# College Football



## Crothian (Nov 9, 2003)

We had some big weekends before this year.  However this weekend with quite a few good teams idle (USC, Mich, LSU, and Georgia), we she three top 5 teams fall.  Miami, FSU, and VT all lose.  At least the VT Pitt game was exciting.  Thisa is great new for my Buckeyes.  USC and Oklahoma are still going to be one and two and should face off in the cvhampionship game.  That's fine with me.  The way Oklahoma is playing right now, I'd perfer the Buckeyes to go into the bowl season ranked number three.  

We still have plenty of football left to play, but so far this year each week has seemingly provided upsets and great games.  This is one of the best college football seasons I've seen.


----------



## olethros (Nov 9, 2003)

As a bona fide Florida Gator I can verify that this has been a very interesting season.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 9, 2003)

Were you at the game today Crothian?

(A deck, section 20 first row)

Go Bucks!


----------



## Wikidogre (Nov 9, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Were you at the game today Crothian?
> 
> (A deck, section 20 first row)
> 
> Go Bucks!




Holy!!  what seat i was in A deck, Section 20 Row 3!!

Go Bucks baby, ive been to every home game so far and have seats in Ann Arbor, my best friends mom is Alum of Mich so we have pretty decent seats.


----------



## hunter1828 (Nov 9, 2003)

They ain't goin' to a BCS bowl this year, and at times they've played like their all first year Pop Warner players...but...

GO BIG ORANGE!!!!!!

"Wish that I was on ol' Rocky Top..."

hunter1828


----------



## Crothian (Nov 9, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Where you at the game today Crothian?




No, I rarely goto games these days.  There is something about watching it from the comfort of my living room.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 9, 2003)

Wikidogre said:
			
		

> Holy!!  what seat i was in A deck, Section 20 Row 3!!
> 
> Go Bucks baby, ive been to every home game so far and have seats in Ann Arbor, my best friends mom is Alum of Mich so we have pretty decent seats.




LOL Small world!!

Last seat on the opposite end of the section by the tunnel.

Grey Ohio State Sweatshirt & black block O ball cap.

Ironically enough I'm a moderator on The O-Zone as well.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Nov 9, 2003)

FSU is so overated, and any loss for Florida football is a good thing, in my book.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 9, 2003)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> FSU is so overated, and any loss for Florida football is a good thing, in my book.





Well that is a given for ANY real college football fan! 


Speaking of FL teams, does anyone think that Coker will have the sand to discipline KWjr for his melt down after the game?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 9, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Speaking of FL teams, does anyone think that Coker will have the sand to discipline KWjr for his melt down after the game?




I would be very suprised if anything happens because of that.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Nov 10, 2003)

Hail to the Victors! With OSU and UofM both in the top 5 in both polls, Nov. 22nd should be very interesting (assuming both teams win on the 15th). I love how the Big Ten comes down to this game so often.


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 10, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> We had some big weekends before this year.  However this weekend with quite a few good teams idle (USC, Mich, LSU, and Georgia), we she three top 5 teams fall.  Miami, FSU, and VT all lose.  At least the VT Pitt game was exciting.  Thisa is great new for my Buckeyes.  USC and Oklahoma are still going to be one and two and should face off in the cvhampionship game.  That's fine with me.  The way Oklahoma is playing right now, I'd perfer the Buckeyes to go into the bowl season ranked number three.
> 
> We still have plenty of football left to play, but so far this year each week has seemingly provided upsets and great games.  This is one of the best college football seasons I've seen.



 Does USC play anybody tough later this season?

I'm no expert on the BCS rankings,  but I've heard Ohio State might have a decent chance of overtaking USC via strenth of schedule (they should, the Big !0 is much tougher than the Pac 10 this year).


----------



## drothgery (Nov 10, 2003)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Does USC play anybody tough later this season?
> 
> I'm no expert on the BCS rankings, but I've heard Ohio State might have a decent chance of overtaking USC via strenth of schedule (they should, the Big !0 is much tougher than the Pac 10 this year).



USC finishes with games at Arizona, against UCLA at home (though a 'home team' in the context of a game between two LA schools is a bit meaningless), and against Oregon State at home. Arizona is an almost certain win, and while Oregon State and UCLA could be tricky, the Trojans will be heavy favorites in both games.

Basically, as long as USC stays #2 in the polls, neither Ohio State nor LSU has a good shot at passing them, though Ohio State (due to a much more difficult schedule) has a much better chance than LSU. If Washington State keeps winning, it's even harder, as a highly-ranked WSU gives USC quality win points.

As far as the Pac 10 vs. Big 10... well, I'd say it depends how you figure things. I'd argue that the top of the Pac 10 (USC and WSU) are better than the top of the Big 10 (Ohio State, Purdue, and Michigan), and that the bottom of the Pac 10 (Stanford, Arizona State, and Arizona) are much better than the bottom of the Big 10 (Illinois, Indiana, and Penn State). On the other hand, the middle of the Big 10 is a lot better than the middle of the Pac 10.


----------



## hunter1828 (Nov 10, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Speaking of FL teams, does anyone think that Coker will have the sand to discipline KWjr for his melt down after the game?




I doubt it, and I liked what the guys on ESPN had to say about his outburst, telling him to calm down and ask his dad how one is supposed to act on and off the field.

hunter1828


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> USC finishes with games at Arizona, against UCLA at home (though a 'home team' in the context of a game between two LA schools is a bit meaningless), and against Oregon State at home. Arizona is an almost certain win, and while Oregon State and UCLA could be tricky, the Trojans will be heavy favorites in both games.




Ya, USC should win the remaining ones.  I doubt OSU would jump them, and I actually hope they don't.  OSU has no offense, and frankly I think Oklahoma would destroy them.  

As to which is better, well it would depend on where they play.  Everyone knows the Big Ten does not travel well.  But they do have some good stadiums that are tought to win in.  USC is probablty better then any team in the Big Ten, WSU I think matches up well and it would be a very good game to see them play any of the top three.  That's why I want USC to play Oklahoma and WSU to win out so they face the Big Ten winner (hopefully OSU) in the Rose Bowl.


----------



## Velenne (Nov 10, 2003)

TCU!!!  CRASHIN' THE BCS PARTY BABY!!


----------



## drothgery (Nov 10, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, USC should win the remaining ones. I doubt OSU would jump them, and I actually hope they don't. OSU has no offense, and frankly I think Oklahoma would destroy them.



I don't. I think Oklahoma would win. But, like the Hurricanes last year, the Sooners have never seen a defense that's anywhere near as good as the Buckeyes.




			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> As to which is better, well it would depend on where they play. Everyone knows the Big Ten does not travel well.



Eh. Both Pac-10 @ Big-10 and the other way around tend to be pretty bad for the road team. But the only reason we know about this is that there are actually a fair number of Pac-10/Big-10 games every year; there aren't any other conferences that play each other a lot and are separated by as anything close to as much distance. I imagine if teams from the other major confrences played the Pac-10 a lot (or even if Big East or ACC vs. Big 12 games were common), you'd see a similar disparity.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I don't. I think Oklahoma would win. But, like the Hurricanes last year, the Sooners have never seen a defense that's anywhere near as good as the Buckeyes.




Ya, but the Buckeyes haven't seen a defense anything like the Sooners.  Last year at least the Buckeyes hada running game.  This year, the running game has finally been seen but that was against teams with not so good defenses.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 10, 2003)

Purdue beats Ohio State next week.
Ohio State gets back by taking out Michigan.
Purdue wins the Big 10 outright goes to a BCS Bowl.

Go Boilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------------------------------------------
My dream however is Ohio State, USC, LSU all lose. There is no clear choice for #2. TCU wins out and Oklahoma loses its Bowl Game. TCU remains undefeated, and controversy erupts since a 11-2 team wins the national championship, and 2 others legitamately claim they are as good since they beat the now National Champ. The BCS is discredited and we go to a playoff system like Basketball and  I-AA and I-AAA football. 

Down with the BCS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RodneyThompson (Nov 10, 2003)

Allow me to say.....HOW ABOUT THEM VOLS!

Miami. Psssht.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 10, 2003)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Does USC play anybody tough later this season?
> 
> I'm no expert on the BCS rankings,  but I've heard Ohio State might have a decent chance of overtaking USC via strenth of schedule (they should, the Big !0 is much tougher than the Pac 10 this year).




If LSU loses & the Buckeyes win out, then tOSU will move up in the polls and the extra points from that will most likely push them past USC in the BCS standings.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, but the Buckeyes haven't seen a defense anything like the Sooners.  Last year at least the Buckeyes hada running game.  This year, the running game has finally been seen but that was against teams with not so good defenses.





FWIW the Buckeyes have faced teams with much better defenses than anyone Oklahoma has come up against.

'Bama was by far the best D the Sooners have faced & even though they are struggling it was a very close game.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 10, 2003)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> FSU is so overated, and any loss for Florida football is a good thing, in my book.





You can say that again! And again!


----------



## Krieg (Nov 10, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> If LSU loses & the Buckeyes win out, then tOSU will move up in the polls and the extra points from that will most likely push them past USC in the BCS standings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






			
				Moridin said:
			
		

> Allow me to say.....HOW ABOUT THEM VOLS!
> 
> Miami. Psssht.




While I can't stand the Vols (can't forgive the Tennecleats scandal) or any team in the SEC for that matter, they played a nice game against the 'Canes.

BTW how is the player who was injured in the Winslow incident doing?


----------



## Krieg (Nov 10, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> If LSU loses & the Buckeyes win out, then tOSU will move up in the polls and the extra points from that will most likely push them past USC in the BCS standings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






			
				Moridin said:
			
		

> Allow me to say.....HOW ABOUT THEM VOLS!
> 
> Miami. Psssht.




While I can't stand the Vols (will never forget the Tennecleats) or any team in the SEC for that matter, they played a nice game against the 'Canes.

BTW how is the player who was injured in the Winslow incident doing?


----------



## Squire James (Nov 10, 2003)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> FSU is so overated, and any loss for Florida football is a good thing, in my book.




FSU was overrated, yes.  I'm pretty sure they fell enough places that they aren't anymore, though.  I wouldn't crow too much about the Florida teams all losing to an unranked team, though, because pretty much everyone else but Oklahoma has done that as well.

I think this whole conference-shuffling thing, obviously being done purely for monetary reasons, is silly.  I think ALL money going into Div Ia should be divided equally between its teams, then they might be properly selective about who they choose, and the playing field would be level enough to make a playoff feasible.  Since that involves taking money from conference bureaucracies and powerful colleges, though, this will happen about the same time the U.S. Congress votes themselves an actual decrease in power.


----------



## hunter1828 (Nov 10, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> BTW how is the player who was injured in the Winslow incident doing?




He must be doing ok, as I can't find anything on the 'Net anywhere.

BTW, I did see where KW jr. apologized for his post-game comments to the press.

hunter1828


----------



## hunter1828 (Nov 10, 2003)

Moridin said:
			
		

> Allow me to say.....HOW ABOUT THEM VOLS!
> 
> Miami. Psssht.




Good to see another Vols fan!  I sure miss going to games...

hunter1828


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 10, 2003)

I find it very hard to root for my Alma Mater, because San Jose State just sucks. So I've adopted my home team. Go Boise State! (Who, btw, crushed San Jose State a couple weeks ago.)

I know, Boise is just a measley WAC team, but last year they ended 12th in the nation, and they're back in the top 25 again this week!

On a national level, it's going to be fun to watch. Especially if either USC or Oklahoma manages to lose a game. But they shouldn't.

I agree with the one who said a Washington State/Ohio State Rose Bowl would be great. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for that one.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 10, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> If LSU loses & the Buckeyes win out, then tOSU will move up in the polls and the extra points from that will most likely push them past USC in the BCS standings.



If WSU wins out, then a #2 USC probably stays ahead of a #3 Ohio State because of the 'quality win' points. Losing to Ohio State probably knocks Purdue out of the top 15, and Michigan to the 10-15 range, so they get very little there. Meanwhile, WSU probably slips into the 'top-ranked 2-loss team' slot.


----------



## ledded (Nov 10, 2003)

hunter1828 said:
			
		

> Good to see another Vols fan!  I sure miss going to games...
> 
> hunter1828





Well, even as an Alabama fan, I have to say, 'great game, go Vols'.  Thanks for further humbling Miami.  Well done, you played up to your potential.

Of course, I have to also temper that comment by saying 'Nothing sucks like a Big Orange'  ;^)


----------



## RodneyThompson (Nov 10, 2003)

Yeah, sometimes I do feel all alone on the 'net when it comes to being a Tennessee fan. I've been to every home football game since I was about 3 (I went to some before that, but it was hit-and-miss since I was so little) and I'm currently finishing up my undergraduate degree here at UT, so I bleed orange about as much as anyone possibly can.

And Krieg, I'm sorry you feel that way. The SEC is, was, and will ever be the best conference out there.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 10, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> If WSU wins out, then a #2 USC probably stays ahead of a #3 Ohio State because of the 'quality win' points. Losing to Ohio State probably knocks Purdue out of the top 15, and Michigan to the 10-15 range, so they get very little there. Meanwhile, WSU probably slips into the 'top-ranked 2-loss team' slot.




I've seen it go both ways, the majority of the predictors have the Buckeyes edging them out by 3/10ths of a point. The rest have the Men of Troy ahead by 2/10ths. Either way it is going to be close. (Of course that is predicated on LSU losing sometime in the next month.)

Either way it's better than listening to USC fans moaning that their 2 loss Trojans are the best team in the country like last year.  



			
				Moridin said:
			
		

> Yeah, sometimes I do feel all alone on the 'net when it comes to being a Tennessee fan




There's an appalachia joke in there somewhere. 



> And Krieg, I'm sorry you feel that way. The SEC is, was, and will ever be the best conference out there.




No need to feel sorry at all. My ex-wife is an Auburn alum and I've attended more than my fair share of games at Auburn, 'Bama, Gawga, Florida, Tennesee & even Kentucky. 

The SEC has a great tradition, but it just isn't the same as Columbus, Camp Randall, South Bend or State College on an autumn saturday morning.

The biggest difference between Southern & Midwestern FB is probably the social aspect of the games. No one wears a tie or dresses up for an Ohio State or Purdue game. 

Come north of the Mason-Dixon when it gets cold and we'll show you how real football is played. 

FWIW the biggest problem I have with most SEC teams is the total lack of knoweledge about FB tradition outside of their region (which of course is symptamatic to many FB fans, it's just seems to be exacerbated down South for some reason) AND the blind eye turned to ethically questionable behavior by it's athletic program. Ohio State gets blasted for being too harsh on Maurice Clarett while at the same time Albert Means is sold to the highest bidder. Not exactly a sweet aftertaste there.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 10, 2003)

Moridin said:
			
		

> Yeah, sometimes I do feel all alone on the 'net when it comes to being a Tennessee fan. I've been to every home football game since I was about 3 (I went to some before that, but it was hit-and-miss since I was so little) and I'm currently finishing up my undergraduate degree here at UT, so I bleed orange about as much as anyone possibly can.



#Error!
Non-Syracuse fan claims to 'bleed orange'. Does not compute. 

Of course, it is football season, so the real Orange may be a bit below the radar (as opposed to basketball season, when the defending national champs will get noticed).


----------



## hunter1828 (Nov 10, 2003)

Moridin said:
			
		

> Yeah, sometimes I do feel all alone on the 'net when it comes to being a Tennessee fan. I've been to every home football game since I was about 3 (I went to some before that, but it was hit-and-miss since I was so little) and I'm currently finishing up my undergraduate degree here at UT, so I bleed orange about as much as anyone possibly can.




I haven't been to a game since my last year at UT in 1993-94.  I transfered to Wyoming after that, and though the games were fun (I'd been watching WAC games for years on ESPN) they didn't have the "flavor" or "feel" of the huge crowds in Knoxville.  

Just being at Neyland stadium and hearing the roar of the crowd is a beautiful thing...  

hunter1828


----------



## hunter1828 (Nov 10, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> #Error!
> Non-Syracuse fan claims to 'bleed orange'. Does not compute.
> 
> Of course, it is football season, so the real Orange may be a bit below the radar (as opposed to basketball season, when the defending national champs will get noticed).




HA!  Man, I love it on those rare times when Tennessee and Syracuse play...nothing but a sea of orange!

hunter1828


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 10, 2003)

hunter1828 said:
			
		

> I haven't been to a game since my last year at UT in 1993-94. I transfered to Wyoming after that, and though the games were fun (I'd been watching WAC games for years on ESPN) they didn't have the "flavor" or "feel" of the huge crowds in Knoxville.



Well, I don't know about the huge crowds or anything, but it's interesting watching football on the blue turf of Boise State. Just seems...different. I've heard it rumored that one reason Boise is so tough at home is because visiting teams have a hard time adjusting to playing on a blue field. Don't know if it's true, but as a fan, I had to adjust watching a game played on a blue field...

Though along the lines of huge crowds, Boise does get 30k+ fans at their games. Is that big? I know some schools get upwards of 100k, so probably not.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 10, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> #Error!
> Non-Syracuse fan claims to 'bleed orange'. Does not compute.
> 
> Of course, it is football season, so the real Orange may be a bit below the radar (as opposed to basketball season, when the defending national champs will get noticed).




Any idea on what plans SU is making to weather the post Big East break-up storm?

BTW you're welcome for Walter Reyes, a home-grown Youngstown boy.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know about the huge crowds or anything, but it's interesting watching football on the blue turf of Boise State. Just seems...different. I've heard it rumored that one reason Boise is so tough at home is because visiting teams have a hard time adjusting to playing on a blue field. Don't know if it's true, but as a fan, I had to adjust watching a game played on a blue field...




It can't be more difficult than trying to watch it on TV. At least while you're there the blue turf doesn't take up the entire field of view!




> Though along the lines of huge crowds, Boise does get 30k+ fans at their games. Is that big? I know some schools get upwards of 100k, so probably not.





FWIW there are only 4 schools that average more than 100K a game... 

TSUN, Tennessee, Penn State & Ohio State (in order from largest to smallest).

Boise State avgs just over 29K a game which puts them 75th out of 124 Div 1A teams in attendance. Roughly middle of the pack.

For the size & location of the school that ain't bad at all.


----------



## hunter1828 (Nov 10, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know about the huge crowds or anything, but it's interesting watching football on the blue turf of Boise State. Just seems...different. I've heard it rumored that one reason Boise is so tough at home is because visiting teams have a hard time adjusting to playing on a blue field. Don't know if it's true, but as a fan, I had to adjust watching a game played on a blue field...
> 
> Though along the lines of huge crowds, Boise does get 30k+ fans at their games. Is that big? I know some schools get upwards of 100k, so probably not.





I love watching Boise State, too.  I remember when ESPN first started showing Thursday night college games way back in the mid '80s.  It was almost always second tier (sometimes even third tier) teams as all the big guns wanted to be on Saturday only (that's changed!).  Boise State was one of the teams that was on often, because, after all, it's a Nationally Telivised Game!  Who cares if it's on Thursday night, get on there and get some name recognition.  I would sit up and watch those games (they were often live at 8 PM Western, so 10 PM Eastern for me) and I loved the blue field.

hunter1828


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 10, 2003)

hunter1828 said:
			
		

> I love watching Boise State, too. I remember when ESPN first started showing Thursday night college games way back in the mid '80s. It was almost always second tier (sometimes even third tier) teams as all the big guns wanted to be on Saturday only (that's changed!). Boise State was one of the teams that was on often, because, after all, it's a Nationally Telivised Game! Who cares if it's on Thursday night, get on there and get some name recognition. I would sit up and watch those games (they were often live at 8 PM Western, so 10 PM Eastern for me) and I loved the blue field.
> 
> hunter1828



Yeah, and Boise is a perfect 6-0 (or maybe it's 7-0) playing on ESPN, thanks to the recently demolishing of BYU two Thursdays ago!  They're a fun team to watch, for sure.


----------



## Michelle Lyons (Nov 10, 2003)

Y'know, college football is one of the nicest things about living in Oklahoma.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 10, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Any idea on what plans SU is making to weather the post Big East break-up storm?



The Big East 2.0 isn't all that bad of a football conference. Pitt's clearly the best college team in Pennsylvania. West Virginia's pretty good. If the Orange get a real coach again, they'll be okay. L'ville, Cinci, and USF are rather good for mid-majors. UConn's making a nice transition to I-A. And even Rutgers is getting better.

Probably the most elegant fix long-term (because it's pretty much a given that the 'Bigger East' splits in two in 2010) would be for Notre Dame to join in football (they're already in the Big East for everything else), but that would require the Irish to swallow their pride and admit that playing in a conference would give them a much better chance at a major bowl.



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> BTW you're welcome for Walter Reyes, a home-grown Youngstown boy.



You guys grabbed the wrong Clarett cousin. I have to pull for his backup, though; Damien Rhodes went to my high school.


----------



## olethros (Nov 10, 2003)

> Allow me to say.....HOW ABOUT THEM VOLS!
> 
> Miami. Psssht.




Actually, I was at the Swamp this weekend watching Florida play Vandy and I was pleasently surprised at how many Florida fans were cheering at your victory.  The Gators may not like the Vols, but we sure hate Miami after that 4th quarter comeback earlier on in our season.  Bah, and they have that traitor quarterback.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 10, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Probably the most elegant fix long-term (because it's pretty much a given that the 'Bigger East' splits in two in 2010) would be for Notre Dame to join in football (they're already in the Big East for everything else), but that would require the Irish to swallow their pride and admit that playing in a conference would give them a much better chance at a major bowl.




If Notre Dame ever decided to join a conference for football expect a strong offer by the Big 10/11 to get them to join with them. Part of the Big Ten's reluctance in wooing them so far is they expect everyone to join for all sports. Given a choice the Big Ten is far stronger, it has 3 traditional Rivals (Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State) plus a couple of other traditionally very strong teams (Ohio State and Penn State) and it would give the Big Ten a championship game which would pull big TV ratings. I suppose in your last point the Big East has a stronger case since it would be far easier to post a 12-0 or 11-1 record in the Big East consistantly.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 10, 2003)

This last weekend sucked for Texas A&M fans.  What the  is up with that?


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 10, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> If Notre Dame ever decided to join a conference for football expect a strong offer by the Big 10/11 to get them to join with them. Part of the Big Ten's reluctance in wooing them so far is they expect everyone to join for all sports. Given a choice the Big Ten is far stronger, it has 3 traditional Rivals (Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State) plus a couple of other traditionally very strong teams (Ohio State and Penn State) and it would give the Big Ten a championship game which would pull big TV ratings. I suppose in your last point the Big East has a stronger case since it would be far easier to post a 12-0 or 11-1 record in the Big East consistantly.



I think Notre Dame would be insane to join a conference. They always play tough enough opponents that if they're team is good enough, they can land the larger bowls. And because they're not in a conference, the school keeps 100% of their check from the bowl game, rather than having to split it with the other teams in the conference. That, and they make good money with their TV deals. The only downside is when they have a bad team, like now. But that never lasts long with Notre Dame.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2003)

Notre Dame should be in the Big Ten.  In the 1930's they were invited, except Michigian kept them out becaue they lost to them or something like that.  The Irish have great rivalries with three Big Ten teams, and they are in the middle of Big Ten country!!  But if they would join the Big Ten I hope the Big Ten chooses to not have a conference championship game.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 11, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I think Notre Dame would be insane to join a conference. They always play tough enough opponents that if they're team is good enough, they can land the larger bowls.



Eh. Anyone but USC or Oklahoma would have had a hard time going 8-4 on the schedule Notre Dame played this year (and USC would get a major break there because they can't play themselves). In most conferences, with a non-suicidal non-conf schedule, this year's Irish would be a game or two above .500 and would have a shot a bowl. They've played about as well as any of the #25-#40 teams that end up in 2nd and 3rd tier bowls. But they're 2-6 because of their schedule.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> And because they're not in a conference, the school keeps 100% of their check from the bowl game, rather than having to split it with the other teams in the conference. That, and they make good money with their TV deals. The only downside is when they have a bad team, like now. But that never lasts long with Notre Dame.



Err... there's only been one really good Notre Dame team since I started following college football in the mid-90s. They're on their third coach. Heck, my Orange have fielded more top-15 teams in that timespan -- and they've struggled terribly since McNabb graduated.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 11, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> You guys grabbed the wrong Clarett cousin. I have to pull for his backup, though; Damien Rhodes went to my high school.




LOL...not many people know that they're related. FWIW Reyes was a Buckeye fan growing up, he just got caught up in a numbers game. While it's great having Ohio State as the only big time Football school in a talent rich state...it means that a lot of really good kids end up going elsewhere.

FWIW A big part of why ND didn't join the Big 10 this last go around is because they didn't want to pony up the money to become academically competive with the rest of the conference. While ND is a great undergrad school, their grad programs are virtually non-existent. It would have cost them quite a bit upgrade their graduate programs & research facilities to get up to par.

People tend to forget that the Big10 revolved around research, even more so than major college athletics, that's why the University of Chicago is still a nominal member.

ND isn't going to go anywhere unless they lose the NBC cash cow. If that happens they'll jump through hoops to find a conference. The Big East would certainly be a competitive offer for them. ND would find the FB fields much easier to navigate than in the Big10 & it would make their massive east coast alum base ecstatic.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 11, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> FWIW A big part of why ND didn't join the Big 10 this last go around is because they didn't want to pony up the money to become academically competive with the rest of the conference. While ND is a great undergrad school, their grad programs are virtually non-existent. It would have cost them quite a bit upgrade their graduate programs & research facilities to get up to par.
> 
> People tend to forget that the Big10 revolved around research, even more so than major college athletics, that's why the University of Chicago is still a nominal member.




The Big Ten is certainly a major research confrence, but I am confused by the University of Chicago reference. I grew up at Purdue and did my Undergrad at the U of Illinois and the University of Chicago was never so much as mentioned in the same breath as the Big Ten. This is nothing against the U of Chicago, they are a great institution with some of the best programs in the country, but they have nothing to do with the Big Ten. Are you prehaps refering to the Big Ten's only private institution which is also located in Chicago - Northwestern.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 11, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> The Big Ten is certainly a major research confrence, but I am confused by the University of Chicago reference. I grew up at Purdue and did my Undergrad at the U of Illinois and the University of Chicago was never so much as mentioned in the same breath as the Big Ten. This is nothing against the U of Chicago, they are a great institution with some of the best programs in the country, but they have nothing to do with the Big Ten. Are you prehaps refering to the Big Ten's only private institution which is also located in Chicago - Northwestern.



The U of Chicago was one of the original members of the Big 10. When major college athletics starting becoming _major_ college athletics, Chicago gave up on playing that game. But the academic affilition with the other Big 10 schools still stands.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 11, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The U of Chicago was one of the original members of the Big 10. When major college athletics starting becoming _major_ college athletics, Chicago gave up on playing that game. But the academic affilition with the other Big 10 schools still stands.




The University of Chicago withdrew from the Big Ten in 1946. They are not a Big Ten school in any way. They do have some academic cooperation with the Big Ten through the Committee on Institutional Cooperation but this is by no means any form of Big Ten membership. The CIC overlaps with the Big Ten but is not the same thing. I would not call The University of Chicago a "nominal member" of the Big Ten but a full member of the CIC. Even if the University of Chicago decided to be a Division 1A sports institution this would in no way guarantee Big Ten membership. Currently IUPUI has many fully integrated departments with its Big Ten Parent Schools (IU and Purdue) including the IU School of Medicine. Its Faculty and Students are considered full IU and Purdue members with access to most Big Ten academic membership benefits. It however has its own sports program and conference memberships. IUPUI is just as much if not more a "nominal member" of the Big Ten but it is equally Not a Member in the same way. Just because IUPUI has Academic Programs that are included as part of the CIC and/or Big Ten does not make it a Big Ten School, the same goes for the University of Chicago.


----------



## Trevalon Moonleirion (Nov 11, 2003)

Speaking of the Big Ten... boy I sure have a lot to root for down here in Chambana...   

A 1-10 season.  Absolutely horrible!  If the Illini lose again, I'm really thinking that Turner should throw himself from the top of Memorial Stadium.  Gah!


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 11, 2003)

Trevalon Moonleirion said:
			
		

> Speaking of the Big Ten... boy I sure have a lot to root for down here in Chambana...
> 
> A 1-10 season.  Absolutely horrible!  If the Illini lose again, I'm really thinking that Turner should throw himself from the top of Memorial Stadium.  Gah!




Yeah whats with that. And the win was against Illinois State too,  not a Div 1a school. I was able to see the IU game on TV here in Indy. I guess UI wanted to lose more. Maybe it is the stadium since the Bears did poorly there too. Is Illinois at least drawiing more than the 30k attendance that IU draws?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 13, 2003)

News today

http://www.msnbc.com/news/993001.asp?0cv=CB20

It seems that Notre Dame is opening talks with both the ACC and Big Ten for full conference membership. Thier BCS contract is up in 2005 and they viewing joining a conference for football as an option.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 13, 2003)

Speaking of college football.

Years ago when I was a young lad in high school back in '85-'86 there was this game with fold up football field and stat cards on every college team. You had token on the football matt that represented your team and you played by rolling dice. It was a blast but I cannot for the life of me remember the name of that game. 

Does anyone know of what game I speak?


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 17, 2003)

According to the news, it looks like OSU is going to vault Southern Cal and take over second place in the BCS rankings.  Looks like if (big IF) they take care of business at Michigan, they're likely going to play for the national championship.

Of course, it's hard to belive they'll have a chance in against Oklahoma.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 17, 2003)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> According to the news, it looks like OSU is going to vault Southern Cal and take over second place in the BCS rankings. Looks like if (big IF) they take care of business at Michigan, they're likely going to play for the national championship.
> 
> Of course, it's hard to belive they'll have a chance in against Oklahoma.



Hence a fundamental problem with the BCS. USC is the better team between the two. I'll be rooting for Michigan...


----------



## Crothian (Nov 17, 2003)

Actually, you need to route for OSU.  That way the controversy stays and perhaps with all these problems revealed we might actually get a good system.


----------



## alsih2o (Nov 17, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Hence a fundamental problem with the BCS. USC is the better team between the two.




 what makes you say this?

 definetely not strength of schedule. 

 definetely not choosing the team with the nearly unstoppable defense.

 definetely not depth, we do well with back-up players in major roles.

 definetely not special teams, we have won 3 games this year without an offensive touchdown.

 what makes you think usc is the better team?


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 17, 2003)

Argue all you want... My team is the WORST in the NCAA this year!!  

Usually Vandy gets that distinction..

Roy Horn SUCKS...

-- Suffering UK fan waiting for March


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 17, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Actually, you need to route for OSU. That way the controversy stays and perhaps with all these problems revealed we might actually get a good system.



Actually, that's a good point. Of course, an Oklahoma/OSU title game would hold no interest in me whatsoever, whereas I would enjoy seeing USC in there (or LSU for that matter).

And since my rooting for a team will most assuredly help them win, I'll have to ponder this some more...


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 17, 2003)

There is no 'good' system for college football.  There's no way to keep the bowls and go to a straightforword NFL type playoff system (not without making bowls worthless or making the whole system even more complex).  And the bowl games are simply to much of a college footaball tradition to do away with.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 17, 2003)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> what makes you say this?
> 
> definetely not strength of schedule.
> 
> ...





GO CLAY!  You tell 'em!

It feels just like last year (OK except for that pesky loss).  People always in their minds rank teams that rack up big point totals as the best teams.  People wouldn't be shouting so loud against OSU if their offense was more prolific and they were blowing teams out instead of winning by a field goal.  It's all good though, Tressel has everything right where he wants it.  GO BUCKS!!


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 17, 2003)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> There is no 'good' system for college football. There's no way to keep the bowls and go to a straightforword NFL type playoff system (not without making bowls worthless or making the whole system even more complex). And the bowl games are simply to much of a college footaball tradition to do away with.



I would argue that tradition is already on its way out in college football. The BCS system has already ruined the 4 major bowls. The Rose Bowl, for exampls, used to be the Pac10 vs Big 10 (I think that's it). Now that isn't the case. Classic bowl rivalries are starting to be a thing of the past, or will be soon, especially if the BCS system gets renewed in a couple years.



> originally posted by *alsih2o*
> what makes you say this?
> 
> definetely not strength of schedule.
> ...



Well, I don't put that much stock in strength of schedule. Besides, only two of the ranked teams OSU beat is still ranked (Iowa and Purdue). Michigan will be the third, if they win. Plus, and I realize people will disagree, I think the Pac 10 is a tougher conference this year than the Big 10. They don't have as many ranked teams, but I think overall it's a tougher league.

I also think OSU was lucky many times and barely squeaked out wins against far lesser teams (San Diego State and Penn State to name a couple).

Anyway, just my opinion, but I think USC is a stronger team that would have a much better chance against Oklahoma. OSU has a good defense, but if their offense put up more than 6 or 7 points against the Oklahoma defense, I'd be surprised.

Of course, wouldn't it be funny if Oklahoma lost to Texas Tech this weekend and USC played OSU in the title game? Might as well move the title game to the Rose Bowl in that case. It would be a perfect fit.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 17, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I also think OSU was lucky many times and barely squeaked out wins against far lesser teams (San Diego State and Penn State to name a couple).




I have to voice my frustation over the OSU win at Happy Valley.  Penn State put everything they had into that game, it's at home against the defending champs and they were trying to prevent JoPa from getting his record making 5th straight loss.  They were playing for big time pride and anyone who expected Penn State to not play a close game is not paying close enough attention.  It's obvious they put every ounce of energy into that game when they went and lost to Northwestern the next week.  OSU ought to get bonus points for surviving that one not get talked down because of it.

On that note...there is no excuse for not destroying San Diego State.


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 17, 2003)

> I would argue that tradition is already on its way out in college football. The BCS system has already ruined the 4 major bowls. The Rose Bowl, for exampls, used to be the Pac10 vs Big 10 (I think that's it). Now that isn't the case. Classic bowl rivalries are starting to be a thing of the past, or will be soon, especially if the BCS system gets renewed in a couple years.




To some extent I agree tradition is loosing out, but I wouldn't overrate the significance of ending the Big10/Pac10 matchup in the Rose Bowl.  The Rose Bowl has not always done so, if fact.  Previously it was an open invitational game (Alabama won it four times).  The previous set up was established in the forties I believe.



> Plus, and I realize people will disagree, I think the Pac 10 is a tougher conference this year than the Big 10. They don't have as many ranked teams, but I think overall it's a tougher league.




Disagree yes .  What can you base that on?  The BCS computers say OSU has a tougher strengh of schedule.  The Big 10 has more ranked teams (any way you rank 'em).  I don't know how else to compare them.  If it was still the 80's I would agree with you hands down, but times have changed and the Pac10 doesn't seem to be what it was.



> OSU has a good defense, but if their offense put up more than 6 or 7 points against the Oklahoma defense, I'd be surprised.



  I think a lot of people said the same last year when it was OSU-Miami.  Good defense can win a football game, period.  A defence that keeps the score under 10 points never gets as much credit as an offence that scores 40+, though I would argue that the former is more valuable.  I wouldn't put my money on OSU against Oklahoma, but if OSU makes the championship I'd at least say they deserve that.

All this hinges on OSU beating Michagan and preserving their position.  If they don't, Southern Cal will (if they win out) deservedly move back to second.  But if OSU wins, I think they will have gotten the same record on a much tougher schedule.  And don't underestimate the value of having to eek out close games.  Those kind of games can really mold a team.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 17, 2003)

How quickly it's forgotten that Ohio State didn't have a chance against Miami last year either. That the Fiesta bowl was going to be a 35 point blowout. 





			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Cooperation but this is by no means any form of Big Ten membership. The CIC overlaps with the Big Ten but is not the same thing. I would not call The University of Chicago a "nominal member" of the Big Ten but a full member of the CIC.




Thank you for putting succintly what I failed to convey.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> It seems that Notre Dame is opening talks with both the ACC and Big Ten for full conference membership. Thier BCS contract is up in 2005 and they viewing joining a conference for football as an option.





I just don't see the ACC possibility happening. ND would have absolutely nothing to gain from that scenario. If (and it is still a big IF at this point) ND does join a conference in all-sports I believe the only real possibilities are the Big 10 or Big East. 



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Besides, only two of the ranked teams OSU beat is still ranked (Iowa and Purdue). Michigan will be the third, if they win.




Which is two more than USC has beaten. 




> Plus, and I realize people will disagree, I think the Pac 10 is a tougher conference this year than the Big 10. They don't have as many ranked teams, but I think overall it's a tougher league.




I've watched almost as many Pac-10 as Big-10 games over the past 15-20 years. Not only do I disagree, but I find the suggestion unfathomable. Quite frankly the Pac-10 is down this year and they aren't playing very good football right now across the board.




> I also think OSU was lucky many times and barely squeaked out wins against far lesser teams (San Diego State and Penn State to name a couple).




When does it stop being luck? Tressell won 4 national titles at Youngstown State the exact same way. They're close because he wants them to be close. 



			
				fett527 said:
			
		

> I have to voice my frustation over the OSU win at Happy Valley.  Penn State put everything they had into that game, it's at home against the defending champs and they were trying to prevent JoPa from getting his record making 5th straight loss.  They were playing for big time pride and anyone who expected Penn State to not play a close game is not paying close enough attention.  It's obvious they put every ounce of energy into that game when they went and lost to Northwestern the next week.  OSU ought to get bonus points for surviving that one not get talked down because of it.




Florida State squeeks by NC State in overtime & it's a "great win". Ohio State does the same & it's "luck".

FWIW Penn State has played Ohio State tough in Happy Valley since they joined the Big 10. It's quickly turned into one of those "the record doesn't matter" rivalries. Unfortunately that point is often lost on those not close to the game.



> On that note...there is no excuse for not destroying San Diego State.




Sure there is. Keeping everything vanilla against the tomato cans means that other teams don't have much film of your offensive schemes. There's a reason that we're seeing more balls thrown to the TE & FB now, down the Big10 stretch, when it matters.


----------



## Datt (Nov 17, 2003)

Ah yes.  It is getting close to the end of November and college football is really heating up.

Oh and dimwit, no it would not be funny if OU lost.  They need to destroy Tech at home, just to makes Texas look that much more pathetic for barely beating them.  Then again a 65-13 loss already makes Texas look pathetic. 

OU will win in Lubbock and then go up to Mo and beat KSU for the Big 12 Championship.  Back to Back Big 12 Champions for the first time since Nebraska, (I think the Big 12 was around when Nebraska won back to back national titles.)

I am also interested to see if Jason White comes back for a sixth year or not.  Personally I think it is time for him to move on, but with being hurt the last 2 years I can see why he might want to stay and get a little more experience under his belt.  But if they let him wait until after the National Champship to decide I can see him leaving if they win and staying if they either lose/or don't make it.  Of course either way I think our O is going to be pretty good next year.  Paul Thompson has looked pretty good they times he has played this year.  With Jones, and Hickson coming back our running game looks good.  Hopefully Clayton will come back for his Senior year also.  So next year looks to be just as good as this year does for OU.  Can't wait.

BOOMER SOONER!!


----------



## alsih2o (Nov 17, 2003)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I think a lot of people said the same last year when it was OSU-Miami.  Good defense can win a football game, period.  A defence that keeps the score under 10 points never gets as much credit as an offence that scores 40+, though I would argue that the former is more valuable.  I wouldn't put my money on OSU against Oklahoma, but if OSU makes the championship I'd at least say they deserve that.




 totally agree.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 17, 2003)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> totally agree.




I didn't want to put anything out about the championship game last year since OSU isn't there yet and the team from the state up North is a BIG roadblock, but my favorite quote about Miami v OSU was a Miami player stated they wouldn't hesitate to run up the score.

He-he.  Run up the score.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 17, 2003)

Datt said:
			
		

> Oh and dimwit, no it would not be funny if OU lost.  They need to destroy Tech at home, just to makes Texas look that much more pathetic for barely beating them.  Then again a 65-13 loss already makes Texas look pathetic. BOOMER SOONER!!




ROFLMAO!!

Of course Texas fans will just claim another "recruiting national title" come February again!


----------



## Datt (Nov 17, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> ROFLMAO!!
> 
> Of course Texas fans will just claim another "recruiting national title" come February again!



 Right.  Like the Simms, Applewhite, Williams classes.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 18, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> -- Ohio State has only beaten two ranked teams --
> 
> Which is two more than USC has beaten.



Err... one more. And the ranked team USC beat (Washington State) is ranked higher than any team Ohio State has beaten. 



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> I've watched almost as many Pac-10 as Big-10 games over the past 15-20 years. Not only do I disagree, but I find the suggestion unfathomable. Quite frankly the Pac-10 is down this year and they aren't playing very good football right now across the board.



The top of the Pac-10 is definitely stronger than the top of the Big 10 this year. Ohio State or Michigan might have a chance against USC or WSU at a neutral site, but it wouldn't be a good one. The bottom of the Pac 10 is definitely stronger than the bottom of the Big 10; Illinois and Indiana would get soundly thrashed by Arizona or Washington. The middle of the Big 10 is definitely better than the middle of the Pac 10.



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> When does it stop being luck? Tressell won 4 national titles at Youngstown State the exact same way. They're close because he wants them to be close.



That's nonsense. They're close because he's had a great defense and a mediocre offense (and given the talent he's had at WR, RB, and along the line, the lack of offensive production should be a major concern in Columbus). No one likes close games except fans; it's too easy for the ball bouncing the wrong way to decide a close game. 



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> Florida State squeeks by NC State in overtime & it's a "great win". Ohio State does the same & it's "luck".



No, it's luck for FSU, too. The "Big East rule" in the BCS is getting very close to applying to the ACC, where the champion is going to be outside of the top 10 again, even in the unlikely event that FSU beats Florida.


----------



## ArcOfCorinth (Nov 18, 2003)

*CRIMSON TIDE* fan here. We're doing terrible this year. It's like worshipping Loviatar or something...the suffering just keeps going...


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 18, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Argue all you want... My team is the WORST in the NCAA this year!!
> 
> Usually Vandy gets that distinction..
> 
> ...




Have you seen Illinois play this year? Granted they have one win against thier 10 blowout losses, but it was against a 1AA team. Illinois got trounced by Indiana. Enough said.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Have you seen Illinois play this year? Granted they have one win against thier 10 blowout losses, but it was against a 1AA team. Illinois got trounced by Indiana. Enough said.




Least they avoided OSU this year.  Would have been nice to have them on the schedule instead if the Badgers


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 18, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> The top of the Pac-10 is definitely stronger than the top of the Big 10 this year. Ohio State or Michigan might have a chance against USC or WSU at a neutral site, but it wouldn't be a good one. The bottom of the Pac 10 is definitely stronger than the bottom of the Big 10; Illinois and Indiana would get soundly thrashed by Arizona or Washington. The middle of the Big 10 is definitely better than the middle of the Pac 10.




Agreed.

And on OSU having a tougher schedule than USC...well, OSU doesn't have any quality win deductions in the latest BCS, whereas USC does. But they do have a tougher SOS. But like I said, I don't put quite as much stock in that as most do. But, as predicted, OSU jumped to #2 in the poll.

And hey, Boise State is 23 in the BCS! Even with a SOS of 113. Go Broncos!


----------



## fett527 (Nov 18, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> And on OSU having a tougher schedule than USC...well, OSU doesn't have any quality win deductions in the latest BCS, whereas USC does. But they do have a tougher SOS. But like I said, I don't put quite as much stock in that as most do. But, as predicted, OSU jumped to #2 in the poll.
> 
> And hey, Boise State is 23 in the BCS! Even with a SOS of 113. Go Broncos!





Yep, OSU #2 in the BCS.

I just want to see OSU beat Michigan for the third year in a row, take the Big Ten title outright and let everything else shake itself out.

GO BUCKS!!!


----------



## Mimdalf (Nov 18, 2003)

*test*

test


----------



## Datt (Nov 18, 2003)

Welcome to the boards Mimdalf.

I wouldn't mind an OSU-OU National Championship.  Give the defending National Champions a chance to defend thier title.  Of course only time will tell who all ends up in the mix.

I also think that if the Horned Frogs can go undeated that they deserve a place in the top 6 and a berth in the bowl.  If they can beat Ole Miss on Thursday I think that will be thier best chance to climb back up.  Of course with either Michigan or Ohio State losing this weekend that will give them some help.

But whoever we play, I know we will win!

BOOMER SOONER!


----------



## francisca (Nov 18, 2003)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Yep, OSU #2 in the BCS.
> 
> I just want to see OSU beat Michigan for the third year in a row, take the Big Ten title outright and let everything else shake itself out.
> 
> GO BUCKS!!!




Well, being a Purdue alumn and working there (here, I guess), saturday was tough on me.  But since my wife is an OSU alumn (she played basketball for them), I concur:


GO BUCKS!!!

I'm not going to get into the Pac-10 vs Big-10 debate.  USC is a fine team, as are many other PAC-10 members.  I wish them the best.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2003)

Purdue has had a great season.  They just can't ever seem to get by the big two of the big ten.  But I feel sorry for who ever ends up playing them in the Outback bowl (probably Tenn or Georgia).


----------



## francisca (Nov 18, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Purdue has had a great season.  They just can't ever seem to get by the big two of the big ten.  But I feel sorry for who ever ends up playing them in the Outback bowl (probably Tenn or Georgia).



Well, they have not quite developed the killer instinct, post-Brees.    They've got the physical talent, and a pretty good system, but they haven't been able to "coup de grace" their opponents in the 4th quarter since the Rose Bowl season.

About the only place they are lacking is at the corner.  Tall, fast wide-outs are a big problem for Purdue. Well, OK, they are for everyone, but thats the chink in Purdue's defensive armor.  I'm really surprised Jenkins didn't light us up for about 250 yards.

We'll see about bowl season.  One thing I know for sure:  the IU game will be tough.  It's IU's chance to make their season, you always toss out the records in that game, Purdue is down emotionally, and the game is in Bloomington.


----------



## alsih2o (Nov 18, 2003)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Yep, OSU #2 in the BCS.
> 
> I just want to see OSU beat Michigan for the third year in a row, take the Big Ten title outright and let everything else shake itself out.
> 
> GO BUCKS!!!




 this matters so much more than any silly national title.

 haaaaaang on sloopy, sloopy hang on!


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2003)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> this matters so much more than any silly national title.
> 
> haaaaaang on sloopy, sloopy hang on!




Ya, but it is so sweet when we get both in the same year!!


----------



## thud13x (Nov 18, 2003)

*Go Hawks!!!*

So... how 'bout them Hawkeyes?

I do believe they have a strong chance versus Wisconsin at Camp Randall.  If they can play as inspired as they did last Sat. vs. the Golden Rodents... anything can happen.

I am not sure how I'd like to win the Michigan-Ohio State matchup.  Always an entertaining game for sure.  Am still mad at Michigan for ruining Iowa's chance for the Big Ten Title outright.  

And, no, I am not very upset over the fact that no one in sports media outside of Iowa remembers that they were Big Ten Co-champs last year (No disrespect to the Buckeyes, the other Big Ten Co-Champ   ).  So, I am very happy they have again silenced their critics.  'Tis a shame that I am so far away from Home.  

nk


----------



## francisca (Nov 18, 2003)

thud13x said:
			
		

> So... how 'bout them Hawkeyes?
> 
> I do believe they have a strong chance versus Wisconsin at Camp Randall.  If they can play as inspired as they did last Sat. vs. the Golden Rodents... anything can happen.
> 
> ...




I'll give a "Hell Yeah" for the hawkeyes.  Glad to see them beat Minnesota last week.  Camp Randall is a tough place.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2003)

I haven't forgot about the Hawkeyes.  They've had another good season.  Not as great as last year, but few people had any faith in them this year.  It looks like they'll end up in the Alamo bowl against a Big 12 school.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 18, 2003)

Velenne said:
			
		

> TCU!!!  CRASHIN' THE BCS PARTY BABY!!





you don't want to play OU. no sane team does.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> you don't want to play OU. no sane team does.




They won't get in the national title game, but they could get in one of the other three.  So, that could be USC, OSU/Michigan, FSU, Miami/West Virgina, or any of like 5 SEC teams depending on how that unfolds.  I'm not too sure they can match up close to any of them.  Best beat would be WEst Virginai if they can win Big East or if Old Miss somehow wins the SEC.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 18, 2003)

thud13x said:
			
		

> So... how 'bout them Hawkeyes?
> 
> And, no, I am not very upset over the fact that no one in sports media outside of Iowa remembers that they were Big Ten Co-champs last year (No disrespect to the Buckeyes, the other Big Ten Co-Champ  ). So, I am very happy they have again silenced their critics. 'Tis a shame that I am so far away from Home.



I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that after last year's bowl game, Hawkeyes fans probably reluctantly agree with everyone on the west coast about the Trojans. Ohio State and Miami were lucky there's not a playoff in I-A football.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 19, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that after last year's bowl game, Hawkeyes fans probably reluctantly agree with everyone on the west coast about the Trojans. Ohio State and Miami were lucky there's not a playoff in I-A football.




If the Trojans wanted to play for it all they should have won the games they played. Teams with two losses have no business complaining.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 19, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> If the Trojans wanted to play for it all they should have won the games they played. Teams with two losses have no business complaining.



Under the current system, teams with two losses have no business complaining (at least, not if two major-conference undefeateds are playing for the whole thing, which they were last year). But any rational playoff would've involved at least 8 teams, which means that USC would've been in it. I have to think that USC would've been the favorite in an 8 team or 16-team playoff last year. There isn't a I-A playoff, and probably won't ever be, but if there were, teams that were hot late in the season would be dangerous.

Certainly Ohio State and Miami played better over the course of the entire season than USC. And it's possible that looks were decieving and that Miami or Ohio State would've beaten USC if they'd played. Two years ago, a one-loss Oregon team embarassed a two-loss Colorado team that was just as hot at the end of the year as last year's USC team. But USC didn't lose their bowl game; they blew out a one-loss co-champion of the Big 10 (with the Heisman runner-up at quarterback). So I don't think USC's late-season success last year was smoke and mirrors.

And I really don't like the polls & bowls method of determining a national champion. It doesn't give a team any chance to recover from a bad loss, injuries, or for young players to mature over the course of a season. This year's dangerous team with too many losses is probably Florida. I'd hate to run into them in a playoff, though they'd probably only get an invite in a 16-team affair.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 19, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> you don't want to play OU. no sane team does.




Sounds a lot like Miami last year.  They were invincible...


----------



## Datt (Nov 19, 2003)

The best bet for a playoff system is if somehow they incorporate the current bowls into that playoff system. If you add three bowls to the major bowls so you have 7 major bowls, say the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Gator, Cotton, and Peach.  Those 7 would rotate which one would hold the national championship, much like they do now.  So you can start with either 8 or 16 teams.  If you start with 16 you have 8 games played one weekend in other bowls, when they get down to 8 they would stat into the 7 bowls.  That way we still have the bowls and we have a playoff system.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 19, 2003)

Datt said:
			
		

> The best bet for a playoff system is if somehow they incorporate the current bowls into that playoff system. If you add three bowls to the major bowls so you have 7 major bowls, say the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Gator, Cotton, and Peach. Those 7 would rotate which one would hold the national championship, much like they do now. So you can start with either 8 or 16 teams. If you start with 16 you have 8 games played one weekend in other bowls, when they get down to 8 they would stat into the 7 bowls. That way we still have the bowls and we have a playoff system.



I think the playoffs should be before the games, like the league champ games. Start the season a week earlier and don't have all the bye weeks. Most teams will end their seasons by the end of November. Heck, some already end by then anyway, like OSU, which ends this weekend. Then you have 3 to 4 weeks with no games before the bowls. Use those weeks to do a few playoff games among the top 16 or so. Then based on results of those games, shuffle teams to the major bowls and the championship bowl game.

Just a not-very-well-thought-out thought.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 20, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Err... one more. And the ranked team USC beat (Washington State) is ranked higher than any team Ohio State has beaten.




Re-read the original post. He included a hypothetical win over Michigan. 3-1=2



> The top of the Pac-10 is definitely stronger than the top of the Big 10 this year. Ohio State or Michigan might have a chance against USC or WSU at a neutral site, but it wouldn't be a good one. The bottom of the Pac 10 is definitely stronger than the bottom of the Big 10; Illinois and Indiana would get soundly thrashed by Arizona or Washington. The middle of the Big 10 is definitely better than the middle of the Pac 10.




"Definitely"?! lol sorry no dice. I've watched USC & Washington State a good bit over the past two years (including when Ohio State smoked a Washington State team that wasn't any worse than this years). While I don't doubt that USC & Washington State _could_ beat the top two in the Big-10, I'd put my money on the Bucks & Wolverinees. USC & WSU just aren't physical enough at the point of attack right now to consistently hang with the Big Boys (and USC's D is VASTLY overrated).




> That's nonsense. They're close because he's had a great defense and a mediocre offense (and given the talent he's had at WR, RB, and along the line, the lack of offensive production should be a major concern in Columbus). No one likes close games except fans; it's too easy for the ball bouncing the wrong way to decide a close game.




No, it isn't nonsense. It's been Tressell's modus operandi since he was at YSU. Many times he's called off the dogs when up by 10-14 pts. Does he want the game to come down to missed FGs by opponent's at the end of the game to win (PSU, PU)? No of course not. However he is VERY happy to get a 2 TD lead & sit on it while relying on ball control, field position & special teams to carry the day.

Take the time to look up Coach Ts stats in close games over his career, the numbers are mind boggling.

FYI Fans hate close games more than anyone (at least the fans of big time programs that expect to beat everyone by 50).



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> Under the current system, teams with two losses have no business complaining (at least, not if two major-conference undefeateds are playing for the whole thing, which they were last year). But any rational playoff would've involved at least 8 teams, which means that USC would've been in it. I have to think that USC would've been the favorite in an 8 team or 16-team playoff last year. There isn't a I-A playoff, and probably won't ever be, but if there were, teams that were hot late in the season would be dangerous.




"Rational" is certainly a matter of opinion here. A 4 team playoff would eliminate 90% of the criticism of the current system. 

In 2002 that would have thrown USC & Georgia into the mix.

2001 - Oregon & either Colorado or FL would have been added (although it probably would have been better to add both & ditch the Nebraska debacle).
2000 - Washington & Miami
1999 - Nebraska & Alabama

Personally I'd rather just go back to the old bowl system & let the top two teams after the bowls play for it all. *shrug*


----------



## drothgery (Nov 20, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> No, it isn't nonsense. It's been Tressell's modus operandi since he was at YSU. Many times he's called off the dogs when up by 10-14 pts. Does he want the game to come down to missed FGs by opponent's at the end of the game to win (PSU, PU)? No of course not. However he is VERY happy to get a 2 TD lead & sit on it while relying on ball control, field position & special teams to carry the day.



He's also played in 13 games in _two seasons_ that were decided by a touchdown or less. He's managed to win 12 of them, but counting on winning games by less than a touchdown is stupid, and if you're doing that consistently, it's a sign of a great defense and a bad offense, not coaching philosophy. One blown play and you've got a tie game.



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> FYI Fans hate close games more than anyone (at least the fans of big time programs that expect to beat everyone by 50).



If you're not a devoted fan of one of the teams involved, a close game is a lot more fun to watch. YMMV. 



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> "Rational" is certainly a matter of opinion here. A 4 team playoff would eliminate 90% of the criticism of the current system.
> 
> In 2002 that would have thrown USC & Georgia into the mix.
> 
> ...



A 4-team playoff would rarely catch all one-loss major conference teams and would never include a minor-confrence undefeated team. I don't think that solves any problems.

Incidentally, a post-bowls #1 v #2 game doesn't solve any problems either; it produces exactly the same problems as the current BCS. All it does is add one more tough non-conference game to teams' schedules. Hypothetical - last year Iowa beats WSU in the Rose (WSU wins the Pac-10 tiebreaker on head-to-head, and I think Iowa wins the Big 10 tiebreaker of time since last Rose Bowl trip), Georgia knocks off Miami in the Orange, Oklahoma beats Florida State in the Fiesta. USC wins a second-teir bowl games convincingly. Ohio State beats a good team by a field goal. Who plays in the #1 vs. #2 game?


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 20, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> A 4-team playoff would rarely catch all one-loss major conference teams and would never include a minor-confrence undefeated team. I don't think that solves any problems.



I completely agree with you on this point. For a postseason to be fair, the non-BCS teams need a shot. Not all of them, but they need a chance to make that playoff. Personally, I like a top 16 tournament. Or take all the league champions and have wild-cards or something. This year, for example, TCU would need the opportunity to play in a playoff and (not to be biased) I think Boise State should also get a shot. Other than TCU, Boise is probably the best non-BCS team out there. At least give them a chance, even if they get blown out in the first round. Under the current system, they will never get that opportunity.

But the argument is probably moot. I doubt much will change. It will be interesting, however, to see what, if any, changes are made when the BCS contract runs out in '05.


----------



## Datt (Nov 20, 2003)

I personally feel a 16 team playoff would be best.  As how to include the non-BCS I don't know.  I would say to maybe have the 11 Conference champs and then 5 wild card spots.  But how to decide who gets those 5 I don't know.  Of course I would have to say the first thing would be overall record.

Of course since there are more than 15 bowls and everyone wants to get some piece of pie, then you could also have another playoff that doesn't mean anything.  Sort of like the post season NIT tourney in basketball.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 20, 2003)

Datt said:
			
		

> I personally feel a 16 team playoff would be best. As how to include the non-BCS I don't know. I would say to maybe have the 11 Conference champs and then 5 wild card spots. But how to decide who gets those 5 I don't know. Of course I would have to say the first thing would be overall record.



Well, do away with the BCS and take the top 16 teams based on their average ranking between the two major polls. Exception: all 1-loss or undefeated teams are automatically in, bumping off the lowest ranked of the 16 teams. Most seasons, there are only a handful of teams with 1 or no losses, and they're usually in the top 16. I think that was the case last year. Probably will be this year. All current 1-loss or undefeated teams are ranked in the top 16 except for Boise (20th) and Miami Ohio (18th). If they both win out, they will likely jump into the top 16. If they didn't, then in my scenario, they would trump the current 15th and 16th spots and go in. That would give schools from the lesser conferences a darkhorse chance at a miracle, but it wouldn't favor them too much, either.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 20, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> He's also played in 13 games in _two seasons_ that were decided by a touchdown or less. He's managed to win 12 of them, but counting on winning games by less than a touchdown is stupid, and if you're doing that consistently, it's a sign of a great defense and a bad offense, not coaching philosophy. One blown play and you've got a tie game.




He may be stupid, but he's an idiot with 5 national championship rings. He must be doing something right.

The fact that Coach T had dominant O's at YSU & called the dogs off early to coast to a smaller than possible margin of victory on a regular basis. Yes it is his philosophy, and has been the same one used by many HOF coaches.  

Check out the national (and super bowl) champions over the past 20 years. Look at where the defenses & offenses of those teams rank nationally. 

People may hate it, but more often than not it's the suffocating D with the average O that wins the big ones. Putting up big offensive numbers during the regular season makes the fans all warm & fuzzy, but more often than not it means getting your tail handed to you by the boring O & solid defensive.  




> A 4-team playoff would rarely catch all one-loss major conference teams and would never include a minor-confrence undefeated team. I don't think that solves any problems.




Almost all of those one-loss major conference teams either... 
1. Lost to one of the top 4 teams 
2. Didn't win their conference.

Ergo they don't matter.

The mid-major problem is easy enough to fix by letting them in if they meet certain criteria.

A 16 team tournament would ruin Div1A Football. Folks only watch college basketball during March for a reason, because the rest of the season is virtually meaningless.

A 4-6 team tournmanet is the only one that even has an outside shot of ever being approved. Anything bigger would be too unwieldy & too costly.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 20, 2003)

Argh.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 20, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Almost all of those one-loss major conference teams either...
> 1. Lost to one of the top 4 teams
> 2. Didn't win their conference.
> 
> Ergo they don't matter.



And that's the elitist attitude many people are getting sick of with the BCS.

And so you know, there are currently 7 teams with one or no loses.

Oklahoma (11-0): winning their conference
Ohio State (10-1): currently tied for lead, lost to a team well outside of the top 4 (Wisconsin)
TCU (10-0): currently tied for lead in conference
Miami Ohio (9-1): winning their conference, lost to a team outside of the top 4 (Iowa)
USC (9-1): tied for lead in conference, lost to a team not even ranked (Cal Bears)
LSU (9-1): second place, lost to team ranked outside of top 4 (Florida)
Boise State (9-1): winning conference, lost to unranked team (Oregon State)

So none of the 1-loss teams lost to a team ranked in the top 4, and all but one of them can win their conference.

Ergo they do matter.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2003)

A 16 Game tourney wouldn't ruin College Football.  There are so many less games in football that a few looses really matter.  Plus, there would be so many fewer school.  The 65 schools that get in in Basketball makes the reguliar season stink fot BBall.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2003)

And it looks like we don't have to worry about TCU crashing the big boys party.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 21, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> And that's the elitist attitude many people are getting sick of with the BCS.
> 
> And so you know, there are currently 7 teams with one or no loses.
> 
> ...




Miami & Boise St are non-factors. A mid-major team with one loss isn't going to make it into the picture under any reasonable scenario.

If TCU wins out (I have money saying that they won't), they DO have a beef (although playing the 90th ranked schedule takes away a lot of their ammo). 

Essentially that leaves you 4 "major" contendors plus one wild-card (TCU).

In that scenario TCU shouldn't go over a 1 loss LSU team UNLESS the Tigers lose in the SEC championship game.

This year is like every other, when it's all said and done there will not be more than 4-6 teams that should get a legitimate shot at the NC.




			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> A 16 Game tourney wouldn't ruin College Football.  There are so many less games in football that a few looses really matter.  Plus, there would be so many fewer school.  The 65 schools that get in in Basketball makes the reguliar season stink fot BBall.




You have to keep in mind that there are 300+ schools that have Div1A basketball teams, compared to just over 100 in FB. Couple that with the HUGE difference in scholarship players between FB and BB & you have two very different playing fields. While they talk about parity in college football, it's nothing compared to what you find in basketball, especially now that so many players are jumping straight from HS to the NBA.

Even with a 16 team FB tournament you aren't going to see the MAC, Conference USA, WAC, Sunbelt or even the Mountain West get automatic bids. A 3-4 loss WAC champ just isn't going to cut it. The major conferences (Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Pac 10 & ACC) are still going to rule the roost, which means that 3rd and possibly 4th place teams from those conferences are going to be playing for it all year in and year out. That isn't going to satisfy anyone.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Even with a 16 team FB tournament you aren't going to see the MAC, Conference USA, WAC, Sunbelt or even the Mountain West get automatic bids. A 3-4 loss WAC champ just isn't going to cut it. The major conferences (Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Pac 10 & ACC) are still going to rule the roost, which means that 3rd and possibly 4th place teams from those conferences are going to be playing for it all year in and year out. That isn't going to satisfy anyone.




A three or four lose champion might not cut it, but a one loss champion or runner up would.  This year TCU has one lose, Miami of Ohio has one lose, Bowling green has 2 looses, Utah has two looses, And Boise only has one loose.  I think if we ever see a 16 team tourney, we will see more then a few of these smaller conference schools in it.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 21, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> A three or four lose champion might not cut it, but a one loss champion or runner up would.  This year TCU has one lose, Miami of Ohio has one lose, Bowling green has 2 looses, Utah has two looses, And Boise only has one loose.  I think if we ever see a 16 team tourney, we will see more then a few of these smaller conference schools in it.




I just don't see the runner-up from a mid major making it regardless of the situation. As much as I love the MAC, Bowling Green, NIU, Miami & Toledo (or any combination of two) aren't going to be invited.

Personally I don't feel that we are at a point where the mid-majors are competitive enough that they should receive _automatic_ bids. Notice the emphasis. I do believe that the mid-majors can compete with the big boys, they're just not yet doing so year in and year out.

Should the mid-majors deserve a shot at the brass ring? Absolutely! But it should be on a case by case basis.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2003)

Well, if OSU can't remember how to get off blocks and tackle, this is going to be a very long game....


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 22, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, if OSU can't remember how to get off blocks and tackle, this is going to be a very long game....




Yes it will. And this is OSU's biggest problem. If they fall behind early, it's very tough for them, since their offense isn't that great. It just hasn't happened much in the last couple years. But if they can come back from 21 down and beat Michigan, I'll jump on their bandwagon to be in the championship game.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2003)

Well, they had a good drive for the TD near the end of the half.  But the defense really has to step up and actually stop the Wolverines.


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 22, 2003)

Whoa!!!

OSU comeback in the making--two unanswered TDs?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2003)

Ya, but we couldn't do crap after that turnover.  Anmd the defense has gone back to allowing Perry to runb all over it.


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 22, 2003)

Yup, I'm not actually wathcing the game, but from the looks of things that fifth Michigan TD pretty much seals it.  Not over yet though...


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 22, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, but we couldn't do crap after that turnover.  Anmd the defense has gone back to allowing Perry to runb all over it.



 What turnover?  Did OSU get it in Michigan territory?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2003)

OSU intercepted Michigian but went 3 and out.  WEll, the game was a good one, but too bad we had so little defense.  Whoever faces Michigian in the Rose Bowl is going to be in trouble.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2003)

Well, this little Miss team is just taking the best LSU has to offer.  I'm not sure they can hold with them, but it would be really cool to see Manning pull through here.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 22, 2003)

Number one,

I hate Michigan.

Number two,

I hate Michigan

Number three,

I give Chris Perry all the props he deserves.  He is a monster to run all over OSU's defense.  Chris Perry won this game even though Navarre tried to throw it away.

Watch out next year for the Zwick to Holmes connection thought, they will be awesome.


----------



## alsih2o (Nov 22, 2003)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Number one,
> 
> I hate Michigan.
> 
> ...




 hu-ah. that was gutsy performance playing through a lot of pain. he took some serious licks and kept on pumping out quality football.

 i look forward to seing him play again.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 22, 2003)

I like the fact WVU has gone 6 straight without a loss. Now if Pittsburgh wins against Miama, it's all good.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2003)

Ya, here's hoping Pitt can pull it off.  Old Miss almost beat LSU, that was a great game.


----------



## bolen (Nov 23, 2003)

well Ole Miss shocked me.  I thought it would be a game of who could run up the score higher. 

I did not think LSU could shut us down like that.  

What was even more surprising was how the UM D' held them to 17. 

A real heartbreak for Ole Miss.  and now I have to rout for Arkansas.


----------



## Datt (Nov 23, 2003)

Well OU made short work of TT.  Now we have a two week layoff until the Big 12 title game.  It's going to be either KSU or Missouri, if Missouri wins out.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Nov 23, 2003)

Congrats to the Wolverines. We had a gameday today, but I taped the game, so now I'm going to sit and savor the victory. Congrats to the Buckeyes too; well played and I will be rooting for them in their bowl game. I truly feel that the Big Ten is the toughest conference top-to-bottom out there. And the OSU-UM rivalry is hands down the best around.

I really do wish there were a playoff in college football. Top 4, 8, 16 - whatever. There is a lot to like about the Bowl system, but somehow I still want a playoff.


----------



## Krug (Nov 23, 2003)

Well Cal beat Stanford 28-16 after being down 10 in the 1Q. Nice come back by the Golden Bears. 

So i'm in a good mood!
GO BEARS!


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 23, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Well Cal beat Stanford 28-16 after being down 10 in the 1Q. Nice come back by the Golden Bears.
> 
> So i'm in a good mood!
> GO BEARS!



 Did the band come on the field? 

I see Illinois lost to Northwestern and completed a 0 - xx season against 1-A teams.  Their lone victory was agianst I-AA Illinois State, my Alma Mater.


----------



## takyris (Nov 23, 2003)

Bah.

Cal succeeded in sucking less this year.  Let's see how long the sucking-less can continue.  The fact that you have a decent coach, while our coach got stolen by Notre Dame (and then punished by God with the mother of all bad seasons), is also a minor consideration.

A friend from a small private school across the bay,


----------



## Datt (Nov 24, 2003)

Well sorry Buckeye fans.  Unless some really strange things happens it doesn't look like OSU will be defending it's national title.  But I am not going to rule anything out yet.  I mean if Nebraska can get routed by Colorado on it's final game of the season and still end up playing for the National Title, anything can happen.  But barring that, it looks like it will be either LSU or USC against OU for the national title. I am not sure who I would like to see better.  I wouldn't mind either one.  Although if the media is right, LOL, then USC would hold up the best against OU.  But who knows, only time will tell.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 5, 2003)

Time to resurrect this thread, what with bowl season coming and all. (Mods, you can move this to Off-topic.)

So Boise State got the Forth Worth bowl against TCU. Assuming they beat Hawaii this weekend, it should be a great game. I can't wait. But poor Georgia Tech. They were already not wanting to come to Boise to play the WAC champs (Boise State). Now they have to play the No. 3 WAC team. I hope Tulsa beats the crap out of them.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 5, 2003)

Watched the MAC championship game last night, at least until the fourth quarter.  Miami picked Bowling Green apart again.  It's been a pretty good year for Ohio football, I'll be happier once OSU is in a BCS bowl though.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 5, 2003)

I'm just hoping Georgia beats LSU this weekend, so that my Orange can beat Notre Dame (not that I think they will) without screwing up the national championship game that everyone outside of Louisiana knows is correct (Oklahoma v. USC). It's bad enough that there will be one good side effect from my team losing (Coach P, who still hasn't found a successor to Donovan McNabb, likely gets fired). Two good side effects would be really annoying.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 6, 2003)

The MAC needs better bowls.  Miami of Ohio is easily one of the 15 best teams in the country.  Heck they should be chosen by a BCS bowl  

Okay, maybe not but they deserve better then they get.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 6, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The MAC needs better bowls.  Miami of Ohio is easily one of the 15 best teams in the country.  Heck they should be chosen by a BCS bowl
> 
> Okay, maybe not but they deserve better then they get.




People are saying the same about the WAC. The WAC champ gets the Humanitarial Bowl. Not a great bowl. Of course, Boise did get Forth Worth this year, so it's a step in the right direction.

Personally, I think all conference champs should get a quality bowl. I was looking forward to Boise possibily playing Miami OH at the GMAC (I think that's the one), but TCU is the next best thing.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 7, 2003)

K state took the lead?  LSU blowing out Georgia?  The games are reversed


----------



## Krug (Dec 7, 2003)

Well since Cal were the ones to beat USC, I'll be glad if USC doesn't make it to the championship game.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 7, 2003)

USC had a big win so I imagine they will be make it.  But if not it'll be great to have Pac 10/Big Ten Rose Bowl finally


----------



## Krug (Dec 7, 2003)

Wll what do you know. Kansas State routing Oklaholma 35-7 with 7:44 to go in the fourth..


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 7, 2003)

This is going to be very interesting. Mosts experts thought that Oklahoma would go to the title game even if they lost tonight. But I don't think they thought Oklahoma would get blown out like this.

If USC doesn't go to the championship, that will be another nail in the BCS coffin. It's bad enough, but USC should be there. Who knows, maybe it will be USC/LSU. The way OK is losing, I'm not sure they should still be in, though they probably will be. Which brings up another beef. How can a team lose a Conference Title game, only to turn around and go to a  National Title game? Just silly.

So if 1-AA/2A, etc. can have a football playoff, why can't the big boys?


----------



## Crothian (Dec 7, 2003)

Wow, finally a year with no undefeated team.  It's this type of situation the BCS was set up for, it's to judge teams with the exact same record and dtermine which is best.  

I'm hoping for USC/LSU title game.


----------



## Dungannon (Dec 7, 2003)

Crothian, who do you think the Rose will select to oppose Michigan?  My money's on Florida St. or Miami.


----------



## Krug (Dec 7, 2003)

Game over 35-7 KS wins. I think KS could have done even more damage, but they let it slide. 
Going to be interesting..

Cal playing the Insight Bowl Dec 26 against Va Tech. Good enough for me.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 7, 2003)

Dungannon said:
			
		

> Crothian, who do you think the Rose will select to oppose Michigan?  My money's on Florida St. or Miami.




Well, there still is a chance that USC does not make it into the National Championship game.  So, it could be them.  Otherwise I'd imagine it being FSU.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 7, 2003)

Predictions are in that USC could be No.1 in both polls but LSU vs. OU for the title. 

This just proves the BCS is broken and that we need a playoff.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 7, 2003)

Dungannon said:
			
		

> Crothian, who do you think the Rose will select to oppose Michigan?  My money's on Florida St. or Miami.




I'm for a Miami vs. Ohio State Rematch in the Orange Bowl.


----------



## hunter1828 (Dec 7, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Predictions are in that USC could be No.1 in both polls but LSU vs. OU for the title.
> 
> This just proves the BCS is broken and that we need a playoff.




You are so right that it isn't funny.

hunter1828


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 7, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Predictions are in that USC could be No.1 in both polls but LSU vs. OU for the title.
> 
> This just proves the BCS is broken and that we need a playoff.




Exactly. With a slew of 1-loss teams, the ONLY way to determine which ones should play for the title is to have a playoff. Computer rankings, strength of scheduless...it's idiotic. Those say nothing about who is the better team, just which team's opponents screwed up or not. I mean, come on, if the Boise State/Hawaii came can determine whether or not USC or LSU goes to the big game, something is seriously wrong.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 7, 2003)

As a BCS hater, it warms my heart to see OU lose.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> So if 1-AA/2A, etc. can have a football playoff, why can't the big boys?




They can, it's just that the people in charge don't want one.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Exactly. With a slew of 1-loss teams, the ONLY way to determine which ones should play for the title is to have a playoff. Computer rankings, strength of scheduless...it's idiotic.




No worse than some idiot voters who put no thought into there votes and will drop a team for not winning impressively enough.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Dec 7, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Predictions are in that USC could be No.1 in both polls but LSU vs. OU for the title.
> 
> This just proves the BCS is broken and that we need a playoff.




Yes it will be messed up if that happens.  Moreover, all the critics of the BCS will love this and go wild on the talk radio shows and sports commentary shows about the situation.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 7, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> Yes it will be messed up if that happens. Moreover, all the critics of the BCS will love this and go wild on the talk radio shows and sports commentary shows about the situation.



It seems likely that the Sugar will be LSU v. Oklahoma. So what happens after #2 in both polls LSU beats #3 in both polls Oklahoma in a virtual home game (the Sugar/BCS Championship) while #1 in both polls USC beats #4 in both polls Michigan in a virtual home game (the Rose Bowl)? 

Probably a split title (USC ends up AP #1; the coach's poll is required to give their title to the BCS title game winner) -- and the anti-BCS sentiment in the Big 10, Pac 10, and Rose Bowl gets a lot stronger. Will it be enough to kill the BCS and get a playoff? Probably not.

History suggests, though, that the humans are a lot better than the BCS at identifying the top 2 teams when there's a difference of opinion; Oregon was clearly a lot better than Nebraska in 2001.

[edit: removed note that I'm guessing as to poll standings, as my guesses were correct]


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 7, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> Yes it will be messed up if that happens.  Moreover, all the critics of the BCS will love this and go wild on the talk radio shows and sports commentary shows about the situation.




And rightly so.

As far as I'm concerned, the Championship game this year is the Rose Bowl. That is where the two best teams are playing, and that's the one I'm watching. Nothing sounds less interesting to me than an Oklahoma/LSU title game.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 7, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> And rightly so.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, the Championship game this year is the Rose Bowl. That is where the two best teams are playing, and that's the one I'm watching. Nothing sounds less interesting to me than an Oklahoma/LSU title game.




The only way to break the BCS is to hit them where it matters, thier wallet. So if you want a playoff watch the Rose Bowl but tune out the Sugar.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 8, 2003)

Okay, we know USC got the shaft, but here's Dave's completely inaccurate bowl projections...

*New Orleans *Memphis vs. North Texas _Who cares?_
*GMAC *Miami (Ohio) vs. Louisville _Miami (Ohio)_ 
*Mazda Tangerine* NC State vs. Kansas _NC State_
*PlainsCapital Fort Worth *TCU vs. Boise State _Boise State_
*Las Vegas *Oregon State vs. New Mexico _Oregon State_

*Sheraton Hawaii* Houston vs. Hawaii _Hawaii_
*Motor City *Northwestern vs. Bowling Green _Bowling Green_
*Insight *California vs. Virginia Tech _Cal (upset special)_
*Continental Tire *Pittsburgh vs. Virginia _Pitt_
*MasterCard Alamo *Michigan State vs. Nebraska _Michigan State_

*EV1.net Houston *Navy vs. Texas Tech _Texas Tech_
*Pacific Life Holiday *Washington State vs. Texas _Washington State_ 
*Silicon Valley Football Classic *UCLA vs. Fresno State _Fresno State_
*Gaylord Hotels Music City *Wisconsin vs. Auburn _Wisconsin_
*Wells Fargo Sun *Minnesota vs. Oregon _Oregon_

*AXA Liberty *Southern Miss vs. Utah _Utah_
*MainStay Independence *Arkansas vs. Missouri _Arkansas_ 
*Diamond Walnut San Francisco *Colorado State vs. Boston College _Colorado State_
*Outback *Iowa vs. Florida _Florida_
*Toyota Gator *West Virginia vs. Maryland _West Virginia_

*Capital One *Purdue vs. Georgia _Purdue_
*Rose *USC vs. Michigan _USC (real national championship game)_
*FedEx Orange *Miami vs. Florida State _FSU (assuming no rain)_
*SBC Cotton *Oklahoma State vs. Mississippi _Mississippi_
*Chick-fil-A Peach *Clemson vs. Tennessee _Tennessee_

*Tostitos Fiesta *Kansas State vs. Ohio State _Ohio State_
*Humanitarian* Georgia Tech vs. Tulsa _Georgia Tech_
*Nokia Sugar* Oklahoma vs. LSU _LSU (fake national championship game)_

_*Fake National Champions: LSU*_
*Real National Champions: USC*


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 8, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> The only way to break the BCS is to hit them where it matters, thier wallet. So if you want a playoff watch the Rose Bowl but tune out the Sugar.




Well, I'll do my part. I'm watching the whole Rose Bowl, and the Sugar isn't getting turned on. Not just to boycott it (though that's a great idea), but because Oklahom/LSU is justs a boring match up to me. Two schools I couldn't possible care any less for.

So let's get a nationwide boycott on the Sugar bowl!! (stupid BCS...)


----------



## Crothian (Dec 8, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> The only way to break the BCS is to hit them where it matters, thier wallet. So if you want a playoff watch the Rose Bowl but tune out the Sugar.




Watching the games doesn't give them any money.  The ratings matter but unless your a nelson family, that won't be effected.  I'll watch all the BCS games and not a dime of mine will go into the BCS pocket.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 8, 2003)

Let's talk about the important game:  The Ohio State University vs. Kansas State in the Fiesta Bowl.  I can't wait as I think this will be a great game.  OSU will be ready after watching what K State did against OU.  

*GO BUCKS!!*


----------



## Krug (Dec 8, 2003)

Cal beating VA Tech is an upset special?  

Well we're just lucky to be playing in the postseason.

Did I already mention we're the reason for U$C's one loss? heh. Still I wish they did have a chance to play in the Sugar Bowl.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 10, 2003)

OK, I know I'm biased, but I need to rant here a minute.  This has been stewing in my a couple of days.  How in the world does the BCS bowl game between last years national champion and the team that just put a beat down on this year's favored team to win the national championship get a 20 second commment on the BCS Bowl announcement show?  It was like "Oh yeah we got OSU v. KS.  OSU is trying to prove once again they aren't a fluke."
  Correct me if I am wrong, but this is almost the exact phrasing used and the the eaxct amount of time given to this game.  Does anyone else think this was unfair or am I worked up just because I am a Buckeye?  If I was a K State fan I'd be upset too.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 10, 2003)

How much time did Miami and FSU get?  Of the four big bowls the Suiger and Rose are huge this year because of the BCS circumstances, so the other two are getting less coverage.


----------



## Dungannon (Dec 11, 2003)

Besides, who outside of Florida cares about Miami-FSU?


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 11, 2003)

Dungannon said:
			
		

> Besides, who outside of Florida cares about Miami-FSU?




That's why they're a perfect matchup. The state of Florida can go crazy over the game, and the rest of the country doesn't have to watch either team! Win-win.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 11, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> That's why they're a perfect matchup. The state of Florida can go crazy over the game, and the rest of the country doesn't have to watch either team! Win-win.




I know Bowden and Zook don't share that feeling.  They have have to open next season playing each other.  Oh well, they'll just have to suck it up.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 11, 2003)

fett527 said:
			
		

> I know Bowden and Zook don't share that feeling. They have have to open next season playing each other. Oh well, they'll just have to suck it up.



Bowden and Coker. It's FSU - Miami, not FSU - Florida.

Zook is probably just being smug; no matter what happens, FSU or Miami is going to lose, which is good for him.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 11, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Bowden and Coker. It's FSU - Miami, not FSU - Florida.
> 
> Zook is probably just being smug; no matter what happens, FSU or Miami is going to lose, which is good for him.





Whoops, no disrespect meant to Miami fans.  I think Coker is a great coach.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 11, 2003)

I'm actually looking forward to thew Miami FSU game.  It's a good rivalry, it'll be the last time they meet in a bowl game since they will be the same conference now.  Both teams are loaded with athletes and the games are always good.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 13, 2003)

So, what smaller bowls are people looking forward to seeing?


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 13, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, what smaller bowls are people looking forward to seeing?




Fort Worth Bowl. Big time. Boise State and TCU. Go Boise! Really, it should be a great game. Two Top 20 teams. And it's less than two weeks away.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 13, 2003)

Can I just say that every possible bad consequence of my Orange defeating Notre Dame has happened? First, they managed to knock #1 USC out of the BCS title game. And that was probably what convinced Syracuse not to fire coach P, who has had five years to find a replacement for McNabb, and hasn't yet (meanwhile, except for the Dwight Freeney 2001 Exhibition, the Orange have sucked).


----------



## Crothian (Dec 13, 2003)

Well, it's not like McNabb would be easy for anyone to replace.  We really haven't seen many QBs in the college scene that would be seen as a replacement for him.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 13, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, what smaller bowls are people looking forward to seeing?




I'm looking forward to the Ben Roethlisberger sho...I mean the GMAC bowl.  I believe he will tear Lousiville apart.  

I agree the Fort Worth Bowl should be a fun game.  

I will also be hoping Bowling Green puts a whipping on Northwestern in the Motor City Bowl even though they are from the Big 10 I don't think they should be in a bowl.  

The Capital One Bowl should be good with Georgia and Purdue.  I think Purdue will surprise some people.  

I'll watch the Cotton Bowl to watch Eli one more time in college ball.  

I don't know if I can watch the Peach Bowl-too much orange.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 13, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, it's not like McNabb would be easy for anyone to replace. We really haven't seen many QBs in the college scene that would be seen as a replacement for him.



True. But I'd say almost every major conference team in I-A, and many of the better minor confrerence teams in I-A, have had better quarterbacks than Troy Nunes and RJ Anderson over the last five years. Failing to find another McNabb isn't the problem. Failure to find anyone who could burn good opponents when they overload against the run is a problem.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 15, 2003)

Well, the first Bowl Game of the year is tommorrow; the famous New Orleans Bowl.  The matchup gives us Memphis verse North Texas.  A classic like this cannot afford to be missed.  It these games the bowls are all about, Memphis hasn't been to a bowl in 32 years.  So, here's hoping the underdogs Memphis can do well against North Texas!!


----------



## RyanL (Dec 15, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, the first Bowl Game of the year is tommorrow; the famous New Orleans Bowl.  The matchup gives us Memphis verse North Texas.  A classic like this cannot afford to be missed.  It these games the bowls are all about, Memphis hasn't been to a bowl in 32 years.  So, here's hoping the underdogs Memphis can do well against North Texas!!




Famous New Orleans Bowl?  

I wasn't aware that this game existed until I was informed that the Superdome garage will be closed this week and all contract parkers have to find somewhere else to park.  The "Famous New Orleans Bowl" owes me 15 bucks in parking fees this week!

-Ryan


----------



## fett527 (Dec 16, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, the first Bowl Game of the year is tommorrow; the famous New Orleans Bowl.  The matchup gives us Memphis verse North Texas.  A classic like this cannot afford to be missed.  It these games the bowls are all about, Memphis hasn't been to a bowl in 32 years.  So, here's hoping the underdogs Memphis can do well against North Texas!!




I'll be watching.  I will watch every bowl game I possibly can (or as many as my wife will let me  ).


----------



## Crothian (Dec 16, 2003)

It's game night so I won't be watching this one.  But I do try to watch most of them.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 17, 2003)

Well, I got the call right with a Mephis win.  THursday we will see Maimi win against Lousiville in the GMAC Bowl.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 17, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, I got the call right with a Mephis win.  THursday we will see Maimi win against Lousiville in the GMAC Bowl.




Yeah, this was a fun game to watch.  A lot trick plays and deep passes.  Not exactly Big 10 football, but fun to watch.  Congratulations to Memphis!  

Looking forward to the GMAC Bowl!  Go Miami!


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 17, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, I got the call right with a Mephis win.  THursday we will see Maimi win against Lousiville in the GMAC Bowl.




Lousiville wins in an upset.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 19, 2003)

Well, Miami handeled the Cardinals 49-28.  It wqas a pretty good game with lots of good plays but it was really never close.  

No bowls until my Birthday when Rivers of NC State destroys Kansas.  That won't be close.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 19, 2003)

"Ladies and Gentleman welcome to the Ben Roethlisberger Show!  Ben, you've just won the GMAC Bowl what are you going to do now?"

"I'm going to Disn...wait I'm going to the NFL baby!"

I did read this morning that he declared his intentions to enter the NFL draft and had made that decision before the game.

I enjoyed the game, glad Louisville put some suspense into it until Lefors (I couldn't stop thinking about Mallrats all night for some reason) threw a couple picks.

I'll watch the I-AA championship game tonight to help hold me over until Monday.  I agree that Rivers and NC State should roll over Kansas.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 20, 2003)

Looks like Delaware will destroy Colate in the 1aa championship game.  Tommorrow I look forward to seeing Mount Union defeat St Johns.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 23, 2003)

Well, I'm 2-0 in bowl picks so far, though I have to admit that picking Miami of Ohio and NC State were pretty easy.

[also bumping this thread]


----------



## Crothian (Dec 23, 2003)

Today we have Boise against TCU, a compitition of who can get the most players suspended for the game.  One has 6 and the other has 5 kids who are not going to be playing due to various reasons.  

I think Boise will win easy.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 23, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Today we have Boise against TCU, a compitition of who can get the most players suspended for the game.  One has 6 and the other has 5 kids who are not going to be playing due to various reasons.
> 
> I think Boise will win easy.




Yeah Boise should win.  I thought it was enjoyable watching Rivers get the passing record last night.  It is only the Tangerine bowl, but hey good for him.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 23, 2003)

I'm missing the games.  Yesterday people came by so I missed that one.  Today is game day, so no watching the game.  Tommorrow the familky has to get together at the same time as the game then.,  Christmas and the day after are filled with Family stuff (which stinks cause the Bowling Green game of the 26th I really want to see).  Then on the 27th a small family thing at the same time as that game.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 24, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm missing the games.  Yesterday people came by so I missed that one.  Today is game day, so no watching the game.  Tommorrow the familky has to get together at the same time as the game then.,  Christmas and the day after are filled with Family stuff (which stinks cause the Bowling Green game of the 26th I really want to see).  Then on the 27th a small family thing at the same time as that game.




Well sorry if you missed last nights game.  It was the closest so far.  Boise State pulls it out 34-31.  Another fun game to watch.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 24, 2003)

Way to go Boise!!! Woohoo!! Great game, too. I think that's the most points allowed by Boise all year. I think, anyway. They pulled out a sqeaker, and it was an exciting one to watch.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 24, 2003)

Well, todays game of Oregon State verse New Mexico should be interested.  I hear the running backs for both teams are good.  Oregon State I think will come away with a good victory.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 25, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, todays game of Oregon State verse New Mexico should be interested.  I hear the running backs for both teams are good.  Oregon State I think will come away with a good victory.




It was an interesting blowout.    Maybe tonight will be better.  Hawaii should win as long as they can settle on a quarterback.

And a note of mourning as Ohio State Defensive Coordinator Mark Dantonio is now the Head Coach of the UC Bearcats.  Good Luck Mark and I hope we won't miss you.  See you opening day September 4th!!


----------



## fett527 (Dec 25, 2003)

test


----------



## Crothian (Dec 26, 2003)

I'm at my sisters so I comideered the TV and get to watch the Hawaii Bowl or whatever it's called.  I think the Rainbow Warriors will win.

But its tommorrow that the game I really want to see is on.  So, of course I'll be on the road at that time.  Bowling Green verse North Western.  The Big Ten has a very tough bowl schedule this year.  They are underdogs in most of them, and the Falcons should take care of the North Western.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 27, 2003)

Wow, this BG NW game is really good.  Way too many turnovers for each team though, but the offenses have been great otherwise.


----------



## Krug (Dec 27, 2003)

Nice to see Cal putting up quite a fight. 42-28 1 min left in the 3rd qtr. Quite a game!


----------



## drothgery (Dec 27, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Nice to see Cal putting up quite a fight. 42-28 1 min left in the 3rd qtr. Quite a game!



Since the Bears didn't just put up a fight -- they came back and won -- I'm now 8-0 in picking the winner of meaningless bowl games. I guess the secret to my picks turning out is to not actually watch the game .


----------



## Crothian (Dec 27, 2003)

So far the picks have been easy, even Virginia bbeating Pitt this morning was not that hard to predict.  Next week, though the real games begin


----------



## Krug (Dec 28, 2003)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Since the Bears didn't just put up a fight -- they came back and won -- I'm now 8-0 in picking the winner of meaningless bowl games. I guess the secret to my picks turning out is to not actually watch the game .




Yes, I'm proud of them. As usual, this game caused Heartburn, as the Bears almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory again. But somehow victory finally managed to clamp down it's mouth and said "IT'S MINEEEE!"


----------



## fett527 (Dec 28, 2003)

I was shut out from watching the games this weekend.  I was at my wife's father's house and no cable or satellite.  I was going through ESPN withdraw.  I am surprised Cal bit Va Tech but good for them.  I picked Bowling Green kudos to Northwestern for keeping it close.  Can't wait for Friday night!

*GO BUCKS!!!*


----------



## Crothian (Dec 29, 2003)

Well, first we will see Michigan State beat Nebraska.  Michigan State has been grteat this year and Nebraska is right now coachless for the future.  I think that will be the turning point, team unity and coaching.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 30, 2003)

Well, team unity is an issue in this game, its just MSU who are doing the stupid things and falling apart.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 30, 2003)

I can't believe there was no scoring in the escond half?!?!?  I'm glad I didn't stay up to watch it.  Well on to the Houston (Navy), Holiday (Texas) and Silicon Valley (UCLA) Bowls.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 30, 2003)

I'm thinking TT will beat Navy.  TT's offense is just really tough to defend.

I hope WSU beats Texas, but Texas looks much better on paper.

Fresno State is good at playing the big boys, but UCLA is familiar with them being on the West Coast too, so UCLA in a tough one.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 30, 2003)

huh...how many yards can Navy pile up without scoring?


----------



## Krug (Dec 31, 2003)

Ooh big upset by WSU. Go Pac-10!


----------



## fett527 (Dec 31, 2003)

fett527 said:
			
		

> I can't believe there was no scoring in the escond half?!?!?  I'm glad I didn't stay up to watch it.  Well on to the Houston (Navy), Holiday (Texas) and Silicon Valley (UCLA) Bowls.




Strike 1
Strike 2
Strike 3
Yer Out!!

I'm glad I'm not a betting man.  Let's see if I can do better today.
Music city- I'd like to see Wisconsin win (Go Big-10) but believe Williams will run rampant- Auburn
Sun- Minnesota
Liberty- Utah should win this
Independence- Should be a close one, Arkansas pulls it out
San Francisco- Boston College


----------



## Crothian (Dec 31, 2003)

Wisconsin will beat Auburn.  Both teams are similiar but Wisconsin's coach knows how to win a bowl game.  

Minnesota should beat Oregon.  The Badgers have one nasty running game.

Utah over So Miss.  Eh, it sounds good I knoiw little about either.  

Boston College and Mizz win the other two.  I'm not able to watch those games so noty much interest.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 31, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Ooh big upset by WSU. Go Pac-10!



Will UCLA be the only Pac-10 team to lose a bowl game this year? Maybe.

What was that about USC having a weak schedule?

<< Current record 10-2; I took Pitt and MSU, but I got both Pac-10 upsets right  >>


----------



## fett527 (Dec 31, 2003)

Wow.  Wisconsin kept it close and just imploded.  I thought they would lose, but not like that.  Heartbreaking.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 31, 2003)

Not a good bowl season for the Big Ten, but that sure was a good game.


----------



## Krug (Dec 31, 2003)

No droth, looks like OSU let one slip away. Pity.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 31, 2003)

The Badgers played great.  Nice, close game and good to see the Big Ten finally win one!!


----------



## Nail (Jan 1, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Wow.  Wisconsin kept it close and just imploded.  I thought they would lose, but not like that.  Heartbreaking.



Very.

(sigh)


----------



## Nail (Jan 1, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The Badgers played great.  Nice, close game and good to see the Big Ten finally win one!!



Errr.. Badgers _football_ lost to Auburn, 28 - 14.  You meant some "other sport", right?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 1, 2004)

Doh!!  Meant those pesky Gophers.


----------



## Nail (Jan 1, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Doh!!  Meant those pesky Gophers.




As a Badgers, Wolverines, _and_ Hawkeyes fan, I agree that those Gophers can be pesky.

You should note that all of my mascots are the natural predators of gophers.  THey eat 'em fer breakfast!


----------



## fett527 (Jan 1, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Strike 1
> Strike 2
> Strike 3
> Yer Out!!
> ...




Much better.  0 for 3 to 4 for 4.  Let's see today's games:

Outback- Iowa, Go Big 10
Gator- West virginia
Capital One- Purdue, I honestly believe they will beat Georgia
Rose Bowl- Michigan will put all this USC as number 1 to rest
Orange- Florida State


----------



## Crothian (Jan 1, 2004)

I agree withy Fett on his picks.  This is a big Big Ten day.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 1, 2004)

Obviously if you can't tell I'm unhappy by the score.  And the performance by the offense. I mean our offense IS offensive!! Awful. Sucks. Many other adjectives describing bad.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 1, 2004)

What a big win for Iowa.  Purdue is at least showing up late in the second half.  Big Ten is at least showing some pose.  West Virginia on the other hand is just not getting it done.  I figured they would run all over Maryland.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 1, 2004)

You weren't the only one.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 1, 2004)

I think they woulkd do better if you went to the games!!!


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2004)

Congrats to USC and their National Championship season.  It's been a while since a Pac 10 team won that.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think they woulkd do better if you went to the games!!!



Very, very doubtful.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What a big win for Iowa.  Purdue is at least showing up late in the second half.  Big Ten is at least showing some pose.  West Virginia on the other hand is just not getting it done.  I figured they would run all over Maryland.





Fear the Turtle.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 2, 2004)

Okay today we have a few games:

Old Miss verse Oklahoma State should be a fun offensive minded game.  I think Old Miss wins a good, hard fought game.

Then we have the Peach bowl with Orange verse Orange (Tennessee verse Clemson).  Tennessee wins solidly here.

Finally, we have the big Fiesta Bowl.  Ohio State pulls through a very hard fought and tough battle.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 2, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> Fear the Turtle.



Only because they had a former WVU guy on their team.


----------



## fett527 (Jan 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I agree withy Fett on his picks.  This is a big Big Ten day.




Well, apparently you shouldn't have.  Another rough day for me.

I will return the favor though and agree with your picks for today

Ole Miss
Tennessee
and...

*GO BUCKS!!!!!*


----------



## Crothian (Jan 3, 2004)

I expected a 10-7 game, not a 35-28 score feast!!  But the Bucks won in a great game!!


----------



## LrdApoc (Jan 3, 2004)

It actually was a pretty good game for a change.. other than the time management issues for OSU.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 5, 2004)

My impression of the Sugar Bowl so far (it's halftime as I write this) -- LSU is dominating the game, despite a close score, but I can't see how either of these teams could play with USC (or even Michigan), and the notion of one of them spliting the national title with the Trojans is a farce.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2004)

LSU's defense looks like it can easily stand up to USC.  And I wouldn't place Michigan in that conversation at all.  I'd love to see a USC LSU game, we need that.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jan 5, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> LSU's defense looks like it can easily stand up to USC. And I wouldn't place Michigan in that conversation at all. I'd love to see a USC LSU game, we need that.



Agreed on all counts. The Trojans need to prove it against LSU.

The team that shouldn't have been in all this is Oklahoma. If K State did that to any other team they would have dropped, but Oklahoma was simply just favored and were getting in no matter what....sorta like how McNabb got in the Pro Bowl.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 5, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> LSU's defense looks like it can easily stand up to USC. And I wouldn't place Michigan in that conversation at all. I'd love to see a USC LSU game, we need that.



LSU's defense looks like it can easily stand up to Oklahoma. But Oklahoma, especially how they've played the last two games, is not USC, or even a reasonable fascimle thereof.

When you tip your hand on offense as much as Oklahoma did (under center = run; shotgun = pass), have only one real playmaker (Clayton), and your quarterback is only slightly more mobile than your average statue, a good defense _ought_ to look excellent.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 5, 2004)

Oklahoma is not USC, but unless they played on the filed it's impossible to say.  LSU's defense was fast and physical.  But a good shared national chapionship for both teams.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 5, 2004)

Recapping my not entirely inaccurate bowl projections...

*Game* Team vs. Team _Projected Winner *Actual Winner*_

*New Orleans *Memphis vs. North Texas _Who cares? *Memphis*_
*GMAC *Miami (Ohio) vs. Louisville _Miami (Ohio)_ _*Miami (Ohio)*_
*Mazda Tangerine* NC State vs. Kansas _NC State *NC State*_
*PlainsCapital Fort Worth *TCU vs. Boise State _Boise State_ _*Boise State*_
*Las Vegas *Oregon State vs. New Mexico _Oregon State_ _*Oregon State*_

*Sheraton Hawaii* Houston vs. Hawaii _Hawaii_ _*Hawaii*_
*Motor City *Northwestern vs. Bowling Green _Bowling Green_ _*Bowling Green*_
*Insight *California vs. Virginia Tech _Cal_ _*Cal*_
*Continental Tire *Pittsburgh vs. Virginia _Pitt *Virginia*_
*MasterCard Alamo *Michigan State vs. Nebraska _Michigan State_ *Nebraska*

*EV1.net Houston *Navy vs. Texas Tech _Texas Tech_ _*Texas Tech*_
*Pacific Life Holiday *Washington State vs. Texas _Washington State_ _*Washington State*_ 
*Silicon Valley Football Classic *UCLA vs. Fresno State _Fresno State_ _*Fresno State*_
*Gaylord Hotels Music City *Wisconsin vs. Auburn _Wisconsin *Auburn *_
*Wells Fargo Sun *Minnesota vs. Oregon _Oregon *Minnesota*_

*AXA Liberty *Southern Miss vs. Utah _Utah_ _*Utah*_
*MainStay Independence *Arkansas vs. Missouri _Arkansas_ *Arkansas *
*Diamond Walnut San Francisco *Colorado State vs. Boston College _Colorado State *Boston College *_
*Outback *Iowa vs. Florida _Florida *Iowa*_ 
*Toyota Gator *West Virginia vs. Maryland _West Virginia *Maryland*_ 

*Capital One *Purdue vs. Georgia _Purdue_ *Georgia* 
*Rose *USC vs. Michigan _USC *USC*_
*FedEx Orange *Miami vs. Florida State _FSU *Miami*_
*SBC Cotton *Oklahoma State vs. Mississippi _Mississippi_ _*Mississippi*_
*Chick-fil-A Peach *Clemson vs. Tennessee _Tennessee *Clemson*_

*Tostitos Fiesta *Kansas State vs. Ohio State _Ohio State_ _*Ohio State*_
*Humanitarian* Georgia Tech vs. Tulsa _Georgia Tech_ _*Georgia Tech*_
*Nokia Sugar* Oklahoma vs. LSU _LSU __*LSU*_

So, I ended up correct in 17 games, wrong in 10, and had one game I didn't pick. Not too bad.


----------



## fett527 (Jan 5, 2004)

Got to at least chime in since I didn't over the weekend.  Hope somebody reads this still.  Of course I enjoyed the Buckeyes win!!!  It was a fun game to watch thought I wish the Bucks could have given us a win without a scare.

It is too bad we won't see LSU v. USC, but oh well.  At least Oklahoma didn't get a piece of it.

We'll see ya next year.  OSU v. Dantonio and UC.

*GO BUCKS!!!!*


----------

