Week thirteen CFR top teams list

Week thirteen top teams list (12/01/2005):

1. USC-Win and they're in.
2. Texas-Would have remained #2 here even with a loss to Texas A&M.  Funky option attack caught them off guard but they managed over the course of the game to find ways to win.  Good team, eh?
3. Notre Dame-Survived a trap game against Stanford.  Almost savagelike in their proficiency on game winning or last minute drives.
4. Virginia Tech-Miami performance looking more and more like an aberration than symptomatic of serious flaws.
5. Penn State-I still can't believe it.  Glad that they're back, though.  I'm curious what 2006 brings.
6. Ohio State-Rounded into fine form when it counted: the end of the regular season.
7. Auburn-Inconsistency hurts them here.  Remain the cream of the SEC crop, however.
8. Oregon-Earn some points for getting past the injury to their starting quarterback.  I thought they'd fall back to the pack.  Oops.
9. Georgia-Too conservative at times in very winnable close games (South Carolina, Georgia Tech).  Would be much higher if they were a little more cutthroat.
10. UCLA-Fresno State was in this spot last week, then had a major boo boo.  Can UCLA do the miraculous?

Booted

• Fresno State-Lesson learned: never put all your eggs in one basket.

Others

• Louisville-All they do is score touchdowns.
• LSU-They get their shot against Georgia on Saturday.
• Miami-As always, they contend.  Just aren't an elite team this year.
• West Virginia-Replacing Minnesota as the NCAA's best one-sided run offense. 

Comments

[Ryan]

ND at #3? UCLA over LSU? I won't argue your specific ranking of LSU- but UCLA over LSU? At the least they are equal.

[Underbruin]

I'd rather agree with Ryan. LSU's loss to Tennesse CAN'T be worse than UCLA's huge loss to Arizona, and if you're penalizing the Tigers for struggling against bad teams you have to do the same to the Bruins (a last-minute drive against UW for the win is probably about the same as LSU's victory over Arkansas this past week).

I'd say LSU's definitely better than the Bruins because they've beaten better teams, including one that's -already- on your top teams list.

As for Penn State, I think they fall back to Earth - hard - in '06. They lose a TON of talent.

[Patrick McDonald]

The Bruins will far much farther than Penn State. Karl Dorrell's consecutive 6-5 regular seasons were not an anomaly.

[rajiv]

aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahah you've completely lost relevance. #3? number THREE?

there's absolutely no justification for it. none. they're not even close to being the best 2-loss team, let alone better than almost any of the 1-loss teams.

I'm well aware that Stanford is better than their record and UC Davis loss would suggest. But they're not actually good. Just not as bad as one might think. They're slow, weak, and have more injuries than Iraq.

Remember how after the near-win against USC all the talk was about how tough and physical this ND squad was, and how that's how they were able to hang with the trojans? Well, meet the Cardinal, owner of the pac 10's weakest, lightest, least physical lines. With the exception of a couple studs on the DL (and really, just one), they've got nothing.

ND was exposed AGAIN this weekend. Cut the grass and the only even *mildly* impressive thing they would have done this year would be beat Michigan. Three other teams have done that, and one of them even beat ND.

Every other team in your top 10 would beat ND on a neutral field; most of them would do it easily.

[CFR]

I'm not going to argue with any simplistic schedule analysis here. This is a power ranking, at its most basic, not the AP poll. If I wanted the AP poll I'd just post it on here without wasting my time thinking about how good these teams actually are :o).

As for ND being beaten by anyone in the top ten, that's a great discussion point.

I think they would beat everyone except the top two right now. Their offense is great, their quarterback is great, their coaches prepare them well, they play tough, they win on the road, they have a great scheme on both sides of the ball. The scary part is they'll only get better next year.

When I watched ND/Stanford, I saw Stanford employ the same baiting technique on defense that Arizona tried against USC. Its effective but you rarely win a game with it. Stanford wasn't trying to win, they simply played to stay close, which they did, thanks to Quinn getting greedy in the red zone with the two early picks and then a special teams touchdown.

Both teams used a game-winning scripted drive at the end, and because Stanford had the ball last they had blown their wad, so to speak, and Notre Dame was able to shut them down on their futile last effort.

The Irish were always in command of that game. That's the thing I think a lot of people miss, but if you listen ot someone like Weis, or Carroll, and a few others, the game isn't really played the way us fans view it.

[SoCal]

Agree that LSU should be above UCLA. It has had close wins, but so has UCLA, and even considering how suspect any SEC schedule actually is the UCLA schedule this year was "once in a generation" weak. UCLA is a 5-5 team that has been exceptionally lucky. I suspect (and hope) UCLA will be exposed on 12.3.

[Ryan]

hey way to admit you're wrong without actually admitting it

[Underbruin]

Patrick - I never said that Penn State would or wouldn't be better than UCLA next year. They could still be a very good team, but they'll have to do so despite losing a TON of players, which includes plenty of seniors (the loss of Robinson alone would be huge) and a handful of other very good members of the team who are probably gone to the NFL (Posluszny, for example).

On your other point, though... I would think Penn State would have GLADLY taken UCLA's last two seasons... or was it more fun to go 4-7 and 3-9?. 'Cuz, you know, missing bowls is always the sign of a successful season.

[CFR]

How am I wrong?

Have you been reading here long? Because if you have, you understand that the simple scheduling logic is pretty dumb on the whole.

Notre Dame, having watched about a million college games this year, in my eyes is the #3 team RIGHT NOW in all of college football.

[irishdevil]

Even I don't have the Irish at #3, but I do think there are justifiable reasons for having them there, particularly if you're ranking teams based on who would win today on a neutral field (as this ranking does).

I just wanted to respond to rajiv's fact-devoid post. In 10 of 11 games this season, and nine straight, ND's offense has scored 31 points or more. I don't see anyone "easily" beating them for that reason alone. Also, ND's defense is not as bad as people say; outside of the MSU game, the defense has not allowed a single point when ND is trailing. Combine the two, and it would kinda make it tough to blow them out.

Neither team that beat ND (MSU or USC) has also beaten Michigan. None of the other three teams to beat UM (Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio State) even played the Irish (yet). Don't know where you got that from, and it's not like it would be hard to find out.

Finally, I guess surrendering 231 rushing yards and 662 total yards on defense while gaining -11 rushing yards and giving up seven sacks on offense demonstrates how Stanford's lines pushed the Irish around.