Bradford won the Heisman

davyjose

I wonder if there's also an award for the best player in College Football

LuckyLloyd

davyjose wrote: »

I wonder if there's also an award for the best player in College Football

Oh, you're disappointed Tebow didn't win. :rolleyes:

1)
Sam Bradford: 10.1 YPA, 186.3 QB rating
Colt McCoy: 9.2 YPA, 179.2 QB rating
Tim Tebow: 9.4 YPA, 176.4 QB rating

or

2)
Sam Bradford compared to the last ten QB's to win the Heisman Trophy:

Player Eff. Comp Att Pct Yds TD Int
Bradford (2008) 190.97 268 393 68.2 4,080 46 6
Tebow (2007) 172.46 234 350 66.9 3,286 32 6
Smith (2006) 161.91 203 311 65.3 2,542 30 6
Leinart (2004) 156.54 269 412 65.3 3,322 33 6
White (2003) 158.11 278 451 61.6 3,846 40 10
Palmer (2002) 149.08 309 489 63.2 3,942 33 10
Crouch (2001) 124.31 105 189 55.6 1,510 7 10
Weinke (2000) 163.09 266 431 61.7 4,167 33 11
Wuerffel (1996) 170.60 207 360 57.5 3,625 39 13
Ward (1993) 157.84 264 380 69.5 3,032 27 4
Toretta (1992) 132.80 228 402 56.7 3,060 19 7

But feel free to believe the hype.

davyjose

Hype? In all fairness now Luckylloyd, the Heisman is not, nor should be, about the QB who throws the most yards in a season (College Football is not the NFL). Now, your stats are misleading. There's no mention of Tebow's rushing stats whatsoever. Which isn't really fair now is it? (should I put a :rolleyes: in here?) Tebow had 52 TD's last year.

Chucky the tree

I'd be shocked if the Lions pass on this guy in the first. In saying that looking at that list it seems Heisman winner = **** nfl player.

SantryRed

Best choice IMO.

Don't know how they could justify giving it to Tebow another season when his stats are down a good bit from last year.

kev_s88

as the voting went, Tebow still got the most 1st place votes. although i do believe that Bradford deserved to win it after a totally phenomenal season for the guy

eagle eye

Well of you are going to give it to the best player in one particular position based on the stats for that position then Sam Bradford deserved it strictly speaking, but Tebow has so much more to his game and overall he would be my pick.

And yardage stats mean absolutely nothing, some teams have a lot easier schedule than others, and its not like the NFL, you can have some awful teams on your schedule where you could have 500 yard games.

Who'll be better in the pros, a lot think Bradford is more likely because he is a more conventional QB but personally I think that Tebow is going to be a huge star in the NFL. With his size and all the extra abilities he possesses I firmly believe that he can lead a team to a superbowl. Maybe I'm getting a little carried by all that he has done in College but I just think he is a very special talent, someone that comes along once in everybodys lifetime. Time will tell.

davyjose

eagle eye wrote: »

I think that Tebow is going to be a huge star in the NFL. With his size and all the extra abilities he possesses I firmly believe that he can lead a team to a superbowl. Maybe I'm getting a little carried by all that he has done in College but I just think he is a very special talent, someone that comes along once in everybodys lifetime. Time will tell.

I'd be a firm +1 on that. He reshaped the CFB game, to the point, in all fairness, where throwing QB stats at him is ridiculous. I think he has potential to make a massive impact in the NFL, which only sporadically, has been a predominantly passing league.

As for Bradford, TBH, if he has half as good a rookie season as Matt Ryan has had, I'll be a) surprised, and b) very impressed. That's not an insult - For instance, Ryan makes Peyton Manning's Rookie season look very mediocre in comparison.

jdivision

davyjose wrote: »

Tebow had 52 TD's last year.

What's your point? it's an award for this season?
Tebow threw for 28 and ran for 12 so far, that's 40
Bradford threw for 48 and ran for 5, so that's 53, surpassing Tebow's total last season too.

davyjose

My point is that the previous poster's stats were not as concrete as he claimed. I wasn't the one who brought previous seasons into it. But having said that, I wanted to point out that Tebow's game is not solely based on his left arm - he brings a lot more to his team than passing yards.

LuckyLloyd

Some of the points you guys deem important:

1) Tebow's rushing: he rushed for ~500 yards more than Bradford and seven more touchdowns, which still leaves Bradford with more yards and touchdowns total;

2) Strength of Schedule: Oklahoma played in the tougher conference, and scheduled tough OOC opponents in Cincinnati (Big East Champs) and TCU (also ending season ranked in the top 25);

3) Impact on the Next level: Doubts exist about both players fwiw. They both have nice tools, but will have troubles transitioning from the offensive schemes they currently play in to the NFL. Tebow is not going to be the slam dunk star you all assume him to be imo. But it is pointless trying to convince people of this right now of course;


Bradford had the better season, and is fully deserving of the award. Tebow regressed from last year, and the SEC has taken a clear backwards step also. Giving him the award would have been a poor decision, and I'm glad they avoided doing so.

Dodge

davyjose wrote: »

I wonder if there's also an award for the best player in College Football

Well they rarely give it to the best player. They usually give it to the offensive player who makes most headlines. Glad to see this year they didn't.

eagle eye

Dodge wrote: »

Well they rarely give it to the best player. They usually give it to the offensive player who makes most headlines. Glad to see this year they didn't.

Well McCoy was hot favourite for most of the year. To be fair Bradford and Tebow only got into the picture when Texas lost to Texas Tech and then Bradford became the favourite after Tech got beat. Tebow was unlikely to get in unless the Sooners lost another game.

At the end of the day, the two of them face up in the big game, and if Bradford fails to deliver on the big day, then we all know that Tebow should have got it. Likewise if Bradford succeeds and Tebow fails to deliver then the right choice was made.

If they both excel on the big day then the argument will continue.

Dodge

eagle eye wrote: »

If they both excel on the big day then the argument will continue.

Or you could jsut accept that Bradford got the award and leave it at that

davyjose

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Some of the points you guys deem important:

1) Tebow's rushing: he rushed for ~500 yards more than Bradford and seven more touchdowns, which still leaves Bradford with more yards and touchdowns total;

2) Strength of Schedule: Oklahoma played in the tougher conference, and scheduled tough OOC opponents in Cincinnati (Big East Champs) and TCU (also ending season ranked in the top 25);

3) Impact on the Next level: Doubts exist about both players fwiw. They both have nice tools, but will have troubles transitioning from the offensive schemes they currently play in to the NFL. Tebow is not going to be the slam dunk star you all assume him to be imo. But it is pointless trying to convince people of this right now of course;


Bradford had the better season, and is fully deserving of the award. Tebow regressed from last year, and the SEC has taken a clear backwards step also. Giving him the award would have been a poor decision, and I'm glad they avoided doing so.

I take onboard point 1. Points 2 and 3 I have issue with. The SEC and Big 12 are too close too call on which is the stronger. A lot of commentaters in the US (I'm no expert, so I'll defer), say the SEC is the stronger league, so it's a moot point.
As for point 3, well two things: firstly Tebow as won a Heisman, so surely that was not an issue last year? Also Im aware of the pitfalls that Tebow faces, however, with guys like Manning, Brady, Favre in the league right now, the NFL is in one of it's purplest patches ever with regards to throwing QB's. But these things are cyclical. The emergence of rookie RB's this year, wildcat formations, and a heavily defensive influenced season point to a change from the 49/50 TD 4,000+ throwing yards we've been lucky to see recently.Tebw could be -- could be -- coming along at the right time. It's difficult to see a college player influence the NFL, but it happens (every player plays college football at some stage), and Tebow, IMO, has the pure athleticism and leadership to have a chance of doing something special. And TBH, any prospect Tebow failing would be a bad thing for American Football, regardless of your loyalties.

LuckyLloyd

davyjose wrote: »

I take onboard point 1. Points 2 and 3 I have issue with. The SEC and Big 12 are too close too call on which is the stronger. A lot of commentaters in the US (I'm no expert, so I'll defer), say the SEC is the stronger league, so it's a moot point.
As for point 3, well two things: firstly Tebow as won a Heisman, so surely that was not an issue last year? Also Im aware of the pitfalls that Tebow faces, however, with guys like Manning, Brady, Favre in the league right now, the NFL is in one of it's purplest patches ever with regards to throwing QB's. But these things are cyclical. The emergence of rookie RB's this year, wildcat formations, and a heavily defensive influenced season point to a change from the 49/50 TD 4,000+ throwing yards we've been lucky to see recently.Tebw could be -- could be -- coming along at the right time. It's difficult to see a college player influence the NFL, but it happens (every player plays college football at some stage), and Tebow, IMO, has the pure athleticism and leadership to have a chance of doing something special. And TBH, any prospect Tebow failing would be a bad thing for American Football, regardless of your loyalties.

ESPN / ABC negotiated a monster TV rights deal at the start of the season to gain prime time coverage rights to SEC games. As a result, they have continued with a cheer leading campaign for the conference this season irrespective of the fact that the top to bottom strength has lessened by a significant margin. Given that ESPN is the most easily accessible sports website with the most comprehensive and wide ranging coverage of college football, the fact that their journalists and TV pundits are in the tank for the SEC skews public perception as to the true relative standings of the conferences and their teams. Outside of ESPN, a bias also exists because of regional realities. Football is a religion in the south and southeast of the country, and to claim that their schools don't have the best teams and athletes (SEC Speeeed lol) is akin to blasphemy amongst their fans, faculty and alumni - and ultimately the media that primarily covers and sells to the same. And given that college football is extremely weak at present in the North East (which carries a concentration of media influence) there is not the kind of critical balance that is present in other sports - like college basketball for example.

Now ultimately, a college player's prospects for the NFL should be irrelevant as far as the Heisman is concerned. Look through a list of winners since 1980 and you will see that a Heisman award is not a prerequisite for success in the pros. Instead, the opposite is closer to the truth and the Heisman tends to be a poisoned chalice of sorts. Why? Well to a certain extent, completely crushing the college level can be incredibly misleading given the extreme differences between the strategies and formations employed in each. Tebow will have to learn an almost entirely new playbook from scratch in training camp, and be asked to do things he has never done before. And then there is the disparity in the top to bottom level of athletic talent between the two spheres. Tebow won't be near as effective a running threat at the next level because he will be facing an average standard of player who is bigger, faster, stronger and much more aware.

Moreover, the new lean towards the wildcat may be to his detriment. If he is recruited by a team primarily with the idea of him fronting that formation in mind - he may lose out in terms of his overall development over his first couple of years in the league and end up being pigeonholed as a 'role' player. A guy who can sit in the pocket, read the field, make all the throws competently and run a prostyle offense has a headstart over Tebow. Even if he is a more entertaining and exciting player to watch.

eagle eye

Well Lloyd lets forget the media hype/conspiracy theory(:D) and just talk about the footballer.

What Tebow has done at College level is incredible any which way you look at it. Its clear that we have differing opinions on how he gets on in the future and we'll just have to wait and see, but I've put my cards on the table and said that I think he is a phenom and that he proves that in the NFL. I'm hoping that whoever takes Tebow will build a team around him and fully utilise his strengths.

As for Bradford, he too has all the tools to make it and at 6'5" and with good speed/mobility in the pocket its very likely that he too makes it big in the pro game.

Edit to add that I don't go by the hype, its what I see with my own eyes.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

Well Lloyd lets forget the media hype/conspiracy theory(:D) and just talk about the footballer.

I already did. Bradford had the better season. Tebow had a better year last year and was >>> then everyone else last year and, guess what? He won the Heisman trophy last year. Bradford surpassed him this year and, as a consequence, won the trophy this year.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I already did. Bradford had the better season. Tebow had a better year last year and was >>> then everyone else last year and, guess what? He won the Heisman trophy last year. Bradford surpassed him this year and, as a consequence, won the trophy this year.

Well that is exactly where we differ, you use stats to say that Bradford surpassed Tebow but for me Tebow was much better than Bradford. Stats really are irrelevant for me, I just think that Tebow is a leader, passer, rusher and tackler when required. He does everything, a complete offensive machine.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

Well that is exactly where we differ, you use stats to say that Bradford surpassed Tebow but for me Tebow was much better than Bradford. Stats really are irrelevant for me, I just think that Tebow is a leader, passer, rusher and tackler when required. He does everything, a complete offensive machine.

lol, American sport is defined by stats. They are the bottom line, like it or lump it.

davyjose

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol, American sport is defined by stats. They are the bottom line, like it or lump it.

To an extent. You make some great points and I can't knock most of them, but I'm coming from the same place as eagle eye here. Yes, stats mean a lot in American sport, but no to the exclusion of all else. I don't think anyone in America right now feels Phil rivers is the best QB in the NFL right now, but he holds the highest Rating and the most TD's. Does that make him better than Peyton Manning? Similarly, Bradford has better throwing stats than Tebow, does that make him a better footballer -- a more valuable team member than Tebow. Not in my eyes.

BTW the Fox website claimed Tebow should have won the Heisman also. Not just ESPN.

LuckyLloyd

davyjose wrote: »

I don't think anyone in America right now feels Phil rivers is the best QB in the NFL right now, but he holds the highest Rating and the most TD's. Does that make him better than Peyton Manning?

QB rating is not considered the be all and end all statistic anymore. DYAR is understood to be much more valuable:

click

davyjose

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

DYAR is understood to be much more valuable

Hmm, really? Then how come all the websites and sports channels still cling to QB rating?

LuckyLloyd

davyjose wrote: »

Hmm, really? Then how come all the websites and sports channels still cling to QB rating?

Like in most things, traditional media outlets tend to be a couple of steps behind discussion forums. Read the methodology outlined on the football outsiders website. It's solid. Expect DYAR and DVOA to be used as standard in a couple of years time.

davyjose

It seems a little bit like trying to quantify actual talent onto paper. I mean, for all intents and purposes, Eric Cantona's Stats for Man United were pretty good, but that doesn't tell the full story. His status came not from what he did, but from HOW he did it.

That's how I feel about Tebow. Those Stats are a bit like trying to say, "this is what it was like to see Brady in '07 - he got 2700 DYAR" or "you shoulda seen Manning in '04; his DVOA was over 60%". I'm not saying they're not accurate, but what's the point in going by them, when watching the game can tell you all you need to know.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol, American sport is defined by stats. They are the bottom line, like it or lump it.

lol right back at you, if you understand anything of course stats will show you a lot, but when you are talking about the best of the best, the stats become less relevant.

Its like comparing LeBron James and Kobe in Basketball, who is the better player, well personally I think LeBron is but others say Kobe.

Same talking NFL, I think Brady, others think Manning and stats don't matter in these type of instances.

Who was the better running back, Barry Saunders or Walter Payton?

We could go on and on but at the end of the day when you are talking at the top of the chain, the stats are pretty irrelevant and especially in College football where schedules differ greatly.

LuckyLloyd

If you wish to make a competent argument about whether Roy Keane had a bigger impact on the premiership than Eric Cantona; or as to whether Brady > Manning stats should be a key part of your argument. In just about every other walk of life, arguments that ignore factual reality tend to be dismissed off hand. In my view, sport is no different. You wish to make a point, back it up. Cause ones 'opinion' in a vacuum is usually irrelevant - unless you are an accepted authority in a given field. And unfortunately, none of us are approaching such a status anytime soon.

Simply watching a game doesn't come close to telling you all you need to know. Because you can't watch every game in such a sufficient detail to properly contextualize what you see. And without playing the sport in question at a high level (or in the case of American football for a lot of us, any level) your eye is extremely untrained. So in a sport like the NFL, where every play of every game is statlined from top to bottom, our arguments need to be anchored in data. Unless you are comfortable talking completely through your hole.

Chucky the tree

davyjose wrote: »

To an extent. You make some great points and I can't knock most of them, but I'm coming from the same place as eagle eye here. Yes, stats mean a lot in American sport, but no to the exclusion of all else. I don't think anyone in America right now feels Phil rivers is the best QB in the NFL right now, but he holds the highest Rating and the most TD's. Does that make him better than Peyton Manning? Similarly, Bradford has better throwing stats than Tebow, does that make him a better footballer -- a more valuable team member than Tebow. Not in my eyes.

BTW the Fox website claimed Tebow should have won the Heisman also. Not just ESPN.

I honestly could answer this myself as I dont know, but has Tebow won games for his team the same way Manning has? Afaik up until this week the colts have been in 8 games which have been decided on less then 7 points, they won 7 of those and in all 7 Manning lead his team on a late 4th scoring drive. That's why I'd have manning ahead of him, it's very close though and anyone who says otherwise is being very harsh on Rivers. Also the colts winning record helps, afaik Bradford and Tebow both have the same records.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If you wish to make a competent argument about whether Roy Keane had a bigger impact on the premiership than Eric Cantona; or as to whether Brady > Manning stats should be a key part of your argument. In just about every other walk of life, arguments that ignore factual reality tend to be dismissed off hand. In my view, sport is no different. You wish to make a point, back it up. Cause ones 'opinion' in a vacuum is usually irrelevant - unless you are an accepted authority in a given field. And unfortunately, none of us are approaching such a status anytime soon.

Simply watching a game doesn't come close to telling you all you need to know. Because you can't watch every game in such a sufficient detail to properly contextualize what you see. And without playing the sport in question at a high level (or in the case of American football for a lot of us, any level) your eye is extremely untrained. So in a sport like the NFL, where every play of every game is statlined from top to bottom, our arguments need to be anchored in data. Unless you are comfortable talking completely through your hole.

I'm disappointed at the line you've taken here Lloyd.
We can't seem to come to an agreement so you resort to unkind comments rather than just back down and take it on the chin that the stats you mention are pretty pointless.
I won't resort to those tactics. Suffice to say I am confident that I have a great understanding of American Football from years of avidly viewing the sport both live and on tv.

I said earlier what I personally thought to Tebow and also of Bradford. I didn't slate Bradford by any means, I just think that Tebow brings so many intangibles to the game that he is a better all around player than anybody else in college football and as a result I think he should have won the Heisman.

One thing you might note from the the stats is that Tebow is very rarely picked off. Theres not many QB's at the top who have a record like his in that regard.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm disappointed at the line you've taken here Lloyd.
We can't seem to come to an agreement so you resort to unkind comments rather than just back down and take it on the chin that the stats you mention are pretty pointless.
I won't resort to those tactics. Suffice to say I am confident that I have a great understanding of American Football from years of avidly viewing the sport both live and on tv.

I said earlier what I personally thought to Tebow and also of Bradford. I didn't slate Bradford by any means, I just think that Tebow brings so many untangibles to the game that he is a better all around player than anybody else in college football and as a result I think he should have won the Heisman.

One thing you might note from the the stats is that Tebow is very rarely picked off. Theres not many QB's at the top who have a record like his in that regard.

lol, the stats pointless? :eek::rolleyes::pac:

My line is that none of us know as much about the sports we watch as we like to believe. That includes me, and yes - I'll be sticking to that point of view.

As for the interception point:

Bradford; picked 6 times on 442 passing attempts; or 1.36% of the time;
Tebow; picked 2 times on 268 passing attempts; or 1.34% of the time;

but that stat is meaningless right? :rolleyes:

davyjose

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Simply watching a game doesn't come close to telling you all you need to know.

Whoa whoa whoa, I'll stop you there. Now the reason I brought soccer into it, is because that's the sport I know most about -- the sport I've followed since the beginning of time. So I can quite confidently make a call on what is good or what isn't good.
Either way, I'll stop you right there. Simply watching a game is everything you need to know. Bill Belichick wathces. Tony Dungy Watches. And fans of sports know a lot more than they get credit for.

Eric Cantona won the league EVERY season he finished in 6 years in the premier league. Cantona's impact can not be quantified in terms of stats.
As Chucky said, Manning has driven the Colts to victory on 2 min drills at least 4 or 5 times this season, despite his poorest stats since his rookie season. How do you measure stats for what Ben Roethlisberger did last night? I.e. nothing for an entire 58 mins, and then won the game on the last drive!!!
Seriously, how do stats seperate the people who have that extra ... spark, from guys who are just very good?
Tim Tebow said, after Florida's sole, slim defeat, that he would work harder than anyone else in the NCAA - Florida went from about twelfth to 2nd in a matter of about 6 weeks. That's walking the walk on a level that you really don't see very often in porrts, and yet he did what he said. How do you measure stats for that?

BTW, if your going to measure QB's solely on stats then Tom Brady is not in the same league as Manning, but hey, stats are stats*.

*Anyone who thinks I mean that ... just, don't start.

LuckyLloyd

davyjose wrote: »

BTW, if your going to measure QB's solely on stats then Tom Brady is not in the same league as Manning, but hey, stats are stats*.

*Anyone who thinks I mean that ... just, don't start.

Statswise, Brady's accomplishments last season eclipse any single season Peyton has produced. So, yes, you can argue the case that Brady is in Manning's league with the stats - on top of any argument you wish to make about Brady being a clutch performer and possessing wonderful intangibles.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol, the stats pointless? :eek::rolleyes::pac:

My line is that none of us know as much about the sports we watch as we like to believe. That includes me, and yes - I'll be sticking to that point of view.

As for the interception point:

Bradford; picked 6 times on 442 passing attempts; or 1.36% of the time;
Tebow; picked 2 times on 268 passing attempts; or 1.34% of the time;

but that stat is meaningless right? :rolleyes:

You kind of just proved my point regarding the stats and college football. You can measure in from the amount of throws that were made by each player.

You could also measure it by the amount of games each player has played in College and of course you would have two totally different results from those very same stats.

All you do is add water and stir and you have a perfect legitimate argument.;)

But of course stats are the be all and end all:rolleyes:

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

You kind of just proved my point regarding the stats and college football. You can measure in from the amount of throws that were made by each player.

You could also measure it by the amount of games each player has played in College and of course you would have two totally different results from those very same stats.

All you do is add water and stir and you have a perfect legitimate argument.;)

But of course stats are the be all and end all:rolleyes:

Interceptions per game is meaningless. It would be completely illogical to do it that way. I just showed you up again (remember the Chris Sutton bull**** you were pulled up on in the premiership discussion thread?). You hear some rubbish about Tebow's mythical ball protection and efficiency which is surely untouchable - when a cursory glance at the numbers show that Bradford looks after the ball just as well over a larger sample size.

Which is the key point: Tebow is hyped up as the bees knees (and he did have an excellent season), but in reality there was still a player ahead of him this year. And as I said earlier, thankfully the committee were able to sift through the bull**** and see that.

Leslie91

Isn't Bradford a Sophomore?. We won't see him until 2010.

jdivision

He redshirted

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Interceptions per game is meaningless. It would be completely illogical to do it that way. I just showed you up again (remember the Chris Sutton bull**** you were pulled up on in the premiership discussion thread?). You hear some rubbish about Tebow's mythical ball protection and efficiency which is surely untouchable - when a cursory glance at the numbers show that Bradford looks after the ball just as well over a larger sample size.

Which is the key point: Tebow is hyped up as the bees knees (and he did have an excellent season), but in reality there was still a player ahead of him this year. And as I said earlier, thankfully the committee were able to sift through the bull**** and see that.

Its coming to the stage where I think I miight just stop replying to you. Its clear that you cannot accept that somebody has a different point of view to you and that just because your depend solely on stats for you arguments that others don't have to accept that.
In College football in particular where schedules differ so greatly they are less important. But your'e argument was that Bradford had bigger numbers and a bigger QB rating as a result.

When we mention the difference in schedules, you tell us that the Sooners had a much tougher schedule.
When I bring up a stat you decide that it favours your argument, and when I show how it could be used otherwise, you start to attack the poster. I didn't say it was hugely important.

But basically what is coming through from your posts is that no matter what anybody says, you are right and we are wrong, regardless of how many experts back our argument. I didn't say anything negative about Bradford if you read back. All I said was that to me Tebow is a more complete footballer.

Here is your argument in short.

1. Bradford had better numbers than any QB for years.
2. Sooners schedule much tougher than SEC.
3. Media have their reasons for backing Tebow and not Bradford.
4. Experts don't matter.
5. All sites have it wrong except the ones that agree with Lloyd.
6. LOl stats are the be all and end all.
7. If you don't agree with Lloyd you are wrong wrong wrong!

On the Sutton issue, which is way off topic, we agreed to leave it until the draft was complete iirc. Its not over.

I think you're last two posts quoting me are well out of line. I have a lot less respect for you because of them.

Chucky the tree

Here is the arguement for tim Tebow....


OMG!!1111!!! it's Tim Tebowzzz, how did he not win?!!! OMG!!!1111!!! HE can run AND pass aswell and dont forgetz he can tackle if he needzz, zomg best QB evar!!!1111!! OMG!!1!! etc etc

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

Its coming to the stage where I think I miight just stop replying to you. Its clear that you cannot accept that somebody has a different point of view to you and that just because your depend solely on stats for you arguments that others don't have to accept that.
In College football in particular where schedules differ so greatly they are less important. But your'e argument was that Bradford had bigger numbers and a bigger QB rating as a result.

When we mention the difference in schedules, you tell us that the Sooners had a much tougher schedule.
When I bring up a stat you decide that it favours your argument, and when I show how it could be used otherwise, you start to attack the poster. I didn't say it was hugely important.

But basically what is coming through from your posts is that no matter what anybody says, you are right and we are wrong, regardless of how many experts back our argument. I didn't say anything negative about Bradford if you read back. All I said was that to me Tebow is a more complete footballer.

Here is your argument in short.

1. Bradford had better numbers than any QB for years.
2. Sooners schedule much tougher than SEC.
3. Media have their reasons for backing Tebow and not Bradford.
4. Experts don't matter.
5. All sites have it wrong except the ones that agree with Lloyd.
6. LOl stats are the be all and end all.
7. If you don't agree with Lloyd you are wrong wrong wrong!

On the Sutton issue, which is way off topic, we agreed to leave it until the draft was complete iirc. Its not over.

I think you're last two posts quoting me are well out of line. I have a lot less respect for you because of them.

lol

let me toss out another stat (as I do like them):

Sagarin computer rankings which rank Oklahoma as having played a much tougher schedule

And over that much tougher schedule, Bradford's numbers are better!! :pac:

We're going around in circles now, huh?

Edit: as an aside, Virginia played the toughest schedule in the country. They hosted USC and travelled to Uconn on top of their ACC games. Which is quite admirable imo.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol

let me toss out another stat (as I do like them):

Sagarin computer rankings which rank Oklahoma as having played a much tougher schedule

And over that much tougher schedule, Bradford's numbers are better!! :pac:

We're going around in circles now, huh?

Edit: as an aside, Virginia played the toughest schedule in the country. They hosted USC and travelled to Uconn on top of their ACC games. Which is quite admirable imo.

Of the Gators’ 12 wins, nine have come against teams whose defenses rank in the top 37 in the country.
Oklahoma’s Sam Bradford faced only two defenses among the top 30 nationally in non-conference foes TCU and Cincinnati. Every other team he played against had a defense ranked 50th or worse.

We can argue stats all day long but they mean nothing at the top of the chain as I have already said, there is no doubt that both Tebow and Bradford are top, top college footballers in any era. The thing is that its comes down to a matter of opinion on who someone thinks is best after that. I say Tebow and you say Bradford, I've explained my reasons, you've thrown stats and tantrums.
Either way I don't care anymore. I'm willing to wait for the big game and see who performs. And then after that wait and see and hopefully enjoy both players making it in the NFL.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

Of the Gators’ 12 wins, nine have come against teams whose defenses rank in the top 37 in the country.
Oklahoma’s Sam Bradford faced only two defenses among the top 30 nationally in non-conference foes TCU and Cincinnati. Every other team he played against had a defense ranked 50th or worse.

You know why Big 12 defenses will inevitably be ranked lower than SEC defenses, right? For example:

Gotta love that SEC SPEEEEEEED, lol

Lirange

The Big 12 was clearly the stronger conference this year. Most of the stateside media seem to acknowledge that now.

It was conventional wisdom during the pre season and at the outset that the SEC would be the strongest. But it did not transpire that way. Florida and Alabama are class teams but LSU, Tennessee, and Auburn fell apart this year. Georgia unexpectedly could not live up to last year. The Big 12 had Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech all in the top 5 at one point towards the latter part of the season. Then you have solid mid conference teams like OK State and Missouri. The SEC only has 4 teams in the BCS TOP 25. That's the fewest in more than a decade. The conference has slipped this year.

Oklahoma played 5 teams in the BCS Top 13, #3 Texas, #7 Texas Tech, #11 TCU, #12 Cincinatti, and #13 Oklahoma State.

Florida played #4 Alabama, #15 Georgia, and #25 Mississippi. Only three teams in the BCS top 25.

I'm not sure why we would even have an argument about strength of schedule. There is a clear answer here.

eagle eye

Lirange wrote: »

The Big 12 was clearly the stronger conference this year. Most of the stateside media seem to acknowledge that now.

It was conventional wisdom during the pre season and at the outset that the SEC would be the strongest. But it did not transpire that way. Florida and Alabama are class teams but LSU, Tennessee, and Auburn fell apart this year. Georgia unexpectedly could not live up to last year. The Big 12 had Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech all in the top 5 at one point towards the latter part of the season. Then you have solid mid conference teams like OK State and Missouri. The SEC only has 4 teams in the BCS TOP 25. That's the fewest in more than a decade. The conference has slipped this year.

Oklahoma played 5 teams in the BCS Top 13, #3 Texas, #7 Texas Tech, #11 TCU, #12 Cincinatti, and #13 Oklahoma State.

Florida played #4 Alabama, #15 Georgia, and #25 Mississippi. Only three teams in the BCS top 25.

I'm not sure why we would even have an argument about strength of schedule. There is a clear answer here.

Well Georgia were ranked at no.6 before they got whooped 49-10 by Florida in Georgia in Week 10, similarly two weeks before that LSU were ranked at no.4 before being hammered 51-21 by Florida. Florida State were ranked at no. 20 in week 12 before they got hammered 45-15 and of course not forgetting South Carolina who were ranked at no. 25 before they got whooped 56-6 by the Gators.
The fact that Florida inexplicably lost to Mississippi before any of the above games had a detrimental affect on the rankings of teams they beat afterwards.
Also you mention Georgia who only lost to Florida, Alabama and then to Georgia Tech in that game where Tech went mad in the third quarter.
I personally believe that Oklahoma should not be in the championship game. I think Texas should be there, they had a very unfortunate last second loss to Tech and beat the Sooners. How they end up behind the Sooners with an identical record is beyond me.

Lirange

eagle eye wrote: »

Well Georgia were ranked at no.6 before they got whooped 49-10 by Florida in Georgia in Week 10, similarly two weeks before that LSU were ranked at no.4 before being hammered 51-21 by Florida. Florida State were ranked at no. 20 in week 12 before they got hammered 45-15 and of course not forgetting South Carolina who were ranked at no. 25 before they got whooped 56-6 by the Gators.

Their current rankings are the product of how they performed over the course of the season. Not just against Florida.

eagle eye wrote: »

I personally believe that Oklahoma should not be in the championship game. I think Texas should be there, they had a very unfortunate last second loss to Tech and beat the Sooners. How they end up behind the Sooners with an identical record is beyond me.

Texas Tech also has an identical record and they beat Texas so by your reckoning aren't they more deserving? The head to head criterion is problematic when you have a three way tie and each team beat one of the other two. So you have to look at the totality of the season. In the end what got OU over the top was the fact they scheduled much tougher non conference games and were the most impressive at the end of the season.

You could make a good argument that Texas deserves to be there ... in place of Florida.

eagle eye

Lirange wrote: »

Their current rankings are the product of how they performed over the course of the season. Not just against Florida.
Texas Tech also has an identical record and they beat Texas so by your reckoning aren't they more deserving? The head to head criterion is problematic when you have a three way tie and each team beat one of the other two. So you have to look at the totality of the season. In the end what got OU over the top was the fact they scheduled much tougher non conference games and were the most impressive at the end of the season.

You could make a good argument that Texas deserves to be there ... in place of Florida.

I agree that some teams rankings are such, but Alabama dropped to no.4 because of one loss to the Gators. And that drop was behind two and not three of the one loss Big 12 teams, explain to me how that happens. In fairness there is an equally good argument for Alabama being in there ahead of Texas or Oklahoma.
On the Tech thing, they for me were very lucky to beat Texas after such a powerful first half they ended up behind in the game with time running out. They were well beaten by the Sooners in Oklahoma. The Longhorns as I have said were extremely unlucky against Tech and they beat the Sooners. So for me the Longhorns with one very unlucky loss and having defeated the Sooners were the team that should have been ranked highest of the three.
They beat Oklahoma, Missouri and OKlahoma state in three consecutive weeks and lost to Tech the next week. I don't think any team had a tougher run of games in the Big 12.

At the end of the day, I personally feel that Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Georgia Tech are as strong if not stronger than any team in the Big 12.

I expect the Gators to beat the Sooners and I think it might be a big win for Florida.