Oregon won't be a pushover | BuckeyeXtra

BigDan wrote:

No play off. Get rid of the coaches poll, it has been proven to be a joke. Have the AP combined with the Harris and the computer rankings. 1vs2 3vs4 5vs6 7vs8, you can keep the same four traditional bowls as long as they agree to drop their conference tie ins, there will be no BCS anything. There will be a championship game but 1vs2 in a rotating schedule. Or of the top 20 bowls in which they have to suspend their tie ins when it is their turn to host one of the 4 games. The pay out will be set by the NCAA and it can't be shared by a conference. All other bowl games will stick to the system that was there before the BCS. This way, every game durring the regular season is as important as it is now and college football doesn't become the NFL or College Basketball. It works fine for College basketball because they can play more than one game a week. And well it is apples and oranges. Let Div II have playoffs all they want.

Charles David Spohn wrote:

You're damn right..."Oregon won't be a pushover"! Let's hope the Bucks aren't, either!
Hey Ray Small...better turn in the performance of your life against Oregon after serving up your bulletin board comments. Respect your opponent and let your actions on the field do the talking! GO BUCKS!!!

dclducks Jefferson Oregon wrote:

Hello Ohio. You sound a little cocky. I think it will be a good game. Oregon has all around speed. The buckeyes will have their hands full. As will Oregon.....repect you opponent. GO DUCKS!!

GoldnSt8tBuck wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Pacific Northwest. One request. It's getting more than boring to see accusations about being "cocky." Portraying an opponent as overconfident is a thinly veiled attempt to provide bulletin board fodder for anybody stupid enough to care. In particular, the mallard folks should give up trying to make themselves out as the poor victims of underexposed (due to time zone deficiencies)Pac-10 play. Nobody's buying the "We're the underappreciated new kid on the block who will put those cocky Buckeyes in their place" mantra. I suppose it's more motivating and fun to beat a team you can hang the "cocky" tag on. Cast the first stone only if you're qualified--but don't be cocky about it.

Judged:

2

2

1

Duck in Portland wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think the Ducks will put up 40, however I do think they will get 35 or so.
Please do some research and realize why you have a top ten defense. You have played terrible offenses (you didn't even play nw or msu btw who are two of your better offenses) and haven't had to face aggressive teams who want to score, not punt. The pac ten has had to play against some very dynamic offenses while still having 6 defenses in the top 50 of the fbs (4 in the top 27). The big ten has 6 as well. Do you know how many offenses you have in the top 50? Three. The pac ten has 5 offenses in the top 50. Do you know how many 1000 yard rushers the big ten has? 2, the pac ten has 5 with 3 in the top 7 in the country.


I understand your proud of your defenses playing basically nobodies but please think of something else to say. Do you know how many defenses led the pac ten in rush D only to be replaced immediately after playing Oregon? 4. Don't forget, you didn't play msu or nw. I hope your defense isn't your security blanket, if so it will be wet when the game is over from your tears.
The REAL key to this game is your offense vs. my defense. Of course, TP will have to come prepared to make some throws because Oregon will force that. Expect the box to be stacked. Oregon is ranked 37 in defense and your offense is ranked 71.
Enough of the "we have a Defense you have never seen before". Seriously, you need more than that because you have never seen an offense quite like this. Don't even say Texas because it isn't the same. All I know is you are not so good when you play teams who run a version of the spread. Whether you played Texas close or not, you lost. You lost to purdue, you lost to Illinois not to long ago, do I need to mention UF, LSU?. Spread=tOSU's cryptonite!!!!

Reese wrote:

<quoted text>
Lame duck response. Ohio St moves the ball well against average or weak defenses. We can score against Oregon. Oregon does not have a top tier defense are they cracking the top 20? However, Ohio St ranks in the top 5 in total defense. Oregon has not faced a D like Ohio St, more importantly a defensive line like Ohio St. Ohio St has stiffled spread offenses all year long. Oregon is not bringing anything new to the game. We can chat after the Rose Bowl. Please be sure to drop by...

Judged:

1

1

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
The current system wasn't created to determine who had the best
team. It was designed to create make huge sums of money ....
determining who is the "best" is impossible without a playoff
system. Even with that there is no perfect system, as every
year in basketball we know that which bracket you are placed
in by a committee increases or decreases your team's
probability of making it to the finals.
Both systems exist to make large amounts of money for those
other than the athletes or even the schools themselves. If
that weren't so in NCAA basketball why is it necessary to
have 65 teams in the mix? Does anyone in their right mind
believe there is any possibility that #62 might actually be
the best? Nah ... its about a system that is based on bucks,
not basketballs.

Hmr wrote:

Buckeyes lose another recruit: Joyner commits to FSU! And some of you think recruting is not being hurt by JT's offensive schemes and recent loses in big games! In the last 2 weeks they have lost 4 big time player to otehr programs. I rememeber a quote when Peterson was asked why he left texas to go to OkL! Because they win! Left on the big board: Sentrel (OL), Hicks (LB), Anderson (CB), Bryant (CB), Floyd (DT) and James (OL),

Truebuckeyefan wrote:

<quoted text>Not really, Joyner will get to play right away for FSU and their new coach. He would have to wait at least 2 years to start at LB at Ohio State, good for Mr. Joyner, wish him well.

Duck in Portland wrote:

<quoted text>
being the 32nd defense isn't average. ASU has the 12th ranked defense and we rolled them up. Keep thinking your defensive stats mean all that.
LOL.........you have played one spread offense this year I think, you lost to purdue.
Don't even think you play well against spread offenses, you have three consecutive losses to schools who run a version of the spread. LOL.......yeah, you play real well against the spread!!! I will come back the 2nd no matter what.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
The current system wasn't created to determine who had the best
team. It was designed to create make huge sums of money ....
determining who is the "best" is impossible without a playoff
system. Even with that there is no perfect system, as every
year in basketball we know that which bracket you are placed
in by a committee increases or decreases your team's
probability of making it to the finals.
Both systems exist to make large amounts of money for those
other than the athletes or even the schools themselves. If
that weren't so in NCAA basketball why is it necessary to
have 65 teams in the mix? Does anyone in their right mind
believe there is any possibility that #62 might actually be
the best? Nah ... its about a system that is based on bucks,
not basketballs.

Truebuckeyefan wrote:

<quoted text>Congress is working even as we speak to stop the madness. The bill calls for the BCS to get out of the business of determining who will play for the NC. The BCS will have no power to call the NC a NC without a playoff system in place. Look for a change next season, the powers to be will lose out, which I say GOOD!!! Let the true #1 team in the nation win fair and square.

BigDan wrote:

<quoted text>
No it was created to pit the two best teams against each other and has often failed to do so because of money and bias in favor of BCS schools in the ranking by out of touch college coaches who have their underlings do their voting for them while showing conference bias.

Hmr wrote:

<quoted text> Hicks woudl be a big loss! They don't have any DBs in this class yet, so they need at least one. And we all know how much they need a DT. If playign early is a reason why kids go where they go, then Floyd shoud be at OSU. Hicks may not play as a FR, but he's the #1 recruit in Ohio. Losing him would look bad. Winning brings in kids from the whole country, that's what they need to do. Bottom line: OSU has to win some big games and open up the offense to continue to bring in big time players!!!!! Winning the Big 10 is not going to be enough!

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
C'mon Dan, stop kidding yourself and be realistic. If you believe
the NCAA came up with the current system because they felt it was
the best way to determine a "national champion," you'll have to
explain why it is they haven't used one of the formats used in a
dozen other sports, amateur and professional, including football
itself, that are far more credible. For pity's sake, even taking
the "Elite 8" under the current system and using a playoff,
beginning with #1 vs.#8 would be more sensible. The problem
with that, of course, is that the championship game might wind
up between 2 non-BCS schools in places without the draw of a
huge media market. Do you think the BCS would allow a system
that held the possibility of a Boise State playing Marshall?
While we are at it, explain to us why it is that Notre Dame
gets $500,000 from the BCS whether they are in a bowl or not
even though Notre Dame has a huge network contract already?
Blaming the coaches is ridiculous at best considering that
they are just one part of this absurd combination of polls
and computer systems now in place.