it gets tough. It's all a matter of opinion.

I believe that Cal is more deserving of the number four spot than Utah, you believe the opposite. This is a tough subject so it's all opinion. I do hope that Utah makes a BCS bowl, though, because it will be a swift kick in the ass to the BCS conferences.