<p>^6-6 would have not be a “good year” for us. We were 9-3, 8-4, 7-5 before last year. We were 6-6 last year but could have been better if the starting QB wasn’t injured. We will be favored in the next 3 games and that’s 7 wins already.</p>
<p>Even we have tougher admission standard than the rest of the BIG or just about anybody except maybe couple schools like Stanford, our expectation is not low.</p>
<p>There isn’t a game that isn’t winnable on the schedule (of course, the 'Cats could lose most of them as well).</p>
<p>As long as there aren’t any more injuries to the secondary (a weak spot for the 'Cats - they are playing 2 frosh and RS soph), the defense should hold up enough considering the potent offense.</p>
<p>8-9 wins seems about right w/ a possible chance of a 10-win season.</p>
<p>And this is a very young team, most of the players in the 2-deep will be back for the 2013 and 2014 seasons.</p>
<p>I thought the 'Cats would be a darkhorse to win the Legends next year w/ being one of the favorites in 2014, but they may very well have a shot this year.</p>
<p>Also don’t see how 6-6 or 7-5 would be a “good year” considering NU has gone to 4 straight bowls and has been bowl eligible for 5 consecutive years.</p>
<p>What’s your point k&s? Indiana is awful, Minnesota/Iowa are mediocre, Wisconsin is underperforming, and Nebraska/OSU looks vulnerable. MSU is a one-trick pony with Le’Vion Bell and UMich hasn’t won against a real opponent yet (sorry Wolverines, Air Force and UMass don’t count).</p>
<p>FSU is a legit national-level contendor and Miami/Clemson are both solid teams that would beat MSU/OSU/Nebraska most likely. The ACC has no doormats like Indiana, Minnesota, or Iowa-even UVA, BC, Duke, and Maryland are solid teams.</p>
<p>Considering that Clemson gave up 31 pts to BC while BC only scored 13 against Northwestern, I wouldn’t be too sure of that.</p>
<p>And who has Clemson beat (Ball St, Furman, BC)? </p>
<p>Their best win is over an Auburn team that is 1-3 and could easily be 0-4 (ULM had a chance to win that game).</p>
<p>Same thing holds for Miami (Miami gave up 32 pts to BC) - so I would hold off on claiming that those 2 teams would beat UNL or dOSU, much less NU or Purdue for that matter (heck, with the way PSU is playing now, they could beat Miami or Clemson).</p>
<p>As for FSU, I wouldn’t think a national title contender would struggle w/ a mediocre USF team.</p>
<p>And what do you mean there are no awful ACC teams?</p>
<p>UMD lost to a weak UConn team and almost lost to W&M (7-6).</p>
<p>Wake barely beat Liberty (20-7) and lost to Duke (yeah, Duke is improved but they are average at best).</p>
<p>GTech got spanked by Middle Tennessee.</p>
<p>BC has 1 win - coming against Maine.</p>
<p>UVA lost to LA Tech and would be 1-4 if PSU’s kicker didn’t have the worst kicking day in his athletic career.</p>
<p>I see that you like to twist things when it comes to CFB as much as you like to twist things when it comes to schools.</p>
<hr>
<p>Anyway, I find it a bit ironic that ND is ranked so high when their best wins have come against Purdue and UM (both games being in doubt until the end).</p>
<p>^ That was still a 24 point margin of victory and GS was a darn good FCS team, going 10-3 last year (they have won 6 FCS championships so they are no pushover when they are good).</p>
Not so fast. It’s easy to improve when you were 3-9 last season. Besides Stanford (L 13-50), Duke hasn’t played anybody who’s somebody yet … beating up on the weaklings in your conference doesn’t count.</p>
<p>
Someone forgot to tell the Big East and Northwestern.</p>
<p>Collectively, ACC is worse than the BIG and maybe the worst conference as of today (10/1/2012) based on their out of conference records and whom they lost to. I think any unbiased person (or computer) would agree.</p>
<p>Sam, what signature OOC wins does the B1G have?</p>
<p>Indiana lost to Ball State.
Iowa lost to Iowa State and Central Michigan.
Penn State lost to UVA and Iowa.</p>
<p>That UVA loss to LA Tech makes Penn State look a lot worse; I hope you realize that. We’ll see how good Miami is when they play Notre Dame next week.</p>
<p>The difference between the ACC and the B10 is that FSU is a top 5 team and the B10 has no one close to that caliber right now. That’s the icebreaker.</p>
<p>Sagarin’s computer has Florida State at #8 (but having gotten there playing the 140th-toughest schedule in the country), Clemson 21, North Carolina 27, Miami 41, VaTech 47, NC State 52, Georgia Tech 61, BC 64, Maryland 76, Virginia 85, Duke 86, Wake Forest 110. Sounds pretty mediocre to me.</p>
<p>No, you don’t understand how college football works. They don’t have spring training games as in baseball, or exhibition games as in the NFL or the NBA. The non-conference schedule is the exhibition season where teams work the early kinks out. Penn State looked bad against a mediocre Virginia team because it couldn’t convert in the red zone and its kicker had one of the worst days in the history of college football. But then Penn State got better, and handily whipped Illinois. Virginia, perhaps drunk on its unexpected success against Penn State, went out and lost to a team it should have handily beaten. That doesn’t reflect poorly on Penn State, it reflects poorly on Virginia. College football isn’t a series of match-ups among static competitors. Some teams get better as the season progresses, some teams get worse, and some stay about the same. I’d conclude Penn State took the loss to Virginia as a teachable moment, and used it as an opportunity to get better (and as much as I wish they weren’t playing at all this year, I’ve got some grudging respect for the Penn State coaching staff and players for having the fortitude to make that happen). And Virginia probably let the win against Penn State go to its head, and got worse.</p>
<p>Mostly, though, it’s still way too early to say who’s good and who’s not, and so talk about “signature wins” at this point in the season is just nonsense.</p>
<p>bclintonk, arguing over which conference has more or less mediocre teams is petty. People don’t consider the bottom two or three doormat teams in each conference when judging the quality. Having a national contender and a few more top 25 teams makes a conference look a lot better than having a bunch of teams cluster in the 40s and 50s with no clear standout even though there might be less absolutely awful teams.</p>
<p>Virginia Tech had a few tough losses but I would put the Hokies on par with OSU and Nebraska in the B1G if they were to play this weekend. OSU couldn’t have looked less impressive in its win over Cal and Nebraska lost to UCLA. </p>
<p>There’s no way Northwestern would beat the Hokies. Not a chance…</p>
Losing 17-35 to Pitt was a “tough loss”? V-Tech went up against two Big East teams and lost them both. The Big East has three top-25 teams compared to two from the ACC (Coaches poll). So you agree that the Big East is a better conference?</p>
<p>OSU, Nebraska and Northwestern are top-25 teams … so you believe V-Tech should be a top-25 team too?</p>
<p>I don’t recall any signature wins from either conference. But ACC has more nonconference losses and more bad losses. That’s why computers (less biased) rank them lower. </p>
<p>You kept bringing up the Penn State-UVA game. But when you need another team to miss 4 manageable (40, 38, 20, 40 yards) FGs and an extra point to win by 1 point, you are relying on pure luck. It’s extremely rare for a team to miss 4 FGs, probably never happened before in Penn State history. </p>
<p>You seem to embrace this fuzzy logic: A beat B in week 1 and B beat C in week 2 and therefore A would beat C in week 3. If you are truly a football fan (probably not many at Duke), you know it doesn’t work that way.</p>