BG College Football Pick Em / College Football Thread

[octopus]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. When the talent is about the same for both teams, if you win the same amount of games as you lose, that means the coaching is not being a factor. If you win more than you lose with the same amount of talent on either side, that's what I call coaching a factor.

And I don't really get what's so hard to understand. What we have all said, is that recently, Bob Stoops have lost a lot of big games. I don't see how you can dispute that.

[Plow]

And I don't really get what's so hard to understand. What we have all said, is that recently, Bob Stoops have lost a lot of big games. I don't see how you can dispute that.

Oklahoma the past 5 years is a fucking joke!

Those are 2 very different statements.

Despite 2 bad years, he's been in 40% of the national championship games, won more than he's lost against ranked teams, beaten like 7 top 10 teams, several of them on the road, and won the big 12 4 times.


Yeap, complete "fucking joke!"

[Kirin]

Those are 2 very different statements.

Despite 2 bad years, he's been in 40% of the national championship games, won more than he's lost against ranked teams, beaten like 7 top 10 teams, several of them on the road, and won the big 12 4 times.


Yeap, complete "fucking joke!"

Despite 2 bad years, Jim Tressel has been in 100% of the national championship games, won more than he's lost against ranked teams, destroyed all the rest of the state of Ohio, several of them on the road, and won the Big 10 how many times?

Lets forget the fact theyve laid 3 big ol failures to the SEC and USC.

My point? No doubt Oklahoma does damn well into the regular season, theres a reason theyve gone into 5 straight BCS games. Yes, there are "big games" for big game bob to win in the regular season too. But there is still no denying that, like Ohio State, after tremendous regular seasons...they somehow yet again find a way to nab that "L" in Janurary.

[Doombard]

my tigers are killing nebraska. defense looks good too

[Tyche]

That's where you're wrong, I'm trying to argue fairly, and not resort to twisting things around, and show that in the biggest of the big games, he's won about half of them, which is, in reality, pretty damn good, when your biggest games are consistently top 5 teams facing off with NC's on the line.


I could argue about how if you take out the years when AD got hurt and the team suffered from terrible quarterbacking the ratio changes to 11-4 since 02 against ranked opponents, or about how he got the nickname in the first place, but I don't feel that's even necessary.


Winning about half your championship contender vs championship contender games is damn good, especially in college.

Those are 2 very different statements.

Despite 2 bad years, he's been in 40% of the national championship games, won more than he's lost against ranked teams, beaten like 7 top 10 teams, several of them on the road, and won the big 12 4 times.


Yeap, complete "fucking joke!"

Yeah, let's do this fair...let's throw out 2 bad years, then let's not count any games where oklahoma was favored against ranked teams, because since they weren't favored, it wasn't a "big game". So "most of those losses to "ranked" teams are losing to teams ranked 23'rd or whatever instead of the 28ish crap the other big schools tend to lose to" DONT COUNT!. Then, THEN I'm going to paint a strictly opinionated fabrication of what big games are which that fits my theory!

Fair and balanced, with no spin or twist!

Let's keep it simple...."Big game bob" has the worst january record in the NCAA over the past 5 years. He has a terrible win percentage against ranked schools over the past 5 years compared to other elite schools even in his own conference. This doesn't require a lot of thought...it's really simple unless you want to convolute it with bullshit remissions of certain years and certain games to fit your argument. Seriously dude...

[Plow]

Despite 2 bad years, Jim Tressel has been in 100% of the national championship games, won more than he's lost against ranked teams, destroyed all the rest of the state of Ohio, several of them on the road, and won the Big 10 how many times?

Lets forget the fact theyve laid 3 big ol failures to the SEC and USC.

My point? No doubt Oklahoma does damn well into the regular season, theres a reason theyve gone into 5 straight BCS games. Yes, there are "big games" for big game bob to win in the regular season too. But there is still no denying that, like Ohio State, after tremendous regular seasons...they somehow yet again find a way to nab that "L" in Janurary.

The thing about it is that Big 12 teams, time and time again, show that once they're out of the picture, they don't give a shit, and they go out and lose.

Snyder won huuuuuuuuuge games at K-State, again and again. Then he'd lose one dumb one, and they'd go out and lose in bowl games not giving a shit.

The difference between what Tressel has done (and again you're skewing the facts, right before he lost 2 nc games he won 4 straight bowl games, 3 of them bcs one of them a nc) and what stoops has done, is that Tressel has 1, maybe 2 games a year that would be considered "big games" for a big 12 team before the post season.


Look at it this way: Carrol's postseason (and big game in general) record has been, for the most part, a superior, national championship caliber team, playing a big 10 team that's in over their heads. And they've only been in them due to losing fluke games. And, the reality is, most of them really meant nothing.

Stoops, for the most part, has also been in meaningless postseason games against outclassed teams due to fluke losses. He just can't get his teams to care when the national championship isn't on the line.


So yeah, I suppose you can say Stoops is bad in big games... the "big games" that don't mean shit, that is.

[Plow]

Yeah, let's do this fair...let's throw out 2 bad years, then let's not count any games where oklahoma was favored against ranked teams, because since they weren't favored, it wasn't a "big game". So "most of those losses to "ranked" teams are losing to teams ranked 23'rd or whatever instead of the 28ish crap the other big schools tend to lose to" DONT COUNT!. Then, THEN I'm going to paint a strictly opinionated fabrication of what big games are which that fits my theory!

Fair and balanced, with no spin or twist!

Let's keep it simple...."Big game bob" has the worst january record in the NCAA over the past 5 years. He has a terrible win percentage against ranked schools over the past 5 years compared to other elite schools even in his own conference. This doesn't require a lot of thought...it's really simple unless you want to convolute it with bullshit remissions of certain years and certain games to fit your argument. Seriously dude...

How the fuck is it "throwing out" 2 bad years to say that despite, i.e. *EVEN WITH* 2 bad years he's still done great?

Can you get any more ridiculous than sitting there twisting shit up in order to be able to accuse me of twisting shit up?

Seriously dude...

[Tyche]

Great is certainly subjective...You play "great" in the regular season to get to a BCS bowl game, which he has done....Whether he shuts it down, or his players shut it down is irrelevant. It's the coach's job to have his team prepared, especially wheen you have the title of "Big game bob". What, now you're going to make the argument that a non-championship BCS bowl game isn't "big" enough for big game bob? As I said, it's really simple, others can (and have) formulate their own opinion. "big game bob" is 1/5 in his last 5 BCS bowl appearances. Against ranked opponents, he isn't even .600. There are *at least* 5 teams better than he in "big" games. Great, you had an exceptional regular season only to blow that in the playoffs. In every other sport (hell, every sport period), that's called underachieving. Oklahoma is SUPPOSED to do good in the regular season, they aren't fucking Boise State. Oklahoma has clear recruiting and personelle advantages over almost all of their opponents. Congrats, you won 10+ games like you SHOULD do at oklahoma, like you SHOULD do at USC, like you SHOULD do at OSU, like you SHOULD do at Texas...difference is, these teams do what they SHOULD do in the regular season then go on and perform in January. Well, except OSU....ZING!

[Brien]

Can't wait for texas vs. oklahoma next week

Im so pumped for this both teams are looking great shouldn't be more than a 1 -2 point spread! I'll be there, Give'em hell OU SUCKS!

[devildrifterX]

where are my 'Noles that i love so dearly...

thoughts on new rankings before monday?

[Akiyama]

I'll be honest. That Noles/Hurricanes game was awesome to watch. No matter how ugly the passing game was and what not, and how bad the defenses played at some point... the rain shower at the end was awesome.

[Plow]

where are my 'Noles that i love so dearly...

thoughts on new rankings before monday?

should be:

1 OU
2 LSU
3 Mizzou
4 Texas
5 Arkansas
6 Texas Tech
7 Penn St
8 Vandy
9 BYU
10 Utah


will be:

1 OU
2 LSU
3 Mizzou
4 Arkansas
5 Texas
6 Penn St
7 Texas Tech
8 BYU
9 USC
10 Vandy

[devildrifterX]

The FSU/Miami game was probably the best one of TV saturday...OSU/WISC taking second.

I hope that within the next 5 years FSU will make a return to dominance, especially with soon to be head coach-Jimbo Fisher...i grow tired of all those damn bandwagon UF/USF fans that started reppin when they were winning, atleast Miami fans stay dedicated through the thick and thin lol

[devildrifterX]

didn't arkansas just lose to UF...i think you mean Bama

[Kirin]

should be:

1 OU
2 LSU
3 Mizzou
4 Texas
5 Arkansas
6 Texas Tech
7 Penn St
8 Vandy
9 BYU
10 Utah


will be:

1 OU
2 LSU
3 Mizzou
4 Arkansas
5 Texas
6 Penn St
7 Texas Tech
8 BYU
9 USC
10 Vandy

Im going to assume you mean Alabama, not Arkansas.

Vandy wont be top 10. Auburn was only 12th. Theyll jump to 15 tops. USC will be 7 or 8 now, maybe with 1 first place vote (Pete Carrols XD). Otherwise, id say fairly spot on...but the top 3 wont really change. LSU wont be rewarded or penalized for the off week...

[devildrifterX]

i'm thinking the rankings will stay the same, but with OSU or UF coming into 10 spot.

[Bearsan]

should be:

1 OU
2 LSU
3 Mizzou
4 Texas
5 Arkansas
6 Texas Tech
7 Penn St
8 Vandy
9 BYU
10 Utah


will be:

1 OU
2 LSU
3 Mizzou
4 Arkansas
5 Texas
6 Penn St
7 Texas Tech
8 BYU
9 USC
10 Vandy

Why should USC drop out of the top 10 after beating a ranked opponent? The only real change would be dropping USC for Utah, and I have a hard time figuring out (even knowing that you hate USC with a passion) why this would make any sense.

[Akiyama]

I see Bama dropping to 3 or 4 because their win wasn't pretty. OU stays 1, LSU might bump up to 2, Mizzou 3 probably, Bama 4, Texas 5, Penn State stays the same, etc. USC might even go to 6 or 7 now. Vandy won't be any higher than 13 in my honest opinion. Probably 15ish.

lolArkansas.

[Kyo]

I think the tar heels should be ranked >:l at least 23-25th. We havent been ranked in a long time and we deserve it.

[Akiyama]

I could see UNC jumping in easily. A couple drop out, so a couple new ones come in. While UConn got absolutely dominated mostly because they lost their starter, it was still an impressive show that UNC put on against an undefeated ranked team.