great comeback by mississippi state to force OT they have it first in OT, and a great run by vick ballard culminates in him losing the ball inside the 5. It flew out of bounds, but was ruled a touchback, and they confirmed it on replay. Instead of first and goal for Miss St, it's zero points and Arkansas can now win it with a FG.
The last few minutes of Arkansas vs. Mississippi State have been crazy. I'm hoping for an Arkansas miss.
FSU punts, up 20-16, but the ball hit a Maryland blocker in the back, and was then recovered by the Seminoles inside the Maryland 20. FSU with a chance to pretty much seal it if they can get a TD here. Also, how about VT winning in Miami today? That should bolster Boise State's SoS.
How about VT winning? They were supposed to win. Virginia Tech has been the favorite in the ACC all year long. Beating this Miami team isn't that impressive. The Canes are starting a true freshman at quarterback and they lost to UVA a few weeks ago. They're not as good as they should be.
They were small favorites because it was a road game. This win puts them in the ACC title game. They were favorites before the season, but people were jumping ship after the James Madison debacle. Either way, it's a good win on the road at another ranked team.
I will further elaborate on my SOS is just a catch phrase used by ESPN people like Mark May when they have nothing else to use against a team they don't like or don't think deserve the respect the voters have given them. For the record May has Boise #5 and TCU not even in his top 5. We may disagree on who the best team is or the system used to determine who should be playing in the Title* game but I think we both agree both are Top 5 teams. I will concede that the SEC when push comes to shove usually has the best team in the country and they usually have two or 3 teams in the mix but like most conferences I think after you get away from the top 2 or 3 teams everybody else is average to below average. You will not get any argument from me that Alabama, Florida and LSU have all been deserving of National Titles because those teams have all been amazing but I get sick of hearing how great the SEC is year in and year when OOC they don't ever play anybody. These are all of the Non Conference Games the SEC schools played in 2010. I don't feel like pulling up records for each team but you have a few barely eligible bowl teams and some teams that downright suck. Nobody that would qualify as a threat to the SEC. No USCs or Oklahomas, Michigans or even Arizonas or Notre Dames. San Jose State Duke Georgia St Arkansas St Clemson x 2 Louisiana- Monroe X 3 Chattanooga Tennessee Tech UTEP North Carolina West Virgina McNeese St Jacksonville St Tulane Fresno St Louisiana -Lafayette x 2 Memphis x2 Houston UAB x2 Alcorn St Miami (OH) USF Appalachian St Colorado Idaho St Georgia Tech Southern Miss Furman Troy Louisville Western Kentucky Akron Charleston Southern Northwestern UConn Wake Forest Eastern Michigan Penn St Tennessee- Martin Florida St 8 Games against the Sun Belt 11 against Non 1 A opponents (Vanderbilt was the only team with all 1A opponents) In defense of LSU both North Carolina and West Virginia were supposed to be better In defense of Alabama Penn St was supposed to be better. In defense of Miss St the Houston Cougars were supposed to be very good Both Florida and Georgia play their 2 ACC teams every year Oregon's SOS took a hit for playing Tennessee. Hell Florida hasn't played any out of conference games out of the state of Florida in the last 5 years. Now any conference that calls itself the best should have no problems beating the good teams in the Big 12 or the Pac 10 or the Mountain West but they have the system figured out.They don't have to play those teams because everybody says the SEC is so much better then everybody else that who they play in the Non Conference is meaningless. Now onto point #2 you say that the best conferences should determine who plays in the Title* game. I have something very shocking for you. The Mountain West is better then the Pac 10. The evidence is in the results. In the last 5 years the Mountain West (including bowl games) is 21-17 against the Pac 10. In fact only 2 Pac 10 teams having winning records against the MWC in that time frame Oregon and Cal. Even lowly UNLV and New Mexico have wins over Pac 10 schools in that time frame. Boise St is 4-2 over the same 5 year stretch.
The SEC teams play mid majors?? HOLY SHIT. It's almost like they already have 8 games against a major conference. Great job criticizing the mid majors that the SEC plays while trying to tell me at the exact same time how great they are. You know who likes to schedule games against teams in the major conferences? Teams that's DON'T HAVE TO PLAY THEM EVERY WEEK. How are you not getting this? I honestly don't know what to say Rich. You have a complete misunderstanding of college football. You've now said that the Mountain West is better than the Big East, the ACC, and the Pac Ten, I can't argue against nonsense.
Your either are intentionally ignoring the facts or you just don't understand or your biased. I never said the Sun Belt was a good conference or the MAC. The Sun Belt doesn't even have one bowl eligible team yet. They're not mid majors. They're glorified 1AA schools. Nice way of twisting my words. Like I said the SEC always has 2 or 3 teams in the mix but the Big 10 usually has 2 and the Pac 10 has had 2 as well. The big difference is you compare the Non Conference schedule of Ohio St vs that of Florida or Auburn and it's not even close. In the last few years Ohio St has played USC, Texas and has signed 1 and 1 s with Oklahoma. Wisconsin plays at least good team in their non conference every year, Pete Carroll never shied away from playing 1 and 1s. The point is we have no idea how good the middle teams in the SEC because they never play anybody outside of their conference. You don't have any idea how a team like South Carolina stacks up against a school like Oregon St because unlike Oregon St South Carolina isn't willing to play anybody in their non conference. Oregon St has to play quality teams nearly every week as well and in the past has beaten a #1 team just like South Carolina has yet I don't see Mike Reilly avoiding teams like TCU or Boise. The Oregon schools have shown that they're willing to do a 1 and 1 with Boise or TCU or Michigan yet I don't see any SEC schools willing to play a great team out of conference. How do we know how Florida stacks up to Oklahoma St or LSU to Wisconsin or Alabama to Stanford? We don't so you can't just say the SEC is the best conference because they play each other every week and we certainly know that a top 25 Miss St team that beat Memphis, Georgia, Houston, Florida, UAB, Alcorn St and Kentucky is so much better then the Utah team that beat Pitt and Iowa St in their non conference. Hats off to LSU who actually tried this year, not their fault the wheels fell of at North Carolina or that West Virginia wasn't as good as they had the potential to be. The Tigers even had the balls to play a 1 and 1 with TCU. I get it allright and it has nothing to do with playing major teams every year, it has to do with the BCS doesn't punish teams for a weak non conference schedule if you play in a major conference. Case in point Kansas and Texas Tech. Kansas reached #2 in the polls beating 2 MAC schools a 1AA school and a Sun Belt school. They didn' draw Texas or Oklahoma and beat ZERO top 25 teams all year yet had they beaten Missouri would have been 1 game away from playing for a national title. That sounds like a great system. So now fact is nonsense? What other way would you like to determine how one conference is better then another? Is head to head not the best way? Is 38 games not a large enough sample size. It is fact that going back to the 2005 season the Mountain West is 21-17 against the Pac 10 including 6-1 in 2008. If it's nonsense which 6-4 Big East team would finish ahead of Utah, TCU, Air Force if they played in the MWC? Now it's a small sample size but the MWC and Big East have played 10 games since 05 and it's 5-5 with the upper half of MWC beating the Big East teams and the upper half of the Big East beating on the bad teams of the MWC. Explain why every one of the schools in the ACC would be an underdog to TCU, and Utah? I'd like to hear how by looking at a 38 game sample you can say it's nonsense.
Way to contribute... I'm glad to know that you allow people like Craig James and Mark May think for you. Why will either of you refuse to respond to the Mountain West being 21-17 against the Pac 10 since the beginning of 2005? Is it because maybe I'm right? What other way do you determine who is a better conference unless you are biased or just being a jackass? Why are you ignoring this fact?
Way to contribute? Are you fucking kidding me, Rich? The AQ conferences have bigger, better, faster, stronger talent. What else do you want? You are a MWC homer and it's a little ridiculous. The SEC, the PAC 10, the ACC, the Big 12, the Big 10, and Big East are tougher ALL around conferences than the WAC and the MWC - how in the flying fuck can you not grasp this? Winning a Big Six conference and running the table > Winning a mid-major conference and running the table.
Again why are you ignoring 21-17 against the Pac 10 since 2005? If everything you are saying is true then why does the Pac 10 have a losing record against the MWC over the last 5 1/2 seasons? In nearly 40 games my conference has a better record head to head. It's not it is 4 or 5 games it's almost 40. I'm through with your Mark May impression until you answer the question. I could care less about who has more talent, I care about results and the results of the MWC speak for themselves. We're not talking about TCU and BYU beating up on Wazzu. Oregon, Stanford, Arizona, Oregon St, Cal, UCLA and Arizona State have all lost games to MWC teams and not just the good teams. Why do you refuse to respond to the facts?
Here's another fact, your a joke and you know it. Continue to ignore results and think just because they play in bigger stadiums and have bigger bank accounts with better recruiting they are better. I guess in your world the results are meaningless. I guess everything is decided by Rivals and the games we are watching don't mean a thing. Game over... you lose.
I'm a joke? I could get run over by a semi-truck, go into a persistent vegetative state, and still know more about this game than you could ever imagine. I'm supposed to respect a conference that has this garbage at the bottom?: UNLV: 2-9 Colorado State: 3-9 New Mexico: 1-10 Wyoming: 3-9 Here are the bottom feeders of the WAC: Idaho: 5-6 Utah State: 4-7 New Mexico State: 2-9 San Jose State: 1-10 Now, we've all seen your gay MWC vs. PAC-10 argument. Let's look at the WAC vs. the MWC: Nevada is 2-0 against the MWC with wins against BYU and UNLV. Hawaii will be 1-0 against the MWC because UNLV sucks dick and Hawaii is pretty solid. Boise State is 1-0 against the MWC with a win against Wyoming. Fresno State and LA Tech didn't play against anyone in the MWC. San Jose State is 0-1 with a loss to Utah. Utah State is 1-1 with a loss to SDSU and a win against BYU. New Mexico State is 1-1 with a loss to SDSU and a win against New Mexico. Idaho is 1-1 with a loss to Colorado State and a win against UNLV. ...so that means the WAC is 7-4 against the MWC this year. Now I could go back in look at previous years like you have, but those games don't matter anymore. 2010 is the only year that matters. So if I use your way of thinking, that means the WAC is better than the MWC which makes them better than the PAC 10? How much fucking sense does that make? None at all. PS: You can't knock a school for having a big stadium and for having more money than a mid-major program. That's so god damn retarded. Game fucking over.
