College American Football
-
Bags, that was Matt Mauk, he won their first BCS title.
I asked Siri how Ole Miss did.
-
Congrats to yo cuz Ohyo
-
No idea
I love that Stanford has true student athletes but if you have a weak schedule you have to handle your business. I was glad to see that Louisville at least fell out of the top 15 after that loss.
-
We can discuss in hyperbole if you want but that was a bad a loss. They have an argument to be the top 1 loss team, (Clemson has a good argument too, at least they lost to a good team) they have two good wins but top 10 for losing to an unranked? I have to disagree. But hey, if they can beat Oregon then I'll eat those words.
-
I agree that Clemson losing to #5 FSU is much better than losing to Utah, on the road. Utah is not a terrible team, however. They have three loses to teams with a combined record of 15-4. Stanford strayed from their run first, run second, game plan against the Utes, and it cost them. They are big, strong, and play smart and physical. I think they are every bit a Top 10 team, but they won't beat Oregon.
-
You have to handle your business and they didn't. Their opponents are a combined 23-20 and they generally have had pretty weak schedules… Stanford has had a weak schedule to date, the meat of their schedule difficulty-wise is ahead of them. They will have an opportunity then to work their way back into the top 10, but right now they don't deserve it.
Not an east coaster nor biased. I like Stanford, if anything my bias would be in their favor.
-
Okay, it looks like we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. They beat 3 teams that were in the Top 25, when they played. Sure, they took a page out of the SEC's and Big 10's playbook and played cupcake Non-Conference games; but if you can name four teams outside of the Top 10 that are better, I'd really like to hear it.
-
Yeah, Washington was ranked. So what? It's clear they didn't deserve to be now; it was an artifact of bad preseason polling. We don't really know how good UCLA is yet either, impressive win against Nebraska but everyone else on their schedule is a joke.
Alabama, Florida State, Ohio State, Missou, Oregon, Auburn, Oregon State, Baylor, Clemson, Tx Tech, Miami, LSU, TAMU all have legitimate claims to be in the top 10, so I think it makes perfect sense that Stanford is out of it for now.
-
Let's do some math:
My Cougs played Auburn at Jordan Hare and threw a pick, at the end, to lose by a touchdown. They played Stanford at the Seahawks stadium and lost 55-17. I know comparing game-to-game is tough, but the disparity in talent was obvious.
A&M's best win was by a FG against your Rebels; not exactly world-beaters, sorry.
Baylor, a 3-4 West Virginia?
Miami, sure they beat Florida; but they're 4-3.
Clemson's best win is a 4-3 Georgia, by a FG; not impressed.
Tx Tech's best win is against that same 3-4 WV team.
LSU's best win is Auburn, and they've lost twice! How should they be ranked higher?
Oregon State lost to Eastern Washington at home– a D2 school. I would consider that a worse loss than at Utah.
Of all the one-loss teams, only one team has a win against a team in the Top 25 (Auburn; see above, they played the same opponent). Stanford has two wins against Top 25 teams; which lands them at #6.
Alabama, Florida State, Oregon, & Mizzou all deserve to be there. Buckeyes, sure; but I can't wait to watch them play someone decent in a bowl game and get stomped, as they usually do in Jan.
And for the Utah is a bad loss argument, how quick the SEC forgets that they can play football in Salt Lake. Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sugar_Bowl
Utah also beat BYU, who stomped all over Texas.
I hate the Huskies, but their losses are Stanford, Oregon, and ASU– a combined record of 18-3.
Edit: Thank God, we only have to do this for one more year. Bring on the Playoff!
