"Spend a few minutes reading College Football Resource" - Whit Watson, Sun Sports

"Maybe you should start your own blog" - Bruce Feldman, ESPN

"[An] Excellent resource for all things college football. It’s blog index is the definitive listing of the CFB blogosphere ... [A] must-read for fans." - Sports Illustrated (On Campus)

"The big daddy of them all, the nerve center of this twisted college football blogsphere" - The House Rock Built

"Unsurprisingly, College Football Resource has generated some discussion" -Dawg Sports

Top Teams 2008

After Week Seven

  1. Alabama
  2. Penn State
  3. Texas
  4. Oklahoma
  5. Florida
  6. USC
  7. Georgia
  8. LSU
  9. BYU
  10. Missouri
  11. Ohio State
  12. Oklahoma State
  13. Texas Tech
  14. Utah
  15. Kansas
  16. USF
  17. North Carolina
  18. Miami
  19. Boise State
  20. Georgia Tech
Display
RSS
Search CFR
Submission Corner
« Discuss amongst yourselves | Main | Welcome new visitors! »
Friday
Jun242005

West Coast friendly, WAC lover, etc.

So some of the criticism here is that we're just west coast honks or something to that effect.  I wouldn't worry about that if I were you.  If you've read this blog much and checked out our 2004 end-of-year top 10, we include Louisville (looooove that team), Auburn, Texas, Michigan and Virginia Tech.  And when we post our 2005 preseason top 10, Florida will most certainly be on that list.

Hey wait, isn't Florida... an SEC team?  Nahhhhhh.  Actually, judging by the type of ball they will soon be playing, they aren't!

Anyway, we care not a team's geography, it's not important.  What is important is what a team does on the field.  Some teams do it different and better, and for whatever reason, many of the highlighted teams are dotting the maps out west.

Of course, they don't play real football out west, or so the perception goes.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (8)

You have GOT to be kidding me... THAT is your big response?! After all the legitimate arguments and valid counter points that have been brought up so far, is that really what you choose to comment or focus on? THAT is the best you can do? Actually, you know what... perfect. Fitting. That suits you well from what I've seen so far... taking the easy way out, AGAIN. But it seems to me that if you really wanted to keep some of these new visitors around you would actually engage some of us in a real conversation or CFB discussion. But apparently I was wrong. So hope you enjoyed all these extra hits you've obtained so far, probably got a few more coming your way... but if you don't change your tune sooner than later, I wouldn't expect this flurry of activity to last throughout the season if I were you...
June 25, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterGDawg34
Easy killer...

Some of us have LIVES to attend to. I'll more than get into the debate on this. My apologies for not glueing myself to the computer, that's why I put that up, so as to appease those who wanted more interaction that at the moment I cannot provide.

I'm not running, I stand by what I wrote and have more to say to many of the responses.
June 25, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterResource Admin
For those not paying attention this is the pre-season talk and all ANYONE can do is express an opinion. This blog has done that and showed something to think about. It's pretty lame to throw in ad-homenim at the auther because you personaly don't like that opinion. But if you choose to talk about those "facts" and "valid counter points" how about this:

Dawg fans are quick to point out that the Louisville game wasn't "as close as the score" because of some stats in the game. Yet when bringing up the one-sided score of the Arkansas game suddenly stats are not important. Never mind that Boise State actually had MORE yardage in that game. Sure UL had some turnovers that paid dividends for Boise State but whose to say BSU would not have scored anyway from recieving a punt on that drive? And again they happily ignore the fact that in the Ark game Boise State had several turnovers. They also ignore that the Boise QB broke his ankle in the 1st quarter, that he continued to play on the broken ankle (not knowing it was broken) which led to a lot of the early turnovers. They also left out the fact that the year before when Boise played Arkansas they ended the game one yard short of tying the game as time ran out. Not exactly unable to compete as some are claiming.

When Boise State beat Marshall to move on to the national championship game for 1AA, critics claimed they wouldn't have that kind of success in 1A. After owning the Big West conference critics laughed and even complained about adding the watered down program to the WAC and how they wouldn't compete. Now, after destroying the WAC teams with a 26 game conference win streek with an average margin of victory somewhere in the 30's the big names in the SEC scoff at the chance of Boise State competing. Will they disappoint? Will Boise State get thumped by the big dawgs? History doesn't think so and a smart gambler will bet on the precedence. Boise State competes no matter what level they move on to. Don't expect that to change any time soon.
June 25, 2005 | Unregistered Commenterbeef zerkie
Florida in your top 10? Florida plays Tennessee, Alabama, L.S.U., Georgia, South Carolina, and Fla. State. They will lose at least (3) of those games.

If you're not biased against the SEC, you at least don't know anything about the conference.
June 27, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterDawgy1
If Florida picks up Meyers' offense well enough this year, they'll win all their games, if they do reasonably well, they'll lose 1, if its not all there yet, 2 games.

By the end of the year they will be smoking what's left of their schedule. The SEC is a joke against legitemate offenses. Meyers' is leagues above Spurrier and will have that team winning real titles unlike recent SEC squads.
June 27, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterResource Admin
Yeah, they end up with L.S.U. Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida State. If those dumb Flordia players can just comprehend half of what the Utah players learned from Meyer, they should really "smoke" those games.

Give me an example, just a couple, of where the SEC was a joke against a "legitemate offense."

By the way, are you going to actually be available to blog after the season gets started?
June 27, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterDAWGY1
2003: USC 23-Auburn 0
2003: Louisville 40-Kentucky 6
2004: Louisville 28-Kentucky 0
2000: UCLA 35 Alabama 24
2002: Oregon (Tedford was still their OC I think) 36 Miss St 13

I hesitate to use USC 24-Auburn 17 in 2002 because USC really wasn't "USC" at that point in 2002. They figured out their offense during the WSU game they eventually lost, and have lost just once since.

Thanks to the SEC's reluctance to play anyone out of conference, there are few examples of a serious offense going up against the SEC.

Here are some more gimmicky offenses, nowhere near the balanced Big Six in effectiveness, but these are offenses that tend to find ways to manufacture points-

2002 Virginia Tech 26 LSU 8
2002 LSU 21 Oregon State 20
2004 Auburn 16 Virginia Tech 13
2003 Oregon (Tedford no longer Oregon OC) 42 Miss St. 34

And of course, Auburn ran an offense that was outdated in the Pac-10 nearly a decade ago, but look how they did in its first year

Auburn 43 Mississippi State 14
Auburn 10 LSU 9
Auburn 24 Tennessee 10
Auburn 38 Arkansas 20
Auburn 42 Kentucky 10
Auburn 35 Mississippi 14
Auburn 24 Georgia 6
Auburn 21 Alabama 13
Auburn 38 Alabama 28

June 27, 2005 | Registered CommenterCFR
Wow, you could find (5) games by only going back (4) years. What a trend!
Want to know what some "low-tech","unsofisticated" SEC teams scored on those teams in the very same years?

Auburn 2003
USC 23
Georgia 26
LSU 31

Kentucky 2003
Louisville 40
Arkansas 71
Georgia 31

Kentucky 2004
Louisville 28
Georgia 62
Alabama 45
Tennessee 37

Alabama 2000
UCLA 35
Miss. State 29
Arkansas 28

LSU 2002
Vir. Tech 26
Kentucky 30
Alabama 31
Auburn 31

The SEC plays as many OOC games if not more than any other major conference. And, except for the Big 10 (85W-89L) have a winning record against every conference including those "sofisticated" pac 10 offenses. SEC vs. pac 10 (61W-38L)

You talk about Auburn's offense. In 2004 they averaged 32 ppg., in 2003 averaged 26.3 ppg and in 2002 averaged 29.8 ppg.
Not exactly a world of difference. But in 2004 their defense gave up an average of 11.3 ppg, in 2003 an average of 16.3 ppg and in 2002 an average of 17.8 ppg.
So, just as good, if not a better argument could be made that Auburn's success in 2004 was because of their defense.

You're going to have to do better than this my friend.




June 28, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterDawgy1

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.