Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to College Football

Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby Metroid » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:56 am

knapplc wrote:Where's the fun in that? Who, aside from the 1,097 fans from Boise State, thought it was really great that Oklahoma lost that game? What has Boise St. ever done for college football? Oklahoma is one of the most storied programs in the annals of the sport. They're one of the pillars of the game. Without those schollie rules, Boise St. doesn't even make that game. Oooh, exciting.

I am not a Broncos fan, I hate Boise St....especially after last week. !+)

But I loved that game, I love underdogs, and I love upsets. I love when the bully gets punched in the mouth and I don't think I'm at all alone in this. If you don't believe that people all over the country thought that was an awesome game you are kidding yourself.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying though. So what, are we just supposed to have the Oklahoma's, USC's, Michigan's, OSU's, Nebraska's, etc. get all the schollarships because that's the way it's always been? Because that's the only way to crown a NC or at least get close to it? You're not really saying that smaller schools shouldn't be able to compete are you? Are you saying that things should go back to the way they were with the same 10-15 schools dominating the land year after year after year after year?

Or are you just using the parity in college football now as a reason why the BCS system is broken...even more today?
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby deerayfan072 » Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:00 am

Metroid wrote:
knapplc wrote:Where's the fun in that? Who, aside from the 1,097 fans from Boise State, thought it was really great that Oklahoma lost that game? What has Boise St. ever done for college football? Oklahoma is one of the most storied programs in the annals of the sport. They're one of the pillars of the game. Without those schollie rules, Boise St. doesn't even make that game. Oooh, exciting.

I am not a Broncos fan, I hate Boise St....especially after last week. !+)

But I loved that game, I love underdogs, and I love upsets. I love when the bully gets punched in the mouth and I don't think I'm at all alone in this. If you don't believe that people all over the country thought that was an awesome game you are kidding yourself.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying though. So what, are we just supposed to have the Oklahoma's, USC's, Michigan's, OSU's, Nebraska's, etc. get all the schollarships because that's the way it's always been? Because that's the only way to crown a NC or at least get close to it? You're not really saying that smaller schools shouldn't be able to compete are you? Are you saying that things should go back to the way they were with the same 10-15 schools dominating the land year after year after year after year?

Or are you just using the parity in college football now as a reason why the BCS system is broken...even more today?


We do to. I think the point, at least the one I was thinking of, is that these "upsets" don't mean what they used to because they are so prevalent. Fact is, when BSU beat OK, I wasn't really that shocked as I would have been years ago.
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby Metroid » Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:15 am

deerayfan072 wrote:
Metroid wrote:
knapplc wrote:Where's the fun in that? Who, aside from the 1,097 fans from Boise State, thought it was really great that Oklahoma lost that game? What has Boise St. ever done for college football? Oklahoma is one of the most storied programs in the annals of the sport. They're one of the pillars of the game. Without those schollie rules, Boise St. doesn't even make that game. Oooh, exciting.

I am not a Broncos fan, I hate Boise St....especially after last week. !+)

But I loved that game, I love underdogs, and I love upsets. I love when the bully gets punched in the mouth and I don't think I'm at all alone in this. If you don't believe that people all over the country thought that was an awesome game you are kidding yourself.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying though. So what, are we just supposed to have the Oklahoma's, USC's, Michigan's, OSU's, Nebraska's, etc. get all the schollarships because that's the way it's always been? Because that's the only way to crown a NC or at least get close to it? You're not really saying that smaller schools shouldn't be able to compete are you? Are you saying that things should go back to the way they were with the same 10-15 schools dominating the land year after year after year after year?

Or are you just using the parity in college football now as a reason why the BCS system is broken...even more today?


We do to. I think the point, at least the one I was thinking of, is that these "upsets" don't mean what they used to because they are so prevalent. Fact is, when BSU beat OK, I wasn't really that shocked as I would have been years ago.

That is a good point, the David's of college football have definitely been given a steady dose of HGH over the past 10 years or so while the Goliath's supply has been cut down. Even so that was still an upset and it always will be. BSU is not going to ever turn into a dominant force....maybe in their own conference but not on the national scene.

I'm still not clear on what being said though. Are people saying we should go back to the way things were, with the same few teams near the top year after year? Because it works better with the BCS system? :-?
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby VaderFin » Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:23 am

I have to admit that when my team is not involved I basically root for all the major powers to lose. It makes things interesting for me.


You all better not jump on my Oklahoma is the #1 team in the nation bandwagon. :-D
Image
VaderFin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 7030
Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: In my Tie Fighter blowing up Rebels

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby Free Bagel » Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:52 am

HskrPwr13 wrote:I disagree with the clock rules being a large reason for parity/more upsets. Teams from the WAC, MWC, and Big East have been closing the gap ever since the schollarship rules changed and since channels like ESPN pretty much guarantees exposure for everyone. Even though the current and traditional top teams are generally going to get the hottest recruits, its not as much of a given now that a player can start right away at a lesser program and still receive all of the notariety that he could only get from playing in a BCS conference. I dont disagree with your premise on why a shorter game helps the dog, but if you took the scholly rule changes and exposure changes out of the scenario, the clock rule changes would have virtually no bearing on the outcome of these perceived mismatch games.


I agree that the schollies have a bigger effect than the clock rules, but I think the clock rules still have a very large affect. With the scholly changes and TV exposure changes, these Boise States can get their hands on 2 or 3 great defensive linemen that would've otherwise chosen to go be backups at Texas. But, Texas can still get their hands on 6 or 7 great defensive linemen that they can rotate in and out and keep fresh even if the talent of their best 3 is no better than the talent of Boise's best 3. Fewer plays means that's a much smaller advantage.

The Ole Miss/Florida game this weekend was a perfect example of that. Both defensive line's were dominating the offensive lines. Ole Miss could consistently rush 4 or 5 guys and get to Tebow instantly, and he couldn't get away. Then, when about the 5 minute mark in the 4th quarter came along those guys were just gassed and couldn't do anything out there. They had a 7 point lead with Florida driving to tie (twice), and they didn't even look like they were trying. On the rare occassion where one did get in there, Tebow could throw in a light jog towards the sidelines and they just let him go, whereas before they were running him down. This was with the game on the line too. We could've let all 4 in unblocked and they wouldn't have gotten to Tebow.

But, by then it was already so late in the game. Normally Florida would've been able to run another 25 plays against that gassed, useless D-line and I guarantee you the offense would've been a lot more effective than it was when those 4 guys were fresh and dominating early on.

HskrPwr13 wrote:Still gotta laugh at you playoff pushers. So 12 games x 120 teams, 1440 games not counting bowls and conference title games, cant get us to agree on a national champion, but throw 1-3 more games onto the pile and all will be figured out? C'mon. Look, if you can set up a balance schedule (as I have done), then I can buy into a somewhat NFL model of playoff. Without that, we use the same cow dung formula currently used to provide us with one or a few more entertaining games that will leave us no further satisfied as to who the champion is than what we currently have.


If you go back you'll recall that I've been one of the biggest supporters for the BCS around here in the past. I've always said that college football did the best job of truly finding the BEST team. Other sports, with their playoff systems, just find the team that gets on a streak at the right time. Does anyone believe that the Giants were the best team in the NFL last year? The Steelers a few years before that? The Cardinals a few years back in baseball when they snuck into the playoffs with a barely above .500 record? No way.

You said it yourself, there was Miami, FSU, Nebraska, Michigan, OSU, Florida, Oklahoma and Tenn talked about every year for the title. Florida played FSU and Tennessee. Miami palyed FSU. Nebraska played Oklahoma and Colorado. Michigan played OSU. Everyone played everyone, and widdled each other down. It was easy to take those 6 or 7 teams and find out who were the best 2. By the end of the year it was usually pretty clear who the two best teams were. In a WORST case scenario we sometimes had 3 teams vying for that spot.

Now, at the end of the year, it's just a freaking mess. There are a dozen teams with the same or similar records. Everyone has losses and close games against weird opponents that, as the supposed "best" team out there, they never should have struggled with. If Florida beat FSU and Tennessee and won the SEC championship, they were pretty much in. They didn't typically lose to two unranked teams on top of that. Now though, we have so many weird losses where teams beat top 10 opponents but then lose to teams that aren't even in the top 50, it's just impossible to sort that all out and pick 2.

So with the current absurd amount of parity and huge number of teams, I think it's time to give up on truly picking the two "best" teams. It's just not possible anymore even when we're certain that a team is way better than the other. Remember in '06 when everyone was SO SURE that Ohio State and Michigan were oodles better than the rest of the nation, and then they stepped out onto the field in January and got embarrassed? Now this year, everyone was SO SURE that USC was this unbeatable team that was a level above the rest of college football, and they stepped out there and lost to a 1-2 Oregon State?

Imagine if the '06 NC had ended up being an OSU vs. Michigan rematch, which it nearly was. They would have played, one of them would have won the NC, and too this day we'd still ignorantly think that they were two of the best teams college football had ever seen. If OSU had won that rematch against Michigan, they'd probably be discussed as one of the greatest teams of all-time when in reality, they weren't even one of the greatest teams of the year.

So yes, it's time to give up on figuring out who's "truly" the "best" team out there, and just let them settle it out on the field like every other sport. As it is, we end up with 6 or 7 teams at the end of the year that could make an argument for being deserving of that spot, and we just kind of pick 2 out of a hat. Were LSU and OSU any better than USC and Georgia last year? I doubt that either would've made the championship in a playoff, they all had similar resumes, but two just kind of got "decided" on.

Before, it was much easier to use our opinion to see who the two best teams are. It was usually pretty clear. Now, there's just no way.

HskrPwr13 wrote:Really, no teams are dominating college football like there were in the past? How not? Some of the names may have changed, but every year arent we talking about the same handful of teams for the national title? In the 90s there was Miami, FSU, Nebraska, Michigan, OSU, Florida, and Tenn talked about every year for the title. Now we have LSU, Oklahoma, Florida, USC, OSU, Texas, and up until this season Michigan. I would have to put USCs run right up there with the likes of Miami, FSU, or Nebraska of the 80s/90s. So even with many of the traditional dregs of college football getting some now, the cream is still rising to the top.


It's not the same. Those teams at the top before weren't losing to unranked squads on a regular bases. Florida is considered a contender for the NC every year sure, but we've lost 6 games to unranked opponents since 2002, how many did we lose in the entirety of the 90's? Not more than 2 or 3 I wouldn't think. USC, the supposed absolute cream of the crop, has a handful of those losses as well. Florida has lost 4+ games four times in the 2000's, zero times in the 90's.

Sure, the same teams are typically up there each year (as much based on reputation as anything), but they end up being much more up and down in reality than the teams that were consistently up there before. FSU went YEARS without losing an ACC game in the 90's. It's still easy to be consistently good, but we don't really see consistently GREAT teams anymore. Those 90's dynasties blew everyone they played out of the water until they played each other, even other ranked teams. I remember Florida playing #13 LSU for homecoming and winning 62-13 and everyone not really thinking it was a big deal. But USC does the same to Ohio State now and everyone thinks they're god's gift to football.

Upsets really were upsets. They were rare and when it happened it was unbelievable. Now, upsets are almost expected. Oregon State beat USC. Big deal, two other top 10 teams lost to unranked teams anyway, and it will probably happen 8 or 9 more times this year. Not nearly as exciting when everyone's doing it.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby HskrPwr13 » Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:57 pm

Fair enough about the dynasties. I understood the comment to be that there werent dynasties anymore, and had to disagree. I think we agree that the playoffs arent the be-all-end-all. We know how college football operates though. Any playoff they were to implement will not get us closer to some type of utopian way of crowning a champion. Much like the way they've tried to tweak the BCS over the years is the exact kind of half assed way of putting on a playoff. For any unfairness "we" think their playoff will solve, it will just create a different unfairness. Just like you can point out years that you think would've been solved by adding an "x" amount of teams playoff, I can make just as compelling of an argument of how at least one team would be unfairly left out, or one of the playoff games would be completing unfair compared to another game where a team has no business in the playoff, but one of the basically gets a bye compared to another game that would decide the next round of playoff. I dont want to see change that doesnt really put "us" in a better position, but just gives us something different. You and I could probably come up with a playoff that the two of us would determine fair, but we know college football would come up with some inequitable way of doing it.

With that understanding, even though ranking is tougher than it used to be, its not so difficult that it can't be done. If the voters dont want to spend the time to analyze every game of the top teams to ensure that they are putting the 2 teams with the best resumes into the title game, then they need to give up their votes, and let someone like myself vote since I take it seriously and am willing to put in the time to ensure that I've truly given the top2 spots to the two most deserving teams. Even though there's still the human factor involved, just liked there'd be if playoffs are determined by rankings, I'm confident that I'd get the top two teams nearly every time. I bet you could do the same.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby HskrPwr13 » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:59 pm

Considering we just posted about the reasons for the upsets, I thought Matt Haye's answer to that question was interesting. Although I still believe that ESPN/FoxSports channels are the biggest reason for parity, I hadnt considered this aspect.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/vi ... p?t=465616
Q: To what do you attribute all of these upsets the last couple of years? Is it really parity or this 85-scholarship limit that we hear coaches talk about all the time? Or is it something else? Because I don't know if I can stand watching USC blow another game they should win by four touchdowns.

--Frank Sizemore, Santa Barbara, Calif.


MH: Forget about parity. And that 85-scholarship limit argument is a joke; the NCAA went to that number in the 1980s. It's safe to say everyone has adjusted. The real reason is the NFL. I've spoken to many coaches about this, and the response is always the same. The No. 1 priority for high school kids isn't playing on television or an education or playing for the school they grew up watching. It's how fast can you get me ready for the NFL, and how quickly can I get there?

Want to know why Appalachian State beats Michigan and Stanford beats USC and Ole Miss beats Florida? Because players these days lose sight of what's important on a week-to-week basis. That's why Nick Saban wasn't too thrilled with Alabama's big win over Georgia. He knows his team -- like every other team in the country -- is full of 18-, 19- and 20-year-old kids who don't comprehend what it takes to mentally finish a game/stretch run/season.

Players lose sight of what's important because they're not invested in the program or the team or the university; or the idea that one fumble leads to one touchdown, and another turnover leads to an orange mass of humanity on a field in Corvallis. When the foundation of who you are is how quickly can I get to the next level, there is nothing keeping you mentally grounded in the present. And that's why every week is a different story, a different experience -- a different team.



The next quote is from Stewart Mandel's mailbag. Another thing that can't of made me go, "Hmmm." Most of us who really follow the game, probably dont fall into this trap. I remember having to defend the perception of Osborne while he was in the midst of losing 7 straight bowl games.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/w ... bag/1.html
Pete Carroll and Jim Tressel have nearly identical records in their tenure. Carroll's Trojans tend to lose games in which they should steamroll the opponent, whereas Tressel's few losses have come primarily in "big" games. Tressel receives FAR more criticism than Carroll. What gives?
-- Billy Hroncich, Columbus, Ohio

I'm not saying it's right, but that's just the nature of sports fans. Ultimately, teams/players/coaches are judged almost entirely by how they perform when the spotlight shines the brightest. That's why Peyton Manning received so much criticism before he finally won a Super Bowl, and why Eli Manning now seems to be revered despite having done almost nothing of note prior to last year's playoffs. It's why Kobe Bryant will never be viewed as Michael Jordan's equal -- even though he's statistically performed as well, if not better -- until he wins a championship without Shaq. I could go on and on.

To bring things back to college football, I would argue that Tressel's program has been more consistent than Carroll's over the past four years, but it doesn't really matter because he hasn't won the big ones. Ohio State received far more criticism last year for losing to LSU than USC did for losing to Stanford -- and yet that's completely understandable considering the stakes. Similarly, Oklahoma has received far more criticism for losing four straight BCS bowls than it has admiration for producing five conference titles and the highest winning percentage in the country this decade.

But here's the most amusing thing. During the same time period that Ohio State has engendered so much backlash for losing consecutive national championship games, USC has failed to even qualify in large part for blowing games it shouldn't (UCLA in 2006, Stanford last season). It's helped Carroll to maintain his and his program's reputation to be able to go to the Rose Bowl and beat up on Michigan and Illinois.

So in a perverse way, it would actually benefit Ohio State/Tressel's reputation if the Buckeyes would lose more often to Purdue or Minnesota and qualify for a lesser BCS bowl against a team it can beat.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby ShoelessJoe » Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:23 pm

Yeah I read the Mandell mailbag quote and instantly thought about this thread as well.

...Interesting when you throw Bob Stoops in that conversation as well. He's received so much negative press because of his bowl game struggles but Oklahoma is the most winning program of the current decade.
Go Gators
ShoelessJoe
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1621
Joined: 1 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Gainesville, FL

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby jayday » Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:58 am

^ I don't remember Stoops getting blasted in the media...Nothing lingering on in to the next season anyway....They'll rip him for about a week but all is forgotten by the next August...

Lost 5 consecutive bowl games...Including 4 BCS bowl games...Yet there they are at #1 and nobody is talking about it...

I think Bob and the Sooners have definitely benefited from Ohio State's performances in the last 2 NCGs...If they would have been closer losses to UF and LSU, I think Bob's seat might be getting warm because more focus would have been put on OU's bowl performances.
jayday
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5459
(Past Year: 8)
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Week 5 Cafe Rankings and Discussion

Postby Goody » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:36 am

jayday wrote:^ I don't remember Stoops getting blasted in the media...Nothing lingering on in to the next season anyway....They'll rip him for about a week but all is forgotten by the next August...

Lost 5 consecutive bowl games...Including 4 BCS bowl games...Yet there they are at #1 and nobody is talking about it...

I think Bob and the Sooners have definitely benefited from Ohio State's performances in the last 2 NCGs...If they would have been closer losses to UF and LSU, I think Bob's seat might be getting warm because more focus would have been put on OU's bowl performances.


Oklahoma has only lost 2 consecutive bowl games (Both Fiesta bowls to Boise St and WV). They won the holiday bowl in 2005 vs. Oregon.

Oklahoma is 4 - 4 in bowl games this decade, granted the 4 losses are in BCS games, 2 of them being NC games. The 4 wins are the Orange Bowl (NC), Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Holliday Bowl.

I agree though, Oklahoma has benefitted from Ohio St losing in blowouts the last 2 NC games. It has taken the spotlight away from Oklahoma's struggles in recent BCS games.
Image
OKCHomers
OKCFFL Auction
Goody
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2413
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to College Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 13:59 hours
(and 41 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact