Top 3 College Football teams

[brucekr]

It's a grave injustice IMHO to allow a non BCS conference school play one average BCS conference school at home and have that auto-qualify you for a BCS bowl game if you run the table on your weak conference foes. No disrespect to TCU or BSU. But fair is fair. You play 9 Big 12, SEC, or PAC10 teams and come out with 1 loss and you deserve a shot more than some undefeated team that's been really tested once.
My home team is Oregon State, and I love that team almost as much as the Cowboys, but they are not a powerhouse in collegiate football.

 

[CATCH17]

It's a grave injustice IMHO to allow a non BCS conference school play one average BCS conference school at home and have that auto-qualify you for a BCS bowl game if you run the table on your weak conference foes. No disrespect to TCU or BSU. But fair is fair. You play 9 Big 12, SEC, or PAC10 teams and come out with 1 loss and you deserve a shot more than some undefeated team that's been really tested once.
My home team is Oregon State, and I love that team almost as much as the Cowboys, but they are not a powerhouse in collegiate football.

Look @ the ACC and Big East... I mean come on. Those are some weak conferences.

Plus we don't need Boise to play in a tough conference to know they are an elite team. People knew they were elite before the season even started.




The question is has Boise developed into a team that you could see winning a major conference? I think they could do it this year. Especially in the ACC, Big East, Pac 10, and Big 12.

 

[Jack-Reacher]

It's a grave injustice IMHO to allow a non BCS conference school play one average BCS conference school at home and have that auto-qualify you for a BCS bowl game if you run the table on your weak conference foes. No disrespect to TCU or BSU. But fair is fair. You play 9 Big 12, SEC, or PAC10 teams and come out with 1 loss and you deserve a shot more than some undefeated team that's been really tested once.
My home team is Oregon State, and I love that team almost as much as the Cowboys, but they are not a powerhouse in collegiate football.

I agree that it isn't fair to let them play in the BCS championship game playing an easier schedule, however on the flip side of that coin is isn't fair saying that they shouldn't ever get that shot either. My contention isn't that Boise State is the best team in the nation, I think they have proven that they will line up and play against anyone and their record shows that they have a fair shot of beating anyone.

I am not convinced that the PAC-10 or Big 12 has much better competition than the WAC at this point. You have a couple of teams that are much better than the rest of the conference then a steep decline, that sounds rather like the WAC. I concur that the talent level is far superior but I am confident that BSU could run the table in either the PAC-10 or the Big 12

We wouldn't even be having this argument if BSU had been voted in to the PAC 10 in 07, or 08. It would have been interesting had Utah stayed in the MWC then that conference could have become an automatic qualifier. As it is, it will be close with TCU, BSU and Nevada's win/loss records but I cannot see that conference qualifying. I think it is a shame because I think both BSU and TCU have better programs than most of the PAC 10, Big 12, or ACC yet they never get a shot. Where is the fairness in that? The only upside to the MWC now is we get a BSU/TCU matchup every year which will be stellar.

 

[switzersflask]

Sure let's get rid of the blue turf, while were at it let's restrict all college stadiums to only 30,000. Lets remove color coordinated shirts and keep the noise levels low as well. Home field advantage is just that. An advantage. I have been at the stadium and those players do not blend in to the field, every time that complaint is made, it is investigated and found to be false. It is a smoke screen used by teams who do not want to go play in a stadium where the record for past 65 games is 63-2. Coach Pete has a 28 game winning streak at home, he has never lost a home game.

They did replace the turf this year to get rid of the shadows the old blue had. I do not see much of a problem with the new blue color used.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mbyreOCChw

I think that the color of the turf is no more of an advantage than the 100,000 screaming fans that USC has.

Fans don't blend in with their player's uniforms. lol

I wish OU could have solid crimson turf. We'd never lose in Norman. Oh wait, we never do anyway.

 

[mrwarr16]

Fans don't blend in with their player's uniforms. lol

I wish OU could have solid crimson turf. We'd never lose in Norman. Oh wait, we never do anyway.

What is it like only 2 losses under stoops?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Meh, Boise had to have a last-minute drive to beat Va Tech... Who lost the very next week to James Madison. No way they're the third best team in the country.

 

[Jack-Reacher]

Fans don't blend in with their player's uniforms. lol

I wish OU could have solid crimson turf. We'd never lose in Norman. Oh wait, we never do anyway.

Eastern Washington does.. And Oregon's uniforms blend in with their field, yet is only BSU's field that get's complained about... hmmm

 

[Jack-Reacher]

Meh, Boise had to have a last-minute drive to beat Va Tech... Who lost the very next week to James Madison. No way they're the third best team in the country.

So all these guys are wrong....lol

Robb Akey, Idaho; David Bailiff, Rice; Frank Beamer, Virginia Tech; Tim Beckman, Toledo; Todd Berry, Louisiana-Monroe; Bret Bielema, Wisconsin; Art Briles, Baylor; Dave Christensen, Wyoming; David Cutcliffe, Duke; Mark Dantonio, Michigan State; Todd Dodge, North Texas; Sonny Dykes, Louisiana Tech; Dan Enos, Central Michigan; Steve Fairchild, Colorado State; Larry Fedora, Southern Miss; Jimbo Fisher, Florida State; Al Golden, Temple; Jim Grobe, Wake Forest; Jim Harbaugh, Stanford; Mike Haywood, Miami (Ohio); Butch Jones, Cincinnati; Brian Kelly, Notre Dame; Jerry Kill, Northern Illinois; Mike Locksley, New Mexico; Mike London, Virginia; Bill Lynch, Indiana; Mike MacIntyre, San Jose State; Doug Marrone, Syracuse; Urban Meyer, Florida; Dan Mullen, Mississippi State; Ken Niumatalolo, Navy; Tom O'Brien, North Carolina State; George O'Leary, Central Florida; Bo Pelini, Nebraska; Chris Petersen, Boise State; Bobby Petrino, Arkansas; Gary Pinkel, Missouri; Larry Porter, Memphis; Jeff Quinn, Buffalo; Paul Rhoads, Iowa State; Mark Richt, Georgia; Mike Riley, Oregon State; Rich Rodriguez, Michigan; Nick Saban, Alabama; Steve Sarkisian, Washington; Greg Schiano, Rutgers; Howard Schnellenberger, Florida Atlantic; Mike Sherman, Texas A&M; Steve Spurrier, South Carolina; Rick Stockstill, Middle Tennessee; Mike Stoops, Arizona; Charlie Strong, Louisville; Kevin Sumlin, Houston; Bob Toledo, Tulane; Jim Tressel, Ohio State; Tommy Tuberville, Texas Tech; Kyle Whittingham, Utah; Paul Wulff, Washington State; Ron Zook, Illinois.

 

[CATCH17]

Meh, Boise had to have a last-minute drive to beat Va Tech... Who lost the very next week to James Madison. No way they're the third best team in the country.

Please don't play the so&so barely beat so&so card.

Boise has been legit for awhile now. They put it on Oregon last year too.

They are a speedy / smart team that beats you with a fist and not 5 fingers.

Doug Martin looks like a good pro prospect.. Remember that name.

 

[Cythim]

Boise St is a good team and they deserve a chance to prove themselves, but not in this current format. Only two teams can play for the National Championship and giving one away to a team with such a weak schedule would be like sending the Chiefs to the Super Bowl for starting 3-0. If Oregon, Oklahoma or Nebraska goes undefeated they will jump Boise St in the polls. If Alabama or Ohio St lose no more than one game that will likely stay ahead of Boise St as well (so long as the loss isn't too late in the season).


Boise St will likely sit at #3 for the rest of the season with other teams moving around them as they win and lose key games.

 

[CATCH17]

Boise St is a good team and they deserve a chance to prove themselves, but not in this current format. Only two teams can play for the National Championship and giving one away to a team with such a weak schedule would be like sending the Chiefs to the Super Bowl for starting 3-0. If Oregon, Oklahoma or Nebraska goes undefeated they will jump Boise St in the polls. If Alabama or Ohio St lose no more than one game that will likely stay ahead of Boise St as well (so long as the loss isn't too late in the season).


Boise St will likely sit at #3 for the rest of the season with other teams moving around them as they win and lose key games.

Boise State deserves to be #3 but I wouldn't put them @ #2 or 1 based on size and talent alone.

Ohio State is an ok team with a Vince Young type of guy @ QB who is going to make them tough to beat.

Alabama is Alabama and the College football season doesn't officially start until they lose IMO.


But there is things Boise state does better than all these teams and they will attack you and keep you on your toes at all times.

I really want to see Alabama vs Boise for the National title just so we can see a Smart/Physical team vs a Smart/Speedy/Deceptive team.

 

[viman96]

I agree that it isn't fair to let them play in the BCS championship game playing an easier schedule, however on the flip side of that coin is isn't fair saying that they shouldn't ever get that shot either. My contention isn't that Boise State is the best team in the nation, I think they have proven that they will line up and play against anyone and their record shows that they have a fair shot of beating anyone.

I am not convinced that the PAC-10 or Big 12 has much better competition than the WAC at this point. You have a couple of teams that are much better than the rest of the conference then a steep decline, that sounds rather like the WAC. I concur that the talent level is far superior but I am confident that BSU could run the table in either the PAC-10 or the Big 12

We wouldn't even be having this argument if BSU had been voted in to the PAC 10 in 07, or 08. It would have been interesting had Utah stayed in the MWC then that conference could have become an automatic qualifier. As it is, it will be close with TCU, BSU and Nevada's win/loss records but I cannot see that conference qualifying. I think it is a shame because I think both BSU and TCU have better programs than most of the PAC 10, Big 12, or ACC yet they never get a shot. Where is the fairness in that? The only upside to the MWC now is we get a BSU/TCU matchup every year which will be stellar.

Why so down on the Pac10? Four teams ranked in the top 25 and 2 of those in the top 10. Not to mention UCLA just hammered Texas in their house. I'd say when 40% of your conference is in the top 25 then it is not weak.

 

[CATCH17]

Why so down on the Pac10? Four teams ranked in the top 25 and 2 of those in the top 10. Not to mention UCLA just hammered Texas in their house. I'd say when 40% of your conference is in the top 25 then it is not weak.

PAC 10 is full of pretenders this year.

 

[Jack-Reacher]

Boise St is a good team and they deserve a chance to prove themselves, but not in this current format. Only two teams can play for the National Championship and giving one away to a team with such a weak schedule would be like sending the Chiefs to the Super Bowl for starting 3-0. If Oregon, Oklahoma or Nebraska goes undefeated they will jump Boise St in the polls. If Alabama or Ohio St lose no more than one game that will likely stay ahead of Boise St as well (so long as the loss isn't too late in the season).


Boise St will likely sit at #3 for the rest of the season with other teams moving around them as they win and lose key games.

I agree with this completely and I could see this scenario playing out. Should Bama or Ohio State lose I could see one of them still playing for the BCS Championship. I think if one of them loses though that BSU will slide into that #2 slot. I am not sure that they deserve it, I do empathize with the strength of schedule argument, but I think that BSU gets the #2 position because of what they have done in the past and not necessarily for what they have done this year.

 

[Jack-Reacher]

Why so down on the Pac10? Four teams ranked in the top 25 and 2 of those in the top 10. Not to mention UCLA just hammered Texas in their house. I'd say when 40% of your conference is in the top 25 then it is not weak.

I am not down on the Pac-10 at all. I would have loved to see BSU added to that conference when all of this shifting around was happening. I just do not see any of those teams as strong. I would say that Arizona is the strongest in the conference right now. I am just not convinced that Oregon is that good. When they faced the first decent team of the year, ASU had to hand the game to them. I could be very wrong about Oregon, but I think that they have a serious question at QB and that their defense is porous and will be exposed this weekend when Stanford plays them.

If I was ranking the Pac-10 I would have them like this:
Arizona
Stanford
Oregon
USC
Arizona State
UCLA
Oregon State
Cal
Washington
Washington State

IMO if you put BSU in that conference they are better than each of those schools and they run that schedule. That is what I was saying, not that the Pac-10 is a weak conference.

 

[mldardy]

I agree with this completely and I could see this scenario playing out. Should Bama or Ohio State lose I could see one of them still playing for the BCS Championship. I think if one of them loses though that BSU will slide into that #2 slot. I am not sure that they deserve it, I do empathize with the strength of schedule argument, but I think that BSU gets the #2 position because of what they have done in the past and not necessarily for what they have done this year.

It depends on who OSU loses to. IF they lose to an undefeated Wisconsin on the road and then run the table and Wisconsin loses after that then I could see that scenario you describe happen.

 

[switzersflask]

What is it like only 2 losses under stoops?

Yeah. In '01 we lost to Oklahoma State 13-16, and '05 to TCU 10-17. The Sooners went 7-5 in 1999 under Stoops, but none of those were losses in Norman.

I have a feeling that our home streak will end this season. OU will win the conference regardless of the outcome of the RRR IMO, but I think we'll lose one home game, and a road game to either aTm, Mizzou (probably not), or Oklahoma State.

I just hope we can win our BCS game this season.

We're a year away from serious NC contention, and two years away from dominance.

 

[brucekr]

I am not down on the Pac-10 at all. I would have loved to see BSU added to that conference when all of this shifting around was happening. I just do not see any of those teams as strong. I would say that Arizona is the strongest in the conference right now. I am just not convinced that Oregon is that good. When they faced the first decent team of the year, ASU had to hand the game to them. I could be very wrong about Oregon, but I think that they have a serious question at QB and that their defense is porous and will be exposed this weekend when Stanford plays them.

If I was ranking the Pac-10 I would have them like this:
Arizona
Stanford
Oregon
USC
Arizona State
UCLA
Oregon State
Cal
Washington
Washington State

IMO if you put BSU in that conference they are better than each of those schools and they run that schedule. That is what I was saying, not that the Pac-10 is a weak conference.

I won't argue your ranked list, but don't agree with it, because teams have only had 1 conference game so far. But, I think you are far too quick to dismiss the pac 10 and say you would run the table. But we'll never know, so why argue about it anymore. I still feel my point is valid about earning a major bowl after playing what you rank as the 7th best in the pac 10.

 

[Jack-Reacher]

I won't argue your ranked list, but don't agree with it, because teams have only had 1 conference game so far. But, I think you are far too quick to dismiss the pac 10 and say you would run the table. But we'll never know, so why argue about it anymore. I still feel my point is valid about earning a major bowl after playing what you rank as the 7th best in the pac 10.

I haven't disagreed with your point. My only contention is that the system favors conferences that are not necessarily the strongest. I cannot see BSU playing for the NC this year regardless. I would like to see them get their shot, I think that their past success has warranted it, but the way the system is set up it won't happen. Strength of schedule is a pointless argument when the FBS does not step in and arrange the scheduling. If they are going to factor that in the decision to who is their supposed national champion, then they need to be involved with the scheduling. That has been my contention all along, not that Boise deserves to play for the championship after beating the Beavers.

I agree as well that is my opinion only that they could run the table in the Pac-10 and that we will never know.