What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Temple, yes, in the MAC. Not very credible argument, but I realize what you are saying.

And if you don't think Mississippi's defense is worthy of consideration, you haven't listened to Gary Danielson preach enough of that SEC butter. :D They will have some nice NFL draft choices come out of there, though.

Gary Danielson and Verne Lundquist are the reasons I don't watch college football on CBS.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

That's debatable.

The 24th rank in Sagarin is a fact. It's higher than Florida, Alabama, or Texas, though both FL and AL will be improving by playing one another next weekend (and TX will go up by playing NE, but probably not enough to catch us).

You traded the value of Stanford's good season for a traditionally better, but terrible Michigan, even if your team lost to both of them. Michigan State is an above average team on paper but badly underperformed this season compared to their pre-season press, which hurt your SoS.
I would somewhat disagree on MSU underperforming their pre-season press. They turned out to be more competent than it appeared they would be pre-season, where all we saw was that they were replacing both an outstanding RB and their starting QB.

Compared to pre-season press, I would say that the following teams were anywhere from better to MUCH better than expected: MSU, BC, Washington, UConn, Pitt, Stanford

USC was worse (though, at 11th, still pretty good), Michigan was somewhat worse.

Navy is an average team with an old option offense that no one knows how to defend anymore. The Irish should have beaten them at home. Purdue underperformed, no bowl. Washington is average, Wash St is bad. BC was pretty average, Nevada is decent, but from a non descript conference that is just starting to gain respect. U-Conn was average. That leaves the three teams that I described as carrying your schedule and you dropped all three games. Talk to me all you want about Sagarin, point is, the Irish won six games against average to below average teams, lost six games, three to teams that were better, and three that they had no business losing to,especially at home, if they were really bowl worthy.

There's a degree of difficulty in facing dangerous, 25-50 level teams every week without breaks. Opening with Nevada was good, and I think the WSU game in the middle of the season was a big help too. Purdue would have been a breather for us if three of our top four offensive players hadn't been hobbled or out.

At some point, how you rate the schedule comes down to how you rate a large number of decent teams vs. three or four outstanding teams and four or five teams that are absolute dreck. We only played one dreck, WSU, and two poor teams, Purdue (with the caveats about injuries above) and Michigan (who really wore down on offense).

The Sagarin rankings of our opponents is:
11 (Southern Cal) - 16 (Pitt) - 17 (Stanford) - 38 (BC) - 39 (UConn) - 50 (UW) - 52 (Navy) - 54 (Nevada) - 60 (MSU) - 76 (Purdue) - 87 (Michigan) - 121 (WSU)
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

I always wondered what happened to Baghdad Bob after Hussein was thrown out of power. Good to know he's moved from Islamic work to that of a Catholic college football team.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

There's a degree of difficulty in facing dangerous, 25-50 level teams every week without breaks.

So you're saying it's dangerous to play in a decent conference? I never would have guessed.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

I always wondered what happened to Baghdad Bob after Hussein was thrown out of power. Good to know he's moved from Islamic work to that of a Catholic college football team.

Either that or a former writer for Pravda. Pick one.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

I've watched every ND down this year with the thankful exception of missing the Pitt game, and I can categorically state that our D utterly sucks. If we had played the Monocacy Valley Central Maryland High School Conference schedule it would have sucked. (And Linganore would have lit us up for 40.)

A top 5 O plus a bottom 5 D equals 6-6 .500. That's a fairly intuitive result.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

The 24th rank in Sagarin is a fact. It's higher than Florida, Alabama, or Texas, though both FL and AL will be improving by playing one another next weekend (and TX will go up by playing NE, but probably not enough to catch us).

I'm not debating the legitimacy of Sagarin, although there are how many other rating systems that is used in the BCS? I'm stating that it's debatable on the degree of difficulty(w/bias noted) you are attributing your schedule.

I would somewhat disagree on MSU underperforming their pre-season press. They turned out to be more competent than it appeared they would be pre-season, where all we saw was that they were replacing both an outstanding RB and their starting QB.

On the contrary. They were projected to finish as high as second in some publications, most picked them third in the Big Ten. They have as good a drop back QB as there is in the Big Ten, and he had to split time for most of the year which is unfathomable. They also didn't have to play Ohio State this season, so coming in at 6-6 is distasteful to even the most apologetic MSU fan. It seems that their running game was replaced nicely. It was their defense that collapsed. The CMU loss at home was inexcusable, not because CMU isn't good, it is how they lost. Getting trucked by Minnesota was inexcusable. Losing on the road in South Bend in a close game is acceptable considering how well they have done down there. Penn State was better. Wisconsin was better. The Iowa game sucked all the wind out of them, even if they only proved to be one play better. They also had to go to OT after a defensive letdown in the 4th to beat Michigan. They really should have been 8-4, and some Spartans think 9-3. Instead, they had to count on a FBS win against Montana St, and wins against Mich, WMU, NW-probably their best win on record, Illinois,and end of season nailbiter at Purdue to be bowl eligible.

Compared to pre-season press, I would say that the following teams were anywhere from better to MUCH better than expected: MSU, BC, Washington, UConn, Pitt, Stanford

USC was worse (though, at 11th, still pretty good), Michigan was somewhat worse.

Huh? I already talked about MSU. BC has had a steady 7-8 win program for a few years. Washington was slightly better if anything because they beat USC. U-Conn has been a solid 7 win Big East team, if anything because of their schedule. Pitt was suppose to be good. Stanford was the only team that surprised anyone.

There's a degree of difficulty in facing dangerous, 25-50 level teams every week without breaks. Opening with Nevada was good, and I think the WSU game in the middle of the season was a big help too. Purdue would have been a breather for us if three of our top four offensive players hadn't been hobbled or out.

Is that the excuse for not being in a conference? Nevada was a good opener- and they got bombed by every decent team they played this season. Wazzou is horrible, every good team has a couple of these on their schedule. Purdue is never a breather, especially in West Lafayette. It's a rivalry game. Tate and Floyd do make a difference, but your team wasn't good enough defensively to truck any decent team even at full strength.

At some point, how you rate the schedule comes down to how you rate a large number of decent teams vs. three or four outstanding teams and four or five teams that are absolute dreck. We only played one dreck, WSU, and two poor teams, Purdue (with the caveats about injuries above) and Michigan (who really wore down on offense).

Purdue and Michigan were both 5-7 and one of them beat you. MSU was 6-6. Washington is 4-7 w/Cal pending. Navy (Army pending) and Nevada don't play anyone, so their records are inflated. U-Conn is 6-5 and should beat UCF, but their schedule is weak, too. That leaves 9-2 Pitt (w/Cincy left), 8-3 USC (w/Az left),8-4 BC and 8-4 Stanford.

The Sagarin rankings of our opponents is:
11 (Southern Cal) - 16 (Pitt) - 17 (Stanford) - 38 (BC) - 39 (UConn) - 50 (UW) - 52 (Navy) - 54 (Nevada) - 60 (MSU) - 76 (Purdue) - 87 (Michigan) - 121 (WSU)

What about the other rating systems... or is this the only one that works in ND's favor?
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Craig's response will come in when he gets it from Touchdown Jesus.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

I'm not debating the legitimacy of Sagarin, although there are how many other rating systems that is used in the BCS? I'm stating that it's debatable on the degree of difficulty(w/bias noted) you are attributing your schedule.

That's a fair point. I just checked Massey, and he not only doesn't like our schedule as much (35th right now, and 37th relative to all games scheduled and not just games played), he also likes AL and FL a lot more. I have no idea what the root of the big disagreement is (moreso on AL and FL than ND), and I wish I did know where it came from.

On the contrary. They were projected to finish as high as second in some publications, most picked them third in the Big Ten. They have as good a drop back QB as there is in the Big Ten, and he had to split time for most of the year which is unfathomable.
I stand corrected.

Huh? I already talked about MSU. BC has had a steady 7-8 win program for a few years.
But they came into the season without a QB and replacing some very good players in the front four. Although his play has been hit or miss, Shinskie has made their QB play a lot better than it looked like it would be coming into the season.

Washington was slightly better if anything because they beat USC.
Slightly? They went from being one of the worst teams in D1-A to being merely below average (and still competent enough to bite a solid USC team).

U-Conn has been a solid 7 win Big East team, if anything because of their schedule.
They're a better team than they're usually given credit for, between being in the Big East and being a new kid on the block.

Pitt was suppose to be good.
Pitt had some positives coming into the season, but big question marks on offense as they were replacing an outstanding RB in LeSean McCoy, and nobody was expecting Stull to be as good as he has been. I would have expected Pitt to be somewhere around 30th, and they're significantly better than that.

Is that the excuse for not being in a conference?
Huh? It was just a musing about the underrated difficulty of not facing the kind of creampuffs that teams like FL seem to use to populate their non-conference schedule. I don't see how conference membership comes into it.

Nevada was a good opener- and they got bombed by every decent team they played this season.
Which is what made them a good opener. They're marginally competent, but no threat if ND shows up.

Wazzou is horrible, every good team has a couple of these on their schedule.
Every good team has a couple of these on their schedule, but ND only had one.

Purdue is never a breather, especially in West Lafayette. It's a rivalry game.
Well, yeah, that's an issue with being ND that doesn't show up in anybody's strength of schedule. We seem to be a big game for everyone we play. Granted, I would assume that also carries with most Tier 1 schools.

Tate and Floyd do make a difference, but your team wasn't good enough defensively to truck any decent team even at full strength.
Floyd and Allen were out vs. Purdue, and Clausen only played somewhere in the neighborhood of half the game (and at reduced effectiveness).

What about the other rating systems... or is this the only one that works in ND's favor?

Massey:
14 (Pitt) - 16 (USC) - 25 (Stanford) - 40 (BC) - 44 (UConn) - 50 (Nevada) - 51 (Navy) - 69 (MSU) - 73 (UW) - 84 (Purdue) - 98 (Michigan) - 211 (Washington St)

More meh than Sagarin. About the only opponent Massey likes better is Pitt.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

While we're playing with stats, here's one:

Notre Dame has beaten 3 teams that finished above .500 over the past THREE YEARS. Boston College this year, Navy last year, and Nevada this year.

When Nevada makes up 33% of your 'quality' results, can you understand why people get fed up with all the national attention Notre Dame gets.

Imagine if every week there was a Fresno State game on NBC the last three years. People would be wondering what the heck was going on and why a halfway decent team that was nothing special was getting all this coverage. Or why anyone on such an average/mediocre team deserved people clamoring about the heisman.

The only difference would be that over those 3 years, Fresno State actually beat a real team in a bowl game.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Imagine if every week there was a Fresno State game on NBC the last three years. People would be wondering what the heck was going on and why a halfway decent team that was nothing special was getting all this coverage. Or why anyone on such an average/mediocre team deserved people clamoring about the heisman.

The only difference would be that over those 3 years, Fresno State actually beat a real team in a bowl game.
The only reason that ND is still on TV every week is the ND brand. It sells. Not only do Notre Dame fans watch the games, but a lot of Notre Dame haters watch the games just to watch them lose...don't like it? There are plenty of other channels to watch college football on on Saturday other then NBC.

NBC would show every Wyoming game if they had the national prominence on ND, but they don't.

And Jimmy Clausen should not be in the Heisman conversation. Even Golden Tate should only be mentioned as an also ran. I'd give it to Gerhart...
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings


Directly from Irishcentral.com

The source, who is a well-informed person of influence at Notre Dame, says the Cincinnati coach is the preferred choice for the job, and that he is expected to eventually sign a deal.

Yeah that still sounds like nothing more then hopeful thinking to me.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

While we're playing with stats, here's one:

Notre Dame has beaten 3 teams that finished above .500 over the past THREE YEARS. Boston College this year, Navy last year, and Nevada this year.

See that, we're on a tear. From 0 to 1 to 2. Nothing but blue and gold skies ahead.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

U-Conn has been a solid 7 win Big East team, if anything because of their schedule.

I clipped too much... but the next opponent is USF... and we're expecting snow in Arlington so Storrs should be fun. Also, I don't want to go game for game but most of those games were lost by thin margins. I'd also have to look at the schedule, but IIRC, it wasn't bad.

Another thing, and this is shoulda, woulda, coulda, but we lost our best cornerback (IIRC) mid-way through the season. We didn't just lose a player but a key player on that defense. Seeing how close some of those games were after the death I can't help but wonder what would have happened had he not had that incident (which is to say, not died and no injury).
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Right now, don't believe anything you see about the ND coaching search. The one thing well-connected people seem to be saying repeatedly is, nobody knows anything. Swarbrick and Jenkins appear to have this wrapped up very tightly, quite a refreshing show of competence after our last coaching search.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

Right now, don't believe anything you see about the ND coaching search. The one thing well-connected people seem to be saying repeatedly is, nobody knows anything. Swarbrick and Jenkins appear to have this wrapped up very tightly, quite a refreshing show of competence after our last coaching search.

Craig - I suspect we frequent the same ND sites and therefore I agree with your first statement...being somewhat cynical I do leave open the possibility that they were 'too ethical' and didn't get feelers out in advance and now are finding out that their supposed pool is being depleted because they didn't anticipate the defensive reactions from other schools to retain their guy.

I'd like to think Swarbrick is smarter than that but the last coaching search was conducted by 'smart' people with tons of experience and they ended up with O'Leary then Weis.

It isn't inconceivable that they were anticipating being able to choose between Gruden, Stoops, Kelly, Patterson, Meyer, Fitzgerald etc and now have found that no means no. Sure many ND fans are saying that no only means 'until my agent works out a deal', but it could mean 'no' also.

They may realize that arrogance aside, Weis was a well respected guy in football and now half the nation hates him solely because he was the ND coach and that venue offers the most visibility, which could be good or bad for the rest of your life...if you have a decent gig at Northwestern or Cincy (and can't get a NFL coordinator job if you get fired), why take the risk that the admin will tie your hands and find you can't get enough depth to succeed agains the USC, FL, TX teams that don't turn down Carson Palmer for low SAT scores. The fanbase and the media expect you to compete with those teams; sure it would be smart to also beat the UConn's on the schedule;)

At Cincy you can go 7-5 next year and get a pass. At ND that will get you on the 'how soon before we fire this guy?' list. Once a coach gets on that list only 11-1 and a BCS win will get him off it.

If those guys can make 25% more at ND over the next 4 years but have a 50% risk of being unemployable for a few years after getting canned, then maybe staying where you are makes sense.

Just one opinion.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Bowl College Stupidity Rankings

I don't think being head coach at Notre Dame is ever a resume killer. :p

Also: as each post-Holtz coach has failed, the appreciation by the rest of the football community in what success at ND means (lately, "would mean") has increased. Nobody will ever be able to convince the ND alumni that national championships aren't their entitlement, but everybody who matters -- presidents and ADs tendering contracts -- has figured out that 1200 student-athletes are going to have a rough time against 900 athlete-students.

Weis is certainly the most reviled of the ex-ND coaches, but he brought that on himself with his titanic arrogance. Unless they were to hire another circus act (cough Gruden uncough), that would not be an inevitable issue.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top