Around College Football

by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 2, 2008 9:50 AM CDT

Since plenty of people will write about our game, I won't say much about it other than Colt was good, the receivers were decent, Ogbonnoya made a heck of a catch down the sideline that nobody seems to have mentioned, Irby was good, our pass rush was fairly good, I wished Kindle shed his blockers on his blitz on more than one occasion but he played well, and our secondary got better as the game progressed. There. My game analysis.

Now to other things about college football:

-Clemson lost to Alabama, 34-10. Please look at the number next to Clemson's name, and you'll see it's the #9. While such early AP rankings are largely irrelevant, it does show the hype that Clemson received this year... and seemingly receives every year. Frankly, I've viewed the ACC with contempt the past few years, which has been the weakest BCS conference in college football over that time (not the Big East), and I'm a bit tired of the constant "Watch out for Clemson" stuff during the preseason. The media should have a rule: You can't talk about Clemson until they actually win important games. It's not like the game was close and 'Bama pulled away at the end. It was 23-3 at halftime and the Crimson Tide coasted.

-I'm a bit tired of Utah players and fans saying their win against Michigan shows that non-BCS schools deserve to compete in the national title game every year. Please. People call this an "upset," but it really wasn't. Michigan was only favored to win by three, probably because they were playing at home, and they are unranked and do not have a QB for RR's spread offense. A lot of people were pointing to this game as the potential "upset," and it's hard to call it an upset when tons of people were expecting it. I know WVU is laughing right now as they revel in Pat White's five touchdowns, but this was not a surprise by any means. Stop pretending you beat someone good. More on non-BCS teams later.

-Hawaii got hammered by Florida, and while they do not have their coach or Brennan any longer, I'm still a bit exasperated with their monster hype from last season and I'm glad they got toasted by an SEC school. Again.

-And Appy St. again. Really, I'm tired of CFB analysts trying to be sensational and predicting upsets like this. There were several people actually giving Appalachian State a chance, which is laughable. Appy St. beat a vastly overrated Michigan team that was slow and struggled the remainder of the year. This time, they got to play LSU... who is definitely not slow. LSU battered them and sent the underdog advocates reeling, and even their coach wondered if LSU could score in the triple digits.

-And just for kicks... A&M lost to Arkansas St. If you hadn't heard already.

-Allow me to conclude with a rant about all these non-BCS schools talking big and the retarded media jumping on their bandwagon. Now, I love upsets and I think it's cool when the "little guy" pulls off the win. Obviously, I was tickled to death when Boise St. beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl. However, people are going WAY TO FAR when they try to conclude that these teams therefore deserve a chance to compete for the national title. That is laughable garbage.

The big victories for the non-BCS schools the past few years have come primarily over OVERRATED teams that simply were not that good. Appy St. beat a slow Michigan team that limped through the rest of the year. Utah beat Pitt in '05, the weakest team in the BCS that year. Boise St. beat a very unimpressive OU team that backed into the title game basically because Colt got hurt, an OU team that received an awful game from Paul Thompson and had a rusty and still injured Adrian Peterson. Boise St. STILL had to rely on ridiculous trick plays that work once in a blue moon to win the game... by one point. In overtime. How does this prove they deserved to play Florida or Ohio State that year? It doesn't. It's a stupid leap of logic.

Let's see what happens when these teams actually play legit, tough teams. Boise State in '05 got pummeled by Georgia, with Zabranksy getting benched that game. Hawaii got humiliated by Georgia in a brutal beatdown last year. Appy State was greeted harshly by LSU this past weekend. And while we played awful against Arkansas St. last year and they just beat a bad A&M team, we just played their conference champs... and thrashed them. So please, spare us the sensationalist talk about these non-BCS schools being national title contenders. You're just setting them up for failure and setting yourselves up to look stupid.

edit:

By the way, I visited the 12thManChild... and it's a very inactive communitiy, unfortunately. The last main page post is June 30th, and the last fan post is two weeks ago. Maybe they're hiding.

But I thought this fan post, posted nearly a month ago, was interesting. This guy talks about the realistic expectations for A&M. He got some things right, but others... let's just say he's an optimistic fan. At least he was; no telling how he is after this weekend.

I'm not quite that pessimistic and think we take at least one of those away to go 8-4. A 9-3 season exceeds expectations for the Aggies but with this schedule is not at all inconceivable.

We shall see. Mathematically, it's still all very possible (and so is going 11-1, cough), but losing to Arkansas St. in your opener is not a good start.

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Also

Kudos to the Kentucky Wildcats for trouncing their rivals. I know not many care around here, but it’s nice to see some positive vibes coming from Kentucky, when their falls used to generally be reserved for bashing Tubby Smith.

Also of note was the fact that Kentucky “Adrian Peterson’ed” a Louisville recruit at this game. Sure, he’s only 3 stars, but that counts as a big recruiting win in the Bluegrass State.

Longhorn fans will also be pleased to hear that Kentucky has a verbal commitment from touted Texas QB Ryan Mossakowski. He was A&M’s best shot at bringing in a star Texas QB recruit, so let’s hope he stays committed to the Cats and continues to screw the Sherman.

by jc25 on Sep 2, 2008 11:09 AM CDT 0 recs

BCS Busters

I don’t really think its entirely fair to completely dismiss any non-BCS school from contention. Utah in 2005 got the short end of the stick by having to play Pitt, who they completely destroyed. They should have played also-undefeated Auburn, but then the BCS would have had to deal with two undefeated teams who had beat other undefeated teams in BCS bowl games, which would have further stirred demands for a playoff system, which the BCS wants to avoid at all costs.

I agree with you about Hawai’i 2007 and to some degree Boise 2006, but its hard to entirely fault a MWC/MAC/CUSA team for bad scheduling when top tier teams refuse to play them. Utah 2005 tried to schedule Oklahoma and Miami and was turned down flat – because OU and Miami have nothing to gain from beating Utah and they were at very significant risk of losing to them outright.

How can a non-BCS school ever prove themselves worthy of a national title shot if the elite teams refuse to schedule them? As a result, their schedule is deemed “took weak” and they’re not even allowed to try to prove themselves against the elite in a BCS bowl. It’s a catch-22 and the BCS itself is quite happy with it because they are raking in ludicrous amounts of money with the status quo.

Its easy for us as fans of an elite level BCS team to scoff at Utah 2005 but, in reality, they were almost certainly much better than the Michigan team that we barely beat in the Rose Bowl that year.

by hodad on Sep 2, 2008 11:56 AM CDT 0 recs

I'm not completely dismissing them

I wish we had a better system that gave these teams more of a chance to prove themselves. However, in the absence of such a system, the voters have the obligation to vote for the teams that they truly believe are the best teams in the nation. Calls for sympathy votes for non-BCS schools are just dumb. I agree that Utah was good in 2005, but the fact is, they most certainly weren’t as good as Auburn, Oklahoma, and USC.

If these CFB analysts simply said, “The BCS doesn’t give these other teams much of a chance,” then I’d agree with them. Instead, they get all sensational and claim that Boise State was robbed out of a national title, that Hawaii should have played Ohio State or LSU, and Appalachian State proved that even they could win the national title in Division 1A. None of that is true. As harsh as that sounds, it just isn’t. In fact, they fail to even realize that the Plus One system as it is currently being conceived (and that many media punits are pushing for) would not even give these teams a chance, with the possible exception of Utah. Two years ago, I would bet money that the four teams would have been Florida, Ohio State, USC, and Michigan. Last year, it would probably would have been USC, Ohio State, LSU, and Georgia. If they want to advocate a good, fair playoff system that may give these teams a better chance, then I’d be open to hearing their case. When they cry and wail that Boise St. and Hawaii are undefeated and thus deserve a spot in the title game, regardless of their schedule, then they need to wake up and smell the roses.

by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 2, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up 0 recs

If Fresno State went undefeated this year...

… would they deserve a shot at the national title? Assuming they’re one of two or fewer undefeated teams? If they get through that OOC slate unscathed, then you can’t fault them for not trying to schedule tough, because that’s about as tough as it can get. They’d have had a hard time finding another serious opponent with an open date this year.

by Horn Brain on Sep 2, 2008 12:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

If a team beats the top tier in the country

Then I’d be a lot more open to them competing for the top spots, though I know there would still be significant bias for the traditional powers. However, the last few undefeated teams from mid-major conferences simply didn’t have particularly strong OOC schedules.

by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 2, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up 0 recs

just saw Fresno State against Rutgers yesterday

and so far I have to say that in a battle between two awful teams, they were only slightly less awful. Even assuming they improve (which of course they probably will), their toughest opponent is Wisconsin, currently rated at #13 but not long for that position). UCLA also has a chance of being OK, but last night’s win was largely the product of Tennessee’s incompetence.

If they get through their schedule unscathed, they might deserve a shot at a BCS bowl, but certainly not the championship game – there are too many teams out there that are far, far better the Fresno State can be this year.

by longhornglory on Sep 2, 2008 4:12 PM CDT up 0 recs

Yo crazy

Boise State was legit. A bad OU team is like bad fellatio….nuff said. Remind me, what is the difference between the option read going 80 yards and the half back pass going 80 yards??? … As an aside-There are no such things as “trick” plays, just plays…

by Longhorny on Sep 2, 2008 1:20 PM CDT 0 recs

i don't think that's true...

..b/c trick plays have a less probability of working if they were consistently used. (ie reverses)

by vy til i die on Sep 2, 2008 4:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

Niether does

any other play…

by Longhorny on Sep 2, 2008 6:51 PM CDT up 0 recs

I didn't say OU was bad

But they were far, far, far from the best in the country that year. Furthermore, I don’t know exactly what kind of football you watch, but they’re called “trick” plays for a reason (anyone remember what Bill Parcells called them?). They normally take too long to develop to be used regularly and are a high risk, high reward type of play. Even Boise State’s players were quick to point out that whenever they ran the hook and ladder in practice, it never worked. If they weren’t trick plays, we’d see them more often. Heck, if a WR pass was just another play, football coaches must be morons for not running it more often and feasting on long touchdown bombs the play is designed to produce.

by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 2, 2008 6:01 PM CDT up 0 recs

Ok...

by Longhorny on Sep 2, 2008 6:52 PM CDT up 0 recs

Ok...

Not the best, but there is more than one BCS bowl…..So not just the best get to participate.

As far as trick plays, they are just like any other play, there is no “trick” to them. They are just plays. Coaches attach “trick” as a descriptor, because their defenses were unprepared for them. As long as deception is allowed by the rules, there will never be a such thing as a trick play.

Anyway BSU was the exception, not the rule… Georgia Hawaii was a bore. But all teams should have access the BCS, and SOS should be accounted for when picking those teams. Mizzou should have gotten a BCS bowl, but alas.

by Longhorny on Sep 2, 2008 7:11 PM CDT 0 recs

My argument

Was not that these teams should not get into the BCS. My argument was that they have not proven they deserve to get into the BCS Championship game. Big difference. And in theory, the BCS should be for only the best teams, but due to media favorites, money, and stupid rules, it doesn’t always work out that way. After all, there are only four BCS games plus the national title game, and before a couple years ago, the national title game was included among the four. So the best should participate. I’m glad you seem to agree with me: BSU was the exception, not the rule, which is why I was criticizing media pundits for arguing that these schools should compete for the national title.

Regardless of how you want to call such plays, they are used sparingly to try to catch the defense off guard because they have a high rate of failure. That’s why you see a lot more RB’s running between the tackles on a regular basis than getting pitches from the QB and subsequently throwing the ball downfield. Even coaches call them trick plays, but like I said, it doesn’t matter if you call them “Jap” plays like Parcells did or make up your own name. They are plays that are unusual in nature and are uncommon precisely because so many things can go wrong with them. You’re basically arguing that there is no difference from “deception” plays like a play action pass than a double reverse wide receiver pass to the quarterback. I think the vast majority of football viewers would disagree with you.

by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 2, 2008 10:23 PM CDT 1 recs