2009 College Football Thread

[Richard Chuggar]

Iowa is the Baldwins of Oasis.

Really?  I thought they were the Offices of the Modern Families?

[SKO]

Record vs. BCS opponents from other conferences:
Big Ten: 3-6 (.333%)
Big 12: 4-7 (.363%)
(the head to head is 1-0 Big 12, but I won't count that against you since it was Mizzou-Ill)

Maybe I misunderstood, but doesn't Iowa's 35-3 win over Iowa State in Ames count as a head to head matchup?

It does, and I counted in when composing each team's w-l against other BCS conferences, I just missed it when I was looking at this year's head to head, so yeah, it's 1-1, with the two losers being Illinois and Iowa State. I'm sure both conferences would ask that you not take that as representative of the conference as a whole.

Hmph. You tried to sneak that one by them but it didn't work. They're watching you. LIKE A HAWK, SON!

I also made a typo when saying the Big 12 was 2-0 against the Big Ten in bowls last year. They were 3-0. I did count it right in the overall, so still a 9-3 Big 12 advantage.

Yeah. Again: Last year, SKO. LAST year.

Right. Now that Iowa's on top, this conference is legit, and the years of data which point to them sucking eggs can be thrown out. In fact, the conference has clearly improved so much that Iowa's gritty wins over lesser opponents should count like ten times more than the complete dominance Texas has shown in nearly every game this season.  64-7 over UTEP? Any schlep could do that, and it's sure as hell not classy (nevermind that UTEP beat Houston, a ranked team, the next weekend, they suck), but I gotta tell ya, 24-21 over Arkansas State? The mark of greatness is winning the close ones.  GO HAWKEYES!

[Dave B]

Man, SKO has a pretty strong anti-Iowa obsession going. You'd think he was going to team up with Deon Thomas and knock off Bruce Pearl.  

Nobody here has described their schedule as a " fucking gauntlet". In fact, I hate the fact that Iowa State winning is helping their opponents' winning percentage. I'd just as soon see them go 0-for. It's pretty much mandated that they play the Cyclowns annually. And ISU boosts their ticket prices to something like $90 for that game in the years they host Iowa, and force ticket buyers for that game to also purchase a ticket for a November game against a shitty Big 12 opponent. So Iowa is basically subsidizing their football program. Same with UNI, who I'm sure gets a pretty good pay-out to drive a couple of hours south.

That said, if Iowa somehow pulls off a win at Ohio State and doesn't stumble at home against Indiana, Northwestern, or Minnesota, that makes them 12-0. And if the other stuff plays out, an undefeated Big 10 team is pretty impressive.  

[SKO]

Man, SKO has a pretty strong anti-Iowa obsession going. You'd think he was going to team up with Deon Thomas and knock off Bruce Pearl.  

Nobody here has described their schedule as a " fucking gauntlet". In fact, I hate the fact that Iowa State winning is helping their opponents' winning percentage. I'd just as soon see them go 0-for. It's pretty much mandated that they play the Cyclowns annually. And ISU boosts their ticket prices to something like $90 for that game in the years they host Iowa, and force ticket buyers for that game to also purchase a ticket for a November game against a shitty Big 12 opponent. So Iowa is basically subsidizing their football program. Same with UNI, who I'm sure gets a pretty good pay-out to drive a couple of hours south.

That said, if Iowa somehow pulls off a win at Ohio State and doesn't stumble at home against Indiana, Northwestern, or Minnesota, that makes them 12-0. And if the other stuff plays out, an undefeated Big 10 team is pretty impressive.  

It's true, I hate Iowa. My bias completely discounts all those, like, statistics and stuff. An undefeated team in any conference is pretty impressive, and I'm not saying Iowa's Not a good team. But Texas is better, and a 13-0 Texas team that has demolished competition in a better conference would have Far more merit as a national title team than Iowa.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I also made a typo when saying the Big 12 was 2-0 against the Big Ten in bowls last year. They were 3-0. I did count it right in the overall, so still a 9-3 Big 12 advantage.

Last year, the Cubs won 97 games.  Should they have gotten credit for that this year?

Maybe Illinois should have the death penalty on them today for football because of Hart Lee Dykes.

Then again, such might not actually be a penalty.

[World B Free]

I also made a typo when saying the Big 12 was 2-0 against the Big Ten in bowls last year. They were 3-0. I did count it right in the overall, so still a 9-3 Big 12 advantage.

Last year, the Cubs won 97 games.  Should they have gotten credit for that this year?

Maybe Illinois should have the death penalty on them today for football because of Hart Lee Dykes.

Then again, such might not actually be a penalty.

No, you will just be forced to keep Zook as head coach.  That's enough punishment.

What is it with that guy?  Great recruiter, but in game coaching?  Not so much.

[SKO]

I also made a typo when saying the Big 12 was 2-0 against the Big Ten in bowls last year. They were 3-0. I did count it right in the overall, so still a 9-3 Big 12 advantage.

Last year, the Cubs won 97 games.  Should they have gotten credit for that this year?

Maybe Illinois should have the death penalty on them today for football because of Hart Lee Dykes.

Then again, such might not actually be a penalty.

Alright, fine. I'll just go ahead and repost this part then:

And as for Texas vs. Iowa, or more appropriately the Big Ten vs. the Big 12:
Big Ten: 3 ranked teams (#7 Iowa, #12 Penn State, #17 Ohio State)
Big 12: 3 ranked teams (#3 Texas, #13 Oklahoma State, #22 Oklahoma)

Record vs. BCS opponents from other conferences:
Big Ten: 3-6 (.333%)
Big 12: 4-7 (.363%)

Current # of Teams with Winning Record:
Big Ten: 6 (Iowa, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern)
Big 12: 10 (Texas, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa State)

and this one:

Not to mention they've played only one more sub .500 team than Iowa has, they play in a stronger conference, and they have a much larger margin of victory (beating their opponents by an avg. of 28 ppg vs. Iowa's 8 ppg), and while the BCS computers may not take that into account, the pollsters will. They score more points than Iowa (41.8 vs 23.6), they allow fewer points (13.5 to 14.8), they outgain them by almost  100 ypg (438 to 342), and they allow fewer yards (237 to 296). The only argument Iowa has in its favor is the winning % of it's opponents, but as I've said, the big variable in that is the strength of the conferences. So yeah, other than past performance, conference strength, and that every major statistical category favors Texas, plus the fact that an undefeated Texas would have 13 wins instead of 12, Iowa should Certainly be ahead of them for national title contention.

So there, tell me, based just on This year, why Iowa, which would be 12-0 and is behind Texas in every statistical category, should CERTAINLY go to the title game over a 13-0 Texas? Do explain.

[Internet Apex]

I also made a typo when saying the Big 12 was 2-0 against the Big Ten in bowls last year. They were 3-0. I did count it right in the overall, so still a 9-3 Big 12 advantage.

Last year, the Cubs won 97 games.  Should they have gotten credit for that this year?

Maybe Illinois should have the death penalty on them today for football because of Hart Lee Dykes.

Then again, such might not actually be a penalty.

Alright, fine. I'll just go ahead and repost this part then:

And as for Texas vs. Iowa, or more appropriately the Big Ten vs. the Big 12:
Big Ten: 3 ranked teams (#7 Iowa, #12 Penn State, #17 Ohio State)
Big 12: 3 ranked teams (#3 Texas, #13 Oklahoma State, #22 Oklahoma)

Record vs. BCS opponents from other conferences:
Big Ten: 3-6 (.333%)
Big 12: 4-7 (.363%)

Current # of Teams with Winning Record:
Big Ten: 6 (Iowa, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern)
Big 12: 10 (Texas, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa State)

and this one:

Not to mention they've played only one more sub .500 team than Iowa has, they play in a stronger conference, and they have a much larger margin of victory (beating their opponents by an avg. of 28 ppg vs. Iowa's 8 ppg), and while the BCS computers may not take that into account, the pollsters will. They score more points than Iowa (41.8 vs 23.6), they allow fewer points (13.5 to 14.8), they outgain them by almost  100 ypg (438 to 342), and they allow fewer yards (237 to 296). The only argument Iowa has in its favor is the winning % of it's opponents, but as I've said, the big variable in that is the strength of the conferences. So yeah, other than past performance, conference strength, and that every major statistical category favors Texas, plus the fact that an undefeated Texas would have 13 wins instead of 12, Iowa should Certainly be ahead of them for national title contention.

So there, tell me, based just on This year, why Iowa, which would be 12-0 and is behind Texas in every statistical category, should CERTAINLY go to the title game over a 13-0 Texas? Do explain.

Because it's fun to read about football teams. And the easiest way to get good material is to poke you with a stick. The Big 12 is a JOKE!

[Chuck to Chuck]

So there, tell me, based just on This year, why Iowa, which would be 12-0 and is behind Texas in every statistical category, should CERTAINLY go to the title game over a 13-0 Texas? Do explain.

Because Iowa has beaten more ranked opponents.  And most of those were on the road.

Penn State was #5 when played.  Wisconsin was #25 when played.  Ohio State looks to be in the mid teens when they play them.

Then you note that Arizona is now #22.

That's 4.

Who has Texas played?  Oklahoma at home and got a 3 point win.  Big whup.  That's it.

If Texas wins this week, they have a matching feather for Iowa's Penn State win.

[Dave B]

Texas has played TWO road games so far this year: at Wyoming and at Missouri. Not exactly the "fucking gauntlet" of going to Iowa St., Penn St., Wisconsin, and Michigan St. (not to mention a trip to Ohio St. in a few weeks). The Longhorns go to #13 Okie St this week, so that will be a challenge.

[Philberto]

So there, tell me, based just on This year, why Iowa, which would be 12-0 and is behind Texas in every statistical category, should CERTAINLY go to the title game over a 13-0 Texas? Do explain.

Because Iowa has beaten more ranked opponents.  And most of those were on the road.

Penn State was #5 when played.  Wisconsin was #25 when played.  Ohio State looks to be in the mid teens when they play them.

Then you note that Arizona is now #22.

That's 4.

Who has Texas played?  Oklahoma at home and got a 3 point win.  Big whup.  That's it.

If Texas wins this week, they have a matching feather for Iowa's Penn State win.

Should "when played" count? Because I would assume that if they've fallen out of the top 25 then they might just be a bad team and their ranking was previously inflated. I would say looking at their opponents ranking now is better.

[Slaky]

So there, tell me, based just on This year, why Iowa, which would be 12-0 and is behind Texas in every statistical category, should CERTAINLY go to the title game over a 13-0 Texas? Do explain.

Because Iowa has beaten more ranked opponents.  And most of those were on the road.

Penn State was #5 when played.  Wisconsin was #25 when played.  Ohio State looks to be in the mid teens when they play them.

Then you note that Arizona is now #22.

That's 4.

Who has Texas played?  Oklahoma at home and got a 3 point win.  Big whup.  That's it.

If Texas wins this week, they have a matching feather for Iowa's Penn State win.

Should "when played" count? Because I would assume that if they've fallen out of the top 25 then they might just be a bad team and their ranking was previously inflated. I would say looking at their opponents ranking now is better.

And does being ranked #25 mean something when you barely beat NIU at home? Wisconsin fucking blows.

[Philberto]

So there, tell me, based just on This year, why Iowa, which would be 12-0 and is behind Texas in every statistical category, should CERTAINLY go to the title game over a 13-0 Texas? Do explain.

Because Iowa has beaten more ranked opponents.  And most of those were on the road.

Penn State was #5 when played.  Wisconsin was #25 when played.  Ohio State looks to be in the mid teens when they play them.

Then you note that Arizona is now #22.

That's 4.

Who has Texas played?  Oklahoma at home and got a 3 point win.  Big whup.  That's it.

If Texas wins this week, they have a matching feather for Iowa's Penn State win.

Should "when played" count? Because I would assume that if they've fallen out of the top 25 then they might just be a bad team and their ranking was previously inflated. I would say looking at their opponents ranking now is better.

And does being ranked #25 mean something when you barely beat NIU at home? Wisconsin fucking blows.

Addressing the fact that the rankings suck is probably something I should have touched, too.

[SKO]

So there, tell me, based just on This year, why Iowa, which would be 12-0 and is behind Texas in every statistical category, should CERTAINLY go to the title game over a 13-0 Texas? Do explain.

Because Iowa has beaten more ranked opponents.  And most of those were on the road.

Penn State was #5 when played.  Wisconsin was #25 when played.  Ohio State looks to be in the mid teens when they play them.

Then you note that Arizona is now #22.

That's 4.

Who has Texas played?  Oklahoma at home and got a 3 point win.  Big whup.  That's it.

If Texas wins this week, they have a matching feather for Iowa's Penn State win.

When played? Well hell, lets start counting rankings from arbitrary places in the season. Oklahoma was #3 to start the year, and Texas beat them at a neutral site. Texas Tech was at #21 for a while, Missouri was #24 for a while, so you add all that up and suddenly they've played the same number of ranked teams. Also, this whole argument has been if an undefeated, 12-0 Iowa team in a weaker conference should play the national title game over a 13-0, undefeated Texas team. There's no rational argument that can be made for that. If Iowa really wanted to look like a national title contender, they could have beaten patsies like UNI or Arkansas State better than 17-16 or 24-21. The fact of the matter is that Texas has absolutely dominated in games it should have dominated, and has only looked unimpressive against Oklahoma, and believe me, if you're defending Iowa, "they only beat Oklahoma by 3 points!" is sure as hell Not the argument you want to make, because believe it or not a 3 point win over Oklahoma at a neutral site is more impressive than a 3 point home win over Arkansas State.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Addressing the fact that the rankings suck is probably something I should have touched, too.

Agreed.  Humans vote passions.  Let's just use data and impartial computers.

Anyone know where we could get that data?