2009 College Football Thread

[Chuck to Chuck]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

Because it's not entertaining to watch Goliath pummel David. A win against a small school doesn't prove anything no matter how many points they score.

Yep, why should Florida get bonus points for humiliating Florida International while somebody else is penalized for a close victory over a conference rival.

So, do you think undefeated Iowa would deserve to play in the championship game over undefeated Florida/Alabama and Texas?

Yes.

Certainly over Texas.

[SKO]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

Because it's not entertaining to watch Goliath pummel David. A win against a small school doesn't prove anything no matter how many points they score.

Yep, why should Florida get bonus points for humiliating Florida International while somebody else is penalized for a close victory over a conference rival.

So, do you think undefeated Iowa would deserve to play in the championship game over undefeated Florida/Alabama and Texas?

Yes.

Certainly over Texas.

Do explain why Iowa should get in over an undefeated team in a tougher conference that went 11-1 last year and defeated one of the BCS Big Ten teams. I eagerly await your response.

[JD]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

Because it's not entertaining to watch Goliath pummel David. A win against a small school doesn't prove anything no matter how many points they score.

Yep, why should Florida get bonus points for humiliating Florida International while somebody else is penalized for a close victory over a conference rival.

So, do you think undefeated Iowa would deserve to play in the championship game over undefeated Florida/Alabama and Texas?

Yes.

You're just being contrary!

[JD]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

Because it's not entertaining to watch Goliath pummel David. A win against a small school doesn't prove anything no matter how many points they score.

Yep, why should Florida get bonus points for humiliating Florida International while somebody else is penalized for a close victory over a conference rival.

So, do you think undefeated Iowa would deserve to play in the championship game over undefeated Florida/Alabama and Texas?

Yes.

Certainly over Texas.

Do explain why Iowa should get in over an undefeated team in a tougher conference that went 11-1 last year and defeated one of the BCS Big Ten teams. I eagerly await your response.

Come on now.  Don't let him bait you.  You're better than that, kid.

[SKO]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

Because it's not entertaining to watch Goliath pummel David. A win against a small school doesn't prove anything no matter how many points they score.

Yep, why should Florida get bonus points for humiliating Florida International while somebody else is penalized for a close victory over a conference rival.

So, do you think undefeated Iowa would deserve to play in the championship game over undefeated Florida/Alabama and Texas?

Yes.

Certainly over Texas.

Do explain why Iowa should get in over an undefeated team in a tougher conference that went 11-1 last year and defeated one of the BCS Big Ten teams. I eagerly await your response.

Especially a team that would have to play the Big 12 title game, giving them one more victory than Iowa could manage.

[CT III]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

Because it's not entertaining to watch Goliath pummel David. A win against a small school doesn't prove anything no matter how many points they score.

Yep, why should Florida get bonus points for humiliating Florida International while somebody else is penalized for a close victory over a conference rival.

So, do you think undefeated Iowa would deserve to play in the championship game over undefeated Florida/Alabama and Texas?

Yes.

You're just being contrary!

I never could fool you, JD.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Do explain why Iowa should get in over an undefeated team in a tougher conference that went 11-1 last year and defeated one of the BCS Big Ten teams. I eagerly await your response.

Wait:  Last year?  WTF does last year have to do with anything?

[SKO]

Do explain why Iowa should get in over an undefeated team in a tougher conference that went 11-1 last year and defeated one of the BCS Big Ten teams. I eagerly await your response.

Wait:  Last year?  WTF does last year have to do with anything?

Quite a bit in college football, actually. When you have a large group of returning players, like Texas does, from a team that went 11-1, like Texas did, that beat a Big Ten team in a bowl game, which Texas did, and then starts the next season at #2 and is undefeated, that places them ahead of an upstart team in a weak conference, like Iowa. If they blew this year, then yes, last year wouldn't matter, but since they've basically picked up from where they left off that weighs in as part of the polling process. In a land with a playoff that wouldn't matter, but to act like it doesn't matter in college football is downright foolish. Besides, if Texas finishes undefeated Iowa won't make it to the title game. The team that plays most recently (i.e., the team from a conference with a title game), will always earn more BCS points. Also, last year, and in fact every year since 2002, the last time the Big Ten had a winning season in postseason play, contibutes to the evidence for the downward trend in the competitiveness of the Big Ten. Also, I realize it wasn't you, but GoDR or Dave B used the win over South Carolina as proof that Iowa could handle a faster SEC opponent, so I figured turnabout was fair play. I'm not saying last year is more important than this year, but all things being equal (well, not all things, just # of losses), Texas recent performance will be a factor, and you're downright thick if you don't think that.

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.

[SKO]

DPD- And while I'm at it, I broke down Iowa's fabled opponents' winning %, and if you look at their opponents records against FBS schools, that winning % drops down to .577. If you take a look at their records against schools from the 6 BCS conferences that drops down to .500. So it's not exactly a fucking gauntlet.

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)

Bowls Record Last Year:
Big Ten: 1-6, 0-2 BCS, 0-3 vs. Big 12
Big 12: 4-3, 1-1 BCS, 3-0 vs. Big 10

Since 2002 (the last time the Big Ten had a winning postseason record)
Big Ten: 15-28 (.348%)
Big 12: 23-23 (.500%)

Since 2002, BCS Bowl Game Records:
Big Ten: 3-8 (.273%)
Big 12: 4-5 (.444%)

Head to Head, Big Ten vs. Big 12 in Bowl Games Since 2002:
9-3 in favor of the Big 12, with a 2-1 advantage over the Big Ten in BCS matchups.

[BigDrinky]

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?

[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.

[Internet Apex]

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!

[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.

[BH]

Iowa is the Baldwins of Oasis.

[Internet Apex]

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.