(12-01-2013 12:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 12:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:03 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  LSU vs FSU would be a 50-50 game.

Hell, the ACC didn't really even go 1-3 vs the SEC. They went 1-3 vs the SEC East.

I do not believe they are in that ballpark. FSU would lose maybe one game in the SEC this year. I have not heard from anybody that FSU isn't the most dominant looking team this year, and, I, for one, agree.

You can't determine if a team is dominant without looking at their schedule. FSU has played a soft schedule. Who is their best win? A Clemson team that just got beat soundly by an SEC also-ran.

Believe me, FSU would rather play anyone in the ACC next week than face LSU. LSU's athletes are just as big/strong/fast as FSU's, maybe moreso, something FSU never faces in the ACC.

And LSU didn't sniff the SEC title.

Well LSU got beat by UGA who got beat by Clemson who got crushed by FSU. LSU is a very spotty team. They beat Auburn and shut down A&M's offense, but other than that didn't show a lot.

Let me ask you: Would FSU rather play Duke or LSU next week? Would Ohio State rather player Michigan State or LSU next week?

I think it would take both Jimbo and Urban each about 1/10 of a second to say they wouldn't want anything to do with LSU.

MSU's (Cook) QB is far more mobile than Mettenberger. Mettenberger has been sacked 21 times, Cook has almost half that many (11) and has also thrown half as many pic's (4 vs 8). LSU's D has allowed 27 or more points 5 times (TCU(4-8), GA, MS, AL and winless in conference Arky) MSU only twice(Nebraska & Indiana).
On a neutral field I'd rather play LSU.

(12-01-2013 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 10:23 AM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:30 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:47 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is truly sad is that Ohio State would have at least 3 losses and FSU two if they played in the SEC.

I don't know it depends on their schedule. I think Alabama, Texas A&M, South Carolina, Missouri, and Auburn are capable of beating Florida State. I'm not being a homer and saying FSU could not beat any of them but those teams definitely would play a close game.

So what. There are five or six ACC teams including Duke could easily beat Ohio State. Ohio State will still be in National Championship Game. Life is not fair.

No, Clemson & FSU definitely could beat OSU but Duke doesn't have the D to hang with Ohio State and the rest of the conference is poor to average.

Ohio State would beat Duke by 20 points.

One should hope that Ohio State could beat Duke by 20 points since Duke gave up 59 points to Pittsburg. Considering OSU game up 41 yesterday, that's a net difference of 18 - yep 20 sounds about right.

Clemson's inexplicable choking seems tied to some sort of team mental defect that causes them to be unable to immediately bounce back from any adversity that reminds them of some of their wild games where they have coughed it up 3 or so times in a row. They have done this 5 times in the last 3 years and the first reaction seems to withdraw into a shell and not come out until they have given up 10 or so points.

I guess part of that is that their defense does not match their offense and if the offence sputters, they lose confidence.

I think a lot of goes back the 2010 Orange Bowl debacle where they were driving for a TD, then came the bizarre fumble that was returned for a TD. Clemson quit for the next 10 minutes and gave up a 21 quick points to WVa. I don't think those that were there for that, have ever gotten over that fluke.

(12-01-2013 07:57 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:03 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:53 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  Alabama, maybe, maybe Auburn, other than that, not likely. FSU is that good this year.

LSU vs FSU would be a 50-50 game.

Hell, the ACC didn't really even go 1-3 vs the SEC. They went 1-3 vs the SEC East.

I do not believe they are in that ballpark. FSU would lose maybe one game in the SEC this year. I have not heard from anybody that FSU isn't the most dominant looking team this year, and, I, for one, agree.

You can't determine if a team is dominant without looking at their schedule. FSU has played a soft schedule. Who is their best win? A Clemson team that just got beat soundly by an SEC also-ran.

Believe me, FSU would rather play anyone in the ACC next week than face LSU. LSU's athletes are just as big/strong/fast as FSU's, maybe moreso, something FSU never faces in the ACC.

And LSU didn't sniff the SEC title.

If you think SC beat Clemson soundly then you didn't watch the game. That game was tied with a little over 11 minutes left. Clemson turned the ball over 4 times in the 4th quarter. Some of them weren't even caused by SC. You can't recover from that.

We'll I guess the ACC should start playing thirds instead of quarters. In the words of Bill Parcells "you are what your record says you are" or in this case what the score says you are.

(12-01-2013 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 07:57 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:03 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  LSU vs FSU would be a 50-50 game.

Hell, the ACC didn't really even go 1-3 vs the SEC. They went 1-3 vs the SEC East.

I do not believe they are in that ballpark. FSU would lose maybe one game in the SEC this year. I have not heard from anybody that FSU isn't the most dominant looking team this year, and, I, for one, agree.

You can't determine if a team is dominant without looking at their schedule. FSU has played a soft schedule. Who is their best win? A Clemson team that just got beat soundly by an SEC also-ran.

Believe me, FSU would rather play anyone in the ACC next week than face LSU. LSU's athletes are just as big/strong/fast as FSU's, maybe moreso, something FSU never faces in the ACC.

And LSU didn't sniff the SEC title.

If you think SC beat Clemson soundly then you didn't watch the game.

I watched the game. Clemson never led, and SC won 31-17. That's a "sound" beating by any stretch.

FSU has rolled up impressive numbers this year but their schedule has been very soft. Remember when ACC backers were touting Miami as a "big win", and that Florida would be too?

What's really sad is that Clemson, clearly undeserving, might still make a BCS bowl while SC definitely will not, thanks to stupid BCS rules about how many teams can go from a conference.

South Carolina beat Clemson at home where they haven't lost in nearly 3 years. Georgia gave South Carolina a beating in Athens. And Clemson beat UGA in Clemson. You've got pretty flimsy evidence.

(12-01-2013 10:44 AM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 12:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 12:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:03 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  I do not believe they are in that ballpark. FSU would lose maybe one game in the SEC this year. I have not heard from anybody that FSU isn't the most dominant looking team this year, and, I, for one, agree.

You can't determine if a team is dominant without looking at their schedule. FSU has played a soft schedule. Who is their best win? A Clemson team that just got beat soundly by an SEC also-ran.

Believe me, FSU would rather play anyone in the ACC next week than face LSU. LSU's athletes are just as big/strong/fast as FSU's, maybe moreso, something FSU never faces in the ACC.

And LSU didn't sniff the SEC title.

Well LSU got beat by UGA who got beat by Clemson who got crushed by FSU. LSU is a very spotty team. They beat Auburn and shut down A&M's offense, but other than that didn't show a lot.

Let me ask you: Would FSU rather play Duke or LSU next week? Would Ohio State rather player Michigan State or LSU next week?

I think it would take both Jimbo and Urban each about 1/10 of a second to say they wouldn't want anything to do with LSU.

MSU's (Cook) QB is far more mobile than Mettenberger. Mettenberger has been sacked 21 times, Cook has almost half that many (11) and has also thrown half as many pic's (4 vs 8). LSU's D has allowed 27 or more points 5 times (TCU(4-8), GA, MS, AL and winless in conference Arky) MSU only twice(Nebraska & Indiana).
On a neutral field I'd rather play LSU.

LSU has far better athletes than MSU. FSU and OSU beat most teams by simply having better studs, and neither would have that advantage over LSU. You or I could coach FSU to wins over 10 of their opponents because the talent gap is so large. But not vs LSU. Also, LSU has a very good offense whereas MSU cannot score.

LSU's offensive line, WRs, and RB would put withering pressure on FSU's or OSU's defense, whereas MSU cannot score.

FSU would beat LSU 55% of the time, Ohio State maybe 35% of the time. Both would beat MSU 90% of the time.

(12-01-2013 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 07:57 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:03 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  I do not believe they are in that ballpark. FSU would lose maybe one game in the SEC this year. I have not heard from anybody that FSU isn't the most dominant looking team this year, and, I, for one, agree.

You can't determine if a team is dominant without looking at their schedule. FSU has played a soft schedule. Who is their best win? A Clemson team that just got beat soundly by an SEC also-ran.

Believe me, FSU would rather play anyone in the ACC next week than face LSU. LSU's athletes are just as big/strong/fast as FSU's, maybe moreso, something FSU never faces in the ACC.

And LSU didn't sniff the SEC title.

If you think SC beat Clemson soundly then you didn't watch the game.

I watched the game. Clemson never led, and SC won 31-17. That's a "sound" beating by any stretch.

FSU has rolled up impressive numbers this year but their schedule has been very soft. Remember when ACC backers were touting Miami as a "big win", and that Florida would be too?

What's really sad is that Clemson, clearly undeserving, might still make a BCS bowl while SC definitely will not, thanks to stupid BCS rules about how many teams can go from a conference.

South Carolina beat Clemson at home where they haven't lost in nearly 3 years. Georgia gave South Carolina a beating in Athens. And Clemson beat UGA in Clemson. You've got pretty flimsy evidence.

WTF? Clemson and SC have the same record, yet SC won head to head, the obvious tie-breaker.

Clearly, SC is more deserving of a BCS game than Clemson.

(12-01-2013 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 07:57 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 11:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You can't determine if a team is dominant without looking at their schedule. FSU has played a soft schedule. Who is their best win? A Clemson team that just got beat soundly by an SEC also-ran.

Believe me, FSU would rather play anyone in the ACC next week than face LSU. LSU's athletes are just as big/strong/fast as FSU's, maybe moreso, something FSU never faces in the ACC.

And LSU didn't sniff the SEC title.

If you think SC beat Clemson soundly then you didn't watch the game.

I watched the game. Clemson never led, and SC won 31-17. That's a "sound" beating by any stretch.

FSU has rolled up impressive numbers this year but their schedule has been very soft. Remember when ACC backers were touting Miami as a "big win", and that Florida would be too?

What's really sad is that Clemson, clearly undeserving, might still make a BCS bowl while SC definitely will not, thanks to stupid BCS rules about how many teams can go from a conference.

South Carolina beat Clemson at home where they haven't lost in nearly 3 years. Georgia gave South Carolina a beating in Athens. And Clemson beat UGA in Clemson. You've got pretty flimsy evidence.

WTF? Clemson and SC have the same record, yet SC won head to head, the obvious tie-breaker.

Clearly, SC is more deserving of a BCS game than Clemson.

Yeah well that's not how it works. Current version caps it at two per league. Next year you'll get your wish.

(11-30-2013 10:47 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:40 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 01:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  FSU has already put away hapless Florida, and Clemson and Tech will beat SC and Georgia as well.

Oh, and Wake will rally past Vandy.

A banner day for the ACC!

Realistically the best team in the ACC beat the worst team in the SEC. The SEC won every game that had evenly matched teams. Florida State is lucky they got a Florida team that can't even beat an FCS team.

What is truly sad is that Ohio State would have at least 3 losses and FSU two if they played in the SEC.

I don't know it depends on their schedule. I think Alabama, Texas A&M, South Carolina, Missouri, and Auburn are capable of beating Florida State. I'm not being a homer and saying FSU could not beat any of them but those teams definitely would play a close game.

FSU has not had a single real challenge all year and they will not have one until their bowl game. Clemson is another team that benefited from playing a soft schedule. I hope they get matched up with UCF in a bowl game even though it would be hilarious to see them play Bama.

It's never much of a challenge when you beat everyone you play by 50 points.

I don't see why LSU has better athletes than Michigan State.

LSU lost to Ole Miss and they lost to Mississippi State. Miss State would likely lose to at least half of the Big Ten if not more.

LSU might normally have across the board better athletes but this isn't the usual LSU squad that we have seen in recent years. They are strong but MSU, especially on defense, is chock full of great athletes. It is just passing along stereotypes when saying LSU has an obviously stronger athletic presence on it's team than MSU has.

(12-01-2013 02:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't see why LSU has better athletes than Michigan State.

LSU lost to Ole Miss and they lost to Mississippi State. Miss State would likely lose to at least half of the Big Ten if not more.

LSU might normally have across the board better athletes but this isn't the usual LSU squad that we have seen in recent years. They are strong but MSU, especially on defense, is chock full of great athletes. It is just passing along stereotypes when saying LSU has an obviously stronger athletic presence on it's team than MSU has.

LSU lost to ole miss, Alabama, and Georgia, not Mississippi State.

Do you seriously think Urban would rather play LSU than MSU this week? He is SO grateful he's not playing LSU, just as Jimbo Fisher is. Jimbo and Urban both know from first-hand experience that LSU routinely gets top-5 and top-10 recruiting classes and have far better athletes than MSU or Duke.

Urban and Jimbo each won about 20 of their collective 23 wins this year by having overwhelming athletic superiority over their soft opponents. You or I could have coached FSU and OSU to the great bulk of their wins, as they had huge athletic mismatches in their favor.

Neither would have that versus LSU.

(12-01-2013 02:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 02:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't see why LSU has better athletes than Michigan State.

LSU lost to Ole Miss and they lost to Mississippi State. Miss State would likely lose to at least half of the Big Ten if not more.

LSU might normally have across the board better athletes but this isn't the usual LSU squad that we have seen in recent years. They are strong but MSU, especially on defense, is chock full of great athletes. It is just passing along stereotypes when saying LSU has an obviously stronger athletic presence on it's team than MSU has.

LSU lost to ole miss, Alabama, and Georgia, not Mississippi State.

Do you seriously think Urban would rather play LSU than MSU this week? He is SO grateful he's not playing LSU, just as Jimbo Fisher is. Jimbo and Urban both know from first-hand experience that LSU routinely gets top-5 and top-10 recruiting classes and have far better athletes than MSU or Duke.

Urban and Jimbo each won about 20 of their collective 23 wins this year by having overwhelming athletic superiority over their soft opponents. Neither would have that versus LSU.

LSU lost to Ole Miss, an Ole Miss team that couldn't beat a 5-6 Miss State team. If all connections count then that matters as well. The point is that LSU is not as dominant this year as they have been previously. Auburn really isn't all that dominant either. They are 105th in passing offense. They have the 31st ranked defense in terms of points scored against them. Most of their wins were very close, including how Georgia ran right through them in the fourth quarter and Auburn only got the win with a fluke play.

These stats seem to get overlooked when it comes to the SEC team yet everyone combs through the stats to find any negative attribute they can find about Ohio State.

I don't know how you go from me saying MSU is a strong athletically gifted team and shouldn't be disparaged in a comparison to LSU to trying to equate that to me saying Urban would rather face LSU. What does that statement even matter for? He will prepare for MSU and one of the best defenses in the Nation.

A top 5 recruiting class doesn't account for varying maturity rates and growth after a recruit actually starts working out at the college level.

Trying to say that freshman athletic levels determines what these athletes end up as when they are juniors and seniors, well that just doesn't work for me. Cling to that idea if you like and that is fine but I don't believe that. I think the Michigan State defense this year is proof of such.

(12-01-2013 03:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Trying to say that freshman athletic levels determines what these athletes end up as when they are juniors and seniors, well that just doesn't work for me. Cling to that idea if you like and that is fine but I don't believe that. I think the Michigan State defense this year is proof of such.

What good team has Michigan State's defense shut down this year?

Surely, that has to matter ...

(12-01-2013 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 03:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Trying to say that freshman athletic levels determines what these athletes end up as when they are juniors and seniors, well that just doesn't work for me. Cling to that idea if you like and that is fine but I don't believe that. I think the Michigan State defense this year is proof of such.

What good team has Michigan State's defense shut down this year?

Surely, that has to matter ...

Shouldn't Michigan count? MSU held them to 6 while they scored 41 on Ohio State