re: CFB coaches poll released

quote:

---

UCLA has done nothing in my lifetime

---

They now have a top notch coach who is killing recruiting on the west coast. UCLA is legit as long as Mora is there.

DNA and culture, lol

Can you give any football-related analysis as to why they aren't title contenders? They return 17 starters, and their toughest games are all at home.

quote:

---

They now have a top notch coach who is killing recruiting on the west coast.

---

This is false and you should know it if you follow CFB as much as you pretend to.

USC had one of their worst - turmoil years last year (Kiffin firing and unknown coach until the last minute) - not to mention the sanctions still in effect - and USC still out-recruited the supposed darlings of CFB this next year.

Mora simply has brought respectability to UCLA after Dorrell...but so did Terry Donahue.

And UCLA never won any grand prize under him.

UCLA's last Rose Bowl win was 1986.

UCLA was blown-out by Oregon last year and basically blown out by Stanford (by Stanford's standards of slow-methodical run game) and lost to Arizona State.

All of those above teams haven't dropped off the map and are in the same returning position...especially Oregon and ASU - and a host of new contenders in the Pac-12.

But everyone is giddy b/c UCLA blew-out VaTech in the bowl game...how many times have we seen the "returning QB everyone loves" hype that fails.

It's amusing how much love UCLA is getting outside of the Pac-12. It's like they're hoping for it...this one year.

USC still out-recruited UCLA this year...and if they have a good year on the field that will continue. Mora is taking advantage of a bad period for USC but still couldn't get past Stanford or Oregon despite coaching changes in both those programs.

Mora is getting way too much love and credit as well as the program. He isn't the next Harbaugh guys.

What are you laughing about?

By and large the last 10 years they don't.

It's Middle Tennessee, the Citadel, Louisiana-Monroe, constant crap like that.

And furthermore, you are no mathematician...extra game among the conference members decreases the chances of someone going through unscathed. It adds automatic losses - because, hey! somebody has to lose those games!

The Pac-12 has played nine conference games since the 2006 season. Guaranteed losses added onto a team's record in conference.

While the SEC, despite being a larger conference, has stayed small - with 4 "traditional rivalries" and then crap opponents to fill out the schedule.

The SEC, which has 14 teams, plays all six in its division, and two others from the other division, meaning they miss five teams each year.

And usually - they miss most of the good teams. Because everyone seems to always have Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Moo State on the schedule...along with Ole Miss.

That would be like the Pac-12 just scheduling Wazzu 4 times.

That also allows the SEC to schedule nonconference games — typically Football Championship Subdivision teams — late in the season while other major conferences remain in the grind of conference play.

So while the SEC has a glorified bye, the Pac-12 teams could be playing a top-ranked team. A loss there could hurt the Pac-12’s chances of getting a team in the final four.

So no, 8 is not > 9.

It’s hard to argue with the SEC’s decision — at least for now — as it certainly benefits the conference's teams.

Cold Hard Fact:

Ten of the 14 teams were eligible for bowl games last year thanks in part to having four nonconference games against lesser opponents. Win those four and all you need to do is go 2-6 in conference to meet the required six wins to be eligible for postseason play.

Two of the SEC’s bowl teams were 4-4 and two more 3-5 in conference play.

In comparison, three of the Pac-12’s nine bowl teams had 4-5 records, but take away a conference loss and replace it with a nonconference patsy a la the SEC, and, well, you get my point.

And further considering 4 of those and sometimes 3 of those are the only real games and rest are total SEC bottom-feeders like Kentucky, Moo State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, etc.

Nobody has bottom-feeders as - a disparity between top to bottom like the SEC except for the Big 10.

“Look who we played,” Shaw said. “We played nine straight conference games and seven of them were ranked opponents.

You throw Notre Dame in there and you go back and play Arizona State again (in the Pac-12 title game), another great conference opponent. Our strength of schedule was off the charts. Nobody in the SEC plays the strength of schedule like we played, like Oregon played, like USC played last year.”

Added Whittingham: “Hopefully with the way the system is in place and the human element is really the prevailing factor … hopefully those people will be knowledgeable enough which I’m sure they will, to understand that maybe one extra loss for a team that played a nine conference-game schedule would be factored into the equation. Not just wins or losses.”

You have top top no doubt - almost no middle ground - and then crap crap. It's played out that way every year. The same top 4-5 teams and the rest is dogshite.

When is the last time Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Moo State won an SEC title?

Looks good for the most part.

Forkbeard3777's poll:

1. Florida State
2. Auburn
3. Oklahoma
4. Michigan State
5. Alabama
6. Ohio State
7. Stanford
8. Oregon
9. South Carolina
10. UCLA
11. Baylor
12. Mississippi
13. Georgia
14. Clemson
15. Wisconsin
16. LSU
17. Iowa
18. Missouri
19. Notre Dame
20. Arizona State
21. Florida
22. Texas Tech
23. Nebraska
24. TCU
25. Michigan

Oh winning for the third straight year will be fun

Wow you're mad

Uh...yeah...you're UCLA. Are we supposed to be buddies?

But as a life-long Pac-12 observer, I think I have an insight to teams.

Despite so many outsiders proclaiming UCLA a Top 4 playoff team...I will become a life-long UCLA fan if the Bruins win the National Title.

Which they won't. Will never do. If you live in Pac-12 universe you know that UCLA is fool's gold. Always has been, always will be.

So yes, it's maddening that the national media isn't privy to understanding UCLA. They are weak and inept at their jobs.

You might beat USC again this year (but I doubt it) considering how pressure easily gets to you as a favorite...

But unless Bill Walton is showing up with John Wooden to do drills...UCLA will never win anything of importance in football.

I was in their bookstore 6 months ago...and it's all basketball highlights from 30 years ago. I'm not sure the student body knows they play football????

quote:

---

So yes, it's maddening that the national media isn't privy to understanding UCLA. They are weak and inept at their jobs.

---

And YOU could do better???

quote:

---

I think Auburn has always taken the hard road to national title appearances.

Bama and UT - not so much...

---

I'll grant that Bama backed into a championship appearance, but UT? They definitely earned their only championship in the last 20 years, even if you're still pissed they beat USC.