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

[Cane from the Bend]

Well CLF

You just proved my point.

Saying any argument is a tired one when you yourself make the exact same argument in your stead is where you faulter.

You find my argument to be tired, only because it doesn't support your point of view.

Your bias, which is standing out on the table like a torch in a candleholder, is the fact that you continue to bring up TCU.

I wasn't refering to Billybud's mention of "Phil Steele's" ranking of Oklahoma at #1.

But, it was you who brought TCU up.

That is where your bias is.

We all know it.

And you deny it, even though you know it.

By the way"I" apologize for nothing, unless truly warrented. And saying that I think you're on crack is more of a personality observation. Though, I didn't actually type that you "ARE" on crack. I simply pointed out that you may be on crack...(are you)

Name a fact. Okay

Read everyone's arguments to the contrary of you posts.

You constantly (most likely deliberately) use everyone's words out of there written context.

And when others call you on it, you deny it.

No, I don't want any of your nasty bread. Why would I want warts?

A Peterson was in fact a key player in the '04 season. Good, you noticed that.

But he was a true freshman in '04.

11 players.

That is how many people a football team is allowed on the field at any given moment withut being penalized.

When your teams is replacing 19 starters, that only leaves you with 3 experienced teamates.

And, if A Petersen is the only player who stands out to you, on the Oklahoma team, but was injured, then, it makes your argument a whole lot weaker.

I don't buy into Oklahoma thinking they were gooing to run all over TCU.

They may have expected to win. But to say, run all over them is speculative.

And isn't that what your only argument has been.

"I can't honestly say, because we don't know for sure".

And, if you truly think that TCU's win over Oklahoma, was because Oklahoma took TCU too lightly.

Then, what you are saying, is that, Oklahoma was the better team, but didn't play to there full potential, so they lost to TCU.

.

Also, denying the "Facts" that I presented, with your mislogic, only futher suggests what I have constantly said about you.

Bias.

But, hey, I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong.

Try to post a topic that doesn't involve TCU.

And when you do (if you do), try not replying to anybody else's comment by adding TCU in the equation.

[colorado_loves_football]

Well CLF

You just proved my point.

Saying any argument is a tired one when you yourself make the exact same argument in your stead is where you faulter.

You find my argument to be tired, only because it doesn't support your point of view.

I think I meant your approach (along with everyone else) is 'tired'. I get tired of reading the same excuses over & over again. "untested". Not entirely. "raw". Unlikely. "inexperienced". Not any less inexperienced than TCU was. Try a new approach, please.

Your bias, which is standing out on the table like a torch in a candleholder, is the fact that you continue to bring up TCU.

I believe they played well enough to 'earn' your respect, just as I believe, generally Miami has, although not so much in the Peach Bowl. But, they are likely the best team in all of college football, year-in, year-out. That's a remarkable accomplishment.

I wasn't refering to Billybud's mention of "Phil Steele's" ranking of Oklahoma at #1.

No, but it's worth repeating, if only for the absurdity of it.

Name a fact. Okay

Read everyone's arguments to the contrary of you posts.

You constantly (most likely deliberately) use everyone's words out of there written context.

And when others call you on it, you deny it.

I don't post 'out of context, what I do is 'abbreviate' what people have said, take out what I'm not interested in responding to, and let their words stand on their own, there's a big, (actually monumental) difference. I applied the same approach here.

No, I don't want any of your nasty bread. Why would I want warts?

Only way you could get 'warts' is if you didn't shower first. I'm the breadbaker, are you the candlestick maker?

A Peterson was in fact a key player in the '04 season. Good, you noticed that.

But he was a true freshman in '04.

Not sure what argument you are making. Yes he was a true 'freshman' an outstanding one at that.
How does that apply to your assessment of how TCU beat OU?

11 players.

That is how many people a football team is allowed on the field at any given moment withut being penalized.

When your teams is replacing 19 starters, that only leaves you with 3 experienced teamates.

I think a football team can start 22 freshmen and still be competitive. I don't follow your argument, sorry.

And, if A Petersen is the only player who stands out to you, on the Oklahoma team, but was injured, then, it makes your argument a whole lot weaker.

If he was 'injured' as you suggest he shouldn't have been in the starting lineup. Shows me they likely weren't very smart.

Either way, it's water under the bridge. TCU won, get over it.

I don't buy into Oklahoma thinking they were gooing to run all over TCU.

You don't have to agree with my analysis, come up with a better one.

They may have expected to win. But to say, run all over them is speculative.

Certainly it is speculative. But it might apply anyway. Jason White wasn't around to 'pass' them to a win. Seems to me Oklahoma needed someone who could throw the ball, effectively. Too bad they didn't have him.

And, if you truly think that TCU's win over Oklahoma, was because Oklahoma took TCU too lightly.

Then, what you are saying, is that, Oklahoma was the better team, but didn't play to there full potential, so they lost to TCU.

I dont' know if they didn't play to their potential, if they didn't they don't deserve to win, do they?

You can take a team 'lightly' (I think Fresno St vs. USC qualifies), and win. I guess that's the difference between teams that win national championships, and those that lose.

Try to post a topic that doesn't involve TCU.

And when you do (if you do), try not replying to anybody else's comment by adding TCU in the equation.

I don't focus exclusively on TCU.

They have produced some outstanding athletes, some of which are still considered by many to have been the best in their 'field'. Sammy Baugh, in his time was likely the best QB ever to play. He set the standard by which many QBs are still measured today. LaDanian Tomlinson is now considered to be the best 'all around' running back in professional football. He doesn't win rushing titles, but he does score TD's. Tell me what's more important toward the success of a football team. Bob Lilly, was considered by many to be the best defensive lineman (in his day) to play. I'm likely just scratching the surface here.
Suffice to say, if you are suggesting TCU isn't a 'quality' program, you're dead wrong. What other 'facts' do you need?

[billybud]

They have produced some outstanding athletes, some of which are still considered by many to have been the best in their 'field'. Sammy Baugh, in his time was likely the best QB ever to play. He set the standard by which many QBs are still measured today. LaDanian Tomlinson is now considered to be the best 'all around' running back in professional football. He doesn't win rushing titles, but he does score TD's. Tell me what's more important toward the success of a football team. Bob Lilly, was considered by many to be the best defensive lineman (in his day) to play. I'm likely just scratching the surface here.

...look...just having a few good athletes spread over the decades does not mean much in terms of whether a school has a good football team in the present context.

Sure, Mean Joe Green came from North Texas State...N. Texas still is 43 1/2 points behind Texas in the betting line and is not a good football team....and Huey Long played at Villanova (that football powerhouse) and Nighttrain Lane went to Scottsbluff-NE Junior College..and, and

You did mention the two Hall of Famers from TCU...South Carolina State had three hall of famers,,,(Deacon Jones is one of my favorites)...doesn't mean South Carolina State is a great football team.

[Spence]

I think a football team can start 22 freshmen and still be competitive. I don't follow your argument, sorry.

You need to think about that statement. No way any team starts 22 freshman and is competitive. Not Ohio State, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, or Notre Dame. You could take the top 22 recruits in the nation at their position and they wouldn't be competitive on the same team. That would be a coaches nightmare.

[colorado_loves_football]

You need to think about that statement. No way any team starts 22 freshman and is competitive. Not Ohio State, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, or Notre Dame. You could take the top 22 recruits in the nation at their position and they wouldn't be competitive on the same team. That would be a coaches nightmare.

I dont' recall saying it was necessarily a good idea, but let's be honest here, shall we?

We are talking about one of the best football programs in all of collegiate football (OU). Frankly I'm tired of hearing all the so-called 'reasons' which really aren't 'reasons' but excuses, after all is said and done, what matters most is who puts more points on the scoreboard.

TCU did that, that's why they put a 'W' on their side of the ledger. Anything else is irrelevant.

And, Air Force, 1958 did in fact send a relatively 'untested' team to the Cotton Bowl. What was the result? A 0-0 tie against SWC champion TCU.

If someone made a movie about it, I think it would probably make money. Some things you just can't make up.

Yes, Oklahoma has an 'outstanding' football program. I don't think I ever suggested they didn't. But, so does TCU. Billybud refers to all-americans as if that's really all that matters.

There's something else that matters, too. It's called 'heart'. That's something you can't measure statistically, but trust me it definitely has an impact over the course of a season, and TCU played with a lot of heart. Try, if you can to use figures to 'dissect' TCU. It won't work.

[Eric]

Nobody is making excuses for Oklahoma losing to TCU. They were inexperienced. I don't think you can argue that. TCU played better than Oklahoma, and you're right, that's all that matters. You, however, are arguing that TCU was better than Oklahoma at the end of the season, and believe it or not, TCU could very well be better. I see non-BCS schools play with all their heart against BCS squads but for some reason can't play like that against their conference opponents. Oklahoma might not get in a 51-50 struggle, but TCU might, but that doesn't mean that TCU isn't better than Oklahoma.

Do I think that? No. But, the circumstances of the game aren't irrelevant. We're arguing if TCU was better than Oklahoma at the end of the season. Most of us don't think that, but who knows? We could be wrong about it. It's just that the case doesn't sound too convincing.

[Spence]

TCU was the better team that day. I don't think anyone would argue that. I think Oklahoma was better at the end of the year but that doesn't matter because they didn't play. I'm not taking away what TCU did, going into Norman and beating Oklahoma is a feat for someone like TCU know matter how good or bad Oklahoma is that year.

[colorado_loves_football]

TCU was the better team that day. I don't think anyone would argue that. I think Oklahoma was better at the end of the year but that doesn't matter because they didn't play. I'm not taking away what TCU did, going into Norman and beating Oklahoma is a feat for someone like TCU know matter how good or bad Oklahoma is that year.

What do you mean 'like TCU'?

TCU doesn't have to apologize for beating Oklahoma, in Norman, OK. It happens so regularly I think it should be 'penciled' in, in favor of TCU, just how every time they play in Ft. Worth, they maybe ought to put a 'W' in for Oklahoma, since the results seem to follow that 'pattern'.

But, if the implication, is that 'end of year' Oklahoma was a better team than TCU, I can't say I agree with that assessment, either way. Oklahoma lost a key game (to Texas Tech) otherwise they play in the Cotton Bowl. Beating Oregon, while impressive, isn't 'solid' evidence Oklahoma was any better than TCU, end of year.

I'm not a huge fan of rankings, but TCU was ranked substantially higher than Oklahoma was, end of season. Actually, I think Oklahoma was likely a better team than their ranking suggested, but then again, so were TCU, in all probability.

I think it did take a while for Oklahoma to get all the pistons firing in succesion. TCU didn't dominate Oklahoma, but should they have to?
I think we've debated this topic enough, personally. Unless someone has some additional information to offer, I recommend we 'end' it. The better team won, that day, that's usually (but not always) how it goes.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't think I would call anything that TCU has done recently the makings of an Outstanding football program.

I'd be interested in learning how you arrive at that, given how well TCU has been over 'close' to a decade, I think your 'facts' are incorrect.

If you are basing it on how they did throughout the '70s then you likely are correct, but it's not like TCU 'woke-up' from a coma. They've had good teams throughout their history, and they weren't a bad team, mid-80s to the present. That's a good 20 years where they've been pretty decent, good even.

Rebounding from a decade or so of mediocrity maybe but nothing more than that. The frogs might not have even been the better team on the field that day. What they did do however was take advantage of mistakes and exploit youth in the 1st game of the season.

If TCU wasn't the best team on the field, I doubt they win, you are being pretentous. Take 'advantage' of mistakes? Isn't that what a good football team is supposed to do?

I'm not making excuses, I dont think OU deserved to win that day. You can win without being the better team.

If you aren't making excuses, then why qualify your statement. The better team did win. That's usually what happens. Interestingly (to me, anyway) it lead to the benching of Thompson. Romar became starting QB. Tell me that wasn't a direct result of TCU kicking OU's butt.

As for the Tech game, you might wanna go back and see how that one ended. Tech got away with that one. I know a win is a win but a stolen win should be used as an example.

I remember the circumstances surrouding that game, it was an 'all or nothing' proposition for Texas Tech. Win, they're in the Cotton Bowl. Lose, they are likely paired against OU, in the Holiday Bowl. They had a lot more to lose than Oklahoma did. I thought the call was questionable, but there wasn't definitive evidence, either way. It's possible OU was 'home-towned', but they didn't exactly dominate. I think Texas Tech likely was a better football team, at any rate. Do you honestly believe OU would have played better against Alabama? I don't.

Finally, after reading though this it looks like the horse is dead. I agree there isnt anything else constructive to add to this one.

You proved that.

[Eric]

"Kicking their butt"?

More like eeking out a win.

[colorado_loves_football]

"Kicking their butt"?

More like eeking out a win.

I think the result speaks for itself.

Someone (in another thread) suggested, that on a given day, any team can 'beat' a good team, provided all the breaks go their way. I think someone else reiterated that comment, in this thread.

Capitalizing on missed opportunities is a vital part of the game. Take that away, why even bother scheduling the game? Sure, a team can beat another team, if enough 'breaks' go their way. Doesn't mean that team 'wasn't better'.

I'm surprised someone else didn't (yet) suggest it was the QB's (Thompson's) fault they lost. If nothing else, it at least would have some relevance to it (he was starting QB, sat out remainder of the year).

Now, he's back in the starting lineup. Looks to me like we'll see whether or not TCU's win was a 'fluke', or not based on how well he plays, this year. I hate excuses. When one team beats another one, they are likely a 'better' team. 'Boomer' suggested the officials 'threw' the game (Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma). Well, I'll tell you what, 'if' they did, they wouldn't be officiating very long, the NCAA doesn't look kindly upon 'home town' officials. I'm not ruling it out, I saw how it ended.

But, I also thought the Texas Tech running back crossed the goal line.

[Cane from the Bend]

You have proven my point again, "With regards to a response you posted to Spence".

You consistantly take eveything out of context, in order to support you weak arguments.

No, abbreviating someone's post does not let their words speak for themselves.

What it does, is allow you to nit-pick the arrangement of a reply, in order for it to say what "You" want it to say.

You deliberately misinterpret others' comments.

You do not discuss issues.

You try to control them.

You have lost my respect. Because you are so blindeyed that you refuse to post with credibility.

TCU was better, Boise St should have won those games.

You are one thing of consistant.

And that is your contradiction of yourself.

[billybud]

OL...uhhh...how could I argue with Cane's succinct post...looks like a replay of a post by Ktffan or Billy.

[Eric]

I like to use one that leads to the conclusion that New Hampshire could beat California in 2004. I think it was Derek or Billybud that came up with one that Colorado Mines could beat Penn State. Football just doesn't work that way...

I used a cycle of Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky. Ole Miss beat Kentucky who beat Vanderbilt who did in fact beat Ole Miss. Which is the better team?

[billybud]

Maybe...that was in the day of the true scholar athlete...before televised games and athletes who only go to college because it is the minor league of the NFL....

The Big Dogs of football used to play high school teams....had 'em on the schedule in the early part of the century.

The NFL played against the college all stars.... In 1963 the college all stars beat the defending 13-1 legendary Lombardi Packer team 20-17. That Packer team had 10 future Hall of Famers playing that day.

Even today, I'd put up Lincoln High School here in Tallahassee against a IIA teaml....Lincoln has had three Parade All Americans in five years and regularly puts 10-11 kids into IA teams....like last year's kids who went to FSU, Florida, Clemson, North Carolina, etc.