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

[colorado_loves_football]

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".

No, I disagree with you, I'm not being biased, I'm being 'fair' there's a difference. I don't make excues for TCU, when they lose, as they did, to Southern Methodist. The better team won that day.

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.

They weren't any less experienced than TCU was.

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.

Not sure that matters, both teams are allowed sufficient time to prepare, if anything both teams were 'inexperienced'.

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

No, I don't use the fact SMU was a national champion in 1935 to justify their win over TCU. What I did was draw a parallel between the two, since the rivalry has been around that long. Obviously there isn't any direct correlation between the two, but rivalries do transcend time.

Take a look at other rivalries.

I have. They often have a bearing over which teams ultimately play for the national championship.

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

Ok, if you want to 'label' SMU as 'pathetic' by all means, but do it based on facts that support it. SMU wasn't that bad. They beat a team, UTEP that was still 'in the hunt' for the C-USA title. They also beat another team (Alabama-Birmingham) that was outstanding the year before, and was decent, regardless. They lost to a team (Marshall) that beat some good teams. They also lost to Tulsa, eventual C-USA champions by a relatively small margin.
No, SMU wasn't an 'outstanding' team, but they weren't terrible. One win from playing in a bowl doesn't 'pathetic' a team, make.

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

Anybody else...?

You irony is dated and stale.

I've already covered this topic. I think i'ts you that are getting stale, not me. But, nearly beating a team, Baylor, that was a win away from being in a bowl is additional evidence that they weren't a bad team.

[Eric]

CLF, the outcome of the game wasn't fortuitous, the Frogs were probably the better team that day.

And, no, something that happened in 1935 shouldn't have any effect on where the program stands today; that's just ludacris. It may add to the rivalry, but I don't think, no, I know that that has nothing to do with how mediocre the 2005 Mustangs were. It's not "something of a stretch", that's not even a stretch. It's ridiculous! Oh, yeah, SMU, they were really something of a team last year. SMU was not "good", just like I suppose the 1984 Pitt Panthers were good too.

No offense, but the post hardly makes sense.

[Derek]

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.

Wow. CLF let me ask you a simple question. Follow me here.

For the last 5 years, the best team in the SEC "overall" in terms of record has been Georgia. This is fact, and was documented at the SEC championship game on TV.

BUT, to save their lives they have only beaten Florida 1 of those years. WHY??? Because Florida is a better team?? NO. Because anyone can beat anyone on any given day.

Your post and your logic make NO sense to me CLF, I dont see how you can come to these conclusions...


TCU is NOT better than Oklahoma.

Give it a rest!! Your wrong, admit it. ONE game does not prove anything.

[Eric]

One game doesn't solve anything, you hit the nail on the head. The only true way to know that is if they played 10 games against eachother, which we all know is impossible. We don't know if TCU is actually better than Oklahoma, so we can only rely on our common sense, and that would say that at the end of the year, Oklahoma was a top 15 kind of team, sort of like TCU.

[billybud]

Actually...Florida has been a better team than Georgia...based on head to head matches...

But being able to repeatedly beat georgia doesn't mean that Florida was better in the conference than Georgia.

Sometimes a team just doesn't match up well to another's style. Georgia is clearly better in the SEC but also, clearly, has a problem beating Florida.

FSU has a problem with Miami...so many games are so close and come down to a FG...last year was the Cane's turn to miss, but most times it is FSU who whiffs. Does this mean that the Canes are so much better? I don't think so, but I think that the match-up is very difficult for FSU. Miami is one of the Top 5 ranked teams in pass defense and FSU passes.

[mountainman]

Good stuff, billybud ..... excellent points.

[colorado_loves_football]

Wow. CLF let me ask you a simple question. Follow me here.

For the last 5 years, the best team in the SEC "overall" in terms of record has been Georgia. This is fact, and was documented at the SEC championship game on TV.

BUT, to save their lives they have only beaten Florida 1 of those years. WHY??? Because Florida is a better team?? NO. Because anyone can beat anyone on any given day.

Your post and your logic make NO sense to me CLF, I dont see how you can come to these conclusions...


TCU is NOT better than Oklahoma.

Give it a rest!! Your wrong, admit it. ONE game does not prove anything.

One game doesn't 'prove' anything? Well, it should prove something. If it doesn't then why bother?
As far as Oklahoma is concerned, they obviously weren't as good as TCU.

Why can't Georgia beat Florida? I don't know. Maybe they don't match up well against them, or maybe there are things that happen when those two teams face each other that give Florida an advantage.

As far as one game is concerned, if I was basing my opinion solely on the results of last year's game, and nothing else, maybe you'd have a legitimate point, but I'm not. Simple fact of the matter, is nearly every time those two teams have played, in Norman, OK TCU has beaten them.
Oklahoma has a 6 games to 4 advantage, overall, but TCU has won 2/3 times they've played.

What would you think if you couldn't beat a team in your own backyard to save your life? I might think that team was better, based on results.

[Eric]

One game doesn't 'prove' anything? Well, it should prove something. If it doesn't then why bother?
As far as Oklahoma is concerned, they obviously weren't as good as TCU.

They play the game for competition and to decide who earned a victory. It doesn't tell you, 100% written in stone anyway, which team is the better. And I don't think obviously is a good way to put it, or more people would say so. I think a better selection of words would be, "you can kinda go either way here, but...". They weren't as good as TCU was in that game, but I don't think they'd get involved in a 51-50 shootout with BYU or lose to SMU.

[colorado_loves_football]

They play the game for competition and to decide who earned a victory. It doesn't tell you, 100% written in stone anyway, which team is the better. And I don't think obviously is a good way to put it, or more people would say so. I think a better selection of words would be, "you can kinda go either way here, but...". They weren't as good as TCU was in that game, but I don't think they'd get involved in a 51-50 shootout with BYU or lose to SMU.

You're making some good points, Eric, but do they really stand up?
Can we maybe apply how both teams (SMU, Oklahoma) played, and draw a reasonable conclusion about what you are saying?
It would appear to me, anyway that SMU did a lot better when they held their opposition under 30 points. When they didn't, they lost.
Maybe that's an oversimplification, but I'll stand by it, anyway.
As far as Oklahoma is concerned, it would appear to me, they had a similar problem, at least when they played UCLA. They did beat Baylor, in OT, but I think you can maybe see where I'm coming from.
Both teams, generally lost when a lot of points were put on the scoreboard.
TCU I think is an exception to that. More points generally equated to win for them. I don't think that was accidental. So, your reference to the 51-50 win at BYU maybe doesn't really apply. It's maybe another reason why I think when they play Texas Tech, TCU will have an advantage.

[Eric]

Usually when teams give up a lot of points, they lose. Just like when they give up fewer point, the team usually wins.

[billybud]

Doh!! LOL

[colorado_loves_football]

Usually when teams give up a lot of points, they lose. Just like when they give up fewer point, the team usually wins.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to imply that by giving up 50 pts, that necessarily means TCU is good, defensively. My point was that they held on to win a game most probably would have lost.
Those other two teams (Oklahoma, SMU) pretty much lost any time the opponent scored more than 25 on them. There are all kinds of variables, that determine whether or not a team wins a football game. The only one that matters, in the end is which team scored more points.
But, it would appear to me, both teams (SMU, Oklahoma) relied on defense to win critical games. Games they lost, their defense played poorly.
TCU"s defense I believe is the key to their being 'outstanding'. Their offense is pretty good, but it's defense that gets it done in the trenches.

[Cane from the Bend]

If your argument is to convince me, that TCU losing to SMU @ home the very next week after beating Oklahoma is somehow impressive, then you are either on crack, or do not understand college football too well.

Fine, you're saying, because TCU beat Oklahoma, they were abetter team than Oklahoma last year. And that saying just on that day is insignificant, because they don't play more than once a season.

Then, SMU was a better team, "Last Year", than TCU was, "Last Year", because
SMU beat TCU head to head, regardless of how each team finished the season.

Whose argument seems more stale.

You aren't defending what has been proven. Half of your arguments deal with team triangulation, only to say evidence of contrary triangulation is un-note worthy.

Here is a fact.

Oklahoma finished last year, a better team than they started.

TCU finished last year, with the same productivity they started with.

Oklahoma improved as an overall developed team.

TCU did not.

SMU finished with a losing record.
Played a very soft schedule.
And beat TCU at home.

TCU had several returning players from '04 to '05.

Oklahoma had what was an almost new team.
Oklahoma had the same starters in '04 as they had in '03.
Oklahoma returned the fewest starters in the country last season.

Experience is garnished on the field in actual games. Not in training camp.

When a team has many starters returning from the previous season (such as TCU did), they have more actual playing experience than a team who has never competed (ie. Oklahoma).

You are deliberately diverting the facts so they play in your favor.

But you are ignoring the facts that made the first game last season what it was.

To give another fact, you can not argue with, which shows how my point is valid:

Oklahoma had 19 returning starters in '04
They went 12-0 in the regular season
Won the Big-12 title game
Appeared in the '04 national title game

With those same players the season before:
Oklahoma went 11-0 in the regular season '03
Played for the Big-12 title
Appeared in the '03 National title game

Without those 19 players, and another 24 letterman:
Oklahoma lost their first two games of the regular season last year

Who had a more polished team going into Norman in last year's opener.

TCU

Now, to refute these facts would only show your bias.

Me, I don't personally care who has a better team.
But I do look at the facts.

You have alot more emotion invested in your argument.

Which means you are bias.

Why else would you have made the comment about Oklahoma being ranked #1 and how ironic it is that TCU beat them last year?

Bias...

Nothing more than Bias.

Your irony has now grown from stale, to mold.

[colorado_loves_football]

If your argument is to convince me, that TCU losing to SMU @ home the very next week after beating Oklahoma is somehow impressive, then you are either on crack, or do not understand college football too well.

I'm still learning, don't consider myself an expert, but no I"m not on drugs.

Fine, you're saying, because TCU beat Oklahoma, they were abetter team than Oklahoma last year. And that saying just on that day is insignificant, because they don't play more than once a season.

They don't play every year, they play, I believe once in a blue moon, that's why TCU's win was a significant event. If it happened every year, I doubt it would make headlines, but FYI, TCU pretty much 'owns' Oklahoma in Norman (and vice versa). Oklahoma has a 6-4 'edge' due in no small part to a 10-9 win by Oklahoma in Ft. Worth, TX otherwise they'd be tied, is that what you call 'domination'? I don't.

Then, SMU was a better team, "Last Year", than TCU was, "Last Year", because
SMU beat TCU head to head, regardless of how each team finished the season.

yes, I believe SMU had a better gameplan and executed it to perfection. Kudos to them for getting the job done.

Whose argument seems more stale.

I dont rely on numbers that can be 'twisted' to make a point, so I'd say 'yours' from that vantage point.

You aren't defending what has been proven. Half of your arguments deal with team triangulation, only to say evidence of contrary triangulation is un-note worthy.

I no longer apply that for my arguments, it was too unreliable, but yes, I did use that in previous posts. I don't anymore.

Here is a fact.

Oklahoma finished last year, a better team than they started.

TCU finished last year, with the same productivity they started with.

Oklahoma improved as an overall developed team.

TCU did not.

I disagree with your analysis, and justly so.
TCU didn't lose another game, after losing to SMU. Oklahoma lost 3 more times, and didnt' exactly dominate Oregon, but won. I don't think that's evidence they were a 'better' team, than when they lost to TCU. Losing to Texas Tech, in Lubbock, isn't anything to be ashamed of, but a loss still is a loss, unfortunately. Oklahoma probably should have won that game. But, Texas Tech was a 'lot better' than many expected.

SMU finished with a losing record.
Played a very soft schedule.
And beat TCU at home.

They did finish 5-6 overall. Not outstanding, but was it 'soft' not hardly.

Losing to Tulsa, in Tulsa by 7 points I dont think is something to cry over.
Getting manhandled, in College Station, isn't necessarily 'proof' SMU was a good football team, but Texas A&M wasn't exactly 'bottom-feeder' material. they nearly beat Texas there, as I recall. Actually I dont' believe there's any merit to what you are saying about SMU's schedule.

TCU had several returning players from '04 to '05.

Oklahoma had what was an almost new team.
Oklahoma had the same starters in '04 as they had in '03.
Oklahoma returned the fewest starters in the country last season.

Experience is garnished on the field in actual games. Not in training camp.

When a team has many starters returning from the previous season (such as TCU did), they have more actual playing experience than a team who has never competed (ie. Oklahoma).

That's a 'tired' argument, and one I'm not interested in pursuing. Adrian Peterson was in the lineup, seems to me he had a role in Oklahoma's 2003 & 2004 title runs. Yeah, he left the game. I'm pretty sure it was against Oklahoma that TCU's starting QB was injured but I could be wrong.
Either way, good teams don't make excuses for when they lose. And neither should Oklahoma.

But you are ignoring the facts that made the first game last season what it was.

Name one.

To give another fact, you can not argue with, which shows how my point is valid:

Oklahoma had 19 returning starters in '04
They went 12-0 in the regular season
Won the Big-12 title game
Appeared in the '04 national title game

With those same players the season before:
Oklahoma went 11-0 in the regular season '03
Played for the Big-12 title
Appeared in the '03 National title game

Without those 19 players, and another 24 letterman:
Oklahoma lost their first two games of the regular season last year

I don't think returning starters necessary 'equate' to making a team better, personally, but you have a right to your opinion on the matter.

Still, I thiink you are providing evidence for why Oklahoma was 'highly regarded' rather than the opposite. If they lost so many people, I guess they should have 'surrendered' to TCU.

It's more likely Oklahoma thought they could run over TCU and found out fairly early that wasn't going to work. They probably lacked a solid gameplan that might have turned the tide of the game in their favor. Either way, you can't blame TCU for that, or can you?

Why else would you have made the comment about Oklahoma being ranked #1 and how ironic it is that TCU beat them last year?

Bias...

Nothing more than Bias.

To my knowledge I never said Oklahoma was #1 overall. Tha'ts from a BillyBud post where he listed Oklahoma #1 'pre-season' this year. I thnk he's since abandoned that particular 'slanted' poll in favor of another 'less slanted' but still highly prejudicial one. Not your fault. FYI, Oklahoma was #7 when they played (and lost) to TCU.

Your irony has now grown from stale, to mold.

I dont' think so. I think the bread I'm baking is processing quite nicely. Care for a slice?

[billybud]

lol....I think your bread has turned out...a half a loaf.