2013 CFB top Offenses and Defenses

[Boise4Life]

Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Michigan would all be favored to win the MWC this season.

Not a single one of those teams would be favored to win the MWC over Boise. And when the preseason polls are released, none of those teams will be ranked ahead of Boise either. In fact the only Big 10 team who will be is Ohio State. You can count on that.

I saw the other day that Boise is even money to win the MWC. I think that is terrible value and if anything I would probably bet against them. I saw Fresno in there at +255. If memory serves me correctly Utah State, San Jose, and San Diego State were all in the +875 to +1025 range (good value). Nevada was +1700 and Air Force was +2300.

 

[geneh_33]

LOL, that link shows the B1G has the 2nd most per school, behind only the SEC. Did you even read it?

It also says the ACC put more players into the NFL than the Big Ten. Did you even read it?

 

[Sox33OSU]

No, sir. You are wrong strong.

NFL Players? Conference Affiliation « HolyTurf ACC #2

You can't get more specific than that. The truth hurts, don't it. The truth is that the Big Ten is slowly but surely falling away from greatness. It's about half way down the chute now.

You're also trying to equate having players on NFL rosters and how good a team is and how tough they are to beat. By your logic, Purdue is just as talented as Alabama, and Iowa is more talented than Notre Dame. Does that make sense to you?

 

[4down20]

Not a single one of those teams would be favored to win the MWC over Boise. And when the preseason polls are released, none of those teams will be ranked ahead of Boise either. In fact the only Big 10 team who will be is Ohio State. You can count on that.

I saw the other day that Boise is even money to win the MWC. I think that is terrible value and if anything I would probably bet against them. I saw Fresno in there at +255. If memory serves me correctly Utah State, San Jose, and San Diego State were all in the +875 to +1025 range (good value). Nevada was +1700 and Air Force was +2300.

Why do people think Michigan is bad?

They aren't.

 

[Sox33OSU]

It also says the ACC put more players into the NFL than the Big Ten. Did you even read it?

And the B1G put more in per school, which is really what matters in terms to this conversation about how tough teams in the conference are. On average, B1G teams are, as you'd put it, "bigger, faster and stronger" than teams in the ACC.

Your stats, your words.

 

[geneh_33]

You're also trying to equate having players on NFL rosters and how good a team is and how tough they are to beat. By your logic, Purdue is just as talented as Alabama, and Iowa is more talented than Notre Dame. Does that make sense to you?

Well, what I did say are two things:

1. I implied that I didn't expect you or anybody else to agree with me.
2. I said that I do not care what you think.

I think that about clears it up from my viewpoint.

 

[Sox33OSU]

Not a single one of those teams would be favored to win the MWC over Boise. And when the preseason polls are released, none of those teams will be ranked ahead of Boise either. In fact the only Big 10 team who will be is Ohio State. You can count on that.

I saw the other day that Boise is even money to win the MWC. I think that is terrible value and if anything I would probably bet against them. I saw Fresno in there at +255. If memory serves me correctly Utah State, San Jose, and San Diego State were all in the +875 to +1025 range (good value). Nevada was +1700 and Air Force was +2300.

Why wouldn't they be? Michigan State beat Boise just last year. Boise will be well, well behind Ohio State, and it wouldn't shock me in the slightest if they were behind at least Michigan and Wisconsin, and they should be behind Northwestern.

 

[Sox33OSU]

Well, what I did say are two things:

1. I implied that I didn't expect you or anybody else to agree with me.
2. I said that I do not care what you think.

I think that about clears it up from my viewpoint.

So you think that Purdue is as tough a team as Alabama?

 

[geneh_33]

And the B1G put more in per school, which is really what matters in terms to this conversation about how tough teams in the conference are. On average, B1G teams are, as you'd put it, "bigger, faster and stronger" than teams in the ACC.

Your stats, your words.

My words were, for the third time (bolding it for you so you might actually remember what I had said):

The ACC puts more players into the NFL than any other conference besides the SEC.

Behold:

ACC- 278
Big 10-256

 

[geneh_33]

So you think that Purdue is as tough a team as Alabama?

Why do you care what I think? If you didn't believe me the first time (you had called me a liar) then you aren't going to believe anything I tell you.

 

[Sox33OSU]

Why do you care what I think? If you didn't believe me the first time (you had called me a liar) then you aren't going to believe anything I tell you.

1. I never called you a liar, and I actually was clear about that.
2. It's a fucking message board you dolt. It's a forum for discussion.

 

[geneh_33]

1. I never called you a liar, and I actually was clear about that.
2. It's a fucking message board you dolt. It's a forum for discussion.

1. You implied it.
2. Purdue does have a history of producing good players. Believe whatever you choose to believe. It is pretty much undeniable that Alabama has better coaching than Purdue.

 

[Sox33OSU]

My words were, for the third time (bolding it for you so you might actually remember what I had said):

The ACC puts more players into the NFL than any other conference besides the SEC.

Behold:

ACC- 278
Big 10-256

Actually, here were your words:

" playing against those players every week is a bigger test than all of the conferences except the SEC. Notice how the ACC teams always beat up on each other? With bigger, faster, stronger players that's what happens."

You claim that the ACC is a bigger test every week than every school but the B1G, which is just flat out incorrect, as I said. I pointed out that the B1G puts, on average, more players in the NFL than the ACC, which is a fact, so you were wrong. Sorry admitting you're wrong is so hard for you. I come on here to discuss football. If you'd like to do so with a level head and not resort to unprovoked criticism, that'd be great. If you are going to continue just being a stubborn, biased homer, tell me so I can stop wasting my time.

 

[amszete]

My words were, for the third time (bolding it for you so you might actually remember what I had said):

The ACC puts more players into the NFL than any other conference besides the SEC.

Behold:

ACC- 278
Big 10-256

This is a metric that pretty much evereyone should know about by now. It appears at least one day a week I hear it on CFL (yes I unfortunately have to listen to the long diatribes produced by Gilmore and the like). So I am surpised there seems to be a misunderstanding on the intent here. It would be interesting to dig a bit deeper here as someone noted to see out of those stats, how many actually contribute which assumes we would need to formulate a common approach / understanding on what "contribute" really means. I am lazy here so maybe one of the OSU guys can take point on this. :rollseyes:

 

[Sox33OSU]

1. You implied it.
2. You still didn't believe me before so I rest my case that you won't believe me a second time. And I still don't think you believe me.

I was pretty clear about telling you that I DIDN'T think you were a liar. Why are you ignoring that?

This isn't about believing or not believing. This comes down to how tough the ACC is, as you tried saying it was the 2nd toughest conference behind the SEC. I've been merely pointing out how facts don't support that regardless of which angle you approach it. Jesus man, I thought you were a better poster than this.

 

[Sox33OSU]

1. You implied it.
2. Purdue does have a history of producing good players. Believe whatever you choose to believe. It is pretty much undeniable that Alabama has better coaching than Purdue.

Ahh, you changed #2.

Explain to me what history has to do with the current state of both programs, since the original point we were discussing was about the present.

 

[Boise4Life]

Why do people think Michigan is bad?

They aren't.

I don't think they're bad. But I certainly don't think they're great either. We'll go with "good." At the end of the day they were an 8 and 5 team who finished unranked in the Coaches and 24th in the AP and they only return 12 starters for 2013.

And hey, I'm not claiming my team is going to be great by any means either. They only return 8 starters. People are forgetting that. They will lose at least two games next season and may not win their conference.

 

[Boise4Life]

Why wouldn't they be? Michigan State beat Boise just last year. Boise will be well, well behind Ohio State, and it wouldn't shock me in the slightest if they were behind at least Michigan and Wisconsin, and they should be behind Northwestern.

Yes, they did beat them. By 4 points at home on a late game winning touchdown by Bell. Props to MSU for getting that done.

I agree with you that Boise will start well behind OSU who will open at #2. They'll probably start around where they finished last year, in that #14 - 17 range and again, ahead of the other 11 BIG teams not named Ohio State.

But they will not start behind Michigan or Wisconsin despite what you say. Bank on that. They won't start behind Northwestern either. Why should they start behind Northwestern again? Because you know more than the folks who evaluate and rank these teams for a living? Because you just said so?

 

[Sox33OSU]

Yes, they did beat them. By 4 points at home on a late game winning touchdown by Bell. Props to MSU for getting that done.

I agree with you that Boise will start well behind OSU who will open at #2. They'll probably start around where they finished last year, in that #14 - 17 range and again, ahead of the other 11 BIG teams not named Ohio State.

But they will not start behind Michigan or Wisconsin despite what you say. Bank on that. They won't start behind Northwestern either. Why should they start behind Northwestern again? Because you know more than the folks who evaluate and rank these teams for a living? Because you just said so?

They should start ahead of Boise because NW was a 10-win team that returns nearly their entire team.

Also, here's one of those "folks" who agrees with me -

Ohio State Buckeyes take over top spot in latest 2013 Top 25 - ESPN

Both OSU and Michigan FAR ahead of Boise, who is ranked just ahead of Wisky, Nebraska and NW.


Here's another one of those "folks". He has 3 B1G teams ahead of Boise -

Alabama, Texas A&M post-spring college football Top 25 - College Football - Andy Staples - SI.com


Sporting News unveils 2013 college football preseason top 25 rankings - Gamedayr : Gamedayr

ESPN, Sports Illustrated and Sporting News all have at least 2 B1G teams ranked ahead of Boise, so it's not just me.

 

[4down20]

I don't think they're bad. But I certainly don't think they're great either. We'll go with "good." At the end of the day they were an 8 and 5 team who finished unranked in the Coaches and 24th in the AP and they only return 12 starters for 2013.

And hey, I'm not claiming my team is going to be great by any means either. They only return 8 starters. People are forgetting that. They will lose at least two games next season and may not win their conference.

They were 8 and 5 because they played a bunch of top10 teams(as I rank them anyway). Lets see Boise St play 5 top 10 teams in a year and see how they come out.

Of those 5, 3 of them would be considered teams ranked #1-#3.

Alabama
Notre Dame (by 7)

That right there is both sides of the NCG.

Then you have undefeated Ohio St. (by 5)

Nebraska is the team that could be considered the worse team they lost too (by 14).

And they lost at the very end to 11-2 South Carolina (by 5).

They weren't a top10 team last year, but they were much better than "8-5" would generally suggest.

Also, as for starters returning, that doesn't mean too much to me in this case. As Hoke has had to restock the team.