2013 CFB top Offenses and Defenses

[Boise4Life]

That's assuming they get past UGA this year. The CCG was 4 yards apart last year, and Bama lost more than UGA did, so you never know.

While the offense will be explosive again, UGA's defensive was completely gutted and they lost several stars from last year. They only have two returning starters on that side of the ball and could struggle some. They also have teams like South Carolina and Florida to contend with in the East. There's no guarantees that they will be making their third SEC CG appearance in a row this coming season.

 

[geneh_33]

Geneh likes like 34 teams.

Well, I don't hate anybody. I do hate Boise State's schedule, but that's a different argument altogether, been there and done that a million times already.

The only team I like in the SEC even a little bit is Florida. I like ALL of the ACC schools as I have mentioned before. I like most of the AAC schools, some of the B1G schools, some of the Big 12 as well. I probably like more than 34 teams.

But my heart and soul is the ACC, especially UNC. It is very rare that I would root for any other team when playing against an ACC team.

 

[Ballboy534]

Geneh likes like 34 teams.

I hate all teams not in Clemson SC, Charlotte NC, and Greenville NC. Except for the Atlanta Braves of course

 

[Ballboy534]

I suppose you could call me an equal opportunity hater?

 

[Boise4Life]

Well, I don't hate anybody. I do hate Boise State's schedule, but that's a different argument altogether, been there and done that a million times already.

The SOS was pathetic last year, around 100 or so out of the 124 FBS teams on most indexes. I'll give you that. But in most seasons (with the exception of last year's) it hovers around the 50 - 70 range. That's better than most non-AQs and even some AQ teams, particularly those from the weaker conferences.

So what do you know? Boise is still a non-AQ that plays a non-AQ schedule. Who would have thought? Crazy.

So if in most seasons Boise's schedule is in that 50 to 70 range (which it is), what are your thoughts on the 55 to 75 FBS teams or so that play worse schedules than Boise? You know. Teams from shithouse conferences like the Sun Belt, Conference USA, MAC, etc. Do you hate all of their schedules too?

 

[Sox33OSU]

While the offense will be explosive again, UGA's defensive was completely gutted and they lost several stars from last year. They only have two returning starters on that side of the ball and could struggle some. They also have teams like South Carolina and Florida to contend with in the East. There's no guarantees that they will be making their third SEC CG appearance in a row this coming season.

I agree with you there, they lost a lot of talent. However, they have really stockpiled some big talent on that side of the ball in recent years. Harvey-Clemons (only suspended 1 game) and Jordan Jenkins look like potential studs, and Swann and Herrera are solid in the defensive backfield and Garrison Smith is one of the better defensive linemen in the SEC this season. I don't see Florida suddenly springing anything new on the country offensively this year; they still are bad. South Carolina will definitely be a contender, we agree there. It's up in the air, but I still lean UGA's way simply because their offense is incredible.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Yeah, If i were forced to pick the SEC East I go

1 Georgia
2 SC
3 FLA

I think Georgia even with the question marks on defense is a legitimate NATTY contender

 

[4down20]

The SOS was pathetic last year, around 100 or so out of the 124 FBS teams on most indexes. I'll give you that. But in most seasons (with the exception of last year's) it hovers around the 50 - 70 range. That's better than most non-AQs and even some AQ teams, particularly those from the weaker conferences.

So what do you know? Boise is still a non-AQ that plays a non-AQ schedule. Who would have thought? Crazy.

So if in most seasons Boise's schedule is in that 50 to 70 range (which it is), what are your thoughts on the 55 to 75 FBS teams or so that play worse schedules than Boise? You know. Teams from shithouse conferences like the Sun Belt, Conference USA, MAC, etc. Do you hate all of their schedules too?

The issue with weak SoS is when teams are rewarded for it. When they get rewarded with it by getting BCS bowls and so on, it promotes other teams to run weak schedules. When teams are running weak schedules, we don't see as many quality games during the season. I want to see more big time match ups during the season, not less.

So when Boise St plays a weak schedule and gets rewarded for it simply because they are undefeated, it's bad IMO. That has nothing to do with Boise St specifically, it could be any team. I had high hopes for the MWC a few years ago, but then TCU and Utah leave. It sucks for Boise St, but it doesn't change that it's bad for a weak schedule to get rewarded.

As for Boise St running an non-AQ schedule and most teams, most non-AQ teams aren't trying to win national championships. That's the difference. Also, I'm not the biggest fan of hard ranking numbers like "70" although we all use them often. That's why I break things down in terms of being "X% as difficult as the toughest schedule". It turns out, that while they are #70th or whatever, it wouldn't really take Boise St that much in the scheduling department to not have the problem. Add 2 quality non-conference games a year and they could easily have a good/competitive SoS. They did in the past make decent strides in adding 1 game, but they really need 2. 3 wouldn't be bad. And if Boise St needs to take deals like the Nebraska offer, they need to man up and do it.

So I don't hate anyone's schedule really, I hate schedules being rewarded and what it means. I do currently hate Alabama's schedule because I view it as being weak currently and that's my team so I don't want them playing such, but at the same time I understand how it happened. Still, it will be if Alabama maintains that weak looking schedule all year long and is rewarded for it that I won't think is right. It's just a bad direction for college football IMO, and will lead to less quality games. This is actually my main concern about the playoffs as well when 4 teams can make it.

 

[Boise4Life]

Yeah, If i were forced to pick the SEC East I go

1 Georgia
2 SC
3 FLA

I think Georgia even with the question marks on defense is a legitimate NATTY contender

Tough call for me between USCe and UGA. I agree with Florida at #3, but they are close. They need to get that offense cranking in year 2 under Pease.

UGA was fun to watch on offense with those two young studs Gurley and Marshall carrying the rock and then Murray lighting it up through the air. He averaged 10.8 yards per attempt to lead the country, in a conference like the SEC no less.

 

[Boise4Life]

The issue with weak SoS is when teams are rewarded for it.

I think you have it backwards, 420. Teams aren't rewarded for their weak schedules. They are punished for it and that punishment is reflected in their national ranking or lack of one. I'll give you an example. Think back to 2011. Arkansas finished 11 and 2, got absolutely jack hammered by both Alabama and LSU by a total of 48 points, and finished in the top 5 in the nation. That same year Houston destroyed everyone in their path with the exception of EOY #19 Southern Miss on their way to a 13 and 1 season, but since they played a crap schedule they finished #18 even though they had a better record than Arky. SOS, along record is a major factor in the rankings. The only other factor really is margin of victory which is taken into account to a certain degree.

 

[Boise4Life]

So I don't hate anyone's schedule really, I hate schedules being rewarded and what it means. I do currently hate Alabama's schedule because I view it as being weak currently and that's my team so I don't want them playing such, but at the same time I understand how it happened. Still, it will be if Alabama maintains that weak looking schedule all year long and is rewarded for it that I won't think is right. It's just a bad direction for college football IMO, and will lead to less quality games. This is actually my main concern about the playoffs as well when 4 teams can make it.

I bet you anything if Bama makes it back to the SEC CG (which I expect them to), they will finish with a top 30 schedule. That would be better than a minimum of almost 95 FBS teams (over 3/4s of them). Bama's SOS this year will be very similiar to last year's, plenty tough enough and just fine.

 

[Ballboy534]

Yeah, If i were forced to pick the SEC East I go

1 Georgia
2 SC
3 FLA

I think Georgia even with the question marks on defense is a legitimate NATTY contender

If they can win in Death Valley they certainly are.

 

[4down20]

I think you have it backwards, 420. Teams aren't rewarded for their weak schedules. They are punished for it and that punishment is reflected in their national ranking or lack of one. I'll give you an example. Think back to 2011. Arkansas finished 11 and 2, got absolutely jack hammered by both Alabama and LSU by a total of 48 points, and finished in the top 5 in the nation. That same year Houston destroyed everyone in their path with the exception of EOY #19 Southern Miss on their way to a 13 and 1 season, but since they played a crap schedule they finished #18 even though they had a better record than Arky. SOS, along record is a major factor in the rankings. The only other factor really is margin of victory which is taken into account to a certain degree.

When things go right they are. When things go right, I'm not worried about it. I'm worried about when things go wrong and debating against people who think it should go wrong(such as people like Smiles).

 

[4down20]

I bet you anything if Bama makes it back to the SEC CG (which I expect them to), they will finish with a top 30 schedule. That would be better than a minimum of almost 95 FBS teams (over 3/4s of them). Bama's SOS this year will be very similiar to last year's, plenty tough enough and just fine.

I'm hoping they will be up there before the SECCG. If Arkansas and Auburn improve, that could happen. As I mentioned before, it doesn't take alot to move up. If the overall SoS of Alabama improves by 10%, then that would put them about 30th. Also, hoping VT is improved as well.

So I hope you are right and I think it has a good chance of happening. But as of this moment - it's not there. Our opponents will need to improve over their performances last year.

 

[Boise4Life]

I can't wait for September 7th in College Station. It's gonna be insane.

 

[Sox33OSU]

I can't wait for September 7th in College Station. It's gonna be insane.

... for the Sam Houston State game?

 

[4down20]

... for the Sam Houston State game?

I think he meant Sept 14.

I can't wait for it either.

Edit: Oops, I see that is who Texas A&M plays that week, missed the joke.

 

[Boise4Life]

My bad. I forgot Bama actually has a bye after the VT opener. I just noticed they have one right before the LSU game too. Smart.

Make that September 14th in College Station!

 

[geneh_33]

The SOS was pathetic last year, around 100 or so out of the 124 FBS teams on most indexes. I'll give you that. But in most seasons (with the exception of last year's) it hovers around the 50 - 70 range. That's better than most non-AQs and even some AQ teams, particularly those from the weaker conferences.

So what do you know? Boise is still a non-AQ that plays a non-AQ schedule. Who would have thought? Crazy.

So if in most seasons Boise's schedule is in that 50 to 70 range (which it is), what are your thoughts on the 55 to 75 FBS teams or so that play worse schedules than Boise? You know. Teams from shithouse conferences like the Sun Belt, Conference USA, MAC, etc. Do you hate all of their schedules too?

Yeah, I pretty much do.

 

[Boise4Life]

Yeah, I pretty much do.

Fair enough then, Big Guy. Just know that a lot of the ACC teams that you support will finish with a similiar and for a few of them even worse SOSs' than Boise in 2013. I can almost all but guaranty it.