Penn State or Michigan? Which team is more likely to end Ohio State's Big Ten East dominance?

[Across The Field]

He played a very tough defense in the rain and still got a win. The only reason they finished behind Indiana in the computer rankings was because their offensive statistics bombed when they had to bring in their backup QB. IU feasted on beating a lot of bad teams. If they played Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin instead of Purdue, Northwestern and Nebraska, they probably aren't even a bowl team.

No, the team got the win. He played like shit and they won in spite of him. If Indiana is better because their backup QB is better than Cal's, that isn't really suggesting that somehow Cal is a better team. Not only that, but Indiana dealt with more injury issues than Cal did overall. Indiana's schedule wasn't strong, and I never said it was, but they were still a better team than Cal.

 

[ericd7633]

They also won multiple games in spite of Garbers. He was absolute trash against North Texas and Washington, and he was barely decent against UCD and UCLA. Those were 4 wins the team won with Garbers playing overall pretty poorly. He also didn't even play much or at all against the better teams on their schedule, which has been your knock on Penix. Knife cuts both ways.

His QBR was a 72 against UCLA. He played above average that game. And you're right he wasn't very good in those other games. But given how shitty the backup was, there is no way they beat a team like Washington with the backup. And yeah that was my knock against Penix, but you were acting like IU lost those games because he wasn't playing, which was bullshit to begin with. Especially when the level of play between Penix and Ramsey was equal. Hell Ramsey probably performed better than Penix just because he had to go against all the good teams.

 

[Across The Field]

His QBR was a 72 against UCLA. He played above average that game. And you're right he wasn't very good in those other games. But given how shitty the backup was, there is no way they beat a team like Washington with the backup. And yeah that was my knock against Penix, but you were acting like IU lost those games because he wasn't playing, which was bullshit to begin with. Especially when the level of play between Penix and Ramsey was equal. Hell Ramsey probably performed better than Penix just because he had to go against all the good teams.

He completed 58% of his passes against UCLA with 1 TD and 1 INT. That's not a good game. Also, the only decent defense he played was Washington and he was absolute trash that game. You're not going to convince me a QB is good when he can't even play well against shitty defenses like UCLA, North Texas, and Cal-Davis. They also beat Washington entirely despite Garbers, so you can't attribute that win to him.

There's also a reason why Penix is the starter at IU and Ramsey transferred out. Penix also carved up a Michigan State defense that was far better than any defense Garbers played all year. At the end of the day, nothing you've said suggests Cal is better than Indiana. They play in a bottom level conference, and to be honest, losing by 7 at Happy Valley against a top 10 team is more impressive than winning at an unranked Washington by 1 point.

 

[ericd7633]

He completed 58% of his passes against UCLA with 1 TD and 1 INT. That's not a good game. Also, the only decent defense he played was Washington and he was absolute trash that game. You're not going to convince me a QB is good when he can't even play well against shitty defenses like UCLA, North Texas, and Cal-Davis. They also beat Washington entirely despite Garbers, so you can't attribute that win to him.

There's also a reason why Penix is the starter at IU and Ramsey transferred out. Penix also carved up a Michigan State defense that was far better than any defense Garbers played all year. At the end of the day, nothing you've said suggests Cal is better than Indiana. They play in a bottom level conference, and to be honest, losing by 7 at Happy Valley against a top 10 team is more impressive than winning at an unranked Washington by 1 point.

He was fine against UCLA. His QBR suggests it. He wasn't good against UCD or UNT. He was average against UW. My guess is, if the backup had to play every game they are a 1/2 win team. The backup was just that bad.

You've done nothing to suggest IU was better than Cal last year. At least Cal beat a bowl eligible team(3 of them in fact). I'm going to guess there were at least 70 teams that won a game against a bowl eligible team last year and IU wasn't one of them.

 

[Across The Field]

He was fine against UCLA. His QBR suggests it. He wasn't good against UCD or UNT. He was average against UW. My guess is, if the backup had to play every game they are a 1/2 win team. The backup was just that bad.

You've done nothing to suggest IU was better than Cal last year. At least Cal beat a bowl eligible team(3 of them in fact). I'm going to guess there were at least 70 teams that won a game against a bowl eligible team last year and IU wasn't one of them.

LOL you're telling me 111 yards passing with 0 TDs is average? Compared to what? That was an absolutely horrible game. Thankfully the rest of the team rescued him or they would've definitely lost. And how are you going to tell me a good QB is going to have horrible games against teams like Cal-Davis and North Texas?

IU was better and all the rankings support that, even the ones you hold as Gospel. I don't need to prove anything, the metrics already back me up. I can't help but keep laughing at how you use efficiency and Sagarin rankings in nearly every other discussion when it supports your argument but now they're somehow wrong because it doesn't fit your current narrative.

 

[ericd7633]

LOL you're telling me 111 yards passing with 0 TDs is average? Compared to what? That was an absolutely horrible game. Thankfully the rest of the team rescued him or they would've definitely lost. And how are you going to tell me a good QB is going to have horrible games against teams like Cal-Davis and North Texas?

IU was better and all the rankings support that, even the ones you hold as Gospel. I don't need to prove anything, the metrics already back me up. I can't help but keep laughing at how you use efficiency and Sagarin rankings in nearly every other discussion when it supports your argument but now they're somehow wrong because it doesn't fit your current narrative.

His QBR against UW was 52. It was pretty much the definition of average. My guess is UW loses if the other QB plays. Garbers was an above average QB last year. I'd say probably top 40. That's all I've ever said. The problem for Cal was that the backup was one of the worst in CFB.

And yes, IU was better in those rankings, by the slimmest of margins, though, and that was with Cal getting atrocious backup QB play. I will continue to use Sagarin and efficiency metrics to support my argument, this one no different. I'm of the belief that had Garbers played the whole year, Cal would have been ahead in both. It's not a huge leap given how close they were to each other. It's pretty bad that IU didn't even beat a bowl eligible team last year.

 

[Across The Field]

His QBR against UW was 52. It was pretty much the definition of average. My guess is UW loses if the other QB plays. Garbers was an above average QB last year. I'd say probably top 40. That's all I've ever said. The problem for Cal was that the backup was one of the worst in CFB.

And yes, IU was better in those rankings, by the slimmest of margins, though, and that was with Cal getting atrocious backup QB play. I will continue to use Sagarin and efficiency metrics to support my argument, this one no different. I'm of the belief that had Garbers played the whole year, Cal would have been ahead in both. It's not a huge leap given how close they were to each other. It's pretty bad that IU didn't even beat a bowl eligible team last year.

You're acting like Cal was injury-riddled all year when in fact they were just missing their starting QB for 5 games. Indiana dealt with injuries all year to several key players. I can use your model and say that if they were healthy all year, they would've beaten Tennessee and Penn State and this entire argument is moot because they would've easily been a top 15-20 team in the nation.

Also, saying Cal has such a horrendous backup QB isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of how good they are as a team. Garbers wasn't even that good and you're saying if he wasn't playing, they'd be a 1-2 win team? I also understand that IU lost to the 5 bowl teams they faced all year, but I highly doubt Cal would've beaten any of them either.

 

[Duckboy33]

No, the team got the win. He played like shit and they won in spite of him. If Indiana is better because their backup QB is better than Cal's, that isn't really suggesting that somehow Cal is a better team. Not only that, but Indiana dealt with more injury issues than Cal did overall. Indiana's schedule wasn't strong, and I never said it was, but they were still a better team than Cal.

I don't care about how they won, they won. Going on the road and beating an 8 win team, that's something Indiana wasn't able to accomplish. Heck, Cal ended up beating 3 bowl teams and Indiana didn't beat a single on.

 

[Across The Field]

I don't care about how they won, they won. Going on the road and beating an 8 win team, that's something Indiana wasn't able to accomplish. Heck, Cal ended up beating 3 bowl teams and Indiana didn't beat a single on.

Yet Indiana was the better team.

 

[Duckboy33]

Yet Indiana was the better team.

You can keep saying it. I think you're the only one in this thread who believes it. Nobody else is getting fooled by IU filling up on cupcakes

 

[Across The Field]

You can keep saying it. I think you're the only one in this thread who believes it. Nobody else is getting fooled by IU filling up on cupcakes

If Cal played Indiana's schedule last year, they would've been 8-5 at very best.

 

[Duckboy33]

If Cal played Indiana's schedule last year, they would've been 8-5 at very best.

Speculative at best. I'm dealing with realities. Cal beat 3 bowl teams. Indiana beat 0. Let's stop acting like Cal was the 8 win team that was the product of a weak schedule.

 

[Across The Field]

Speculative at best. I'm dealing with realities. Cal beat 3 bowl teams. Indiana beat 0. Let's stop acting like Cal was the 8 win team that was the product of a weak schedule.

Here's some more reality for you. Sagarin and ESPN Efficiency metrics both said Indiana was the better team. That was with their starting QB, starting RB, top 3 WRs, and two starting left tackles getting hurt and missing games throughout the year.

 

[ericd7633]

You're acting like Cal was injury-riddled all year when in fact they were just missing their starting QB for 5 games. Indiana dealt with injuries all year to several key players. I can use your model and say that if they were healthy all year, they would've beaten Tennessee and Penn State and this entire argument is moot because they would've easily been a top 15-20 team in the nation.

Also, saying Cal has such a horrendous backup QB isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of how good they are as a team. Garbers wasn't even that good and you're saying if he wasn't playing, they'd be a 1-2 win team? I also understand that IU lost to the 5 bowl teams they faced all year, but I highly doubt Cal would've beaten any of them either.

Except Cal beat Washington which was better than two teams IU lost too.

 

[ericd7633]

Here's some more reality for you. Sagarin and ESPN Efficiency metrics both said Indiana was the better team. That was with their starting QB, starting RB, top 3 WRs, and two starting left tackles getting hurt and missing games throughout the year.

Penix, Scott, Philyor, Hale, Westbrook, and Fryfogle all played against MSU. And MSU was significantly more injured going into that game than IU was.

 

[Across The Field]

Penix, Scott, Philyor, Hale, Westbrook, and Fryfogle all played against MSU. And MSU was significantly more injured going into that game than IU was.

Cool.

 

[Across The Field]

Except Cal beat Washington which was better than two teams IU lost too.

Debatable.

Also, Oregon State beat Cal so that must mean Oregon State would've beaten Stanford, Washington, and Washington State last year, right? Transitive property doesn't work.

 

[ericd7633]

Debatable.

Also, Oregon State beat Cal so that must mean Oregon State would've beaten Stanford, Washington, and Washington State last year, right? Transitive property doesn't work.

Okay then call all 3 equal. IU lost both games and Cal beat UW.

And I merely brought that up because you said Cal would have lost all 5 as well. We don't know, but at least there is evidence Cal was able to beat a team that was better/as good as two teams IU lost too.

 

[Across The Field]

Okay then call all 3 equal. IU lost both games and Cal beat UW.

And I merely brought that up because you said Cal would have lost all 5 as well. We don't know, but at least there is evidence Cal was able to beat a team that was better/as good as two teams IU lost too.

Good for Cal. They beat Washington. So did 4-8 Stanford and 5-7 Colorado. The Pac-12 was overwhelmingly mediocre. That's basically what's driving this whole conversation. Nobody cares about a mediocre Cal team facing a somewhat decent ASU team or a perennially underachieving USC team.

 

[ericd7633]

Good for Cal. They beat Washington. So did 4-8 Stanford and 5-7 Colorado. The Pac-12 was overwhelmingly mediocre. That's basically what's driving this whole conversation. Nobody cares about a mediocre Cal team facing a somewhat decent ASU team or a perennially underachieving USC team.

Anything about this upcoming season is off limits with how this season will play out if there is a season. I thought Cal/USC would be a top 25 matchup. Which is why I was fine with them being at the tail end of those best game rankings.

Then you said Michigan wasn't much better than IU, then you said IU was better than Cal. Which I disagreed with, and here we are.