PDA

View Full Version : go eagles



dukie8
10-25-2007, 11:21 PM
it looks like we may have an acc team in the bcs game. cha-ching for duke football...

Channing
10-25-2007, 11:53 PM
the end of that game was ridiculous. Matt Ryan basically did what J-Wil did against UMD in 01 - had a miserable game, and then when it got to be crunch time, turned it on and made some fantastic plays (ok - not as dramatic as Jwil, but same idea)

VaDukie
10-25-2007, 11:58 PM
Matt Ryan should write VT Defense a thank you note; he just won the Heisman.

Troublemaker
10-26-2007, 12:20 AM
Whoa there, on both the BCS game and the Heisman. BC's next 4 games: FSU, at Maryland, at Clemson, Miami-Fla. Then, they have to win the ACC championship game.

All winnable games, but all losable games as well. I do think tonight was the single toughest test but there are more tough tests ahead.

Matt Ryan's a winner, though.

dukemomLA
10-26-2007, 05:13 AM
Sort of rooting for B.C. because of the ACC connections and $$ to the ACC. Then again, my niece (godchild) graduated from Vt Tech not so long ago....

The end of the game was ridiculous. I guess VT deserved to lose. "Beamer Ball" needs some adjustment. Ya think? The old adage of VT Defense ain't what is used to be.

dukie8
10-26-2007, 07:05 AM
Sort of rooting for B.C. because of the ACC connections and $$ to the ACC. Then again, my niece (godchild) graduated from Vt Tech not so long ago....

The end of the game was ridiculous. I guess VT deserved to lose. "Beamer Ball" needs some adjustment. Ya think? The old adage of VT Defense ain't what is used to be.

was that va tech's version of stall ball?

yes, bc's remaining schedule isn't easy but the same goes for all of the teams left in the bcs mix.

Highlander
10-26-2007, 08:46 AM
Sort of rooting for B.C. because of the ACC connections and $$ to the ACC. Then again, my niece (godchild) graduated from Vt Tech not so long ago....

The end of the game was ridiculous. I guess VT deserved to lose. "Beamer Ball" needs some adjustment. Ya think? The old adage of VT Defense ain't what is used to be.

My thoughts:
1) Va Tech changed their defensive strategy and started going into a prevent defense. Ryan actually had time to throw for the first time all night and picked them apart. Poor job by the Hokies of not staying with what got you there.
2) BC's special teams were awesome. Eddie Royal was a non-factor, no punts were blocked, and their punter just flat out boomed it all night. Throw in the recovery of the onsides kick, and they out-Beamer Ball'd VT.

That being said, VT should have found a way to make one more play and win the game. I think the "Gone in 54 seconds" analogy is pretty fitting. Only difference here is that this game didn't go into overtime.

rthomas
10-26-2007, 08:52 AM
That was one boring football game. Snoozer. I missed the end.

Troublemaker
10-26-2007, 09:44 AM
My thoughts:
1) Va Tech changed their defensive strategy and started going into a prevent defense. Ryan actually had time to throw for the first time all night and picked them apart. Poor job by the Hokies of not staying with what got you there.
2) BC's special teams were awesome. Eddie Royal was a non-factor, no punts were blocked, and their punter just flat out boomed it all night. Throw in the recovery of the onsides kick, and they out-Beamer Ball'd VT.

That being said, VT should have found a way to make one more play and win the game. I think the "Gone in 54 seconds" analogy is pretty fitting. Only difference here is that this game didn't go into overtime.

That is exactly right. VT started to rush 3 and for the first time all night, BC's o-line could block them, and even when they couldn't, Matt Ryan can sidestep and scramble away from 3.

Given time, Ryan got into a rhythm and was able to throw his beautiful arcs again. Both TD passes were beauties.

Olympic Fan
10-26-2007, 09:52 AM
I think last night's game did a heck of a lot more for Ryan's Heisman chances than it did for BC's chances of playing in the BCS title game.

For Ryan, the comeback is one of those defining moments -- like the field goal Spurrier kicked against Auburn or Flutie's Hail Mary -- that crystalize a close race. In a year when there is no clearcut Heisman favorite, I believe last night's heroics stamped Ryan as the frontrunner.

He still has to play well the rest of the way, but that doesn't mean he has to win out to win the Heisman. If he has a big offensive day in a loss, he'd still be okay. And besides, those last four games aren't as formidable as they look at first glance. Miami, FSU and Maryland are all VERY mediocre teams. Only at Clemson is really threatening.

Of course, that's the problem for BC and the BCS. Their schedule stinks. I haven't heard any postgame commentary yet, but I'll be shocked if I don't hear "experts" comparing LSU's demolition of VPI with BC's narrow win. To me, that's unfair -- teams play at different levels, week to week -- but there will also be strength of schedule issues -- and those are fair arguments. BC's overall schedule (and Ohio State's for that matter) is much, MUCH weaker than what LSU, Oklahoma and Florida are facing.

It's possible that LSU -- with one loss -- could jump unbeaten BC in the standings at some point.

We'll see ... keep in mind that both teams also have conference championship games that will come into play. BC could face Va Tech again (Virginia leads the division, but they've still got to play VPI, so the last game of the year could very well decide the division). LSU and Florida could meet in the SEC -- that would give the winner a real boost in the polls.

throatybeard
10-26-2007, 11:16 AM
Rooting for BC because they represent the ACC is like, um, like watching Dukes of Hazzard because your really like Coy and Vance.

This hardly puts BC in the title game. Their conference schedule is totally back-loaded, with 4 conceivably losable games.

What I haven't been able to figure out is if UVA is for real. VT could get into the ACCCG if UVA falters and BC might have to deal with them again.

throatybeard
10-26-2007, 11:18 AM
The end of the game was ridiculous. I guess VT deserved to lose. "Beamer Ball" needs some adjustment. Ya think? The old adage of VT Defense ain't what is used to be.

I don't think so. Their D was great for 56 minutes. Then they went into a soft prevent and boom. Stall ball indeed.

Stray Gator
10-26-2007, 01:38 PM
Ryan looked pretty good...for two minutes, against an exhausted defense playing loose prevent. For the first 58 minutes, his performance was no better than the average backup for most SEC teams. His Heisman stock may go up because of that last two minutes and the shameless cheerleading of the ESPN announcing crew (including homeboy Doug Flutie), but I'm guessing his passing efficiency rating will drop even further based on the overall game performance.

There's still a lot of college football and many huge games to be played; but can anyone seriously dispute that so far the best player on a consistent basis against solid competition week-to-week has been Tim Tebow, who has not only lived up to, but surpassed, the enormous expectations? I've had the pleasure of watching every game this kid has played--in person for all home games at the Swamp, the SEC Championship Game, the BCS Championship Game, and many regular season away games (at LSU and at Kentucky, most recently). As an avid college football fan who has followed the sport since the days of Bud Wilkinson and Joe Bellino, I can honestly say I've never seen another player who comes closer to combining all the talents (strength, speed, running, passing) and personal attributes (fierce competitor with strong leadership, but also genuinely modest and respectful, with great team spirit and sportsmanship) you'd want in a football player. Unless he falters down the stretch, the only reason he won't win the Heisman is because of the reluctance of some to vote for a sophomore, and maybe a bit of regional bias.

Troublemaker
10-26-2007, 01:57 PM
Love Tebow. He's everything you say, and he's like the Redick of CFB wrt the hatred he musters around the country.

About Matt Ryan, though, don't start to think that he's overrated or not worthy of the Heisman because he struggled for most of the game last night. First off, pass efficiency rating is not a good way to rate a QB, and even though Ryan's is really good, it won't be the best because he's surrounded by very little talent. He has scrappy receivers but they are nowhere near the talents that Fla's receivers are, and you saw what happened last night when BC's o-line came up against a good d-line. They were thrown around like rag dolls. Again, Tebow has a much, much better o-line in front of him as well.

Here's my take on Matt Ryan. He is better than Brohm, better than Woodson, MUCH better than Henne or any other senior QB. It will be a mistake when he slips to the bottom of the first round or into the second because he is the best QB in this draft and a future Pro Bowler. He has a huge brain in his head, great field vision, a strong arm, touch, charisma and leadership, and even though he doesn't have great wheels, he knows the Brady-esque tricks to slidestep and evade the rush.

I read an article recently about how the real reason Manning and Brady are so much better than any other NFL QB is because of their pre-snap reads. Matt Ryan is cut from the same mold because of his intelligence. Tom O'Brien has said that Ryan is easily the best QB he's ever coached, and the stable of QBs he's coached includes Pro-Bowler Matt Hasselbeck. So yes, Ryan struggled in the face of a ferocious pass rush last night that was on top of him virtually at the snap, but once VT allowed him to get into his rhythm by rushing only 3, Ryan cut right through that defense like warm butter. There are very few QBs that could've led both TD drives under such time pressure, on the road, against a well-lubricated, loud night crowd.

VaDukie
10-26-2007, 02:33 PM
Ryan did not perform early because of inclement weather, or at least I think so.

Stray Gator
10-26-2007, 02:55 PM
Love Tebow. He's everything you say, and he's like the Redick of CFB wrt the hatred he musters around the country.

About Matt Ryan, though, don't start to think that he's overrated or not worthy of the Heisman because he struggled for most of the game last night. First off, pass efficiency rating is not a good way to rate a QB, and even though Ryan's is really good, it won't be the best because he's surrounded by very little talent. He has scrappy receivers but they are nowhere near the talents that Fla's receivers are, and you saw what happened last night when BC's o-line came up against a good d-line. They were thrown around like rag dolls. Again, Tebow has a much, much better o-line in front of him as well.

Here's my take on Matt Ryan. He is better than Brohm, better than Woodson, MUCH better than Henne or any other senior QB. It will be a mistake when he slips to the bottom of the first round or into the second because he is the best QB in this draft and a future Pro Bowler. He has a huge brain in his head, great field vision, a strong arm, touch, charisma and leadership, and even though he doesn't have great wheels, he knows the Brady-esque tricks to slidestep and evade the rush.

I read an article recently about how the real reason Manning and Brady are so much better than any other NFL QB is because of their pre-snap reads. Matt Ryan is cut from the same mold because of his intelligence. Tom O'Brien has said that Ryan is easily the best QB he's ever coached, and the stable of QBs he's coached includes Pro-Bowler Matt Hasselbeck. So yes, Ryan struggled in the face of a ferocious pass rush last night that was on top of him virtually at the snap, but once VT allowed him to get into his rhythm by rushing only 3, Ryan cut right through that defense like warm butter. There are very few QBs that could've led both TD drives under such time pressure, on the road, against a well-lubricated, loud night crowd.

I don't disagree that Ryan is a very good pro prospect, with a great arm and fine cerebral skills for the game, or that he's at something of a disadvantage based on surrounding talent. But quite a few of his throws during the first three quarters were way off the mark, and not just because the receivers slipped. VT could very easily have had 4 picks instead of 2. The fact that he was plainly rattled by the rush--at least until VT started sending only 3, which allowed him to scramble--is a shortcoming. I would agree he is more deserving of individual awards than any other upperclass QB this season. But let's face it: Nobody's saying Superman wears Matt Ryan pajamas. :D

throatybeard
10-27-2007, 12:03 AM
Ryan looked pretty good...for two minutes, against an exhausted defense playing loose prevent.

What Stray said, except call it 56.

That was some world-class, stall-ball, prevent out-wussing by VT.

throatybeard
10-27-2007, 12:09 AM
There's still a lot of college football and many huge games to be played; but can anyone seriously dispute that so far the best player on a consistent basis against solid competition week-to-week has been Tim Tebow, who has not only lived up to, but surpassed, the enormous expectations?

Um, yeah, I'm gonna call you on homerism on this one, boss.

Stray Gator
10-27-2007, 10:10 AM
Um, yeah, I'm gonna call you on homerism on this one, boss.

Okay, I can understand why you'd suspect bias in my assessment. But I'll "call you" back: Name the college football players you believe have--on a consistent basis against solid competition week-to-week--played better than Tebow. I'll give you Glenn Dorsey as one who has excelled every Saturday on the defensive side (though he unfortunately had to sit out much of the Auburn game because of a nasty chop block). Who else?

captmojo
10-27-2007, 03:12 PM
Okay, I can understand why you'd suspect bias in my assessment. But I'll "call you" back: Name the college football players you believe have--on a consistent basis against solid competition week-to-week--played better than Tebow. I'll give you Glenn Dorsey as one who has excelled every Saturday on the defensive side (though he unfortunately had to sit out much of the Auburn game because of a nasty chop block). Who else?

The kid from South Florida. I know his competition level doesn't match up, but with this guy's instincts and abilities, I'd say he might be a higher draft pick.

dkbaseball
10-27-2007, 03:22 PM
The good old prevent defense -- been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for 35 years. Any QB is going to find a receiver if he's got 20 leisurely seconds to look.

As an LSU fan, I'm getting a little ill at the possibility that BC might keep them out of the national championship game. And no, Stray, I'm not taking anything for granted in the SEC title game. The thought of playing the Gators again on a neutral field is making me a little ill also.

dukie8
10-27-2007, 07:56 PM
Okay, I can understand why you'd suspect bias in my assessment. But I'll "call you" back: Name the college football players you believe have--on a consistent basis against solid competition week-to-week--played better than Tebow. I'll give you Glenn Dorsey as one who has excelled every Saturday on the defensive side (though he unfortunately had to sit out much of the Auburn game because of a nasty chop block). Who else?

the pool of potential heisman trophy winners is not restricted to players on the team that plays the hardest teams. that's ridiculous. fwiw, washington has played the hardest schedule so you should be endorsing its best player for the heisman.

when bc set up its schedule, it expected notre dame to be a top team and it also didn't expect the acc to be a complete joke this year. has the acc ever been worse? people should be rooting for bc because, not unlike duke, it doesn't accept any good player with a pulse, makes its players go to class, graduates them and more or less does things the right way. the fact that duke can make money off bc playing in a bcs game makes it even better.

blazindw
10-27-2007, 08:21 PM
Okay, I can understand why you'd suspect bias in my assessment. But I'll "call you" back: Name the college football players you believe have--on a consistent basis against solid competition week-to-week--played better than Tebow. I'll give you Glenn Dorsey as one who has excelled every Saturday on the defensive side (though he unfortunately had to sit out much of the Auburn game because of a nasty chop block). Who else?

Mike Hart. Even though he's been injured the past couple of weeks, he has been everything for Michigan this year. 1088 yards rushing, 12 TDs. The only reason he's not really in the running is the 2 early losses for Michigan (in which he had 188 yds and 3 TDs against App State, and 127 yds for Oregon). But with man-stats like these, he should definitely be in the running, and I would say that he has been every bit as consistent against tough competition week in and week out. Quite simply the "Hart" and Soul of Michigan football.

throatybeard
10-27-2007, 08:22 PM
I don't know Stray, i was talking out my arse.

That said, UF has three losses, and the silly commentators who talk about the Heisman say that 3 losses is a big ding on a candidate's resume. As though he can control the other 21 guys. But they say that.

Troy Davis at Iowa State deserved two and got none. He was on some 3-8 teams.

Stray Gator
10-27-2007, 09:58 PM
I don't know Stray, i was talking out my arse.

That said, UF has three losses, and the silly commentators who talk about the Heisman say that 3 losses is a big ding on a candidate's resume. As though he can control the other 21 guys. But they say that.

Troy Davis at Iowa State deserved two and got none. He was on some 3-8 teams.

Tebow probably won't get the Heisman this year. But if asked to pick a college football team of players they'd most like to have play for them, I suspect a lot of fans who regard him with Redick-like "hate/envy" would secretly choose him for their QB. Against Georgia today, Tebow and Harvin played like warriors; the rest of the UF team, not so much. The Dawgs definitely outplayed the Gators and deserved the victory. Moreno and Stafford took full advantage of a young, inexperienced Gator defense. But nobody played harder, sacrificed his body, and did more when on the field to keep his team in the game, than Tebow.

throatybeard
10-27-2007, 11:32 PM
Tebow probably won't get the Heisman this year. But if asked to pick a college football team of players they'd most like to have play for them, I suspect a lot of fans who regard him with Redick-like "hate/envy" would secretly choose him for their QB..

Love you Stray, ain't that way.

Football doesn't focus the same spotlight on individual players like BB does.

Tebow ain't no, say, Bush a couple years ago.

Wander
10-28-2007, 12:06 AM
I might take Mike Hart or Dennis Dixon before Tebow. It's a tough call though and Tebow is definitely one of the top 5 guys at skill positions this season.

Uncle Drew
10-28-2007, 12:40 AM
Okay, as I told my Boston native father in law last week (great year for him with the Red Sox, Pats and BC) an ACC school ranked in the top 5 is stupidity personified, especially this year. If it brings Duke $$$$ yay, woopie and hoofreakin' ray. But you put BC in the SEC, Big 10 or even Pac 10 and they aren't undefeated and thus not in the top 5. Expansion has lowered the level of football play for those good football schools that came on board. And it hasn't elevated the play of the non football schools.
I liken BC this year to the 49ers glory days playing in the NFC West against the Falcons, Rams etc. If they had played in the NFC East where Montana had gotten hit once in a while and other injuries occurred those Super Bowls wouldn't have come so easy. BC plays in a weak conference against weak competition. Even if they go undefeated and win it all it's almost like playing a one game season because the competition is so weak.

Wander
10-28-2007, 12:13 PM
But you put BC in the SEC, Big 10 or even Pac 10 and they aren't undefeated and thus not in the top 5.


Neither you nor anybody else has any idea if this is true or not.



an ACC school ranked in the top 5 is stupidity personified


This has become the most immature joke of an argument in all of sports. I would assume the fanbase of a basketball school would know better. Is Memphis being in the top 5 in basketball stupidity personified? CUSA in basketball is far worse than the ACC in football.

Troublemaker
10-28-2007, 12:44 PM
Okay, as I told my Boston native father in law last week (great year for him with the Red Sox, Pats and BC) an ACC school ranked in the top 5 is stupidity personified, especially this year. If it brings Duke $$$$ yay, woopie and hoofreakin' ray. But you put BC in the SEC, Big 10 or even Pac 10 and they aren't undefeated and thus not in the top 5. Expansion has lowered the level of football play for those good football schools that came on board. And it hasn't elevated the play of the non football schools.

BC would compete just fine in the Big 10/11. They're a joke this year. And yes, while BC would probably not go undefeated in the SEC or PAC-10, the two best conferences, it's not like member teams from those conferences are going unscathed either (besides ASU... so far... they play @Oregon next week).

BC's schedule is fine. If they finish undefeated they'll have won against Wake, @GaTech, @VT, against FSU, @Maryland, @Clemson, against Miami-Fl, and the ACC title game. None of those are great teams BUT I can guarantee you LSU, an extremely overrated team, would not have gone undefeated against that schedule. Some of those teams are certainly better than Kentucky.

Uncle Drew
10-28-2007, 02:29 PM
BC would compete just fine in the Big 10/11. They're a joke this year. And yes, while BC would probably not go undefeated in the SEC or PAC-10, the two best conferences, it's not like member teams from those conferences are going unscathed either (besides ASU... so far... they play @Oregon next week).

BC's schedule is fine. If they finish undefeated they'll have won against Wake, @GaTech, @VT, against FSU, @Maryland, @Clemson, against Miami-Fl, and the ACC title game. None of those are great teams BUT I can guarantee you LSU, an extremely overrated team, would not have gone undefeated against that schedule. Some of those teams are certainly better than Kentucky.

I agree about LSU 1000% and everyone knows BC's schedule is backloaded with some tough, tough games coming up. I just love it when optimists are ready to count BCS $$$$ when a team reaches a number two ranking. I'm also noticing a lot of parity, or at least higher ranked teams getting knocked off quite a bit this year. I'm just glad Duke doesn't have Appalachian State on the schedule this year.

Wander
10-28-2007, 02:48 PM
How exactly is LSU "extremely overrated?" That doesn't make any sense at all.

Troublemaker
10-28-2007, 08:17 PM
How exactly is LSU "extremely overrated?" That doesn't make any sense at all.

Why not? Plus, what I said can neither make sense NOR not make sense since I didn't even provide any logic for it. I could if you asked nicely.

Oh, and is USF still the best team in the country? I was right about USF and I'll be right about LSU.

Wander
10-28-2007, 08:46 PM
I don't remember ever saying that USF is the best team in the country.

That you use the future tense when talking about LSU ("I'll be right about LSU") makes me believe that you don't know that the polls are supposed to be based on performance, not speculation (obviously this can't apply to the preseason ones and the first couple of weeks). USF could lose every game for the next ten years and it wouldn't change the fact that they deserved to be in the top 5 two weeks ago based on their resume. Similarly, it could very well end up that LSU is not one of the five best teams in the country when all is said and done, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve their ranking right now.

I'm open to your opinion that LSU isn't the third best team in the country or that they deserve to be ranked a little bit higher or a little bit lower, but that's a lot different then saying they are "extremely overrated."

Troublemaker
10-28-2007, 09:10 PM
I don't remember ever saying that USF is the best team in the country.

That you use the future tense when talking about LSU ("I'll be right about LSU") makes me believe that you don't know that the polls are supposed to be based on performance, not speculation (obviously this can't apply to the preseason ones and the first couple of weeks). USF could lose every game for the next ten years and it wouldn't change the fact that they deserved to be in the top 5 two weeks ago based on their resume. Similarly, it could very well end up that LSU is not one of the five best teams in the country when all is said and done, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve their ranking right now.

I'm open to your opinion that LSU isn't the third best team in the country or that they deserve to be ranked a little bit higher or a little bit lower, but that's a lot different then saying they are "extremely overrated."

Did I mention the polls anywhere or say they didn't deserve their ranking? They are extremely overrated because the general consensus is that they are the best team in the country. Besides the whole they-could-easily-have-3-losses thing, there's this general consensus out there that LSU has the most talent in the country and would whup, say, tOSU head-to-head (although, after tOSU's dismantling of PSU, I figure some have changed their minds). LSU has issues along both lines, their QB has been shaky for most of the year, and they just don't have that many playmakers on offense.

About USF, even though two weeks ago I agreed with USF's ranking in terms of accomplishments and stated as much, two weeks ago I also told you in-depth that they are not one of the top 5 teams in the country. I believe you disagreed and said that they had "national championship contender" written all over them or something like that. I disagreed, pointed out why, and it turns out that I was prescient. That's all I'm saying. It's the same thing here. LSU may or may not deserve their poll ranking and BCS ranking as of right now based on accomplishments. But, in actuality, they are a far worse team than their rankings would indicate. Of course it's just my opinion, but I like my opinions AND, right or wrong, they pretty much always make sense.

Troublemaker
10-28-2007, 09:21 PM
As an aside, Wander, your whole schtick of telling people "you don't make sense", "that is illogical", etc etc etc is becoming very tiresome. Do you talk to your friends and neighbors like that? I know you're trying to be Mr. Unbiased Opinion or whatever, but instead of being that, you're coming off more like a caricature of that right now. My advice is to go against initial instincts a little bit when you want to make those statements and just saying "I disagree and here's why". Of course, that's just my unsolicited opinion. Do with it what you will.

dukie8
10-28-2007, 09:22 PM
Did I mention the polls anywhere or say they didn't deserve their ranking? They are extremely overrated because the general consensus is that they are the best team in the country. Besides the whole they-could-easily-have-3-losses thing, there's this general consensus out there that LSU has the most talent in the country and would whup, say, tOSU head-to-head (although, after tOSU's dismantling of PSU, I figure some have changed their minds). LSU has issues along both lines, their QB has been shaky for most of the year, and they just don't have that many playmakers on offense.

About USF, even though two weeks ago I agreed with USF's ranking in terms of accomplishments and stated as much, two weeks ago I also told you in-depth that they are not one of the top 5 teams in the country. I believe you disagreed and said that they had "national championship contender" written all over them or something like that. I disagreed, pointed out why, and it turns out that I was prescient. That's all I'm saying. It's the same thing here. LSU may or may not deserve their poll ranking and BCS ranking as of right now based on accomplishments. But, in actuality, they are a far worse team than their rankings would indicate. Of course it's just my opinion, but I like my opinions AND, right or wrong, they pretty much always make sense.

you sound the FDA in this post. are you really patting yourself on the back for identifying USF as over-rated when they were #2? notwithstanding the fact that you apparently found an anonymous person on a chat board who thought otherwise, you do realize that just about everyone else thought the same thing?

Troublemaker
10-28-2007, 09:27 PM
you sound the FDA in this post. are you really patting yourself on the back for identifying USF as over-rated when they were #2? notwithstanding the fact that you apparently found an anonymous person on a chat board who thought otherwise, you do realize that just about everyone else thought the same thing?

dukie8, you don't really have the context to this conversation. First of all, yes, there are/were a bunch of folks on here who didn't think USF was overrated. Second, I'm patting myself on the back in response to Wander's "you are being illogical" statements. I don't usually go around telling people I make sense unless there was someone telling me I didn't. Third, I am fricking awesome so shut your trap ;)

Wander
10-28-2007, 09:30 PM
Saying a team is overrated generally means you think they're ranked too high, Troublemaker, considering that the polls and the BCS are how teams are "rated" in the sport. I did say that I thought USF was a national championship contender but I've also said that if they lost to Rutgers they should drop in the rankings just like any other team would and unlike many fans I don't have any problem changing my opinion on teams frequently as the season goes on. As I'm guessing you know, I don't have a problem arguing that LSU isn't the best team in the country and I certainly don't think they would blow out Ohio State.

Anyway, "overhyped" is probably a more accurate term, but I'm not interested in getting into a petty argument about terminology.

For whatever it's worth, I'd say Ohio State is the best team in country right now. I don't know who I'd say is the second best team. I think I may be leaning towards West Virginia but I'm really not sure. What do you think?

Troublemaker
10-28-2007, 09:42 PM
Saying a team is overrated generally means you think they're ranked too high, Troublemaker, considering that the polls and the BCS are how teams are "rated" in the sport. I did say that I thought USF was a national championship contender but I've also said that if they lost to Rutgers they should drop in the rankings just like any other team would and unlike many fans I don't have any problem changing my opinion on teams frequently as the season goes on. As I'm guessing you know, I don't have a problem arguing that LSU isn't the best team in the country and I certainly don't think they would blow out Ohio State.

Anyway, "overhyped" is probably a more accurate term, but I'm not interested in getting into a petty argument about terminology.

For whatever it's worth, I'd say Ohio State is the best team in country right now. I don't know who I'd say is the second best team. I think I may be leaning towards West Virginia but I'm really not sure. What do you think?

I think tOSU is the best as well. Although Boeckman's game against PSU was, by far, his best of the season (perhaps not statistically, but definitely in terms of play) and I wonder if he can keep it up. They still have to beat a reinvigorated Michigan team in the Big House so we'll see if they can make it to the Superdome, but I agree that they are the best, meaning they would win a round-robin against all the other top teams. I have no clue who's second-best, although gun to my head, I would probably choose WVU as well. But that defense, ugh...

Wander
10-28-2007, 09:51 PM
Well, I guess it isn't at the level of Ohio State's, but I actually think their defense is playing surprisingly well. I think they are top five in points per game allowed, total yards per game allowed, and passing yards per game allowed. I know that those kind of stats can sometimes be deceiving but I think it's impressive considering where they were expected to be by most.