# College Football



## Crothian (Aug 28, 2004)

The season starts today with USC and Virginia Tech.

But its the year the Buckeyes win back the Big Ten.  Its the year West Viginia makes a top bowl game by gopin undefeated, or only a single lose.  Its the year that ACC learns that having all those great teams now just means they all beat each other and no one comes out clearly on top.  Its the year Nebraska starts to throw the ball (I can't believe I just typed that) and it doesn't work.  Its the year Texas...yes Texas finally beats Oklahoma.  Its the year that the MAC (whom I really like) falls back into their old ways and doesn't show up like they did last yeaar.  

What are your presdictions?  Who's your teams?  Football is back, rejoice!!!


----------



## drothgery (Aug 28, 2004)

My teams... well, they're Syracuse (by virtue of spending seven years living in upstate NY), and Ohio State (by virtue of being born in Ohio), but living out west these days the only conference that it's at all practical to follow is the Pac-10. Besides, Pac-10 football is _fun_ to watch.

It's the year that Paul Pasqualoni finally gets fired at Syracuse, despite Walter Reyes putting up Heisman-worthy numbers (to keep my fellow F-M grad Damien Rhodes from taking playing time from him), as my Orange sputter to a 6-5 season.

I'll go contra to Crothian here and say that Nebraksa will have some success throwing the ball... not to start with (though their defense will win a few games for them anyway), but by the end of the year they'll be doing okay with something like the Packers' run-heavy variant of the West Coast Offense.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 29, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But its the year the Buckeyes win back the Big Ten.



If Ross can stay healthy OR if one of the freshman step up (Haw, Pittman) and if Zwick can give a steady performance I agree 100%.

BTW Schlagel is going to be a monster.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 29, 2004)

So, after last niughtys game is USC just waiting to be upset or is Virgian Tech a bit better then everyone thought?


----------



## drothgery (Aug 29, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, after last niughtys game is USC just waiting to be upset or is Virgian Tech a bit better then everyone thought?



Neither. USC's just very young along the line and at reciever. Once Leinart and the kids he's throwing the ball to found their rhythm, the game was over. With four games until they face anyone who's even as good as VPI, let alone better, the Trojans will be fine. And the Hokies are still a middle-of-the-pack team in the ACC, at best.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 30, 2004)

USC (East) The Gamecocks seem to be at their peak in players but being South Carolina never really does well...


----------



## Gadodel (Aug 30, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Its the year Nebraska starts to throw the ball (I can't believe I just typed that) and it doesn't work.




That's a big, big fear here in the state.  

An entirely new coaching staff...with a new coaching philosophy.
A young quarterback.
A defense that may be overwhelmed with the task of scoring a few touchdowns *each* game.

Every team we'll be playing will smell the blood in the water and want to tear away as much red flesh as possible.  I don't blame'em, the Huskers have a long, long tradition of winning.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 30, 2004)

Well, their first two games against West Ill and Southern Miss should provide two easy wins and give them the game practice they need.


----------



## Gadodel (Aug 30, 2004)

A lot of fans are thinking that too.  Three problems with that mindset:
1.  Underestimating a team that is actually paid to come and play!
2.  It could be a PR disaster, the team needs to come out prepared-really prepared and win over the mob...er, the fans.  Fan support here is as important as any touchdown.
3.  The team will be showing what they've got-against presumably underclassed programs, to programs out there that are quite good.  Oklahoma, Texas etc will be watching...very, very closely.  

This is a lot of pressure to put on the team, but; it is a sad fact.

One or two interceptions or missteps could be the first domino to fall...


----------



## Krieg (Aug 30, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Neither. USC's just very young along the line and at reciever. Once Leinart and the kids he's throwing the ball to found their rhythm, the game was over. With four games until they face anyone who's even as good as VPI, let alone better, the Trojans will be fine. And the Hokies are still a middle-of-the-pack team in the ACC, at best.



Actually I would say both. Virginia Tech is a solid team that will likely finish around .500 in a very tough conference. USC is blessed with a cake wake schedule that will likely give them a free pass like Miami & FSU enjoyed in the 80's/early 90's.

The game was over when with the bad offensive pass interference call. You could visibly see the Hookie players deflate at that point. Virginia Tech outplayed USC for almost the entire game. Reggie Bush saved the game for the Trojans. He is an outstanding player, but the #1 team in the country shouldn't have to rely on their top RB to take up the slack at WR as well...


----------



## drothgery (Aug 30, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Actually I would say both. Virginia Tech is a solid team that will likely finish around .500 in a very tough conference. USC is blessed with a cake wake schedule that will likely give them a free pass like Miami & FSU enjoyed in the 80's/early 90's.



The other thing to remember here is that in recent years VPI tends to get worse over the course of the season (and I'm a Syracuse fan, so I've enjoyed their late-season collapses immensely, even when they didn't involve losses in the Carrier Dome), and USC tends to get better (in the last two years USC was awfully shaky in some of their early games, but by the end of the year there was nobody who could play with them).

And I'd caution people with attempting to equate the Pac 10 to the old Big East or the old ACC; USC might be the only national title contender of the bunch, but WSU, Oregon, Oregon State, or Cal won't be an easy game for anybody.



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> The game was over when with the bad offensive pass interference call. You could visibly see the Hookie players deflate at that point. Virginia Tech outplayed USC for almost the entire game.



I really don't think so. There was plenty of time left, assuming Tech only gets a field goal there. USC had already shown they could beat VPI deep (with the pass that was caught a step past the end zone).


----------



## Crothian (Aug 31, 2004)

So, any big upsets this Weekend as the footbally season really takes off?  Ohios State should handle Cincy but with the close style of play the Buckeyes have, it could be an upset.


----------



## rgard (Aug 31, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> <snip>
> 
> But its the year the Buckeyes win back the Big Ten.
> 
> ...




Huh?  GO BLUE!!!    

BTW, thanks for the sig and Thieves' World info...I'm psyched as well!

Rich


----------



## Crothian (Aug 31, 2004)

Go blue??  You're in Virginian, aren't you supposed to be a Cavelier?  It will be decided on the field in late Novmeber.....

and Thieve's World rocks, I must tell everyone....


----------



## Krieg (Aug 31, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ohios State should handle Cincy but with the close style of play the Buckeyes have, it could be an upset.



Don't forget Dantonio is UC's new coach. That has to make things interesting.

As long as Ohio State can find a running game they will be fine. If not, it will be a long day (even though they will still probably win).

Giudiugli is a lot of fun to watch regardless.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 31, 2004)

finding a running game is going to be very important, but hopefully the defense will be strong and the Bearcats will never score.....


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 31, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Its the year Nebraska starts to throw the ball (I can't believe I just typed that) and it doesn't work.



We'll know this weekend. I hope your wrong.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 31, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> finding a running game is going to be very important, but hopefully the defense will be strong and the Bearcats will never score.....



D'Andrea and Everett starting over Schlagel & Whitner is definitely interesting!


----------



## Crothian (Aug 31, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> We'll know this weekend. I hope your wrong.




I very well could be, there's really only one team I wish bad things for and its not Nebraska.  

_ glares at the school up north _


----------



## Crothian (Aug 31, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> D'Andrea and Everett starting over Schlagel & Whitner is definitely interesting!




It is but really until we see these kids its really hard to say.  I haven't seen them in practice and I I only know what little they say in the newspaper.  I just can't wait to watch them Saturday.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 1, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> _glares at the school up north _



Damn I miss Woody.




			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> It is but really until we see these kids its really hard to say. I haven't seen them in practice and I I only know what little they say in the newspaper. I just can't wait to watch them Saturday.



Everett has had a great fall so far and barely edged Ty out for the spot. Whitner looks to be the nickel back right now the point is pretty moot as both will be on the field a lot. 

D'Andrea is starting because they expect UC to throw it all over the place. He is faster than Schlagel & is better in coverage. 

Look to see 5-6 guys rotating at LB much as the DL has done the last few years.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 1, 2004)

Well, everyone should be throwing on the Buckeyes this year.  They really aren't going to be running on us.  I'm so looking forward to the season to start.....


----------



## rgard (Sep 1, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Go blue??  You're in Virginian, aren't you supposed to be a Cavelier?  It will be decided on the field in late Novmeber.....
> 
> and Thieve's World rocks, I must tell everyone....




Yes, Go Blue!  Born in Pittsburgh, grew up in the 'Burgh', graduated from Michigan.  Only one Virginian in my family...Cyrus, our youngest was born in Fairfax, VA.

Yes, on the field in November.  It all comes down to that game for both schools.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 1, 2004)

rgard said:
			
		

> Yes, Go Blue!  Born in Pittsburgh, grew up in the 'Burgh', graduated from Michigan.  Only one Virginian in my family...Cyrus, our youngest was born in Fairfax, VA.
> 
> Yes, on the field in November.  It all comes down to that game for both schools.




I want them both to be undefeated, like the old days.  Two undefeated powerhouses that hate each other.  Now that would make a good game.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 1, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I very well could be, there's really only one team I wish bad things for and its not Nebraska.
> 
> _glares at the school up north _



As a good Orange fan, I've saved my pure, unadulterated hatred for Virginia Tech for years. With them and Miami out of the Big East (what was up with including schools who have only the vaguest notion that basketball exists in the Big East, anyway?), I'm not sure I'll be able to keep it up. And I'd left Ohio long before I became a college football fan, so while I've got a soft spot for the Buckeyes, it's hard to see the Wolverines as 100% Pure Evil.

Any ideas for a new enemy?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 1, 2004)

Boston College?


----------



## Krieg (Sep 1, 2004)

BC is probably not the best choice as this is their last year in the Big East, next year they will join the other Big East expatriots in the ACC.

Personally I would go with UC or Louisville. What better way to welcome two new red headed step children to the league than to despise them mercilessly?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 1, 2004)

Good point about BC, I had forgotten about that.  Go with Lousiville, they need a good football school to hate.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Good point about BC, I had forgotten about that. Go with Lousiville, they need a good football school to hate.



That's not a bad idea. And as an added bonus, the Cardinals think that they know something about basketball, so I won't have to switch enemies come basketball season (Georgetown was fading by the mid-90s, and neither UConn nor Pitt ever inspired the same passion, no matter how good the Huskies have been).


----------



## Crothian (Sep 2, 2004)

Well, a rivalry is much more then the quality of teams.  Its a seething hatred of everything the other school stands for, its fans of one color all uniting against the common foe.  

Its good we have some mid major games tommoroow night.....


----------



## Crothian (Sep 3, 2004)

And Utah takes on Texas A&M!!!!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 3, 2004)

Anyone still up watiching the Northwestern, TCU game?  About to go into second overtime tied at 45.  First overtime, NW misses the Field Goal (poor kicker is only 1-5 tonight  ) but they block the TCU attempt.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 3, 2004)

poor kid, he ended up going 1 for 6


----------



## rgard (Sep 3, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I want them both to be undefeated, like the old days.  Two undefeated powerhouses that hate each other.  Now that would make a good game.




Makes for great football drama!  The other scenario is one team is undefeated and in the title hunt and the other team aims to be spoilers!

I'm 10% happier during football season!

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## rgard (Sep 3, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> As a good Orange fan, I've saved my pure, unadulterated hatred for Virginia Tech for years. With them and Miami out of the Big East (what was up with including schools who have only the vaguest notion that basketball exists in the Big East, anyway?), I'm not sure I'll be able to keep it up. And I'd left Ohio long before I became a college football fan, so while I've got a soft spot for the Buckeyes, it's hard to see the Wolverines as 100% Pure Evil.
> 
> Any ideas for a new enemy?




How about Notre Dame?  It's not too hard to hate a team that believes God wants them to win!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 3, 2004)

rgard said:
			
		

> I'm 10% happier during football season!




 That is soooo true!!!!


----------



## drothgery (Sep 3, 2004)

rgard said:
			
		

> How about Notre Dame? It's not too hard to hate a team that believes God wants them to win!



Doesn't work.

I'm at least nominally Catholic.
Their overly inflated self-image won't let them join the Big East for football, even though it would be good for both Notre Dame and the Big East.
Any team that the Orange thwomped last year isn't good enough to qualify as a rival.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 3, 2004)

And everyone knows Notre Dame needs to join the Big Ten.  They already play three of our schools yearly (Michigian, Michigian State, and Purdue).


----------



## drothgery (Sep 3, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And everyone knows Notre Dame needs to join the Big Ten. They already play three of our schools yearly (Michigian, Michigian State, and Purdue).



They're in the Big East for everything but football. And the whole point of Notre Dame joining a confrence would be to get away from their NBC-enforced killer schedule. Adding a third guaranteed loss (Ohio State) to their schedule rotation, along with USC and Michigan -- and likely losses to Iowa, Purdue, Wisconsin, and either Minnesota or MSU -- doesn't seem like the best idea. It looks even worse if Illinois and Penn State get back on their feet.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Sep 3, 2004)

I agree that Notre Dame should join the Big Ten, but they can't - they'd be exposed and humiliated. Pretty much the same thing that happened to Penn State, although I like and respect Joe Paterno.

Michigan-OSU should be another classic for the conference title. Go Blue!


----------



## rgard (Sep 3, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> They're in the Big East for everything but football. And the whole point of Notre Dame joining a confrence would be to get away from their NBC-enforced killer schedule. Adding a third guaranteed loss (Ohio State) to their schedule rotation, along with USC and Michigan -- and likely losses to Iowa, Purdue, Wisconsin, and either Minnesota or MSU -- doesn't seem like the best idea. It looks even worse if Illinois and Penn State get back on their feet.




NBC = NoterDame Broadcasting Company

They wouldn't want to share those big NBC $ with the Big Ten conference.

An even worse side for ND to join a conference would be that they would also have to share their Bowl $ with the other teams in the conference.   Moot point at the moment, but they will return to form this year or next.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## rgard (Sep 3, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And everyone knows Notre Dame needs to join the Big Ten.  They already play three of our schools yearly (Michigian, Michigian State, and Purdue).




If I was re-organizing things, Penn State would get the boot from the Big Ten, Notre Dame would join the Big Ten and I would probably single out another team/school for removal to bring it back to a real 10 team conference.  Probably Iowa and put them in a conference with Nebraska or somplace near there.

While I'm at it, I might as well, re-organize all of college football and figure out a play off schedule.

I'll get started on this right after I win some multi state lottery.    

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Krieg (Sep 4, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And everyone knows Notre Dame needs to join the Big Ten. They already play three of our schools yearly (Michigian, Michigian State, and Purdue).



The sad truth is that Notre Dame doesn't mean the academic standards of the rest of the institutions within the Big10. The Big10 is not just an athletic conference, it is an association of institutions that are very active in research. 

Notre Dame has an excellent undergrad program but to be blunt....it's gradute programs stink. It is also nowhere near being up to par as a research institution.

The cost of upgrading the facilities/programs to meet Big10 standards in those areas was the deciding factor in ND board of regents decision not to join the Big10 a few years back.



			
				Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> I agree that Notre Dame should join the Big Ten, but they can't - they'd be exposed and humiliated. Pretty much the same thing that happened to Penn State, although I like and respect Joe Paterno.



Once JoePa finally hangs them up, Penn State will start generating interest among top recruits & become competitive again. Unfortunately the questions surrounding when he will finally retire have been a dagger to the heart of their recruiting. 

Penn State will be fine.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 4, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> They're in the Big East for everything but football. And the whole point of Notre Dame joining a confrence would be to get away from their NBC-enforced killer schedule. Adding a third guaranteed loss (Ohio State) to their schedule rotation, along with USC and Michigan -- and likely losses to Iowa, Purdue, Wisconsin, and either Minnesota or MSU -- doesn't seem like the best idea. It looks even worse if Illinois and Penn State get back on their feet.



Joining the now toothless Big East would kill ND competitively. I'm sorry but home games with Rutgers, UConn, Louisville and UC just isn't going to consistently sell tickets or draw recruits. If ND ever loses the NBC contract the Big10 is their best choice financially.

Put Ohio State with The School Up North in one division & Penn State with ND in the other. That gives you a yearly Penn State/ND matchup to pair with The Game, with the winners very likely to be playing the next week in a conference championship game. THAT would generate interest...and revenue.



			
				rgard said:
			
		

> If I was re-organizing things, Penn State would get the boot from the Big Ten, Notre Dame would join the Big Ten and I would probably single out another team/school for removal to bring it back to a real 10 team conference. Probably Iowa and put them in a conference with Nebraska or somplace near there.



Penn State has been a great addition to the Big10. While the football teams haven't been up to their traditional standars, they are very competitve across the board athletically. They have been consistently near the top of the rankings in the Sears Director Cup.

Penn State is also another large research oriented land grant University & brings a lot to the table as an academic institution. 

No way would I want Penn State to leave the conference.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 4, 2004)

*click*


----------



## drothgery (Sep 4, 2004)

rgard said:
			
		

> If I was re-organizing things, Penn State would get the boot from the Big Ten, Notre Dame would join the Big Ten and I would probably single out another team/school for removal to bring it back to a real 10 team conference. Probably Iowa and put them in a conference with Nebraska or somplace near there.
> 
> While I'm at it, I might as well, re-organize all of college football and figure out a play off schedule.
> 
> ...



Somebody at ESPN put this together back about when Miami decided to blow up the Big East...

http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/forde_pat/1575186.html
http://espn.go.com/ncf/s/2003/0701/1575136.html


----------



## drothgery (Sep 4, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Joining the now toothless Big East would kill ND competitively. I'm sorry but home games with Rutgers, UConn, Louisville and UC just isn't going to consistently sell tickets or draw recruits. If ND ever loses the NBC contract the Big10 is their best choice financially.



Joining the toothless "old" ACC didn't kill Florida State, and the toothless "old" Big East didn't kill Miami. And Cinci, UConn, USF, and L'ville are better than VT was when Miami joined the Big East. Temple's gone. My Orange have declined, but Pitt and West Virginia are much better now than they were ten years ago.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 4, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Joining the toothless "old" ACC didn't kill Florida State, and the toothless "old" Big East didn't kill Miami. And Cinci, UConn, USF, and L'ville are better than VT was when Miami joined the Big East. Temple's gone. My Orange have declined, but Pitt and West Virginia are much better now than they were ten years ago.



I'm not talking about guaranteed new years day bowls because of a yearly cake walk through a conference full of patsies. I am referring to the athletic department budget & recruiting.

Notre Dame's athletic department generates around 237 million dollars in annual revenue. Currently Syracuse has the largest grossing revenue in the Big East at $185 mil. Contrast that with the top gross programs in the Big 10...Ohio State: $369 mil, Michigan: $270 mil, Penn State $252 mil, Wisconsin $247 mil, Minnesota $217 mil, Iowa $202 mil, Michigan State $197 mil & Illinois $190 mil.

There are eight schools in the Big 10 with athletic departments that generate more money than the HIGHEST grossing team in the Big East (FWIW FSU & Miami both bring in substantially less than Syracuse, the highest grossing school in the ACC is North Carolina at $182 mil).

If Notre Dame loses the NBC contract the ONLY viable option they have financially is to join the Big 10. They simply will not be able to maintain a budget that would allow them to stay competitive in facilities & other expenditures if they joined the Big East.

I can't stress this enough...It is not about football, it is about the financial stability of an entire University.

FSU & Miami are unique in that they can reap the benefits of a population shift of titanic proportions. Quite simply Florida has more HS football talent than anyone other state in the nation. Recruiting is a whole heck of a lot easier if you are the home team for every kid in Dade county.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 4, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> FSU & Miami are unique in that they can reap the benefits of a population shift of titanic proportions. Quite simply Florida has more HS football talent than anyone other state in the nation.



Radically changing the subject here, but I suspect Florida's not really anywhere near as outstanding as the talking heads make it sound. I'd think California produces at least as much talent, if not more (as well it should; CA has almost twice the population of Florida, a younger population, and better weather). Four major-confrence schools in-state (USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford), two minor-confrence schools (Fresno State, SDSU), and it's the recruiting base for the rest of the Pac-10 (and pretty much every western college). Texas is right up there with Florida (Texas' vaunted #1 recruiting classes are almsot entirely local, and Big 12 recruiting lives and dies in Texas). And even Ohio isn't bad -- the Buckeyes are the only truly great team that lives on Ohio talent, but there are seven I-A teams in Ohio, and Cinci, Toledo, Bowling Green, and Miami (Ohio) are often at the fringes of the top 25.

What always bugged me (especially when I lived around Syracuse) is how pathetic New York's high school football is; there's no reason why New York couldn't produce at least as much talent as Ohio or Pennsylvania -- and with only three I-A schools (Syracuse, Buffalo, and Army), and only one of them that's been decent in the last twenty years (Syracuse), the Orange ought to be able to field a top-10 football team with New York State talent.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 4, 2004)

Soon...the games begin.....


----------



## Krieg (Sep 4, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Radically changing the subject here, but I suspect Florida's not really anywhere near as outstanding as the talking heads make it sound. I'd think California produces at least as much talent, if not more (as well it should; CA has almost twice the population of Florida, a younger population, and better weather).



Div1A recruits by State since 96 (avg per year)...
TX: 328
CA: 250
FL: 193
OH: 135
LA: 100
GA: 99

NFL players in the NFL by State:
CA: 194
FL: 187
TX: 181
GA: 94
LA: 74
OH: 68

Population:
CA: 35 Mil
TX: 22 Mil
FL: 17 Mil
OH: 11 Mil
GA: 8.5 Mil
LA: 4.5 Mil

Population per recruit:
LA: 45K
TX: 67K
OH: 81K
GA: 86K
FL: 88K
CA: 140K

Population per NFL player:
LA: 60K
GA: 90K
FL: 91K
TX: 120K
OH: 160K
CA: 180K

The rest of the top ten in no particular order: Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania & Michigan (New Jersey just misses the top 10...if Rutgers ever gets it's act together they have a very strong talent pool).


----------



## Crothian (Sep 4, 2004)

You are filled with...interesting information today. 

Buckeyes Win


----------



## Krieg (Sep 4, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You are filled with...interesting information today.



Did I mention I've been a moderator on The O-Zone for the past 6 years? lol



> _Buckeyes Win _



Yeah, but they need some real improvement in several areas.

1. The offensive line wasn't getting the job done in the first half.
2. Lydell still isn't consistently hitting the hole with authority.
3. Justin needs to hold onto the damn ball!

On a brighter note...
1. It's nice to see Bam finally shine on the field.
2. Pittman looks good as the #2 RB.
3. The defense is going to be outstanding again.

I really think Dantonio can elevate UC to the next level. If he can keep some of the Cincy kids home who are currently going out of State, he will have a strong program going.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 4, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Did I mention I've been a moderator on The O-Zone for the past 6 years? lol.




Nope, not that I know what that is but I'm guessing it is sports related....

Ya, the Buckeyes are not perfect but I was really pleased to see a passing game.  They have work to do, but a lot of good things happened for the kids to build on.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 4, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I really think Dantonio can elevate UC to the next level. If he can keep some of the Cincy kids home who are currently going out of State, he will have a strong program going.



I'd think if one of the second-tier Ohio schools (most likely Cinci, since they've got a shot at the Big East's BCS bowl bid; none of the MAC schools have an answer to that) can establish themselves as the clear #2 to Ohio State for Ohio kids, they'd end up a consistent top-20 team.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 4, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Nope, not that I know what that is but I'm guessing it is sports related....



http://www.the-ozone.net/

...although I probably post more on Bucknuts or BuckeyePlanet these days.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> I'd think if one of the second-tier Ohio schools (most likely Cinci, since they've got a shot at the Big East's BCS bowl bid; none of the MAC schools have an answer to that) can establish themselves as the clear #2 to Ohio State for Ohio kids, they'd end up a consistent top-20 team.



Absolutely no argument there.

If an Ohio school could lock up the kids who are currently going out of state to Minnesota, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Northwestern etc they would definitely be a force to reckon with. 

The problem thus far is that a middle tier Big 10 program (Michigan State, Minnesota etc) is generally far more attractive than a school in the MAC or Conference USA. With the MAC beginning to find enjoy success against BCS conference schools on the field, and UC joining the Big East...that may change a bit.

FWIW I think UC's biggest advantage right now is Mark Dantonio and the new coaching staff. There are a LOT of Ohio (and Ohio State) ties among the current UC coaches.

Dantonio is from Zanesville and coache under Earle Bruce with the Buckeyes, he has also spent time at Ohio University, Akron, Youngstown State and served was Ohio State's defenisive co-ordinator the last three years.

Coaches Don Treadwell, Pat Narduzzi, Harlon Bennet, Tim Hinton, Mark Staten, Mike Tressel (Jim Tressel's nephew) and Jeff Uhlenhake are all Buckeyes by birth and played or coached football at the collegiate level in Ohio. Ohio High School coaches like that...a lot.

Rick Minter was a pretty good coach, but he wasn't a Buckeye and didn't have many Ohio ties on his coaching staff. That was one of the reasons they didn't recruit the state particularly well.

Ohio High School coaches know and trust UC's new coaching staff. That will pay HUGE dividents in local recruiting down the road.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 4, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> http://www.the-ozone.net/
> 
> ...although I probably post more on Bucknuts or BuckeyePlanet these days.
> 
> ...



I was thinking more along the lines of consolodating the best of the talent that does go to the MAC schools and Cinci in one place. Miami (Ohio), Toledo, Bowling Green, and/or Cinci are often in the last few slots of the top 25 (at least, at the end of the year; if they agreed to play a perennial top-ten team early, it tends to hurt them until the big guys start knocking each other off), and the guys they play had to come from somewhere.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2004)

First major weekened almost done and zero upsets.  Had a nice close call wuth Oregone State and LSU but no dice (poor kicker).


----------



## drothgery (Sep 6, 2004)

Of course, my Orange looked so bad that I switched over to US Open tennis. I expected a loss to Purdue, but 51-0 is embarassing. Ouch. When does basketball season start, again?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2004)

Ya, I didn't see the game (I was gaming) but I saw the box score.  Penn State, Gophers, Purdue, Wisconsin, Micihigian...all scored a great deal of points.  Big Ten usually isn't know for high scoring like that, I was suprised.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 7, 2004)

Sorry I'm late to this year's thread.  This is gonna be a great year for the BUCKEYES of course.  The biggest disappointment I had with the game is that the defense did not cause any turnovers. I expect unseasoned QBs to throw some picks, but we should have caused some turnovers.  Nice to see we held them out of the endzone though.  I'm sure Tressel will get the troops in order.

Also upset that it looks like I won't be able to attend any games this year.  

The other team I will be watching closely is West Virginia.  They were a blast to watch last year (they should have beat Miami) and should be stronger.  Lee Corso's "not so fast" pick for the year!!

Oh...

GO BUCKS!!!!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 8, 2004)

Ya, West Virginia looks down right scarey this year.  But I was impressed with the scoring the Big Ten is doing.  They don't usually score like that.  

Well, this week the Buckeyes take on Marshall.  Shoulds be a good win as the grand days of Marshall have ended it seems.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Sep 9, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about guaranteed new years day bowls because of a yearly cake walk through a conference full of patsies. I am referring to the athletic department budget & recruiting.




Then drothgery's point is still valid. Being in the ACC and Big East clearly did not kill FSU and Miami's budget and recruiting processes. They were and are premier programs. There is no clear indication that being in the Big East would kill Notre Dame's processes either - if one considers them still alive, that is (which, for the record, I do).



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> ... Contrast that with the top gross programs in the Big 10...Ohio State: $369 mil, Michigan: $270 mil, Penn State $252 mil...




Actually the entire Michigan athletic department only sees total revenues of around $65 million for 2004. And, after losing money in recent years, the Michigan athletic department is finally expecting to show a little bit of a surplus in 2004: a whole whopping $8 million. And only a $2 million surplus in 2004. I'm curious as to where you found numbers that are so enormously different from the official ones, which can be found here. 




			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> I can't stress this enough...It is not about football, it is about the financial stability of an entire University




Again, speaking for Michigan, which is the school I know best, the implication that an entire University would become financially unstable without its football team is not true. The total University of Michigan annual budget is somewhere around $3.5 or $4 billion. Even if we axed the evil Title IX requirements (which actually hurt women's sports) and assumed that the football team, free of its Title IX chains, could generate the current entire athletic department revenue (not surplus) of $60 million, and then even if we assumed that 100% of that $60 million was pure profit returned to the University to ensure its financial stability - impossible situation, but let's just say - then that still would amount to 1.5% of a 4 billion dollar annual budget. A fiscal blow, to be sure. But nothing to bring on Argentina-like instability.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 9, 2004)

Okay, so this week we will have miami or FSU lose as they play each other, but does anyone see any upsets looming?


----------



## drothgery (Sep 9, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Okay, so this week we will have miami or FSU lose as they play each other, but does anyone see any upsets looming?



Nothing major in the top 25, Big East, Big 10, or Pac 10, anyway.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 9, 2004)

Georgia South Carolina could be a close game....

Fresno State could very well beat Kansas State....

Other the that it looks like a pretty predictible weekend....


----------



## James Heard (Sep 9, 2004)

Caught this thread late:

Seeing as I owe my entire existence to the Crimson Tide I've pretty much been rabid my entire life. We've had an awful few seasons, but we're still one of the most prestigious programs in the country so things are looking up.

Go Bama!


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Sep 10, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Okay, so this week we will have miami or FSU lose as they play each other, but does anyone see any upsets looming?




I am always concerned whenever my Wolverines travel to South Bend. Even this year. Those Irish always seem to have some sort of luck, and all summer long they've been doing push-ups, etc. in repetitions of 38 (UM won last year 38-0). Often motivation is as important as talent in college football, so... let's just say I'm hoping there aren't any big upsets this weekend.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2004)

This Troy State Missouri game is looking interesting.  Troy State offensive linman takes a fumble 50+ yards out running most of the defense.  That was a good run!!   that tied the game at 14


----------



## Xath (Sep 10, 2004)

I'd just like to voice that U of Maryland is going to dominate this year.  Watch this saturday as Temple University gets their rear end handed to them on a platter.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2004)

Xath said:
			
		

> I'd just like to voice that U of Maryland is going to dominate this year.  Watch this saturday as Temple University gets their rear end handed to them on a platter.




Good to see Xath getting into the picture talking a big game.  Maryland should defeat Temple.  It is the following week when they take on West Virginia that we shall know if Maryland has what it takes to dominate.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 10, 2004)

Maybe Troy's win over Marshall wasn't a fluke?  I love upsets as long as they aren't against the BUCKEYES!!!

Speaking of I just found out I will be attending a game this year.  I will be in The Shoe this weekend to see OSU trounce Marshall!!!!!!!


GO BUCKS!!!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2004)

That's cool...I never goto games anymore, just seems easier to watch at home....

of course I'm just saying that casue I never get the chance


----------



## fett527 (Sep 10, 2004)

Free tickets are the only way to fly!!!!


----------



## fett527 (Sep 10, 2004)

UH OH Mizz is in trouble!!!!!!  24-14, a lot of time left though.  I love College football!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2004)

wow, Troy State looks good this year.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 10, 2004)

There it is.  First big upset of the year!!!

Troy State 24
Missouri 14


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2004)

I start singing their fight song if I had a clue what it was....


----------



## fett527 (Sep 10, 2004)

What's the prediction for the Canes v. Noles?

I'll take Florida State, they are chomping at the bit after the last five years.

The Noles should just hope it doesn't come down to them kicking a field goal.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2004)

Miami...they have the home field, they are in FSU's head, i think they have a better running game....


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 10, 2004)

*Go Big Red!*​*




*​


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2004)

Well, the Huskers should be able to handle Southern Miss.......


----------



## fett527 (Sep 11, 2004)

Sloppy, Sloppy, Sloppy offense.

Brock and Chris don't look much better than what they've showed in the past.  Herbstreit was on crack to think Rix could get the Heisman.

Could this game play out like OSU v Iowa last year?  No offensive touchdown scored in that game.

BUCKEYES won of course.  (I was at that one too.)


----------



## fett527 (Sep 11, 2004)

Miami 16
FSU 10

Unbelievable.  FSU blows it again.  

Well, I'll be at The Shoe tomorrow so won't post any until tomorrow night.  Hopefully I will be in a great mood!!!


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 11, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Miami 16
> FSU 10
> 
> Unbelievable.  FSU blows it again.
> ...



 I just followed hte last minutes of that one on the internet.  Sounds like it was an amazing finish.

What's this about Miami being in the ACC?


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 11, 2004)

College football playoffs, Yay or Nay?

Nay for me. These are _kids_ in _college_ and academics should be put first. They are not professionals getting paid.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 11, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> College football playoffs, Yay or Nay?
> 
> Nay for me. These are _kids_ in _college_ and academics should be put first. They are not professionals getting paid.




Yay...what does a playoff system have to do with acedemics?  For that matter when has acedemics had anything to do with college football?

Ya, in theory these kids should be there for an education, but no one is fooled.  College football is the minor league for the NFL practically.  It needs radically changed so acedemics does mean something, but until that happens give me playoffs.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 11, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> What's this about Miami being in the ACC?




They and Virginia Tech jumped ship to the ACC.  Boston College is following suite next year.


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 11, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> College football is the minor league for the NFL practically.




I'd agree with that to a point, but the differences between CF and a 'minor league' are significant:

-College football is much much bigger than any realistic minor league system would be, and that's even if you only include the major conferences.  Consider that not only are there more teams, but CF teams are much bigger.

-The NFL doesn't _pay_ for it.

-Restrictions on practice make college sports hardly an ideal place to train future pro-atheletes.  It's fine for American football, but in sports where we're up against international competition (soccer for instance) the collegiete system places a lot of limitations on developing atheletes.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 11, 2004)

The second point is why the NFL likes and supports it so much.  And its not a minor league, it is just like one in many ways....and different in others.


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 11, 2004)

The difference between college play and pro play are huge. Huge!


----------



## fett527 (Sep 11, 2004)

On my way to Columbus, thought I would ring in quickly on a college playoff.

It needs to be done, someone should figure out a way.  As it is now it won't happen as there is just too much money involved in the Bowl system.  No one wants this but the fans and I would imagine most of the athletes (don't have any real facts on that though).


----------



## drothgery (Sep 11, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> College football playoffs, Yay or Nay?
> 
> Nay for me. These are _kids_ in _college_ and academics should be put first. They are not professionals getting paid.



I suppose you're in favor of cancelling the NCAA basketball tournament, then? Every other college team sport has playoffs. Division I-AA, II, and III football have playoffs. If there weren't so much money (which I don't care about; a well-designed playoff should bring in at least as much money as the bowls) and tradition (which I do care about; a #1 vs #2, Big 10 vs. Pac 10 Rose Bowl to decide the national title is the most perfect expression of college football that could ever exist) tied up in the bowls, Division I-A football would have playoffs too, and they'd be better for it.

-- Dave's 16-team playoff format
* All 11 I-A conference champs get in (conferences apply their own rules for tie-breaks)
* The 5 best other teams in the BCS rankings get in
* First round is a home game for the higher seeds; later rounds at bowl sites.
* The Rat Bastard NCAA Commissioner ensures that teams which play in a conference without a championship game play no more than 11 regular season games. Teams that play in a conference with a championship game play no more than ten regular season games. All regular season games take place between the last Thursday in August and the first Saturday in December. No exceptions.

Last year's seeds [using the 2003 BCS rankings]
#1 Oklahoma (at-large)
#2 LSU (SEC champ)
#3 USC (Pac-10 champ)
#4 Michigan (Big 10 champ)
#5 Ohio State (at-large)
#6 Texas (at-large)
#7 Florida State (ACC champ)
#8 Tennessee (at-large)
#9 Miami (Big East champ)
#10 Kansas State (Big 12 champ)
#11 Miami, Ohio (MAC champ)
#12 Georgia (at-large)
#13 Boise State (WAC champ)
#14 Utah (MWC champ)
#15 Southern Miss (C-USA champ)
#16 North Texas (Sun Belt champ)


----------



## Crothian (Sep 11, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> ...Fresno State could very well beat Kansas State.......




I'm looking good on this one!!


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 11, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I suppose you're in favor of cancelling the NCAA basketball tournament, then?



Apples and oranges. In one sport you get your assed kicked once a week and the other you throw a little orange ball through a hole.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 11, 2004)

[I mention that all other college sports have playoffs, most notably the huge NCAA basketball tournament]



			
				Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges. In one sport you get your assed kicked once a week and the other you throw a little orange ball through a hole.



Okay, so what about divison I-AA, II, and III football, then?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 11, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges. In one sport you get your assed kicked once a week and the other you throw a little orange ball through a hole.




That's why the football players would only play once a weekend and the basketball players would play twice.


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 11, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Okay, so what about divison I-AA, II, and III football, then?



Yeah I caught that, and gave it it's due.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 11, 2004)

I really have not heard any good reasons not to have a playoff.  A few more weeks of football for a few schools won't interfere with acedemics any mor ethen football does through the season.  THe fact that the other college leagues can do a playoff very successfully just helps prove that one is needed and easily doible in 1A.  Money is the big reason the bowls are still around, the big bowl games don't want to let go off the big bucks they make.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 11, 2004)

Good day for upsets......

And the Buckeyes win in traditional fashion.....


----------



## fett527 (Sep 12, 2004)

Nugent

Nugent

Nugent

Nugent

GO BUCKS!!!!!!!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 12, 2004)

Ya, good game to go to.....


----------



## Krieg (Sep 12, 2004)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> Then drothgery's point is still valid. Being in the ACC and Big East clearly did not kill FSU and Miami's budget and recruiting processes. They were and are premier programs. There is no clear indication that being in the Big East would kill Notre Dame's processes either - if one considers them still alive, that is (which, for the record, I do).




Apples & Oranges. FSU & Miami are located in one of the most fertile areas for football talent in the country. Neither team was worth mentioning before 1980, the reason their success skyrocketed is directly related to population migration within the US. 90% of all college athletes (including football players) stay within 250 miles of their home. Notre Dame is one of the few teams that HAS to recruit nationally. They are absolutely dependent upon TV exposure both financially & athletically.




> _Actually the entire Michigan athletic department only sees total revenues of around $65 million for 2004. And, after losing money in recent years, the Michigan athletic department is finally expecting to show a little bit of a surplus in 2004: a whole whopping $8 million. And only a $2 million surplus in 2004. I'm curious as to where you found numbers that are so enormously different from the official ones, which can be found here._





Oops, brainfart on my part. The numbers were _totals_ for the 99-03 schools years. Divide by 5 for the an annual average over that time frame.

The numbers came from the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act summaries from the US Dept of Ed. 




> _Again, speaking for Michigan, which is the school I know best, the implication that an entire University would become financially unstable without its football team is not true._




I never implied that was the case. I merely pointed out that the Big10 would be a better choice for ND financially.




> _ The total University of Michigan annual budget is somewhere around $3.5 or $4 billion. Even if we axed the evil Title IX requirements (which actually hurt women's sports) and assumed that the football team, free of its Title IX chains, could generate the current entire athletic department revenue (not surplus) of $60 million, and then even if we assumed that 100% of that $60 million was pure profit returned to the University to ensure its financial stability - impossible situation, but let's just say - then that still would amount to 1.5% of a 4 billion dollar annual budget. A fiscal blow, to be sure. But nothing to bring on Argentina-like instability._



_

We aren't talking about now TSUN are we? 

Notre Dame's annual operating budget is $650 mil. Their athletic department generates around $47 mil annually (using the total numbers from the original post) and the FB team generates $35 mil of that. Their TV contract with NBC generates around $9 Mil annually, that is almost 20% of the total income of the athletic department and 25% of what the FB team brings in._


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I really have not heard any good reasons not to have a playoff. A few more weeks of football for a few schools won't interfere with acedemics any mor ethen football does through the season. THe fact that the other college leagues can do a playoff very successfully just helps prove that one is needed and easily doible in 1A. Money is the big reason the bowls are still around, the big bowl games don't want to let go off the big bucks they make.



There are over 200 teams, you still couldn't find a fair way to determine who gets into the playoffs without the whiney cry-baby schools pissing and moaning about how they were screwed over and team so and so has no business in the playoffs etc. 

Playoffs are BS, and will change nothing.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 12, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> There are over 200 teams, you still couldn't find a fair way to determine who gets into the playoffs without the whiney cry-baby schools pissing and moaning about how they were screwed over and team so and so has no business in the playoffs etc.



There are 117 teams in divison I-A (not over 200), but I really don't see how anyone would complain much about the system I proposed up-thread (all 11 conference champs get in, plus 5 at-large teams detrmined by BCS rankings or a basketball-esque selection committee). Any team (except for the handful of I-A independents*) has a clear way to qualify for the playoffs. A very good team that's #2 or #3 in their conference has a real shot, though I don't remember the last time a team won a share of the national title without winning their conference; it was probably the last time Notre Dame did.

Fans of the '#6 at large-team' will complain, but the top ten or so teams will always qualify, and I don't think anyone outside the top ten has a real chance to win in practice. I complained when the NFL's tie-breaking rules kept the Packers out of the playoffs two or three years in a row, but I didn't think they were going to win the Super Bowl those years. Fans of the best teams that miss the NCAA basketball tournament grumble, but no one below an 8-seed has ever won the thing (and anyone below a 4-seed winning the title is a very rare thing).

Playoffs won't hurt academics; my Rat Bastard NCAA football comissioner will ensure that almost all teams play _fewer_ games than they play now, and that the teams in the title game will never play more than 15 games (which some teams have done under the current system). As per above, playoff team selection can be reasonably fair.

* Currently just Notre Dame and Navy, though Temple and Army will be added to the list soon. Temple won't be an independent long; they'll either find a conference or drop I-A football. I expect that Notre Dame would join a conference immediately after my system was implemented; Temple, Army, and Navy would either join conferences or drop to I-AA.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 12, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> 90% of all college athletes (including football players) stay within 250 miles of their home. Notre Dame is one of the few teams that HAS to recruit nationally. They are absolutely dependent upon TV exposure both financially & athletically.



So you're saying that what's really killing Notre Dame football is the rise of Purdue?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 12, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> There are over 200 teams, you still couldn't find a fair way to determine who gets into the playoffs without the whiney cry-baby schools pissing and moaning about how they were screwed over and team so and so has no business in the playoffs etc.
> 
> Playoffs are BS, and will change nothing.




You must not watch the games during bowl system.  This goes on now, but not to a degree that you imply.  And not having a system just because people would complain is rather stupid.


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You must not watch the games during bowl system. This goes on now, but not to a degree that you imply. And not having a system just because people would complain is rather stupid.



Yes I watch all the bowl games and yes I know it goes on now. That's my point, nothing will change. Coaches, schools, fans etc will always complain much as they do now not matter what kind of playoff system they create. It will suck just as bad as the bowl system (if you think it sucks) does now.


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 12, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> There are 117 teams in divison I-A.
> ...



You're right. Still, way too many to implement any kind of fair playoff system.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 12, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> You're right. Still, way too many to implement any kind of fair playoff system.




There are more then that in 1A basketball and they have a playoff system.....


----------



## Crothian (Sep 12, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Yes I watch all the bowl games and yes I know it goes on now. That's my point, nothing will change. Coaches, schools, fans etc will always complain much as they do now not matter what kind of playoff system they create. It will suck just as bad as the bowl system (if you think it sucks) does now.




The bowl system does not suck.  If you switch to a playoff things will change.  If it is done fairly giving the midmajors a chance there will be much less complaining.  The biggest complaint with a bowl system is the split national championship that we had last year.  That's impossible with a playoff.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The bowl system does not suck. If you switch to a playoff things will change. If it is done fairly giving the midmajors a chance there will be much less complaining. The biggest complaint with a bowl system is the split national championship that we had last year. That's impossible with a playoff.



I'd disagree here. The system does suck. The non-BCS bowls are meaningless, the teams involved in lesser bowls (and even the at-large teams in the BCS bowls, other than BCS #1 and BCS #2) are selected for ability to draw fans or a TV audience, rather than quality, half the time the BCS championship game wasn't a true #1 vs. #2 game, there's no mechanism for a team that gets hot late in the year and plays its way into the top ten to get a shot at the title, and for all the contrivances of the BCS, the system still managed to produce a split title last year.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> There are more then that in 1A basketball and they have a playoff system.....



There's no split between I-A and I-AA in basketball; there's just Division I (and II and III; my alma mater played Division III sports). So there are 326 teams involved.

The 31 conference champions automatically qualify. The selection committee then chooses 34 at-large teams.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 12, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I'd disagree here. The system does suck. The non-BCS bowls are meaningless,




Meaningless to who?  The kids that get to go to the bowl games love it.  Their fans enjoy seeing them on a national stage, and lots of times these games are actually pretty good.  I know a lot of announcers and commentors don't like the smaller bowl games and call them meaningless but I think they are missing the point.  

I do agree though that a playoff would be better.  Bowls are too motivated by the dollar.  They are predjudice against the smaller schools.  THere is improvements to ber had, but I still enjoy the bowl games and make a point to watch most of them.


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> There are more then that in 1A basketball and they have a playoff system.....



They also play more games and again...apples and oranges. Using basketball to compare to football is a bad example.


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The bowl system does not suck.



I actually don't think it sucks. My fault for coming across that way.



> If it is done fairly giving the midmajors a chance there will be much less complaining.



Big if there. That's my point. It's almost going to be impossible to do.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Meaningless to who? The kids that get to go to the bowl games love it. Their fans enjoy seeing them on a national stage, and lots of times these games are actually pretty good. I know a lot of announcers and commentors don't like the smaller bowl games and call them meaningless but I think they are missing the point.



I'm sure the players like taking trip to a tourist-trap city and hanging out there for a week. I'm sure fans who go to the games enjoy them. But lesser bowls are often played in half-empty stadiums, and have no impact on the national title chase (or even conference title chases); about the only value they provide is giving the teams involved some extra practice for next year.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 12, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I'm sure the players like taking trip to a tourist-trap city and hanging out there for a week. I'm sure fans who go to the games enjoy them. But lesser bowls are often played in half-empty stadiums, and have no impact on the national title chase (or even conference title chases); about the only value they provide is giving the teams involved some extra practice for next year.




Well, only one bowl game has impact on the national title game.  LAst year with thje mess up we had two.  But that did not make any of those other games less exciting.  Bowl games and playoffs are always after the regular season and will never matter in a conference title; conference titles actually need to be first as that determines what teams play in what bowls.  

They provide national expsure to the school.  For recruitment the team can say we went to the Fiesta Bowl and we beat a very good Kansas State team that won the Big Twelve.  

I don't see why a bowl game has to have any meaning expect as a reward to schools who have had very good seasons.  There are many schools who know they are not going to be in the national title picture, but they can work hard and still goto a bowl game.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 13, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Crothian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, the NCAA manages to fill out a tournament for every other sport, and for lower-division football. You're basically saying that since selecting teams can't be perfect, let's not have playoffs. And that's silly. In a 16-team field (which is what the NCAA uses for lower-division football), you'd have five at-large spots. Arguing over the last one or two in is not a big deal, and neither are fans of the last team out complaining that they're certainly better than the Sun Belt champ (even though it'll probably be true).


----------



## drothgery (Sep 13, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't see why a bowl game has to have any meaning expect as a reward to schools who have had very good seasons. There are many schools who know they are not going to be in the national title picture, but they can work hard and still goto a bowl game.



And if there were ten or fifteen bowl games, that's what the bowls would be. But there aren't ten or fifteen bowl games. There are 28. And a game involving the third-place team in the MAC or the 7th-place team in the Big 12 does not provide an interesting game to anyone except the most devoted fans of the teams in question.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 13, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> And if there were ten or fifteen bowl games, that's what the bowls would be. But there aren't ten or fifteen bowl games. There are 28. And a game involving the third-place team in the MAC or the 7th-place team in the Big 12 does not provide an interesting game to anyone except the most devoted fans of the teams in question.




The lower bowl games do not have the interest from the fans they should.  Many of the games actually turn out to be pretty good.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 13, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The lower bowl games do not have the interest from the fans they should. Many of the games actually turn out to be pretty good.



They tend to match teams of roughly equivalent ability, and they're usually the only game in their time slot. It's not suprising that they're often close games; the Texans-Chargers game today was a pretty good game even though neither team will end the year with a winning record. But it doesn't change that it's a game between mediocre teams and so of minimal interest.


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 13, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Again, the NCAA manages to fill out a tournament for every other sport, and for lower-division football. You're basically saying that since selecting teams can't be perfect, let's not have playoffs. And that's silly. In a 16-team field (which is what the NCAA uses for lower-division football), you'd have five at-large spots. Arguing over the last one or two in is not a big deal, and neither are fans of the last team out complaining that they're certainly better than the Sun Belt champ (even though it'll probably be true).



Actually putting words in my mouth is silly. 

You have rankings now that have them all in the top 117 so....

You have to come up with a system that includes all division 1-A teams not just your favorite top 16.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 13, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> You have to come up with a system that includes all division 1-A teams not just your favorite top 16.



No I don't. 115 of the 117 teams are in 11 conferences, so I can just say that the conferences can determine their champion however they want, and the champion makes the playoffs. Simple.

And then we'll choose the five highest-ranked teams that didn't win their conference (use something like the BCS rankings or a basketball-style selcection committee to choose these five) to round out the field. This is hardly unfair; it's what all other college team sports (excepting I-A football) do*.

Now, this system does make it hard for a mid-major school to make the playoffs if they don't win their conference. But it's very rare when there's one championship-caliber team in a mid-major football conference, let alone two. If my** system had been used last year, and the BCS rankings were used to choose the at-large teams, only three confrences would send more than one team (the Big 10 [2], SEC [3], and Big 12 [3]).

* In some sports, like lacrosse, conferences may not have a role because usually only a few colleges in any given conference have a team, so play is not organized by conference. Lacrosse uses a selection committee to determine all of the playoff spots.

** I'm sure others have proposed extremely similar things in the past.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 13, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> You have to come up with a system that includes all division 1-A teams not just your favorite top 16.



There is one already in place.

It's called the regular season.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 17, 2004)

I sorely missed not having a Thursday night game.

Tonight's match up:  UCONN v BC

Can UCONN pull the upset? A lot of bad blood in this matchup.  Can BC shut down Orlovsky like they did Mills last week?

I'll post about the weekend games separately.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 17, 2004)

WEll, Notre Dame could complete a victory over the whole state of Michigian this weekend.  MSU is not looking that good.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 17, 2004)

I agree, John L. had to replace about 15 starters and it's showing.  It looks like ND will take down MSU.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 17, 2004)

Marquee matchups predictions:

Florida over Vols (Leak will outdo the freshman duo)
Tigers beat the Tigers   (OK, Auburn over LSU)
WVA finally beats Maryland (can I put a caveat to say as long as Kay-Jay Harris is healthy?)
and...

The BUCKEYES will prevail over the Wolfpack of course.


GO BUCKS!!!!!


----------



## fett527 (Sep 20, 2004)

I thought I'd get to this thread and be behind in posting since I haven't had time.  I didn't expect no one to have posted.  Come on now!!!!!!!!

I was 3 for 4 in the big matchups (who knew the VOLS' kicker could miss a PAT but make a 50 yarder?)

Any comments about this past weekend?


----------



## drothgery (Sep 20, 2004)

My Orange apparently beat Cinci. But they still suck.

USC didn't score until the second quarter against BYU. But I don't see how anyone, even Oklahoma, can beat them (unless weather or injuries radically changes the game, or everyone has an off game).

The locals (San Diego State) seem to be getting in the habbit of losing by a field goal to the top dogs of the Big 10. If the Aztecs got a home game from either team out of the deal, that might be worth going to.


----------



## Vorith (Sep 20, 2004)

i prefer the nfl...


----------



## fett527 (Sep 20, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> My Orange apparently beat Cinci. But they still suck.
> 
> USC didn't score until the second quarter against BYU. But I don't see how anyone, even Oklahoma, can beat them (unless weather or injuries radically changes the game, or everyone has an off game).
> 
> The locals (San Diego State) seem to be getting in the habbit of losing by a field goal to the top dogs of the Big 10. If the Aztecs got a home game from either team out of the deal, that might be worth going to.




I was rooting my heart out for Aztecs.  It would have been so sweet!


----------



## resscane (Sep 20, 2004)

wow a football thread.  I went to the miami/louisiana tech game this saturday at the orange bowl.  The game was played at 1:00 pm,  which is totally insane.  It was probably 110 degrees in the sun and after tailgating for 2 hours prior,  I felt like a hot dog.  

Miami has a very good defense and special teams this year,  as it should always have.  The offense,  well they're not as bad as everybody thinks,  but they definately are the weak link of the team.  And its not all  Brock Berlins fault.  It seemed like the receivers ran the wrong routes several times during the game.  

As a note to recruiting,  Miami has something like 65 class  6 schools within 50 miles of its campus.   Class 6 has at least 2500 kids at the school,  I believe.  That,  coupled w/ the year round emphasis of football,  gives them quite an advantage in recuiting the area.  

College football, without a doubt,  is the greatest sport in the world.  I just hope all the money floating around doesnt ruin it.


----------



## rogueattorney (Sep 20, 2004)

I'm an Illinois fan, and I haven't had much to chear about since 2001.  (That Sugar Bowl seems so long ago, now.)  However, college football is probably my favorite sport.

Random thought 3 weeks into the season:

Purdue looks like the clear favorite in the Big(11)Ten.  But I gotta believe that Mich or Oh. St. (or both) will make a run as well.  Although neither have really impressed me thus far.

My poor Illini are going to have to win 4 in the B10 to get back to a bowl for the first time since the 2001 Sugar Bowl - meaning, assuming we actually beat NW, MSU and Indiana (no sure thing by any means), we'll have to beat Iowa, Purdue or Michigan at home, or Wiscy or Minny on the road.  Considering we barely got by Western Michigan at home this weekend and got killed by UCLA at home the previous week, I'm not going to hold my breath.  The talent level on defense just insn't there.

I have a hard time naming the best conference in the country this year, as no one really stood out in non-conference play.  The Big12, in particular looked lackluster compared to previous years.  This might be the year a non-BCS school finally gets to one of the big four bowls - Fresno St./Boise St. winner and Utuah will both be in real nice shape.

What happened to the MAC?

The arguments against playoffs are monetary and traditional.  The people who run college football are conservative to their core, and they will not change their minds regarding a playoff until someone shows them that they will make money hands over fists more than they were making under the bowl system.  That said, it will eventually happen; more likely 20 years than 2, but eventually Disney/ABC/ESPN will just put too much dinero on the table for the conferences and presidents to continue to say "no".  

When it finally happens, college football will be changed, IMO, for the better.  When players at great academic institutions like M.I.T. and William & Mary and Cal-Davis can have their football players play in playoffs and not suffer academically, certain semi-pro football programs that happen to be attached to vocational learning institutions (you know who you are) can surely have their "student"-athletes eek by, and not see their academic performance diminish (if such were even possible).

R.A.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 21, 2004)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> Purdue looks like the clear favorite in the Big(11)Ten.  But I gotta believe that Mich or Oh. St. (or both) will make a run as well.  Although neither have really impressed me thus far.




Don't forget about Iowa...they very well could take control of the Big Ten.  We find out this Saturday when they face Michigan.  




> ppened to the MAC?




Th MAC had great QBs last year and they left for the NFL.  Its going to be a down year for the MAC.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 21, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Don't forget about Iowa...they very well could take control of the Big Ten. We find out this Saturday when they face Michigan.



They got destroyed by Arizona State, a team that's probably no better than a middle-of-the-pack team in the Pac 10, and barely got by Iowa State (and the Hawkeyes don't have a recent history of narrow victories on the back of a dominating defense, ala the Buckeyes, so they don't get "a win is a win" points). I'd figure Iowa behind Purdue, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (probably in that order).


----------



## Crothian (Sep 21, 2004)

I was away all weekend and really didn't get to see much football except for the OSU game which came in fuzzy.  Oh well, I was hoping Iowa woulod have another strong season.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 21, 2004)

I have to admit Purdue looks impressive.  Exlposive offense and solid defense so far.  Orton looks good.  They won't get tested until they play newly revived Notre Dame (sorry rogueattorney Illinois won't be much of a test next week) so we will see.

And of course everyone says they are not impressed with the Buckeyes.  That's the way we want it.  Tresselball rocks!!!


----------



## Krieg (Sep 21, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> And of course everyone says they are not impressed with the Buckeyes. That's the way we want it. Tresselball rocks!!!



Damnit Lydell, just hit the freakin' hole!

Sorry.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 21, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Damnit Lydell, just hit the freakin' hole!
> 
> Sorry.




As long as he holds onto the ball.  At least we were the ones getting the turnovers this week.....


----------



## rogueattorney (Sep 21, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> I have to admit Purdue looks impressive.  Exlposive offense and solid defense so far.  Orton looks good.  They won't get tested until they play newly revived Notre Dame (sorry rogueattorney Illinois won't be much of a test next week) so we will see.




Yeah, It'll probably look like they're running a scrimmage...  10 yard run, 12 yard pass, 7 yard run, 15 yard pass, 8 yard run, 22 yard pass, Touch Down.  Illinois will need a near perfect offensive performance and some PU turnovers to keep it reasonably interesting.

At least the weather will be good for tailgating.

R.A.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 21, 2004)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> At least the weather will be good for tailgating.
> 
> R.A.




That's the spirit!!


----------



## fett527 (Sep 21, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Damnit Lydell, just hit the freakin' hole!
> 
> Sorry.





Me thinks Pittman may get more time against Northwestern.  We'll see.....


----------



## Krieg (Sep 22, 2004)

I'm hoping Brandon Joe will be healty by then. He is potentially the hammer that this team needs right now.

BTW Lookin towards the future, word out of CJ is that Ringer's grade situation is coming along nicely.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 23, 2004)

Interesting article on NCAA eligibility:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6075252/ 

First sentence sums it up:



> NCAA football players could have five seasons of eligibility and would be allowed to transfer once without penalty if two new proposals are approved next year.




Any chance Houston pulls an upset tonight?


----------



## resscane (Sep 23, 2004)

Can Houston pull an upset tonight?  Does UNH, MAine, Troy sound dangerous?  Prolly not to the teams they played before they upset them.  That being said,  I would take Miami w/ the points if I was a betting man,  which I am.  I usually like teams vs.  miami w/ the spread because if Miami is winning,  you'll see 3rd and 4th team and even walk-ons get some serious playing time.  Coker likes to play everybody,  which is a big reason the team has played well year after year.  

Seems we have some Big 10 guys here. You gotta love the  Big 10 atmosphere  and fall football weather.  MAn is it hot down here.  Havent been many Big 10 games on TV in miami this year.  Have not seen purdue or Minn play yet.  Have seen Mich/Notre Dame and Ohio St/NC St.  Both were good games w/ great atmosphere.  

I love college football!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 23, 2004)

I'd love to see Houston take down Miami, we rarely get to see a top notch program lose to on of the underrated smaller schools.  

Big Ten football is great, and iut onlky gets better with the coming fall.  They need more bowls up here though that will never happen.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 23, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Big Ten football is great, and iut onlky gets better with the coming fall. They need more bowls up here though that will never happen.



... and I'd only support a few more northern-tier bowls (presumably held in St. Louis, Minneapolis, Detroit or Indy, where there are handy domed stadiums used by the NFL) if that meant taking bowls away from some place else. The Big East is hoping to set up a bowl game in NYC if the Jets get a the new stadium they've been angling for (though I don't know if they get it unless NYC gets the 2012 Olympics, which they probably won't).


----------



## Crothian (Sep 23, 2004)

Bah...forget the domed stadiums...I want bowls in the Big House, at the Horseshoe, and other large outside stadiums.  I don't see why the bowls have to be in the south.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 23, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Bah...forget the domed stadiums...I want bowls in the Big House, at the Horseshoe, and other large outside stadiums. I don't see why the bowls have to be in the south.



Because on Jan 1, there's a very good chance of a blizzard in Columbus, Detroit, or Chicago. While there's a lot of tradition surrounding football in the snow (mostly pro, as the college game wraps up by the first week of December, until the Bowls), it's not good television and it's harder to sell tickets to non-local fans if there's no expectation of good gametime weather.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 23, 2004)

Wimpy football fans....who would have thought....


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Sep 24, 2004)

I don't know much about football but

Go Gators!


----------



## resscane (Sep 24, 2004)

*Miami and the BCS championship*

Well I dont think I've ever felt worse after my team won by 25 points!  What a frustrating offensive performance.  A world class defense and special teams w/ a very mediocre offense..,  makes away games a lot more exciting thats for sure.  A lot of problems on offense.  Suspect quarterback play, bad pass protection,  receivers running wrong routes,  suspect and predictable play calling.   Definitely not a National Championship caliber offense,  as of right now.   The Houston Q Kolb outplayed Berlin.   Hopefully Coker will get this thing turned around,  Miami's starting Right tackle should return from a leg injury this week,  which should allow the offensive line to get reset,  and thats good because they were having some serious problems w/ blitz pickup.  

Really looking forward to watching some great college football this weekend,  hopefully the wife and Hurricane Jeanne will cooperate,  lol.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 24, 2004)

resscane said:
			
		

> ...What a frustrating offensive performance.  A world class defense and special teams w/ a very mediocre offense..,  makes away games a lot more exciting thats for sure.  A lot of problems on offense...




Yeah, I know OSU's offense looked bad, but hey you get used to Tresselball when you win...wait you aren't talking about the BUCKEYES are you?


----------



## resscane (Sep 24, 2004)

*Hmmm*

Maybe Tressel sent Coker his notes on how to win ugly,  because I got a feeling that if we do make it to the Orange bowl,  it is gonna be a long, overtime filled,  ugly,  heart attack season.   Woohoo!  I love college football.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 24, 2004)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6083905/

39-year-old receiver can play at South Carolina


GO GAMECOCKS!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 24, 2004)

That's cool that they will let "pops" play!!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2004)

Bowling Green is going to beat Northern Ill!!!!


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 25, 2004)

I'm joining this thread a bit late, but...

This is looking to be a good year for my Boise State Broncos. They only have a couple tough teams left (if BYU can be considered tough). I'm really hoping the showdown with Fresno State sees them both undefeated going in to it. Not often you see two ranked non-BCS shools play each other.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Not often you see two ranked non-BCS shools play each other.




Oddly enoufg Bowling Green and Northern Ill last year....

But you are right and it'd be great for both to go undeafeated into that game.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 25, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6083905/
> 
> 39-year-old receiver can play at South Carolina



According to Coach Tressell there is a 25 y/o former pro Rugger who is coming to Ohio State to kick next season.

Now that should be interesting.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2004)

Bowling Green couldn't pull the win 

But a rugby player for a kicker will be cool


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 25, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Bowling Green couldn't pull the win
> 
> But a rugby player for a kicker will be cool



 Yeah, I'm sweatin' the Boise State game right now, too. They're not often behind in the 4th quarter.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 25, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But a rugby player for a kicker will be cool



Have you seen how many kicker/punters they've been bringing in?

A.J. Trapasso is redshirting and will be a frosh.

Jonathon Skeete signed.

John Barker is a greyshirt for '05.

Aaron Petrey is another '05 greyshirt.

J.D Bergman is an excellent kicker who walked on this year.

Kevin Gerber - another walk-on.

...and now add this former Rugger to the mix and you have quite a bit of competition to be the next Nuge or Sanders.

You don't see many teams sign four scholarship kickers in a two year period.
If that isn't a testament to tresselball I don't know what is! lol


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm sweatin' the Boise State game right now, too. They're not often behind in the 4th quarter.




Wow, Boise State pulled out the close win.  I went to sleep and missed most of the 4th quarter.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Have you seen how many kicker/punters they've been bringing in?




Nope, I don't pay much attention to the recruits.  That's a lot of kickers.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 25, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Nope, I don't pay much attention to the recruits. That's a lot of kickers.



FWIW next year's class is shaping up to be a monster. Still no RB or LB but everything else looks outstanding thus far.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2004)

Ya!!

Poor illini...if they could just score some TDs instead of field goals this would be a very good game.  Each team has scored 5 tomes, put purdue has the TDs.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 25, 2004)

well, as i sit right now Florida, Va Tech and Purdue are all having some trouble.  Let's see how it shakes out.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 25, 2004)

That blocked punt that went for the first down was something you just don't see a lot of in the Purdue/Illini game


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 25, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Wow, Boise State pulled out the close win.  I went to sleep and missed most of the 4th quarter.



 Me too. The game didn't end until almost midnight. I can't believe they pulled it off, but I think it's good for them. They need to win some close ones. That's the first fourth-quarter comeback I think they've had during this win streak (could be wrong).


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2004)

Anyone have any faith in these so called BCS Busters?  I'm talking Fresno State, Boise State, Utah, and Louisville.  Basically yjr idea is that if one of these four goes undefeated they will get one of the prices of a BCS bowl. 

I'd love to see it but hate to have to play them.  They will be the media darling and it'll be a no win for the big conference team.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 26, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Anyone have any faith in these so called BCS Busters? I'm talking Fresno State, Boise State, Utah, and Louisville. Basically yjr idea is that if one of these four goes undefeated they will get one of the prices of a BCS bowl.



To be brutally honest? No.

It is the same thing early every year, pick a team that is dominating mid level competition and declare them the second coming.

They won't be there in November.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 26, 2004)

Ya, it does happen every year, but one of these years I imagine one of these guys will go undefeated.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 27, 2004)

Well, Boise State is poised to do it, if they can beat Fresno. They have a fairly easy schedule. The problem is, one of these schools would have to finish Top 6 to be guaranteed a BCS bowl ('cause there's no way they'd be offered one otherwise). Utah is in the best position to do that, but they have a tougher schedule. However, they could fairly easily end up in the Top 6 if they go undefeated.

Boise, Fresno, and Louiseville would have a much more difficult time, though Fresno is decently rank. Obviously, either Boise or Fresno will knock the other out of contention.

But (and I say this with total and complete bias) don't rule out Boise. They ended last year No 12 (15 in the BCS). The year before was close to that as well. It's not like they've come out of nowhere. Longest winning streak (and home win streak in the nation), third best record in the nation since 1999 (behind Oklahoma and Miami, I think), led the nation in scoring the last two years.... Basically, they don't suck. In the WAC, yes, but still. That said, I don't think they'll be BCS-busting this year. But they'll have another good year.

Personally, I'm hoping they go undefeated and Georgia wins the Championship. Boise travels there for the first game next year.


----------



## Krieg (Sep 27, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Well, Boise State is poised to do it, if they can beat Fresno. They have a fairly easy schedule. The problem is, one of these schools would have to finish Top 6 to be guaranteed a BCS bowl ('cause there's no way they'd be offered one otherwise).



That's the rub isn't it? 

...and it is a big reason why I am not a fan of preseason polls, at least not counting towards the BCS. A team that is severely underrated at the beginning of the season has to work much harder to climb the rankings.


----------



## resscane (Sep 27, 2004)

BCS busters,  thats what makes college football great,  teams coming from nowhere to beat the big boys.., unless its your team getting beat at home by Tulane or something.  When you look at a couple teams and realize they havent lost to an unranked team in 10 to 20 years,  its mind boggling.  There arent many that can keep their intensity up for that long of a time.  And in that regard,  although Louisville is rankes,  Miami has to play them in the Orange bowl on Oct 14,  a thursday night ESPN game.  You gotta think they are licking their chops after watching our offense this past week.  I ftheir defense and special teams come to play,  this could be a very good game.  I'll be there and I hope I dont have a heart attack.   


Boise St,  I still turn their games on and think I'm tripping for a second.   I watched the BYU game.  Good game.   I think a team w/ a defense could put the breaks on Boise,  but I would't bet against them unless they were giving away 10pts or so.

Wisc/Penn st..,  I turned to it late (Dang 24-7 Hurricane coverage preemts everything)  and they kept sayin a qb was taken from the field directly to the hospital.  What happened?   Is he OK?  

Another great college football season.  Kickers are really determining lots of games this  year.  Glad we've already played Florida State,  lol.


----------



## Jarrod (Sep 27, 2004)

The Penn State quarterback (don't remember his name, sorry) suffered a mild/medium concussion and was taken to the hospital. As far as I know (Madison person) he's doing fine.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 27, 2004)

resscane said:
			
		

> Another great college football season.  Kickers are really determining lots of games this  year.




You can say that again! I can't believe how many big games have already been won/lost on missed extra points and field goals. Including my Boise State team! 



			
				resscane said:
			
		

> Boise St, I still turn their games on and think I'm tripping for a second. I watched the BYU game. Good game. I think a team w/ a defense could put the breaks on Boise, but I would't bet against them unless they were giving away 10pts or so.




That's what worries me, because it's exactly what BYU did. Yes they gave up 28 points, but that's half what BSU normally scores. And the BSU defense isn't great, so a good defense can definitely beat them. It really should have happened against BYU, but again, missed field goal.

This is a great season already. I like seeing underdog teams do well, and there are a bunch this year. Four BCS-busters (Utah, Boise, Fresno, Louiseville) and Cal. I hope they all keep winning, just to keep things interesting.


----------



## rogueattorney (Sep 27, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya!!
> 
> Poor illini...if they could just score some TDs instead of field goals this would be a very good game.  Each team has scored 5 tomes, put purdue has the TDs.




Yargh!!!  Twice inside the 10 with no TD's.  A gift-wrapped TD to Purdue on the first play of the game.  A blocked FG.  A touchdown given up where no one even covered the slot receiver.  No clock-management skills whatsoever.

Illinois and Purdue are much closer in talent level than I think anyone suspected.  If that weren't true, Illinois would have lost by 40 instead of 8, given all the stupidity!  Plain and simple, Illinois didn't play a smart football game; Purdue did.  Illinois loses and Purdue wins.

On the plus side, the weather was great.  The Brats were delicious.  The beer flowed like wine, and the wine flowed like beer.

R.A.


----------



## fett527 (Sep 30, 2004)

Looks like Marshall will win the MAC this year after last night.


----------



## resscane (Oct 1, 2004)

*Conn vs. Pitt*

Well I have to admit I was sceptical of Conn..,  I mean cmon,  this was Pitt not some Div AA team.  I was wrong.  The Conn team dominated where you would least expect a 4 year old team to,  in the trenches.  Their o-line totally kept the 2 smartest DT's in football (weel at least according to ESPN announcers) off of the QB,  who didn't look great,  but good enough to win.   And their d-line played well and linebackers were all over.  

Another great weekend of college football coming.  woohoo


----------



## Kronk (Oct 1, 2004)

*Auburn vs. Tennessee*

War Eagle!  beat the Vols!


----------



## fett527 (Oct 1, 2004)

I watched more of the Navy v Air Force game.  Very exciting.  Kid hit his first field goal of the year to win in the final seconds fro Navy.  

Air Force had a true Freshman QB come in that made it a game.  A lot of fun. 

Navy has two weeks to prep for Notre Dame, the Irish better be ready.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 1, 2004)

Irish need to be ready for Purdue this weekend, first.  Not a lot of great match ups but hopefully a lot of really good games.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2004)

West Virginia in trouble...otherwise the early games are going as expected.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 3, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> West Virginia in trouble...otherwise the early games are going as expected.



Yup. Including Purdue thumping Notre Dame (looks like the Nov. 13 Purdue-OSU game is a classic immovable object v. unstoppable force game), and my Orange squeeking by Rutgers (unfortunately; a blowout win would indicate the team is getting better, and a loss would speed Coach P out the door -- there's no upside to a 4th-quarter, come from behind win over a bad team unless you're good enough that a loss takes you out of the national tile/conference title hunt).


----------



## Crothian (Oct 3, 2004)

LSU got destroyed...the Auburn Tenn game is just looking bad for Tenn..


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 3, 2004)

I just got back from the Boise State/SMU game. Pretty lackluster for Boise, but they still won easily. It really wasn't as close as the score  (38-20). SMU was never really in it, even when the went up 7-0 early on.

But I'm completely bummed that Fresno lost. So much for the great Boise/Fresno match-up in three weeks.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 3, 2004)

THe buckeyes can't even put away Northwestern...in fact we had to make the come back.  OT...sigh.....


----------



## Crothian (Oct 3, 2004)

And it finally happens, NW wins.  It looked bad from the beginning, the OSU guys looked slow and uninspired.  The tackling wasn't that great either.


----------



## fett527 (Oct 4, 2004)

The defense wasn't stellar, but Zwick's fumble and interception in the endzone lost that game.

I'll be in mourning until the Wisconsin game.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 4, 2004)

Dude, the Badgers have a good chance of running the Buckeyes over.  This mourning is going to be lasting.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 4, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Dude, the Badgers have a good chance of running the Buckeyes over. This mourning is going to be lasting.



Eh. The Buckeyes are still quite capable of shutting down a one-dimensional running team (like Wisconsin). So long as Nugent isn't missing 45-yard field goals, they ought to have a good chance.

Of course, my Orange have Florida State next. That's going to be ugly, especially without Chris Rix mistakes to keep the game closer than it should be.


----------



## fett527 (Oct 4, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Dude, the Badgers have a good chance of running the Buckeyes over.  This mourning is going to be lasting.




Come now.  The BUCKEYES will shrug this off and come back strong.  Must have faith.


----------



## fett527 (Oct 8, 2004)

Virginia comes out strong in the second half, look good.

The Southern Miss/Houston game was exciting to watch.  Southern Miss wins by 6 in OT.

Looking forward to the BUCKEYES to redeem themselves this weekend.  It will be a tough order though.

GO BUCKS!!!!


----------



## resscane (Oct 8, 2004)

*Oct 9 schedule*

Wow,  what a great weekend for college football.  I'm gonna get a couple cases of beer and plant myself in front of the tv all day.  As a miami fan,  I have to pull for Texas,  Cal, Tenn and a couple other teams I dont really think will win,  but thats what football is all about.  I hope at some time in my life I have enough extra cash to travel the country and see games like this in person.  I've seen every UM home game since 84,  except 2 when my 1st child was born and my wife guilted me,  (hope she doesnt read these forums,  hehe),  so I've seen a couple good games,  but I would like to someday visit Ohio st, Tenn,  red river shootout,  etc..,


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 8, 2004)

Though I'm not a big football fan, it looks like I'll be going to the UF-LSU game this weekened...its been at least eight years since I've actually been to a game. At least its night so it won't be lead-melting hot...


----------



## Crothian (Oct 9, 2004)

Red River shootout wasn't much of a shoot out....poor Texas, it'll be intereing when OSU plays them next year.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 10, 2004)

About the only thing Florida State did right was stop the run, but Coach P still found a way to make my Orange lose. How do you miss two 40-yard field goals *in your own dome*? Admittedly, FSU did the same thing, but still..


----------



## Crothian (Oct 10, 2004)

It seems that when Ohio State looses, this thread dies.....

Nebraska...what the hell happened there?  I didn't see the game, but I just say the score.  What happened to the acclaimed blkackshirts?  Even with their offense dieing over the past few years, the defense has usually been there.  

Poor CAl, they should won that game.  Poor Gophers, they have too.  Poor Buckeyes, they need an offense.....


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Oct 12, 2004)

Yeesh, Nebraska, to me it looks like they're trying to run a pro-style passing offense without the personnel for that scheme. Maybe their recruiting will catch up in a year or two, but for now, it looks like they are in for some painful games.

I just wish that Div. IA had a playoff. I know there are a lot of good reasons for bowl games, but still, you don't see NCAA basketball fans saying, "You know what we really need instead of March Madness? Bowl games." Not to mention that a playoff would finally force some of these warm-weather teams to play important post-season games away from their home fields/towns/states/climates (I'm looking at you, USC and Miami).


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2004)

Ya, I know.  I'd love to see those teams try to win a game up here in the Big Ten come winter time.  There was a reason the Fronzen Tundra of the PAckers was such a tough place to play.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, I know. I'd love to see those teams try to win a game up here in the Big Ten come winter time. There was a reason the Fronzen Tundra of the PAckers was such a tough place to play.



Err, USC plays at Notre Dame every other year, and it's usually late in the season. And there might not be snow in the Pacific Northwest in winter, but it's not all that likely in a regular season game in Big 10 country either (snow before December happens almost every year, but it doesn't last long), and rain is a lot more likley. Admittedly, it's not quite playing a game at the Horeshoe or the Big House, but it's not exactly playing Cal State-Creampuff either.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2004)

I know, but they don't play those games in the winter ie Bowl Season.  A lot of southern tams play northern teams like Maimi and FSU playing BC once BC jions them next year.  I limited it to winter because that is bowl season.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I know, but they don't play those games in the winter ie Bowl Season. A lot of southern tams play northern teams like Maimi and FSU playing BC once BC jions them next year. I limited it to winter because that is bowl season.



But it's not college football season. The Buckeyes don't play in the Horshoe in December (well, except for the first weekend occasionally) either.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> But it's not college football season. The Buckeyes don't play in the Horshoe in December (well, except for the first weekend occasionally) either.




That's the point, there is no bowl game up here for them to play.  Not like USC and Miami who have bowl games in their home stadiium.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 12, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> That's the point, there is no bowl game up here for them to play. Not like USC and Miami who have bowl games in their home stadiium.



Nitpicking here, but the Rose Bowl is UCLA's home stadium, not USC's (granted, both the Collesium and the Rose Bowl are in the LA metro area). And the Orange Bowl isn't played in the Orange Bowl anymore; it's played at the Dolphins' Pro Player Park. 

But outdoor, cold-weather city bowl games aren't going to happen because neither the fans nor the TV networks like the idea. You might see home-stadium first-round playoff games, if a 16-team playoff is ever implemented, but certainly not for later-round games.


----------



## fett527 (Oct 12, 2004)

Rebuilding.

Obviously you can't send 14 players to the NFL and immediately recover.

Rebuilding.


Iowa will be tough at home.  Here's to hoping something clicks and soon.


----------



## resscane (Oct 12, 2004)

One of the things that has changed in college football in the past 25-30 years, due to 85 limit on scholarships,  is an amazing amout of parity.  When you think about a couple of teams that have been able to win 9-10-11 games a season for 20 years, its just amazing.   It is so easy to have a letdown game when everybody circles their game against you as their superbowl.    The media saturation of winning programs has also contributed to a couple of downfalls.  You win the big game and next year every time a guy farts sideways, the national media iare calling you out as uncouth thugs..,  as LSU, Ohio ST. Florida ST,  USC, and MIami have all found out.  It takes  a lot of work and probably more luck to stay on top  year after year without a letdown versus a team you should beat.  

Now add to that that you can only practice 2 hours a day,  and you're trying to teach your team a complicated pro-style offense,  and you can see where the problems are for Nebraska.  although that doesnt absolve the defense of an abysmal showing.  Offenses like the one Nebraska is trying to install can take years to master.  I would like to think the Nebraska AD will give Callahan time to get it worked out,  but I doubt it.  

Getting real psyched up for the Miami/Louisville game in the Orange bowl this thursday.  I'm  gonna be useless at work,  so maybe I'll just get to the field at 1pm and start tailgating.   ESPN is really hyping this game as a possible upset,  and thats their job.  But like I said in the 1st paragraph,  it is very hard to get up for every game when you're opponents are circling the game as their superbowl.  Unfortunately for Louisville,  because of all the hype,  they are not gonna come into this game under the radar.   Chris Mortensen diisin Mike Irving on Monday night countdown!  I gaurantee Irving will be on the phone all day today,  calling every current player he can reach and getting em hyped.  

Can Louisville win this game?  Hell yeah, they have a good offense and a good defense.  Will they,  well w/ miami giving 10 pts,  I think I'm gonna stay away from this one.  But I'll be there screaming my head off.  And I'll get to recover in time to watch footaball all day saturday.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 12, 2004)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> Yeesh, Nebraska, to me it looks like they're trying to run a pro-style passing offense without the personnel for that scheme. Maybe their recruiting will catch up in a year or two, but for now, it looks like they are in for some painful games.
> 
> I just wish that Div. IA had a playoff. I know there are a lot of good reasons for bowl games, but still, you don't see NCAA basketball fans saying, "You know what we really need instead of March Madness? Bowl games." Not to mention that a playoff would finally force some of these warm-weather teams to play important post-season games away from their home fields/towns/states/climates (I'm looking at you, USC and Miami).



 I'm there with you. Until Div 1-A gets a playoff system, they'll be the joke of the sporting world (well, not that extreme, but still...). 

And I love the coaches and directors who say a college football playoff isn't possible with schedules, academics, etc. Div I-AA has been doing fine with a playoff for years.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 13, 2004)

So, a few big games this weekend, most importantly in the Big Ten undefeated Purdue vers e undefeated Wisconsin.  We also have USC vers the undeafeated Arizona State, possible USC's last real hurtle.  Another undefeated match up but not near as blaanced Loisville verse Miami.  Virginia FSU match up should be really good.  Another good weekend of games!!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 15, 2004)

What a game, Miami makes the come back...half a quarter left


----------



## resscane (Oct 15, 2004)

*Miami/Louisville*

Wow what a game.  Louisville certainly gained some believers last night.   I've seen the Canes come back many times at the orange bowl,  but very rarely against a team that was playing so well.  Petrino really game planed well for this game.  I cant help but think that the Louisville brass better open up their wallets,  or Petrino is gonna be coaching at UF or LSU next year.  

Strangely enough,  that was one of the most congenial games I've ever seen at the orange bowl.  Miami games are known for atracting morons.  I saw a couple fights but they were between drunken miami idiots.  Lousville players and fans were treated very well and w/ respect from what I saw.  I wish every game could be so.  Maybe I would take my kids to more games if that were the case. 

In the last 2 years,  Ive seen Miami beat Fla St, Florida, WV and now Louisville in some amazing come from behind games.  All of em will be shown many times on ESPN classic.  Gotta love college football.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 15, 2004)

gotta love ESPN Classic


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 15, 2004)

I'm going to be very curious to see what happens in the polls because of this game. Let's say Boise State beats Tulsa (man, they had better beat Tulsa). Louisville is currently 17th to Boise State's 18th. The way the polls work, Louisville would drop behind Boise State in the polls, despite the fact that they barely lost to the No. 3 team in the nation whereas Boise beat a bad Tulsa team.

As much as I want to see Boise State rise in the polls, it's stuff like that that drives me nuts about college ball. I almost think Louisville should get a bump up in the polls after that game.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 15, 2004)

They'll drop.  Not everyone who votes in the polls would have seen the game and they just vote on wins and losses.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 16, 2004)

Lots of good early games.  Mich is close at Ill and MSU is berating up on Minnosota!!


----------



## LeapingShark (Oct 16, 2004)

The Trojans are currently drenching the Sundevils with buckets of destruction.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 16, 2004)

Ya, and the Buckeyes are really showing that they suck this year


----------



## drothgery (Oct 17, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, and the Buckeyes are really showing that they suck this year



Between that and my Orange doing much the same thing (save for the FSU game), it's almost enough to make me give up on my "home" teams and become another loser who moved out west and jumped on the USC bandwagon...


----------



## Crothian (Oct 17, 2004)

Go with San Diego State!!  Or Fresno State!!


----------



## drothgery (Oct 17, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Go with San Diego State!! Or Fresno State!!



The whole point of jumping on a bandwagon is to cheer for winners, which means the Aztecs are right out (routinely losing by a field goal to the Big 10 champ doesn't cut it), and Fresno's farther from San Diego than LA, not on TV as much (TV isn't as much of an issue with the Aztecs, as I could pretty easily go see games live; it's not like they sell out the stadium), and in a second-rate confrence.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 17, 2004)

Just trying to offer suggestions that wouldn't be jumping on the bandwagon.  But with the way USC is playing, I'm going to become a fan.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 19, 2004)

BCS ranking are out and the crying and complaining have started.  It's funny to hear all the complaints and all the problems when in reality the BCS has worked better then the old system.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 19, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> BCS ranking are out and the crying and complaining have started. It's funny to hear all the complaints and all the problems when in reality the BCS has worked better then the old system.



Only marginally, and it least in the old system we always got Big 10 v. Pac 10 Rose Bowls, and nothing utterly loony, like a Big 10/Pac 10 Orange Bowl a few years back [USC v. Iowa, when co-Big 10 champ Ohio Stae played Miami for all the marbles, and co-Pac 10 champ Washingto State played _Texas_ in the Rose].

I don't find anything especially problematic with the current BCS standings; I'd go #1 USC,#2 Auburn,#3 Miami, #4 Oklahoma,#5 Wisconsin, #6 Cal, #7 Texas, #8 Tennessee, #9 Florida State, #10 Utah, but that's just quibbling.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 19, 2004)

Ya, some of the traditions of the old Bowl system have to be sacraficed but I think we get better Bowl games for it.  The OSU Miami game was a classic.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 19, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, some of the traditions of the old Bowl system have to be sacraficed but I think we get better Bowl games for it. The OSU Miami game was a classic.



Well, for us Ohio natives, it was a great game, and much better than "USC ends Buckeyes' national title hopes", which we almost certainly would have gotten in the old system. And as a Syracuse fan, watching Miami lose always has a certain appeal. But who's to say that USC-Ohio State wouldn't have been a classic?

I completely support throwing away tradition for a playoff. And the BCS has largely put an end to the awful practice of selecting bowl teams before the season was over, which is probably the best argument for the BCS in my book. But throwing away tradition for a contrived attempt at #1 vs. #2 game that hasn't worked all that well -- I don't like that much.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 19, 2004)

I'm just completely amazed that Boise State showed up at #14 in the BCS. They're my home team, and I'm a huge fan, but still...that squeaker of a win against Tulsa has not inspired much confidence.

However, if BSU can somehow manage to stay undefeated (not sure with the way they've been playing), they have a good chance of ending in the Top 10.

But I'm also pulling for Utah to finish Top 6 in the BCS, just so they HAVE to go to a BCS bowl. Apparently, as it stands today, Floride State would be out of the BCS bowls if that happened. Which is always a good thing.


----------



## fett527 (Oct 19, 2004)

Well, I'm still numb to say the least.  They didn't even get close enough for Nuge.  

Well, if we can't turn it around against Indiana...I just don't know what would happen then.  I have seen reports on Zwick that he could be out for as long as three weeks.  Guess Troy Smith will get his start.

As for the BCS, no reason to debate until later in the season.  The first set of standings doesn't mean much.  Also, here is an interesting quote from an online article :



> The system is still flawed, and always will be. And the latest somebody to say so has already done the math.
> 
> His name is Bradley P. Carlin, and he is a professor of biostatistics and Mayo professor in public health at the University of Minnesota. Suffice it to say that Carlin can crunch numbers, and this is what he concludes in an op-ed piece Sunday in The New York Times:
> 
> “No matter how you arrange the formula, the BCS remains nothing more than an elaborate seeding system for a two-team tournament. Its sole benefit is to create one game that precludes all but two powerful contenders from a legitimate title shot. More to the point, it will always run a high risk of crowning the wrong champion.”


----------



## Crothian (Oct 19, 2004)

Yes, the BCS is flawed but I think its a good improvement to the old Bowl System.  Least this way we in theory get to see the top 8 teams play each other instead of mix and matching based on agreements from before the season starts.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 20, 2004)

This is the best I can do to not once again bring up the fact that a playoff would solve all the BCS shortcomings.

Didn't do a good job, did I...


----------



## Crothian (Oct 20, 2004)

Ya, but everyone yelling for a Playoff is like a broken record.  People want it, but we aren't getting it so might as well talk about something else.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 20, 2004)

yes, but the BCS is always going to be flawed, too, so there's no point discussing that, either, right?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 21, 2004)

No, there's actually something to discuss about that...with playoffs its usually "we want them" but there is no where to go after that


----------



## fett527 (Oct 21, 2004)

It's just about discussing the system that is currently in place instead of pining for a playoff system that isn't coming anytime soon.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 21, 2004)

The great thing about the BCS is it does its job but everyone yells at it for doing what it was designed to do.  The reason the computers are there is to release some of the human bias.  But when the final numbers disagree with the humans everyone yells at the computers.  What really needs to be done is they need to stop doing the AP and Coached polls all together.  We know they are heavily biased to teams that traditionally do good and towards the big conferences.


----------



## fett527 (Oct 21, 2004)

Saw this on ESPN.com:



> "You really want to know what's wrong with them?" ESPN analyst Mark May said on the air Saturday. "All those players that John Cooper recruited are gone. You look at Jim Tressel. This is his fourth year there and 99 percent of those players are players he recruited, players he wanted for his system. He's not developing the players he recruited, that's the bottom line."




Besides the fact that I feel that ESPN analysts (including Herbstreit) love to hate on the Tresselball, do you agree with this assesment?  Obviously it has crossed my mind, but I didn't really think this was the problem.  I still think it is the overall age and lack of experience of the players.  I read so many articles I forgot where I read it, but I finally read where one of the Big Ten coaches gave this as the reason they feel OSU is having trouble and why guys like Henne are doing well (veteran receivers and veteran line).


----------



## Crothian (Oct 21, 2004)

WEll, it's a big fall to go from the National Championship to 0-3 in the conference in two seasons.  I don't think the ESPN people specifically like to hate on it as much as everyone does.  Its none flashy football that results in close games and people don't like that style of game.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 21, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The great thing about the BCS is it does its job but everyone yells at it for doing what it was designed to do. The reason the computers are there is to release some of the human bias. But when the final numbers disagree with the humans everyone yells at the computers. What really needs to be done is they need to stop doing the AP and Coached polls all together. We know they are heavily biased to teams that traditionally do good and towards the big conferences.



The problem with this line of reasoning is that every time there's been a "wrong" team in the BCS title game (not in the top 2 of the AP or coach's poll), the "wrong" team has gone on to lose the BCS title game in a pretty convincing fashion, while the human polls #2 team has gone on to win their bowl game in a pretty convincing fashion.

I wish the computers were better than humans here, as the human polls do have all sorts of inherent biases. But history says they're not.


----------



## Mystery Man (Oct 21, 2004)

Tommy Lee is a Husker!

My coworker went to the game, he had the five pack on (five tom toms) and marched with the band.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 22, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The great thing about the BCS is it does its job but everyone yells at it for doing what it was designed to do.  The reason the computers are there is to release some of the human bias.  But when the final numbers disagree with the humans everyone yells at the computers.  What really needs to be done is they need to stop doing the AP and Coached polls all together.  We know they are heavily biased to teams that traditionally do good and towards the big conferences.



 Yes, but that works under the assumption that what it was designed to do is the correct way to do it. I just can't agree. You can't crunch numbers to determine team rankings. Numbers don't mean a thing. It's all about playing the game and seeing who comes out on top. Computers track things that are irrelevant, like strength of schedule, quality wins, margin of victory, etc. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think those are all meaningless. There's only one way to know which team is better than another.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 22, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Yes, but that works under the assumption that what it was designed to do is the correct way to do it. I just can't agree. You can't crunch numbers to determine team rankings. Numbers don't mean a thing. It's all about playing the game and seeing who comes out on top. Computers track things that are irrelevant, like strength of schedule, quality wins, margin of victory, etc. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think those are all meaningless. There's only one way to know which team is better than another.




Ya, have them play each other.  But that doesn't happen.  So, you have to goto the numbers to try to figure it out.  There are what 117 teams so playing each other is not an option in the reguliar season.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 22, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Yes, but that works under the assumption that what it was designed to do is the correct way to do it. I just can't agree. You can't crunch numbers to determine team rankings. Numbers don't mean a thing. It's all about playing the game and seeing who comes out on top. Computers track things that are irrelevant, like strength of schedule, quality wins, margin of victory, etc. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think those are all meaningless. There's only one way to know which team is better than another.



It may seem like I'm being inconsistent here (as just a few posts ago I noted that the BCS formula hasn't worked as well as the human pollsters over the last few years), but the computers do okay. They haven't done as well as the humans, at least at the top of the polls, but a lot of the biases that coaches and writers factor into their rankings tend to have a lot of foundation in reality (major conference schools are better; winning on the road means more; non-confernce games say more about strength of schedule than conference games; winning impressively is better than winning ugly, but winning by 70 is not more impressive than winning by 35). I think that given time, enough data, and no artificial limitations on what the computers can factor in (margin of victory can't be used by the BCS computers), computer rankings will eventually at least be better than the pollsters, even if they're not now.

Having said that, even the result on the field isn't indicative sometimes. For a lot of reasons (most notably injuries, failure to be emotional ready for the game, freak weather conditions, or one coach just having another's number) an inferior team can win a game. And when one team isn't better than the other by much in terms of talent and gameplanning (which is usually the case in the NFL), the luck factor is often enough for the worse team to win.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 23, 2004)

OSU is back!!  Here's to them starting the next big winning streak!!!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 23, 2004)

Funny mood here in Gainesville...people here aren't all that depressed about losing these games as the main goal seems to be shifting to getting rid of the coach. I know a couple people who are putting bets on how long he'll last


----------



## Crothian (Oct 23, 2004)

Weren't people doing that when he was hired?  Is fireronzook.com even still around??


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 23, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Weren't people doing that when he was hired?  Is fireronzook.com even still around??



 Yep, and the mood's getting stronger all the time. From the look of it, he probably won't be around next year. Well, if somehow the Gators beat Georgia or FSU, he might stay...but otherwise, methinks that loss today is just one more nail in the coffin.

...don't know about the site, though


----------



## Crothian (Oct 23, 2004)

WEll, loosing to a tam that couldn't beat Maine is a pretty bad loose.....


----------



## fett527 (Oct 25, 2004)

GO BUCKS!!!

We did what we were supposed to do to Indiana.  Blowout baby!  I think the right decisons were made at many positions and I hope that sticks as well as the more agressive play calling.


----------



## fett527 (Oct 25, 2004)

So what about Zook being fired?  Not unexpected, but why announce this in the middle of the season and have a lameduck coach?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 25, 2004)

To stop the alumni from calling, to stop the bitching on talk radio, to stop the fans from belly acheing.  That's the only reason I can think of doing it now, to appease the little people.  

Okay, OSU can beat Pen State this weekend as sad as that is.  Joe Pa, what happened??  And then a tough game against MSU, with the two killers at the end (Purdue and the school up north).  Man, here's hoping they make it to a Bowl game.....


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 25, 2004)

Random thoughts so far:

1. Mike Price must be an incredible coach. He takes Washington State to the top 3 in the nation a year or two ago. Leaves them for Alabama (I think it was them) and promptly gets fired before Spring training even starts for getting caught with a hooker in his hotel room. So he goes to UTEP, who was a combined 6-31 over the last three years (two wins each year). His first year there, they are 5-2 and ranked 24th in the BCS. And Washington State has sucked since he left. Maybe it's coincidence, or maybe he's just a great coach.

2. How in the world did my Broncos move up again to No. 13th in the BCS?? I'm not griping, mind you, but even I'll admit that seems high. At least against Fresno they finally dominated a game. Wasn't as close as the score showed, and they led the whole game (a pleasant change from previous weeks).

3. Florida...man, that burns. Though I would have prefered Florida State be the one to lose like that. 

4. I sure hope Utah keeps it up. They hit the magic No. 6 spot, and I really hope they hold it. Just to tick off all the BCS Conference snobs. Apologies if that applies to you. 

Finally, does anyone know offhand if this is the largest number of undefeated teams in the nation this far into the season in a while? Just seems like there are a lot more than usually this time of year.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 25, 2004)

I think it was 99 that going into the last week there were lots of undefeated, like 4 or 5 but there was some choking and many of them lost.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 25, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Random thoughts so far:
> 
> 1. Mike Price must be an incredible coach. He takes Washington State to the top 3 in the nation a year or two ago. Leaves them for Alabama (I think it was them) and promptly gets fired before Spring training even starts for getting caught with a hooker in his hotel room. So he goes to UTEP, who was a combined 6-31 over the last three years (two wins each year). His first year there, they are 5-2 and ranked 24th in the BCS. And Washington State has sucked since he left. Maybe it's coincidence, or maybe he's just a great coach.



I'd nitpick here that WSU hasn't been as good, post-Price, but they (along with ASU, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, and OSU) are a pretty solid middle-of-the-Pac-10 team. And that's a lot better than some eastern talking heads think. The only teams in the Pac-10 that really suck are Arizona and Washington. Only USC and Cal are really great, but two top-10 teams is really about the best you can expect out of a ten team league.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 25, 2004)

Anyone know  agood site that has past year college football stuiff?  I haven't been able to find anything.  I recall a year in the late 90's I think that had like UCLA, KSU, and I thought another team undeafeated in the last week but all losing.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 25, 2004)

http://www.ncaa.org/ has a lot of stuff, but I don't know if they'd have that info.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 25, 2004)

It was 98.  It looks like only Tenn was undefeated that year, but KSU and UCLA I think lost games in the final week.  It was also the year the Big Ten won all their Bowl Games


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 26, 2004)

I think this year will beat that. There are still 7 undefeated teams, and they all have a good chance of winning out. That's a lot of undefeated teams, even for this late in the year, much less at the end. We'll see, though.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 26, 2004)

well, ya I agree.  I just recall that being one heck of a wiesrd ended.  It would be like both Oklahoma and Auburn losing in the final weeks this year.

edit: And imagine the 5 winners of the 5 major conferences all going undefeated.  That's amazing sounding.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 26, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> well, ya I agree.  I just recall that being one heck of a wiesrd ended.  It would be like both Oklahoma and Auburn losing in the final weeks this year.
> 
> edit: And imagine the 5 winners of the 5 major conferences all going undefeated.  That's amazing sounding.



 ...and the BCS's worst nightmare..


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Oct 26, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Yep, and the mood's getting stronger all the time. From the look of it, he probably won't be around next year. Well, if somehow the Gators beat Georgia or FSU, he might stay...but otherwise, methinks that loss today is just one more nail in the coffin.
> 
> ...don't know about the site, though




While I was signing a stack of papers to close my condo, my loan officer, real estate agent, and the lawyer who handled the closing were talking about Coach Zook getting the boot, and that was before this latest loss. Losing to LSU was worse for me, though, because I had bragged to my LSU alumnus friend that we were going to stomp the tigers.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 26, 2004)

Maybe, it'll place a lot of interest in those games.  Then they'll go alter it in the off season.  As long as it makes money, which the BCS is doing, it won't get changed.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 26, 2004)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> While I was signing a stack of papers to close my condo, my loan officer, real estate agent, and the lawyer who handled the closing were talking about Coach Zook getting the boot, and that was before this latest loss. Losing to LSU was worse for me, though, because I had bragged to my LSU alumnus friend that we were going to stomp the tigers.



 The LSU game got to ME because I actually went to it. I rarely go(though there's always a ticket if I want to), and I chose to go to LSU...ugh. Just ugh.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 30, 2004)

So did anyone else watch the royal butt-kicking tonight? Boise State beat the living daylights out of Hawaii, who normally has a very good passing game. Man, what a game. Boise was firing perfectly on both sides of the ball. Fun game. Except for Hawaii fans.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 30, 2004)

I wouldn't call it watching as  much as it was flipping in and seeign the score rise and rise and rise.  It wasn't much of a game....


----------



## Crothian (Oct 30, 2004)

THis OSU game keeps up like this we are going to get killed....in time of possession.


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 31, 2004)

Man, all three Florida teams lost (and two of them were in the Top 5). Could this weekend have been any better!!!


----------



## drothgery (Oct 31, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Man, all three Florida teams lost (and two of them were in the Top 5). Could this weekend have been any better!!!



Hmm... more unbeaten teams at the end of the season is good (especially from major conferences), as it leads to a totally broken BCS. But I was a Syracuse fan for too long... I can't help being happy when Miami loses. And for some reason I've never liked Oklahoma, so I was kind of hoping they'd go down too.

Big 10 question: Who are those guys wearing Gophers and Boilermakers uniforms, and what did they do with the Minnesota and Purdue teams that looked so good early this year?

Big East question: Why does coach P keep doing the absolute minimum necessary to keep his job every year? Beating UConn gives the Orange a pretty good shot at #2 in the Big East, and the killer schedule is going to give the AD a perfectly good excuse not to fire him, even though he still hasn't had decent quarterback play since McNabb graduated, and the only decent season since then was Dwight Freeney's coming out party.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 31, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> So did anyone else watch the royal butt-kicking tonight? Boise State beat the living daylights out of Hawaii, who normally has a very good passing game. Man, what a game. Boise was firing perfectly on both sides of the ball. Fun game. Except for Hawaii fans.



 :\ 

It's damn embarrassing. Unfortunately, they stayed true to their pattern. They suck at road trip games.

I really don't care if QB Tim Chang can break Ty Detmer's passing record. I just want UH qualify for a bowl game.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 31, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Big 10 question: Who are those guys wearing Gophers and Boilermakers uniforms, and what did they do with the Minnesota and Purdue teams that looked so good early this year?




Minnesota does this a lot though.  They have an easy schedule, they kill their oppoents and then lose in Big Ten Play.  Purdue on the other hand....NW is better then people think, but IO don't think they are that good.  So, Purdue just can't get over the Badger lose and NW is just playing pretty good ball.  

Its the Florida teams I'm shocked at.  I went to a party and just heard the finals on these games.  What suprises me the most is the teams they lost too.  Georgia is an okay lose, they are damn good.  But North Carolina nad Maryland??  
 :\


----------



## Dimwhit (Oct 31, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> :\
> 
> It's damn embarrassing. Unfortunately, they stayed true to their pattern. They suck at road trip games.
> 
> I really don't care if QB Tim Chang can break Ty Detmer's passing record. I just want UH qualify for a bowl game.



 Hawaii should be able to be bowl eligible, though it won't be easy. La Tech is a good team, but Fresno is beatable. Idaho is a given. But with Northwestern and Michigan state to end the season, they have their work cut out. I think they'll do it, though.

That game had to have been embarassing, though. It's a good thing Chang didn't get the record during that game. Wouldn't have been as sweet. But man, it just seemed like Hawaii completely threw in the towel a little ways into the third quarter. You can't even accuse Boise of running up the score. It didn't matter what they did, they still got into the endzone. I think they threw maybe a half-dozen passes in the second half.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 1, 2004)

Buckeyes  won as they have been- defense and special teams.  Yeah!

I am ecstatic that Miami and Florida State lost.  I watched Miami v UNC and I savored every play.

OSU fans know Northwestern is pretty good this year (too many veteran guys not to be).  NW beating Purdue makes it sting a little less.  Orton seems to have self destructed.

Minnesota losing to Indiana is inexcusable.  Too much talent there to lose to the basement of the Big 10.

I was really pulling for Oklahoma State, that would have been another great upset.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 1, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> ...You can't even accuse Boise of running up the score. It didn't matter what they did, they still got into the endzone. I think they threw maybe a half-dozen passes in the second half.




That struck me as funny since OSU threw only about a half-dozen passes the entire game.


----------



## resscane (Nov 1, 2004)

*Florida schools losing*

Earlier this year I said going on the road w/  Miami's offense will make every game exciting.  Little did I realize it would be because our defense couldnt stop anything.  Wow that was terrible.  North Carolina  (North Carolina.., cmon)  totally exploited Miami's defense.  Our Dline got no pressure,  even when we blitzed.  Linebackers totally out of position on most plays and Dbacks 2 steps behind on every play.  

 It looked like miami played its normal man d w/ 2 safteys over the top about 85-90% of the time and it worked about 20-25% of the time.  Now I'm not a mathematical genius,  but those odds would cause me to mix it up a little more.   Gotta give credit to North Carolina's coach for watching tape on Miami and really coming up w/ a great game plan.  I'm sure every team we play from here on out will try to duplicate North Carolina's game plan..,  so I hope that Randy Shannon (UM's Defensive coordinator) also watches the game film and makes the appropriate changes,  but I doubt he will because in the past,  he has been very hesitant to make changes to our scheme,  even when their warrented.  

I know the whole country rejoices when the florida schools lose,  but I wouldn't get to excited.., because it doesnt happen very often..,  but that is the beauty of college football,  you can lose a game anytime anywhere, and to win consistently for years is very difficult.  You need a lot of luck.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 1, 2004)

Go Terps.


----------



## Xath (Nov 1, 2004)

*Terps Beat Seminoles!!!! Terps Beat Seminoles!!!*



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Its the Florida teams I'm shocked at.  I went to a party and just heard the finals on these games.  What suprises me the most is the teams they lost too.  Georgia is an okay lose, they are damn good.  But North Carolina nad Maryland??
> :\





Dude, Crothian...did you just dis my team??

I mean, Statham has had a bit of a shaky season, but he threw 333 yds and scored 2 touchdowns in this game.  Can't "eek" that.  Terps have gone to bowl games for 3 years running, and we're not about to break that streak now.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 1, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Georgia is an okay lose, they are damn good.  But North Carolina nad Maryland??





d00d.... Maryland is da Bomb.

we won a National Championship in Football and Basketball.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 1, 2004)

Xath said:
			
		

> Dude, Crothian...did you just dis my team??




um...ya, I guess I did




> I mean, Statham has had a bit of a shaky season, but he threw 333 yds and scored 2 touchdowns in this game.  Can't "eek" that.  Terps have gone to bowl games for 3 years running, and we're not about to break that streak now.




They have improved nicely but FSU has been an elite team, Maryland has not.  It was a great win for Maryland, just an unexpected one.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 1, 2004)

Xath said:
			
		

> Dude, Crothian...did you just dis my team??
> 
> I mean, Statham has had a bit of a shaky season, but he threw 333 yds and scored 2 touchdowns in this game.  Can't "eek" that.  Terps have gone to bowl games for 3 years running, and we're not about to break that streak now.




I still have that season opening upset to Northern Illinois last year etched in my memory and I'm not sure why.  Maybe it was that crazy ball off the foot play to end the game.


----------



## Krug (Nov 1, 2004)

Cal #4! Woohoo! Man.. if only they had beaten USC earlier in the season...


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 2, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> Cal #4! Woohoo! Man.. if only they had beaten USC earlier in the season...



 Crazy, eh? A few extra points and Cal would be in line for a national title game. And it's still not out of the question. Oklahoma still has A&M (not out of the question), and Auburn has two very tough games ahead of them in Georgia and, likely, Tennessee in the Conference Championship. Those two lose (or a USC loss in place of one of them) and Cal plays in the Orange Bowl. What would be really weird is if Cal and USC play in the Orange.

I grew up in the Bay Area, so I'm a big Pac-10 fan. Nice to see Cal doing something good. That one Big Game against Stanford way back is still one of the all-time greats.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 2, 2004)

I'll be yelling fits if a one lose Cal team gets selected over an undeafed Badger team for the National Championship.....

But it would just be odd to see two teams from the same conference play in a bowl game...let alone one for all the marbles.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 2, 2004)

Well, if two of the top 3 lose and Cal doesn't, that is likely what will happen.

Personally, I'm hoping for any result that will give more controversy to the BCS. Of course, in all likelihood, USC and OK will play for it all.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'll be yelling fits if a one lose Cal team gets selected over an undeafed Badger team for the National Championship.....



I'd agree, even though I think Cal is better than Wisconsin (and I won't be at all surprised if Cal ends the season at #2*). But with the way college football is set up today, you've got to give Wisconsin a first chance to lose to USC before giving Cal a second.

* This doesn't take any major upsets. Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and USC finish the year unbeaten. Auburn loses to one of the very good teams left on their schedule. USC plays Oklahoma for all the marbles, and wins convincingly. Cal plays Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl and wins convincingly. Utah gets to the BCS, but loses their game.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 2, 2004)

Well, its looking still like there will be 5 undefeated teams: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Wisconsin, and Utah.  Any season that ends with more then one undefeated leads to a controversy.  Everyone has known that is the greatest weakness of the BCS, more then 2 undefeated teams.  It just so rarely happens.  

I'm not sure that having the BCS fail is a good thing though.  Sure, it might bring along a playoffs but there is no gaurnteen that what lies in the future wilkl actually be better.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, its looking still like there will be 5 undefeated teams: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Wisconsin, and Utah. Any season that ends with more then one undefeated leads to a controversy. Everyone has known that is the greatest weakness of the BCS, more then 2 undefeated teams. It just so rarely happens.



Auburn's remaining schedule is Georgia, Alabama, and then either Georgia take II or Tennessee take II. That's two top-10 teams and a major, major rivalry game, even if Alabama's having a down year. I don't see them surving unblemished.

On the other hand, it's hard to see where Boise State loses, so they should make it to the bowls without a loss.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that having the BCS fail is a good thing though. Sure, it might bring along a playoff but there is no gaurantee that what lies in the future will actually be better.[spelling corrected]



Perhaps not, but the current system isn't that hot, and the only thing likely to lead to real change are scenarios where it's absolutely impossible for the powers that be to claim that the system worked. There have been BCS title games with undeserving #2 teams in the BCS title game, but since #1 won the game, "the system worked". There's been an undeserving #1 in the title game, and no one claims the system worked last year.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 2, 2004)

Oops, forgot to include Boise...my bad

The system worked last year, it did what it was suppossed to do.  It was just that one of the polls didn't agree.  Its not like all the computer polls agree on the same number one, but they don't generate the same publicity.  The problem is the Polls, both the coaches and the AP.  All polls need to be gotten rid of.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Oops, forgot to include Boise...my bad
> 
> The system worked last year, it did what it was suppossed to do. It was just that one of the polls didn't agree. Its not like all the computer polls agree on the same number one, but they don't generate the same publicity. The problem is the Polls, both the coaches and the AP. All polls need to be gotten rid of.



The point of the BCS is to get a #1 vs #2 game. If the team that's #1 in both polls is left out -- and then goes on to beat the consensus #4 team handily in their bowl game, so the poll where the voters have a free choice of #1 (in the final coach's poll, voters are bound to select the BCS title game winner as #1; it's possible, and even likely, that the coaches would have kept USC as #1 if they could have) overwhelmingly selects them, then the system clearly isn't working. It's _probably_ not working when an undeserving #2 gets into the title game, gets waxed, and the team that's #2 in both polls goes out and wins their bowl handily (in the process making a decent case that perhaps they could have taken out the #1 team if they'd had a shot) -- and that's happened more than once. But a split title is exactly what the BCS is supposed to prevent. I don't see how anyone can say the system works when we get one.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 2, 2004)

I just don't see the BCS ever working every year. It's not set up to work properly. It's set up to keep a lot of money going to the big conferences and the big bowl game. That's why we'll never see a playoff. They really don't care about a true champion as much as they care about bringing a lot of money to the bowls and the top programs.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 5, 2004)

Spurrier says no to Florida

Who's the best choice now?  Not that I love Florida football or anything but I think Urban Meyer should be at the top of the list.

Great game with Louisville and Memphis.  It was like watching the complete opposite of a Big Ten game.

What's the best matchup this weekend?  I would say Oklahoma State vs. Texas.


----------



## El Ravager (Nov 5, 2004)

I just gotta say, how about those Cyclones!

ISU has been having a pretty bad season.  Then they pulled off a couple of conference wins and they find themselves in the running for 1st place.  If the Cyclones can defeat Nebraska, they will be on top in the Big 12 North.  I think they have a decent shot at doing it too.  Nebraska's passing game will be hurtin this week with their best receiver sitting on the bench.  

Its going to be a fun game to watch.


=====
El Rav


----------



## drothgery (Nov 5, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Great game with Louisville and Memphis. It was like watching the complete opposite of a Big Ten game.



Should be a great Big East game in 2010.*



			
				fett527 said:
			
		

> What's the best matchup this weekend? I would say Oklahoma State vs. Texas.



Probably. I wouldn't be surprised if Texas has less trouble with OK St. than Oklahoma did; Texas is the best team in the Big 12, but they have a mental hangup with Oklahoma that's eerily reminiscent of Cooper's Ohio State teams (which often could beat anyone except Michigan).

* The 16-team in basketball/8-team in football "New Big East" is a temporary arrangement that will almost certainly break up in 5 years when all the teams have been together long enough that the NCAA will give both confrences formed out of the split guaranteed bids to the basketball tournament. At that point, the football schools will add another team (9 teams make scheduling a lot easier than 8). If this were to happen today, that team would almost certainly be Memphis. Syracuse, Pitt, L'Ville, Cinci, UConn, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida, and Memphis looks like a northern version of the old ACC -- amazing basketball, but a shaky football conference dominated by one school.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 5, 2004)

Cooper also hasd trouble in the Bowl games...not near as much as against that school up noth though.

Best game might be Wisconsin Minnosota.  I know the Gophers haven't played well in the past few weeks, but this is for the Paul Bunyon's Axe, and they take that very seriously.  

The Irish could give Tenn problems.  

Maryland and Virginia should also be a good game.  I'll even pull for Maryland so the Xath doesn't yell at me again.


----------



## Xath (Nov 5, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Maryland and Virginia should also be a good game.  I'll even pull for Maryland so the Xath doesn't yell at me again.





I'm excited.  Last year's score was 27-17, and we seem to be pretty even stat wise.  I'm looking for a victory this year too....come on bowl invite...


----------



## Crothian (Nov 6, 2004)

Well, these Badgers just might have something this year.  21 nothing in the firtst quarter.  

Nice win for OSU, least they can make it to a bowl game now!!!


----------



## Krug (Nov 7, 2004)

Close call for Cal Golden Bears, but they managed to pull it off 28-27, despite 2 missed FGs. Oregon scored all their points in the first half, and the Cal D found itself in the second half to eke out the win. Whew.


----------



## LeapingShark (Nov 7, 2004)

OSU v Texas.  Wow, what a game!  Texas just came back from the dead to tie in the 3rd quarter.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 7, 2004)

And then there is the Fog game, the other other OSU...Oregon State with ?USC visiting them.  I can't see how they find the ball in that stuff.


----------



## Xath (Nov 7, 2004)

Wow....shut down....16-0


----------



## fett527 (Nov 7, 2004)

Ladies and Gentlemen I want to welcome you to the Ted Ginn Jr. show otherwise known as BUCKEYE  football.  Spartan stadium is Teddy's house for at least a year.  I thought this year would be Santonio's time in the sun, oh well. GO Teddy GO!!

USC has trouble with Oregon State.  Oklahoma just gets past the Aggies.  Cal squeaks past Oregon.  Any shake up at the top in the BCS standings?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 7, 2004)

No, there won't be much if any shake up.  Voters rarely drop teams with a close win.  The Badgers though got a lot of help in the computers with both Tenn and Miami both loosing, and both were ahead of Wisconsin in the computers.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 7, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> No, there won't be much if any shake up. Voters rarely drop teams with a close win. The Badgers though got a lot of help in the computers with both Tenn and Miami both loosing, and both were ahead of Wisconsin in the computers.



Generally, teams get a pass on one inexplicable close game. OKlahoma's had two in two weeks, though. I don't see anyone left on their schedule that should beat them, but I certainly wouldn't rule out a freak upset.

Oregon State - USC was a bad weather issue; I watched a lot of the game, and there's no way Leinart could see twenty yards down-field. If USC can't throw deep, they're merely very good.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 7, 2004)

Yeah I know.  Just wanted to see if anyone thinks there should be.  A win is a win.  Were OSU fans we know that oh so well.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 8, 2004)

Interesting BCS standings. Utah gets dropped despite a win. My biggest shock was seeing Boise State at number 10!! Now, of course, there will be talk about Boise getting to the Top 6 with Utah. Won't happened, but there are teams above them with some touch games (Auburn has two, one against Georgia).

Just kinda cool to see them so high, even if nothing much comes of it.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 10, 2004)

Maurice Clarett needs a clue.  Anyone got one for him?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2004)

THe clue is to sit down and shut up.  His going to kill his draft stock, and that's the only thing he has going.

Nice win for Toledo!!  Man their QB is good, he'll be the next big MAC player I imagine.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 10, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> THe clue is to sit down and shut up.  His going to kill his draft stock, and that's the only thing he has going.
> 
> Nice win for Toledo!!  Man their QB is good, he'll be the next big MAC player I imagine.




The ironic part is that is what he says he's trying to save:



> For some reason, Clarett thinks speaking out against Ohio State will make him look better in the eyes of NFL evaluators.
> 
> "I'm thinking, NFL GMs know college players take money," Clarett says. "It was nothing like I stole something. Nothing like I'm running from the law or I'm dragging a girl down the stairs. No domestic violence. No nothing. [But] I got to clear myself up now, because it's affecting the minds of the GMs."





I have definetly been enjoying the Tuesday night MAC games as well!!


----------



## Krieg (Nov 10, 2004)

Well Reecie hasn't exactly been known for his judgement. 

The NCAA has already investigated the accusations & found them baseless. This is only a story because scandal sells papers (even if it is a made up scandal).


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 10, 2004)

Clarett's draft stock is already way low. He's going to be disappointed when he's drafted second day (if at all) and offered not much more than league minimum.

As for Toledo, that was a great game. Very entertaining. I don't watch too many MAC games, but I should.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2004)

MAC games are great and have been for many years.  Most of the teams have a good offense so the games are entertaining.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 10, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> MAC games are great and have been for many years.  Most of the teams have a good offense so the games are entertaining.



 I feel the same way about Boise State games. Unfortunately, most teams in the WAC don't have great offenses, so of lates it has been a one-sided interesting game.

But what few MAC games I've seen have been fun to watch.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 10, 2004)

Boise State has always been fun to watch, but its rare we here in Ohio get to see many of their games.  

So, Auburn or Georgia?  Who you all got?


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 10, 2004)

ESPN has gone crazy airing Boise State this year, but it's really the first year they've been on ESPN with any regularity.

Hmm, Auburn or Georgia. That's a tough call. But given that it's in Auburn, I'll give them the nod. Auburn is also playing a little better ball, at least. Georgia is tough to rule out, though, but I'll go with Auburn.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 11, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Boise State has always been fun to watch, but its rare we here in Ohio get to see many of their games.
> 
> So, Auburn or Georgia?  Who you all got?





Auburn is tired of losing to Georgia at home (Auburn is 1-4-1 in its last six home games versus Georgia) and kicks some Bulldog tail!


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 13, 2004)

Man, Boise gave me a near heart attack again this week. And against San Jose State, no less! Oh well, at least they won, so the undefeated season is still a possibility.


----------



## Krug (Nov 13, 2004)

Boy, Cal is really botching up this game with Washington Huskies. They're only 14-12 up in the third quarter and just let the Huskies score a TD on 3rd and 18th. Seriously, I don't think this is a team that deserves in BCS contention. Do hope that they make it to the Rose Bowl though.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 13, 2004)

My Cable went out....I can;t watch the OSU game casue its own ESPN...this sucks, not that the Buckeyes were doing well anyway.  

Kansas came so close....if only....

MSU is really taking Wisconsin on and giving it a very good show, up by 2 TDs.  I love the on side kick to start the second half, that totally got them the momentum and brought the crowd to a thunderious roar.


----------



## Krug (Nov 13, 2004)

Okay 28-12 Cal in the 3rd Qtr. More breathing space. Still, makes me worried now that the Big Game is next week.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 13, 2004)

Well, my Orange had their annual WTF game this week, losing to Temple. The only upside to this is that Coach P is almost certainly gone after losing two years in a row to Temple.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 13, 2004)

They can hand it to BC next week and keepo them from winning the Big East....

Looks like the Badgers are going to be defeated by the Spartans....so, no dream of even facing the Trojans


----------



## Crothian (Nov 15, 2004)

Utah gets in and will get screwed out of BCS bowl......

Just think, there are 4 BCS bowls, that means 8 teams get to play in them.  There are 6 automatic bids, winner of Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, SEC, ACC, and Big East.  That leaves 2 at large bids.  Now, if a school ranks in the top 6 of the BCS they automatically get a bid.    It's looking like Texas, Cal, and Utah will all rank in the top 6, but there's only room for 2 in the BCS bowls.  Thoughts?


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 15, 2004)

Apparently, if they stay as-is, Texas is the one out in the cold. Cal and Texas both claim a Top 6 finish. However, Cal will finish as a non-champ of the conference, but ranked 3 or 4, so they're in automatically. Texas would get in, too, since they're in the Top 6, but the non-BCS conference champion trumps the BCS conference non-champion. So Utah goes in and Texas doesn't.

That's my understanding. Part of me (ok, most of me) says that's great. Sucks for Texas, but since the BCS is so anti-non-BCS conferences, they pretty much have to let Utah in. Of course, they'll probably cast them off to play BC, who will likely win the Big East.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 15, 2004)

Well, if that's the case at least Utah would get in.  I didn't know they had provisions for this set up, I've never heard anyone talk about the possibility.

Edit: Boise State moves up to number 9, justa few key upsets and you might get in!!!


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 15, 2004)

Nah, I seriously doubt Boise will get in. They're not really even talking about that here, since it's so out there. We're just hoping for an undefeated season and a better bowl game (Liberty Bowl with Louisville is looking likely).


----------



## Crothian (Nov 15, 2004)

THat is actualyl a mtach up made in heaven.  Both teams are playing great and both have really made a splash on the national scene.  I'll be watching that one on the TV.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 15, 2004)

Yeah, I'm torn. Part of me would like Boise to play a good BCS team in a bowl, but Louisville and Boise are currently 9 and 10 in the BCS, they're both excellent and exciting to watch, and it would be a great game. It's contingent (most likely) on Utah making a BCS bowl, since the Liberty Bowl takes the Mountain West champion. But it looks like that will happen, so Boise-Louisville could be a reality.

It would indeed be a great matchup.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 18, 2004)

*THE GAME!!!!!!!*


*GO BUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2004)

Ya, but that Purdue game was not good and Michigan is looking great.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Nov 18, 2004)

Go Blue!


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2004)

First though we have Turtle Power!!  MAryland verse VT toniught, time for Xath's team to earn their post season play.  They need to win tonight and against Wake.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 18, 2004)

Well, all I hear at this time is Gamecock are getting Spurrier.  All day, at work on TV, on the radio....ARRRRRRRRRRRRR!


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2004)

Ya that was a major Sportscenter story as well....


----------



## Krieg (Nov 19, 2004)

Ycore Rixle said:
			
		

> Go Blue!





Don't make me slap you.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 19, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, but that Purdue game was not good and Michigan is looking great.




I know the Purdue game seemed bleak, but think about it.  The offense showed real promise for the first time, they actually had some real drives.  The turnovers in the red zone did us in.  Troy Smith has a chance here to solidify his hold on QB, he won't ;et it slip through his hands this week.  The defense also did really well in the second half until Orton's last drive (damn soft coverage).


----------



## Crothian (Nov 19, 2004)

And it's the Wolverines and not Purdue.  Under Tressel the team playes better against them.  Time to get ourselves an upset!!


----------



## irdeggman (Nov 19, 2004)

Anything is possible - it is the game.  Michigan has 2 true freshman trying to prove themselves to the world (and doing a pretty good job at it too).

Since this game will decide who goes to the Rose Bowl (imagine that  ) it will without a doubt be down to the wire.

Something to think about though is a USC-Michigan championship game.  Not likely, but real possible.  IIRC this would be in the Rose Bowl not the BCS because they would be #1 & #2 (I could be wrong on this though).

Oh yeah - GO BLUE

(And I was a student when UoM had their other true freshman starting QB (Rick Leach - same number).


----------



## drothgery (Nov 19, 2004)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Something to think about though is a USC-Michigan championship game.  Not likely, but real possible.  IIRC this would be in the Rose Bowl not the BCS because they would be #1 & #2 (I could be wrong on this though).




The BCS #1 and BCS #2 always play in the BCS title game. When the BCS was just the Bowl Alliance, the Big 10 and Pac 10 weren't part of the system.

USC-Michigan for everything is extremely unlikely. They could lose to Ohio State and make this whole discussion academic, but if this weren't a "rivalry game", we wouldn't even be considering the possiblity.

First, Oklahoma and Auburn have to both lose. That puts them on an semi-equal footing with Cal, Texas, Michigan, and Utah (Utah effectively has a 1-loss penalty by virtue of playing in the MWC; Boise effectively has a 2-loss penalty for playing the WAC, so they're not in this discussion, sorry).

Cal probably moves up to #2 if Auburn and OK go down. But let's suppose the pollsters aren't interested in a Cal/USC rematch (alternatively, Cal loses the Big Game), so they let someone else leapfrog them. And let's suppose pollsters just aren't willing to put an MWC team in the title game (alternatively, they lose to BYU). But unless Texas loses, they're going to stay ahead of Michigan. Michigan certainly leapfrogs Oklahoma if the Sooners lose (they have to play Baylor and the Big 12 North champ; losing either game pretty much knocks the Sooners to the bottom of 1-loss major conference teams), but I'm not sure they leapfrog Auburn (they've got to play Alabama and the SEC East champ; losing one of those games would be far less damaging).

So you'd need
1) Oklahoma must lose once.
2) Auburn must lose once, and probably must lose twice.
3) Cal must lose or be robbed by the pollsters.
4) Utah must lose or be robbed by the pollsters.
5) Texas probably must lose (if Michigan blows out Ohio State, and Texas beats A&M by a field goal, Michigan might leapfrog Texas).

I think it's safe to say Michigan's out of the national championship picture.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 19, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I think it's safe to say Michigan's out of the national championship picture.




Of course, they will lose tomorrow.


----------



## irdeggman (Nov 19, 2004)

> The BCS #1 and BCS #2 always play in the BCS title game. When the BCS was just the Bowl Alliance, the Big 10 and Pac 10 weren't part of the system.




Right - but I think this was the condition for Big 10/Pac 10/Rose Bowl to join the BCS.  Something everyone wanted by the way.  Before the Big Ten/Pac 10 joined they still had to meet the Rose Bowl commitment - which is why Michigan was screwed by the polsters when they took away their trophy (after giving it to them on national TV) and gave it to Nebraska the last year before the Big 10/Pac 10/Rose Bowl joined the BCS.

I think that the only way the Rose Bowl was going to let the two conferences out of their deal was if a #1/#2 Big 10/Pac 10 match up occurred they met in the Rose Bowl.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 20, 2004)

You could be right, but I thought the agreement was that if the Big 10 and Pac 10 champs weren't #1 or #2, then the Rose bowl would get dibs on those two teams over the other bowls. That way, the Rose bowl gets their traditional matchup unless either the Rose bowl has the title game or one or both of their traditional teams are in the title game. Something like that. But you could be right.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2004)

Dimwhit has the right of it.  If USC stays number 1 in the polls they go to the Orange bowl and then Rose Bowl gets first pick at the other teams and should choose Cal to then play the Big Ten Champ.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2004)

Can anyone explain Michigan state?  They destroy wisconsin and are now getting destroyed by Penn State.....


----------



## drothgery (Nov 20, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain Michigan state?  They destroy wisconsin and are now getting destroyed by Penn State.....




MSU is probably the least consistent team in the country. Note that they lost to Rutgers, too.

Still, what are you doing watching something other than Michigan-Ohio State?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2004)

I was seeing the half time scores.....well, half time for the OSU Michigan game, 4th quater for MSU Penn State


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2004)

And Tressel wins his third out of four games verse the School up North!!!


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 21, 2004)

Great win, OSU!!

So tell me if you think this is possible. First, let me say that as a big fan of Boise State, I don't think this has any chance of happening. But since Michigan just lost, suppose Utah loses to BYU (not out of the realm of possibility) and Florida beats Florida State (again, it's possible). That would make BCS numbers 6-8 losing this week. Boise State is Number 9. Do the polsters give Boise State the coveted #6 spot in the BCS standings, and could Boise hold on to it? Does Louisville instead leapfrog them?

Again, it won't happen, but it's fun to suppose. As it is, Boise State is not the 9th best team in the nation, but it's cool seeing them so high.


----------



## Krug (Nov 21, 2004)

And Cal wins its third Big Game in a row.  YEAH!


----------



## El Ravager (Nov 21, 2004)

Iowa State had an amazing comeback victory.  They scored 3 touch downs in about the last 5 minutes of the game to beat Kansas State.  

Now all they have to do is beat Mizzu next week and they win the Big 12 North.  Actually, they don't even have to win - if Nebraska beats Colorado then ISU stays at the top of the Big 12 North.  

Pretty good for a team that was 2 and 4 a month ago.

=======
El Rav


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Great win, OSU!!
> 
> So tell me if you think this is possible. First, let me say that as a big fan of Boise State, I don't think this has any chance of happening. But since Michigan just lost, suppose Utah loses to BYU (not out of the realm of possibility) and Florida beats Florida State (again, it's possible). That would make BCS numbers 6-8 losing this week. Boise State is Number 9. Do the polsters give Boise State the coveted #6 spot in the BCS standings, and could Boise hold on to it? Does Louisville instead leapfrog them?
> 
> Again, it won't happen, but it's fun to suppose. As it is, Boise State is not the 9th best team in the nation, but it's cool seeing them so high.




That would be something...but its really hard to rpedict who would benefit with three teams losing like that.  Many Texas would be pissed though, since it would mean they still woundn't be getting into a BCS game....


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2004)

El Ravager said:
			
		

> Iowa State had an amazing comeback victory.  They scored 3 touch downs in about the last 5 minutes of the game to beat Kansas State.
> 
> Now all they have to do is beat Mizzu next week and they win the Big 12 North.  Actually, they don't even have to win - if Nebraska beats Colorado then ISU stays at the top of the Big 12 North.
> 
> ...




Ya, when I say KSU had a good lead I figured it was over, but they madee it jhappen and had a great comeback.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 21, 2004)

Well look at that...Gators just beat FSU. That's the first time since the year I was born that its happened over in Tallahassee.


----------



## Paylryder (Nov 21, 2004)

Ahhh Crothian,

I figured I would find you here. I offer you congratulations from "The School Up North" on OSU's convincing win today. I am sad to be limping so uninspiringly into the Rose Bowl like this. Ted Ginn Jr. was very impressive today. Between him, Smith, Henne, and Hart, it looks like this rivalry is going to be exciting for the foreseeable future. I'll also offer my condolences on this whole Clarett ordeal. I really hope it turns out that he is all hot air because I really like Tressel and he seems to be such a class guy. I just wish he wasn't such a good coach   . Ahh well... it makes the victories (1 in the past 4 years... sheesh) that much sweeter.

Congrats

PR


----------



## Krieg (Nov 21, 2004)

Hey don't feel bad, you guys still have that big ball of excitement....Lloyd! 

O - H !!


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2004)

Paylryder said:
			
		

> Ahhh Crothian,
> 
> I figured I would find you here. I offer you congratulations from "The School Up North" on OSU's convincing win today. I am sad to be limping so uninspiringly into the Rose Bowl like this. Ted Ginn Jr. was very impressive today. Between him, Smith, Henne, and Hart, it looks like this rivalry is going to be exciting for the foreseeable future. I'll also offer my condolences on this whole Clarett ordeal. I really hope it turns out that he is all hot air because I really like Tressel and he seems to be such a class guy. I just wish he wasn't such a good coach   . Ahh well... it makes the victories (1 in the past 4 years... sheesh) that much sweeter.
> 
> ...




It was a good game.  Good plays by both teams and now each can go forward and work on winning their Bowl Game.  Michigan looks like its going up against Cal and that should be a good game.  It's going to be agreat Bowl season!!


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Hey don't feel bad, you guys still have that big ball of excitement....Lloyd!
> 
> O - H !!




I - O !!


----------



## drothgery (Nov 21, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Michigan looks like its going up against Cal and that should be a good game.




I wouldn't be too sure of that. Cal's crushed everyone they've played except for USC (a narrow loss) and Oregon (a narrow win). There's a decent chance Michigan's second consecutive Rose Bowl will be more one-sided than the last one.


----------



## Krug (Nov 21, 2004)

Well Cal hasn't crushed everyone. Yesterday's victory was closer than it seemed, with Cal putting it away in the third with some lucky breaks and really dumb Stanford penalties. They tackled Cal players when they had gone out of bounds, resulting in big penalties. 

Anyway, Cal still has to get through Southern Miss in two weeks' time. Fingers crossed. Oh and USC has to win both its remaining games.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2004)

Ya, there's still some football for some teams to play.  And Lloyd Carr the Wolverine's coach is pretty darn good even though a lot of people over look him.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 22, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> I know the Purdue game seemed bleak, but think about it.  The offense showed real promise for the first time, they actually had some real drives.  The turnovers in the red zone did us in.  Troy Smith has a chance here to solidify his hold on QB, he won't let it slip through his hands this week.  The defense also did really well in the second half until Orton's last drive (damn soft coverage).




I'm just going to quote myself here.  I think Troy Smith solidified the starting job.  

I am still numb.    

I am so excited about next year, I hope the bowl game keeps me that way.  With the BUCKEYES  schedule next year they have a real chance at the title.  They play Texas as a non-conference opponent.  Wrangle them horns!!!


----------



## fett527 (Nov 22, 2004)

Oh, and to anyone who even thought about Tressel losing his job after the three lossess:



> It took Coach Cooper thirteen years to beat Michigan twice. In four years, Tressel has beaten them three times.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2004)

Ya, that Texas OSU game next year will be a very tough one.....


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 23, 2004)

So, have you all seen the BCS standings? Any bets on whether Boise State gets a BCS bowl game? A loss by Texas makes it a very real possibility. (And Cal would get the major shaft.)


----------



## Crothian (Nov 23, 2004)

Ya, I've seen that.  I think it would be great for Boise to make a BCS Bowl.  That would give us 8 conference champions and all of them would be deserving.  But I really don't anyone loosing so Boise can make it.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 23, 2004)

Never thought of that--the 8 conference champions part.

I agree, it's not likely. Texas would have to lose to A&M for it to be feasible. Not out of the question, but unlikely. Still, Texas almost lost to Kansas...


----------



## drothgery (Nov 23, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Never thought of that--the 8 conference champions part.
> 
> I agree, it's not likely. Texas would have to lose to A&M for it to be feasible. Not out of the question, but unlikely. Still, Texas almost lost to Kansas...




Miami (plays Virginia Tech in two weeks) or Virginia Tech (also plays Virginia next week) probably passes Boise if they win out. And there's an outside chance Tennessee could manage it by beating Auburn in the SEC championship game.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 24, 2004)

Still, Boise State in the BCS would be great!

A real fun MAC game tonight!  Both teams' offenses looked great, Toledo just outgunned  BG!


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2004)

Well, it seems no one really wanted to win the Big 12 North this year, so it looks like Colorado will be the team they send to get killed by the Sooners.  

Looks like no one really wanted that Big East title either, I mean how could BC lose to the Orange?  Of course the Orangemen looked very good in that and it is impressive they didn't just roll over.

Tennesse looks like that as soon as it locked up playing in the SEC game it didn't need to play anymore.  Both Vandy and Kentucky score over 30 against them and lose by less then a TD?  If Auburn doesn't destroy them it will look bad for Auburn.

Of course Even my Big Ten had people trying not to win it with Wisconsin losing its final 2 and Michigan getting beat by the buckeyes.  Only Iowa ended their season strong.

VT fights Miami for the ACC title.  I was hoping Virginia could pull out the win tonight, but it is funny that it comes down to the two new teams in the conference for the winner.  


That Texas game with the one point saftey was just wierd, I'd never heard of anything like that.

Cincy went on the field and jumped on the Louisville symbol at the fifty yard line.  And then got creamed 70-7...it was 42 nothing at end of the fist half....

It was a good win for Arizona beating the much better on paper Arizona State, that was a good game to watch.  

And now USC is gettign a very tough game from the Irish......


----------



## drothgery (Nov 28, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, it seems no one really wanted to win the Big 12 North this year, so it looks like Colorado will be the team they send to get killed by the Sooners.




I really don't like Oklahoma this year; they should've lost to Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma State, and if they get cocky against Colorado, they'll get Kansas State redux.  



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Looks like no one really wanted that Big East title either, I mean how could BC lose to the Orange?  Of course the Orangemen looked very good in that and it is impressive they didn't just roll over.




Didn't see the game, as I was on an airplane until about an hour ago, but the Orange hadn't had their WTF win yet (thier annual WTF loss was against Temple), and BC's starting QB was out. This doesn't really surprise me.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> And now USC is gettign a very tough game from the Irish......




That won't last.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2004)

BC had the freshmen QB, but they used to have a pretty good defense.  

And USC should pull away from the Irish in the seocnd half, but the Irish kept it closer in the first then many were expecting.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 28, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And USC should pull away from the Irish in the seocnd half, but the Irish kept it closer in the first then many were expecting.




As I write this, Notre Dame's down by 24 with less than 11 minutes to go. They had a 4th & 1. Why did they punt?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2004)

no idea, it didn't make any sense...but USC just scored again this one is soo over....


----------



## drothgery (Nov 28, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> no idea, it didn't make any sense...but USC just scored again this one is soo over....




... and then Willingham apparently couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted to try and get back in the game or just run out the clock, alternating between runs and passes. If they wanted to make a comeback, they had to try and throw deep; if they just wanted to get it over, they shouldn't've passed at all.

Of course, I said when he took the job that he had a better chance of winning at Stanford.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2004)

He hasn't done bad at ND...just not a as good as the fans want.  But coaches rarely do as well as the fans want.....


----------



## drothgery (Nov 28, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> He hasn't done bad at ND...just not a as good as the fans want.  But coaches rarely do as well as the fans want.....




He hasn't done bad, and if he weren't pretty much forced to play a killer schedule by Notre Dame's independent status, NBC TV contract, and desire to have a shot a national title, he'd have a respectable string of 8+-win seasons to talk about. 

But the Irish will have to get worse before they get better; until the ratings drop enough that NBC isn't willing to give them their own TV deal, the Irish won't join a conference. And until they join a conference, they won't be an upper-echelon team.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2004)

Ya, the biggest prooblem with Division 1A football is the money, it rules the BCS and the bowls, and ND....it really has ruined the game.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 28, 2004)

Well, my Boise State Broncos finished their 11-0 season by thumping Nevada 58-21. Lousiville's 70 points put them one-tenth of a point ahead of Boise as the highest scoring team in the nation. Bummer.  But it's looking like the Liberty Bowl for the both of them. Already I'm hearing that Boise can't run with Louisville, but also that it could be the most entertaining bowl game outside of the title game (or even including that one). I can't wait! (And no, I don't see either team slipping in to the BCS Top 6. Maybe if Texas had lost, but I don't even think a Cal loss would do it, and Cal ain't losing anyway.)


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2004)

Aftrer finishing their season last week, Ohio State makes the top 25 of both polls!!


----------



## drothgery (Nov 29, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Aftrer finishing their season last week, Ohio State makes the top 25 of both polls!!




... and the pollsters decided to rank Pitt, and in all likelyhood prevent something ludicrous from happening (namely, my Orange in a BCS bowl this year). Pitt has to be ranked 5 spots higher than SU to take a "higher" bowl slot even though Syracuse won head-to-head.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 29, 2004)

Ya, the whole using the BCS as a way to measure which teams to send to the BCS bowl is BS IMO.  There have been ways to decide who won the tie breakers for years and they worked well.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 29, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, the whole using the BCS as a way to measure which teams to send to the BCS bowl is BS IMO.  There have been ways to decide who won the tie breakers for years and they worked well.




It's a side effect of the "Syracuse rule" in the BCS formula (which has come closer to being applied to the ACC than the Big East, historically). Since a string of low-ranked champions will cost a confrence a free pass to the BCS for its champion, sending a much lower-ranked team that wins a traditional tiebreaker to the BCS title game is probably bad for the conference. 

The ACC and Big East haven't been a position where they felt secure enough to let a much lower-ranked team be their representative, and so use the BCS rankings as a relatively high tiebreaker. The SEC uses BCS rankings as a last-case tiebreaker, mostly because it's less silly than anything else and they came close to a scenario where three teams were tied after four or five tiebreakers. I don't know if the Big 12 uses BCS rankings for anything. The Big 10 and Pac 10, college football's traditionalists, don't use the BCS rankings for tiebreakers in any case. I'd have to think they're better than the Big 10's method after head-to-head, though; when the co-champs didn't play each other, the one whose last visit to the Rose Bowl was longer ago gets to go.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 29, 2004)

One day I'll be able to tell the grand kids about the dark times that were the BCS before the Playoffs came to be.......


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 29, 2004)

I'm just glad the BCS is taking another hit this year. Texas is already getting hosed. I kinda wished Boise could have finished Top 6 along with Utah just so they'd have to let both in. That would have royally ticked off a number of people/schools. I hope next year the same thing happens. Anything to devalue the BCS. As it is, there are 3 non-BCS teams in the Top 10. That should make them think twice. Let's hope it happens again next year.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 29, 2004)

Boise getting in would have been great, but I imagine somehow they'd get set up to play each other.  Just like now the talk is the of the weakest team (Big East Champ) playing Utah.  So, even when the teams get in they are noty given a chance to shine against the true elite.  Everyone speculates they would lose dramtically to such a team, but unless you give them the chance we will never know.  

But seeing Boise play Lousiville will make that the best non BCS bowl.  Misght be like that East Carolina MArshall classic from a few years back.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 29, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Boise getting in would have been great,




Boise getting in would be great for the goal of dismantling the BCS, but would produce bad football games. Boise has had too many near misses with really bad teams; with a major confrence schedule, or even a Big East/MWC schedule, Boise St would have 3 or 4 losses and be out of the top 25.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> but I imagine somehow they'd get set up to play each other.




Actually, I think Utah would end up in the Rose Bowl under that scenario (Cal is eliminated by the minor-confrence rule, so they can't get a Pac-10 team, and Utah fans are more likely to go to LA than Miami or VA Tech fans). Boise gets the Fiesta against Pitt/Syracuse.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Just like now the talk is the of the weakest team (Big East Champ) playing Utah.  So, even when the teams get in they are noty given a chance to shine against the true elite.  Everyone speculates they would lose dramtically to such a team, but unless you give them the chance we will never know.




There's also been some speculation that Utah might end up in the Sugar against Auburn. The Tigers want to make the best case possible for a split title, and can't play Cal or Texas to do so; Utah's probably the best they can get.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> But seeing Boise play Lousiville will make that the best non BCS bowl.




I doubt it. As per above, L'ville should win handily -- L'ville's only loss was a shootout to Miami. Boise's victories include shootout win over San Jose State.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 29, 2004)

Ya, the Cardionals have looked better, but tthe one nuice thing about the Bowl gamers is teams have a month to prepare and get ready for one game.  And they come to play.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 29, 2004)

I think it's funny how people bag on Boise because they had a close game against San Jose and Tulsa (who is actually decent and just beat UTEP). Do we all forget that a 2-7 Kansas came a play away from beating Texas? Or that Oklahoma has had close games against bad opponents?

And I'm not big on the quality loss issue. Losing a close game to a great team doesn't necessarily mean much.

Louisville may destroy Boise. Or maybe Boise will do what they've done all year and find a way to win.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 29, 2004)

its the nature of college foiotball, since no one actually plays each other people have to come up with excuses as to why the undefeated and one lose teams are not worthy


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 29, 2004)

Well said, Crothian!


----------



## drothgery (Nov 29, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I think it's funny how people bag on Boise because they had a close game against San Jose and Tulsa (who is actually decent and just beat UTEP). Do we all forget that a 2-7 Kansas came a play away from beating Texas? Or that Oklahoma has had close games against bad opponents?




Err... they've had close games against K-State (which isn't so hot this year, but was a top-10 team last year, and beat them), Texas (which is actually a better team, they just have mental hangups with Oklahoma), Oklahoma State, and A&M.

Kansas was a few plays away from beating almost everyone they played this year (excepting Oklahoma, and the games they won); they were the anti-Boise State. But they beat Tulsa 21-3.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> And I'm not big on the quality loss issue. Losing a close game to a great team doesn't necessarily mean much.
> 
> Louisville may destroy Boise. Or maybe Boise will do what they've done all year and find a way to win.




Maybe. But I'm very suspicious of teams that "just find a way to win". Except for Ohio State's national championship team, most college teams that "just found a way to win" eventually ran up against a team that had too much talent.


----------



## fett527 (Nov 29, 2004)

A win is a win.

Except in college football.  I hate that.

As for OSU in 2002 yes they pulled out close games against some bad teams, but they also pulled out the close games against the very good teams.  I don't know who Boise State had on their complete schedule, but they should be given a chance.  Nobody gave OSU a chance against Miami in 2002 and look what happened. (I'm not saying Boise State should play the for the championship just that they shouldn't be penalized for close wins).


----------



## fett527 (Nov 29, 2004)

Oh, and the BUCKEYES  even made it to number 25 in the BCS standings!!!


----------



## drothgery (Nov 29, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> As for OSU in 2002 yes they pulled out close games against some bad teams, but they also pulled out the close games against the very good teams.  I don't know who Boise State had on their complete schedule, but they should be given a chance.  Nobody gave OSU a chance against Miami in 2002 and look what happened. (I'm not saying Boise State should play the for the championship just that they shouldn't be penalized for close wins).




Although I mentioned OSU in 2002 as a rare team that "just knew how to win" but managed to win a title anyway, they really don't belong in the same conversation as the others. Ohio State is a Big 10 team that's regularly in the top 10; the undefeated teams that either lost their bowl game or didn't get serious national title consideration weren't from programs of anywhere near the same caliber.

Besides, anyone who had watched Miami closely in 2002 knew that they'd be vulnerabe to a very good defensive team, and that neither Miami nor Ohio State would've been favorites against USC at the end of the year.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 1, 2004)

Zook, Willingham, DiNardo (Indiana), Crowton (BYU), Teevans (Standford)

Their falling like Dominoes now.  Anyone else gonna get the axe?  Whose gonna replace who?


----------



## Crothian (Dec 1, 2004)

And Ron Turner got fired from Illinois....


----------



## drothgery (Dec 1, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Zook, Willingham, DiNardo (Indiana), Crowton (BYU), Teevans (Standford)
> 
> Their falling like Dominoes now.  Anyone else gonna get the axe?  Whose gonna replace who?




Pasqualoni at Syracuse _should_ be gone, but he keeps saving his job by winning the season finale (last year v. Notre Dame, this year v. BC).


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 2, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Pasqualoni at Syracuse _should_ be gone, but he keeps saving his job by winning the season finale (last year v. Notre Dame, this year v. BC).



 Isn't Syracuse still a possible for a BCS bowl after that victory? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Would that be a kicker...


----------



## Crothian (Dec 2, 2004)

Pitt is going to get it from the Big East because the tie breaker will be BCS ranking I think...


----------



## drothgery (Dec 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Pitt is going to get it from the Big East because the tie breaker will be BCS ranking I think...




The first tie breaker in this case (a 4-way tie among West Virginia, Pitt, BC, and Syracuse) is best record in games among all 4 teams. Syracuse and Pitt are 2-1; WVA and BC are 1-2. The second tiebreaker is head-to-head, and Syracuse beat Pitt this year. However, if one team is ranked more than 5 spots higher than the other in the BCS rankings (right now Pitt is #23, and Syracuse is unranked, so this applies), the higher-ranked team claims the conference title (and BCS bid) despite the head-to-head loss.

Pitt has one game left, against South Florida. If Pitt loses, there's a slim chance that it will no longer be 5 spots ahead of Syracuse, so the Orange would go to a BCS bowl. But they're still a 6-5 team that lost to Temple.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 2, 2004)

I don't like that BCS ranking trumps head to head meeeting.  Head to head meeting should trump all.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't like that BCS ranking trumps head to head meeeting.  Head to head meeting should trump all.




Neither do I, but unless the BCS dumps the "Big East rule" -- which only ever came close to being applied to the ACC -- it pretty much has to. There's too much money on the line.

Of course, if the Orange had beat *Temple*, they'd've won the conference outright.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 2, 2004)

Another one bites the- well you know:



> Mississippi coach David Cutcliffe was fired Wednesday after his first losing season in six years with the Rebels.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 2, 2004)

MAC Championship tonight...go Miami...


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 3, 2004)

And Toledo wins it. They seem to be a pretty good team this year.

On the BCS front, one mistake they made was not putting a minimum qualification on the BCS conference winner. Like if they're not ranked a certain number of higher, or if they haven't won 8 games, or something like that, then that conferences loses the automatic birth. Applied this year, Texas wouldn't be getting the shaft, because they could get the invite instead of Pitt, who is only ranked now because no one wanted an unranked team in the BCS game.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 3, 2004)

I wanted an unranked team in the BCS.......anything to show how the system isn't working....

So, who do you all got?  Maimi or VT?  Auburn or Tenn?  Pitt or South Florida?  USC or UCLA?  Oklahoma or Colorado? Cal or Southern Miss?

Any upserts looming?


----------



## drothgery (Dec 3, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I wanted an unranked team in the BCS.......anything to show how the system isn't working....
> 
> So, who do you all got?
> 
> Any upserts looming?




_Maimi or VT?_
Miami. Hokies haven't had a late-season choke yet this year. They're due.

_Auburn or Tenn?_
Auburn. Someone's going to get upset this weekend among the Big 3, and I can't see it being Auburn or USC.

_Pitt or South Florida?_
Pitt. Is it too late for the Big East to take Memphis instead of South Florida?

_USC or UCLA?_
Upsets happen in this game, but not to #1 USC teams.

_Oklahoma or Colorado?_ 
Colorado. There's a long history of upsets in the Big 12 championship game, and the Sooners really don't impress me at all. Besides, there has to be one freaky upset.

_Cal or Southern Miss?_
Cal. In an effort to erase any doubts pollsters have about ranking Cal ahead of Texas, Bears beat Southern Miss 70-3.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 3, 2004)

The only upset I see happening Saturday is VT over Miami. But ya never know...


----------



## Crothian (Dec 3, 2004)

I'm not even sure VT over Miami is much of an upset, VT has the habit of beating the Hurricanes.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 4, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> [_Cal or Southern Miss?_
> Cal. In an effort to erase any doubts pollsters have about ranking Cal ahead of Texas, Bears beat Southern Miss 70-3.





Yeah, I think the Golden Bears are going to do their best Louisville or Boise State impression tomorrow.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 4, 2004)

VT Miamia has been a really good game.  Pitt handled their game nicely.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 4, 2004)

VT Miami was really good! Mainly because VT won.  Louisville is taking care of business, which is good for the Boise/Louisville matchup. I think everything else should go as planned today.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 4, 2004)

I don't know, Louisville is only up by 41......


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 4, 2004)

Now they're running up the score again. I've come to the conclusion that Conference USA overall sucks a whole lot more than the WAC. And that's saying a lot.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 4, 2004)

UCLA has been given a lot of chances in their game but a big return for zero points and a blocked punt that also results in zero points is not helping.  And Bush's 86 yard TD run just now isn't helping any either.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 4, 2004)

It certainly helps with the zebras let USC hold on every play. Geez.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 5, 2004)

I was really hoping that SC would just grind up the Bruins today - still, a W is a W, and that's the first wire-to-wire Number 1 in awhile.

Fight on!


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I was really hoping that SC would just grind up the Bruins today - still, a W is a W, and that's the first wire-to-wire Number 1 in awhile.
> 
> Fight on!




Wasn't Miami in 2001 wire to wire?


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 5, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Wasn't Miami in 2001 wire to wire?



Yep - is three years not enough of awhile?



OK is pounding the Buffs, and the Vols are pressing the Tigers - looks like Trojans and Sooners in Miami.


----------



## Krug (Dec 5, 2004)

Still a tight game between Cal and Southern Miss.. 17-10 going into 4th.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

make that 19-16 after the ultra rare extra point run back for 2


----------



## Krug (Dec 5, 2004)

Talk about bizarre... but Cal really needs to get its offense going if it wants to secure the win.


----------



## Krug (Dec 5, 2004)

_mistaken_


----------



## Krug (Dec 5, 2004)

Ok.. 26-16 ... There you go! But still plenty of time left.

_Can you tell my fingers/toes are all crossed??_


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

And so Cal does.....


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> Ok.. 26-16 ... There you go! But still plenty of time left.
> 
> _Can you tell my fingers/toes are all crossed??_




Ya, you and Brett Favre


----------



## Krug (Dec 5, 2004)

All right I can uncross them now!

*GO* *BEARS!*


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

Well, its been a while since we had no upsets on the final day of college football.  What a waste.....


----------



## Arc (Dec 5, 2004)

Just finished driving back from Pasadena, and while I'm not dissappointed (as an 'SC student), the mood at the game certainly seemed rather glum. SC went into the game, for the most part, expecting a blowout, and the inept plays by Leinart (so much for the Heisman) and most of the offensive line pretty much destroyed that. Sure, a victory is a victory... but the game felt more like an extended practice with some unexpected setbacks than a game deserving interest.

Still, I should be able to sell my orange bowl tickets for some decent cash


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 5, 2004)

I think we should have some great bowl matchups. Unless the polsters are complete morons, Cal should be good for the Rose with Michigan. That will be my New Year's Day bowl to watch. USC/OK should be a good matchup, too. Lot's of Heisman hopefuls and some good offense. The Fiesta will be a waste (too bad for Utah), but I'll watch it anyway, just to root for them. As for Auburn/VT...not a bad matchup. But, of course, the Liberty Bowl is the one to watch for me.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 5, 2004)

Arc said:
			
		

> Still, I should be able to sell my orange bowl tickets for some decent cash




Ah the voice of a true fan.

Late night edit: Well the MSU/Hawaii game was arguably the worst officated I have EVER seen. I hope June Jones is taking the refs out to dinner tomorrow. sheesh


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 5, 2004)

Wow...Hawaii won. Even with blown calls, I'm surprised it was even close.

Hawaii was the New Orleans Saints of the NCAA this year. Talk about an odd team. You never knew if they were going to get blown out (like 69-3 against Boise) or if they would win a game the weren't supposed to (like Northwestern or Michigan State). What a weird team.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

ACtually from what I've heard they have trouble on the road and people have trouble playing them at home.  TRaveling out and from there can be tough, and focusing might be hard.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 5, 2004)

I wonder if a relatively cheap supersonic airliner (that could takeoff and land from Honolulu International Airport) would turn Hawaii into a "normal" team...


----------



## drothgery (Dec 5, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I think we should have some great bowl matchups. Unless the polsters are complete morons, Cal should be good for the Rose with Michigan. That will be my New Year's Day bowl to watch. USC/OK should be a good matchup, too. Lot's of Heisman hopefuls and some good offense. The Fiesta will be a waste (too bad for Utah), but I'll watch it anyway, just to root for them. As for Auburn/VT...not a bad matchup. But, of course, the Liberty Bowl is the one to watch for me.




It looks like Texas probably picked up enough ground on Cal in the polls to get pushed ahead of them by the computers. Which means Texas is heading to the Rose Bowl. Ick. That makes 3 of the last 4 Rose Bowls something other than a Big 10 v. Pac 10 game -- and including the farce that was the Miami/Nebraska (rather than consensus #2 Oregon) national championship game.

So yet again the BCS Bowls are failing to preserve tradition or deliver a clear champion. I mean, I guess USC could trash Oklahoma, VT could knock off Auburn, Pitt could beat Utah, and L'Ville could beat Boise to give us an undisputed #1. Heck, in each individual case except VT v. Auburn, I think that's likely.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

We knew going into the BCS so many years back that the old bowl alliances would be messed up.  It is no suprise and while its nice to have the tradition, I also like seeing other schoold get a chance to play in the grand daddy of all bowls.  But silly stuff can happen with the computers and the picking of the teams, so we shall see soon.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 5, 2004)

The only bowl matchup with any real tradition is the Big 10/Pac 10 Rose Bowl. Nothing else is even close. If we're not keeping that around, and we're not going to get a clear national champion (there's a very good chance Auburn and Utah will join the USC/Oklahoma winner as undefeated, and Boise might join the club too), why isn't there a real playoff, again?


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

Becasue the Presidents of the Universities and Colleges do not want it.  I also think that there is just so much money being generated by the BCS that the big schools do not want to give that up.  But what the specific reasons are, I've never heard.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 5, 2004)

I really don't buy the money argument, unless it's over control over money rather than the amount of money. The presidents know home much the basketball tournament brings in (most of it from CBS); if they don't think a football tournament would be at least as lucrative (and possibly more profitable, as you'd almost certainly have to stage the first-round games at campus sites), they're not paying attention.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

Well, perhaps they are thinking it will be diluted money, going to more of the small schools...I'm just guessing here


----------



## Krieg (Dec 5, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> ACtually from what I've heard they have trouble on the road and people have trouble playing them at home.  TRaveling out and from there can be tough, and focusing might be hard.




There is a popular term for it called "home cooking"...it is not used in complimentary manner.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

Home field advantage does exist for a reason, some teams really excel at home and not on the road......


----------



## Krug (Dec 5, 2004)

Sigh Cal was robbed. What a difference one TD would have made. They were on the 22 yard line yest and the coach let time run out instead of running things up. Gosh this is really spoiling my day.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

The BCS failed and failed big this year.  The match ups really are not that exciting and hopefully people won't tune in to the games.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 5, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Home field advantage does exist for a reason, some teams really excel at home and not on the road......




For Hawaii, playing a west coast team is about equivalent to a cross-country trip for anyone else. Playing a non-west coast team is a heck of a road trip. For anyone coming to Hawaii, they've got a huge road trip, plus the considerable distraction of being in Hawaii to deal with. It'd be suprsing if Hawaii wasn't much, much better at home than on the road.


----------



## Krug (Dec 5, 2004)

Since it doesn't work out, lets just go back to the traditional matchups? Of course that would have meant Cal still missing out this year. Ah well..


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> Since it doesn't work out, lets just go back to the traditional matchups? Of course that would have meant Cal still missing out this year. Ah well..




Too many contracts have been signed and souls have been sold......


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 5, 2004)

I was all excited to watch a Cal/Michigan Rose Bowl this year. Would've been awesome. I probably won't even tune into a Texas/Michigan game. Too bad. Cal got robed big.

And to think that many people believe the BCS is working...

Looks like the Liberty Bowl is the only one I'll both with. Maybe the Orange, but I've never enjoyed OK that much. But I am a Pac-10 fan, so I'll likely tune in for USC.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

Well, it really depends on what one thinks the BCS is suppossed to do.  And it has worked, it uses criteria to determine who is the number 1 and number 2 teams in the nation; and they play each other.  The problem is that some people don't agree with the way it works or who is choosen.  The BCS did the job it was designed to do.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Looks like the Liberty Bowl is the only one I'll both with. Maybe the Orange, but I've never enjoyed OK that much. But I am a Pac-10 fan, so I'll likely tune in for USC.




what about OSU verse OSU?  Oklahoma State verse Ohio State.  That should be a good game.  Lots of the lesser bowls are actually looking really good.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 5, 2004)

Boise State vs. Louisville will be the game to watch. The final score will rival a basketball game. The over/under will be 100.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 5, 2004)

I don't know, one of those temas at least has sort of a defense.  Look at Bowling Green verse Memphis, neither has a defense both both can put up points.  Bowling Green scored more against Oklahoma then Texas did!!


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 5, 2004)

Yeah, the Liberty Bowl could be high scoring. It depends on how Louisville's defense holds. They had a great defense this year, but it was largely against C-USA teams, so Boise will be a good test for them. Boise has a great run defense, but a horrible pass defense. One bright spot is that Boise is getting back one of their key secondary players, who has been injured much of the season. So maybe that will help their pass D a little. As a Boise fan, Louisville scares me a bit. Very cool, however, that they are both Top 10 teams (in all three polls). Makes the Liberty Bowl a great game.

Crothian, you're right about some of the lesser bowls. I'm actually hoping to go to the MPC Bowl (Fresno, Virginia). I have a chance to go free as a halftime volunteer. That will be a fun game, especially live. Not often you'll see Boise fans root for Fresno!  (They're becoming fairly bitter rivals--a lot of hate flowing between players and such.)


----------



## Krug (Dec 6, 2004)

> Although Cal was ranked ahead of Texas in both polls Sunday, the Longhorns were close enough that when combined with the computer rankings, it was enough to leapfrog the Golden Bears.




GAH.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 6, 2004)

It's going to be a tough Bowl Season for the Big 10, they have some really good opponents this year.  And I'm happy the MAC got I think 4 teams into Bowls which is great since they only have 2 tie ins.  Time for the MAC to go beat up the big boys!!


----------



## drothgery (Dec 6, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It's going to be a tough Bowl Season for the Big 10, they have some really good opponents this year.  And I'm happy the MAC got I think 4 teams into Bowls which is great since they only have 2 tie ins.  Time for the MAC to go beat up the big boys!!




Every bowl-eligible team except for South Carolina and Clemson (which declined any potential invitations due to a brawl) got to a bowl. My Orange -- who, despite a season-ending victory over BC, are decidedly mediocre, are in a bowl.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 6, 2004)

Chiming in real quick since gaming was short tonight.

Of course the OSU vs. OSU I will watch.  It can only help the Bucks to play a Big 12 team before Texas next year.

Obviously Cal got snubbed.  Should have been Cal v Michigan.  I can't boycott that game though since it will give great insight for OSU for next year to watch Texas play Michigan.  (I hope there's lots of note taking, OSU couldn't be in better shape playing a Big 12 team and watching Michigan play Texas).

Lousville vs. Boise State should be the best game in my estimation.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 6, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Home field advantage does exist for a reason, some teams really excel at home and not on the road......




Perhaps I wasn't blunt enough.

Hawaii beat NW & MSU entirely because of how the games were officiated.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 6, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I was all excited to watch a Cal/Michigan Rose Bowl this year. Would've been awesome. I probably won't even tune into a Texas/Michigan game.



I'm beside myself over this one.

The Rose Bowl should be Pac 10/Big 10, and the BCS can go flog itself.

Bad call.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 6, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Perhaps I wasn't blunt enough.
> 
> Hawaii beat NW & MSU entirely because of how the games were officiated.




Ah, I didn't watch either game so I wasn't aware of that....


----------



## Uzumaki (Dec 6, 2004)

Damn, and I was all geared up to go to the Rose Bowl. Texas has screwed California twice in one month.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 6, 2004)

What besides the BCS....?


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 6, 2004)

Uzumaki said:
			
		

> Damn, and I was all geared up to go to the Rose Bowl. Texas has screwed California twice in one month.



Texas didn't screw Cal -- the BCS system screwed Cal. Just as the system screwed Texas and others last year, and in past years.

Hate the game, not the playahs


----------



## fett527 (Dec 6, 2004)

What I am tired of hearing is analysts that say the BCS worked, it gave us # 1 vs # 2 as it is supposed to.  It gave us a _disputed _ #1 vs. #2 and screwed up match ups in the other BCS games.  It didn't work this year, it didn't work last year, skip 2002 since there were only 2 undefeateds and etc., etc.

GET A PLAYOFF.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 6, 2004)

Even if we had a playoff there will be disutes.  There always are going to be disputes.  THe BCS did work, it set up number 1 verse number 2 using the agreed upon criteria.  Both polls had USC and Oklahoma as 1 and 2, the BCS followed the will of the writers and the coaches, so they deserve blame too.  The BCS sucks, but it did exactly what it was meant to do.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 6, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Even if we had a playoff there will be disutes.  There always are going to be disputes.




And if they're disputes like basketball, where we're arguing over seeding, the last two or three at-large teams and the merits of minor conference champions, that's fine. In my "college football bracketology thread", where I'm speculating using a tweaked version of the I-AA playoff rules for I-A, I don't think Iowa or North Texas would have a real shot at winning the whole thing.

The basic problems with the BCS rather than a playoff are 1) If there's not a clear #1 and a clear #2 [which basically means that every other major confrence team has a worse record than #1 and #2], the system breaks; this happens almost every year with the current system 2) There's no way for a two-loss team that finishes strongly (like Colorado in 2001 or USC in 2002) to make a championship run.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 6, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Texas didn't screw Cal -- the BCS system screwed Cal. Just as the system screwed Texas and others last year, and in past years.
> 
> Hate the game, not the playahs



 Well, the Texas coach was publicly pleading for votes from the coaches and media to put them above Cal so they could go, and many think that is part of what tips them over.

Serious lack of class on the part of Texas. And the Cal coach has the opportunity to run up the score on Southern Miss and didn't, showing great class. And it also likely contributed to the tip.

And that, once again, is why the BCS system, or the one in place before it, doesn't work. When rankings are judged on style points, it's all just BS.


----------



## fett527 (Dec 6, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> ..THe BCS did work, it set up number 1 verse number 2 using the agreed upon criteria...




 I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with the assessment that the BCS worked:



> If they’d lost a game, they would understand. If they hadn’t won their conference championship game, they wouldn’t argue. If they’d even ever really struggled to win, they could see being left out on the championship picture.  But how do you look these Auburn Tigers in their eyes and tell them going 12-0 in the Southeastern Conference, winning eight conference games by a margin of 18.9 points per game, and beating four ranked opponents, isn’t good enough to earn a place in the national championship game?


----------



## Crothian (Dec 6, 2004)

According the press and coaches they weren't good enough.  It is not like this is the first time we will have teams finish undefeated even after the bowl season and not be National Champions.  Heck, Auburn could kill VT and Oklahoma and USC play terrible and we get another split championship like last year.  Or, and this would be just funny, UTah, Boisem, and Auburn all lose leaving uis with one undeafeted team by the time its all done.  

The BCS is no good, it needs to go and go now.


----------

