why florida will win BCS title game

[JT 137]

2001 -- Oklahome - FSU - FSU was going to walk in a title right ? FSU was thought to win easily.

2003 - Miami - OSU - Miami was supposed to destroy OSU right ?

2005 - Oklahoma - USC -- OU was supposed to roll over USC.

2006 - UT - USC -- USC was supposed to win ( though not as heavily favored as the othet teams I mentioned ) .

 

 

2005-USC was favored over Oklahoma.

 

Great made up theory, though!

[jpcdds 26]

We're talking about non-conference games here. Comparing these games to the Michigan/Penn State game makes no sense.

What I'm suggesting is very simple, and reasonable, and it's not hypothetical. There were 4 SEC/Pac-10 games this year. 3 were good for the SEC, 1 was bad. The bad one was clearly affected by injuries, including but not limited to Heisman candidate McFadden's injury. So, to dis the SEC based just on the score of the one game, as many people have done, is misleading, inaccurate, and stupid.

 

 

 

my point is....that if you need to give validity to SEC non conf wins vs unranked opponents then you need to give credit for Mich's win vs a unranked conf opp like PSU....since those teams are very similar...this in going along with the arguement that the Big 10 is the big 2 (or 3) and little 8 (or 7)...depending on your thoughts of wisconsin...

 

This is all I need to know to form my opinion that the SEC is an average conference. Arkansas played in the conference title game. The same Arkansas that has no QB and no passing offense what so ever. The fact that such a one dimensional team was able to have success in the SEC tells me a lot about the conference. The days of being one dimensional and winning left every other conference in America in the late 80's. Auburn also had success in SEC without being able to field a complete football team, as they can't pass either. This fact about the SEC alone amazes me. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other completely one-dimensional team in any other major conference that can win consistantly in football these days. This leads me to beleive that you can't do it in other conferences. It's most defensive coordinators dreams to make their opponent one-dimensional by taking away either the run or the pass. In the SEC, the defense doesn't have to take one away. The opponent already does that for them.

 

 

UM would crush Ark...no passing attack feeds right into the strength of UM's def...I'm thinking 31-7 or so...

[Grind 0]

my point is....that if you need to give validity to SEC non conf wins vs unranked opponents then you need to give credit for Mich's win vs a unranked conf opp like PSU....since those teams are very similar...this in going along with the arguement that the Big 10 is the big 2 (or 3) and little 8 (or 7)...depending on your thoughts of wisconsin...

UM would crush Ark...no passing attack feeds right into the strength of UM's def...I'm thinking 31-7 or so...

 

 

A lot of teams, outside the SEC, would crush Arkansas. This was pointed out early in the season in their game against USC. Yeah, Arkansas was missing a major player, but USC was breaking in a new QB and had to travel across the country. USC wasn't exactly a great team early in the year and shown by their struggles against average opponents. That said, they still smoked Arkansas the first game of the year. As for Arkansas, which was a muffled punt inside the five yard line away from winning the SEC, are they going to run right or are they going to run left? Very tough to defend. Yes, if you are playing a team with no talent, a team can still succeed in being one-dimensional. But absolutely no team with any sort of talent would have much difficulty defending a team such as Arkansas.

[Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2]

What I'm suggesting is very simple, and reasonable, and it's not hypothetical. There were 4 SEC/Pac-10 games this year. 3 were good for the SEC, 1 was bad. The bad one was clearly affected by injuries, including but not limited to Heisman candidate McFadden's injury. So, to dis the SEC based just on the score of the one game, as many people have done, is misleading, inaccurate, and stupid.

 

First -- I'm not dissing the SEC. I just think they are level with the other conferences.

 

Furthermore -- looking at your 4 little SEC/Pac10 games (all of which were played at home for the fearless SEC teams):

 

2 of them were a mighty SEC team versus a middle of the pack PAC 10 team

Auburn beat up on Washington State

LSU beat up on Arizona

 

That's hardly indicative of anything. It would be like USC romping Kentucky... There were 2 games pitting comparable SEC/Pac10 teams, and those games were split 1-1. And boo hoo to anyone playing the injury card -- I would be hard pressed to believe that McFadden single handedly accounts for 36 points... oh and Dwayne Jarrett wasn't 100% for USC, so you're right, the injuries weren't limited to Arkansas.

 

Hypotheticals are pure conjecture and are retarded. Otherwise, we could clearly establish that UofM is better than Florida based on their respective performances against a common opponent, Vanderbilt. But this is not a convenient argument for SEC fans in this instance, so I've already seen it dismissed, even though it is the most valid and reliable argument from a statistical perspective. And no I don't buy that crap, but if someone wants to suggest hypothetical scenarios, it's all-or-nothing; not just when it's convenient.

 

Let's get a playoff system, already...

[The Moz 69]

2005-USC was favored over Oklahoma.

 

Great made up theory, though!

 

OU was a 7 point favorite going into that game -- nice make believe on your own part there.

[PackYourNut 47]

I look at it this way:

 

If every SEC team played every Big Ten 10, Pac 10 or Big 12 teams, the SEC would win more games then they would lose against everyone of those conferences...

 

[Grind 0]

I look at it this way:

 

If every SEC team played every Big Ten 10, Pac 10 or Big 12 teams, the SEC would win more games then they would lose against everyone of those conferences...

 

 

 

Really? What makes you say this? You don't think teams in other conferences can stop a) run right or run left?

[PackYourNut 47]

Really? What makes you say this? You don't think teams in other conferences can stop a) run right or run left?

 

You must be pete and repeat... I read your other 5 posts... Try something original... and NO...NO...NO... I dont hink they could stop run left... run right...

 

Outside of the top two teams in each of those conferences, Arkansas would beat all of them....

 

Not sure where your argument comes from anyhow... It seems to me (and pretty much every other smart football person) the blue print to win championships is to RUN the ball and play GREAT defense.... HTH

[Grind 0]

You must be pete and repeat... I read your other 5 posts... Try something original... and NO...NO...NO... I dont hink they could stop run left... run right...

 

Outside of the top two teams in each of those conferences, Arkansas would beat all of them....

 

Not sure where your argument comes from anyhow... It seems to me (and pretty much every other smart football person) the blue print to win championships is to RUN the ball and play GREAT defense.... HTH

 

 

I will admit that formula worked great in college football in the 80's (Oklahoma and Nebraska come to mind). I don't remember USC or many other top college programs using that with much success since the 80's. Don't get me wrong though. I do agree that a good defense wins a lot. Of course, how do you judge a defense when they only are required to stop one facet of a football game?

[fatpatsfan 0]

I will admit that formula worked great in college football in the 80's (Oklahoma and Nebraska come to mind). I don't remember USC or many other top college programs using that with much success since the 80's. Don't get me wrong though. I do agree that a good defense wins a lot. Of course, how do you judge a defense when they only are required to stop one facet of a football game?

 

You sound like a broken record. Many teams have put 10 in the box and not stopped a healthy Mcfadden and Jones. (YPC 5.9 and 7.3 )

 

Oh and that Monk guy has nearly 1000 yards and 11 TDs this year

 

And to add to the USC/Arky game argument, it was also Arky's first game with a new OC, they had a current WR at QB, and they had 5 Turnovers, with many deep in their own territory. That game was a total aberration.

 

And, yes, I hate Arkansas.

[Grind 0]

You sound like a broken record. Many teams have put 10 in the box and not stopped a healthy Mcfadden and Jones. (YPC 5.9 and 7.3 )

 

Oh and that Monk guy has nearly 1000 yards and 11 TDs this year

 

And to add to the USC/Arky game argument, it was also Arky's first game with a new OC, they had a current WR at QB, and they had 5 Turnovers, with many deep in their own territory. That game was a total aberration.

 

And, yes, I hate Arkansas.

 

 

Oh. I get it now. McFadden runs right and some Monk guy runs left.

 

I suppose the Florida win over Arkansas was one of those aberrations you are talking about, considering Arkansas muffed a punt inside the ten yard line.

 

And, yes. I hate football teams that can't perform all facets of the game.

[Sho Nuff 720]

You must be pete and repeat... I read your other 5 posts... Try something original... and NO...NO...NO... I dont hink they could stop run left... run right...

 

Outside of the top two teams in each of those conferences, Arkansas would beat all of them....

 

Not sure where your argument comes from anyhow... It seems to me (and pretty much every other smart football person) the blue print to win championships is to RUN the ball and play GREAT defense.... HTH

 

Except when Arkansas gets their ass beat by Wiscons on new year's day. By a team that runs the ball and plays great defense.

[fatpatsfan 0]

Oh. I get it now. McFadden runs right and some Monk guy runs left.

 

I suppose the Florida win over Arkansas was one of those aberrations you are talking about, considering Arkansas muffed a punt inside the ten yard line.

 

And, yes. I hate football teams that can't perform all facets of the game.

 

No, dumbass Monk is a WR with 1,000 yards and 11 TDs RECEIVING

 

It's painfully obvious you don't watch them play so stfu

 

Arky is good, but UF is better, so no, no aberration here

 

1 muffed punt is not = to missing starting QB and RB, new OC and 5 TOs... sorry

 

Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it

 

Except when Arkansas gets their ass beat by Wiscons on new year's day. By a team that runs the ball and plays great defense.

 

How about when Arkansas beats Wiscy (which has only played ONE ranked team all year, and lost, pretty impressive), will you come back and B L O W me?

[Moss 0]

All of the arguments defending the SEC in general and Ark & Fla in particular miss the most obvious point. Fla is NOT in the national championship game because voters, fans, whoever like them better. It's because said people like Michigan WORSE.

 

After the Ohio St. game Michigan was still ranked #2 in the nation. Immediately all discussion arose about a rematch. It became quickly obvious that such a scenario was undesireable, from either a sense of fairplay or a consideration of TV ratings. Because of this, voters immediately looked at who could move pass Michigan.

 

The rest of the season was thus which team could overtake them. A number of candidates came to mind: Ark, Fla, USC, Notre Dame, and maybe an undefeated Rutgers. Michigan was forced to wait and hope that every other potential contender could lose in order to justify their position. The issue became NOT whether Michigan was good enough, it was whether every other contender was. Michigan, for their part, could do nothing to help themselves, they had finished their season and were ranked 2nd in the nation. Any other year that would have been good enough. But because of the potential rematch past rules ceased to apply...

 

Rutgers was blown out by Cincy, there goes a Big East candidate.

Arkansas lost to LSU, there goes their shot.

 

Fans nervously looked forward to USC-Notre Dame. The talk beforehand was already if USC won they would leapfrog Michigan. Notre Dame was a long shot, they had already been spanked by Michigan. Voters, pundits, and the media were all rooting for USC - someone had to emerge as the "NOT Michigan" candidate. To their relief, USC won.

 

But then the unthinkable happened. The leading "NOT Michigan" candidate lost, and to lowly UCLA at that. We needed a new "NOT Michigan" candidate. All that was left was Florida. Yes, if they won, they would get it. Even though, to date, they were still behind Michigan in the standings and Michigan still hadn't played since OSU. They rallied back to beat a one-dimensional two-loss team and the voters were satisfied, they could now confidently change their vote to Fla.

 

What does this whole charade prove? Was Michigan better than Florida? The Truth is, IT DOESN'T MATTER. TV got the game they wanted: Ohio St vs. NOT-Michigan. That is why Florida is there: they emerged as the only viable contender besides Michigan, every other choked down the stretch. And viable was enough this year.

 

Interesting questions emerge, however. If Florida had played BEFORE USC-UCLA, would they have passed Michigan in the rankings? What if Michigan had played AFTER everyone else? Or if Michigan-OSU were the FIRST game of the season?

 

In order to provide full disclosure, I live in Michigan, though I am (unfortunately) a Michigan St. fan, but in this case I am of course rooting for the Big 10. I am not "bitter" at the decision, in fact, given the above will of the media and voters that emerged after Michigan's lost I understood them dropping out of the title game to be inevitable. That being said, I think it sets a dangerous precedent in College Football, where TV ratings and voter happiness trumps seeing the two best teams play for the title. And yes, I say two best teams, based on the fact Michigan finished their season ranked #2. This is using a purely objective criteria. The only solution out of this is of course a playoff. This is probably two much to ask of Gator and Buckeye fans but I think the public should add significantly to the clamor of switching to a playoff by BOYCOTTING EVERY BCS GAME. DON'T WATCH ANY OF THEM!

 

Go Chips & Broncos! (they are the only Michigan teams I will watch)

[t.j 35]

Interesting questions emerge, however. If Florida had played BEFORE USC-UCLA, would they have passed Michigan in the rankings? What if Michigan had played AFTER everyone else? Or if Michigan-OSU were the FIRST game of the season?

 

That's hard to say. Florida played against their weakest opponent of the season during the same week that Michigan and USC both played their marquee conference games. If Florida had a different game the week Michigan lost, mayhbe they'd have been #2 right away instead of #4.

 

my point is....that if you need to give validity to SEC non conf wins vs unranked opponents then you need to give credit for Mich's win vs a unranked conf opp like PSU....since those teams are very similar...this in going along with the arguement that the Big 10 is the big 2 (or 3) and little 8 (or 7)...depending on your thoughts of wisconsin...

 

jpcdds, the point is that teams ranked 6th and 8th in the SEC beat teams ranked 2nd and 4th in the ACC. Michigan beating Penn State is dissimilar because 1) it tells you nothing outside of the conference, and also 2) you're talking about what the second-best team in the Big 10 was able to accomplish, and I'm talking about what average SEC teams were able to accomplish. Get it now?

 

This is all I need to know to form my opinion that the SEC is an average conference. Arkansas played in the conference title game. The same Arkansas that has no QB and no passing offense what so ever.

 

Says the guy who thought Marcus Monk and his 11 TDs were rushing, rather than receiving.

Furthermore, LSU is the second-best team in the SEC. Arkansas got to the SEC title game largely because Arkansas didn't play Florida prior to the conference title game, and LSU did. I look forward to JaMarcus Russell shredding the Fighting Irish.

 

First -- I'm not dissing the SEC. I just think they are level with the other conferences.

 

Furthermore -- looking at your 4 little SEC/Pac10 games (all of which were played at home for the fearless SEC teams):

 

2 of them were a mighty SEC team versus a middle of the pack PAC 10 team

Auburn beat up on Washington State

LSU beat up on Arizona

 

That's hardly indicative of anything. It would be like USC romping Kentucky... There were 2 games pitting comparable SEC/Pac10 teams, and those games were split 1-1. And boo hoo to anyone playing the injury card -- I would be hard pressed to believe that McFadden single handedly accounts for 36 points... oh and Dwayne Jarrett wasn't 100% for USC, so you're right, the injuries weren't limited to Arkansas.

 

Maroney, you make some good points. It is indeed important to consider which games are really comparable. Glad to see you diving in with some arguments rather than continuing to take potshots in every thread. A few things in response:

USC and Cal are the 1st and 2nd teams in the Pac Ten, whereas Arkansas and Tennessee are more like the 3rd and 5th best teams in the SEC. So that's something to consider when scoring those games as an even split (More on that later). As for the Auburn/WSU and LSU/Arizona games, the SEC is flattered that you compared Auburn and LSU to the Pac 10's best team in your analogy.

You are right that home field is a big deal and was an advantage for the SEC here. Home field advantage probably balances out the fact that Arkansas and Tennessee were not the best the SEC had to offer, but faced the best the Pac Ten had to offer. All in all, the SEC vs Pac 10 series was pretty even. I am just sick and tired of hearing about SEC critics talk about only the USC/Arkansas game, same as you are sick and tired of hearing SEC fans talk up their conference.

 

Anyway, I am weary of this whole discussion comparing teams and conferenes. People can't even agree on who to score each factor to, let alone how to weigh the factors. I'm looking forward to the bowl games!

[Laurence Maroney's Nuts 2]

Maroney, you make some good points... Anyway, I am weary of this whole discussion comparing teams and conferenes. People can't even agree on who to score each factor to, let alone how to weigh the factors. I'm looking forward to the bowl games!

 

Yeah, I'm not trying to slag on you; you seem pretty reasonable and obviously do your homework rather than just making inane statements. I do have to get little jabs in here and there though all in good fun.

 

Oh and I hardly do believe that USC-Ark game represents a comparison of the Pac10 v. SEC, btw.

 

All in all, I think the SEC is a fine conference. And even with all of my midwestern homerism, I would rate the SEC higher than the Big 10 this year, top to bottom -- but not necessarily head to head if choosing UofM versus Florida, if that makes sense???; and the SEC will probably come out of the bowls in good shape (well, aside from the big game ). I just really think there is a lot of parity from major conference to major conference, and find it difficult to suggest that one conference is WAY better than any other - That's not directed at you, but more so at anyone who claims that any conference is a level above the rest.

 

Let's get the bowls started already...

[Cuse9 129]

The game will be high scoring again.

 

OSU's defense is terrible, but their offense is stellar. Same ole, same ole.....if you want to beat OSU you'll have to put up 40+ and hope they don't score more.

 

My question is what happened to defense in college football? I didn't see one team this entire year that had a defense that was very good. The difference in college football this year between the good teams and the great teams is that the good teams put up 30+ per game and the great teams put up 40+!

 

OSU may have a bad D, but it's no worse than anything else that's out there.

 

As for the match up.....yes it should be Michigan, but having Florida vs OSU was the only way the BCS could halfazz save themselves. If (in a rematch) Mich would have beat OSU who would have been the champs.....Michigan? OSU? Florida? All three would have legit arguements to why they're #1.

 

In any event.........

 

Ohio State 45

Florida 31

 

Reasoning: Florida is a good young team that will prolly be back next year. OSU is a great veteran offensive team that knows how to get it done.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

How about when Arkansas beats Wiscy (which has only played ONE ranked team all year, and lost, pretty impressive), will you come back and B L O W me?

 

Not going to happen. And yes, they lost to the 2nd best team in the nation (dont get too crazy about UF...Michigan is better).

 

Arky might run a little bit on Wisky...but not a ton...and they will not be able to throw against them.

No matter...the big boys up front will keep McFadden off the field most of the game anyway.

 

 

 

The game will be high scoring again.

 

OSU's defense is terrible, but their offense is stellar. Same ole, same ole.....if you want to beat OSU you'll have to put up 40+ and hope they don't score more.

 

My question is what happened to defense in college football? I didn't see one team this entire year that had a defense that was very good. The difference in college football this year between the good teams and the great teams is that the good teams put up 30+ per game and the great teams put up 40+!

 

OSU may have a bad D, but it's no worse than anything else that's out there.

 

As for the match up.....yes it should be Michigan, but having Florida vs OSU was the only way the BCS could halfazz save themselves. If (in a rematch) Mich would have beat OSU who would have been the champs.....Michigan? OSU? Florida? All three would have legit arguements to why they're #1.

 

In any event.........

 

Ohio State 45

Florida 31

 

Reasoning: Florida is a good young team that will prolly be back next year. OSU is a great veteran offensive team that knows how to get it done.

 

 

I dont think UF has the offesive firepower to score 31 against OSU's defense.

 

Much of their offensive output this year came against their 3 weakest opponents.

[gold_finger 0]

OU was a 7 point favorite going into that game -- nice make believe on your own part there.

 

 

I'm almost positive USC was favored for that game. And a 7 point favorite isn't exactly the same as "OU was supposed to destroy USC". Not to mention Auburn should've been in the title game that year over OU IMO. Ronnie Brown and Rookie of the year Cadillac Williams in the same backfield > Fragile Adrian Peterson.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

OU was a 7 point favorite going into that game -- nice make believe on your own part there.

 

Ummm, nice try. USC went wire-to-wire as #1, and opened as a three point favourite over Oklahoma for that game. If you're implying that JT is lying, then please show where the line swung 10 points in Oklahoma's favor.

[The Moz 69]

 

even though I bet 100 bucks on OSU anyway to hedge my office pool i still won 400 bucks on Florida overall and I knew they would indeed win it all ! ! ( okay maybe not really knew but I had a strong hunch ). Now I am just pissed I bet the 100 on OSU today just to be n a win / win situation

 

go SEC

[The Moz 69]