2009 NCAA Football Thread

[Still MIGHTY]

I know I'm late on this, but I wanted to echo LMU's sentiments...

That leg injury wasn't the only reason that Corp lost out to Barkley.

Corp, penalties, and 2 fumbles and an interecption all inside the Washington 40 was a perfect storm.

I'll give some credit to Sarkisian and the Huskies. They are definitely on the way up and are a scrappy bunch. Even with all what went wrong to USC and the amount of rushing the Trojans racked up, they didn't fold and put up enough fight to pull it out.

The traditional Pac-10 road opening loss to a team that should be a USC practice squad reared its ugly head again.

But I will reiterate...

Corp sucks.

[rams80]

I note Houston Nutt's hypnotic charisma has taken Ole Miss to #4.

Washington has also surfaced in the AP poll, at #24, while USC slides to #12.

[NEW.ERA]

I note Houston Nutt's hypnotic charisma has taken Ole Miss to #4.

Washington has also surfaced in the AP poll, at #24, while USC slides to #12.

Full Top 25

1 Florida (55) 3-0 1488 1

2 Texas (2) 3-0 1428 2

3 Alabama (3) 3-0 1390 4

4 Mississippi 2-0 1213 5

5 Penn State 3-0 1212 5

6 California 3-0 1169 8

7 LSU 3-0 1120 9

8 Boise State 3-0 1038 10

9 Miami (FL) 2-0 920 20

10 Oklahoma 2-1 862 12

11 Virginia Tech 2-1 852 13

12 USC 2-1 825 3

13 Ohio State 2-1 810 11

14 Cincinnati 3-0 739 17

15 TCU 2-0 674 15

16 Oklahoma State 2-1 478 16

17 Houston 2-0 455 21

18 Florida State 2-1 363 NR

19 Brigham Young 2-1 349 7

20 Kansas 3-0 347 22

21 Georgia 2-1 318 23

22 North Carolina 3-0 271 24

23 Michigan 3-0 247 25

24 Washington 2-1 194 NR

25 Nebraska 2-1 132 19

Dropped from rankings: Georgia Tech 14, Utah 18

Others receiving votes: Missouri 115, Georgia Tech 102, Auburn 100, Pittsburgh 91, UCLA 62, Iowa 39, Oregon 30, Texas Tech 19, Notre Dame 16, Utah 12, Clemson 11, Colorado State 4, Oregon State 4, South Florida 1

[Still MIGHTY]

Miami at #9? Really?

That's my only real surprise. Everything else seems in place.

[CityOfWalrus]

Miami at #9? Really?

That's my only real surprise. Everything else seems in place.

Well they were #20 and beat the #16 team in a pretty much over matched game. I think UCLA should at least be #25

[Jigga]

As long as Mississippi is in the top 10, nothing is as it should be.

[FiddySicks]

Miami at #9? Really?

That's my only real surprise. Everything else seems in place.

Well they were #20 and beat the #16 team in a pretty much over matched game. I think UCLA should at least be #25

And you have to remember that Miami starts the season out playing Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma. So far they've topped FlaSt and GT pretty convincingly. If they beat VT or the Sooners, or even both, then both them and Jacorey Harris are for real and deserve a very high ranking. I normally try not to drink the ESPN Cool Aid about teams, but I think that Miami could be a team that surprises a LOT of people and ends up 4-0 after this stretch.

[dfwabel]

Remember that the AP poll does not factor into the BCS rankings.

Here is an analysis of this week's AP vote as well as how the writers voted.

Pollspeak Week 4

From the story:

Oklahoma (No. 9), BYU (No. 20) and FSU (No. 25). That?s how they?re ranked in the Coaches? Poll?in exactly the opposite order of their head-to-head victories. Unfortunately, without the Coaches? ballots we really can?t figure out why it worked out this way. However, we can look to the AP with its public ballots and get some sense of what is going on.

In the AP, we see: Oklahoma (No. 10), FSU (No. 18), BYU (No. 19). So many AP voters are making the same decisions but not quite as drastic. Even after FSU soundly beat BYU 54 ? 28 in Provo, 8 voters have BYU ranked but not the Seminoles, and in all, 19 voters (out of 60) still ranked the Cougars over the Noles. Leading the way is Dave Matter of the Columbia Daily Tribune who ranked BYU No. 11, but left FSU unranked.

Following this train of thought, 48 voters now have Oklahoma ranked over BYU. That?s up from three people last week. This isn?t completely surprising considering how badly BYU lost at home, but the Sooners and the Cougars now have the same record and BYU won the head-to-head. It?s hard to justify a spread like Joe Rexrode of the Lansing State Journal who ranks Oklahoma No. 7 and leaves BYU unranked.

Riding the train full circle, it?s also surprising that only 12 voters have FSU ranked over Oklahoma. After all, all three teams have one loss. BYU beats Oklahoma on a neutral field. FSU beats BYU on the road. You would think most people would put FSU over both BYU and Oklahoma, but it isn?t even close. Could Oklahoma?s lopsided victories over Idaho State and Tulsa really warrant the Sooners earning so much respect? Ray Ratto of the San Francisco Chronicle feels strongly enough about it to rank the Sooners No. 8 while leaving the Seminoles and BYU unranked.

[Spammy]

.

[LMU]

I've been looking for a link all afternoon, but listening to the local Fox Sports Radio station today, they mentioned during the newsbreak something about the Washington defense actually calling out the play names for every play that USC ran on offense. I don't know if this would violate some sort of proprietary information clause, but interesting nonetheless.

I know I'm late on this, but I wanted to echo LMU's sentiments...

That leg injury wasn't the only reason that Corp lost out to Barkley.

Exactly. All through camp, the only positive thing that was mentioned about Corp was that he didn't throw interceptions. Well, kind of hard to do that if you have to have most of the playbook thrown out with you behind center.

The one thing that's clear is that the team obviously responds better to Barkley. Just demeanor-wise, Barkley has a calm confidence to him that really comes off well, while Corp spent so much time bitching about being benched that anything less than a Doug Flutie-like performance would have been inadequate, and he laid an egg.

[rams80]

I've been looking for a link all afternoon, but listening to the local Fox Sports Radio station today, they mentioned during the newsbreak something about the Washington defense actually calling out the play names for every play that USC ran on offense. I don't know if this would violate some sort of proprietary information clause, but interesting nonetheless.

I know I'm late on this, but I wanted to echo LMU's sentiments...

That leg injury wasn't the only reason that Corp lost out to Barkley.

Exactly. All through camp, the only positive thing that was mentioned about Corp was that he didn't throw interceptions. Well, kind of hard to do that if you have to have most of the playbook thrown out with you behind center.

The one thing that's clear is that the team obviously responds better to Barkley. Just demeanor-wise, Barkley has a calm confidence to him that really comes off well, while Corp spent so much time bitching about being benched that anything less than a Doug Flutie-like performance would have been inadequate, and he laid an egg.

Not at all. It's on Carroll to modify the playbook to prevent such things. See also: Super Bowl XXXVII, "Lawyer Milloy game"

[Wasatch]

Florida State's leading BYU, in Provo, 37-14.

To those Mountain West supporters.....thanks for playing. Learn how to stay relevant for longer than a year or two so your conference can be taken seriously for BCS inclusion.

Are you kidding me? You act as though a team has to go undefeated for 3 straight years in order to be considered by the BCS, and yet nobody does that! Get off your rocker!

Yeah, and you're talking about Oregon who lost to Boise State. Oregon by all rights should dispose of teams like Boise State and Utah, so you can talk about the cutesy Utah, but then you have to realize you're talking about a team who can't beat teams they should beat. If you're going to say that Utah is a "cutesy" story, then why didn't Oregon beat Boise State. It's the same level of competition.

That's why we play the game Ladies & Gentleman....anybody can beat anybody on any given day.

Teams like Utah complain they don't get annual respect, then they lose these games that they need to win to get respect. That's the exact reason why the WAC and MWC will never get an automatic berth to a BCS bowl game...they lack consistency.

How is Utah going undefeated last year and then again in 2004 not good enough to get respect? Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

[HedleyLamarr]

Florida State's leading BYU, in Provo, 37-14.

To those Mountain West supporters.....thanks for playing. Learn how to stay relevant for longer than a year or two so your conference can be taken seriously for BCS inclusion.

Are you kidding me? You act as though a team has to go undefeated for 3 straight years in order to be considered by the BCS, and yet nobody does that! Get off your rocker!

Teams like Utah complain they don't get annual respect, then they lose these games that they need to win to get respect. That's the exact reason why the WAC and MWC will never get an automatic berth to a BCS bowl game...they lack consistency.

How is Utah going undefeated last year and then again in 2004 not good enough to get respect? Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

Show me where I said that a team has to undefeated for three straight seasons.

People like to say "The Mountain West Conference should get inclusion to the BCS because Utah was undefeated" or "The WAC should get inclusion because Hawaii/Boise State went undefeated". Yeah, they'll go undefeated every now and then, but while playing a soft schedule. Then, when it comes time to play the big boys and gain respect for their programs and their conference, they often fall flat. For every "breakthrough win" the conference gets, there are multiple "setback losses" they face soon thereafter.

The Mountain West and the WAC are "cute little stories". You can win your cute little conference, bring home your cute little trophies, and go play your cute little Poinsettia Bowl or Fort Worth Bowl or whichever cute little bowl game the conference champion plays in.

[NEW.ERA]

Oh what a world it would be if Boise State, BYU, Utah and TCU could all play in BCS conferences it would be disastrous for the Mountain West and the Western Athletic Conference.

Everything comes all circle to getting rid of the BCS but I don't want to be the one to start that debate once again.

And in other meaningful news Pete Carroll expects Matt Barkley to play on Saturday, Oh I'd hate to be Wazzu.

[Spammy]

I wish there was no BCS

[Jigga]

I'm not the biggest fan of the formula (and reliance on biased poll voters), but think about why the BCS was created in the first place. If there was no BCS, it would be a massive clusterf***. None of the power conference teams would EVER play anybody worth a damn in the non-conference schedule. It's easy to bash to the BCS, but until D-I/FBS goes to a playoff system, it's better than anything else they've ever had, especially that bowl and poll bulls***.

[oddball]

What? The BCS has not changed anything. If you think the BCS has organized anything, you well need to get a clue. Part of the problem is not the BCS, but who goes to post season. Why does a team who's .500 and below .500 and the 8th place team in a conference even get to go to a bowl. I find that more of a problem than who's #1 ranked in the BCS in September. What we're rewarding in mediocrity. If the BCS only took champions of conferences, no matter what conference you belonged to, then we are only talking about the best of each conference. Screw a team who can't win it's conference, they don't belong in the discussion for a top bowl. Yes, I do admit that the BCS is the other half of the problem. Actually, the real issue is the NCAA and the lack of any brains with in that lack of an organization.

[infrared41]

Guys? We normally don't start the BCS vs. Playoff argument until the third week of November. It's kind of a tradition in this thread.

[Jigga]

What? The BCS has not changed anything. If you think the BCS has organized anything, you well need to get a clue. Part of the problem is not the BCS, but who goes to post season. Why does a team who's .500 and below .500 and the 8th place team in a conference even get to go to a bowl. I find that more of a problem than who's #1 ranked in the BCS in September. What we're rewarding in mediocrity. If the BCS only took champions of conferences, no matter what conference you belonged to, then we are only talking about the best of each conference. Screw a team who can't win it's conference, they don't belong in the discussion for a top bowl. Yes, I do admit that the BCS is the other half of the problem. Actually, the real issue is the NCAA and the lack of any brains with in that lack of an organization.

Did you read the part where I said, "It's easy to bash to the BCS, but until D-I/FBS goes to a playoff system, it's better than anything else they've ever had, especially that bowl and poll bulls***."

That was kinda like my point...or something.

I know this will be hard for you to process because you'll see "BCS" and go off on another rant, but I'm NOT saying the BCS is the best system possible. What I AM saying is that compared to the systems preceding it, the BCS is better. I want a playoff as much as anyone, but we aren't getting a playoff right now and we've never had a playoff. I like in the real world, 2009. I don't live in a fantasy world where I get to create my own reality. In the world in which I live, you try to deal with things like reality and history. I can't just make up s***.

Sorry, Infrared...I honestly wasn't arguing BCS v. Playoff, I was trying to say the BCS is better than the Bowl N Poll system and their splits. Of course, oddball had to go and f*** all that up with a rant.

[Wasatch]

Show me where I said that a team has to undefeated for three straight seasons.

You didn?t say that but you sure as hell act like it!

People like to say "The Mountain West Conference should get inclusion to the BCS because Utah was undefeated" or "The WAC should get inclusion because Hawaii/Boise State went undefeated". Yeah, they'll go undefeated every now and then, but while playing a soft schedule. Then, when it comes time to play the big boys and gain respect for their programs and their conference, they often fall flat.

I'm seriously laughing reading your post. I mean what do you want, for them to play the top #3 teams every year? If that's the case, I'd love for that as well but under the current setup, that's not going to happen. And it would appear many BCS teams wouldn't like that either, because they look 10 times worse when they get their butts handed to them. I have plenty of respect for BCS schools like Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC, etc., but it's time to take note that the 3 top MWC teams including the WAC powerhouse Boise ST. deserve a chance to play for the title as well. How can you honestly refute that when schools like the University of Washington had the year they had last year? Big schools are always going to have their good years and bad years but Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise St. consistently get great recruits that can play with the best of them. For example, the top high school quarter back prospect Heaps signed with BYU over this past summer.

What? The BCS has not changed anything. If you think the BCS has organized anything, you well need to get a clue. Part of the problem is not the BCS, but who goes to post season. Why does a team who's .500 and below .500 and the 8th place team in a conference even get to go to a bowl. I find that more of a problem than who's #1 ranked in the BCS in September. What we're rewarding in mediocrity. If the BCS only took champions of conferences, no matter what conference you belonged to, then we are only talking about the best of each conference. Screw a team who can't win it's conference, they don't belong in the discussion for a top bowl. Yes, I do admit that the BCS is the other half of the problem. Actually, the real issue is the NCAA and the lack of any brains with in that lack of an organization.

I couldn't agree more!