Week 10 SJ College Football Poll

[TrojanHorse]

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

There is a reason, Missouri is a better team. And that better team got their butts kicked by San Diego Sate. What conference it SDSU in again?

Umm, San Diego State LOST to Missouri. No ifs, ands, or buts can change that.
"Butt kickers" usually have the most points at the end of the game, and it's usually by a wide margin. Don't tell me that mid majors also count moral victories and include them in their season win total. Do they?

[BBSOONER]

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

When have I EVER done that? I'll make it easy for you, never.

Actually you do it in this post when you make false claims that the MWC is better than 2 or 3 BCS conferences. You should respect those conferences and not discount what they have done to become BCS conferences. Oh, I forgot your team does not play in one, so you would not understand.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

There is a reason, Missouri is a better team. And that better team got their butts kicked by San Diego Sate. What conference it SDSU in again?

Better check that scoreboard again NYSR.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

The Pac-10 yes, the Big 12 no. Oklahoma would more than likely already have a loss in the MWC. Hell, they only won by 3 points to the MWC's 4th best team at home. I thought an Oklahoma fan might realize that the MWC is actually good.

"More than likely"? What is that? Nice opinion. Let's not let the facts confuse you here...OU is 2-0 against the mid-majors this season. So, not sure where you get those findings. BTW, I think the MWC is a very good conference. I just do not think they are up to the same level as BCS conferences. Saying they are is just silly to me.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

Lmao really? So in a non-BCS conference, no teams ever try and they don't have film? They don't prepare at all, you're right. good point there. Of course the MWC isn't familiar with each other.

Let's not be goofy here. Of course they do, but it is not the same challenge as the BCS conferences top to bottom. Sorry, but it is not. I wish it were and we could end this debate, but they are mid-majors for a reason. Your argument is like saying that High School teams don't watch film and prepare, but is that also the same task as rolling through the Big Ten or SEC? Come on man!

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

Please, the excuses just keep on getting worse and worse, along with funnier and funnier.

They are not excuses. The only one here that really has to say or do anything to change perception is you. I can stop talking about this subject all together and it will not make the MWC a BCS conference this season now will it?

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

And same with the MWC. BYU beat SDSU this year as BIG underdogs. Wyoming has been within minutes of beating a few teams this year. Teams like CSU has knocked off top 2-3 MWC teams in the past 2 years. Wyoming too. UNLV to.

Not sure how that is the same to a team rolling into a game with the #1 ranked team in the country in their house and pulling off the upset, but hey if you think SDSU is as good as an undefeated Bama. Knock yourself out. CSU? Wyoming? UNLV? Funny stuff NYSR!

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

Well considering the MWC is a better conference from top to bottom than at the very least 2 BCS conferences, most likely 3, that's hilarious. Oklahoma would get killed if they had to play Air Force, TCU, Utah, and SDSU 4 straight weeks. They would be extremely lucky to walk out of that .500...

Better this year than the Big East? Sure. Better than the ACC? Debatable. Better than the other 4...uhhhh...NO. It really is not even close, but don't let that stop you from demanding it is the truth.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

Can't say the same about Oklahoma, unless the Big 12 completely folds they'll never get the chance to play in an elite conference They better hope it folds and they join the SEC, Pac-10, or the new MWC if you want to keep making that lame excuse.

Wow. Don't let history and facts get in the way. Let's not forget that 7 teams in the Big XII have NC's to their credit and 2 since the BCS inception. This year they are no less than the 3rd best conference, maybe 2nd.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

Why are you talking about elite? Are you a fan of a team in the Pac-10 or SEC? What happened to Oklahoma, hopping off the bandwagon? No need to switch teams just because you came to senses that neither the Big 12, nor Oklahoma are elite

That is just silly. You can bag on my Sooners all you want, but that will not change the fact that they have played in 4 National Championships in the BCS era and won 1. Can you point to the mid-major that can lay claim to any level of success that is even close to that? No, because it does not exist. Now you will tell me that getting to the NC game means nothing, then you will follow that up with how BSU or TCU deserve to be in one. Go ahead.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

The Pac-10 and SEC are the only two elite conferences. The next tier is the Big 10, MWC, and Big 12, which could be ordered any way you want, they're all really close. Then comes the WAC and ACC, and then the Big East, MAC, and C-USA, then the Sun Belt.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one paragraph, you are telling me how "elite" the MWC is and how bad the Big XII is, then you come out with this gem. At least you recognize in this one that the PAC, SEC, Big XII and BIG TEN are all in the Top 4 conferences in football. Make note that I already stated that the MWC may be better than the ACC and is better than the BE. Now start the backpedaling.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

I do however think it's hilarious how the further along the season goes, the worse the excuses are against the MWC

Actually the further along the season goes the better the arguments get. The SOS gets better as the year goes on for the BCS Conferences. The opposite effect happens in the mid-majors. By your own admission, the best teams BSU plays this year are in BCS conferences. Same with every mid-major out there. The best teams they play are BCS teams. There is the occasional exception (TCU / UTAH), but as a rule...yes.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

It's really just getting pathetic now, this is pretty funny how clearly jealous BCS teams are of the TCU's, Boise State's, Utah's, etc.

I think you have it backwards. I am not the one that has to explain why his conference deserves to be in the BCS.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

Btw, here's some trivia questions for you...

Okay

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

-What is the ONLY conference with two top 5 teams?

~That changes this week since one of them has to lose. So, hang on to that till next week.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

-Also, who is the ONLY conference with two undefeated teams?

~Had they played in September and October, like the Undefeateds in other conferences, this would not be a question would it? That is funny though.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

-What conference has had the best bowl record 2 out of the past 3 years, and the one year they weren't the best they lost by 1 game?

~Actually Independents were the best last season - Navy won it's game. (100%). MWC was 2nd (4-1 / 80%) followed by the BCS conferences. The funny thing is that if you are going to use the Bowl wins argument then Big East must be the best BCS conference since they had the 3rd best record (4-2 / 67%). They also played 1 more game since they had 1 more team "Bowl Eligible". So what does that really say about this methodology? Not real sure what this has to do with this year, but hey it is interesting.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

-What conference has had a 60% winning % against the Big 12 in the past 4 years?

~Why stop there? You pick the past few years. I say lets look at the entire BCS era:

Big XII -vs- WAC 55 to 9 = Big XII won 85%

Big XII -vs- MWC 32 to 19 = Big XII won 63%

Dare we look at the entire history? You are not gonna like it.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

-What conference has been 11-2 against the Pac-10 in 08/09 and 09/10. This year I'm pretty sure they're up yet again with TCU beating OSU, BYU beating Washington, etc.

~Okay. And? Did you know that the MWC has 4 teams with winning records? Did you know that the WAC has 4 teams with winning records?
Are you aware that the SEC, Big XII, Big Ten, and Pac 10 all have the majority of their teams with winning records?

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

Do you need the answers to those?

Clearly not.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

But I thought they sucked and weren't an elite??????? I thought they didn't play a rigorous BCS schedule? (Btw, LMAO at that coming from a Big 12 fan. Talk about irony )

They are not on the same level as the BCS conferences. I stand by my statement. And no they do not play the rigorous schedules that BCS conferences play. Ironic? Okay.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

It's okay, the computers are quite as biased against the MWC as the humans (Although the humans do take into account the ranking that go into the computers, at least the computers can adjust) It's really no use posting facts and debating it.

One minute you are saying the computers are not factual. Then you are using them as factual? Not sure I follow. The computers LOVE the Big XII and SEC though. You know why? That's right, because they play the toughest schedules in football annually.

Originally Posted by NYSportsRule

It's like a Jewish person trying to convince Hitler that Jews are outstanding with money. No matter how true it is, Hitler's just gonna shrug it off and have the "I'm better than you, no matter what you say or do" attitude that the BCS conferences and fans have.

It is like the ant telling the elephant that he is bigger than the elephant. No matter how many times he says it the rest of the world knows the truth. Mid-Majors are what they are for a reason. Nice debate though.

[Serrated Shadow]

I'm digging this debate.

[BBSOONER]

Originally Posted by Serrated Shadow

I'm digging this debate.

I am long winded at times. LOL.

[Jerry]

Great post Boomer.

I'm hoping that sooner or later, this kid is going to tire of eating his own gruel. I've stopped the discussions because he just doesn't get it. Boomer, you actually made the best point. We could all stop talking about this, and the burden is on the mid-major apologists to prove to people that the mid majors deserve to be in the BCS.

He's the guy with the ugly girlfriend trying to convince us that she's the total package.

[BBSOONER]

Originally Posted by Jerry-theohiostateguy

Great post Boomer.

I'm hoping that sooner or later, this kid is going to tire of eating his own gruel. I've stopped the discussions because he just doesn't get it. Boomer, you actually made the best point. We could all stop talking about this, and the burden is on the mid-major apologists to prove to people that the mid majors deserve to be in the BCS.

He's the guy with the ugly girlfriend trying to convince us that she's the total package.

Rep Jerry!

[NYSportsRule]

Originally Posted by TrojanHorse

Umm, San Diego State LOST to Missouri. No ifs, ands, or buts can change that.
"Butt kickers" usually have the most points at the end of the game, and it's usually by a wide margin. Don't tell me that mid majors also count moral victories and include them in their season win total. Do they?

Like I posted before:

http://www.rockmnation.com/2010/6/22...beyond-the-box

That's a MISSOURI fan coming up with those numbers. The exact same box score, TOP, turnovers, etc and SDSU wins 9/10 times. It took an EXTREMELY lucky play on the last play of the game for a 65 yard TD where he stepped out of bounds but it wasn't called.

They flat out destroyed Mizzu on the road AT Mizzu, and Mizzu was actually the 6th ranked team in the NCAA at one point

Originally Posted by BBSOONER

Actually you do it in this post when you make false claims that the MWC is better than 2 or 3 BCS conferences. You should respect those conferences and not discount what they have done to become BCS conferences. Oh, I forgot your team does not play in one, so you would not understand.

How the hell is that false?

You really think the Big Easy and ACC are better than the MWC? Please tell me you're not THAT dillusional/biased....

Even Fans of the ACC and Big Easy know that

Better check that scoreboard again NYSR.

http://www.rockmnation.com/2010/6/22...beyond-the-box

Read that and what I said in response to TH. SDSU flat out dominated Missouri on their home field.

"More than likely"? What is that? Nice opinion. Let's not let the facts confuse you here...OU is 2-0 against the mid-majors this season. So, not sure where you get those findings. BTW, I think the MWC is a very good conference. I just do not think they are up to the same level as BCS conferences. Saying they are is just silly to me.

OU is the best/2nd best team in the Big 12. They won by 3 points at home to the 4th best MWC team and by 7 points again at home to the 7th/8th best WAC team. That's hilarious that you're trying to say that's impressive

That's like me saying the MWC>>>>>>Big 12 because TCU beat Baylor...Omg Utah killed Iowa State too, MWC>>>>>>>Big 12!!!!

Seriously, you're bragging about 2 VERY close wins against teams that aren't even near the top of their divisions, that's really funny to me. Thanks for prooving that more than likely having a loss in the MWC. If they can only beat the 4th best MWC at home by 3 points, they would stand absolutely no shot against TCU, and a veryyyy small shot against Utah and SDSU. The Utah State is even more funny considering they're 0-4 in the WAC

And it's 100000x more silly to think that the ACC or Big Easy is even half as good as the MWC, let alone better than them. It's not even remotely close...

Especially the Big Easy. PLEASE explain how they're supposed to be a better conference...Weren't they like 0-11 against other AQ conferences this year? They're just a pitiful all around conference. And the best team in their conference lost to Utah...

Let's not be goofy here. Of course they do, but it is not the same challenge as the BCS conferences top to bottom. Sorry, but it is not. I wish it were and we could end this debate, but they are mid-majors for a reason. Your argument is like saying that High School teams don't watch film and prepare, but is that also the same task as rolling through the Big Ten or SEC? Come on man!

Of course it's the same challenge. The Big East and ACC, it is DEFINITELY the same challenge from top to bottom. Obviously not the Pac-10 or SEC, but you're lumping every BCS conferences together, which is just hilarious.

They are mid majors because they don't have the same student bod and make as much money for the BCS as bigger school do. That's the reason. It has NOTHING to do with their play on the field. It doesn't mean ANYTHING towards how good the teams are.

Oh, and btw, according to recent polls on espn.com from about 2 weeks ago:

82% of the people think the MWC should be a BCS conference.
73% of people think the Big East should get their BCS spot revoked.

I have numbers on my side as well.

They are not excuses. The only one here that really has to say or do anything to change perception is you. I can stop talking about this subject all together and it will not make the MWC a BCS conference this season now will it?

Of course they're excuses....You're saying 7-11 teams are gunning for you every week in a BCS conference, but apparently you don't think that's the case in the MWC, even though it's OBVIOUSLY the case....

And again, obviously nothing we say would make the MWC a BCS conference, I don't even care if they are or not because it really makes no difference at all, the title of "BCS" is exactly that. A title. Like Mr. or Mrs. That's it. It doesn't say anything about "better", all it is is a title. We both could stop talking about it, but you keep making more and more points for the MWC with every post so might as well keep going

Not sure how that is the same to a team rolling into a game with the #1 ranked team in the country in their house and pulling off the upset, but hey if you think SDSU is as good as an undefeated Bama. Knock yourself out. CSU? Wyoming? UNLV? Funny stuff NYSR!

Nice job putting words into my mouth again. This time it's not even remotely close to anything that I said. You just flat out pulled stuff out of your ass and said that I said it.

When the hell did I say SDSU was even close to Bama?

Okay, first of all, I said the SEC is an elite conference. 2nd, if you're matching the best team up in the SEC, you don't compare them to the 3rd best team in the MWC...If you wanna talk about Bama, TCU is the only comparison you can make in the MWC...And yes, I do think TCU would beat Bama more than 80% of the time they play. And I know you don't watch ANY MWC AT ALL, but CSU, Wyoming, and UNLV have had some pretty good teams in the past decade...They're obviously in down years right now (Wyoming is starting 13 freshmen, CSU 9, and UNLY 8), but more years than not they're solid teams.

Better this year than the Big East? Sure. Better than the ACC? Debatable. Better than the other 4...uhhhh...NO. It really is not even close, but don't let that stop you from demanding it is the truth.

Wait what? Now you're backtracking? You said the MWC is not better than any BCS conference and now you're saying they're better the Big East?

I said the MWC is better than the Big East and ACC, and you went off saying they're not as good as any BCS conference. Now you're backtracking and saying they're better than the Big East and maybe the ACC too? I've been saying all year long that the MWC was the 5th best conference in the NCAA, maybe 4th if you take Nebraska out of the Big 12.

Wow. Don't let history and facts get in the way. Let's not forget that 7 teams in the Big XII have NC's to their credit and 2 since the BCS inception. This year they are no less than the 3rd best conference, maybe 2nd.

Don't let history get in the way of THIS YEAR?

Why would it matter AT ALL that 7 teams in the Big 12 has NC to their credit. BYU won a NC, does that make the MWC more impressive in 2010? Hell no...I never got how history ALWAYS comes up in talking about THIS YEAR only.

And 2nd is hilarious. Sorry, but the SEC is not worse than the Big 12 this year....And the Big 10 isn't either...

That is just silly. You can bag on my Sooners all you want, but that will not change the fact that they have played in 4 National Championships in the BCS era and won 1. Can you point to the mid-major that can lay claim to any level of success that is even close to that? No, because it does not exist. Now you will tell me that getting to the NC game means nothing, then you will follow that up with how BSU or TCU deserve to be in one. Go ahead.

Again, living on the past in a debate about THIS YEAR.

Hilarious.

And since you brought it up, TCU has 2 NC's actually. In 1935 and 1938. That means just as much towards this year as Oklahoma's NC wins. Which is flat out nothing. Don't change the subject and talk about history, talk about right now.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one paragraph, you are telling me how "elite" the MWC is and how bad the Big XII is, then you come out with this gem. At least you recognize in this one that the PAC, SEC, Big XII and BIG TEN are all in the Top 4 conferences in football. Make note that I already stated that the MWC may be better than the ACC and is better than the BE. Now start the backpedaling.

No I'm not at all. Maybe you put words into my mouth like always, but I've said from day 1 the conference rankings are 1a) Pac-10 1b) SEC 3) Big 10 4a) Big 12 4b) MWC 6) ACC 7) WAC 8) C-USA 9a) Big East 9b) MAC 11) Sun Belt.

I've stuck to my word literally since day 1. You're the one backpedaling after saying the MWC isn't better than a BCS conference multiple times, and then going on to say that they're better than the Big East and ACC is debatable. That's a HUGE backpedal...

Actually the further along the season goes the better the arguments get. The SOS gets better as the year goes on for the BCS Conferences. The opposite effect happens in the mid-majors. By your own admission, the best teams BSU plays this year are in BCS conferences. Same with every mid-major out there. The best teams they play are BCS teams. There is the occasional exception (TCU / UTAH), but as a rule...yes.

Not at all. TCU's SOS goes up at the end of the year. Playing @ Utah and against SDSU are two of TCU's best games. And both of those teams are MUCH better than Big 12 South LEADER, Baylor.

I think you have it backwards. I am not the one that has to explain why his conference deserves to be in the BCS.

Yeah you definitely are, TCU will be in a BCS game this year if they beat Utah and SDSU, no questions asked. Meanwhile Oklahoma is going to have to plead and explain their way into a BCS game over teams like Bama, Auburn, TCU, BSU, Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Missouri, Nebraska, etc. So have fun with that, you got a ton of work to do trying to explain how they deserve a BCS birth, meanwhile we let our play do the convincing and are now the #3 team in the NCAA.

~That changes this week since one of them has to lose. So, hang on to that till next week.

Yeah, because the MWC is so brutal. They beat up on each other. They would have two top 5 teams, but since they have to play each other and beat up on each other so much

~Had they played in September and October, like the Undefeateds in other conferences, this would not be a question would it? That is funny though.

Well they didn't and they're the only conference with two undefeated teams. And that's flawed logic, every other conference could easily have 2 undefeated teams. Bama lost to a 1 loss team, not undefeated team. Mizzu, Nebraska, and Okie State all lost to 1 loss teams. MSU lost to a 2 loss team.

Every conferences had their chances, so don't try to make that excuse of the undefeated teams playing each other, that's not true at all.

~Actually Independents were the best last season - Navy won it's game. (100%). MWC was 2nd (4-1 / 80%) followed by the BCS conferences. The funny thing is that if you are going to use the Bowl wins argument then Big East must be the best BCS conference since they had the 3rd best record (4-2 / 67%). They also played 1 more game since they had 1 more team "Bowl Eligible". So what does that really say about this methodology? Not real sure what this has to do with this year, but hey it is interesting.

Best record amongst teams that played more than 1 game then...

And I was using it more because the MWC went 2-0 against good Pac-10 teams in Cal and OSU.

~Why stop there? You pick the past few years. I say lets look at the entire BCS era:

Maybe because TCU wasn't in the MWC that long

Dare we look at the entire history? You are not gonna like it.

Entire history? Of what, the SWC? The MWC is a new conference lol.

~Okay. And? Did you know that the MWC has 4 teams with winning records? Did you know that the WAC has 4 teams with winning records?
Are you aware that the SEC, Big XII, Big Ten, and Pac 10 all have the majority of their teams with winning records?

Did you know that the MWC and WAC play VERY tough OOC schedules, which hurts their records? Did you know that the SEC, Big 12, and Big 10 play NOBODY OOC, because they only care about racking up wins. Quite simple. If Wyoming played against Rice instead of Texas, Tennessee Tech instead of Boise State, etc, they'd have a winning record right now.

They are not on the same level as the BCS conferences. I stand by my statement. And no they do not play the rigorous schedules that BCS conferences play. Ironic? Okay.

Lmao really? You're really backtracking AGAIN?!?! I thought you FINALLY came to your senses that the MWC was better than the Big Easy and ACC, you're gonna backtrack on that again? 3 times in 1 post? That might be a record...

One minute you are saying the computers are not factual. Then you are using them as factual? Not sure I follow. The computers LOVE the Big XII and SEC though. You know why? That's right, because they play the toughest schedules in football annually.

Lmao. Quote me where I EVER said they were factual. Again, I don't know what it is about your mind that just LOVES to think that I say stuff that I was not even remotely close to saying...

And that's not even close to why. You know why? Because the computers are VERY biased and only look at W/L records an not who they play.

It is like the ant telling the elephant that he is bigger than the elephant. No matter how many times he says it the rest of the world knows the truth. Mid-Majors are what they are for a reason. Nice debate though.

First of all, I think it's hilarious that you're saying Mid-Majors are what they are for a reason like it's an insult. mid-Majors are what they are. Teams that get flat out screwed in polls, always disrespected by BCS teams that are too scared to even play against them, yet kick the living shit out of every BCS team they play. That's pretty much the definition of a Mid-Major, so I'll GLADLY stay being a Mid-Major

Yep, it was a good debate. I also thank you for bringing up better arguments for the MWC than even I did

Originally Posted by Jerry-theohiostateguy

Great post Boomer.

I'm hoping that sooner or later, this kid is going to tire of eating his own gruel. I've stopped the discussions because he just doesn't get it. Boomer, you actually made the best point. We could all stop talking about this, and the burden is on the mid-major apologists to prove to people that the mid majors deserve to be in the BCS.

He's the guy with the ugly girlfriend trying to convince us that she's the total package.

You know what's reallyyyyyy funny? I've been debating it all year, and it started with TCU or Boise State wouldn't be able to hang with OSU. Well where are they now? Then it was Alabama. Well where are they now? Then it was the top 10 teams at that time. Where is Iowa, OU, Nebraska, Arizona, etc now?

Even if I eat my own gruel, that would be the first time this year compared to you eating it over 10 times already

You are comparing some top teams losing to other good teams, to Boise and TCU beating cupcakes. Thats not helping your argument much.