That USC game took a miracle drive to win, but OSU did dominate for 55 minutes of that game. A loss is a loss, but surely they shouldn't be penalized too badly for that when other teams have had far worse losses?
The Purdue game was undoubtedly a bad game for them, but Purdue is clearly a better team then their record indicates, considering many of their losses were very close, including against Notre Dame and Oregon.
I think a very good case could be made for OSU as the best 10-2 team in the country, and that they have played one of the tougher schedules in the country. If Michigan beats them, it should be all the more impressive for all of that as well.
Because THAT would be completely logical... Beating all of the top teams in the Big Ten is meaningless, but roll through the WAC and you're in business? Come on, I know Michigan has had a tough season, but sour grapes still taste sour.
That doesn't mean it's unbeatable. You said, "Even if Tulsa, Houston, Nevada, and Rice are playing against worse defensive talent, are they not doing so with comparable offensive players?" This isn't an entirely accurate comparison. It is true that as defensive talent and speed faced by an offense increases the offensive talent and speed increases as well. Obviously when Oklahoma faces Texas, the offenses are much faster and more talented than those of Rice or Houston. However, while talent can scale, the football field cannot.
No matter how talented you are, the football field stays the same width. So when you have players who are running at, say, an average of 5% faster, you should consider the field to essentially be 5% smaller. Consider a nickleback at Rice covering a receiver at Houston. Assume they each run a 4.6 40, and the reciever is dashing to the sideline in a flat route. The two players should reach the sideline, 10 yards away, in roughly 1.15 seconds (give or take). Now consider an Oklahoma receiver and a Texas DB, each running a 4.4 40. Now, by contrast, they should reach the sideline in 1.1 seconds.
Football is about reactions, and the spread is predicated on getting players in space. 1/5th of a second, or more, means that the receiver has less time to cut up-field, the QB has less time to get the ball off, and the defense has more time to contain the play. If the field were larger to go along with the talent increase, then the faster speed of the game at that level wouldn't matter. However, because the boundaries are the same, in a somewhat paradoxical manner, the spread becomes less effective as team speeds increase.
I think this is the reason the spread gets more effective the farther down the talent line you go. If everyone is running 5.0 40s or slower, the width of the field is effectively far larger than if they ran 4.4s. This makes getting the ball in space is both easier and more effective, since you, for all intents and purposes, have more room to work with.
Slovenia is one of the richest countries in Europe, with a per capita GDP near that of most Western European countries. Not many goatherders live there, and it wouldn't be a bad place to be shipped off to. . .
I think instead you should ship him to Moldova, or Belarus. Many more sheep, and old school slavic dictators to keep him in line.
At least use an historian or economist... Not only is the argument stupid, considering OSU, PSU, and Michigan still seem to do alright (Michigan's season this year notwithstanding), but the Big Ten states have almost 10 million more residents than the SEC states. Since Notre Dame's largest presence is in the Big Ten AND it's able to recruit nationally, the recruiting pool is not the cause.
Recent Comments