Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!ISM780B!jimb From: jimb@ISM780B.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sport.football Subject: Re: Fuel for Flames/OU & Conferences Message-ID: <30400022@ISM780B.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 13:01:00 EST Article-I.D.: ISM780B.30400022 Posted: Mon Jan 13 13:01:00 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jan-86 01:07:00 EST References: <30400015@ISM780B.UUCP> Lines: 95 Nf-ID: #R:ISM780B:30400015:ISM780B:30400022:000:4474 Nf-From: ISM780B!jimb Jan 13 13:01:00 1986 >So why does the fact that the Big 8 sent half their teams and the Pac 10 >sent half their teams mean that the Big 8 is the weaker conference? I'm not >trying to prove that the Big 8 is better, only roughly equivalent. Oh, okay. I (honestly) thought you were trying to prove that the Big-8 was superior. >I've already posted previously (in response to Eddy Lor) the figures >showing that in non-conf. games in 1985 (before the bowls) the Big 8 was >17-14-0. The Pac 10 was 16-14-1. Roughly equivalent. With the bowls >figured in its 18-16-0 and 18-16-1. *Very similar*. Your claim that the Pac >10 is tougher just doesn't hold up to inspection. Umm, that's not the way I look at it. I look at it from the standpoint of who do I think is a tougher set of opponents -- Washington, Washington St., USC, Arizona -- or Colorado, Iowa St., and the rest of the dinky teams of the Big 2-3/4. (Oklahoma St. = 1/2, Colorado =1/4 -- this year). Even if the top schools have comparable records, I know who *I* would rather play if I wanted a winning record.) >Yeah, and if UCLA deserves to be rated ahead of Oklahoma, then pigs do have >wings! JUST LOOK AT THE RECORD!! Oklahoma lost one game all year long (to >a top ten team). UCLA was tied by a top ten team and lost games to two >teams, Washington and USC, which finished 7-5 and 6-6, respectively. >Mediocre, at best! UCLA had to eke out a 31-30 victory over lowly >Washington State, for Chrissakes! Sure, UCLA played a #1-type game against >Iowa, but you gotta do it all season long to end up highly-ranked. A fine distinction -- I did not say that UCLA deserved to be RATED better than Oklahoma. My posting said OU was should enjoy their national championship. I said I thought they WERE the better team. I find nothing embarassing about a tie to Tennessee, or for that matter, the loss to Washington when that team was healthy. As to USC, how many upsets have there been in the Oklahoma-Nebraska series? Okay, UCLA lost, and on that basis they don't deserve the ranking -- my posting had a big IF which I then discounted. >> >>OKLAHOMA IS #1 AND THE REST IS SOUR GRAPES! >> ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> ^ >> ^ >> from which you're making a fine whine. >> >It's not we who are whining, Mr. Brunet. Whining is what the losers do. Nah, I'm not whining, just provoking discussions. Or conducting thought-experiments, if you prefer. >You're making some very large assumptions there. Despite the fact that >Oklahoma led the nation in pass defense, it's true that is the unproven >part of their defense. They just don't play many teams with good passing >attacks. Similarly, despite the fact that UCLA led the nation in rushing >defense, their rushing defense is suspect. They have not played anybody >who can run like Oklahoma. They played a Washington State team with a >decent running attack and gave up 30 points. UCLA will not stuff the >wishbone. Oklahoma's defense is superior because they stopped the run >in a running conference and UCLA did not stop the pass in a passing >conference. It's clear from the Rose Bowl that UCLA has a dangerous >offense, but the defense still managed to allow Iowa 28 points and >400 yards of offense. Yeah, and Iowa had the runner-up Heisman candidate as QB and he still got crushed -- the last TD and not a few of their yards were against UCLA second/third/??? stringers in the fourth quarter. As to runners, the stopped Harmon, who looked like no slouch earlier in the season, just fine. As to UCLA's defense, if you face a lot of good-passing QB's, of course you're going to give up yards. But how many points did they give up? Damned few. I tell you what; let's put this one on hold until next September. I mean the Bears are about to win a Super Bowl and the Cubs are making a comeback, right? -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet (fan of Cubs, Bears, UCLA Bruins -- the bearable teams) (loather of USC, Cowboys, Raiders, Rams, Mets, Dodgers, Yankees, Nebraska, Ohio State.) {ihnp4, decvax}!ima!jimb (most reliable) ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb or jimb at ima/*cca-unix.arpa ^ this asterisk is necessary!