T1B

1. LSU
2-10 - alsorans

1. LSU
2. Bama



3. Stanford
4. Arkansas
5. Okie St
6. Va Tech
7. USC
8. Oregon
9. Michigan St
10. Wisconsin

I'd second a top 10 ranking for U$C as well.

Stanford #3...........just no.

Among one-loss teams (other than Bama), who's better than Stanford? Get Stanford remotely healthy again, pit them on a neutral field against Va Tech, Okie St or Arkansas, and who would be favored?

Stanford owns a road win against a very good USC team. Wanna tell me what Arkansas has done to merit such a high ranking?

Van wrote:Among one-loss teams (other than Bama), who's better than Stanford? Get Stanford remotely healthy again, pit them on a neutral field against Va Tech, Okie St or Arkansas, and who would be favored?

Stanford owns a road win against a very good USC team. Wanna tell me what Arkansas has done to merit such a high ranking?

Amen.

Stanford, which was short on receivers already, was without three of their top four by the time the game was over last night. The best QB in the world won't look very good if he has nobody to throw to.

Look at what they did to VaTech in the Orange Bowl. Are the Hokies better this year without Tyrod Taylor? Give Stanford a few weeks to heal up and I still think they'd stomp most of those teams, and be competetive against LSU or Bama, in a bowl game.

If they had to play Oregon again? Not so sure. Oregon just seems to have their number. SC came out aggressively against Oregon and kept it up for most of the game. Against Oregon Stanford looked scared, like they were playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

1 LSU
2 Alabama
3 Arkansas
4 Stanford
5 Oklahoma State
6 Boise State
7 Virginia Tech
8 Oregon
9 Michigan State
10 Georgia

Van wrote:Among one-loss teams (other than Bama), who's better than Stanford?

I know a two-loss team who's better than Stanford.

Beat them in their own stadium.

I still say the same thing and Boise State is a fraud. The others? Not in the same league.

1 - Alabama
2 - LSU

3 - Who cares?

Carson wrote:

Van wrote:Among one-loss teams (other than Bama), who's better than Stanford?

I know a two-loss team who's better than Stanford.

Beat them in their own stadium.

I tend to agree with you there, but it's difficult to rank teams that way. I will say this, though: Swap Oregon's and Stanford's OOC schedules and it's Stanford who has two losses, not Oregon.

Van wrote:

Carson wrote:

Van wrote:Among one-loss teams (other than Bama), who's better than Stanford?

I know a two-loss team who's better than Stanford.

Beat them in their own stadium.

I tend to agree with you there, but it's difficult to rank teams that way. I will say this, though: Swap Oregon's and Stanford's OOC schedules and it's Stanford who has two losses, not Oregon.

That is purely speculation on your part, Van. LSU's defense might matchup better against Oregon's style of play than they do with Stanford. Bottom line, nobody knows shit.

Papa Willie wrote:

Van wrote:Among one-loss teams (other than Bama), who's better than Stanford? Get Stanford remotely healthy again, pit them on a neutral field against Va Tech, Okie St or Arkansas, and who would be favored?

Stanford owns a road win against a very good USC team. Wanna tell me what Arkansas has done to merit such a high ranking?

Pac12BSH much? :grin:

http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4765872

You'll see that Arkie's SOS is stronger in pretty much all the computer polls. To deny that Stanford hasn't tailed off here lately would be a mistake.

'Spray, I place next to zero stock in SoS rankings that routinely replace one SEC with another as rote policy. Every team in that league benefits from artificially high rankings based on the artificially high rankings of their conference opponents.

Stanford has tailed off of late due to two simple reasons: 1. They recently played USC and Oregon, who would beat most teams in the country. 2. They've been decimated by injuries.

Let Arkansas play USC and Oregon while suffering from the loss of way too many key weapons and they would no longer have only one loss.

Go Coogs' wrote:

Van wrote:I will say this, though: Swap Oregon's and Stanford's OOC schedules and it's Stanford who has two losses, not Oregon.

That is purely speculation on your part, Van.

Gee, ya think?

Van wrote:

Go Coogs' wrote:

Van wrote:I will say this, though: Swap Oregon's and Stanford's OOC schedules and it's Stanford who has two losses, not Oregon.

That is purely speculation on your part, Van.

Gee, ya think?

Is it really speculation when you say it in such a matter of fact syntax?

Did Stanford suffer all of these injuries before the Oregon game? I don't remember anybody raising this issue before they got their asses kicked. Or did they all happen during the course of that game?

Whatever. Stanford, Arkie, Okie State...all pretty much the same to me at this point. No definitive case can be made for one over the others.

Owusu and Ertz didn't suit up for the Oregon game. Toilolo apparently got hurt scoring the first TD in the third quarter against Cal because I don't think he played at all after that.

They've had a lot of injuries on the defensive side through the season as well. It's what happens, though, you just deal with it.

Go Coogs' wrote: Is it really speculation when you say it in such a matter of fact syntax?

Van, stop sounding so sure of yourself. You're offending Coogs' sensibilities.

Try throwing a few maybes, possiblys, I thinks, and there's an outside chance thats into your posts, and you might get some more credibility.

Mikey wrote:Owusu and Ertz didn't suit up for the Oregon game. Toilolo apparently got hurt scoring the first TD in the third quarter against Cal because I don't think he played at all after that.

They've had a lot of injuries on the defensive side through the season as well. It's what happens, though, you just deal with it.

Losing Owusu is actually a plus since he's known as "hands of stone" throughout the Pac 12... he's a great kick returner but thats about it.

Injuries happen.. as Cal had their starting OLB's (McCain and Wilkerson) out of the game which really hurt Cal's attack 3-4 defense.

The key injury Furd had was losing their best defensive player during ASU game down in Tempe (Skov). He was the ring leader of the team and a beast.

I thought he was a better player than Burfict.

Would you mind explaining

Good luck with that. You're talking to a man that couldn't form a coherent three word sentence if you spotted him two of the words.

Go Coogs' wrote:

Van wrote:

That is purely speculation on your part, Van.

Gee, ya think?

Is it really speculation when you say it in such a matter of fact syntax?

Of course it is. What else could it be? I don't literally know what would've happened had Stanford played in Oregon's place against LSU, but I think it's safe to say that they rather than Oregon would likely have picked up that second loss.

Do I really need to qualify every last statement of obvious opinion with "I think," "it's likely that," "chances are," etc? Are you that nitpicky?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Would you mind explaining

Good luck with that. You're talking to a man that couldn't form a coherent three word sentence spell 'cat' if you spotted him two of the words. the 'c' and the 't.'

James "Hollywood" Henderson, referring to Terry Bradshaw

Mgo, what M2 said here...

M2 wrote:The key injury Furd had was losing their best defensive player during ASU game down in Tempe (Skov). He was the ring leader of the team and a beast.

...actually is "the truth." His loss along with that of Owusu and a couple of other receivers saw Stanford severely diminished by the time the Oregon game rolled around.

So an injury they suffered vs a team they didn't even play is why they lost to Oregon?

Losing Skov against 'Zona hurt them quite a bit. Losing Owusu (their only home run threat) and two other receivers sure didn't help. By the time Oregon rolled into town, Luck didn't have a whole lot of weapons at his disposal.

Van wrote:Losing Skov against 'Zona hurt them quite a bit. Losing Owusu (their only home run threat) and two other receivers sure didn't help. By the time Oregon rolled into town, Luck didn't have a whole lot of weapons at his disposal.

I'm pretty sure he said ASU in Tempe.

In any event, if it's such revisionist's history that these injuries were so significant then how come they were still 3.5 point favorites? How come there was literally no talk or buzz about these glaring issues before the game? Better question, how come YOU picked Stanford to cover knowing full well that Stanford was "severely diminished," as you put it, going into the game vs Oregon?

Sorry, no sale.

You know full well why I picked Stanford, considering I told you my reasons directly in Chat. I originally picked Oregon. All year long I was on Oregon to beat them. Then, when it came time to lock in the pick, I decided to switch it to Stanford for two reasons: 1. To that point in the season they'd covered every game, and I tend to stick with streaks. 2. Although Oregon has seemed to have Stanford's number of late, Stanford clocked them the last time they met at Stanford.

In any case, what is your point here? Are you trying to say that key injuries don't matter? If so, well...no sale.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
I'm pretty sure he said ASU in Tempe.

I was going off memory and those two desert schools are fairly interchangeable.

I just remember watching the game and listening to the fans cheer as he laid on the ground for about 10 minutes and when he was taken off the field on the cart... they booed the guy. I just figured it was ASU, but both of those fan-bases are pretty classless.

Van wrote:I decided to switch it to Stanford for two reasons: 1. To that point in the season they'd covered every game

Exactly. They were steamrolling people. Which is why this talk of some limping-into-the-game Stanford team is incredibly disingenuous.

and I tend to stick with streaks. 2. Although Oregon has seemed to have Stanford's number of late, Stanford clocked them the last time they met at Stanford.

Weak. What difference does it make what happened in the past when Stanford was "severely diminished" going into the game?

In any case, what is your point here? Are you trying to say that key injuries don't matter?

Clearly, they didn't matter to you. That's my point. They didn't matter to Vegas or the hoards of people who picked Stanford to cover. They didn't matter to you when you were chirping about Stanford all year long, claiming that they were likely the only team that could hang with Bama or LSU. Didn't matter to you, me or a lot of people.

They only matter NOW, after the fact. Now that you have some kind of point to make in Stanford's defense.

Jsc810 wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:1 - Alabama
2 - LSU

Would you mind explaining this, considering that LSU beat Alabama at Alabama?

You mean that "blowout" victory LSU had over 'Bama 9 to 6? 'Bama should have won that game. Did you watch the game?

Mgo, I went against my better intuition and ended up getting a pick wrong. So? What about it? Jesus, what a bitter little takeless cunt you're being.

Okay, fine, just to make you happy I'll do my damndest to never get another pick wrong. Also, in an attempt to cover all my bases, I'll make sure to apply consistent, infallible logic to a wholly inexact endeavor. Then, to put the finishing touches on it, I'll run everything by you first to ensure that all my thought processes are properly aligned.

Oh, and I'll never mention injuries again, because in your world they clearly do not matter...except for when they do.

Van wrote:Mgo, I went against my better intuition and ended up getting a pick wrong. So? What about it? Jesus, what a bitter little takeless cunt you're being.

Okay, fine, just to make you happy I'll do my damndest to never get another pick wrong. Also, in an attempt to cover all my bases, I'll make sure to apply consistent, infallible logic to a wholly inexact endeavor. Then, to put the finishing touches on it, I'll run everything by you first to ensure that all my thought processes are properly aligned.

Nice dramatics. I don't care that you got a game wrong. But if you start squawking about injuries after the fact, as if you knew what was up the entire time, when they clearly were not an issue before the fact, you're going to get called on your bullshit.

Before Oregon it was, "Real Deal! Covering machine! Watch out LSU and Bama!"

They lose a game and now it's, "Depleted team! Luck's had no weapons the entire time they were beating people by 50!"

Oh, and I'll never mention injuries again, because in your world they clearly do not matter...except for when they do.

Pretty sure that's the exact approach you've taken here.

Atomic Punk wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:1 - Alabama
2 - LSU

Would you mind explaining this, considering that LSU beat Alabama at Alabama?

You mean that "blowout" victory LSU had over 'Bama 9 to 6? 'Bama should have won that game. Did you watch the game?

LSU needed to "blowout" Bama @ Bama to get your #1 vote?

Mgo, if you don't admit that I did mention Stanford's injuries directly to you as one of the many reasons my gut was still telling me to take Oregon, then you're straight up lying.

Enough with your bullshit.

Jsc810 wrote: Yes I watched the game.

LSU won.

Strange that you seem to ignore that fact. Have you been hanging out with m2?

Jsc, you and the nuthanger MgBl0w can insult me all you want, but putting me in with m2/.m2/M2 is them there fightin' words.

The title of the thread is "Your 11/20 Top 10."

I simply believe in a rematch 'Bama would beat LSU and you are being intellectually dishonest if you didn't think 'Bama didn't outplay them and should have won.

Jsc810 wrote: So notwithstanding your opinion as to who would win a future game, how can you put Alabama ahead of LSU at this time? You are speculating, whereas LSU has proven itself on the field.

Hence MY rankings. If you base that game on kickers then you're high. Alabama has more talent and my "speculation" is that if having a rematch... 'Bama would win due to better talent and coaching.

Atomic Punk wrote:

Jsc810 wrote: So notwithstanding your opinion as to who would win a future game, how can you put Alabama ahead of LSU at this time? You are speculating, whereas LSU has proven itself on the field.

Hence MY rankings. If you base that game on kickers then you're high. Alabama has more talent and my "speculation" is that if having a rematch... 'Bama would win due to better talent and coaching.

You are a straight up fucking slack-jawed imbecile.

Van wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Would you mind explaining

Good luck with that. You're talking to a man that couldn't form a coherent three word sentence spell 'cat' if you spotted him two of the words. the 'c' and the 't.'

James "Hollywood" Henderson, referring to Terry Bradshaw

James? Seriously?

Goober McTuber wrote:
James? Seriously?

He meant "Thomas"... but took shutyomouth's word for it without investigating for himself.

:doh:

Where the fuck did I get 'James'?

Stanford has played 3 defenses worth a fuck (and one of them is pushing the definition of "worth a fuck), and Luck and Co. have looked pretty darn average against all of them.

Dinsdale wrote:Stanford has played 3 defenses worth a fuck (and one of them is pushing the definition of "worth a fuck), and Luck and Co. have looked pretty darn average against all of them.

Which 3? They haven't scored fewer than 30 points against anybody so far, and average about 1/2 point less than Oregon.