Both teams ultimately were today what they are, generally: For Indiana, a scrappy but overmatched...

Both teams ultimately were today what they are, generally: For Indiana, a scrappy but overmatched outfit that doesn't respond well to adversity; for Iowa, a scrappy and endlessly resourceful outfit that seems to respond only to adversity. The difference is surprisingly close, especially when you consider that the latter set of virtues still includes "national championship contender."

Dr. Saturday, of course.

3 months ago Oops Pow Surprise 22 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

yep

I don’t think it could be summarized any better.

Fuck tOSU

by ajs1122 on Oct 31, 2009 8:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

And USC loses late

Which should slide Iowa up a spot in the human polls and maybe cut down the BCS distance between them and Texas.

Unless of course a one-loss Oregon team suddenly ends up in the top 5.

We also owe a thank you to Boise State for helping to get rid of the margin of victory statistic from the computer rankings.

"I am so proud to be your coach." -Paul Rhoads

by CyHawk on Nov 1, 2009 12:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t be surprised if the polls put both Oregon and USC ahead of Iowa. Because the USC knob-slobbering has always been ridiculous.

Would it be justified? Hell no. USC being ahead of Iowa last week was completely unjustifiable. But that’s never stopped the pollsters before.

by SpartanDan on Nov 1, 2009 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

Because I’d be pretty fucking surprised if USC was anywhere better than, oh, #10 or #11. Their resume is garbage now.

I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks

by Oops Pow Surprise on Nov 1, 2009 1:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If USC is ahead of Iowa...

then college football is gayer than women’s golf.

(Sorry for the gay joke, OPS.)

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Nov 1, 2009 1:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In fact, I specifically said they shouldn’t be. If there were any justice in the world USC would be in the low 20s at best. (Remember: Lost to fucking Washington, who is Washington, and fucking terrible.) But USC doesn’t drop in the polls half as much as anyone else when they lose.

I was exaggerating a bit when I wrote the first, though. Less of an “I think the voters are actually going to do this” post and more of a “there is no level of idiocy to which I cannot believe the polls would stoop” post.

by SpartanDan on Nov 1, 2009 1:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough...

SpartanDan.

I would not like it if Oregon was ahead of Iowa, but right now, it is just a number. Iowa just needs to keep on winning and let the polls fall where they may. If they are undefeated, and Boise or Cincy or TCU are still ahead, then I will begin the real bitching.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Nov 1, 2009 1:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The real question is

whether Oregon jumps Boise State in any of the polls. If they do, then clearly the whole apparatus needs to be burned to the ground.

I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.

by HoyaGoon on Nov 1, 2009 1:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I could justify that sort of thing

That was opening week. It’s clear Oregon has gotten better, and you could argue that their resume is now better as well.

It never gets to be easy

by chitownhawkeye on Nov 1, 2009 8:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, no, a thousand times no

If results on the field matter at all, you cannot put an unbeaten team behind one of the teams they beat. If Boise drops a game, yes, Oregon should jump them. But neither Boise nor Oregon has lost to anyone else. Boise beat Oregon. Ergo, in any coherent system, Boise stays ahead of Oregon.

by SpartanDan on Nov 1, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I can't blindly accept that

In week 2, obviously. But as the season goes on, strength of schedule has to factor in.

It never gets to be easy

by chitownhawkeye on Nov 1, 2009 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

When you're comparing teams that haven't played head-to-head, certainly

Or even if they have and the winner of that game lost another. Had USC flattened Oregon, I wouldn’t have dismissed arguments for USC over Boise out of hand, though I might have argued the other way on the basis of “you lost to a godawful team, shut the hell up”. But I refuse to dismiss what happened on the field when two teams whom no one else has defeated played each other.

If they played again, would Oregon win 9 out of 10? Probably. But that doesn’t change what happened when they did play. That’s like declaring the Patriots the winners of the ‘08 Super Bowl because who cares if they actually lost, we all know they’re the better team, right?

by SpartanDan on Nov 1, 2009 12:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I want to be...

a supporter of the little guys in this argument. I feel that if the NCAA is going to stack the deck for the big conferences, it is extremely unfair to see a small-conference team go undefeated and not get all the respect (and bowl money) that can be given (maybe short of an appearance in the national title game).

However, Oregon has beaten Utah, Cal, and USC (who were ranked 18 , 6, and 5 respectively at the time of the games). Utah, Cal, and USC are a combined 19-5, and are all in the BCS top 25 right now. Meanwhile, Oregon is the only team Boise has beaten that has not lost at least 3 games.

Advantage, Oregon. (And it kills me to say that, because I pretty much hate Oregon.)

Of course, Oregon has done all that at home. It will be interesting to see if the Ducks can win at Arizona on November 21.

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Nov 1, 2009 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't care about "ranked at the time of the game"

Especially early in the season, when the polls are an absolute crapshoot (remember Alabama’s curb-stomping of “#9” Clemson last year?). Utah’s actually about where they belong on that basis, but Cal and USC are (or, in USC’s case, should be if not given absurd hype by the media for reasons unconnected to football ability) closer to #25 than #5. Give Oregon credit for beating a good team, which they did. But don’t give them credit for beating a great one, because neither Cal nor USC is a great team, whatever we may have thought earlier this season.

by SpartanDan on Nov 1, 2009 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know what point you are making now.

You don’t care about what they WERE ranked, you think they should all NOW be ranked 25, and nobody is going to tell you different?

Why don’t you come back to this site when you have had your period.

(I’m sorry. I don’t really mean that. I’m just trying to be funny. Have a nice day! )

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

-- Judge Smails

by WaterlooChazz on Nov 1, 2009 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My point is ...

that giving Oregon credit for beating a #6 team when they beat Cal is silly because we know better now. Cal is not the #6 team in the country. They’re not even close. It’s the same fiction that resulted in LSU being ranked absurdly high for most of last season (wins over Georgia and Auburn, both ranked absurdly high themselves before anybody knew better, and the pollsters never adjusted their perceptions of those wins to match reality).

Oregon’s very good, and should be the top 1-loss team by a wide margin. I could see them ahead of an unbeaten with a horrid schedule … but not an unbeaten that beat them head-to-head, no matter how horrid the rest of their schedule is. Oregon had their chance to prove that they belong in front of Boise. They failed. Until Boise does something to force a re-evaluation of that (i.e. lose), Boise stays ahead.

I’m probably coming across angrier about this than I actually am, but I hate the idea of telling teams that don’t lose that somebody who did lose deserves a shot at the title and they don’t, and I hate it ten times more when the team that didn’t lose is the one who gave the one-loss team that loss. It’s saying “Yes, we know you beat them and nobody’s beaten you. But we still think they’re better than you, on-field results be damned.” It’s a slap in the face to the idea that results should actually matter.

by SpartanDan on Nov 1, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We are...

…who we thought we are!!! WE ARE WHO WE THOUGHT WE ARE (INSERT AWKWARD MICROPHONE BITCHSLAP) But yeah, it is starting to get interesting. Iowa could be the butt F#K of the BCS this year. They will either butt F#K someone else, or will get butt F@#$ed. I thoroughly enjoyed USC getting pounded, no pun intended. Oregon is scary, but Iowa’s zone D could fair well against them. As far as Cincy, TCU and Boise, yes solid teams, but anytime one of those teams jumps an undefeated Big Ten team, then I call Rat Farts. However, hold your horse cock. Iowa still has to take care of business. I agree, it is quite tasty to think of what could happen, but come on, Iowa needs to do what they do, take one game at a time. Next up, Northwestern. They need to take the purple people bedwetters and make them crap their pants this coming weekend. Go Hawks!!!!

by hawkfaninboston on Nov 1, 2009 3:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs