Phil Steele's Preseaon Power Poll 2006..Top 25

Say it all here
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:29 pm

Eric wrote:Dude, get real. Oklahoma in 2005 was inexperienced. Any reason that is made for a loss is looked upon you as an excuse. You're right, a win is a win, but I don't exactly see you as treating the loss to SMU as a loss for TCU. I believe I recall it was a "fluke".
No, I don't think losing to SMU was necessarily a 'fluke' and I don't recall having to justify it. SMU was the better team that day.
As far as I know they played on a level playing field, but yes, the ball bounced SMU's way, but that sometimes happens in football games, does that mean it was a 'fluke'? Only if (as you claim) TCU's win over Oklahoma, was a 'fluke'. And yes, it ruined whatever chances TCU might have had on making the BCS, so it matters. Neither team was 'lucky'.

Eric wrote:Oklahoma is better in 2006, they closed out the season much better than they started it. Oklahoma could very well be the best team in the nation this year. And just because TCU beat them last year, doesn't mean they are better this year, or even better last year, for that matter.
Only because they beat the Ducks. Again, I disagree with your analysis, but appreciate your insight, nevertheless. Unless the officials had a hand in it, (which they almost did) no game is a 'fluke'.
Oklahoma was a better team than Oregon. That's why they won, it wasn't because Oklahoma was 'better', end-of-season. UCLA was a better team than Oklahoma, that's why they won.
Eric wrote: And what is so flukey about Texas Tech? They were looked upon as a fluke last year because they "didn't play any defense," which is a load of mularkey. They have a solid defense, one that might be better this year. The defense will be enough this year to hold TCU at bay.
Flukey?
I said 'over-rated'. I think they are pretenders to the throne, yes they were lucky to beat Oklahoma, and yes I think the officials had a hand in the outcome of that game. TCU will win, mark my words.

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:34 pm

Alright, I guess I will have some research to do on the old board.....I recall you using the term "fluke" with SMU.

And Texas Tech are not going to be pretenders. They get stereotyped every year because they don't run the ball "enough" or they "don't play any defense." I'm just warning you not to buy any of it.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:37 pm

My other point is that there are such things as flukes! SMU beating TCU was a fluke, Oklahoma State beating Texas Tech was a fluke, Ohio beating Pittsburgh was a fluke, and so was TCU and Oklahoma.

A fluke is just a stroke of good luck. Flukey is when something results from mere chance. I think those games were flukey.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:28 pm

Eric wrote:My other point is that there are such things as flukes! SMU beating TCU was a fluke, Oklahoma State beating Texas Tech was a fluke, Ohio beating Pittsburgh was a fluke, and so was TCU and Oklahoma.

A fluke is just a stroke of good luck. Flukey is when something results from mere chance. I think those games were flukey.
If I called it a 'fluke' I used the wrong description, I don't think TCU losing to SMU was a 'fluke' they have a heated rivalry, and SMU won, no excuses.

No, TCU beating Oklahoma wasn't a 'fluke', as much as you would like it to be. If Oklahoma was 'unprepared' that's too bad. It's possible TCU caught them napping, but if they did, that's not their problem. Oklahoma had time to make adjustments.

I"m not saying, that things can't happen that can affect the outcome of a game. Road teams, generally are at a disadvantage. So, no game is ever 'fair' from that standpoint. But, I think in general, when two teams face-off, and it's officiated fairly, the better team wins.

TCU made mistakes in their loss to SMU. SMU was the better team.
I'm not taking anything away from them. If TCU was better, they win.
Does that mean SMU deserves a BCS invitation over TCU? No. One game does not a season make. After beating TCU, they played an atrocious game against Texas A&M. But that game was over by halftime.

I'm not making excuses for anybody. Nebraska was a better team (barely) than Michigan, in the Alamo Bowl. Sure, there were some questionable calls, but Michigan still had a chance to win it, and nearly did. Had they scored that TD, they were the better team. They say football is a game of inches. (and yards). Every play counts.

User avatar
Yeofoot
Head Coach
Head Coach
Posts: 1971
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:57 am
Location: Bentonville, Arkansas
Contact:

Postby Yeofoot » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:29 pm

The sad thing is, when a team like Texas Tech and TCU play, whomever wins gets told that their competition was weak, even though it's a good matchup.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 21056
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:27 pm

TCU beating Oklahoma wasn't a fluke. Oklahoma wasn't a very good football team at the beginning of the season. Look and see how many guys the Sooners lost to the NFL before the season. They were very young and very inexperienced and TCU beat them square up.

Oklahoma at the end of the year, though, is a different matter.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:52 pm

CLF, I guess you must not understand me. I am not "anti-'little guy'" in any way. I actually cheer for the Northern Illinois' and Boise States of the world. I hold no grudge against TCU, I just try to be as realistic as I can be. I would say that TCU would beat SMU 9 times out of 10. I didn't really watch the game, but SMU appeared to be the better team that day. As well as TCU was the better of Oklahoma that day. I understand that.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:54 pm

And, you're not differentiating between reasons (or circumstances) and excuses. I'm not making any excuses for Oklahoma because they lost, but one big reason why they lost was because they were sloppy that day and they were inexperienced.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:26 pm

Spence wrote:TCU beating Oklahoma wasn't a fluke. Oklahoma wasn't a very good football team at the beginning of the season. Look and see how many guys the Sooners lost to the NFL before the season. They were very young and very inexperienced and TCU beat them square up.
How can a team be 'inexperienced' if they were in the National Championship to begin the year? I think you are making excuses for them.

Spence wrote:Oklahoma at the end of the year, though, is a different matter.
They weren't any better, to finish the year, they were a better team, than Oregon, not as good as TCU, which is pretty much where I put them.
Eric wrote:And, you're not differentiating between reasons (or circumstances) and excuses. I'm not making any excuses for Oklahoma because they lost, but one big reason why they lost was because they were sloppy that day and they were inexperienced.
I'm not trying to differentiate, because I dont' think its' necessary. If you don't win the game, obviously you weren't prepared. What's the difference?
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

billybud
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 10732
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:25 pm

Postby billybud » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:28 pm

Hoo boy! LOL Let me get out the waders.
“If short hair and good manners won football games, Army and Navy would play for the national championship every year.”

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6046
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Postby Derek » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:40 pm

TCU was not a better team than Oklahoma... :?
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:37 am

Everything isn't black and white, CLF. Being unprepared is a reason why Oklahoma lost. You still can't get over the likely conclusion that Oklahoma was better at the end of the year!!

And the fact remains that it wasn't the same team that was in the national championship the year before. A lot of new faces that didn't exactly play last season.

And, like my last post that hasn't recieved a reply from you, just because I am a fan of one team in the Big 10 doesn't make me some "big-guy" fan. I am a bigger fan of the MAC than the Big 10. Still can't discover where you are coming from because you still think we are biased.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Cane from the Bend
Athletic Director
Athletic Director
Posts: 5202
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:25 am
Location: South Bend, IN (domerville usa)
Contact:

Re:

Postby Cane from the Bend » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:44 pm

What excuses have I made?

I think I gave reasons, not excuses.

I never said Oklahoma should have won that game. However, had that game been played later in the year, I don't believe TCU would have won.

Look at how you are replying to this thread. If anything, you need to check yourself and realize that, "It is you who is showing his bias opinion".

I understand be all for your team.
And I see where you have one chamber in your six shooter loaded with a win over an "Inexperienced" Sooner team.

But what you continue to ignore, regaurdless of how often the many of us repost this, is the fact that virtually everyone on Oklahoma's starting line up was a new face.

How many starters did TCU have returning last year.

And, no, I don't recall you saying that the SMU game was a fluke. Erik got that much wrong.

Though, you did attempt to justify TCU losing to SMU because of how good SMU was in 1935.

And that doesn't make sense.

Take a look at other rivalries.

How many of the teams who are pathetic today, actually beat the nationally ranked team.

Well, in the case of last season, SMU beat TCU...

Anybody else...?

You irony is dated and stale.
Cane... [__]

"It is only impossible until it has been accomplished." ... then it becomes standardized ...

Success is measured by results; whereas Character is measured through the means by which one achieves those results . . .

It seems the Rapture did come for two worthy souls:
In Memory of Grandpa Howdy
In Memory of Donovan Davisson

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:47 pm

Derek wrote:TCU was not a better team than Oklahoma... :?
No? How did they beat them head to head, if that isn't the case?

I'm getting tired of defending something that doesn't need to be defended. Nearly every one of you guys says, that the 'best' way to determine which team is 'better' is to have them 'square off'.

TCU and Oklahoma played. To my knowledge it was a game sanctioned by the NCAA, both teams recognized that, otherwise it would be called an exhibition. It wasn't an exhibition.

If you want to argue Oklahoma was 'better' end of year, go ahead, it doesnt' really go very far in my book. They maybe had better execution, but football is football no matter when you play (or where).
Quit making excuses for a team that knew what they were getting.

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:47 pm

REASONS NOT EXCUSES

Exactly, Cane. There's a difference, a reason is an explanation of how something turned out, an excuse is to deflect blame by use of a pardon. There's a big difference, but he uses the words like they are interchangeable. CLF, we're still blaming Oklahoma and giving credit to TCU, we're not excusing OU, but Oklahoma was inexperienced, and I don't think there's any denying that.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests