Why is McCaffery going to New York?

[theboardref]

Nope, but he is in a Power 5 conference.

So why would that player not get as much credit?

 

[Across The Field]

Because all but 2 teams in the PAC were bowl eligible while 6 in the B1G weren't. This isn't just about the top . I'd say the top few teams in the B1G are better than the top of the PAC, but this is about the whole conference. And saying that Stanford barely beat ND as some sort of slight to them is insane. ND was a playoff team or close to it and Stanford won. That is impressive.

Bowl eligible doesn't mean a team is good. There are 6-6 cupcakes all over the college football landscape.

Perhaps if the top 6 teams in the B1G were not so good, they wouldn't all have 9+ wins and would've dropped some games to teams like Nebraska, Illinois and Minnesota, who were all 5-7. If all of those teams wins just 1 more conference game, that would mean 9/12 teams would be bowl eligible. Would that somehow make the depth of the B1G better? I find it really hard to believe that there's a huge different between being 6-6 and 7-5, which for the purpose of this conversation, is what you are using to justify "depth".

 

[Across The Field]

Sorry for derailing the thread a bit but...

I picked Ohio St because they were in your Avatar and they play in a conference that only plays 8 conference games.

The absolute best that the Pac-12 can do in conference is 54-54. Each team schedules 1 good OOC game and 2 cupcakes, so 12 good games and 24 cupcakes.

The absolute best that the Big-10 can do in conference is 56-56. Each team schedules 1 good OOC game and 3 cupcakes, so 14 good games and 42 cupcakes.

pac schedule > Big10 schedule

Great, that has nothing to do with the fact that a large portion of the conference is mediocre. There'd be an argument here if they had actually performed well in their OOC games, but they didn't.

 

[theboardref]

IT HASN'T EVER HAPPENED.

You actually proved why your point is BS with that very question. Had this been something that teams like Boise State were able to do with their creampuff schedule and this was simply the first P5 then you might have an argument. But it hasn't. Ever. Zero times in history.

Your premise is entirely flawed.

It never happened cause teams aren't stupid enough to let their best player return kickoffs and be a starting running back. Take away the outlier a 98 yard return, he averages a measly 26 yards, so basically he is just as effective as a 300 pound linemen returning kickoffs and kneeling the ball in the end zone.

 

[Shanemansj13]

So why would that player not get as much credit?

I never said he wouldnt but we dont know bc it has never happened until this year. You should know, you made an entire thread about how this player isnt deserving.

 

[Across The Field]

Well how many Out of Conference teams the quality of Notre Dame and Michigan did Ohio State play?

Jesus dude, this isn't an Ohio State vs. the Pac 12 conversation. Ohio State isn't the entire B1G.

 

[theboardref]

I never said he wouldnt but we dont know bc it has never happened until this year. You should know, you made an entire thread about how this player isnt deserving.

And I stand by my statement, I want to hear would you personally view it as a lesser accomplishment had it been done by a non power 5 runningback and why.

 

[Shanemansj13]

It never happened cause teams aren't stupid enough to let their best player return kickoffs and be a starting running back. Take away the outlier a 98 yard return, he averages a measly 26 yards, so basically he is just as effective as a 300 pound linemen returning kickoffs and kneeling the ball in the end zone.

LMAO!

He averages 28.9 yards per return on kickoffs. That is good for 6th in the nation, yet he plays offense too. Then you factor in he is 5th in attempts for kickoffs, every player in front of him in attempts has less yards.

But he is just some slow, white guy that weighs 300 pounds. Wow

 

[WizardHawk]

Team SEC hides behind the flawed ranking system after they play mostly 4 fucking horrible OOC games every single year and dare to say their stats matter because they play better schedules.

Go look at the Sagarin numbers. Stanford played against one top 10 team, so did Bama. LSU only had 2. Stanford faced the 14th overall strongest schedule in the country. That's not facing a slate of cream puffs. It simply isn't. Not by any credible definition of the term. They were 5-1 against top 30 teams. Bama was 7-1. That's not some crazy disparity. OSU? 61st toughest schedule and 0-1 v top 10, 1-1 v top 30.

The numbers show that the Pac is more or less just behind the SEC where it always is and the B1G was closer to the MWC in terms of difficulty. So the bucknut fan spewing garbage should look in his own backyard before slinging mud and the SEC homer should learn to read stats before claiming they support him.

/dropmic

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Some Sanders guy no one ever heard of.

To be fair sanders would have doubled up on those PAC defenses. McCafffeferyis over rated his numbers are overinflated. He faced one top 25 defense and was held to 66 yards and no Tds. A massive chunk of his yards are off of kick returns which are moot IMO. Subtract those and you have what he is. A product of the media.Bieber is only making the trip to NY because of his teenage girl fan base. And the Canadian voters

 

[TheRobotDevil]

LMAO!

He averages 28.9 yards per return on kickoffs. That is good for 6th in the nation, yet he plays offense too. Then you factor in he is 5th in attempts for kickoffs, every player in front of him in attempts has less yards.

But he is just some slow, white guy that weighs 300 pounds. Wow

Adore Jackson tore the PAC up on kick returns has a higher yards per receptions and almost as many recieving TDs. More tackles and Interceptions.

 

[Across The Field]

Team SEC hides behind the flawed ranking system after they play mostly 4 fucking horrible OOC games every single year and dare to say their stats matter because they play better schedules.

Go look at the Sagarin numbers. Stanford played against one top 10 team, so did Bama. LSU only had 2. Stanford faced the 14th overall strongest schedule in the country. That's not facing a slate of cream puffs. It simply isn't. Not by any credible definition of the term. They were 5-1 against top 30 teams. Bama was 7-1. That's not some crazy disparity. OSU? 61st toughest schedule and 0-1 v top 10, 1-1 v top 30.

The numbers show that the Pac is more or less just behind the SEC where it always is and the B1G was closer to the MWC in terms of difficulty. So the bucknut fan spewing garbage should look in his own backyard before slinging mud and the SEC homer should learn to read stats before claiming they support him.

/dropmic

LOL, so Ohio State's schedule now = the entire B1G? This isn't about Ohio State's schedule, numbnuts. Michigan State beat 4 teams ranked in the top 15. Who in the Pac 12 did that? Northwestern spanked your conference champ and finished 4th in the B1G. Now tell me which conference is tougher.

 

[WizardHawk]

It never happened cause teams aren't stupid enough to let their best player return kickoffs and be a starting running back. Take away the outlier a 98 yard return, he averages a measly 26 yards, so basically he is just as effective as a 300 pound linemen returning kickoffs and kneeling the ball in the end zone.

Right, thank you for informing us that you are entirely clueless about football. Makes it much easier that we know we are wasting our time trying to reach you.

Teams put the players that give them the best chance to score in the positions do so. Or their coaches should be fired.

On what planet do you not put a dangerous returner back to return because they are also a tailback? Most of the top returners are also WR's and they play both. Kids playing both offense and defense still happens if/when teams feel it gives them the best chance to win. And to not do so would be worthy of being fired for not doing your job.

 

[WizardHawk]

LOL, so Ohio State's schedule now = the entire B1G? This isn't about Ohio State's schedule, numbnuts. Michigan State beat 4 teams ranked in the top 15. Who in the Pac 12 did that? Northwestern spanked your conference champ and finished 4th in the B1G. Now tell me which conference is tougher.

I don't see any MSU fan up here trying to tell everyone about mediocrity and taking advantage of it. I only see a jealous bucknut fan throwing stones from a glass house. And it's fucking hilarious.

Carry on.

 

[TheDayMan]

This conversation is about how a conference did overall from the national perspective. You can put a bunch of mediocre teams in a conference and they'll be competitive from one another but it doesn't somehow mean that it's a great conference or that they had a good year.

No, it's not... it's about whether a Heisman candidate is legit based on the competition he faced. I haven't claimed the conference had a good year compared to national expectatiins (which are only relevant to the teams at the top of the conference). I haven't claimed the pac 12 is great... I'm arguing the conference didn't have a down year as it relates to the discussion. The pac was just as competitive as its ever been, and was no less competitive than any other P5 conference.

 

[theboardref]

Team SEC hides behind the flawed ranking system after they play mostly 4 fucking horrible OOC games every single year and dare to say their stats matter because they play better schedules.

Go look at the Sagarin numbers. Stanford played against one top 10 team, so did Bama. LSU only had 2. Stanford faced the 14th overall strongest schedule in the country. That's not facing a slate of cream puffs. It simply isn't. Not by any credible definition of the term. They were 5-1 against top 30 teams. Bama was 7-1. That's not some crazy disparity. OSU? 61st toughest schedule and 0-1 v top 10, 1-1 v top 30.

The numbers show that the Pac is more or less just behind the SEC where it always is and the B1G was closer to the MWC in terms of difficulty. So the bucknut fan spewing garbage should look in his own backyard before slinging mud and the SEC homer should learn to read stats before claiming they support him.

/dropmic

Flawed numbers is going by subjective bull ahit rankings like yourself, and spewing bull ahit like yourself. Henry faced 5 top 26 rush defenses averaging 158 yards and 1.8 touchdowns in those games. Mcaffery played against 5 I repeat 5 defenses either 99 or worse. Henry touched the ball the FEWEST TIMES THE ENTIRE season during these games, while Mcaffery got his most touches. But please tell me about 'rankings' and 'schedules' and 'padding stats'.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Team SEC hides behind the flawed ranking system after they play mostly 4 fucking horrible OOC games every single year and dare to say their stats matter because they play better schedules.

Go look at the Sagarin numbers. Stanford played against one top 10 team, so did Bama. LSU only had 2. Stanford faced the 14th overall strongest schedule in the country. That's not facing a slate of cream puffs. It simply isn't. Not by any credible definition of the term. They were 5-1 against top 30 teams. Bama was 7-1. That's not some crazy disparity. OSU? 61st toughest schedule and 0-1 v top 10, 1-1 v top 30.

The numbers show that the Pac is more or less just behind the SEC where it always is and the B1G was closer to the MWC in terms of difficulty. So the bucknut fan spewing garbage should look in his own backyard before slinging mud and the SEC homer should learn to read stats before claiming they support him.

/dropmic

McCaffery played against one top 25 defense northwestern and was held to 66 yards and no TDs in a loss to northwestern. Henry had 147 yards and 3 tds vs Wisconsin the number 3 defensive team in the nation . Both teams that play in the BIG. Best comparison you can make and very telling. McCaffery also went against some very weak PAC defenses especially against the run. Oregon once and USC twice would pad anyone's stats. This was a very bad year for the PAC. Guarantee Iowa shuts him down too

 

[Tubbs1518]

So if a guy coming out of an non power 5 conference did this would it also warrent the same recognition?

Absolutely, but NO ONE ELSE HAS FOR 20 SOMETHING FUCKING YEARS.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Adore Jackson tore the PAC up on kick returns has a higher yards per receptions and almost as many recieving TDs. More tackles and Interceptions.

Adore had 664 kickoff return yards averaging 21, 9 less than McCaffrey. He was a very good punt returner, that is his speciality.

Adore had 382 yards and 2 receiving TDs. McCaffrey had 540 yards and 4 TD's lol and it's not even his primary position.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Flawed numbers is going by subjective bull ahit rankings like yourself, and spewing bull ahit like yourself. Henry faced 5 top 26 rush defenses averaging 158 yards and 1.8 touchdowns in those games. Mcaffery played against 5 I repeat 5 defenses either 99 or worse. Henry touched the ball the FEWEST TIMES THE ENTIRE season during these games, while Mcaffery got his most touches. But please tell me about 'rankings' and 'schedules' and 'padding stats'.

It's not even a comparison IMO To be honest I think Mayfield, Elliot and Reynolds were snubbed. McCaffery is only there because of the media campaign and view masters they passed out to the voters

 

[Across The Field]

No, it's not... it's about whether a Heisman candidate is legit based on the competition he faced. I haven't claimed the conference had a good year compared to national expectatiins (which are only relevant to the teams at the top of the conference). I haven't claimed the pac 12 is great... I'm arguing the conference didn't have a down year as it relates to the discussion. The pac was just as competitive as its ever been, and was no less competitive than any other P5 conference.

Dude... you and I are on the same page. I never once said McCaffery wasn't legit; I actually said he belonged in New York. I also never even once said the Pac 12 was bad, I said they were down this year. That's where this conversation started, before the Pac 12 brigade come on here guns blazing. The Pac 12 was a good conference, but they weren't great, they were down compared to recent years, and they underachieved as a whole compared to the preseason expectations. This has been my point all along.