Most overrated college football teams this year

[kalster]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Mill
USC is probably the most overrated team of the past decade.

...That's why they are going to win a 3rd straight national title and their 35th straight win. No other team has ever won 3 straight national titles...but hey, they are overrated.

Oh, and they are the first college football team in history to finish in the top 4 in passing and rushing. Overrated though, right?

Uh huh.

Yes, they are overrated. They play in the Pac-10. If there was a playoff system they wouldn't have been undefeated these past few years.

Look, USC has a great team, but to act as if Auburn last year, or UT this year can't play with them is silly. USC's defense is nowhere near what it was in 03 or even 04, and everyone knew OU was a fraud after the year before when they blew it in the Big 12 Championship game.

USC has a historical game, but for people to make threads saying they can beat NFL teams is absurd!

they arent over rated, they have played and beaten teams from supposedly stronger conferences, Auburn (twice), Virginia Tech, Arkansas, Michigan, Oklohoma, Iowa, Notre Dame in the past 3 years,

weak conference logic would hold true it these teams from other supposedly better conferences would have beaten or made it close, which has not happened (besides the Notre Dame game this year)

 

[Syringer]

UCLA.

 

[alexjohnson16]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Mill
USC is probably the most overrated team of the past decade.

...That's why they are going to win a 3rd straight national title and their 35th straight win. No other team has ever won 3 straight national titles...but hey, they are overrated.

Oh, and they are the first college football team in history to finish in the top 4 in passing and rushing. Overrated though, right?

Uh huh.

Yes, they are overrated. They play in the Pac-10. If there was a playoff system they wouldn't have been undefeated these past few years.

Look, USC has a great team, but to act as if Auburn last year, or UT this year can't play with them is silly. USC's defense is nowhere near what it was in 03 or even 04, and everyone knew OU was a fraud after the year before when they blew it in the Big 12 Championship game.

USC has a historical game, but for people to make threads saying they can beat NFL teams is absurd!

they arent over rated, they have played and beaten teams from supposedly stronger conferences, Auburn (twice), Virginia Tech, Arkansas, Michigan, Oklohoma, Iowa, Notre Dame in the past 3 years,

weak conference logic would hold true from it these teams from other better conferences would have beaten or made it close, which has not happened (besides the Notre Dame game this year)

Agreed, USC has beat great teams. I remember the Orange Bowl a few years back when Palmer lunched us.

Still, the PAC 10 hangs their hat on USC. They're about as deep as a kiddie pool.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Mill
USC is probably the most overrated team of the past decade.

...That's why they are going to win a 3rd straight national title and their 35th straight win. No other team has ever won 3 straight national titles...but hey, they are overrated.

Oh, and they are the first college football team in history to finish in the top 4 in passing and rushing. Overrated though, right?

Uh huh.

Yes, they are overrated. They play in the Pac-10. If there was a playoff system they wouldn't have been undefeated these past few years.

Look, USC has a great team, but to act as if Auburn last year, or UT this year can't play with them is silly. USC's defense is nowhere near what it was in 03 or even 04, and everyone knew OU was a fraud after the year before when they blew it in the Big 12 Championship game.

USC has a historical game, but for people to make threads saying they can beat NFL teams is absurd!

It still makes me angry to think about Auburn not getting the chance to play USC last year. Now THAT would have been a fvcking game. Not only did Auburn have a ridiculous defense, but two kickass RBs, and Campbell was doing pretty good.

 

[ramuman]

Isn't this the knock on Indy in the NFL thus far this season? They can only play the schedule the NCAA (or NFL) gives them. Every arguement against them is based on if ands or butss. I do think that the media talks about them waaaaay too much though - the same was the case when the Pats were dominating the NFL. Its what sports media does. Fact of the matter is that USC hasn't been beaten this year (or last) and neither has Texas. If you place any one loss teams up there with USC or Texas, you're opening up a whole can of worms unless the undefeated team played in the Sunbelt conference or something. This is from someone going to a non USC/ non Texas school.

Regarding the OPs post, I have to agree, but such is college football. You'll never have a perfect system in a league with so many I-A teams and 12 games. Playoffs won't happen and if a plus one happens and Penn State for example beats USC or Texas and ruins the perfect teams title matchup, people will start b*tching again about how flawed the system is. After the Rose bowl (or a particular year's title game), its all a consolation prize anyway isn't it? Would we even care UT won the Rose bowl last year if they weren't headed there again, this time for a title shot?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ramuman
Regarding the OPs post, I have to agree, but such is college football. You'll never have a perfect system in a league with so many I-A teams and 12 games. Playoffs won't happen and if a plus one happens and Penn State for example beats USC or Texas and ruins the perfect teams title matchup, people will start b*tching again about how flawed the system is. After the Rose bowl (or a particular year's title game), its all a consolation prize anyway isn't it? Would we even care UT won the Rose bowl last year if they weren't headed there again, this time for a title shot?

I agree. I don't see how a playoff system will fix the "weak" schedule and "weak" conference problem that people complain about.

 

[jammur21]

UCLA

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: Whisper
Don't get me wrong, USC is a great team. I just don't feel that they're the best in the nation. Most likely in the top 5, but not the best.

Now you have me curious. Who is your top 5 both before this weekends games and after?

 

[dmcowen674]

Considering what LSU & it's players and family went through this year, they had a damn good football season.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Ready

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Ready

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Mill
USC is probably the most overrated team of the past decade.

I agree to a point. If they played in a good conference, like the SEC, there would be zero chance they would have been undefeated for so long. SEC just has too good of defenses.

Also to the people who claim LSU is overrated. You really dont have a clue. They have what is probably the best defense in all of NCAA football. Ranking in the top 5 in all major stats. Yeah they had some close games, and could have easily lost 2-3 more games. So could any team. USC could have easily lost 3 games this year. LSU got a two week late start, because of Katrina. They never got a bye week, like most other teams that got two. So they have played every single week back to back to back and not having their home statium for the whole season either.

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: Whisper
Honestly, in that system, the strength of USC's schedule is then heavily-overrated. LSU has played better teams.

I challenge you to find an unbiased system in which LSU's schedule is rated better then USC's. The BCS's old SOS calculation has LSU 59th and USC 30th.

Lets see, LSU has played (at the time of the game) the #15, #10, #11, #16, #4, and #13 team.

USC has played (again at the time of the game) the #24, #14, #9, #16, and #11 team.

LSU has played one more ranked team, while playing in a MUCH tougher conference. USC would not last in the SEC, with their defenses. USC and LSU both played AZ St., both being very close games. Not that its a direct link, but thats pretty even playing the same team.

First of all, LSU isn't anywhere near where USC is, don't even try to compare them. They just got SMOKED by 20 by Georgia...

Second of all, how can you say the PAC-10 isn't a strong conference? Go look up where they rank in the computers. They are the number 1 offensive conference in the nation, and going into this weekend had 3 teams in the top 11. Weak? I don't think so. USC beat everyone they've played for the last 2.5 years...how is that overrated??? I can't give them enough respect for what they've done over the last few years.

They might be the humber one offensive conference in the nation, but you must realize... A MAJORITY OF GAMES ARE CONFERENCE.

That is a terrible point to bring up. It just shows how weak defenses are in the PAthetiC 10.

Is that how the number 5 team in the Pac-10 manage to hang 31 point on LSU?

You mean after the game was moved after the Hurricane, and half of the LSU team thought their families were dead. Oh.

and here comes the excuses!

Called reality.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Ready
and here comes the excuses!

Called reality.

It's called reality when it's an SEC team and excuses when it's a Pac-10 team

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Mill
USC is probably the most overrated team of the past decade.

...That's why they are going to win a 3rd straight national title and their 35th straight win. No other team has ever won 3 straight national titles...but hey, they are overrated.

Oh, and they are the first college football team in history to finish in the top 4 in passing and rushing. Overrated though, right?

Uh huh.

Yes, they are overrated. They play in the Pac-10. If there was a playoff system they wouldn't have been undefeated these past few years.

Look, USC has a great team, but to act as if Auburn last year, or UT this year can't play with them is silly. USC's defense is nowhere near what it was in 03 or even 04, and everyone knew OU was a fraud after the year before when they blew it in the Big 12 Championship game.

USC has a historical game, but for people to make threads saying they can beat NFL teams is absurd!

It still makes me angry to think about Auburn not getting the chance to play USC last year. Now THAT would have been a fvcking game. Not only did Auburn have a ridiculous defense, but two kickass RBs, and Campbell was doing pretty good.

USC last year still had the 2 better running backs, obviously the better QB, and better recievers too. Not only that, but their defense was ranked in the top 5. Auburn didn't stand a chance.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Ready
and here comes the excuses!

Called reality.

It's called reality when it's an SEC team and excuses when it's a Pac-10 team

What PAC-10 team had such a thing happen?

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: ramuman
Would we even care UT won the Rose bowl last year if they weren't headed there again, this time for a title shot?

maybe i'm a little biased but i definitely care that they won the rose bowl last year. after having never been there before in the history of the school, they went and beat the winningest college program in the country. even without the success of this season, that is an accomplishment for the team that "can't win the big game"

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: ntdz
No other team has ever won 3 straight national titles...but hey, they are overrated.

They would be the only team to win 3 straight AP national titles. There were several teams that won 3 or more straight national titles before the AP started their poll in 1936.

If you count all the organizations that the NCAA recognizes, USC has already won 3 straight national championships.

 

[kalster]

actually the SEC this year is overrated on the whole, I keep hearing how they are supposedly the strongest conference , their teams' performances versues other conference teams nor does the ranking of their schedules by the computers suggest so,, I am not saying its a bad conference but its overrated on the whole

 

[Rayden]

I can't comment on anyone but Fresno and Notre Dame, and I can only comment on their games both USC. Both showed themselves to be nearly on par with the #1 team. Fresno was winning most of the game against USC and Notre Dame lost in the last 7 seconds. USC wasn't sleeping in either of those games.

By the way, what is the difficulty of USC's schedule? I think they are the only team to play 4 top 25 teams.

 

[alexjohnson16]

Originally posted by: Rayden
I can't comment on anyone but Fresno and Notre Dame, and I can only comment on their games both USC. Both showed themselves to be nearly on par with the #1 team. Fresno was winning most of the game against USC and Notre Dame lost in the last 7 seconds. USC wasn't sleeping in either of those games.

By the way, what is the difficulty of USC's schedule? I think they are the only team to play 4 top 25 teams.

Are you saying four top 25 teams at the time of the game or in the polls right now?

Ohio State has played #2 Texas, #4 Penn State, #20 Michigan, and #25 Iowa in the polls right now. At time of game, they have played six ranked opponents (9/10 #2 Texas, 9/24 #24 Iowa, 10/8 #16 Penn State, 10/15 #16 MSU, 11/12 #25 Northwestern, and 11/19 #17 Michigan.).

USC appears to be the best team in college football right now, but the the PAC 10 is FAR from the best conference. Jeff Sagarin ranks the Big Ten as hardest conference by far.

I'd say Big Ten/SEC, ACC, Big XII, Pac 10, Big East (even though I think WVU is very good and will surprise in their bowl).

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: kalster
actually the SEC this year is overrated on the whole, I keep hearing how they are supposedly the strongest conference , their teams' performances versues other conference teams nor does the ranking of their schedules by the computers suggest so,, I am not saying its a bad conference but its overrated on the whole

What's wrong with their record vs. other conferences? Most of the SEC teams losses are against SEC opponents. Secondly, SOS varies from computer to computer and method to method.

One loss teams unduly influence SOS in weak conferences. The Pac-10 refuses to have a Championship game, so that's yet another reason it is nuts to act as if their SOS is high.

Say what you will, but Notre Dame is overrated being that they only beat a few teams with a winning record. That's USC's "signature" win. No one even tries to debate that Oregon (who currently has one team they played in the Top 25 and they lost to them (USC)) played a tough SOS, yet the computers rank them as if they did -- simply because they played USC. It is circular logic, because playing USC makes you have a tough SOS, and because your SOS is "tough" it helps USC to have a "tougher" SOS as well.

USC has three teams they played currently in the Top 25 (Oregon, ND, and UCLA, whereas Auburn played 4 (Ga. Tech, UGA, LSU, Alabama), and South Carolina was on the cusp at 26/27th in the polls. Had Auburn played in the SEC Championship it would've been 6.

Am I saying Auburn is better? No. Am I saying that Sagarin's SOS is bullsh!t? Yep. To Sagarin Auburn's schedule is 44 places WORSE than USC. Now, to a football homer than only watches USC play (you) that is logical, but to people who have watched College Football since they were 3 years old it is simply bullsh!t.

The main thing killing many teams in SOS (Auburn included) is that they played a Division I-AA opponent. Even if that I-AA opponent is at the top of I-AA -- it still isn't counted in most SOS ratings, or if it is heavily biased against doing so. Southern Miss pulled out vs. Auburn due to CUSA scheduling conflicts. Western Kentucky was the only other team we could lure for a home game. Same thing happened last year when Bowling Green ditched us for OU.

Now, next year looks a lot better. Auburn got out of a deal with Villanova, and is in Talks with Maryland to complement Washington State, Tulane, and Temple. Temple is laughable for sure, but you add in Maryland, and if Wash. State is improved, and it should be a good year. Tulane is always hit or miss, but sometimes they field a good team. In the future years Auburn has scheduled West Virginia, and is in talks with FSU, Va. Tech, Oklahoma, and a few Big-10 Powerhouses.

What people don't understand is that I WANT Auburn to play a tough schedule. I'd love to see them play 6-7 Top 25 teams a year if not more. I'd love to see our non-conf schedule this year to have had a Notre Dame, Ohio State, Arizona State, Maryland, West Virginia, etc.

The problem will always be scheduling conflicts, and how "good" a team will be in a given year. We can sign West Virgina for 2008-2009, but by then they may be a cellar dweller.

That's why the only FAIR solution is a playoff system. It isn't fair to kids that scheduling prevents them from playing for a title like it did last year or the year before when USC didn't get to play LSU or OU.

 

[Corporate Thug]

ucla

 

[ramuman]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: ramuman
Would we even care UT won the Rose bowl last year if they weren't headed there again, this time for a title shot?

maybe i'm a little biased but i definitely care that they won the rose bowl last year. after having never been there before in the history of the school, they went and beat the winningest college program in the country. even without the success of this season, that is an accomplishment for the team that "can't win the big game"

Well that's one way of looking at it, but for people that aren't Texas fans or follow them, I was trying to say that USC game was what mattered far more than any other bowl last year. I have nothing agains Texas and VY is a lot of fun to watch, but that's that about last year. This year, Texas has a shot to really win the big one.

Also, another reason playoffs or a plus one will never happen are the bowls and the sponsorship money. How much less do you think Tostitos, FedEx or Nokia etc. would be willing to pay if they knew that there would be another game after them to determine the champion. The Nokia Semifinals doesn't have the same ring to it as the Nokia Sugar Bowl

Is it a flawed system? Yeah, but college football isn't a game where you can take a 64+1 team field and have them play every 3 days or something to determine the champion. You also can't have a smaller playoff field or plus one like the NFL because a) A lot of BCS Bowl revenue would be lost b)There is a huge schedule/conference disparity - worse than the NFL c)God knows last year that an undefeated USC, an undefeated Auburn, an undefeated Utah and an 11-1 Texas were spread across all four BCS Bowls. So would the finals have been: USC/Auburn, USC/Utah, USC/Texas, Auburn/Utah, Auburn/Texas or Utah/Texas? And thats assuming the best record/ranked team in each of the four bowls won! In that example, it would have taken an 8 team, 3 round playoff to have gotten it even kind of sorted out.

You then have problems of how possibly less deserving teams from one of the weaker 6 BCS conferences (8-4 Pitt anyone?) would back into the BCS "playoff" and then small schools will bicker about only 2 at large bids. So you say make the entire thing based on rankings - no conference bids. Well do you think the 6 conferences would like that? No way - and I think they will have more sway in influencing the format than an independent like ND or the small conferences.

Also like Mill did a good job of pointing out above, the rankings system would need an overhaul too if thats what you follow. The seeding will matter a lot more in the BCS picture than in a 65 team March Madness playoff where Duke will invariably start of by pummeling some weak mid major in round 1. I agree a playoff system will be fairer like Mill, but have to say it too would be flawed and might never happen due to the above reasons. His scheduling conflict point is also good. Regarding SOS, look at where OU was last year and this year.

Even if the fifth Bowl (not as plus 1) happens, it won't mean anything to the bickering.

 

[LTC8K6]

Notre Dame lost in the last 7 seconds.

USC cheated in the last 7 seconds.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: Mill
What's wrong with their record vs. other conferences? Most of the SEC teams losses are against SEC opponents. Secondly, SOS varies from computer to computer and method to method.

So find me a unbiased method that rates the SEC higher then other major conferences. Everybody else I've asked haven't been able to, and the ratings you posted earlier had the SEC last among major conferences.

Originally posted by: Mill
One loss teams unduly influence SOS in weak conferences. The Pac-10 refuses to have a Championship game, so that's yet another reason it is nuts to act as if their SOS is high.

The NCAA does not allow the Pac-10 to have a championship game.

Originally posted by: Mill
Am I saying Auburn is better? No. Am I saying that Sagarin's SOS is bullsh!t? Yep. To Sagarin Auburn's schedule is 44 places WORSE than USC. Now, to a football homer than only watches USC play (you) that is logical, but to people who have watched the SEC since they were 3 years old it is simply bullsh!t.

fixed for you.

The main thing killing many teams in SOS (Auburn included) is that they played a Division I-AA opponent. Even if that I-AA opponent is at the top of I-AA -- it still isn't counted in most SOS ratings, or if it is heavily biased against doing so. Southern Miss pulled out vs. Auburn due to CUSA scheduling conflicts. Western Kentucky was the only other team we could lure for a home game. Same thing happened last year when Bowling Green ditched us for OU.

Div 1-AA teams are treated like any other 1-A team in 4 of the 6 computer ratings. For example, in Sagarin, Western Kentucky is rated 123, ahead of 14 Div 1-A teams. The two that don't treat the games as if they don't exist rate Auburn in between the ones that do count the games, so it isn't a huge factor.

Why was it so important for Auburn to play a home game? When USC had an extra game last year, they scheduled a road game against the eventual ACC champion. It was nice that Auburn did a home and home with USC in 2002 and 2003, but they seemed not to like getting beaten by a PAthetiC-10 team.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: Mill
What's wrong with their record vs. other conferences? Most of the SEC teams losses are against SEC opponents. Secondly, SOS varies from computer to computer and method to method.

So find me a unbiased method that rates the SEC higher then other major conferences. Everybody else I've asked haven't been able to, and the ratings you posted earlier had the SEC last among major conferences.

Originally posted by: Mill
One loss teams unduly influence SOS in weak conferences. The Pac-10 refuses to have a Championship game, so that's yet another reason it is nuts to act as if their SOS is high.

The NCAA does not allow the Pac-10 to have a championship game.

Originally posted by: Mill
Am I saying Auburn is better? No. Am I saying that Sagarin's SOS is bullsh!t? Yep. To Sagarin Auburn's schedule is 44 places WORSE than USC. Now, to a football homer than only watches USC play (you) that is logical, but to people who have watched the SEC since they were 3 years old it is simply bullsh!t.

fixed for you.

The main thing killing many teams in SOS (Auburn included) is that they played a Division I-AA opponent. Even if that I-AA opponent is at the top of I-AA -- it still isn't counted in most SOS ratings, or if it is heavily biased against doing so. Southern Miss pulled out vs. Auburn due to CUSA scheduling conflicts. Western Kentucky was the only other team we could lure for a home game. Same thing happened last year when Bowling Green ditched us for OU.

Div 1-AA teams are treated like any other 1-A team in 4 of the 6 computer ratings. For example, in Sagarin, Western Kentucky is rated 123, ahead of 14 Div 1-A teams. The two that don't treat the games as if they don't exist rate Auburn in between the ones that do count the games, so it isn't a huge factor.

Why was it so important for Auburn to play a home game? When USC had an extra game last year, they scheduled a road game against the eventual ACC champion. It was nice that Auburn did a home and home with USC in 2002 and 2003, but they seemed not to like getting beaten by a PAthetiC-10 team.

1. Go to CFRC, there's several computer ratings that have the SEC higher than the PAC-10. In fact, most do.
2. Grow up.
3. Western Kentucky would beat a lot more than 14 Div I-A teams. That's exactly what I'm speaking of. There's a plethora of 1-3 win Div I-A teams, that the Hilltoppers could/would beat, but there's no way Sagarin would ever show that.
4. Why else is it important to have a home game? Revenue. *shakes head* See, you obviously haven't been watching college football very long. USC went to play Va. Tech because they'd have gotten a hell out a payout. That was simply luck. Auburn could not find anyone to give a decent payout or a good team to come home. We did have Southern Miss who everyone knows is a good team, but CUSA changed some of their scheduling for TV and the like, and so they backed out.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Mill
1. Go to CFRC, there's several computer ratings that have the SEC higher than the PAC-10. In fact, most do.

CFRC has six computers that I found quickly on the first page at cfrc.com:

Colley: SEC #5, Pac-10 #4.
Massey: I didn't find it.
Anderson: SEC #5, Pac-10 #4.
Sagarin: SEC #5, Pac-10 #3.
Wolfe: SEC #5, Pac-10 #4.
Billingsley: I didn't find it.

Mill: Smoking before posting? In all cases that I found quickly, SEC was ranked worse than the Pac-10.