Jamal...On the Rebound

Washington went 7-5 against the #25 SOS this year. Some comparable SOS's and records:

Team: Record (SOS)

USC: 10-2 (20)

Arizona State: 6-7 (21)

Florida: 6-6 (22)

Notre Dame: 8-4 (23)

Alabama: 11-1 (24)

Washington: 7-5 (25)

Ohio State: 6-6 (26)

Mississippi State: 6-6 (27)

Georgia: 10-3 (28)

California: 7-5 (29)

Nebraska: 9-3 (30)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Washington went 7-5 against the #25 SOS this year. Some comparable SOS's and records:

Team: Record (SOS)

USC: 10-2 (20)

Arizona State: 6-7 (21)

Florida: 6-6 (22)

Notre Dame: 8-4 (23)

Alabama: 11-1 (24)

Washington: 7-5 (25)

Ohio State: 6-6 (26)

Mississippi State: 6-6 (27)

Georgia: 10-3 (28)

California: 7-5 (29)

Nebraska: 9-3 (30)
Click to expand...

Facts dont mean anything, you heard him Washingtons sucks...because he said so, so just deal with it.

 
Enhance89 said:
AFhusker said:
That just shows that there are way too many bowl games. Making a bowl in todays game doesn't mean that the team is any good. All you have to be is .500 or one game under in UCLA's case to be bowl eligable. Since when is a 6-6 team considered good? We played 10 bowl teams in 2007, using your logic I have to ask does that mean that 2007 was the toughest schedule in NU history?
Click to expand...
By that standard, if Team A doesn't make a bowl, is Team A possibly good? If making a bowl doesn't mean your good, then not making a bowl doesn't mean you're bad, right? By extension, how would you determine if any team is "good" or not? Because if you can't justify it by wins or whether they go to a bowl game, then what are you basing anything off of?

You're arguing that the system itself doesn't determine who is better than who, and frankly I don't disagree with that. But because it's the system in place, there's very little else you can use to evaluate a team. If you're not going to use W/L records or whether or not a team made a bowl, then you really have very little to evaluate.
Click to expand...
The problem is that being a bowl team doesn't mean as much as it used to before corporations and the NCAA decided to create about 15 more bowls than the sport needs. Before they did that, it did mean something if a team made a bowl game because they usually had at least 8 wins and it was really competitive to get to bowl bids. Teams could get in with 7 wins, but there was a rule in which a team needed a winning record to be bowl eligible. (and they only played 11 games, so 7-4 isn't a bad record) Then with the creation of more bowls and then allowing teams to count one FCS win towards bowl eligibility (that wasn't allowed before) just being a bowl team lost it's luster. Although it allowed Frank not to blow the bowl streak in 2002, so he can thank the NCAA for that.

So there really isn't a way to judge teams anymore with the watering down of the bowls. So all you can look at is the record of their opponents, how many ranked ones they played against and how they fared against those top quality teams. After last night Washington is 7-6 and was ripped every time they played a ranked team. And lost to a 3-9 team by two TD's, then throw on top of that that they only beat three teams with winning records all year, I don't call that a very good team. They have two nice players in Polk and Price, but other than those two, Sark has a lot of work to do to get them up to speed.

 
Bye Bye Big XII said:
AFhusker said:
That just shows that there are way too many bowl games. Making a bowl in todays game doesn't mean that the team is any good. All you have to be is .500 or one game under in UCLA's case to be bowl eligable. Since when is a 6-6 team considered good? We played 10 bowl teams in 2007, using your logic I have to ask does that mean that 2007 was the toughest schedule in NU history?
Click to expand...
Good point. You're claiming that our schedule was easy as a prostitute, all I'm trying to do is to claim that it was a lot harder than you claim it to be. The combined records of our opponents this year was 91-57, roughly 62% winning percentage. Comparable to our 2007 schedule where our opponent's combined records were 95-57, roughly a 63% winning percentage.

Here are some other top teams schedule winning percentages:

Alabama--79-55 [59%]

Oklahoma State--95-64 [60%]

Wisconsin--87-74 [54%]

I could give more, but it's very tedious work and I'm slightly buzzed right now.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that just backs up my point that oSu deserves to play LSU more than Alabama does. Is anyone else going to boycott the MNC game? I know I refuse to watch a second of it for two reasons. First the system sucks and the second is that the game will likely be just as exciting as Tebow's porn stash.

 
AFhusker said:
Bye Bye Big XII said:
AFhusker said:
That just shows that there are way too many bowl games. Making a bowl in todays game doesn't mean that the team is any good. All you have to be is .500 or one game under in UCLA's case to be bowl eligable. Since when is a 6-6 team considered good? We played 10 bowl teams in 2007, using your logic I have to ask does that mean that 2007 was the toughest schedule in NU history?
Click to expand...
Good point. You're claiming that our schedule was easy as a prostitute, all I'm trying to do is to claim that it was a lot harder than you claim it to be. The combined records of our opponents this year was 91-57, roughly 62% winning percentage. Comparable to our 2007 schedule where our opponent's combined records were 95-57, roughly a 63% winning percentage.

Here are some other top teams schedule winning percentages:

Alabama--79-55 [59%]

Oklahoma State--95-64 [60%]

Wisconsin--87-74 [54%]

I could give more, but it's very tedious work and I'm slightly buzzed right now.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that just backs up my point that oSu deserves to play LSU more than Alabama does. Is anyone else going to boycott the MNC game? I know I refuse to watch a second of it for two reasons. First the system sucks and the second is that the game will likely be just as exciting as Tebow's porn stash.
Click to expand...
Despite extenuating circumstances, oSu lost to an inferior ISU team, and Alabama's only blemish is from the number one team in the nation. There's an argument for both sides.

Personally, I'm not upset by it at all. Alabama and LSU are the two best teams in the nation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would've loved to see oSu get a shot at LSU, but they did lose to ISU and Alabama only lost to LSU...who happens to be undefeated and in the MNC.

Like Enhance said, a case can be made for both sides.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top