Law School Discussion

College Football

Faure

  • ****
  • 251
  • Meow
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football
« Reply #190 on: June 15, 2005, 02:44:10 PM »
USC also blanked Auburn in 03, and beat them at an exciting game at the coliseum in 02. Both of the times USC played Auburn they had Jason Williams, the "Cadillac" and Ronnie Brown, yet Auburn still lost. USC has been dominant for the past two years, but things are unfortunately starting to catch up with them. Academic ineligibility, both Wrights leaving the school and Pete Carrol's staff shuffling might catch up to them this year, but hopefully not. USC will eventually lose, but their offense is probably too high powered this year for anyone to bring them down.

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #191 on: June 15, 2005, 02:46:53 PM »
1. I explain 55-19 with the analysis that USC was a very good team playing an OU team that did not match up well at all.

2. I explain AU almost losing their game because they came out flat. They just ran the table through the SEC and they played a bowl game for, what, pride? Woo-freakin-hoo. You think those guys weren't absolutely heartbroken when they realized they weren't going to play for all the marbles? You think they didn't sit and think, "Man, this game is absolutely worthless, because we can't be champs"? I think those thoughts most assuredly did occur to them.

A win is not a win for bowl games? So if USC had "beaten" OU 20-19, would you advocate the stance that USC was not deserving of the trophy? Should they have played again? If a win isn't a win, then what is a win? Can you define it for me in any measurable terms?
1.  USC was a superior team to OU in all facets
2.  AU did not come out flat, they knew they had something to prove.  They were just not good enough to blow out VT.

If USC had barely beaten OU and AU had blown out VT 55-19 then the claim that AU should share the title would be much more valid than it is.  As of now, it just seems ludicrous.

So where is the dividing line? When does a win actually become a win? Also, what is the distinction between a regular season game (where a win is a win, I assume?) and a bowl game (where a win is not a win)?

And for the record, I don't think I've ever stated that AU should have shared the trophy.

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #192 on: June 15, 2005, 03:12:53 PM »
USC also blanked Auburn in 03, and beat them at an exciting game at the coliseum in 02. Both of the times USC played Auburn they had Jason Williams, the "Cadillac" and Ronnie Brown, yet Auburn still lost. USC has been dominant for the past two years, but things are unfortunately starting to catch up with them. Academic ineligibility, both Wrights leaving the school and Pete Carrol's staff shuffling might catch up to them this year, but hopefully not. USC will eventually lose, but their offense is probably too high powered this year for anyone to bring them down.

So now we're comparing AU from 2003 and 2002 to prove that USC in 2004 was deserving of the championship? Very sound logic.

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #193 on: June 15, 2005, 03:13:38 PM »
Not all wins are equal.  USC's 55-19 win is more of a win than AU's narrow win especially considering the opponents.

the regular season games are played as teams are becoming more accustomed to their playbook, coaches, and teammates.  Those wins seem to vary in quality depending on the timing and other factors.

Bowl games are at the end of the season when teams should be at their peak and thoroughly prepared for their opponents.  The bowl game is one of much higher stakes than its regular season counterpart.

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #194 on: June 15, 2005, 03:28:52 PM »
Not all wins are equal.  USC's 55-19 win is more of a win than AU's narrow win especially considering the opponents.

the regular season games are played as teams are becoming more accustomed to their playbook, coaches, and teammates.  Those wins seem to vary in quality depending on the timing and other factors.

Bowl games are at the end of the season when teams should be at their peak and thoroughly prepared for their opponents.  The bowl game is one of much higher stakes than its regular season counterpart.

I agree that with a schedule like USC's, any bowl game is of higher stakes than any one game on their regular season schedule.

Teams are not necessarily at their peak in bowl games, this is pretty good spin for your argument though. What about injuries? What about acadmic ineligibility? Coaching changes? Being worn down throughout the season?

"Especially considering opponents"? Please elaborate. So VT lost 2 games during the season, but I think they played a much tougher schedule than OU. I'm not saying VT was better than OU, but I don't think they were that much worse, either.

What it comes down to is that you absolutely cannot predict the outcome if USC had played AU. That's all there is to it.

Faure

  • ****
  • 251
  • Meow
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football
« Reply #195 on: June 15, 2005, 03:35:18 PM »
I think Va Tech could have beat Oklahoma. White has no poise when it's time for a big postseason game. Va Tech lost to the national champs, got caught by North Carolina (STATE) and lost to an awesome Auburn team.

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #196 on: June 15, 2005, 03:42:57 PM »
I think Va Tech could have beat Oklahoma. White has no poise when it's time for a big postseason game. Va Tech lost to the national champs, got caught by North Carolina and lost to an awesome Auburn team.

VT's second loss was to NC State, not UNC. But your point is well taken.  ;D

I think there were 3-5 teams last year who could have beat OU besides USC...AU, VT, Utah, Louisville.

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #197 on: June 15, 2005, 04:09:17 PM »
Not all wins are equal.  USC's 55-19 win is more of a win than AU's narrow win especially considering the opponents.

the regular season games are played as teams are becoming more accustomed to their playbook, coaches, and teammates.  Those wins seem to vary in quality depending on the timing and other factors.

Bowl games are at the end of the season when teams should be at their peak and thoroughly prepared for their opponents.  The bowl game is one of much higher stakes than its regular season counterpart.

I agree that with a schedule like USC's, any bowl game is of higher stakes than any one game on their regular season schedule.

Teams are not necessarily at their peak in bowl games, this is pretty good spin for your argument though. What about injuries? What about acadmic ineligibility? Coaching changes? Being worn down throughout the season?

"Especially considering opponents"? Please elaborate. So VT lost 2 games during the season, but I think they played a much tougher schedule than OU. I'm not saying VT was better than OU, but I don't think they were that much worse, either.

What it comes down to is that you absolutely cannot predict the outcome if USC had played AU. That's all there is to it.
the end of the season is when a team SHOULD be on the top of their game, that is why in all of football exceppt D-I the playoffs are at the end of the season and the team that wins the playoffs is the champ.

so if VT was almost as good as OU then AU might have lost to OU and USC would have routed VT worse than it did OU?  DOesnt that suggest that USC would punk AU?

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #198 on: June 15, 2005, 04:15:55 PM »
What I said was that you couldn't predict the outcome of those potential games. That's why college football is awesome. You simply cannot predict the outcome when two teams are at least somewhat evenly matched.

Faure

  • ****
  • 251
  • Meow
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: College Football
« Reply #199 on: June 15, 2005, 04:48:47 PM »
I think Va Tech could have beat Oklahoma. White has no poise when it's time for a big postseason game. Va Tech lost to the national champs, got caught by North Carolina and lost to an awesome Auburn team.

VT's second loss was to NC State, not UNC. But your point is well taken.  ;D

I think there were 3-5 teams last year who could have beat OU besides USC...AU, VT, Utah, Louisville.

I don't think Utah or Lousville were as battle tested as OU, Auburn or USC. Who did Utah play besides Texas A&M? Personally, I don't think any Big East team-Pitt-counts as a quality opponent. Louisville played Miami and lost, but didn't really play anyone besides that.