Except for that Ahmad Rashad fellow. (who was a taliback in college before becoming a standout WR in the NFL)
Yeah, I meant to add in the word arguably. Bobby Moore was a stud at Oregon, way too small to play RB in Minnesota though. Always nice to have Fran Tarkenton throw you the ball.
My dad was at UofO while Ahmad was there. During spring break one year him and his friends walked out of a concert at the MC and guess who was cuffed and being stuffed in a cop car for breaking into cars trying to steal stereos in the parking lot......... Ahmad Rashad! HAHAHA! I have worked with him a couple times and it was tough not laughing at him! (He was a arrogant prick anyway, so screw him!)
Don't waste your time with the Ducks on that USC game, it will ruin your night. Easier to come back and just see how much the Ducks lost by. I've sort-of seen that USC game as their only obvious loss on the schedule and the rest of the games they through the UCLA game they SHOULD win unless they weren't that good this year. So even as a fan of the Oregon schools, I have to remain impartial and be honest that the BCS got it right, BSU and Oregon should be undefeated given their easy opponents thusfar and don't deserve to be up there on top. BSU doesn't have anyone left, so they will only fall, and Oregon will deserve #1 if they beat USC. But then Auburn might deserve it later if they beat Alabama.
I don't care what the haters say, but beating Stanford (the 12 team in the nation) is much better than any wins that Oklahoma, BSU, TCU and Auburn have done to date. It was a convincing 21 point win as well.
Oklahoma's 30-point win over Florida State was arguably more impressive than Oregon's 21-point win over Stanford. OU was up by 27 at half and 37 entering the 4th before letting up. Much more dominant overall, IMO. Auburn's win this weekend over Arkansas was also comparable to the Stanford win, and they also have a win over South Carolina (another top-20 team). By all rights, they should probably be ranked ahead of the Ducks too.
I'll give you Auburn. They have a great team and a stud quarterback and playing in the SEC is tough. They still have to play Alabama in Tuscaloosa though. Count that up as a loss. But, Oklahoma had trouble putting away Utah St, Air Force and Cincinnati. 3 games they won by the hair on their chinny chin chin. All against unranked teams. Oregon's won in much more convincing fashion. The Ducks closest game was an 11 point win @ Arizona St.
True. I wasn't trying to "hate". So please don't misinterpret my vague generalizations I'm making. Since the BCS can't include margin-of-victory, and the BCS is ultimately what drives the final standings, I try and think of things in simple terms and without looking at margins. So really the quick way to look is to see what games a team has been an underdog for and won. Oregon hasn't been a dog (even to Stanford) to the best of my knowledge, so they are just going through the schedule par-for-the-course winning the games they were supposed to win. Oklahoma has won games against a couple top 20 schools in Texas and Florida State, then they get extra pts for how difficult the schedules were of those opponents (Texas and FSU). They've also beat Air Force. So it's not only about having a decent schedule in quantity, but also how hard the schedule has been for those teams they beat. As where Oregon has Stanford under their belts, but that is really their only top-20 team so far to date, and Stanford themselves don't have a big chunk of top-ranked teams they've played (same with ASU, and of course Portland State's opponents drive down Oregon's numbers). So in the end, yes, convincing win at home against Stanford, and the human polls help compensate for Oregon just going through the motions mathematically and winning the games they should win against opponents that haven't done a whole lot outside of losing to Oregon. The human polls look at the Stanford game and help move them up to #2 in the BCS.
I wasn't really talking about the entire schedule--I was only addressing your contention (essentially) that the Stanford win is easily the most impressive on the resume of any unbeaten team. Clearly, given the examples I provided, that is not the case. If I were to rank the unbeatens, based on their overall performances to date, I'd go Auburn, UO, OU, BSU, MSU, LSU, TCU, Utah, Mizzou.
Great point that I think SO many people miss out on. While I like Jaynes and Chad and all on the morning MSP, they get so out-of-context on things like the BCS just trying to get listener responses from those that are nieve to math and don't understand it, that it really does a disservice to their listeners, who should really be told how it works and why Oregon fans don't need to worry about the BCS. And of course the reason is what you mentioned. Oregon is 8th in the computers, but when Auburn/LSU play each other, one will fall out of the top-10 and Oregon will move up a spot. Then when Oklahoma plays Missouri, one will fall out and Oregon will move up another spot. Additionally, both Utah and TCU are ahead of Oregon on Richard Billingsley's computer and will cancel each other out as well. So Oregon will leap ahead of everyone by due to their computers going up and up. So all they have to do is win and it will resolve itself mathematically. So good point PtldPlatypus, I don't think people understand how much those other top computer teams playing each other impacts Oregon's ability to move up into #1 in the coming weeks.
I'm still shocked at how awful the rankings are on some of those computers. I believe one of them has Stanford in front of Oregon. That makes TONS of sense.
Is it possible for Auburn to jump Oregon in the BCS now? The BCS loves the SEC and Auburn just beat the number 6 team.
LSU is probably the worst #6 team there has ever been. I could make an argument that LSU isn't even ranked at the end of the year.
They were still ranked number 6 and unbeaten when Auburn beat them. I could see Auburn jumping Oregon. And Auburn might be the better team too.
