**Running College Football Updates Thread**

[Sirhornsalot]

Look at the Jets vs the Colts in Super Bowl 3, the Colts were favored by 16+ pts in the title game. The Jets won 16-7 in one of the biggest upsets in history. The Horns vs USC, nobody gave Texas a chance, but they won. I'll agree the point spread wasn't 14 in that game, but Texas was a huge underdog. USC blew ou away in the 2005 NC game in which the point spread was probably low but they won by almost 40 if I remember right.

I could list many more examples, but I believe you get my point. If not, we'll just agree to disagree. I don't pay much attention to point spreads because they're made-up numbers meant for Vegas. It's why they play the game instead of letting football geniuses figure out the winner via a spreadsheet.

Good postt. USC had already been declared the best college team of all time and one that could beat a number of NFL teams.

Of course, that ended up being nonsense, as was shown on the field.

In the same sense, I think they pegged ASU wrong, too. Sometimes, they're just wrong.

 

[dssl]

Good postt. USC had already been declared the best college team of all time and one that could beat a number of NFL teams.

Of course, that ended up being nonsense, as was shown on the field.

In the same sense, I think they pegged ASU wrong, too. Sometimes, they're just wrong.

For sure they get it wrong sometimes. But on the other hand,If they pump up one team the rat poison factor on that side vs the extra motivation to the disrespected underdog can be enough to help a slightly inferior team prevail.

 

[BWilk55]

Good postt. USC had already been declared the best college team of all time and one that could beat a number of NFL teams.

Of course, that ended up being nonsense, as was shown on the field.

In the same sense, I think they pegged ASU wrong, too. Sometimes, they're just wrong.a

Fellas, come on...

USC and Texas were ranked #1 and #2 by every reasonable person in the country. That match up made an incredible amount of sense. The line was 7 btw which certainly reflected the prevailing belief in USC as greatest team ever.

We are talking about Texas vs ASU this year. Texas was ranked #3, ASU #12 by the CFP rankings. There is no sense in them being matched up in the round of 8. The point spread is just further evidence of how ludicrous the match up was.

Yes, it came down to the wire. But ASU was way overmatched by Texas as a team and if not for a very bizarre turn of events in the 4th qtr Texas would have covered easily. Up 24-8 until a RB passing TD on 4th and 2.

 

[BWilk55]

Good postt. USC had already been declared the best college team of all time and one that could beat a number of NFL teams.

Of course, that ended up being nonsense, as was shown on the field.

In the same sense, I think they pegged ASU wrong, too. Sometimes, they're just wrong.

And what in the world does Super Bowl 3 have anything to do with this?

Super Bowl 3, two teams who won championships in 2 separate football leagues were matched up. Yeah, the colts were big favorites and lost...but we aren't talking about the accuracy of Vegas lines, we are talking about legitimacy of playoff matchups.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

Fellas, come on...

USC and Texas were ranked #1 and #2 by every reasonable person in the country. That match up made an incredible amount of sense. The line was 7 btw which certainly reflected the prevailing belief in USC as greatest team ever.

We are talking about Texas vs ASU this year. Texas was ranked #3, ASU #12 by the CFP rankings. There is no sense in them being matched up in the round of 8. The point spread is just further evidence of how ludicrous the match up was.

Yes, it came down to the wire. But ASU was way overmatched by Texas as a team and if not for a very bizarre turn of events in the 4th qtr Texas would have covered easily. Up 24-8 until a RB passing TD on 4th and 2.

Come on is right. Even me and my circle of friends knew they were wrong well before the game was played. The people who are a part of polls and oddsmakers were wrong and it was proven only a few miles away from USC's campus.

ASU was vastly underrated. Skatteboo was amazing. Their QB is pretty good. Have no idea where they came up with 14 pts unless it was just SEC bias. ASU was a very good team, as they showed.

 

[BWilk55]

Come on is right. Even me and my circle of friends knew they were wrong well before the game was played. The people who are a part of polls and oddsmakers were wrong and it was proven only a few miles away from USC's campus.

ASU was vastly underrated. Skatteboo was amazing. Their QB is pretty good. Have no idea where they came up with 14 pts unless it was just SEC bias. ASU was a very good team, as they showed.

Perhaps the line was wrong - though Vegas was looking pretty spot on until Skateboo threw a duck that turned into a TD.

But not considering the line, who would you have ranked ASU ahead of? You could make an argument that 11-2 ASU could have been ranked above 9-3 Alabama and even 11-2 SMU but that's about it.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

Perhaps the line was wrong - though Vegas was looking pretty spot on until Skateboo threw a duck that turned into a TD.

But not considering the line, who would you have ranked ASU ahead of? You could make an argument that 11-2 ASU could have been ranked above 9-3 Alabama and even 11-2 SMU but that's about it.

Yes, both of tthose for sure. I just don't think ASU was 14 pts worse than Texas. They were a very good team by the time the playoffs arrived. So I agree, the line was wrong.

 

[Baron]

Look at the Jets vs the Colts in Super Bowl 3, the Colts were favored by 16+ pts in the title game. The Jets won 16-7 in one of the biggest upsets in history. The Horns vs USC, nobody gave Texas a chance, but they won. I'll agree the point spread wasn't 14 in that game, but Texas was a huge underdog. USC blew ou away in the 2005 NC game in which the point spread was probably low but they won by almost 40 if I remember right.

I could list many more examples, but I believe you get my point. If not, we'll just agree to disagree. I don't pay much attention to point spreads because they're made-up numbers meant for Vegas. It's why they play the game instead of letting football geniuses figure out the winner via a spreadsheet.

Sorry to be this guy, but ou got their ass beat in the 2004 season. Texas' DVD set is called 2005.

 

[tejasrulz]

Sorry to be this guy, but ou got their ass beat in the 2004 season. Texas' DVD set is called 2005.

ou lost in January of 2005 to USC. Texas beat USC in January of 2006 or at least that’s the date on my ticket from that game.

 

[Baron]

ou lost in January of 2005 to USC. Texas beat USC in January of 2006 or at least that’s the date on my ticket from that game.

I see the confusion here. The Orange bowl was played on Jan. 4, 2005, but it was the conclusion of the 2004 season.

 

[tejasrulz]

I see the confusion here. The Orange bowl was played on Jan. 4, 2005, but it was the conclusion of the 2004 season.

I'm not confused, I just stated the date they played.

 

[Baron]

I'm not confused, I just stated the date they played.

Google it. The 2004 season will be the year USC won their last championship.

 

[Kmed]

Google it. The 2004 season will be the year USC won their last championship.

I googled “2005 college football national champion”, and the response was Texas Longhorns

 

[Sirhornsalot]

Longhorns are the 2005 National Champions. The season was played in 2005. One game, the title game, was played in 2006.

 

[tejasrulz]

Longhorns are the 2005 National Champions. The season was played in 2005. One game, the title game, was played in 2006.

Thank you, I never stated otherwise.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

Thank you, I never stated otherwise.

wasn't really directed at you. just trying to make sense of it for those who don't completely understand. It is really a common misunderstanding.

 

[dssl]

I found this to be an interesting development in the ACC settlement.

Time will tell, but I suspect the next SEC agreement may have a similar revenue distribution model.

"the revenue-distribution model will now incorporate TV viewership as a way for the league’s top programs to generate more revenue. That formula would see 60% of the league’s TV revenues go into a pot for distribution based on a rolling five-year formula tied to viewership ratings, while the remaining 40% would be distributed equally among the members."

ACC, Clemson, Florida State approve settlement to end legal fight, change revenue-distribution model

The Atlantic Coast Conference, Clemson and Florida State have approved a settlement that would end their legal fights.

apnews.com

 

[dssl]

I found this to be an interesting development in the ACC settlement.

Time will tell, but I suspect the next SEC agreement may have a similar revenue distribution model.

"the revenue-distribution model will now incorporate TV viewership as a way for the league’s top programs to generate more revenue. That formula would see 60% of the league’s TV revenues go into a pot for distribution based on a rolling five-year formula tied to viewership ratings, while the remaining 40% would be distributed equally among the members."

ACC, Clemson, Florida State approve settlement to end legal fight, change revenue-distribution model

The Atlantic Coast Conference, Clemson and Florida State have approved a settlement that would end their legal fights.

apnews.com

Apparently Sankey isn't a fan of the unequal revenue distribution. Obviously a very dynamic environment, so who knows how this ends up.

Since the big dogs in the ACC are unikely to get more revenue sharing then the SEC/B1G this isn't necessary an issue, although I wonder if the big blue bloods will be happy knowing that they could earn more money, if they shake the conference money tree.

Greg Sankey takes shot at ACC's unequal revenue sharing model: 'It just hasn't worked well'

Greg Sankey has seen the ACC's plan for an unequal revenue sharing model, and he's not a fan. Here's more on the matter.

www.on3.com