Showdown: Defending Our Number One Picks: The Beast vs. I am a cpcp

I believe a first place vote needs to be earned. While the talent of college football teams vary greatly from year to year, I don't think a team can just show up in the first place spot. Louisville is not a nationally respected team and came into the season off a 35-24 loss to Virginia Tech in the Gator Bowl last year. They don't have the right to be handed the top spot in the nation. They have to earn it and beating Kentucky, Temple and this year's Miami squad isn't nearly enough.

Louisville is not a nationally respected team and came into the season off a 35-24 loss to Virginia Tech in the Gator Bowl last year. First off, do we qualify a number one team on whether they are nationally respected. Just because Louisville hasn't been a storied program in years past doesn't mean they aren't a number one team. This is the main problem with the Top 25 poll taking place in September. People just readjust the top 25 from the year before, putting Ohio State, USC, and Texas at the top. Thats BS. This is the 2006 College Football season. The way I see it, Louisville is the best team.

The fact is that the poll DOES start in September so a programs historical strength (especially in recent years) has to be taken into at least minor consideration because there aren't a lot of factors to work with. One of the reasons that you will see repetition from the previous year's final poll is that while some major programs lost major players - Ohio State included - they still have a large number of players (such as Troy Smith and Ted Ginn Jr) who are coming in with not only game experience, but big game experience. There's also the factor that Jim Tressel has proven himself as a big game winning coach. Ohio State has the "intangibles" that a typically second tier school like Louiville does not.

As far as Louisville being the best team. I'd like to know how you factor that. Giving up 28 to Kentucky and picking on Temple hardly compares to decisively beating the number 2 ranked defending champs.

That still applies in Louisville's case. They have a bunch of players returning including All-American QB Brian Brohm, a bunch of linebackers, na dtheir entire receiving core. Remember that they almost beat West Virginia last year, losing by just a few pints in OT and hsould have been in a BCS game. You say they don't have the intangibles. Before the 2003 season, USC had a third year coach in Pete Carroll. He hadn't one the big one for he was still relatively young and just his third year with the Trojans. Same with Bobby Petrino. People claimed that they didn't have the intangibles to win it all or enough experience. However, they had great players, Leinart, Bush, White, and Mike Williams. These intagibles you speak of weren't the key thing with 'SC. They had big -time players. Same with the Cardinals. They have great players, Michael Bush (before he got hurt), Brohm, 6-6 wideout Mario Urrutia, and the ferocious linebacker Nate Harris. While, they may not have the intagibles, they have big-time players who'll make big-time plays in big-time games.

Hey, Ohio State looked shaky agianst Cincinnati. The Kentucky game was a big-time rivalry game. If you know anybody from Kentucky than you know these programs hate each other. The Cats were pumped up to play the Cards and put on their best showing. Louisville stil put up a bunch of points. Also during USC's championship runs they allowed a lot of points too. It worked out alright. In 2004, they gave up 29 to Stanford who is worse than UK.

Ohio State looked shakey against Cincinnati? They won by 30 points! Yes, they lost the first quarter, but they were coming off a HUGE win and came into the game sleepwalking. And last time I checked, it's the final score that matters. They didn't show up until the second quarter and had it wrapped up so quick they played four quarterbacks. They had extra time to start looking at NEXT year's team. That's hardly shakey. And the Cincinnati game isn't a joke. Half of the Bearcats coaching staff has worked under Tressel and knows his system. The Buckeyes had a Cincy scare in 2002 (before half the OSU coaching staff moved south) but as I recall, that season turned out ok for Ohio State in the end.

Well you still say OSU still won by 30. Well Louisville still won by 31. Math tells me that 31 is greater than 30.

Louisville has a high-power offense. Might be the best in the country. If the defense can continue to show up, only allowing 11 points a game, than they will be in the NCG.

Yes, its the best in the country! They have an experienced seinor quarterback, a steady offensive line, adeuqte running backs, and a rock star receiving group. So far, they've scored 59, 62, and 31.

There is no doubt that Ohio State is a top 5 team. You can not argue with that. I am ranking them number two. In no way, shape or form, am I bashing the Bucks. I agree that they are a very very good football team. I just happen to think that there is one team better and they will be better come January 8, 2007.

Miami's defense is very good actually. 62 points is 62 no matter which 1-A team it is on and 59 points in a rivalry game isn't too bad either. Its still a bunch of points.

Considering you keep repeating the same meaningless trivia (you think they're the best, how many points they've scored) and keep failing to make any comparisons to how they match up to Ohio State, give any specific examples to how they've shown they are the best team, or even showing one single of example of another person who agrees with you (since you're basing your entire argument on what you think), I'm going to consider the showdown over, unless you have something new to add. Nice game, Beast.