If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Tennessean)   There are two types of coaches in college football - those who would rank Notre Dame #1, and those who have been paying attention throughout the season   (tennessean.com) divider line 169
    More: Interesting, The Tennessean, director of football, Music City Bowl, Gamecocks, Southeastern Conference, great years, Wake Forest, Commodores  
•       •       •

3275 clicks; posted to Sports » on 04 Dec 2012 at 2:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-05 09:51:11 AM
It's going to be way awesome when Notre Dame beats Bama and the SEC (and ESPN) claim that since Alabama really wasn't as good as they thought, Oregon should be ranked #1.
 
2012-12-05 10:06:59 AM

A Fark Handle: i'm ok with that. notre dame played a meh schedule and need semi-miracles to win some games against some really farking shiatty teams.


THIS.
 
2012-12-05 10:50:17 AM
I know that I'm in the minority here but I honestly think that wins and losses are the most important component, then followed by strength of schedule. Everything else is moot. I don't care if a team had to make a miraculous last-second hail mary throw to setup for a two point conversion to tie and then win in extra-extra-extra-extra over time. A win is a win.

To me, it should be:
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Alabama
Oregon
Florida
Kansas State
Northern Illinois
Then the 2 loss schools, etc.

Michigan at 8-4 over a bunch of 10-2 teams is a travesty, even if the four losses were to teams with a combined 4 losses.
 
2012-12-05 11:41:49 AM

meanmutton: I know that I'm in the minority here but I honestly think that wins and losses are the most important component, then followed by strength of schedule. Everything else is moot. I don't care if a team had to make a miraculous last-second hail mary throw to setup for a two point conversion to tie and then win in extra-extra-extra-extra over time. A win is a win.

To me, it should be:
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Alabama
Oregon
Florida
Kansas State
Northern Illinois
Then the 2 loss schools, etc.

Michigan at 8-4 over a bunch of 10-2 teams is a travesty, even if the four losses were to teams with a combined 4 losses.


That might work in a league with fewer teams, more parity, and more equity in scheduling, like the professional leagues. But in a league like FBS, with 124 teams all playing radically different schedules, it's impossible to gauge how good a team is based on wins and losses alone. Do you really think Northern Illinois is a better team than LSU, whose only two losses came to the second and third best teams in the nation? Or Oklahoma, whose only two losses came to the best and sixth best teams in the country? Northern Illinois lost to Iowa, the 11th best team in the B1G. Their best win came against Kent State, a marginal Top 25 team who lost to Kentucky, the worst team in the SEC. You can't honestly say that if Northern Illinois had to play the same schedule as the two-loss teams they'd still be 12-1.
 
2012-12-05 11:44:42 AM

Peter von Nostrand: PluckYew: ModernPrimitive01: My top 10 just for the hell of it:

1. Alabama
2. Notre Dame
3. Georgia
4. Oregon
5. Texas A&M
6. Florida
7. LSU
8. Kansas State
9. Stanford
10.Florida State

(South Carolina would have been 10 but with the injury to Lattimore they dropped)

Alright, this is very late but how do you have Texas Ass To Mouth ahead of Florida? Florida beat them...in front of the 12th man.

How the Fark have I never heard of that Aggie insult. That's just greatness right there


I try to include it whenever talking about the true believers from College Station.
 
2012-12-05 11:47:51 AM
(Full disclosure: I'm a Bama fan.)

Notre Dame's strength of schedule is impressive. They have scheduled, played, and beaten several big-name teams, like Michigan, Michigan State, Oklahoma, USC, and Stanford. True, USC and Michigan State had down years, but Michigan hasn't been dominant since 2007, and Oklahoma and Stanford had pretty good years. Strength of schedule is solid for Notre Dame, and the fact that they weren't expected to run the table - but did - is impressive.

When you take into consideration margin of victory, it gets a bit dicey. Notre Dame, as mentioned earlier in this thread, hasn't had very many dominant performances against quality opponents, save for Oklahoma, and they had several very close calls against teams they had no business losing to. The game against Pitt comes to mind; if Pitt has anything close to a kicker, they win.

Does a very poor margin of victory outweigh a strong schedule? That's up for debate, and I think that's half of the problem many have with Notre Dame being ranked at the top. I think the other half is the much-debated eye test. When push comes to shove, how many in the country really think Notre Dame is the best team in the country, irrespective of ranking or record?

I personally don't; I think Stanford is a better team (they lost to Notre Dame with Josh Nunes as the starter; my guess is that Kevin Hogan would've been the difference in that one.) I think Georgia is also a better team than Notre Dame, as is Oregon. Florida, it's debatable; I don't think they have a passer who can balance out their offence and threaten Notre Dame's strong run defense. I think a ND-Texas A&M game would be close, and I'd give that slight advantage to A&M. I do think Notre Dame is better than Kansas State and every other Big 12 team, and probably better than every team in the Big 10 and ACC. But still, with just some of those teams I named, Notre Dame would be number 5, and that's not counting LSU, either, who I think would beat Notre Dame if they played.

As far as the national championship is concerned, it is really, really hard to out-Bama Bama. Only one team in the Saban era has been able to do it, and that's LSU - a team Alabama beat this year (and should've beaten by more than the final score), should've beaten last year if not for stupid mistakes, and absolutely throttled this past January. Utah, Florida, Auburn, and Texas A&M are all spread teams, which is Bama's Achilles heel, and South Carolina in 2010 just played out of its mind for that one game.

Notre Dame is predicated on a strong running game on offense and a stout run-stopping defense. Their tempo isn't particularly fast, and they try to operate around time of possession and ball control. Sound familiar?

Plus, matchups generally favor Alabama:

ND OL and running game vs. Bama front seven on D: Bama
Bama OL and running game vs. ND front seven: Bama
Bama WRs vs. an unheralded ND secondary: Bama
Unheralded ND WRs vs. an inconsistent-yet-talented Bama secondary: Push at best for ND; slight Bama advantage.

McCarron for Bama is the nation's leader in pass efficiency. Interceptions are rare; two of the three he's thrown this year came at the goal line, one in a desperation fourth-down play against A&M. He has a rating of 122.6.

Golson has a rating of 88.3, with a completion rate of 58.9. He's thrown just 11 touchdowns versus 5 interceptions; McCarron is 26 and 3.

Oh, and the teams that beat Bama, other than LSU? They had QBs who could throw the ball. Georgia has a great QB in Murray who played a great game this past Saturday and still lost. Golson isn't someone anyone thinks of when they think of a QB who can tear up a secondary with his arm. And unless you're a solid, above-average passer, you don't often beat Alabama as a spread-oriented, run-first QB - just ask every QB for Auburn minus Cam Newton over the past few years, every QB for Florida minus Tim Tebow (and he only got the best of Bama for one year), Denard Robinson, Tyrod Taylor, and a host of others.

Notre Dame lives or dies on its ability to run the ball. Alabama lives or dies on its ability to stop the run. Alabama is really, really good at stopping the run, and few teams over the Nick Saban era have shown a capability of winning a game based on running against Alabama.

I think Notre Dame is a good team, one of the best this year. I just think Alabama is a really bad match for them. I think a game against Georgia would've been a better match. While I don't think it'd be a monumental upset if Notre Dame won, I don't expect them to.
 
2012-12-05 11:53:11 AM

PsyLord: A Fark Handle: i'm ok with that. notre dame played a meh schedule and need semi-miracles to win some games against some really farking shiatty teams.

THIS.


Like, say, a blocked punt in the final minute to beat Louisiana-Lafayette.

/wait, I don't see ULL on Notre Dame's schedule...what sh*tty team almost lost to them?
 
2012-12-05 12:13:01 PM

p the boiler: F it, SEC you win. You are the best, by far better than all others. Because of this the rest of the NCAA should stop playing your teams and have our own championship. While you all circle jerk each other and in the end your top two teams can play each other for The World Champions Of Redneck Good Ol Southern Boy Chicken and Waffles Trophy.


Maybe the lesser teams could pull out of Division I if they can't compete at that level of play. Their top two teams could play each other for the Milquetoast and Sugartit Trophy.
 
2012-12-05 12:32:56 PM

IAmRight: PsyLord: A Fark Handle: i'm ok with that. notre dame played a meh schedule and need semi-miracles to win some games against some really farking shiatty teams.

THIS.

Like, say, a blocked punt in the final minute to beat Louisiana-Lafayette.

/wait, I don't see ULL on Notre Dame's schedule...what sh*tty team almost lost to them?


The triple overtime win against Pitt was pretty underwhelming against a mediocre (at best) team. Also their win against one of the worst teams (Boston College) was pretty sad. ND only scored 3 touchdowns (one touchdown for quarters 1-3) and didn't even score during the 4th quarter. And that is against a 2-9 team (at the time of the match up). I don't see this as a performance of a #1 team. Granted they weren't #1 at that time, however, the just didn't dominate as a #1 contender should've against one of the worst teams this year.
 
2012-12-05 01:09:47 PM

meanmutton: Then the 2 loss schools, etc.


So you punish teams that have 2 losses only because they played in the conference championship game? And who beat the team you have ranked ahead? And who almost lost to a bad ACC champion?

I like Louisville's chances in the sugar bowl, thats if the coach stays through the game, if he leaves then they will most likely lose.

El Uno Magnifico: They had QBs who could throw the ball. Georgia has a great QB in Murray who played a great game this past Saturday and still lost.


If UGA had any kind of defensive line they would have won easily, bamas biggest plus is their O-Line, NDs D-line isnt bad but not much larger than UGAs so they will probably be able to run all day on them, if they can stop bama from running the ball then ND will win but if bama has 150+ yards rushing then ND losses.
 
2012-12-05 01:35:52 PM
I hate Bama, but not nearly as much as I hate ND. Tide will roll the Domers.

/sad that we have to wait over a month to watch it.
 
2012-12-05 01:44:14 PM

A Fark Handle: Incog_Neeto: A Fark Handle: Tarl3k: *yawn* Let me know when there is at least an 8 team playoff for the NCAA Div I football championship...

large playoffs are farking tarded, only exist to make money, and allow lesser teams to win titles due to good luck/fortune in a tiny sample size.

So your still mad the Giants beat whoever your team was in the playoffs last year or are you a Saints fan still bitter about losing to the 7-9 Seahawks?

neither. i couldn't care less about the nfl. i just think it's silly that sports fans want to put so much weight and importance on a tournament a few wins rather than the larger body of work. worse yet sports fans actually often use failure in a playoff as a knock against a great team (team x sucks because they couldn't win in the "clutch," etc. counter point: they don't farking suck they won so many farking game!). when the cards win 85 games then win the world series, why should i ignore what they failed to do in the 162 games? why are the 14-5ish giants declared "better" than the 18-1 pats when the season series is tied 1-1 and even on aggregate at 45-45? i find our willingness to accept that playoffs design to make money have become the american gold standard for determining the best team strange and perhaps stupid. especially since luck does influence so many sporting events. but i'm just a cranky old man.



Yes, because the popularity contest of the BCS is so much better than just hashing things out on the field. Fark that playing the game bull-shiat.

The Pats knew it was a championship game. They played for the championship and lost. The Giants were the champions that season because they played well enough to get to the playoffs, and then won every game down the stretch. But you don't like it because their regular season wasn't pretty enough, which goes right back to the popularity contest stuff. You might be better off watching things like figure skating.
 
2012-12-05 02:37:02 PM

chuggernaught: But you don't like it because their regular season wasn't pretty enough, which goes right back to the popularity contest stuff.


no it's not about being pretty enough it's about being better. in the pats example 0 losses vs 5 or so loses and a tie season series, who's farking better if you're betting your life on it. and why shouldn't the regular season matter? why should we disregard the LARGER sample size (16 vs 4 or 162 vs
 
2012-12-05 03:19:32 PM

El Uno Magnifico: I think Notre Dame is a good team, one of the best this year. I just think Alabama is a really bad match for them.


As a Tide fan, I'd rather see us play Notre Dame than someone like Oregon. Like you said, it's a better matchup.
 
2012-12-05 06:01:58 PM
A Fark Handle
but it's not vegas vs public. it's 50% of the public vs 50% of the public. vegas doesn't give a fark. it just wants half the action on each side of the line and they'll get rich off the vig. it's a great business model when it works. sure there's some sharps' money involved, but with two such public teams i'm guessing the line is being moved by public money.

Fark Handle is correct-Vegas is simply putting a "price" or odds on each game, reflective on what the market will bear. Some will see one team as undervalued and another will see the opposite. The pushes and pulls in the betting market help to fluctuate the odds but many times the line isnt only adjusted based on volume alone. It could be a handful of people forcing a change in the line.

Also-The vig itself on straight games only produces a small percentage of profit for the sports books (3-5% range). The true profit is in the parlay cards-on average 33% and higher (margin is higher as each additional team is added to the parlay card). Sports books survive on Parlay cards-but they need a high volume of players to offset any payouts (like the daily number).
 
2012-12-05 09:09:43 PM

A Fark Handle: no it's not about being pretty enough it's about being better. in the pats example 0 losses vs 5 or so loses and a tie season series, who's farking better if you're betting your life on it. and why shouldn't the regular season matter? why should we disregard the LARGER sample size (16 vs 4 or 162 vs


I won't argue that the playoff system is perfect, and in fact the Giants' 2007 run was even more messed up than you describe. In the regular season, New York lost to New England, Green Bay, and Dallas twice. At 10-6, their record was worse than New England's (16-0), Green Bay's (13-3), and Dallas's (13-3). And they only made the postseason as a wildcard, having lost their division... to Dallas. You can probably guess what happened in the playoffs.

But W-L records aren't perfect either. To crown a champion from the regular season, you need either substantial scheduling balance (as in many soccer leagues) or a reliable way to correct for strength of schedule (like the BCS computers, and even then there's a disturbingly diverse selection of algorithms). Barring that, you're gonna need a postseason to settle things. The problem comes when wild cards -- that is, teams that weren't the best in their division and therefore couldn't be the best in the league -- are invited to the playoffs. Fix that problem and Giants-Patriots doesn't happen, and as a bonus LSU-Alabama doesn't happen either. But I guess that's why they're called "wild cards."
 
2012-12-06 02:26:44 AM

Olympic Trolling Judge: But W-L records aren't perfect either. To crown a champion from the regular season, you need either substantial scheduling balance (as in many soccer leagues)


i completely agree w-l isn't perfect. hence why i'm fine with someone ranking bama or florida or oregon or kansas state or northern illnois (i kid. i kid) ahead of notre dame. i do like soccer style system because many leagues value both the regular season (the league table) and often also have a separate knockout tournament that is prestigious to win. it's a system that recognizes both accomplishments, unlike the american system that throws away the regular season.
 
2012-12-06 02:42:37 AM

Nabb1: mitchcumstein1: A Fark Handle: i'm ok with that. notre dame played a meh schedule and need semi-miracles to win some games against some really farking shiatty teams.

I don't even know if it's that meh. I think when you schedule Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, Oklahoma and USC you aren't really ducking anybody.

I'll give you that, but Wake, Navy, Pitt, etc. are jokes. It's not ND's fault that Michigan State, Michigan and USC are really having down years, and Standford and Oklahoma were good wins. But I think Florida had a much tougher schedule than that.


Yeah and that squeaker against an FCS team really cemented Florida as a powerhouse.
 
2012-12-06 09:38:18 AM

A Fark Handle: it's a system that recognizes both accomplishments, unlike the american system that throws away the regular season.


Agreed. The NHL at least has an award for the team with the most regular-season points...but everyone treats it as though they live in India and it's an "untouchable".
 
Displayed 19 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report