jimb@ISM780B.UUCP (01/07/86)
>How can you call Oklahoma's schedule this year patsy? I'm truly baffled. >**Seven** of their twelve opponents this season were bowl teams (three of >them played in New Year's Day bowls!). Half the teams in the Big Eight >went to bowls, and they all had good non-conference records. In all >fairness, you can't make a judgement of the strength of a conference based >on four games. Colorado came within two yards of beating Washington, and >the Nebraska-Michigan game could have gone either way. Even with Colorado's >loss to Washington, the Big Eight still topped the Pac 10 4-2 in head-to- >head matches this year. With 18 bowl games, LOTS of teams went to bowls. Half the teams in the Pac-10 and and six teams in the Big-10 also went. Could have, shmould have. Yeah, Colorado might have beaten Washington. On the other hand, Arizona could easily have beaten Georgia (it was a tie) and Arizona State could have easily beaten Arkansas (a one-point loss, a dropped pass that would have put them in field-goal range in the final seconds.) So the Pac-10 would have been 4-1, but then if pigs had wings they would fly. As for Penn St., a lot of narrow victories over mediocre competition like Temple contributed to their 11-0 record. (There! I can get another group annoyed at me.) >I'll be happy to have it decided on the field. You downplay Miami's >strength now because they lost to Tennessee, but I'm sure you're one of >those Sooner haters who would have been yelling that Miami got robbed if >they had won the bowl and not the national championship. Oklahoma's non-con >schedule in '86 is UCLA, Minnesota, at Miami, Texas, and possibly (??) >Michigan or Tennessee in the Kickoff Classic if they're invited and elect to >go. NOBODY would have a tougher schedule than that! No, I wouldn't have yelled that Miami got robbed. Now, I MIGHT have found a way to support a Michigan claim.....(:-}) I don't hate the Sooners; I just find them unforgiveably boring. I, too, look forward to the game next year. While the defenses are stuffing the run, the better passing attack will rule the day. (Hint: A team that passes three times a half isn't going to cut it.) You're right, it's a tough non-con schedule. > >OKLAHOMA IS #1 AND THE REST IS SOUR GRAPES! ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^ from which you're making a fine whine. > Dennis Doubleday > Univ. of Maryland >Perhaps this string of at-home games for Pac-10 teams ought to stop--- >let's have the next Rose Bowl in Soldier Field. Heh, heh. We'll see how >those California boys handle -20 wind chill. >Rich Kulawiec pur-ee!rsk purdue!rsk rsk@purdue-asc.arpa rsk@asc.purdue.edu Sure, and why don't you change the site of the Cotton/Sugar/Orange Bowls, too. It seems that only the Big-10 consistently chokes. Or maybe they are truly inferior? Soldier Field and associated weather has its points, though. I hope the Bears demolish the Rams. The arrogance of all the local yokels is unbelievable. (This California boy grew up in Evanston, five blocks from Lake Michigan, and the wind chill was -40 and the snow was this high and...) >i've had it. why does everyone think the big-8 is a weak conference?? Because they are? >OU had the highest rated defense *EVER*, against a tough schedule, ever >mention that? OUs nosegaurd was picked the best down lineman in the nation, >and linebacker bosworth won the first butkis award as the best linebacker. >murphy was ANOTHER all-american on defense. we are talking about the #1 >defens this year, and one of the best ever, by anyones yard-stick. and in >their last seven regular season games OU averaged 38 points a games. Yeah, and let's see what happens if they go up against a team that can pass. Let's see what happens when they go up against teams that don't live and die by the run. I believe in balanced teams. A good balanced team, with a good passing attack, will take OU apart. I look forward to seeing UCLA vs. OU next fall; it turns out turnover will be very low for both teams. You lose Casillas, UCLA loses Whalen. I predict UCLA will stuff the wishbone, the passing will open up OU's defense, and a balanced attack will and special teams will take OU apart. >only on the net will you hear how weak the big-8 is and how penn state was >superior to OU. net.footballers seem to know a LOT about rah-rah-rah my >conference is better, sis-boom-bah my team is better, but don't seem know >much about football beyond what they read in the campus newspapers. Nah, I thought Penn St. was inferior too. So I didn't think much of the Orange Bowl to begin with, and the game proved it. Borrrring. Oh, go ahead and get excited about the TD that OU scored in the last minute after Penn St. was demoralized. Does 25-10 feel that much better? Awww. By the way, I don't read campus newspapers; I've been out of school for over a decade now. I do read The Sporting News. > ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet {ihnp4, decvax}!ima!jimb (most reliable) ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb or jimb at ima/*cca-unix.arpa ^ this asterisk is necessary!
dday@umcp-cs.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) (01/10/86)
>>How can you call Oklahoma's schedule this year patsy? I'm truly baffled. >>**Seven** of their twelve opponents this season were bowl teams (three of >>them played in New Year's Day bowls!). Half the teams in the Big Eight >>went to bowls, and they all had good non-conference records. In all >>fairness, you can't make a judgement of the strength of a conference based >>on four games. Colorado came within two yards of beating Washington, and >>the Nebraska-Michigan game could have gone either way. Even with Colorado's >>loss to Washington, the Big Eight still topped the Pac 10 4-2 in head-to- >>head matches this year. > >With 18 bowl games, LOTS of teams went to bowls. Half the teams in the >Pac-10 and and six teams in the Big-10 also went. Could have, shmould have. So why does the fact that the Big 8 sent half their teams and the Pac 10 sent half their teams mean that the Big 8 is the weaker conference? I'm not trying to prove that the Big 8 is better, only roughly equivalent. I've already posted previously (in response to Eddy Lor) the figures showing that in non-conf. games in 1985 (before the bowls) the Big 8 was 17-14-0. The Pac 10 was 16-14-1. Roughly equivalent. With the bowls figured in its 18-16-0 and 18-16-1. *Very similar*. Your claim that the Pac 10 is tougher just doesn't hold up to inspection. >Yeah, Colorado might have beaten Washington. On the other hand, Arizona >could easily have beaten Georgia (it was a tie) and Arizona State could have >easily beaten Arkansas (a one-point loss, a dropped pass that would have put >them in field-goal range in the final seconds.) So the Pac-10 would have >been 4-1, but then if pigs had wings they would fly. Yeah, and if UCLA deserves to be rated ahead of Oklahoma, then pigs do have wings! JUST LOOK AT THE RECORD!! Oklahoma lost one game all year long (to a top ten team). UCLA was tied by a top ten team and lost games to two teams, Washington and USC, which finished 7-5 and 6-6, respectively. Mediocre, at best! UCLA had to eke out a 31-30 victory over lowly Washington State, for Chrissakes! Sure, UCLA played a #1-type game against Iowa, but you gotta do it all season long to end up highly-ranked. >> >>OKLAHOMA IS #1 AND THE REST IS SOUR GRAPES! > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^ > ^ > from which you're making a fine whine. > It's not we who are whining, Mr. Brunet. Whining is what the losers do. >Yeah, and let's see what happens if they go up against a team that can pass. >Let's see what happens when they go up against teams that don't live and die >by the run. I believe in balanced teams. A good balanced team, with a good >passing attack, will take OU apart. I look forward to seeing UCLA vs. OU >next fall; it turns out turnover will be very low for both teams. You lose >Casillas, UCLA loses Whalen. I predict UCLA will stuff the wishbone, the >passing will open up OU's defense, and a balanced attack will and special >teams will take OU apart. > You're making some very large assumptions there. Despite the fact that Oklahoma led the nation in pass defense, it's true that is the unproven part of their defense. They just don't play many teams with good passing attacks. Similarly, despite the fact that UCLA led the nation in rushing defense, their rushing defense is suspect. They have not played anybody who can run like Oklahoma. They played a Washington State team with a decent running attack and gave up 30 points. UCLA will not stuff the wishbone. Oklahoma's defense is superior because they stopped the run in a running conference and UCLA did not stop the pass in a passing conference. It's clear from the Rose Bowl that UCLA has a dangerous offense, but the defense still managed to allow Iowa 28 points and 400 yards of offense. -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-4247
jimb@ISM780B.UUCP (01/13/86)
>So why does the fact that the Big 8 sent half their teams and the Pac 10 >sent half their teams mean that the Big 8 is the weaker conference? I'm not >trying to prove that the Big 8 is better, only roughly equivalent. Oh, okay. I (honestly) thought you were trying to prove that the Big-8 was superior. >I've already posted previously (in response to Eddy Lor) the figures >showing that in non-conf. games in 1985 (before the bowls) the Big 8 was >17-14-0. The Pac 10 was 16-14-1. Roughly equivalent. With the bowls >figured in its 18-16-0 and 18-16-1. *Very similar*. Your claim that the Pac >10 is tougher just doesn't hold up to inspection. Umm, that's not the way I look at it. I look at it from the standpoint of who do I think is a tougher set of opponents -- Washington, Washington St., USC, Arizona -- or Colorado, Iowa St., and the rest of the dinky teams of the Big 2-3/4. (Oklahoma St. = 1/2, Colorado =1/4 -- this year). Even if the top schools have comparable records, I know who *I* would rather play if I wanted a winning record.) >Yeah, and if UCLA deserves to be rated ahead of Oklahoma, then pigs do have >wings! JUST LOOK AT THE RECORD!! Oklahoma lost one game all year long (to >a top ten team). UCLA was tied by a top ten team and lost games to two >teams, Washington and USC, which finished 7-5 and 6-6, respectively. >Mediocre, at best! UCLA had to eke out a 31-30 victory over lowly >Washington State, for Chrissakes! Sure, UCLA played a #1-type game against >Iowa, but you gotta do it all season long to end up highly-ranked. A fine distinction -- I did not say that UCLA deserved to be RATED better than Oklahoma. My posting said OU was should enjoy their national championship. I said I thought they WERE the better team. I find nothing embarassing about a tie to Tennessee, or for that matter, the loss to Washington when that team was healthy. <The loss was due mainly to one lapse by a rookie cornerback, but that is part of the game and a loss is a loss and by the end of the season the defense was just fine.> As to USC, how many upsets have there been in the Oklahoma-Nebraska series? Okay, UCLA lost, and on that basis they don't deserve the ranking -- my posting had a big IF which I then discounted. >> >>OKLAHOMA IS #1 AND THE REST IS SOUR GRAPES! >> ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> ^ >> ^ >> from which you're making a fine whine. >> >It's not we who are whining, Mr. Brunet. Whining is what the losers do. Nah, I'm not whining, just provoking discussions. Or conducting thought-experiments, if you prefer. >You're making some very large assumptions there. Despite the fact that >Oklahoma led the nation in pass defense, it's true that is the unproven >part of their defense. They just don't play many teams with good passing >attacks. Similarly, despite the fact that UCLA led the nation in rushing >defense, their rushing defense is suspect. They have not played anybody >who can run like Oklahoma. They played a Washington State team with a >decent running attack and gave up 30 points. UCLA will not stuff the >wishbone. Oklahoma's defense is superior because they stopped the run >in a running conference and UCLA did not stop the pass in a passing >conference. It's clear from the Rose Bowl that UCLA has a dangerous >offense, but the defense still managed to allow Iowa 28 points and >400 yards of offense. Yeah, and Iowa had the runner-up Heisman candidate as QB and he still got crushed -- the last TD and not a few of their yards were against UCLA second/third/??? stringers in the fourth quarter. As to runners, the stopped Harmon, who looked like no slouch earlier in the season, just fine. As to UCLA's defense, if you face a lot of good-passing QB's, of course you're going to give up yards. But how many points did they give up? Damned few. I tell you what; let's put this one on hold until next September. I mean the Bears are about to win a Super Bowl and the Cubs are making a comeback, right? -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet (fan of Cubs, Bears, UCLA Bruins -- the bearable teams) (loather of USC, Cowboys, Raiders, Rams, Mets, Dodgers, Yankees, Nebraska, Ohio State.) {ihnp4, decvax}!ima!jimb (most reliable) ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb or jimb at ima/*cca-unix.arpa ^ this asterisk is necessary!
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/15/86)
>So why does the fact that the Big 8 sent half their teams and the Pac 10 sent >half their teams mean that the Big 8 is the weaker conference? Sending half of their teams to bowls does not make the Big 8 a strong conference, it doesn't make the Pac-10 a strong conference neither. Which traditional major football conferences did not send (almost) half of its teams to bowls? SEC sent 5 out of 10 (with Florida on probation), Big-10 sent 6 out of 10, and SWC sent 4 out of 9. The only exceptions are WAC (2/10), and ACC (2/8). I won't argue with you about the superiority of the WAC and ACC. The reason I consider the big 8 a weak conference is the gap between its top two teams and bottom six teams. Year in year out, none of the little teams can challenge for the conference title. Well, you can say Oklahoma St. won 8 to 10 games in each the past three years, but they are 0-6 against Oklahoma and Nebraska (coming close in some of the games didn't count.) And Oklahoma St. of 1983-85, Colorado of 1985, and Missouri of 1983, may have good records, but they were not able to beat any top teams (again, coming close did not count.) That's why the 3rd to 8th teams in the conference do not get any respects. The champions of Pac 10 may not be as good as Nebraska/ Oklahoma (proved by the two Nebraska routs against UCLA). But our conference is more balanced. Year in year out, USC, Washington, UCLA, and the two Arizona schools have definite shots at the conference title. You may think it is mediocre, but I consider this as competitive. This is only the Pac 10. Can Oklahoma/Nebraska be considered classes above Tennesse and Florida in the SEC? or Michigan and Iowa in the Big-10? While none of these teams have to look up to Oklahoma/Nebraska, they got much tougher schedules en route to their conference titles. You can say Oklahoma embarrassed Nebraska last year, but who else they defeated worth a mention? Tell me from your heart, Dennis, had the sooners been a member of SEC and played any three of Alabama, Florida, Tennesse, Auburn, and Georgia, or a member of big 10 and played Ohio State, Iowa, and Michigan, and finish a respectable 9-2 last year, do you expect them to get a chance to play Penn St? Sure, all these SEC and Big Ten powerhouses played some Indiana, Northwestern, and Mississippi St. But it is the number of true contenders, not the number of patsies, you DEFEATED that matters. >that in non-conf. games in 1985 (before the bowls) the Big 8 was 17-14-0. >The Pac 10 was 16-14-1. Roughly equivalent. With the bowls figured in >its 18-16-0 and 18-16-1. *Very similar*. Non-conference records are not proper benchmarks because the oppositions are different. You can also claimed the Big-8 having a 4-2 advantage against the Pac-10, but that is not a proper comparsion neither. Unless it is something like the NBA, that everybody in the Eastern conference plays everybody in the Western conference, that you can use inter-conference records for comparison. >Yeah, and if UCLA deserves to be rated ahead of Oklahoma, then pigs do have >wings! JUST LOOK AT THE RECORD!! Oklahoma lost one game all year long (to >a top ten team). UCLA was tied by a top ten team and lost games to two >teams, Washington and USC, which finished 7-5 and 6-6, respectively. >Mediocre, at best! UCLA had to eke out a 31-30 victory over lowly >Washington State, for Chrissakes! Sure, UCLA played a #1-type game against >Iowa, but you gotta do it all season long to end up highly-ranked. No, UCLA does not deserve to be ranked higher than Oklahoma UNDER THIS SYSTEM. This system rewards consistency more than supremacy. Oklahoma won games it was supposed to win (this is easier said than done) while UCLA did not. However, my bruins proved they could beat (or tie) the extremely tough opponents: at BYU, at Tennesse, and Iowa, while your sooners did not (don't give me any more excuses in the Miami loss). Had there been a playoff, say, among Michigan, Iowa, Miami, Penn St., Texas A&M, Tennesse, UCLA, and Oklahoma, do you think #1 Oklahoma has a better chance than #7 UCLA? About next September's matchup between UCLA and Oklahoma, let's put that off for nine months. I am still more interested in discussing the past season. Who knows what's going to happened in September? -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA