2009 College Football Predictions

[jazzcyclist]

I think I merely mentioned that Carroll has two National Championships. I really didn't specify what they were. That's trying to hijack a thre...hahahahaha!!!!! Dude..please :lol: One word.....chill!

And using your logic, I only mentioned that Utah won a national championship in 2008 and Missouri in 2007 and you got bent out of shape over it.

[Avante]

I think I merely mentioned that Carroll has two National Championships. I really didn't specify what they were. That's trying to hijack a thre...hahahahaha!!!!! Dude..please :lol: One word.....chill!

And using your logic, I only mentioned that Utah won a national championship in 2008 and Missouri in 2007 and you got bent out of shape over it.

Come on man..hahahahaha!!!!!! You honestly believe that?

[jazzcyclist]

And using your logic, I only mentioned that Utah won a national championship in 2008 and Missouri in 2007 and you got bent out of shape over it.

Come on man..hahahahaha!!!!!! You honestly believe that?

Did not Utah win the A&H, MCFR and Wolfe National Championships last year?

[Avante]

And using your logic, I only mentioned that Utah won a national championship in 2008 and Missouri in 2007 and you got bent out of shape over it.

Come on man..hahahahaha!!!!!! You honestly believe that?

Did not Utah win the A&H, MCFR and Wolfe National Championships last year?

Are you for real....hahahaha!!!!!! You do follow football..right? Well if you do then you're well aware of the importance of an AP title vs those you mentioned. You do understand the the difference....right? I'm a long time football freak my friend, I don't give those titles a thought. The AP is a biggie.

[jazzcyclist]

Are you for real....hahahaha!!!!!! You do follow football..right? Well if you do then you're well aware of the importance of an AP title vs those you mentioned. You do understand the the difference....right? I'm a long time football freak my friend, I don't give those titles a thought. The AP is a biggie.

The AP quit being relevant to college football in 1998 when the the PAC 10 and the Big 10 joined the BCS. Prior to 1998, there was no way to insure that the two teams that the coaches deemed to be the two best in the nation would meet in the post-season. That happened in 1997 when #1 Michigan played in the Rose Bowl and #2 Nebraska played in the Orange Bowl. Under the current system, that will never happen again and it didn't happen in 2003. And in anticipation of your next post, did you realize that the BCS ranking system was devised with input from the coaches? Also, did you realize that when the ranking system has been tweeked, it was tweeked with input from the coaches and the coaches had to vote to approve it every time? That means that according to the system that the coaches devised, the two best teams in the nation following the 2003 regular season were LSU and Oklahoma, though the alphabet soup organizations might have felt differently. Did you also realize that it was the coaches who decided that the winner of the BCS Championship game would automatically be given the crystal football every year and that there would be no post-bowl polls taken by the coaches?

[jhc68]

jazzcyclist said:

Boise State doesn't want to play for the BCS Championshsip, otherwise they wouldn't have such a pathetic non-conference schedule. If they want to be taken seriously, they should schedule the way Fresno State does

IMHO that statement is also a crock.

Boise played and beat Oregon, the team that just destroyed USC. And a couple of weeks later Boise trounced Fresno State, too. Meanwhile, Florida, everyone's #1 team started the season was playing Charleston Southern and Troy. THAT is a pathetic non-conference schedule.

[Marlow]

Boise played and beat Oregon, the team that just destroyed USC. And a couple of weeks later Boise trounced Fresno State, too. Meanwhile, Florida, everyone's #1 team started the season was playing Charleston Southern and Troy. THAT is a pathetic non-conference schedule.

If the goal is to get yourself as highly ranked as possible in the BCS rankings and maybe even get to the Big Dance, then I would submit that Florida is doing that exceedingly well. The rest is irrelevant piffle.

[jazzcyclist]

If the goal is to get yourself as highly ranked as possible in the BCS rankings and maybe even get to the Big Dance, then I would submit that Florida is doing that exceedingly well. The rest is irrelevant piffle.

There's no doubt that Florida is using a winning formula when it comes to scheduling. But there's also no doubt that their formula is not the most entertaining one. Muhammad Ali understood that his job wasn't just to win, but it was to entertain also. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. goes out and wins every time, but he doesn't know how to entertain, and that's why he'll always be overshadowed by boxers like Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns and Oscar de la Hoya.

[jazzcyclist]

IMHO that statement is also a crock.

Boise played and beat Oregon, the team that just destroyed USC. And a couple of weeks later Boise trounced Fresno State, too. Meanwhile, Florida, everyone's #1 team started the season was playing Charleston Southern and Troy. THAT is a pathetic non-conference schedule.

So let me get this straight. You actually think it's reasonable to compare Boise State's schedule to Florida's? The same Boise State who plays in the WAC, and earlier this year played division II UC-Davis and division I-AA Bowling Green? The same Boise State whose schedule is ranked 100th out of 121 teams in the latest power ratings which are 100% objective?

Let me break this down for you. If you want to play for the crystal football, you must have plenty of beef on you schedule. You don't have to feast on ribeyes and filet mignon for all twelve games like USC does, but you can't eat salad for ten or eleven games either. Florida ate salads in September because they knew they would be served nothing but prime ribs and T-bones in October and November. The meat that Boise State got on opening weekend is hardly enough to sustain them for the entire year.

[jhc68]

Hmmm... the power ratings are 100% objective?

That's another crock.

[jazzcyclist]

Hmmm... the power ratings are 100% objective?

That's another crock.

Is that your standard response to facts that you don't like?

[jhc68]

Well, I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em

I'm certainly not convinced that the convoluted stats that get crunched together to create the power ratings represent some objective reality. In fact, I believe that buying in to that idea is a naive act of faith. So, yeah, that's a crock...

And, the only time non-conference games influence the BCS is when the power ratings projections are wrong. To some degree it is a chump's game for a name program to schedule a non-conference opponent with even a remote hope of a chance at an upset -- as Michigan and others have learned over the years. It is way better to find the weakest teams possible and beat the bejabbars out of them. So criticism of teams about a weak non-conference schedule is a crock, too...

And the proclamation that the BCS is something a team wins rather than something that is awarded is not factual at all. The BCS winner IS decided on the field but the two teams are AWARDED placement in that game. What would track fans say if the WC or OGs were contested between only two athletes selected by a statistical method based on previous competitions and presumed power ratings of those competitors? This process doesn't even hold up when applied to football at the next level. It would be easy enough to plug power ratings into the NFL and declare that (for example) the NFC West is the WAC of pro football and the Cards ought to be eliminated from any chance of competing for a shot at the Super Bowl even if they finish the rest of the season without a loss. In fact, when the regular season is complete, let's just chose the two best teams based a statistical model and put them straight into the Super Bowl. You know that idea is a crock. It's a crock in any sport and at any level of football.

So that's what I think! Jazz will disagree but I think he'd be wrong

[jazzcyclist]

Well, I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em

I'm certainly not convinced that the convoluted stats that get crunched together to create the power ratings represent some objective reality. In fact, I believe that buying in to that idea is a naive act of faith. So, yeah, that's a crock..

Whether or not the power ratings are a true indicator of a team or a conference's relative strength is debatable. Whether or nor the method for determining the power ratings is an objective method is not. Do you know what the word "objective" means?

And, the only time non-conference games influence the BCS is when the power ratings projections are wrong. To some degree it is a chump's game for a name program to schedule a non-conference opponent with even a remote hope of a chance at an upset -- as Michigan and others have learned over the years. It is way better to find the weakest teams possible and beat the bejabbars out of them. So criticism of teams about a weak non-conference schedule is a crock, too...

Boise State can keep scheduling the way they do and complaining, but until they start scheduling the way Fresno State does, they won't get any respect. Make no mistake, if Fresno State hadn't gotten tripped up by Boise State in 2001, they would have gone to the big dance. Do you remember how they catapulted from being unranked to the upper echelon of the polls after taking down murder's row in September?

And the proclamation that the BCS is something a team wins rather than something that is awarded is not factual at all. The BCS winner IS decided on the field but the two teams are AWARDED placement in that game. What would track fans say if the WC or OGs were contested between only two athletes selected by a statistical method based on previous competitions and presumed power ratings of those competitors? This process doesn't even hold up when applied to football at the next level. It would be easy enough to plug power ratings into the NFL and declare that (for example) the NFC West is the WAC of pro football and the Cards ought to be eliminated from any chance of competing for a shot at the Super Bowl even if they finish the rest of the season without a loss. In fact, when the regular season is complete, let's just chose the two best teams based a statistical model and put them straight into the Super Bowl. You know that idea is a crock. It's a crock in any sport and at any level of football.

So that's what I think! Jazz will disagree but I think he'd be wrong

Did you realize that prior to 1967, there was no playoff in the NFL, and prior to 1969 there was no playoff in MLB? The bottom line, however, is that college football is not track and field, pro football, pro baseball, women's college lacrosse or anything else. They do their thing and college football does its thing. College basketball has the RPI rankings for placing teams into the tournament and college football has the BCS rankings.

And again I ask, do you really think that Boise State's and Florida's schedules are comparable?

[mcgato]

No school compares to USC as far as scheduling goes. While Florida is playing...(since 2004)

Eastern Michigan
Mid Tenn St
Wyoming
La Tech
Central Florida
So. Miss
Western Kentucky
West Carolina...who?
Troy
Florida Atlantic
Hawaii
The Citadel....hahahahaha!
Miami....ok cool!

You conveniently forgot Florida State every year, which is not only non-conference, but a huge, huge rivalry game. No argument about the rest of them, and Florida State hasn't been their dominant selves the past several years.

[jhc68]

Hmmm... yes, I do know what objective means!
Objective refers to actual existence or reality.

So I agree that the numbers used in figuring the BCS are objective in that the numbers are real numbers, but the ways those numbers are weighted and equated include all sorts of purely subjective judgments by the people who create the BCS rankings and the entirely subjective non-computer polls that make up the AP and coaches polls that are part and parcel of the BCS data. So the results are simply theoretical constructs, not actual reality.

All the polls are simply guesses which teams might win in a fantasy playoff. Personally, I would not bet a nickel that Boise could beat Florida or Texas or Alabama. But I wouldn't have bet Boise could have beaten Oklahoma or Oregon, either. Conversely, I wouldn't bet that U Cinn or TCU could beat Boise, but all that is just guess work, and so is the BCS poll. The only objective way to see which teams are best on any given day is an actual competition. That's what objective means.

Of course there was no playoff in the NFL or MLB before the huge expansions. There was no need - the division or league champs just played for the championship! The whole season was a playoff to reach the final game. That's objective

Does Boise's season-long schedule match up with Florida's? If Boise had played Florida's schedule this year would they be undefeated? No way.

But in considering only non-conference play I'd give the nod to Boise - of course they scheduled some sure-wins - but they also played and beat Oregon, another top 10 team at this moment. None of the other undefeateds wanted any part of playing an Oregon, or even a Boise, in non-conference games.