 | |
subject: "Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings" | | Kirk Herbstreet
May 18, 2009
4:02 PM |
Here`s my top five and explaination. I dare you to disagree!
1) Gunz; 3 - 0 vs. the Top 5(T5); T5 Wins - AmFam, Westwood, PT; T5 Losses - None.
They`ve played and beaten everyone, except the number #3 Who u Wit, on a crash course for the `ship. Easy first round for the Gunz, then their real season begins.
2) Westwood; 2 - 1 vs T5; T5 Wins - PT, WUW; T5 Losses - Gunz
Who U Wit might be the 2nd best team, but check the scoreboard fools! Westwood has been underated all season, coming into the playoffs with something to prove.
3) Who U Wit; 1 - 1 vs T5; T5 Wins - AmFam; T5 Losses - Westwood
The newcomers from Bad News have been great. The offense is hot and the mobile QB gives everyone fits. The question is, can they play three perfect games and take Ruffin`s pride home with them to the 757?
4) AmFam; 0 - 2 vs T5; T5 Wins - none; T5 Losses - Gunz, WUW
Damn AmFam, prove something and win a big game for once! Upset alert, watch out for the first round let down against an iPower team they beat up on two weeks ago.
5) Primetime; 0 - 2 vs T5; T5 Wins - none; T5 Losses - Gunz, Westwood
The playmakers are another team that hasn`t shown the ability to win the big game yet. Both AmFam and PT have two really close losses, but trust me, the playoff games will be close and you better know how it close out against a good opponent.
| Herbie
May 18, 2009
4:09 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
I respect what you say but you are forgetting ONE thing. Wood lost to RBI which you cannot erase. WUW-Wood should be a close game... PT-Wood should be close... they made the plays to come away with the victory in those games but the RBI game should have NEVER been close. Out of all the teams you named they are the only team with a loss to a non top 5 team so you need to redo the rankings.
#1 Gunz
#2 WUW
#3 Wood
#4 Primetime simply because if they played Am Fam I don`t think AmFam has enough team speed to beat them.
#5 AmFam
| But
May 18, 2009
5:17 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
I agree that the WW and RBI game should not have been close BUT that game was not just another game..That was rivalry week and personal for players on both sides of the ball...Its just like the Skins and Cowoys..One team can be 1-9 and the other 10-0 but the 1-9 team wins bc its personal.. | Stephen A.
May 18, 2009
5:50 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
Kirk I will respect the rankings you have presented, and hope you respect my rankings for the teams...
1. Gunz (Undefeated, hands down have proven they are good)
2. WUW (Yea lost to Wood by 5, but wouldnt lose to Wood again.)
3. Wood (Beat WUW but cant get over that RBI game, rivalry week or not)
4. Prime (I really went back in forth between them and Fam, but think they would win close)
5. Fam (Have been playn good ball since losing to the top 2 teams in the league)
I feel you cant just rank a team above another team because they beat them before unless they absolutely dominated that team, and Wood didnt dominate WUW, it was a good game. When you lose a game to a average team like RBI it really hurts.
| 2 Stephen
May 18, 2009
8:01 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
If thats the case why not put Amfam ahead of gunz since it was close. Or even pt for that matter ahead of gunz and wood since they were even closer? | Stephen A.
May 18, 2009
8:14 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
Why would I put Fam above Gunz when Gunz are 8-0, and Fam 5-3, or Pt ahead of Gunz when Pt are 6-2? That doesnt make any sense at all. The debate over who should be ranked higher WUW or Wood is not a hard one at all. Yes Wood beat WUW but when you lose to a team that the other dominated you do not have an argument about being ranked higher since you have 2 losses, and lost to a team who is ranked 9th in the rankings. The post is BCS standings, and with that being said WUW would have a higher BCS ranking than Wood. I didnt just put WUW above Wood because the game was close, WUW is 7-1, Wood 6-2, WUW lost to the 4th ranked team, Wood lost to the 9th ranked team which WUW throttled! Head to head games do not assure that a team is ranked higher than another just because they beat them, the overal record comes in affect and also what else the two teams have done all year. Bottom line WUW is a better team than Wood, and that`s why they are ranked higher | Spectator
May 18, 2009
8:32 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
Lol calm down Stephen A. Wood has been overlooked this year a lot but to all their supporters as equally as their wins against WUW and PT the loss against RBI is equally as bad. WUW can make a case and say they had a bad game etc I mean look what they did to the team that beat Wood but they keep it moving. No talk about how they beat teams bad and because of that they should be the defacto #1 ranked team. The playoffs are here every team knows who they play so if you want respect 8 teams have a chance to go out and earn it. | bcs...
May 18, 2009
9:00 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
lol..stephen you killing me...yeah ww did lose to rbi in week 1 but they beat wuw. ww scored everytime they had the ball...if you pay attention to the real bcs a lot of the high rankings happen when teams lose earlier in the season rather than the middle or end. its better to lose early then anyother time. except for the gunz who never lost. that`s why you see teams with a higher ranking higher than some teams with a better record. its called the strength of schedule.. ww had a hard schedule..gunz...primetime...wuw...that s/h been 3 losses for them...if wuw would have played gunz, pt and ww they would have lost at least 3...it don`t matter anyway bc gunz gonna win it all..I think pt will beat ww this time..fu is playing tough right now..stephen u still my ***** though. I enjoy reading your predictions... | Spectator
May 18, 2009
9:36 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
So are you saying that PT, Wood, and Gunz are all better than WUW?
It is better to lose early yeah, but that loss can`t come against RBI maybe a middle of the road team but RBI? You also said that you think PT will beat Wood next time so are you calling the 1st Wood win a fluke and saying that the better team did not win? Then you said that Wood had a tough schedule Gunz, PT, and WUW which should have been 3 losses for them but if WUW played Gunz, PT, and Wood they would have lost all 3 games. Im confused. What exactly are you saying about Wood and WUW. Which one sucks more and which one is just lucking their way to 7-1/6-2 records? | Stephen A.
May 18, 2009
10:02 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
I appreciate the love I recieve for my predictions, and always respect everyones opinions. Yes Wood lost early but they had another slip losing their last game of the season which made them slide. No matter they lost to the number 1 ranked team, (that second loss is what put them behind WUW). Another thing I dont agree with is that if WUW played Prime, Gunz, and Wood they would have lost all 3 games! Thats a slap in the face just because you lose to one team, that doesnt make another team better then you. The game between WUW and Wood was a good one but youre saying since Wood won and lost to the Gunz that WUW cant beat Wood, Pt, or Gunz. All three teams play a different style of play, and Wood D is suspect! But no1 is perfect but the teams are ranked the way they are for a reason, and if any team want to prove otherwise they will win come sat, and Sun. | bcs,
May 18, 2009
11:32 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
ww victory over pt was not a fluke but its hard to beat a good team twice...If wuw played gunz, pt and ww, they would have lost at least 2,,i said 3 but i meant 2..they would have lost to the gunz as well...neither ww or wuw suck,,,both are good...but ww is better...they have the o to beat wuw...you are right steven a..it comes down to sat and sun..I dont think luck played a role in 7-1 or 6-2 records,,,they just take one week at a time..my top 3 bcs rankings are 1,,gunz...2 ww and...3 wuw...Gunz are better than wuw and ww is better than wuw.. pt seem to be missing something..but at the same time they can smack you in the mouth...Yeah wuw got a fast ass team but speed means nothing when it comes to strategy..ww proved that...Playoffs will determine everything,,,those that can handle the pressure will prosper,,,respect to Steven A and Spectator...who are this years MVP, o and d players of year, most slept on player and most exciting player to watch... | Kirk Herbstreet (WUW vs. WW)
May 19, 2009
09:22 AM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
I like the call that you can`t put Westwood above Who U Wit because of Westwoods loss to RBI in week 1. However, I`ve got to argue that point a little. First, its week one maybe RBI comes in confident being still undefeated, maybe Westwood comes in rusty, who cares. Bottom line is its an inexcusable loss. However, in flag football, the playoffs, the states, etc. its all about how you play in the BIG GAMES. In this league there is a pretty clear separation between the top 5 and everyone else. That`s why no one is arguing that iPower should even be in the discussion. The only top 5 team that WUW beat was AmFam. They only beat them by one score and everyone here seems to think AmFam is the bottom of the top 5. So with that being said, WHO HAVE THEY BEAT? Point 1: WUW hasn`t beaten anyone yet. Westwood beat WUW heads up and also a good Primetime team. Point 2: When in doubt look at what happened when the when heads up. | Kirk Herbstreet
May 19, 2009
09:23 AM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
my fault I meant: Point 2: When in doubt look at what happeneded when they played heads up. | Source
May 19, 2009
09:39 AM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
Joe-why did you tell me to go read this ish this morning? lol
Too much to respond to but...I will just say:
Gunz are clearly 1st.
WUW is 2nd.
AmFam is on a roll so saying they would be 3rd is fair.
Westwood and Primetime are pretty much in the same boat. Lost to Gunz. We beat them but we have the worst loss of anybody in this conversation. RBI.
So what`s bigger? losing to a team who doesn`t score in their last to games OR beating a team head up?
Either way, it`s an entertaining conversation. Now let me go talk to Swarm. lol | Mr. Football
May 19, 2009
09:39 AM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
As you guys probably can see, I`m not that high on Westwood. I look at a team like Who U Wit and I see football players. When I look at WW, I just see guys trying to play football. There is a clear difference. You`re right WUW hasn`t played the best schedule...if they played PT and GUNZ they would have had at least 1 more loss, probably 2. The simple fact is that WUW has better players and are a better team. Like you all said: We`ll see in the playoffs. Herbie, I have to disagree with your power rankings, I have it like this:
1. GUNZ- the champs
2. WUW- good football players
3. PT- Young group of good athletes
4. AM FAM- good team that has never beat a top dog
5. WW- solid team with alot to prove
6. Power- probably past its prime
7. FU- if they could get it together they can be very good
8. Heismen- just keep ballin` | Kirk Herbstreet (AmFam vs. Primetime)
May 19, 2009
09:39 AM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
This is the other tough one that everyone disagrees with me about. Both have two losses in very close games to very good teams. Everyone says that AmFam isn`t fast enough to play with PT. I say you`re crazy! When AmFam has their top four receivers healthy they are as fast of a receiving corp as anyone, with exception of maybe the Gunz. Primetime might have slightly better team speed than AmFam top to bottom, but AmFam`s got some advantages too. 1) They`re bigger and more physical 2) They have a better pure passing QB 3) They`re playing much better at this point of the season. Look at PT in the second half of the season week 5 - beat a weak SoCo team by a touchdown, week 6 - loss to a good team, week 7 - loss to a good team, week 8 - beat a middle of road FU team by one score. AmFam finished the season by pulling off 6 straight wins. They whipped iPower by 20 and then posted one of the biggest blowouts of the season to finish. 4) Common opponents - they played four of the same teams (Heisman, RBI, Gunz, and FU). Total margin of victory was 21 points for PT and 49 for AmFam. I think PT might be a little more athletic than AmFam, but AmFam has become a more consistant team. | Spectator
May 19, 2009
09:45 AM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
No one for WUW made any excuses for their loss so I will make the case for them. Westwood played a perfect game against WUW on offense and won by 1 score. Wood went for it on several 4th down plays and got it which I would think WUW would be able to stop them at least once if they played again. Head to head Wood has WUW but you cannot excuse a loss against RBI rusty or not if they are the so called 2nd best team in the league it should have not been close. Hell even AmFam dominated the team Wood lost too and people said that was supposed to be a rivalry game. The fact still remains Wuw lost to the 4th ranked team and Wood L`s come from #1 and #9 there is no comparison. And as far as your argument about playing in big games WUW did do well in states last year so I have to assume that they can turn it on when needed. | Kirk Herbstreet (new rankings)
May 19, 2009
09:52 AM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
After some really good points by everyone, I`m changing my rankings up a little bit. I checked out common opponents for WW and WUW and found a big differnce. They both played RBI and Usual Suspects. Westwood`s total margin of victory was 10 points, WUW`s was 68 points. Damn, big difference.
New Rankings:
1. Gunz - no discussion the reigning champs
2. WUW - more athletic than Westwood
3. Westwood - continues to be underated, but you can`t put PT or AmFam above them b/c they haven`t beat a Top 5 team. Wood beat PT and WUW
4. AmFam - coming into the playoffs hotter than PT.
5. PT - right now I`ve got them 5, but it wouldn`t suprise me if they won the whole thing. | Spectator
May 19, 2009
2:00 PM | subject: re: Ruffin Rd. BCS Standings
Am Fam O is pumping right now but there is a big difference in speed from PT O and Am Fam defense. Thats why I would give the nod to PT. |
|
|