2013 CFB top Offenses and Defenses

[Boise4Life]

When the real polls come out, the ones that matter, we'll see where Boise starts in relation to the rest of the BIG teams. For now we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Sox33OSU]

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.

Plus, Gardner showed by year's end that he is clearly a very good QB who should've been starting all along. They would've likely beaten Nebraska with him and would've had a great chance against ND.

 

[Sox33OSU]

When the real polls come out, the ones that matter, we'll see where Boise starts in relation to the rest of the BIG teams. For now we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I guess. I still stand by it that Michigan, Wisconsin and Northwestern would all likely win the MW this year if they were in it.

 

[Boise4Life]

I guess. I still stand by it that Michigan, Wisconsin and Northwestern would all likely win the MW this year if they were in it.

Even though none of those teams will begin ranked higher in the polls than Boise by the people who do it for a living. But regardless every single one of them "would" hypothetically win the MWC in your opinion. Got it.

 

[Sox33OSU]

Even though none of those teams will begin ranked higher in the polls than Boise by the people who do it for a living. But regardless every single one of them "would" hypothetically win the MWC in your opinion. Got it.

Ha, I love how you chastise me for saying they'll start ranked ahead of them, yet you state they won't. Hypocrite much?

 

[Boise4Life]

Kinda like you having to get the last word in like a little child by restating the exact same statement you had already previously stated. As if I/we needed some sort of summation as to your thoughts on the whole thing.....again.....for a second time.

 

[Sox33OSU]

Kinda like you having to get the last word in like a little child by restating the exact same statement you had already previously stated. As if I/we needed some sort of summation as to your thoughts on the whole thing.....again.....for a second time.

Calm yourself down and quit being so fuckin sensitive.

I'm entitled to my opinion, and it's not like it's outlandish to say. Wisconsin upgraded their coach, has a solid defense led by a first-team All B1G and third team All-American in Chris Borland, has a great offensive line and 2 amazing RBs. Michigan has an incredible amount of talent led by a QB who produced almost as many TDs as Southwyck in less than half the time, and Northwestern returns almost all of their firepower from a 10-win team that won a NYD bowl over an SEC team.

Sorry if this irks you for some reason. If you disagree then put up your reasoning against mine or shut the fuck up.

 

[Boise4Life]

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.

420, I told you I didn't have a problem with them. I admitted that they were a "good" (but not "great") team last year. They finished right where they should have IMO - in the last couple spots in the AP and just out of the Coaches. They played a tremendous schedule last year that included two top 5 teams OOC with neither game being played at home. When you stack their 2011 schedule up which featured #11 MSU, #24 Nebraska, and 6 and 7 Ohio State against the 2012 one, there is absolutely no comparision.

Listen, I respect them for playing it, but just because you have a great schedule does not make you a great team. Ask teams like Kentucky and Washington State about that. While I understand that all of their losses came against EOY ranked teams, is that supposed to impress me? Again UK and Wazzu play a bunch of ranked teams too, they just never beat them. Does that make UK and Wazzu good? Because they played tough teams and lost?

So as I stated I believe Michigan returns about 12 starters. They took some personnell losses from last year's 8 and 5 team. I do like the Gardner kid. He's a pretty dang good player. Where would I personally start them in 2013? Probably somewhere in the low 20s like 21 or 22. Where do I think they will start? Probably somewhere closer to like 17 or 18 and I'm fine with that.

 

[Boise4Life]

Calm yourself down and quit being so fuckin sensitive.

I'm entitled to my opinion, and it's not like it's outlandish to say. Wisconsin upgraded their coach, has a solid defense led by a first-team All B1G and third team All-American in Chris Borland, has a great offensive line and 2 amazing RBs. Michigan has an incredible amount of talent led by a QB who produced almost as many TDs as Southwyck in less than half the time, and Northwestern returns almost all of their firepower from a 10-win team that won a NYD bowl over an SEC team.

Sorry if this irks you for some reason. If you disagree then put up your reasoning against mine or shut the fuck up.

You apologize in one sentence and then tell me to shut the fuck up in the following one?

It's all good. I'm not irked. You're entitled to your opinion and while I disagree with it, it's not all that outlandish. Too bad it's a hypothetical one that cannot be proven one way or the other.

The team that Boise threw out there last year and the one that we'll most likely see again this season couldn't hold a candle to the great ones that we've seen in most recent seasons. They're still a good, solid team though. We'll see how they fare. I'm thinking a fairly similiar record and ranking to last year's. Maybe about a 40 to 50% chance of winning the MWC. I'll give them about a 15 to 20% chance at a BCS bowl, lower than most people would figure I'd imagine. Hopefully for me someday they'll return to consistent top 5 to 10 type status. Time will tell.

 

[Sox33OSU]

You apologize in one sentence and then tell me to shut the fuck up in the following one?

It's all good. I'm not irked. You're entitled to your opinion and while I disagree with it, it's not all that outlandish. Too bad it's a hypothetical one that cannot be proven one way or the other.

The team that Boise threw out there last year and the one that we'll most likely see again this season couldn't hold a candle to the great ones that we've seen in most recent seasons. They're still a good, solid team though. We'll see how they fare. I'm thinking a fairly similiar record and ranking to last year's. Maybe about a 40 to 50% chance of winning the MWC. I'll give them about a 15 to 20% chance at a BCS bowl, lower than most people would figure I'd imagine. Hopefully for me someday they'll return to consistent top 5 to 10 type status. Time will tell.

Technically I said to put up your reasoning OR shut the fuck up. The Boise team I saw last year wasn't BCS-caliber. Southwick is a decent QB, but he isn't a star. They are likely a 5th place team in the B1G this year based off of what they have returning and what they showed last year.

 

[4down20]

420, I told you I didn't have a problem with them. I admitted that they were a "good" (but not "great") team last year. They finished right where they should have IMO - in the last couple spots in the AP and just out of the Coaches. They played a tremendous schedule last year that included two top 5 teams OOC with neither game being played at home. When you stack their 2011 schedule up which featured #11 MSU, #24 Nebraska, and 6 and 7 Ohio State against the 2012 one, there is absolutely no comparision.

Listen, I respect them for playing it, but just because you have a great schedule does not make you a great team. Ask teams like Kentucky and Washington State about that. While I understand that all of their losses came against EOY ranked teams, is that supposed to impress me? Again UK and Wazzu play a bunch of ranked teams too, they just never beat them. Does that make UK and Wazzu good? Because they played tough teams and lost?

So as I stated I believe Michigan returns about 12 starters. They took some personnell losses from last year's 8 and 5 team. I do like the Gardner kid. He's a pretty dang good player. Where would I personally start them in 2013? Probably somewhere in the low 20s like 21 or 22. Where do I think they will start? Probably somewhere closer to like 17 or 18 and I'm fine with that.

To be a 20th ranked team, that's like 4 losses on the year. Where do you see 4 losses for them? I see 2, maybe 3 max. And they can potentially win all 3 of them.

10-2 is usually top10ish unless it's just on a weak schedule.

 

[Boise4Life]

To be a 20th ranked team, that's like 4 losses on the year. Where do you see 4 losses for them? I see 2, maybe 3 max. And they can potentially win all 3 of them.

10-2 is usually top10ish unless it's just on a weak schedule.

I see victories over Central Michigan, Akron, at UConn, Minnesota, Indiana, at Iowa.

I see them going about 3 and 3 against Notre Dame, at Penn State, at Michigan State, Nebraska, at Northwestern, and Ohio State.

I'll go with 9 and 3 and a ranking of around like 17th or so heading into bowl season. If not 9 and 3, I think 8 and 4 is more likely than 10 and 2. JMO.

 

[Sox33OSU]

I see victories over Central Michigan, Akron, at UConn, Minnesota, Indiana, at Iowa.

I see them going about 3 and 3 against Notre Dame, at Penn State, at Michigan State, Nebraska, at Northwestern, and Ohio State.

I'll go with 9 and 3 and a ranking of around like 17th or so heading into bowl season. If not 9 and 3, I think 8 and 4 is more likely than 10 and 2. JMO.

What is that based on?

 

[Boise4Life]

What is that based on?

The usual criteria. What they return in terms of coaches and especially players from a team that did what they did last year.

QB play is so incredibly huge these days and I think Devin Gardner is an upgrade over Dennard the Retard. Not a big upgrade, but an upgrade nonetheless.

What do you see them going next year?

 

[Sox33OSU]

The usual criteria. What they return in terms of coaches and especially players from a team that did what they did last year.

QB play is so incredibly huge these days and I think Devin Gardner is an upgrade over Dennard the Retard. Not a big upgrade, but an upgrade nonetheless.

What do you see them going next year?

I'm sorry, I meant what was them going 3-3 against those 6 teams and being more likely to be 8-4 than 10-2 based on.

I see them definitely going 10-2. Looking at their schedule, I only see them not being favored against Ohio State and maybe Northwestern.

 

[Boise4Life]

I'm sorry, I meant what was them going 3-3 against those 6 teams and being more likely to be 8-4 than 10-2 based on.

I see them definitely going 10-2. Looking at their schedule, I only see them not being favored against Ohio State and maybe Northwestern.

I just think those 6 games are pretty dang tough and when you get rivalries like ND, Sparty, OSU involved, etc., it gets even tougher. If I had to rank them in terms of difficulty I would go:

1. Ohio State
2. at Northwestern
3. Notre Dame
4. at Penn State
5. at Michigan State
6. Nebraska

 

[BamaTee1]

Even though none of those teams will begin ranked higher in the polls than Boise by the people who do it for a living. But regardless every single one of them "would" hypothetically win the MWC in your opinion. Got it.

Boise4life, the point you're missing is Boise might be ranked higher because they look at who the teams play and where they might finish. That's why I get tickled when you Boise fans, when arguing about how good or not good Boise is, say look at where the experts had us ranked at the end of '10, '11 or '12 or whatever year.

It's not because they necessarily think Boise is a top 10 team but they get there from all the other teams attrition(losing to tougher competition). You do understand that? If all those teams were in the MWC then your so called experts would NOT have Boise ranked as high and those teams probably would win the MWC or come mighty close every year. That's a fact Jack!

 

[geneh_33]

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.

I supplied you with stats that support my argument, yet you choose to ignore those facts. I can only conclude that you are some kind of an asshat that just refuses to see things any other way but your own.

B4L makes some good points about you as well.

Any way I am done with this argument because I just do not give a rat's patoot what you think.

 

[BoiseMike19]

Boise4life, the point you're missing is Boise might be ranked higher because they look at who the teams play and where they might finish. That's why I get tickled when you Boise fans, when arguing about how good or not good Boise is, say look at where the experts had us ranked at the end of '10, '11 or '12 or whatever year.

It's not because they necessarily think Boise is a top 10 team but they get there from all the other teams attrition(losing to tougher competition). You do understand that? If all those teams were in the MWC then your so called experts would NOT have Boise ranked as high and those teams probably would win the MWC or come mighty close every year. That's a fact Jack!

Hold the phones we have a chat board goober that has insight the experts don't. It's rigged for sure. If only BSU had to navigate through that gauntlet of Minnesota, Indiana, Illinios and Purdue. If you are a top 25 team the only difference between those 4 teams and UNLV, New Mexico, CSU and Wyoming is do you win 48-17 or 52-10.

 

[4down20]

Hold the phones we have a chat board goober that has insight the experts don't. It's rigged for sure. If only BSU had to navigate through that gauntlet of Minnesota, Indiana, Illinios and Purdue. If you are a top 25 team the only difference between those 4 teams and UNLV, New Mexico, CSU and Wyoming is do you win 48-17 or 52-10.

There is a difference between how good a team is and what kind of season they had.