jimb@ISM780B.UUCP (01/02/86)
Last night, as I was gently rocked in my seat on the rooter bus, fighting to
keep the radio near the window to keep up with score of the Sugar Bowl,
but otherwise dulled with fatigue and slightly raw vocal cords as I savored
mental replays of UCLA's victory in the Rose Bowl, a smug smile slowly crept
across my face. My wife looked up from my shoulder and said, "You're
thinking about what you're going to post on the net tomorrow, aren't you?"
Happiness is being married to an intelligent woman.
On the basis of bowl results, I don't think adherents of any conference can
claim a clear-cut superiority. Bowl records by conference:
Conference W L T Result of #1 team in conference
Big 8 1 3 Beat Penn St., 25-10
Big Ten 3 3 Lost to UCLA, 28-45
Pac 10 2 2 1 Beat Iowa, 45-28
SEC 2 2 1 Beat Miami 35- 7
SWC 3 1 Beat Auburn 36-16
Personal opinion is that the SWC record demonstrates that their #1/3 teams
are better than the SEC #2/3 teams(Texas A&M 36, Auburn 16; Baylor 21, LSU 7)
and the Big Eight's records/rankings are reflective of patsy schedules that
become illuminated in the crunch).
To get some digs in, some conference records are the result of debatable bowl
invitations. USC (a Pac 10 loss) was in the Aloha bowl on the basis of name
recognition (errrgh! and a fluke win over UCLA); Minnesota (Big Ten win) was
invited largely on the presumed presence of Lou Holtz. <snicker>.
Part of the problem is that there are simply too many bowl games. Looking at
the quality of this year's game, here is my assessment of some of the games:
Great (in no particular order) Good:
Rose: UCLA 45, Iowa 28 Peach Bowl: Army 31, Illinois 29
Sugar: Tennessee 35, Miami 7 Cotton Bowl: Texas A&M 36, Auburn 16
Fiesta: Michigan 27, Nebraska 23
Holiday: Arkansas 18, Arizona State 17
Who Cares? Boring
Freedom: Washngton 20, Colorado 17 Orange: Oklahoma 25, Penn St. 10
Cherry: Maryland 35, Syaracuse 14 Citrus: Ohio St. 10, BYU 7
Independence: Minnesota 20, Clemson 13
All American: Georgia Tech 17, Michigan State 14
(Both Orange and Citrus were lemons!)
Aside from the Rose Bowl (to be reviewed in separate article), the team that
impressed me the most was Tennessee. They certainly caught my attention in
their 26-16 tie with UCLA and they looked great on several games I caught
throughout the rest of the season. I think they displayed great intestinal
fortitude by keeping on after the loss of superb quarterback Tony Robinson
and they topped it off by taking Miami apart. I loved it. The SEC has, in
general, gone up in my estimation. I was impressed with Alabama's win over
Georgia at the end of the year. (Taking apart USC was nice, but they're a
weaker team than Georgia. But thanks anyway.) I would think more highly of
the SEC if it weren't for their candy-ass scheduling: low number of
conference games required, anti-competitive schedule.
As for the Sooners, feh! They beat an over-rated Penn St. team. And did it
in a borrrrrrrring manner that wasn't impressive. Take your national
championship and enjoy. I do wish that strength of schedule was factored
into writers/coaches voting. Get idiotic teams like Miami, Penn St., and BYU
down where they belong -- around 8th to 15th, and Oklahoma down to 5th.
My vote for #1 goes to Tennessee, Michigan #2 (damn!), and UCLA #3. The damn
is because UCLA beat USC everyplace but on the scoreboard. If they had won,
UCLA might have been #1 or #2; they should have, but they didn't and they
aren't. (UCLA did great though. Only four home games and still 9-2-1.)
Sooner flamers, hold on. UCLA opens vs. Oklahoma at Norman, OK, next Sept.
13. Even though they'll be different teams due to turnover, should be a good
game. I'll go with underappreciated UCLA, though.
Other important UCLA non-conference games scheduled in upcoming years:
1987 at Nebraska 1988 Nebraska 1989 Tennessee, Michigan
1990 Oklahoma, at Michigan
And now, having given my view of the 1985/Jan 1986 College Football season,
for which I cheerfully accept comments, arguments, flames, etc., I have a
brief personal message before concluding this posting.
Regarding: UCLA 45, Iowa 28
Army 31, Illinois 29
IN YOUR FACE, Ekblaw! <sneer> {victory dance}
<finger extended in table-for-one gesture>
**** End of Personal Message ****
So much for the college season. Go Bears! (and then, only a month until
the start of baseball spring training!!!!)
-- from the contented and indulgent musings of Jim Brunet,
{ihnp4, decvax}!ima!jimb (most reliable)
ucbvax!ucla-cs!ism780!jimb
ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb
or jimb at ima/*cca-unix.arpa
^
this asterisk is necessary!jimb@ISM780B.UUCP (01/03/86)
correction: I was impressed by the Alabama win over Auburn at the end of ^^^^^^ the year, not Georgia as I typed. Jim B.
rsk@pucc-j (Wombat) (01/04/86)
In article <30400012@ISM780B.UUCP> jimb@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >Conference W L T Result of #1 team in conference >Big 8 1 3 Beat Penn St., 25-10 >Big Ten 3 3 Lost to UCLA, 28-45 >Pac 10 2 2 1 Beat Iowa, 45-28 >SEC 2 2 1 Beat Miami 35- 7 >SWC 3 1 Beat Auburn 36-16 While I don't agree with everything else said in this article, I applaud the notion that someone has resorted to the facts. A summary of results vs. out-of-conference teams (in the preseason) would be useful as well... I would like to mildly disagree with the relative rankings of the various bowls, though; I thought the Orange Bowl was a pretty good game, except for the two back-to-back terrible calls by referees in the third quarter that cost a superior Penn State team the game. I also thought that the Peach Bowl was one of the best games, except of course for the stupidity shown by the Illinois coaching staff in the last 30 seconds (needed two point conversion to tie, *threw* the ball in the pouring rain and cold, while having Thomas Rooks in the backfield). I also thought the Citrus bowl was pretty good, tho' Byars got mangled again. The Rose Bowl was fun for a while, but when Iowa's defense against the run collapsed...feh. And now... On the basis of Michigan's win over Nebraska, I feel they should be #1. Iowa and Miama zapped themselves out of the picture; Oklahoma comes from a weak conference; and there just isn't anyone else close. 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
dday@umcp-cs.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) (01/05/86)
In article <30400012@ISM780B.UUCP> jimb@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >Conference W L T Result of #1 team in conference > >Big 8 1 3 Beat Penn St., 25-10 >Big Ten 3 3 Lost to UCLA, 28-45 >Pac 10 2 2 1 Beat Iowa, 45-28 >SEC 2 2 1 Beat Miami 35- 7 >SWC 3 1 Beat Auburn 36-16 > >Personal opinion is that the SWC record demonstrates that their #1/3 teams >are better than the SEC #2/3 teams(Texas A&M 36, Auburn 16; Baylor 21, LSU 7) >and the Big Eight's records/rankings are reflective of patsy schedules that >become illuminated in the crunch). 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. >As for the Sooners, feh! They beat an over-rated Penn St. team. And did it >in a borrrrrrrring manner that wasn't impressive. Take your national >championship and enjoy. I do wish that strength of schedule was factored >into writers/coaches voting. Get idiotic teams like Miami, Penn St., and BYU >down where they belong -- around 8th to 15th, and Oklahoma down to 5th. >My vote for #1 goes to Tennessee, Michigan #2 (damn!), and UCLA #3. The damn >is because UCLA beat USC everyplace but on the scoreboard. If they had won, >UCLA might have been #1 or #2; they should have, but they didn't and they >aren't. (UCLA did great though. Only four home games and still 9-2-1.) > >Sooner flamers, hold on. UCLA opens vs. Oklahoma at Norman, OK, next Sept. >13. Even though they'll be different teams due to turnover, should be a good >game. I'll go with underappreciated UCLA, though. 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! OKLAHOMA IS #1 AND THE REST IS SOUR GRAPES! Dennis Doubleday Univ. of Maryland
rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (01/05/86)
In article <694@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes: > >I would like to mildly disagree with the relative rankings of the various >bowls, though; I thought the Orange Bowl was a pretty good game, except >for the two back-to-back terrible calls by referees in the third quarter >that cost a superior Penn State team the game. what a crock. superior penn state?? they lost by 15 points. even if two back to back calls resulted in two touchdowns, they still would have lost. i give penn state credit for really cramping the wishbone, but they had NO offense, their qback sucked. outside of the first drive, they couldn't touch OUs defense. wake up. they went in 7.5 point underdogs, and lost by two touchdowns. what was OU supposed to do, try to blow them out?? >On the basis of Michigan's win over Nebraska, I feel they should be #1. >Iowa and Miama zapped themselves out of the picture; Oklahoma comes from >a weak conference; and there just isn't anyone else close. that makes sense. the big-8 is a weak conference, but by beating the SECOND team from the big-8, a team OU trounced in regular season, michigain deserves to be #1. it's not like michigain beat the crap out of nebraska. in fact, nebraska walked over them the first half, with two long (60+ yard) scoring drives, like the michigan defense wasn't even there. it took three fumbles and a blocked punt in 11 minutes to make it a close (four point) game. i give nebraska as much credit for losing as michigan for winning. ask michigan and illinois if they think nebraska/big-8 is a weak conference. someone earlier said michigan was two field goals from a perfect season and a nat'l championship. hell, they were also a few field goals from a so-so season and dropping out of the top 10. i've had it. why does everyone think the big-8 is a weak conference?? people say all this shit like "the schedule should be considered, not just the record" etc, but do THEY look at records? of the 36(!!) teams in bowl games, OUs opponents had the SECOND BEST RECORD. but do you big/pac-10 fans ever mention that? 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. 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. half the people in the big-10 probably think michigan had the highest ranked defense in college football. all of this regional/conference pride also results in regional ignorance. most of you putting down a different conference know nothing about it. i've lived in new-york, arizona, montana, texas, oklahoma and illinios. you all bitch about the same things. and you all know very little about what you are bitching about. please post the rest of the "my team deserves #1" etc. type postings under the subject "more sour grapes" or "we didn't win, so the ranking system must be wrong." you know, every single coach in the UPI poll voted OU #1. did you ever think just for a moment "yes, yes!! these men who devoted their lives to football just might know a tad more about it that i do??" /* minor exception, barry switzer voted for frezno state */ ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv
emuroga@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/06/86)
Easy Ron, easy! I think its only natural to defend one's own school, and thus one's own conference. I will root for Big Ten and Southwest Conference schools out of some sense of loyalty, but I would be an idiot to think that there are not good teams in other conferences. I enjoy good football, and there are good teams all over the country. Each conference has its share of dogs and winners. Although the Big 8 has its share of bad teams, 3 out of 8 nationally prominent is not bad at all. And about the Rose Bowl. I think it's a given that if an LA school is in the Rose Bowl, regardless of how much of an underdog, by some act of God, they will trounce the Big Ten. It's that simple.
jeff@hpcnoe.UUCP (01/06/86)
> someone >earlier said michigan was two field goals from a perfect season and >a nat'l championship. hell, they were also a few field goals from >a so-so season and dropping out of the top 10. Name the games which Michigan would have lost if the opposition scored three more points. -- Jeff Wu
jmd@mhuxl.UUCP (Joseph M. Dakes) (01/06/86)
> Great (in no particular order) Good: > > Rose: UCLA 45, Iowa 28 Peach Bowl: Army 31, Illinois 29 > Sugar: Tennessee 35, Miami 7 Cotton Bowl: Texas A&M 36, Auburn 16 > > > Who Cares? Boring > > Freedom: Washngton 20, Colorado 17 Orange: Oklahoma 25, Penn St. 10 > > (Both Orange and Citrus were lemons!) Yeah, right. You think that two blowouts (Rose and Sugar) were more exciting than the Orange Bowl? Maybe for Tennessee and UCLA fans but not the general public. The Orange Bowl wasa great game (even though I'm a Penn State fan) and it could have went either way until about 5 minutes left in the game. > As for the Sooners, feh! They beat an over-rated Penn St. team. And did it > in a borrrrrrrring manner that wasn't impressive. Take your national > championship and enjoy. I do wish that strength of schedule was factored > into writers/coaches voting. Get idiotic teams like Miami, Penn St., and BYU > down where they belong -- around 8th to 15th, and Oklahoma down to 5th. > My vote for #1 goes to Tennessee, Michigan #2 (damn!), and UCLA #3. The damn > is because UCLA beat USC everyplace but on the scoreboard. If they had won, > UCLA might have been #1 or #2; they should have, but they didn't and they > aren't. (UCLA did great though. Only four home games and still 9-2-1.) OVER-RATED PENN STATE TEAM? Penn State is the Rodney Dangerfield of college football, they never get any respect. They were 11-0-0 going into the Orange Bowl and weren't given a chance to beat Oklahoma. They played one hell of a game against the Sooners , the best offensive team in college football, completely shutting down the Sooner's wishbone attack like no other team was capable of doing all year. If the Lions had a quaterback or one less turnover against the Sooners, they would have been 12-0-0 and #1. But, the Sooners won fair and square and with their defense they deserve to be numero uno. What was so boring about their manner of winning? Do you expect #1 team to win every game 50-0? As for strength of schedule, Penn State beat some good teams this year. They thrashed the Irish and Pitt and they gave Bama and Maryland a whipping also. You must be from the west coast with your whining over UCLA, so let me tell you that their are alot of good teams from the east that don't get any national attention. One other thing, you complain about Penn State's weak schedule then go on to say that if UCLA would have beaten USC they would have been rated #1. Ha, ha, ha. What makes a team deserve number one by beating USC? Even the Irish beat USC. Playing in the Pac-10 is not as demanding of a schedule as you would like us to believe. > So much for the college season. Go Bears! (and then, only a month until > the start of baseball spring training!!!!) Go Bears? Finally something we agree on. No one deserves a Super Bowl Championship more than Walter Payton. > -- from the contented and indulgent musings of Jim Brunet, Joseph M. Dakes AT&T Bell Laboratories Reading, PA mhuxl!jmd
jmh@ltuxa.UUCP (Jon M. Hanrath) (01/07/86)
>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. half the people in the big-10 probably think >michigan had the highest ranked defense in college football. all of >this regional/conference pride also results in regional ignorance. most >of you putting down a different conference know nothing about it. i've >lived in new-york, arizona, montana, texas, oklahoma and illinios. >you all bitch about the same things. and you all know very little about >what you are bitching about. > >please post the rest of the "my team deserves #1" etc. type postings >under the subject "more sour grapes" or "we didn't win, so the >ranking system must be wrong." you know, every single coach in the UPI >poll voted OU #1. did you ever think just for a moment "yes, yes!! these >men who devoted their lives to football just might know a tad more about >it that i do??" /* minor exception, barry switzer voted for frezno state */ > > ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv While I agreed with most of your article, I don't think you should say things like "half the people in the big-10" and "you all bitch". Generalizations get you no where with the people you are trying to impress. I am a Big-10 fan, and I pull for the Big-10, but at the same time I have posted numerous articles which go "against" the Big-10, i.e. the past articles "explaining" the Big-10's failings in the Rose Bowl , I thought, were not true, and I said so. I also think that there is no doubt who should be rated number 1, OU, though it's always fun to hear other netters thoughts. Maybe next time you could be a bit less severe, as there are those out here in net-land who aren't totally biased. Jon Hanrath ihnp4!ltuxa!jmh
rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (01/07/86)
In article <344@ltuxa.UUCP> jmh@ltuxa.UUCP (64lt503310-Jon M. Hanrath) writes: >Maybe next time you could be a bit less severe, as there are those out here >in net-land who aren't totally biased. >Jon Hanrath ok, ok, your right. i was a little out of hand for net.football. i can get as caught up in the sis-boom-bah as the next guy. there HAVE been some good articles from big/pac-10ers and others. i've even exchanged letters with a penn-stat alumn (gulp!)!!!! the net.... a melting pot of great football teams....... boomer sooner, ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv say, guess how many backs OU is losing out of their first and second string whishbone backfields next year. nope. that's too high. 0. see you next year.
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/08/86)
It seems like the OU fans still think the Big Eight is a tough conference. Well, let me show some of my findings from the USA Today power ratings. This rating is the only mean to my knowledge that rates every team in Division I-A and I-AA. This is the average rating from teams of each major football conference (PCAA and Mid-American excluded): rating ranking in the power chart SEC 81.93 25 Big-Ten 78.31 33 SWC 75.81 42 PAC-10 75.54 43 ACC 75.31 44 Big Eight 71.59 58 WAC 68.03 74 In other words, an average SEC team gets a rating of 81.93 and ranked 25th in the country. But wait a minute, I have long claimed that the Big Eight is a Big-2, little-6 conference. We all know Oklahoma and Nebraska are powerhouses, but how about the other teams? Let's look at the average rating of the 3rd to last team in each conference: rating ranking in power chart difference SEC 78.89 32 7 Big-Ten 74.48 46 13 PAC-10 72.91 49 6 SWC 72.87 49 7 ACC 71.07 60 16 Big Eight 64.30 90 ** 32 ** WAC 62.59 94 20 The Big Eight dropped 32 places without the big 2. What does it tell? the conference simply has little left after Oklahoma and Nebraska. Sure, you can easily discard this kind of statistics as "unscientific", or "what do mathematicians know about football?" But this finding simply illustrates how strong your claim that "the Big Eight is a tough conference" is. In my opinion, that is the major reason why either Nebraska or Oklahoma goes 11-0 or 10-1 after the regular season each year. They don't get any competition within the conference. I am not the only one who think that, so do many other football fans in the country, the media, and even the big boss of ABC. Don't sell me craps like "Colorado came within two yards of beating Washington," or "Oklahoma State beat Washington this year, but I suppose you just consider them another Pac 10 patsy." These are not proper overall assessments of the Big Eight. Washington is only a joke this year. Be honest, just think which little brother in the Big Eight can be serious conference/ national contender each year. You certainly can't say Oklahoma St. and Colorado are on par with Tennesse, Iowa, UCLA, or Miami, and Oklahoma/Nebraska get top rankings because they are heads and shoulders above these top teams. Yes, you may say these comments on the Big Eight are sour grapes, but ignoring these assessments are just hiding your head under the sand. How about OU's non-conference schedule? Minnesota (7-5), Texas (8-4), and SMU (6-5) aren't really world-beaters. Defeating these teams indicates the sooners are a good football team, but does not mean they are the best. The only non-conference contender they scheduled was the one they couldn't defeat. You may say Oklahoma played six bowl teams in their schedule. But who cares? Bowls are really cheap in these years. I just don't want to waste any space to argue with Ron Vaughn that "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." I posted an article two months ago explaining how *GREAT* their defense really is. I am glad to send any interested party a copy. Sure, I have to give credits to the Sooners for playing good, solid football. They lived with what they are scheduled and beat the teams they were supposed to beat, as BYU did last year. They also deserved credits for not giving cheap touchdowns to the Penn St. defense, which was a major reason of the Lions' 11-0 season. However, this system of determining national champions is really nonsense. Oklahoma wins the national title only because of this system. We just know they are the best within their brand of football: running game and strong rushing defense. Just like Penn St. after the regular season, they haven't proved that they are the best team in the country. Well, since we will never have a playoff, we have to live with it. If my school is ranked number 1, I certainly will say the same things the sooner fans have said. -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA