Who exactly has the Big 12 beaten out of conference? Of course, the Big East teams you listed are undefeated. The Big 12 teams you listed are not.
WVU's bad secondary got exposed today and if Louisville played Texas (as sad as it is to admit) they'd probably spank them as well, considering Texas has a mediocre secondary as well. And if WVU played Texas, I just don't see how they could keep up with that rushing attack. Although Colt could rip apart WVU's defense like Louisville did. In fact, I think WVU could probably score on any team in the country, it's just that their defense is very very mediocre and wouldn't survive against a team that throws the ball effectively. What I find amazing and very impressive is the fact that West Virginia and Louisville both recruit almost entirely out of state since Kentucky and West Virginia (WV more so) don't provide much high school talent. And even more impressive is the fact that West Virginia doesn't even crack the top 50 in recruiting classes, yet they are still consistently decent.
while it is very easy to pass on us, exactly how is louisville's porous defense going to stop our offense? they aren't ohio state on defense. probably by using the #2 rushing defense in the country. this is the reason neither they or louisville are championship caliber teams. they don't have championship caliber athletes. they've been good for a while and have good coaches and nice little offensive systems, but when you watch them, you just don't see athletes like you see on championship teams. neither teams lines look like most big time bcs conference teams lines, their receivers aren't big and fast, except for slaton and white, you don't see the speed out there. does anyone really think they suddenly accumulated a bunch of seasoned 4 and 5 star athletes on their teams in the last year or so to take them to the next level that it would take to be champions? i can see them winning on my tv, but i know it's a mirage. this is especially applicable to rutgers. they basically look like a well-coached, enthusiastic mid-major that has been able to scrape by their mediocre competition so far, mostly through timely execution, not because they "belong" with the big boys. they have inferior athletes and would be exposed playing a sizable number of teams with real athletes. i know Major will try to argue otherwise, but i'm not even sure he believes what he's arguing here and isn't just trying to be a thorn in everyone's side. those SOS's are terrible. being undefeated against a schedule that would apparently put UT's already mediocre big xii schedule to shame is nothing to write home about. boise state might go undefeated as well, but do i have to believe they deserve a shot, no matter how crappy their competition has been on their way to being undefeated? or do i reason that they've never really been up their with the top tier teams before so it seems unlikely they suddenly added a bevy ot top tier talent and now really deserve a shot?
It would be shootout, fair enough but give them credit. They'd score as easily as Texas could on them. They may not be Ohio State but they're still pretty decent and lead the country in sacks per game if I'm not mistaken. College stats are deceiving. Who have we played that can run? Exactly one team, Oklahoma and Peterson did all right against this defense. Plus West Virginia's running game is deceptive. They dont run up the middle, they rely on speed, quickness and misdirection. They blew up on Georgia last year which was in the top 10 in rushing defenses as well and they play in the SEC where they routinely get challenged by some of the best. NO ONE in the country has faced a rushing offense like this one, so past experience and numbers are worthless. Texas couldn't really stop Reggie Bush last year when he got space on screens and that defense was a lot better than this one. Once Slaton or White get space, they're gone and Texas's lousy secondary won't provide much help to the front 7. Fine, they dont look like typical championship teams that are loaded with 5 star players. And that matters because? Having big athletes means jack squat. That's why I said they're impressive. They're winning in spite of large talent gaps. And they have consistently won like this for years. West Virginia has gone undefeated into bowl games twice in the last 20 years and both times they had "mediocre" athletes. You can win with a legitimate system. It's yet another reason why we need a playoff so teams like Louisville and West Virginia can prove that you don't need a top 5 recruiting class to win. As for the speed factor, you have to be kidding. Darius Reynaud is considered one of the fastest WRs in the country. Outside of Slaton and White, they have another WR, Brandon Myles, who's pretty damn quick as well. Also, about a lack of size. Louisville has a WR and a TE that are 6-6. WVU's WRs were 6-3 and 6-4. Yes they're not highly touted recruits but that's what makes these teams so great in my opinion. They're winning with lower ranking players. It's a testament to the system, the players, coaching whatever.. but they can win. Ok, fine they haven't played anyone. Well, neither has UT for that matter, outside of Ohio State but that's ok. I'm really not sure what the point of this is. They're just as good as any major team from any other BCS Conference. They can compete with SEC teams, Texas, USC, etc.. I'm not saying they'll beat all of those teams, but they CAN COMPETE. That's the point. They're as good as the others and can play with the "big boys." And till now, the conference as a whole has been better than expected. I'm from UT as well man, but seriously get off the kool-aid for a sec and at least respect what these teams are doing. They've got limited resources, lower end recruits, less money, and they're still pretty damn good.
Underrated...you mean by fans not the polls, right? Acting like prior years don't matter in this dicsussion is just ridiculous. Are you trying to argue that prior years have nothing to do with how tough a conference is? You know Miami is mediocre this year. WV only beat Georgia last year...squeeked by them.... the 10th ranked team (WV had a 28-point lead and it took a fake punt at the end of the game to portect a 3-point win... sounds like Georgia was caught napping at the start of the game). So the big east's solitary claim-to-fame for the last 2 years is that their best team squeeked by with 1 win over the 10th-ranked program? They are unproven. They don't deserve a shot at the NC just because they can beat other big east teams.
to answer the question to yalls argument.... texas would beat WVU by 10. texas would be able to slice up that defense and be able to get enough stops on WVU's run game. how the hell was WVU ranked 3? texas would lose to louisville by 10. louisville would destroy our secondary but it would be a high scoring game since louisville's D isn't stellar.
Oh absolutely - they are where they should be in the polls. I mean by the people who feel that a 1-loss team should jump them because they are the Big East. I think conferences swing quite a bit year to year. Just look at the Big 12 last year vs. 2004. While it's a limited sample, the OOC results for the Big 12 this year were absolutely pathetic. We had teams lose to Montana State and struggle to beat teams like Illinois State. No Big 12 team beat any good out-of-conference opponent this year. So when the Big 12 teams beat up on each other, it doesn't mean a lot. We act like Nebraska is a big win, but they sucked last year and haven't beaten anyone this year, so why do we think that? The only unbiased source we have (the computer rankings) say that based on results this year, the Big 12 is the worst of the big conferences. Nothing I've seen this year suggests otherwise. Can anyone give me an argument why the Big 12 is good, based on this year's results? Miami is not the Miami of old, but they are 5-3. They are comparable anyone in the Big 12 not named Texas. So if beating Miami beats no one, then Texas has beatan no one either. I don't think you can discount wins like you do with Georgia - bottom line they won the Sugar Bowl against a top 10 team in the opponent's home stadium. Sure, if you discount all their wins against good teams, then they haven't beaten anyone - that can be said about anyone though.
i have a hard time with a big east team playing for the NC. if they get there because the system gets them there, then i can't argue. but you still won't convince me that a team with 1 loss in the SEC or a team that plays in the Big XII and has its only loss to the #1 team in the country isn't better than Louisville....or WV...or Rutgers.
If ND runs the table, unfortunately I think they have to be in the discussion as well, as ridiculous as it might be. They would have two wins against teams better than anyone Texas would have beaten (Georgia Tech and USC) and their loss would be similar to Texas'. The SEC team might have some better wins, but they all have a much worse loss.
Miami... 5-3. They beat Duke by 5 hole points, UH by 1. Lost to another mediocre team this year, Florida State. They could not challenge Texas, OU, Nebraska, would have a serious battle on their hands with Tech, A&M, Baylor and OSU. They are NOT a quality win. The Georigia win... last year.... was their only quality win and again they caught them off-guard, needed a gimmick play to avoid suffering the biggest comeback in bowl history. The Big 12 finished with the #1 team last year, #2 team in 2005, #3 and #5 in 2004 and 2003. What's the big east's argument for the last 4 seasons? That their best team barely held on to a 28-point lead against the 10th best team in the nation last year, oh..and they beat a crappy Miami team? give me a break...your argument isn't tenable
What's wrong with rooting for the underdog? If Louisville runs the table, would anyone here be able to honestly say they don't deserve a shot at the title? It's almost like the mid-major argument in college basketball.
This game sucked in the first half, but then got better...I thought WV would have won, but the Cardinals looked really good in the second half...
Louisville deserves nothing over Florida, Texas, Auburn, etc ... However they don't deserve to have nothing either. The only people that deserve anything are the fans of college football. We deserve a playoff and until we get it, there will be no real national champion period. It's like a bad movie that has an ending which resolves nothing to lead you into the sequal which also has no ending. As an Aggie fan, I love college football, but until we get a playoff, College Football is a second rate sport.
Afreakingmen. It astounds me that they won't do this. It would instantaneously be the most popular sporting event. I think it would surpass the Super Bowl. Almost all sports fans love NCAA football, much moreso than they do college hoops. Yet, every second Sunday in March, you have hordes of people glued to their tvs waiting on the brackets to be announced. You have millions of lost work hours later that week as people pack the bars to watch the games. Could you imagine how ape**** sports fans would go if the I-A schools played a tournament like the I-AA does? I love college football, but it's honestly about my fifth favorite sport to watch behind NFL, MLB, college hoops and NBA. And it's entirely because we have to listen to these bull**** arguments every year about computers instead of actual football.
I love college football, there's nothing like the rivalries, the tradition, the history...nothing comes close. But I quit watching after the regular season is over. It's crazy, watching the bowls is kind of like watching preseason football. They don't really count for anything. All the bowls except for the NC game are basically exibition games...except they happen after the real season instead of before it. The bowls are like the first preseason games of the next season. On the other hand, the I-AA playoffs have had some of the most exciting and dramatic games I've seen in the last couple of years.
But this year's Big East and this year's Big 12 should be judged based on this year, not the last 4 years. No one is saying that the Big East last year was any good. But this year, the numbers and results say they are a better conference, and no one seems to be able to argue the point except by pointing out that the Big 12 was better in previous years. If the Big 12 is so much better a conference this year, there should be evidence of it. Where is it? What you're trying to tell me is that the pollsters are wrong in where they rank the Big East teams, and the computers are wrong in how they view the conferences. To me, that's a far more untenable position. It's not like WVU or UL get ranked that high just for being undefeated - people see Rutgers and Boise and realize they haven't proven themselves in the same way that the other two have, and rightfully rank them much lower.
I think all the crap going both ways is exactly why the current system is simply bull****. Louisville and WVU deserve to be in some sort of playoff format for a chance at the national title. As someone pointed out earlier, I-AA has a 16 team playoff system and it works quite well. The way it stands right now is just nonsense. Louisville isn't one of the two best teams in the country but because of the idiotic system we have, they deserve a shot at the title game. Oh and I love the hypocrisy of university presidents. We can't have a playoff because kids need time for school but then they have the nerve to add a 12th game to the schedule.
