Escape from Elba

Sports => Football => Topic started by: Admin on April 15, 2007, 09:32:32 PM



Title: College Football
Post by: Admin on April 15, 2007, 09:32:32 PM
Will the Gators repeat?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on April 21, 2007, 08:27:18 PM
Of course the Gators will repeat... in hoops!

Go Cards!  :o


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 25, 2007, 10:03:56 AM
I think we all know who is going to win the BCS this year....

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY!  GO SPARTANS!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: DoctorDoom on April 25, 2007, 03:44:35 PM
I think we all know who is going to win the BCS this year....

PENN STATE UNIVERSITY

Right on Steve!!!!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on April 27, 2007, 01:49:54 AM
Though I'm partial to East Coast teams I think Cal will be a darkhorse for the BCS game.Anyone but Notre Dame and those sucks from USC.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on April 27, 2007, 01:52:20 AM
By the way Doctor Doom I love your pic.Knowing Whiskey from the old book forums I've been looking at his pic for a few nights and imagining all sorts of things.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 08:10:56 AM
By the way Doctor Doom I love your pic.Knowing Whiskey from the old book forums I've been looking at his pic for a few nights and imagining all sorts of things.
Robert Bresson's Au hasard Balthazar is available on Criterion DVD at fine video stores near you.

Speaking of donkeys, it is looking more and more like I am going to have to get used to Brady Quinn.  I keep telling myself, Phil Savage knows more about talent than I do, Phil Savage knows more about talent than I do, Phil Savage knows more about talent than I do....  But it just ain't working.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Bayou Bengal on April 28, 2007, 04:53:41 PM
Fox sports early prediction for the BCS playoff is

LSU vs. University of Second Choice.  My pick from that game is LSU.

Not that I'm biased or anything.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on April 29, 2007, 02:08:34 PM
It seems that the NFL picks from physical charts, as I am shocked to see neither Leak nor Smith drafted in the first 4 rounds.  These are QB's who are proven winners, yet Dallas chooses to go with Stanback from Washington.  Maybe it was because he sounded almost like Staubach?  I don't get it.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on April 29, 2007, 02:10:11 PM
Quinn doesn't have to go very far from home, and Cleveland won't have to ante up as much for a 22nd pick as they would have for a 3rd pick.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 08:48:19 AM
The NFL feasted on OSU in the draft, I can't believe some of the guys that were lifted weren't even high on the Buckeyes' depth chart


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on May 11, 2007, 08:10:00 AM
It will be interesting to see how these OSU players fair in the NFL.  My guess is that Troy Smith will be lucky if he gets a snap. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on May 15, 2007, 08:58:46 PM
Troy Smith won the Heisman.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 06:43:06 AM
We need a playoff.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:15:35 AM
Totally agree.  Why can't they just use the Bowls as playoff games?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on May 21, 2007, 08:46:31 PM
What happened at NY Times?  Looks like a number of you made the jump?

(formerly sswingate)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 10:56:10 AM
They cut off all the forums except for Classical Music, Opera, and some Reading groups.   I guess lack of revenue from the advertising was the reason for the forums demise


Title: it's official
Post by: TrojanHorse on May 22, 2007, 11:16:49 AM
Ok, well now seems as good a time as any to start promoting the team.

It's official, Mitch Mustain has transfered to USC  from Arkansas.

John David Bootie will still be #1 QB this year, but next year,  TWO Prep Army All -American QBs will be vying dor the starting job.  Mustain and Mark Sanchez, who won the honor the year before Mustain. 

The future's so bright, I gotta put my shades back on...

Mustain was no doubt influenced by the success of Matt Cassell who was drafted by the Patriots after never being the starting quarterback at USC (he was behind Carson Palmer and then Matt Leinart).


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 22, 2007, 11:17:49 AM
Gonna have two balls?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on May 22, 2007, 12:14:43 PM
I assume they all come with the standard issue set, Whiskey...


 
Can I nominate myself for the LOW Highlights???


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on June 03, 2007, 10:47:47 AM
Seems the President of the University of Florida has seen the light:

Story by David Climer
The Tennessean
June 2, 2007

DESTIN, Fla.--Now that Bernie Machen's playoff fever has
broken, the most likely avenue for change in the college
football postseason is the addition of one extra game.

And that so-called "plus-one" format--in which the teams
deemed Nos. 1 and 2 after all the bowls would square off
for the national title--cannot occur until the current Bowl
Championship Series contract expires following the 2009
postseason.


Machen, whose school is the reigning national champion in
both football and men's basketball, came to the SEC spring
meeting hoping to convince the other presidents that the
conference should take the lead in pursuing a playoff.

However, Machen surrendered after a one-hour exchange of
ideas among the presidents.

"They are persuaded, and I am now persuaded, that the best
way to proceed is to try to work within the BCS structure
to make some changes to make it better," Machen said.

"That seems to be a very good way to go. Being that we are
the leading football conference, we'll be able to be heard
in that regard."

Asked whether he would continue to pitch for a true
playoff, Machen shook his head and said:

"I'm done."

===========

Even SEC Presidents can be crazy, but not stupid.


Title: BCFS
Post by: Dzimas on June 04, 2007, 06:32:42 AM
Just like old times, eh Jim?

I suppose now that Machen has the championship in Gainesville, the fervor for a playoff wore off, but more likely he saw the size of the brick wall he was up again.  The BCS is the equivalent of a college football mafia and as such they call the shots regardless what anyone else has to say on the matter.  For better and mostly worst, Division 1-A college football is wed to this ridiculous bowl system that was never meant to be anything more than post-season exhibition games.  God knows they've tried just about everyway to make this bowl system into some semblance of a playoff, but it has failed repeatedly.  No amount of tweaking is going to fix the system.  Certainly not a "plus-one" format, when there will remain three or four teams with a legitimate claim to the championship even after the bowl games.  The only way I see this system having any chance to work is if they set up 1-4 in bowl games, so that the winners square off in a BCS title game.  But, 5-8 will no doubt complain at being left out of the picture.  So it goes.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on June 04, 2007, 05:18:25 PM
good to see you here Jim


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on June 09, 2007, 12:36:58 AM
Trojan Horse.....
Thanks.



Dzimas.......

Machen changed his mind after meeting with SEC brethern.   Aren't these the same guys who railed against the BCS before Florida beat out  Michigan?

The fact of the matter remains that no matter how you dress up the playoff model you cannot deliver post season play to 7 or 8 SEC teams or 64 total teams that the Bowls do.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on June 09, 2007, 01:37:13 AM
You can't seem to get past the idea that a playoff system will me the death of the bowls.  You can still have bowl games, you can still have 60 teams playing in the post-season, it is just that 8-16 of them will be playing for a championship.  What is so hard to imagine abou that.  As it is, the bowls have been rendered totally superfluous to the BCS championship game.


Title: Playoffs
Post by: TrojanHorse on June 13, 2007, 10:50:15 AM
Cal tate Fullerton lost their last 4-5 games of the regular season and fell to 5th place in the Big West division.  The NCAA granted them an at large berth no doubt due to their history of winning tradition and the fact that they at least knew they would be competitive in their role as filler meat for the other teams that legitimately qualified for the tournament rounds.

CSUF went on a streak and is now going to the finals.  I'm from Orange COunty and I'm thrilled to see them in there, but come on, how is that right?

This is exactly what Jim does not want to see in college football.  And neither do I.  I would be ok with a four team playoff...any more than that and I think you have a big problem in football.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on June 15, 2007, 12:09:26 PM
Can't wait for football season...
             Can't wait for football season...
                            Can't wait for football season...
                                      Can't wait for football season...
                                                  Can't wait for football season...
                                                             Can't wait for football season...
                                                                          Can't wait for football season...
                                                                                     Can't wait for football season...




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on June 24, 2007, 02:32:49 AM
I saw Paul McDonald at a party tonight.  He feels the Trojans will have an incredible defense this year.

Josh Pinkard is back --remember after the game one injury last year, his replacement turned out to be true freshman Taylor Mays.

They have so much speed on defense, it should be another great season.  But Oregon and Cal away will be very tough games.  They also need to get out of Nebraska alive this year...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on June 24, 2007, 02:36:07 AM
I know I'm going to take some crap this year right off the bat though.  I kept making fun of SEC teams the last few years for scheduling cupcakes.  Sure they always claimed that they had a togher team on the schedule that backed out at the last minute, but who believes that line???


Welll..this year it happened to us and we haev Idaho on the schedule as the first game.   ooops  :)

hope strength of schedule doesn't bite us in the butt this year...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on June 24, 2007, 11:09:52 AM
Quote
I would be ok with a four team playoff...any more than that and I think you have a big problem in football.

At first glance you would think that this should be sufficient. Usually, most argument centers around who qualifies for the second spot and should thus be allowed to play No. 1 for the championship (see last year before the championship game.--who's no.2, Michigan or Florida?). But should they start a 4-team tournament just watch the arguments that would ensue over who is the real number 4 team in the country...(probably number 3 too!).


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 24, 2007, 11:50:58 AM
I saw Paul McDonald at a party tonight.  He feels the Trojans will have an incredible defense this year.

Josh Pinkard is back --remember after the game one injury last year, his replacement turned out to be true freshman Taylor Mays.

They have so much speed on defense, it should be another great season.  But Oregon and Cal away will be very tough games.  They also need to get out of Nebraska alive this year...
USC is one of the teams I'm giving strong thought to as the #2 team in the country in my Top 11, behind Michigan State.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on June 25, 2007, 11:11:51 AM
No question...that argument will begin, but it will be extended to the #9 team in an 8 team playoff...etc.

There are legitimate questions --as we have all painfully experienced over the last few years as to who should have a right to be that #2 team.  Take the 02-03 Championship, where Oklahoma, LSU and USC all had one loss.   USC was ranked #1 in both of the major polls, and yet came out #3 in the BCS ranking that year.

This argument is not likely to legitimately extend out past four teams in my opinion -- although I suppose it could happen...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on June 25, 2007, 11:28:15 AM
"Painful"???

What was painful for SoCal?

It was declared the AP National Champion and won the Rose Bowl and would have been a threepeat  had Vince Young not been around

"Painful" is what would describe the non- existent post season for 48 deserving teams if a playoff would ever be embraced.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on June 25, 2007, 01:20:03 PM
Jim,  I'm probably as close to a supporter as you've had around, so I'm not arguing for the elimination of the bowl system.

What I'm doing is arguing against extending a playoff to more than 4 teams.  This could be handled without upsetting the current bowls.

All existing BCS bowl games are held on New Years Day and then a championship game one week (or two weeks) later.  Not much difference now, except 1-4 would alternate between Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on June 25, 2007, 01:21:11 PM
USC is one of the teams I'm giving strong thought to as the #2 team in the country in my Top 11, behind Michigan State.

You crack me up WP...I am honored to be #2, "behind" Michigan State in your pre-season poll...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on June 25, 2007, 07:03:17 PM
Jim,  I'm probably as close to a supporter as you've had around, so I'm not arguing for the elimination of the bowl system.

What I'm doing is arguing against extending a playoff to more than 4 teams.  This could be handled without upsetting the current bowls.

All existing BCS bowl games are held on New Years Day and then a championship game one week (or two weeks) later.  Not much difference now, except 1-4 would alternate between Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar.



Only the Rose and Fiesta Bowls are played on New Year's.  The Orange and Sugar Bowls happen the next two succeeding nights. College games take so long to play that it is impossible to get fit more than two into prime viewing times to pay the costs.

The Rose Bowl wants no part of a plus one format while the other BCS Bowls are lukewarm since there is no guarantee that any of the potential teams would bring close to a traditional matchup.  Further, with a game hanging on the outcome of the Bowls , tickets to the to the Rose, Fiesta,Orange and Sugar would be harder to sell and the time spent at the host cities shortened.

Any "plus one Championship game" will fall on a weeknight 10-14 days after New Year's because of the NFL playoffs making travel for the fans  even harder.

A plus one simply moves the controversy on who is number 3 to who is number 5 and, for the reasons stated above, is simply not worth it.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on June 26, 2007, 01:18:16 AM
I believe I could get behind a four team playoff, held in two of the major bowls on a rotating basis each New Year's, followed by a championship game one week later. The arguments will always go on as to who deserves to go into the tournament no matter how large you make the field. I think the most important thing is that you get the TWO BEST teams into the tournament. Out of four choices surely there would be some sort of consensus that at least the top 2 teams were somewhere in that group of four, and after that they could battle it out on the field.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on June 26, 2007, 12:12:21 PM
I believe I could get behind a four team playoff, held in two of the major bowls on a rotating basis each New Year's, followed by a championship game one week later. The arguments will always go on as to who deserves to go into the tournament no matter how large you make the field. I think the most important thing is that you get the TWO BEST teams into the tournament. Out of four choices surely there would be some sort of consensus that at least the top 2 teams were somewhere in that group of four, and after that they could battle it out on the field.

We already have a system pitting the best two teams in a Bowl Game while leaving 31 other bowl games for interesting and exciting match ups.   Computers and human polling rate the teams in either system.  Why should the top two teams have to play another game to reach a so-called "championship" game when their claim has already been on the line for 12 previous games.

College football already has the most exciting regular season of all the major sports and a post season that offers games to one and a half million people who combine the sport with a vacation.


It does not get any better than this.

Well, maybe not for any fan of Temple. 

But no system is perfect.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on June 26, 2007, 11:15:45 PM
Quote
We already have a system pitting the best two teams in a Bowl Game

Yes, but are they truly the two best teams? Surprisingly, the BCS system seems to have done quite well at this, after all is said and done. But that still does not diminish the amount of complaining before the championship game by fans from teams who believe that their team has a legitimate claim to one of the top two spots. What I'm saying is that it is not as important to make sure that the eighth best team in the country (for instance) is included in some type of tournament, even though they might be perfectly capable of defeating any of the other teams on a given day. What I'm saying is that a four team playoff should satisfy any legitimate claim to be in the championship competition. Does anyone reasonably claim that a team that is ranked further down than number four is really the best team in the country?

Quote
leaving 31 other bowl games for interesting and exciting match ups.

P.S.-I can't really agree with this so much. Back before there was a championship game I felt that the bowls were much more interesting due to the fact that your team could end up No. 1 by winning your bowl game and, perhaps if you needed some help, a team above you in the polls might lose their bowl game, and so on. Now, if you care about being No. 1, you're in the big game or you have no chance.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on June 26, 2007, 11:32:22 PM
Quote
Why should the top two teams have to play another game to reach a so-called "championship" game when their claim has already been on the line for 12 previous games.

Obviously, because my 12 previous games might not come anywhere near equaling your 12 previous games in degree of difficulty. Utah had a nice team last year but was playing in their conference the equivalent of playing in the Pac 10? No way. Same with out of conference scheduling. Some teams want to play the tough teams to make their own team tough, while some schedule cream puffs just to get a scrimmage and a game in the "W" column.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on June 26, 2007, 11:57:13 PM
Quote
Why should the top two teams have to play another game to reach a so-called "championship" game when their claim has already been on the line for 12 previous games.

Obviously, because my 12 previous games might not come anywhere near equaling your 12 previous games in degree of difficulty. Utah had a nice team last year but was playing in their conference the equivalent of playing in the Pac 10? No way. Same with out of conference scheduling. Some teams want to play the tough teams to make their own team tough, while some schedule cream puffs just to get a scrimmage and a game in the "W" column.

Thats why we have computers and polls.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on June 27, 2007, 09:28:04 AM
Quote
Thats why we have computers and polls

Which pretty much leads us back to the whole root of the argument. Should computers and polls determine who is no. 1 or should play on the field? And once again I emphasize that this all revolves around claims (and a case can certainly be made for certain teams in past years) that some teams who are ranked no. 3 are better or more deserving to be in the championship game than, say, the no. 2 ranked team (and in fact they sometimes think that they are better than the no. 1 ranked team) (See Auburn, or So. Cal in the past couple of years). Of course, all of this is just for the sake of argument and bragging rights. The world is not going to stop turning because a certain football team ends up ranked no. 1 over some other team.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on June 27, 2007, 03:22:53 PM
None of the computers and neither poll ranked Auburn higher than third.

SoCal was named number one by AP and won its NC, giving us 2 national champions that year.

And we all lived to talk about it.

There is no known formula in any sport that guarantees it's so called champion is the best team of the year....but college football comes the closest....and does so through an exciting regular season and a post season offering the most games to the most fans.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on June 27, 2007, 06:22:38 PM
Quote
There is no known formula in any sport that guarantees it's so called champion is the best team

Correct. And nobody is saying that there could be such a thing. All that I and many others are saying is that there could be a better way than what we have, a way that depends more upon what happens on the football field and less upon computers and people's opinions and perceptions. In reality, was Southern Cal at least a no. 2 level team last year after seeing what they did to Michigan (a team that seldom lies down in a bowl game)? In reality, did Ohio State just play a poor game against Florida or were they not quite deserving of that no. 1 ranking. After stumbling around most of the season and barely winning at least 2 of their games in their regular season competition did anyone believe that Florida would BLOW OUT OSU?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 06, 2007, 06:00:47 PM
Driver

You obviously don't have a previous realtionship with Jim...

Stating your case is one thing, but don't hope to change his opinion...it ain't gonna happen...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 06, 2007, 06:05:52 PM


Only the Rose and Fiesta Bowls are played on New Year's.  The Orange and Sugar Bowls happen the next two succeeding nights. College games take so long to play that it is impossible to get fit more than two into prime viewing times to pay the costs.



New Year's Day Jim - the whole day is prime time...

Noon-3pm Eastern
3pm - 6pm Eastern
6pm - 9pm Eastern
9pm - Midnight Eastern

Still...you might be right, 30+ years of Monday night football have proven that no one can stay up til midnight on a work/school night




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on July 12, 2007, 10:26:37 AM
Interesting decision to erase Stoops' wins, but not his losses from the 2005 season,

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AhtLiSHSybvXOm2Bo4BoKPc5nYcB?slug=ap-oklahoma-ncaa&prov=ap&type=lgns

I don't know how you can "erase" a season anyway.  It took place.  If you erase the wins from one side of the ledger, then you must erase the losses from the other side of the ledger, I would assume.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 12, 2007, 11:34:49 AM
I'm not a huge Stoops fan, but I'm not in favor of that either...it's not really fair to anyone.   Go ahead and take scholarships away or whatever forward looking things you want to do...

Speaking of which...why is that AOL Sports has resurrected this Reggie Bush thing 2-3 times into a flurry of controversy and then the whole thing just dies down again immediately afterward?   Seems like they are trying to make a name for themselves on vapor...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on July 13, 2007, 03:31:23 AM
AOL is a joke as far as I'm concerned, not to mention an expensive internet provider, whose bills just kept coming and coming long after I had disconnected the service. 

To me it would be better to drop the pretense of these players being "amateurs" and allow them to take money for their services provided it is put into a trust fund, which they can draw from once their collegiate careers are over.  This is what they used to do in "amateur" track and field so that these athletes could still compete in the Olympics.  I suppose it could just as easily get out of hand, but it is nonsense for collegiate athletes to go unpaid when the colleges now receive huge money from television and corporate sponsors, not to mention all the licensed jerseys with the players names and numbers on them, as well as the recruiting tools these players provide for their respective colleges.


Title: Preseason Polls
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 17, 2007, 07:36:14 PM
Guess the preseason polls are starting roll out?

Here's Scout's  - Anybody have access to any other interesting ones?

http://cfn.scout.com/2/609740.html

1. USC   2006 Record: 11-2
Don't fret about the loss of Dwayne Jarrett and Steve Smith; USC is a receiver factory and has more NFL talent waiting in the wings. While John David Booty will be the signature star and the Heisman candidate, the 2007 Trojans will roll on defense with its speediest, most talented group in the Pete Carroll era with ten starters returning. The offense won't have to generate more than 21 points a game to win.

2. LSU   2006 Record: 11-2
The Tigers lose JaMarcus Russell, several top defensive players, and leading receiver Dwayne Bowe. Whatever. Matt Flynn and Ryan Perrilloux are ready to step in and run the offense, there's still speed to burn at receiver, and there aren't as many losses as past years on defense. Replacing safeties LaRon Landry and Jessie Daniels will be the biggest issue.

3. Texas   2006 Record: 10-3
The pressure is back on Mack Brown to produce with a loaded team. Colt McCoy has all his weapons to work with a tremendous running back and receiving corps. The O line loses Justin Blalock and Lyle Sendlein, but it's Texas; it reloads. The secondary loses three NFL players, including Aaron Ross, but it didn't stop anyone last year anyway.

4. Florida   2006 Record: 13-1 
Urban Meyer is doing a phenomenal job recruiting, and he won't hesitate to put young players in key spots, but the loss of way too many defensive stars, and the graduation of Chris Leak, will be too costly to repeat as national champions. That's not to say the team won't make another big run it Tim Tebow is strong in a full-time role.
 
5. Wisconsin   2006 Record: 12-1 
2006 Wisconsin was a very good team with a walk-in-the-park schedule. 2007 Wisconsin will be an elite team with a more challenging slate. The safeties need to be replaced, as do LB Mark Zalewski and OT Joe Thomas, but just about everyone else returns. Tyler Donovan and former Kansas State Wildcat Allan Evridge will replace QB John Stocco without a problem.

6. Ohio State   2006 Record: 12-1   
If the Buckeyes could replace all the top defensive stars after 2005 and end up in the national title game, then they should be able to overcome the loss of a ton of offensive talent and get back, right? That's a bit of a stretch, but there's still a ton of NFL talent returning on both sides of the ball with ten underclassmen starting last year. It'll all be about the running game until Todd Boeckman or Rob Schoenhoft get their feet wet.
     
7. Oklahoma   2006 Record: 11-3
The Sooners proved at the end of 2006 that they can survive and thrive without Adrian Peterson (although he hasn't officially made his NFL decision yet), but the offense needs Joey Halzle, or some other quarterback, to be more than just steady. The secondary should be among the best in the country, but losing linebackers Rufus Alexander and Zach Latimer hurts. You don't get better by losing ends Larry Birdine, C.J. Ah You and Calvin Thibodeaux.

8. Arkansas  2006 Record: 10-4
As long as the offensive line can replace tackles Tony Ugoh and Zac Tubbs and guard Jeremy Harrell, the Hogs should pick up where they left off late in the year thanks to the 1-2 punch of Darren McFadden and Felix Jones. While the defense should be fine, losing heart-and-soul LB Sam Olajubutu and top ten-caliber draft pick Jamaal Anderson will sting.

9. UCLA   2006 Record: 7-6
Who will the quarterback be? The Pat Cowan/Ben Olson debate will be the big one this off-season. That's the only offensive issue with ten starters returning. The defense loses Justin Hickman, but All-America end Bruce Davis comes back along with nine other starters. The team's biggest loss is PK Justin Medlock.

10. Michigan   2006 Record: 11-2   
The offense should be tremendous with the best trio of skill players in the country in Chad Henne, Mike Hart and Mario Manningham. Jake Long should probably be off to the NFL, but he'll be back to be a sure-fire All-American at left tackle. The defense is


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 17, 2007, 07:37:02 PM
My goodness, you let UCLA linger around in a game for one lousy year and suddenly everyone wants to call them a top 10 team? 

Ludicrous


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 17, 2007, 07:38:40 PM
For the uninformed, the prior listing is actually read


1) Michigan State
2) USC
3) LSU
4) Texas
5) Florida

etc...

Right, WP?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 17, 2007, 07:47:54 PM
Oooh…here’s a good one.   They roll up all the other polls…

http://www.stassen.com/preseason/consensus/2007.html


1   Southern Cal   210   1   1   1   1   1   1   1
2   Louisiana State   200   3   2   2   2   2   4   2
3   West Virginia   191   5   4   3   4   4   2   4
4   Michigan    186   8   3   4   3   5   5   3
5   Texas   177   2   5   5   6   6   8   8
6   Florida   161   6   11   9   5   14   6   5
7   Virginia Tech   159   9   8   6   7   9   9   10
8   Wisconsin   157   4   6   17   8   16   3   6
9   Louisville   155   13   9   7   9   7   10   7
10   Oklahoma   137   7   10   -   13   3   7   9


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 17, 2007, 08:35:52 PM
Rivals Poll

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=627579

1) USC
2) Michigan
3) LSU
4) West Virginia
5) Florida

 Southern California
 John David Booty bided his time in Los Angeles and made the most of it when he finally got his shot to quarterback the Trojans. He completed 242 of 391 passes for 2,956 yards and 25 touchdowns with nine interceptions, establishing himself as a major Heisman threat in 2007. The receiver position will be somewhat depleted, but there is plenty of talent in the wings. The defense, though, could carry the Trojans. It has scary potential, with probably the best secondary in the nation behind a top-notch front seven. USC ranked in the top 10 nationally in run defense, 11th in scoring defense and 20th in total defense. The unit loses only one senior, linebacker Dallas Sartz. Pete Carroll has it rolling, and no one else in the Pac-10 is even close. 


Title: "Coaches" Poll
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 17, 2007, 08:42:12 PM
Sports Illustrated has this list of best (and worst) coaches


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/07/10/mailbag/1.html

1) Pete Carroll, USC: Carroll's "worst" season since 2002 last year still involved 11 wins, a Pac-10 championship and Rose Bowl victory. He followed that up with a fifth straight top-three recruiting class.

2) Urban Meyer, Florida: Now 61-12 in six seasons as a head coach, Meyer has demonstrated a keen ability to adapt to his personnel, winning a national title while utilizing a receiver (Percy Harvin) and a QB (Tim Tebow) in lieu of a reliable tailback. Not a bad recruiter, either.

3) Jim Tressel, Ohio State: Throughout last year's 12-0 regular season, you could tell every last Buckeye marched to the beat of his coach. Tressel knows how to play to his team's strengths, whether by playing conservative during the '02 title season or spreading things out with Troy Smith.

4) Mack Brown, Texas: Another year, another 10-win season for the 'Horns, who have now posted six in a row. Last year's 10-3 finish came despite starting a freshman quarterback (Colt McCoy) and enduring a season of injuries and suspensions to what became an oft-torched secondary.

5) Bob Stoops, Oklahoma: As mentioned previously, Stoops' reputation has taken a hit in recent years, but let's keep things in perspective. The Sooners still won 11 games and a Big 12 title last year despite Rhett Bomar's dismissal and Adrian Peterson's injury.


Karl Dorell made the worst list... 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on July 17, 2007, 11:34:35 PM
I don't see Spurrier on that list, who I think is working wonders at South Carolina, not to mention his past record at Florida.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on July 19, 2007, 06:40:53 AM
For the uninformed, the prior listing is actually read


1) Michigan State
2) USC
3) LSU
4) Texas
5) Florida

etc...

Right, WP?
Right now, I got MSU, LSU, USC, Florida, West Virginia, but that could change.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 20, 2007, 04:18:20 PM
Right now, I got MSU, LSU, USC, Florida, West Virginia, but that could change.

Looking forward to The Trojans and The Spartans in the national championship game...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 20, 2007, 04:20:07 PM
I don't see Spurrier on that list, who I think is working wonders at South Carolina, not to mention his past record at Florida.

I think EVERYONE is mad at Spurrier...  best way to get to an egocentric is to ignore them


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on July 21, 2007, 02:36:58 AM
They will only get madder as South Carolina climbs up the polls this year. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on July 22, 2007, 11:49:20 PM
whiskeypriest--

Just to clarify... this Michigan State team that you like so much.... Is that the same Michigan State that used to play out of East Lansing? Were sort of a part of the Big 10? Had green & white uniforms... fired their nice but totally frustrated coach for blowing like 35 point leads.... that can't be them, can it?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on July 23, 2007, 07:38:48 AM
In fact, they came back from a 38 point deficit thank you very much.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: thanatopsy on July 25, 2007, 06:39:42 PM
Bill Fleming, 80, RIP:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/07/24/bc.obit.flemming.ap/

One of the best!  A great announcer who  truly loved sports and had great fun in announcing games.  It was a treat to see and watch him on ABC's NCAA football game of the week. :'(


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 27, 2007, 07:24:39 PM
They will only get madder as South Carolina climbs up the polls this year. 


D,

I think you are confusing the Game Cocks with the "other" USC.    and they are already at the top of almost every poll...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 27, 2007, 07:29:25 PM
Just to clarify... this Michigan State team that you like so much.... Is that the same Michigan State that used to play out of East Lansing?

Just go with it Driver...it's relatively painless and you get used to it in a very short period of time...


Title: Thank you Joe
Post by: TrojanHorse on July 27, 2007, 09:28:43 PM
ESPN's Joe Schad:

I believe the SEC is the best conference in America, year in and year out. And yes, the conference is loaded with remarkable coaches and great players once again this season. But let's not underestimate that the Pac-10 has been rising and that California, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State and Arizona State may all be very, very good this season."


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on July 30, 2007, 12:53:48 AM
Quote
Just go with it Driver...it's relatively painless and you get used to it in a very short period of time..

Well....maybe it's a mechanical/technical sort of problem. As in Whiskey was watching a tape of the 1966 highlights (again) and the tape got stuck in the machine and is now on permanent loop.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on August 01, 2007, 07:44:50 PM

Well....maybe it's a mechanical/technical sort of problem. As in Whiskey was watching a tape of the 1966 highlights (again) and the tape got stuck in the machine and is now on permanent loop.

Good Analogy


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on August 04, 2007, 10:05:02 AM
Quote
Just go with it Driver...it's relatively painless and you get used to it in a very short period of time..

Well....maybe it's a mechanical/technical sort of problem. As in Whiskey was watching a tape of the 1966 highlights (again) and the tape got stuck in the machine and is now on permanent loop.
1965.  1966 was the year those Tie Playing For bastards... well, played for a tie.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on August 04, 2007, 10:15:47 PM
Quote
1965.  1966 was the year those Tie Playing For bastards... well, played for a tie

Easy, Whiskey......
Surely you mean those Irish Tie Playing For Bastards played for a tie while the heroic, under-maned but gritty Spartans played like it was Thermopolie all over again.... (or not?).


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on August 05, 2007, 06:12:51 AM
Quote
1965.  1966 was the year those Tie Playing For bastards... well, played for a tie

Easy, Whiskey......
Surely you mean those Irish Tie Playing For Bastards played for a tie while the heroic, under-maned but gritty Spartans played like it was Thermopolie all over again.... (or not?).
Well, I tend to give the short version.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on August 10, 2007, 04:04:38 PM
They will only get madder as South Carolina climbs up the polls this year. 

It'll never happen - there's no getting around The Chicken Curse.


Title: Re: Thank you Joe
Post by: whiskeypriest on August 19, 2007, 02:05:59 AM
ESPN's Joe Schad:

I believe the SEC is the best conference in America, year in and year out. And yes, the conference is loaded with remarkable coaches and great players once again this season. But let's not underestimate that the Pac-10 has been rising and that California, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State and Arizona State may all be very, very good this season."

Still a buncha Pansy Arsed West Coast Poofs.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on August 19, 2007, 11:50:35 PM
Weeell, time for the official Annual Whiskeypriest Preseason Top Eleven....  For the record, this counts the regular season only.

11. GEORGIA - I think the Gators lost too much on Defense, and it will be interesting to see how Tebow passes when other teams expect him to do it.  Georgia had some embarassing games last year.  I'll chalk it up to a learning process.  If Stafford and the defense live up to their credentials, it could be a special Bulldog team.  I think they'll be the class of the SEC East.  Hard to see any SEC team surviving unscathed, though, and Georgia has gone against SEC tradition and scheduled an OOC game against a team that does not totally suck.  So, 10-2 in the regular season.

10. CALIFORNIA - Call it a hunch.  Half the world has UCLA as USC's main challenger, apparently based on a .500 season and a bowl loss.  I'm not buying into it.  Cal lost Lynch but return one of the conferences top QB's in Longshore and a couple top flight receivers.  The schedule brings the Vols in for a revenge game, and then clear sailing - OOC cupcakes and Pansy Arsesd West Coast Poofs straight through to November 11, when USC comes to town, at which point the Bears' absence of a defense will become glaringly apparent.  Look for a 11-1 regular season.

9. OKLAHOMA - Allen Patrick doesn't have to be as good as Adrian Peterson at running back, but it would help a lot if he was close, since the QB position is a real question mark.  But then, it's Bob Stoops: it's the defense that will take the team wherever it goes.  Texas at Texas is the big road block, but they also have a potential tough game against the Hurricants in September.  We'll say 11-1 again.

8. VIRGINIA TECH - Once their National Championship dreams get ground into dust on September 8, maybe they can relax and play well the rest of the year, knowing the pressure to find the one game to suck away their hopes is done and gone.  Ore is the best running back in the ACC - granted, the weakest major conference - but the team really needs Ike Whittaker clean and sober.  The defense looks to be strong and consistent.  One or two loses in the regular season.

7. LOUISVILLE - Louis-viile, Louie-ville, Looville...  How do natives pronounce the capital city of Kentucky?  Answer below.*  Anyway, I think Brohm is the best returning player in the country, and a fine argument against trading away your first round draft choice to jump up in the most recent NFL draft to take a pretty boy glamor puss QB who has never won a big game when you could keep the pick, suck, and get Brohm.  But I digress.  The Big Least will come down to Louisville and West Virginia on November 8, with the winner getting this spot.

6. OHIO STATE - Yes, they lost their best, fastest, skill position players on offense.  But the defense has three of the best players in the conference at their positions, most of the big, strong offensive line returns and they play no one of any real strength until they go to Happy Valley at the end of October and Wisconsin comes to the Shoe in November, at which time they should have their offense figured out.  After that, the yearly frustration of Meatchicken.  It's an SEC schedule without any SEC teams on it.  In terms of style, they'll be closer to the National Championship team than last year's team: defense and a conservative offense.  One loss, to Wisconsin, which always plays well in Columbus.

5. TEXAS - Seriously, how can you be named Colt McCoy and not be a good quarterback?  Especially with Limas Sweed leading a pretty deep receiving corps.  The return of Lokey in the middle should help, especially in a more run oriented conference.  There are a couple of games they could lose, though - especially at Texas A&M, though they get Oklahoma at home.  Probably one loss, but it would be no surprise if they go through the regular season unbeaten.

4. LSU - Like Florida, OSU, and Wisconsin, they have to replace their quarterback, but Flynn does have some experience.  Most importatnly, they have speed everywhere and return 8 defensive starters.  I think they were the best team in the county last year, and will be the second best this year.  I just can't see any SEC team going through the season unbeaten.

3. WISCONSIN - They come from the Glen Mason school of OOC scheduling: get four wins, and hope for the best.  In conference they get Meatchicken at home, and while they have to travel to OSU, they've won three straight in Columbus.  They lost their QB, but he was more a game manager than a game changer anyway.  Almost the entire O line returns - although Thomas will be missed - as does Hill.  They return a strong defense as well.  Do I think they are the second best team in the country?  Nope.  I just expect them to go through the regular season unbeaten, and then get crushed like a bunch of grapes in the BCS championship game.  But they are well coached, and I didn't expect them to stay on the field in their bowl game last year either.

2. USC - Barring a mental let down, it is hard to see USC losing to anyone.  They not only have the best starting talent, they have the deepest roster.  I hate them.

1. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - Led by Eventual 2007 Heisman Trophy Winner... er... Jehuu Caulcrick?  Javon Ringer?  Brian Hoyer?  Oh Christ are we going to suck.  Five wins, maybe.  Farking Johnelle Smith.  I wish we could rehire him just for the pleasure of firing him again.  I think Dantonio can build something here, but it will be a rough start.  Still, always, #1 in my heart.

*Answer:  Frankfort.  I never get tired of that joke.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on August 20, 2007, 01:21:54 AM
There must be a lot of sportswriters from the Midwest to put Michigan in the Top Five.  I'm surprised Notre Dame didn't make the Top Ten.  I see USC has an open road to the BCS title game.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on August 20, 2007, 01:24:49 AM
Tebow saw much more playing time than Flynn last year and is the quarterback that Meyer wants running his offense.  I don't expect much of a fall off in Gator football, but LSU has the home field advantage this year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on August 20, 2007, 05:59:36 AM
There must be a lot of sportswriters from the Midwest to put Michigan in the Top Five.  I'm surprised Notre Dame didn't make the Top Ten.  I see USC has an open road to the BCS title game.
Well, I think there's a real chance Meatchicken will be unbeaten heading into November.  But I think they get two losses then.  As for USC, they do have a tough OOC game against Nebraska, and a road game against Cal.  There are a couple games they might trip in if they let down.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on August 20, 2007, 06:03:15 AM
Tebow saw much more playing time than Flynn last year and is the quarterback that Meyer wants running his offense.  I don't expect much of a fall off in Gator football, but LSU has the home field advantage this year.
I wouldn't expect much of a drop off either, but Tebow's pt last year was primarily situational rather than running the regular offense for the Gators.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on August 21, 2007, 03:11:11 AM
I just saw in an online Florida paper that the Canes will probably leave the Orange Bowl for Dolphins Stadium next year even though the Orange Bowl Lease does not expire till 2009.Maybe it's a ploy to get the Orange Bowl to upgrade but it doesn't look like it.I'd rather see the Orange Bowl upgraded than see college ball played regular in sterile Dolphins Stadium.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on August 26, 2007, 09:05:07 PM


Whiskey, first, thanks for the high (er than the AP and ESPN poll) rating for my Cards.  Unfortunately, I have to take issue again with your Big Ten Blindness problem.  Who knows?  Your putting L'ville three slots ahead may be due only to a combination of your BT delusion and L'ville's proximity to Indiana and Ohio.  And I just couldn't live w/ that.

6. OHIO STATE - Yes, they lost their best, fastest, skill position players on offense.  But the defense has three of the best players in the conference at their positions, most of the big, strong offensive line returns and they play no one of any real strength until they go to Happy Valley at the end of October and Wisconsin comes to the Shoe in November, at which time they should have their offense figured out.  After that, the yearly frustration of Meatchicken.  It's an SEC schedule without any SEC teams on it.  In terms of style, they'll be closer to the National Championship team than last year's team: defense and a conservative offense.  One loss, to Wisconsin, which always plays well in Columbus.

Ed. -- Hold on... They lost their best fastest yada yadas...that got crushed to death by the Gators last season?  And this husk of a husk  is going to be in the top ten this year?  With that schedule?

3. WISCONSIN - They come from the Glen Mason school of OOC scheduling: get four wins, and hope for the best.  In conference they get Meatchicken at home, and while they have to travel to OSU, they've won three straight in Columbus.  They lost their QB, but he was more a game manager than a game changer anyway.  Almost the entire O line returns - although Thomas will be missed - as does Hill.  They return a strong defense as well.  Do I think they are the second best team in the country?  Nope.  I just expect them to go through the regular season unbeaten, and then get crushed like a bunch of grapes in the BCS championship game.  But they are well coached, and I didn't expect them to stay on the field in their bowl game last year either.

ed.- I don't have as much of a problem with this one, save that you put these chumps ahead of LSU, which is laughable.   They don't even have Joe Thomas anymore.  Or Ron Dayne for that matter.   Does he have any eligibility left?

1. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - Led by Eventual 2007 Heisman Trophy Winner... er... Jehuu Caulcrick?  Javon Ringer?  Brian Hoyer?  Oh Christ are we going to suck.  Five wins, maybe.  Farking Johnelle Smith.  I wish we could rehire him just for the pleasure of firing him again.  I think Dantonio can build something here, but it will be a rough start.  Still, always, #1 in my heart.

*Answer:  Frankfort.  I never get tired of that joke.

I get tired of both of these perennial jokes.  But at least I know you're not serious about these last two...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on August 29, 2007, 01:55:36 PM
Notre Dame 24 over Georgia Tech 21: Notre Dame is supposed to get pummeled in this game. Don’t count on it.

Tennessee 29 over Cal 28: Somehow someway Cal will find a way to blow this game.

LSU 26 over Miss St 0: With apologies to Trojan fans and Hokie fans, LSU has the best defense in the country. Now they better back it up or you cats will be all over me.

Missouri 21 over Illinois 16: It’ll all come down to the Illiini back seven handling Missou’s passing attack. They won’t. 

Wake Forest 22 over BC 21: Might be the most entertaining game of the week. 

West Virginee 28 over Western Michigan 22: The Mountaineers will win this one but the Broncs won’t make it an easy ride.

BYU 20 over Arizona 19: Will be another great game to watch.

Wisconsin 27 over Washington State 18: Don’t be surprised if this is an upset. That would put the kibosh on the Badgers bid for an undefeated season but quick. Still the Badgers should be able to pass on the Cougars and that should be the difference. But a few turnovers and you never know…


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on August 30, 2007, 06:16:28 PM
Notre Dame 24 over Georgia Tech 21: Notre Dame is supposed to get pummeled in this game. Don’t count on it.


So the Cap'n is alive after all.  Thank goodness.   Now I can relax that most of the major players will be in place for the Bowl Pickem at season's end!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on August 30, 2007, 06:21:16 PM

Tennessee 29 over Cal 28: Somehow someway Cal will find a way to blow this game.

LSU 26 over Miss St 0: With apologies to Trojan fans and Hokie fans, LSU has the best defense in the country. Now they better back it up or you cats will be all over me.

BYU 20 over Arizona 19: Will be another great game to watch.


Tennesee over Cal?  Maybe... this is a tough one to pick

LSU over Miss St?  Well sure but what are you smoking saying LSUs defense is better than USC's?  Maybe the gap between LSU's defense and offense is so much bigger that it just "appears" that way...

BYU over Arizona?  I don't think it is going to be this close. The game is in Utah is it not?   Although Arizona is better than before Stoops came, they are a pretty big dissappointment so far.  I think this is his last season if he doesn't start turning it around now.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on August 30, 2007, 06:23:29 PM
There must be a lot of sportswriters from the Midwest to put Michigan in the Top Five.  I'm surprised Notre Dame didn't make the Top Ten.  I see USC has an open road to the BCS title game.
Well, I think there's a real chance Meatchicken will be unbeaten heading into November.  But I think they get two losses then.  As for USC, they do have a tough OOC game against Nebraska, and a road game against Cal.  There are a couple games they might trip in if they let down.

Michigan has a good team.  I think they may have a better chance at being undefeated at season's end than USC does.  Contrary to LSU fans opinions, USC has a difficult schedule this year.  Many tough road games.  LSU has all their tough games at home this year don't they?  You've got to love the annual LSU coach's whine & cheese...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on August 31, 2007, 08:56:00 AM
Michigan has a good team.  I think they may have a better chance at being undefeated at season's end than USC does.  Contrary to LSU fans opinions, USC has a difficult schedule this year.  Many tough road games.  LSU has all their tough games at home this year don't they?  You've got to love the annual LSU coach's whine & cheese...

After the thumping Michigan and Ohio State took in the bowls, they should have to start at the bottom of the polls and work themselves up the hard way.  I don't see any point in giving Michigan the gift of being ranked in the Top Five.  I certainly don't see how they deserved to be ranked ahead of Florida.  "Tough" seems to be a relative term these days, but maybe we will finally see an LSU-Southern Cal match up at the end of the year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on August 31, 2007, 09:02:37 AM


LSU over Miss St?  Well sure but what are you smoking saying LSUs defense is better than USC's?  Maybe the gap between LSU's defense and offense is so much bigger that it just "appears" that way...


Good to see you again SS?? I'm guessing.

I figured Steve would be posting his usual weekly picks so I didn't want to dissapoint my old Times Bud.

As to LSU I'll stick with the call although it's pretty apparent that USC is stacked when it comes to defense too. Next week when the Tigers play Va Tech we'll get a better idea of just how good they really are on offense. Personally I don't think the Bengal offense can hold a candle to USC's. And that IMO is where the two teams differ. Plus, again IMO, Perrilloux is clearly the better QB choice and I totally question Les Miles and/or Crowton's not naming him the starter over Flynn. In fact he may even be in the running the Heisman next year as a junior. As to schedules I'd say they both have a tough row to hoe. USC with a few tough road games and UCLA won't be taken lightly this year I'm sure. And LSU because they play in the toughest circular firing squad conference in the country. It doesn't really matter all that much if you're at home when it comes to playing Florida or Auburn or Arkansas.

I didn't want to do a preseason top ten this year. Rather I'm going to wait until after week five or six(like the polls should) to list one.

Anyway it's good to see you here. I wasn't going to be here but my love of college football and the good back and forth you guys give got the best of me. Anybody know if DJGrady is still alive and kicking? I know he was in the hospital for a major operation at the end of last season and I'd like to know if he's still alive and kickin.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on August 31, 2007, 09:12:35 AM

Tennesee over Cal?  Maybe... this is a tough one to pick


I made that pick before Ainge effed up his finger. But I'll stick with it anyways. It'll boil down to some key matchups IMO. First can the raw Vol secondary hold up against a solid Bear recieving corps? That may depend on the Vol front seven more than anything else. For that matter the Cal defense isn't what I would rate top notch either. Can the Vols keep up with Cal??? Most experts say no way. Me, I think they'll give Cal a run for their money. An interception here a fumble there, a sack here, and the Vols have a real shot at winning this IMO.


Title: The Penn State Nittany Lion Forum:
Post by: CaptainCargo on August 31, 2007, 09:19:15 AM
Michigan has a good team.  I think they may have a better chance at being undefeated at season's end than USC does.  Contrary to LSU fans opinions, USC has a difficult schedule this year.  Many tough road games.  LSU has all their tough games at home this year don't they?  You've got to love the annual LSU coach's whine & cheese...

After the thumping Michigan and Ohio State took in the bowls, they should have to start at the bottom of the polls and work themselves up the hard way.  I don't see any point in giving Michigan the gift of being ranked in the Top Five.  I certainly don't see how they deserved to be ranked ahead of Florida.  "Tough" seems to be a relative term these days, but maybe we will finally see an LSU-Southern Cal match up at the end of the year.

My team is in the Big 10. But I agree with you. Michigan got their ass handed to them at the hands of the Trojans. Let them earn their top ten ranking first. And Michigan doesn't have the luxury of saying they lost their top offensive threat on the first play of the game like the Buckeyes did. Besides the Wolverines are going to lose their 4th game of the year and that'll be that.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on August 31, 2007, 10:58:01 AM
Well, life is good on the eve of another college football season.

I've got my season tickets and my cable company just picked up the Big Ten Network, so in case of an overnight bout with the flu I will be able to watch the Youngstown State tilt in HDTV with surround sound.  The same holds for Akron and, probably, Kent State.   What a country!  Also looking forward to visiting Toledo for the Iowa State clash and the return of the dreaded Jesuits of Boston College to battle the good Catholics at Notre Dame, not to mention the late November clash in Phoenix between Arizona State and USC.

What Bowl Game lies ahead makes the impending season even more exciting. ;D



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on August 31, 2007, 11:42:33 AM

After the thumping Michigan and Ohio State took in the bowls, they should have to start at the bottom of the polls and work themselves up the hard way.  I don't see any point in giving Michigan the gift of being ranked in the Top Five.  I certainly don't see how they deserved to be ranked ahead of Florida.  "Tough" seems to be a relative term these days, but maybe we will finally see an LSU-Southern Cal match up at the end of the year.

I look forward to the match up.  I do have to admit however, that I would probably rather not play LSU at the Sugar Bowl...

...especially after the stories I heard from the Sooners fans after their game there with them.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on August 31, 2007, 11:51:11 AM

Good to see you again SS?? I'm guessing.


yes indeed...

LSU looked pretty good yesterday.  I guess I have to start watching their games every week now.  Thank goodness for TiVo...

USC lost it's starting center a couple of days ago and they are scrambling now.   They have Jeff Byers who was an All-American center in high school but hasn't been taking snaps--he's been playing guard. Contrary to the article below, they are likely to start a true freshman on opening day for the first time in the post WWII era on Saturday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2997327&campaign=rss&source=NCFHeadlines


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on August 31, 2007, 01:32:11 PM
Byers has so much potential but has been a bit injury prone.

Who was the guy they lost at center? Spanos?? And, if Byers moves to center who gets his guard spot? Malu?? Or did he already have a starting slot?

I have to admit I'm not up on exactly who was pegged as starters on the Trojan OL. I'm assuming the starting line looked like this. Baker, Rachal, Spanos, Byers, Radovich. Yes? No?



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 31, 2007, 01:58:14 PM
Byers to C, Malu to G is correct

Baker, Radovich, Rachal also correct

But Charlie Brown's gettin fukkin hosed!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 31, 2007, 02:02:03 PM
Oops

Check that

ODOWD (Frosh) will start at center

Byers remaining at G


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on August 31, 2007, 02:03:14 PM
I believe:

Baker
Byers
Spanos
Rachel
Brown

As you surmise Drew Radovich is right there though and it would either be him or "tini" Malu that would rotate in to fill Byers spot.  This could happen by the time they play Nebraska and Byers has more snaps under his belt.

I believe Kristopher O'Dowd will start at center this Saturday and only because he has been taking reps and they are playing Idaho.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on August 31, 2007, 02:15:30 PM
Could be right...I'll have to double check who won that battle.

Brown, Radovich and even Thomas Herring were all neck and neck for RT.  I thought Radovich was on the outs last I heard.

Tini is a more natural choice for LG.  They are all very big strong guys though...


Title: Re: The Penn State Nittany Lion Forum:
Post by: Dzimas on September 01, 2007, 05:26:55 AM
My team is in the Big 10. But I agree with you. Michigan got their ass handed to them at the hands of the Trojans. Let them earn their top ten ranking first. And Michigan doesn't have the luxury of saying they lost their top offensive threat on the first play of the game like the Buckeyes did. Besides the Wolverines are going to lose their 4th game of the year and that'll be that.

I can see Penn State taking out Michigan.  That would be sweet.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 01, 2007, 03:09:36 PM
appalachian state...

good "tune up " choice!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Driver125 on September 01, 2007, 05:17:18 PM
Quote
appalachian state...

good "tune up " choice!

Yes.....Michigan can now begin their drive for the National championship.... from just behind Appalachian State---Funny, funny, funny


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 01, 2007, 06:35:25 PM
I see we didn't even have to wait until Week Four for Michigan to go.  I love it!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 01, 2007, 06:48:27 PM
I also see the "surprise quarterback" was a bust for Notre Dame.  Doesn't look like it mattered what game plan George Tech brought with them to South Bend, the result would have been the same.  Barring any unforseen miracles.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 01, 2007, 07:08:06 PM
Well, I think there's a real chance Meatchicken will be unbeaten heading into November. 

Unless they have some trouble with that powerhouse, the Appalachian State White Lightnin's!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 02, 2007, 02:34:51 AM
The head coach of Arkansas resigned after the Razorbacks lost to the Citadel back in '92.  Arkansas wasn't even ranked as I remember.  I doubt Lloyd Carr will do the same, but he will have a whole lot of explaining to do for what happened yesterday.  This has to be the biggest embarrassment in UM history.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 02, 2007, 07:49:28 AM
Quote
They lost their best fastest yada yadas...that got crushed to death by the Gators last season?  And this husk of a husk  is going to be in the top ten this year?  With that schedule?
That schedule is why they have Top 10 ability.  Washington may be better than I thought, but really, OSU has a cake schedule.  They may not be a great team, but they are better than anyone they are playing until Wisconsin the second week of November.  Easy to see them go through to their last two games unbeaten.

As for Wisconsin, I think I mentioned I do not think they are better than LSU - I think LSU is as good as any team in college football outside of USC - but they are more likely to go unbeaten.

I know, the Big Ten, give or take a few, fell on their faces in last season's bowl games and therefore the whole league's best teams should be ranked 40th or whatever.  It's a bull crap argument that ignores the fact that it isn't last year anymore.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 02, 2007, 08:10:23 AM
Quote
I figured Steve would be posting his usual weekly picks so I didn't want to dissapoint my old Times Bud.
Well, cap, I'm midway (hah!) through my move to Chicago and probably won't be able to get on during the week, which is why I didn't respond with my picks.  I know this is early, but it's the only chance I'll get:

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 27, BOWLING FOR DOLLARS 17

The last MSU coach to not win his first game, by the way, was Nick Saban.  BG beat Minnie, despite which my confidence in MSU remains unshaken, not unstirred.  I like the toughness and commitment to hard nosed football.  But, you know, I've always liked fullbacks.

MEATCHICKEN 45, OREGON 14Think there might maybe, just maybe, be some rather hard practices in store for the Wolverines?  They have more talent than Oregon, and stand to be a wee better motivated.

LOUISANA STATE UNIVERSITY 31, VIRGINIA TECH 24Hard not to root for VT, all in all.  A nice early treat for college footie fans, but I think that LSU has the goods this year.  It's also possible that VT will be on an emotional let down after yesterday.

AUBURN 31, SOUTH FLORIDA 10For some reason, SFU os a sexy pick to be a surprise team this year.  Well, they play in the second weakest conference this year - behind the ACC - so maybe.  On the other hand, it's Auburn.

TEXAS 35, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY 24

NEBRASKA 27, WAKE FOREST 14WTFU was a great story last year.  But, as I have to constantly remind jake and dzimas, it is no longer last year, and last year is of limited relevance to this year.

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 31, NOTRE DAME 14You know, I think each of the Big Ten, give or take a few, teams they play smokes NDU this year.  Wonder if the alums will get as immediately impatient with Weis as Willingham.

OKLAHOMA 17, MIAMI 10


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 02, 2007, 08:14:16 AM
The head coach of Arkansas resigned after the Razorbacks lost to the Citadel back in '92.  Arkansas wasn't even ranked as I remember.  I doubt Lloyd Carr will do the same, but he will have a whole lot of explaining to do for what happened yesterday.  This has to be the biggest embarrassment in UM history.

I've been all over Lloyd the Lemon Carr for years now. I wonder how Jim will defend the guy "this time"?

Also another Big Ten team, Minnesota, slipped up to Bowling Green.

And Texas almost lost to Ark St too. WACK!

Trojan Horse: You were right about Cal. If they can shore that defense up a bit they could be something this year. Watch out for UCLA too.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 02, 2007, 08:14:35 AM
Quote
Michigan has a good team.  I think they may have a better chance at being undefeated at season's end than USC does.
Congratulations!  You were even wronger than I was!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 02, 2007, 08:17:58 AM
Quote
After the thumping Michigan and Ohio State took in the bowls, they should have to start at the bottom of the polls and work themselves up the hard way.  I don't see any point in giving Michigan the gift of being ranked in the Top Five.  I certainly don't see how they deserved to be ranked ahead of Florida.
Well, yesterday notwithstanding, I have never understood why the last game of the year completely obliterates the memory of every other game the teams played.  And in case you haven't noticed, there have been plenty of graduations and new players brought in.  It is no longer last year, now is it?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 02, 2007, 08:20:54 AM
Quote
I figured Steve would be posting his usual weekly picks so I didn't want to dissapoint my old Times Bud.
Well, cap, I'm midway (hah!) through my move to Chicago and probably won't be able to get on during the week, which is why I didn't respond with my picks.  I know this is early, but it's the only chance I'll get:

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 27, BOWLING FOR DOLLARS 17

The last MSU coach to not win his first game, by the way, was Nick Saban.  BG beat Minnie, despite which my confidence in MSU remains unshaken, not unstirred.  I like the toughness and commitment to hard nosed football.  But, you know, I've always liked fullbacks.


Good to see you Steve. Long time no talk to.

If you remember last year I touted Mark Dantonio as the perfect guy for the Spartans. Well so far...  ;)

I'll get to your picks sometime this week. I started off week 1 a mediocre 5-3 but I'll take it.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 02, 2007, 08:21:13 AM
I see we didn't even have to wait until Week Four for Michigan to go.  I love it!
Any weekend where Meatchicken and Notre Tie Playing for Dame both lose is a damned good one!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 02, 2007, 08:24:59 AM
Quote
I figured Steve would be posting his usual weekly picks so I didn't want to dissapoint my old Times Bud.
Well, cap, I'm midway (hah!) through my move to Chicago and probably won't be able to get on during the week, which is why I didn't respond with my picks.  I know this is early, but it's the only chance I'll get:

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 27, BOWLING FOR DOLLARS 17

The last MSU coach to not win his first game, by the way, was Nick Saban.  BG beat Minnie, despite which my confidence in MSU remains unshaken, not unstirred.  I like the toughness and commitment to hard nosed football.  But, you know, I've always liked fullbacks.


Good to see you Steve. Long time no talk to.

If you remember last year I touted Mark Dantonio as the perfect guy for the Spartans. Well so far...  ;)

I'll get to your picks sometime this week. I started off week 1 a mediocre 5-3 but I'll take it.
Glad to see you aren't letting the whole Boston thing keep you away.  Good to see you, and jimm and jake and bocce again.  Wonder how djgrady is.  Also wonder if clinard's scars have healed.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 02, 2007, 08:31:29 AM

Glad to see you aren't letting the whole Boston thing keep you away.

Nah let the asshole in question have his little niche.  :-X


Quote
Good to see you, and jimm and jake and bocce again.  Wonder how djgrady is.  Also wonder if clinard's scars have healed.

I don't know about Clin, but I'm pretty sure James will be along shortly now in his shiney Carr to have a word or two with me.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 02, 2007, 01:16:47 PM
Well, yesterday notwithstanding, I have never understood why the last game of the year completely obliterates the memory of every other game the teams played.  And in case you haven't noticed, there have been plenty of graduations and new players brought in.  It is no longer last year, now is it?

Simple.  That is note they ended on.  All the ballyhoo last year about how good Ohio St. and Michigan were, how they played for the national championship in Columbus, that Ohio State may just be one of the best teams in history, and they both got pasted in their bowl games.  Then, they lost a huge amount of "talent," so where did they end up in the preseason poll #5 and #11?  What a joke and yesterday proved it, at least as far as the Wolverines are concerned.  I certainly hope they get motivated for Oregon otherwise it could be a very long miserable year for Lloyd Carr.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 02, 2007, 01:20:11 PM
Some selective comments...


LOUISANA STATE UNIVERSITY 31, VIRGINIA TECH 24Hard not to root for VT, all in all.  A nice early treat for college footie fans, but I think that LSU has the goods this year.  It's also possible that VT will be on an emotional let down after yesterday.

Did you catch any of the Vtech game?  They were having some problems with East Carolina for heaven's sakes.  A team known more for graduating Sandra Bullock than any NFL last cutters.   LSU will mudstomp these foo's -- Vtech is just another highly overrated team that will disappoint early.  If Vtech gets in the endzone I'll be surprised. 

AUBURN 31, SOUTH FLORIDA 10For some reason, SFU os a sexy pick to be a surprise team this year.  Well, they play in the second weakest conference this year - behind the ACC - so maybe.  On the other hand, it's Auburn.

I'm not going to argue with the outcome on this one, but my favored War Eagle (and you know I love them) didn't look so well plumed last night against K-State.  In fact, they looked like they were desperate for an offense.  I'm just not so sure this is going to be the blowout you envision, and I'm no friend of SFU.   as for your tiresome "second weakest" conference prejudice is already succumbing to the awful din of scoreboard reality.  It's again apparent that overrated Big Ten is again miserably overrated. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 31, NOTRE DAME 14You know, I think each of the Big Ten, give or take a few, teams they play smokes NDU this year.  Wonder if the alums will get as immediately impatient with Weis as Willingham.

Not sure if this is a not so subtle accusation of racism or not, so I'll answer it honestly.  Fuck yeah, they will.  Especially after this weekend's embarrassment.

As for Dzimas and I not accepting that this is not "last year," I guess we can take comfort that we are hanging on within the decade.  Pie eyed Big Ten worshippers think this is still the sixties and seventies, when BigTen football was worth paying an extra cable sub fee for...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 02, 2007, 01:32:06 PM
Well, yesterday notwithstanding, I have never understood why the last game of the year completely obliterates the memory of every other game the teams played.  And in case you haven't noticed, there have been plenty of graduations and new players brought in.  It is no longer last year, now is it?

Simple.  That is note they ended on.  All the ballyhoo last year about how good Ohio St. and Michigan were, how they played for the national championship in Columbus, that Ohio State may just be one of the best teams in history, and they both got pasted in their bowl games.  Then, they lost a huge amount of "talent," so where did they end up in the preseason poll #5 and #11?  What a joke and yesterday proved it, at least as far as the Wolverines are concerned.  I certainly hope they get motivated for Oregon otherwise it could be a very long miserable year for Lloyd Carr.

To add to the above... sure there have been graduations and new players brought in, but so what?  What players have they brought in that are going to make them measurably better than last year?  For Meats and Chickens and OSU to be better than last year -- and much more important -- for them to measure up to the athletic powerhouses in the SEC, they are going to need more than marginal improvement, they are going to need a complete realignment of their recruiting processes.  They must go South young man, or they will forever be fielding two or three speedy guys (injury caveated) against eleven. 

Like Dzimas, I think it's time for these hoary also-rans to actually prove their eligibility for top ten (or even twenty?) status instead of the pliant press just ceding it to them lazily every year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: desdemona222b on September 02, 2007, 09:39:07 PM
Hi, Steve -

LOUISANA STATE UNIVERSITY 31, VIRGINIA TECH 24Hard not to root for VT, all in all.  A nice early treat for college footie fans, but I think that LSU has the goods this year.  It's also possible that VT will be on an emotional let down after yesterday

Not for me!   :D

Geaux, Tigers!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 03, 2007, 12:13:26 AM
Not for me!   :D

Geaux, Tigers!

Me neither.   Awesome dog, btw.  Is that an unphotoshopped picture?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 03, 2007, 12:17:44 AM
A little slow getting a new poll out.  I guess coaches and sportswriters are having a difficult time coming to terms with the Michigan-Appalachian St. game.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 03, 2007, 08:37:35 AM
Well, yesterday notwithstanding, I have never understood why the last game of the year completely obliterates the memory of every other game the teams played.  And in case you haven't noticed, there have been plenty of graduations and new players brought in.  It is no longer last year, now is it?

Simple.  That is note they ended on.  All the ballyhoo last year about how good Ohio St. and Michigan were, how they played for the national championship in Columbus, that Ohio State may just be one of the best teams in history, and they both got pasted in their bowl games.  Then, they lost a huge amount of "talent," so where did they end up in the preseason poll #5 and #11?  What a joke and yesterday proved it, at least as far as the Wolverines are concerned.  I certainly hope they get motivated for Oregon otherwise it could be a very long miserable year for Lloyd Carr.
Yeah, but it was the same OSU team that rolled up Texas, for instance.  One bad game doesn't change that simply because it was the last one, especially when you have a strong defense returning.  As for Meatchicken, I am perfectly content to have them drop out of the Top 25 at any time.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 03, 2007, 08:38:12 AM
des -

Ivan the Terrier?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 03, 2007, 08:57:35 AM
Whiskey, as it turned out Texas was a middle-of-the-road team last year, which barely got by Iowa in the Alamo Bowl.  They just happened to be ranked #2 at the time Ohio St. played them.  The Fiesta and Rose Bowl weren't just bad games for Ohio St. and Michigan, they served as corrections for what were two over-rated football teams that had no business being ranked as high as they were.  Boise St. went undefeated, won their bowl game and still only managed a #5 ranking, and where were they in the preseason poll, #24?  I guess it doesn't pay to be in the Western Athletic Conference.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 03, 2007, 09:01:09 AM
A little slow getting a new poll out.  I guess coaches and sportswriters are having a difficult time coming to terms with the Michigan-Appalachian St. game.

If either poll has Michigan still on it then the pollsters should be horsewhipped.

I wonder if any of the voters put App State in there??  ;) Maybe that's the hold up.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 03, 2007, 09:02:43 AM
I think the Big Ten-plus one should expand its conference schedule to 10 games and play Notre Dame, an Armed Forces team and/or a Mid-Ameircan team for its OOC games.  That way it will be able to avoid any more debacles like what happened Saturday.  


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 03, 2007, 09:06:37 AM
I think the Big Ten-plus one should expand its conference schedule to 10 games and play Notre Dame, an Armed Forces team and/or a Mid-Ameircan team for its OOC games.  That way it will be able to avoid any more debacles like what happened Saturday.  
Far better to leave the habit of scheduling regional pussies and avoiding tough teams from other regions to the SEC.   


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 03, 2007, 09:09:53 AM
Looking at Appalachian State's track record,

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teamsched?teamId=2026&year=2007
 
the Mountaineers got blown out by NC State last year in the Wolfpack's home opener, and the year before got crushed by Kansas and LSU, going on to win the Division 1-AA championship both of those years.  But, they figured out the Wolverine's weak spot down the middle and exploited it for the entire game, with Lloyd Carr making no adjustments, even on the Mountaineers' final drive that led to the go ahead field goal.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 03, 2007, 09:15:12 AM
Well, the SEC has proved themselves in the one out of conference game that really counts, the BCS championship.  The conference is 3-0 since the mythical championship game was created in 1998.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 03, 2007, 09:49:52 AM
Although the Notre Dame meltdown pales in light of what happened to the Wolverines, it deserves mention.  Reading the recap,

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AtVlRuQegcMkOzKhU_m7bWYcvrYF?slug=ga-ndgatech090107&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It seems Weiss has a long, long season ahead of him.  He will be lucky if the Irish go .500 as he seems to have nothing at this point.  Everything that could go wrong went wrong for the Irish this past weekend.  They were unable to put up anything against the Georgia Tech defense and mount any resistance to the Tech offense.  I expect a similar score against Penn St. this Saturday.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 03, 2007, 10:25:21 AM
Although the Notre Dame meltdown pales in light of what happened to the Wolverines, it deserves mention.  Reading the recap,

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AtVlRuQegcMkOzKhU_m7bWYcvrYF?slug=ga-ndgatech090107&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It seems Weiss has a long, long season ahead of him.  He will be lucky if the Irish go .500 as he seems to have nothing at this point.  Everything that could go wrong went wrong for the Irish this past weekend.  They were unable to put up anything against the Georgia Tech defense and mount any resistance to the Tech offense.  I expect a similar score against Penn St. this Saturday.

Jay Mariotti of The Chicago Sun Times said about ND's new slogan "Tradition Never Graduates" to "Saturday, Tradition flunked out and ran home to Mama."


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 03, 2007, 10:35:38 AM
i was very encouraged by georgia's performance on saturday. they actually looked like a top 25 team for the first time in a while.

i was really proud that they scheduled a respectable ooc opponent rather than the usual powderpuff opener like appalachin state. actually i'm real glad about that.

mr. richt, having come to the same conclusion as many dawg fans (that he couldn't call an intermural game), turned over the reins to oc mike bobo with surprisingly good results. willy martinez (def coord.) finally woke up and got something out of these last three stellar recruiting classes. all in all, not a bad day for the management.

on the field matthew stafford finally started throwing to his own receivers and, even more amazingly, they caught the ball. superfreshman knowshon moreno has rekindled some of the excitement of 1980. georgia's backfield tandem may be the most solid of the sec if not the most spectacular. they have all the tools if they'll just use them and stop throwing on 1st down or squandering a lead (a uga trademark).

the off line looked better than expected and the defence way outperformed. they both have a way to go but appeared to be able to play with anyone. georgia cognoscenti will tell you that next year is the one. but this group looks ready to be competitive right now.

so, i'm optimistic for the next few games. i even took georgia and laid the 6 1/2 which is normally money thrown away (ga and iowa are two of the worst kisses of death ats) tho i doubt i'll truly gamble that way again anytime soon.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 03, 2007, 10:38:00 AM
In a twisted way the Michigan loss to Appalachian State was a big boon to the Big Ten Network.
Ohio Stadium TV's tuned to Ann Arbor were a big hit after the YSU game.  Most popular post game tailgates were those with TV's on the same channel.

Now that Bernie Machen has been shown the BCS light, expect a SEC Network to follow the Big Ten's lead.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 03, 2007, 10:39:12 AM
Although the Notre Dame meltdown pales in light of what happened to the Wolverines, it deserves mention.  Reading the recap,

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AtVlRuQegcMkOzKhU_m7bWYcvrYF?slug=ga-ndgatech090107&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It seems Weiss has a long, long season ahead of him.  He will be lucky if the Irish go .500 as he seems to have nothing at this point.  Everything that could go wrong went wrong for the Irish this past weekend.  They were unable to put up anything against the Georgia Tech defense and mount any resistance to the Tech offense.  I expect a similar score against Penn St. this Saturday.

The Irish had two problems against Ga Tech. Both are related to the OL because it just plain stunk up the house. Weiss thought he could hide it by utilizing a QB that was mobile. Didn't work.

IMO he'd have been better off concentrating on a total passing game with varying play action. Mixed with some quick slants and outs and some shotgun formation plays. If his OL play doesn't improve dramatically the Irish are in big friggin trouble.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 03, 2007, 10:51:52 AM
i was very encouraged by georgia's performance on saturday. they actually looked like a top 25 team for the first time in a while.

i was really proud that they scheduled a respectable ooc opponent rather than the usual powderpuff opener like appalachin state. actually i'm real glad about that.

mr. richt, having come to the same conclusion as many dawg fans (that he couldn't call an intermural game), turned over the reins to oc mike bobo with surprisingly good results. willy martinez (def coord.) finally woke up and got something out of these last three stellar recruiting classes. all in all, not a bad day for the management.

on the field matthew stafford finally started throwing to his own receivers and, even more amazingly, they caught the ball. superfreshman knowshon moreno has rekindled some of the excitement of 1980. georgia's backfield tandem may be the most solid of the sec if not the most spectacular. they have all the tools if they'll just use them and stop throwing on 1st down or squandering a lead (a uga trademark).

the off line looked better than expected and the defence way outperformed. they both have a way to go but appeared to be able to play with anyone. georgia cognoscenti will tell you that next year is the one. but this group looks ready to be competitive right now.

so, i'm optimistic for the next few games. i even took georgia and laid the 6 1/2 which is normally money thrown away (ga and iowa are two of the worst kisses of death ats) tho i doubt i'll truly gamble that way again anytime soon.
I think Georgia will be the second best SEC team this year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 03, 2007, 11:07:20 AM
True interesting fact:  Meatchicken is 0-3 since Bo Schembechler died.  Coincidence?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 03, 2007, 11:10:52 AM
Quote
Michigan has a good team.  I think they may have a better chance at being undefeated at season's end than USC does.
Congratulations!  You were even wronger than I was!

Yes...I had a very "wrong" weekend--this was just the start.  On the flip side, I went undefeated in my Pac 10 pool that I'm in...so what's the expression in the SEC?  Even a blind squirell finds an acorn once in awhile


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 03, 2007, 11:11:53 AM
I think the Big Ten-plus one should expand its conference schedule to 10 games and play Notre Dame, an Armed Forces team and/or a Mid-Ameircan team for its OOC games.  That way it will be able to avoid any more debacles like what happened Saturday.  
On the other hand, if Meatchicken wins its bowl game convincingly, it'll be like the ASU game never happened, right?  The last one is the only one you look at, right?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 03, 2007, 11:13:02 AM
Quote
Michigan has a good team.  I think they may have a better chance at being undefeated at season's end than USC does.
Congratulations!  You were even wronger than I was!

Yes...I had a very "wrong" weekend--this was just the start.  On the flip side, I went undefeated in my Pac 10 pool that I'm in...so what's the expression in the SEC?  Even a blind squirell finds an acorn once in awhile
Actually, in SEC land, I think it's "Even your drunk neighbor Jim Bob sleeps with his cute sister now and again" or something like that.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 03, 2007, 11:16:51 AM
In a twisted way the Michigan loss to Appalachian State was a big boon to the Big Ten Network.
Ohio Stadium TV's tuned to Ann Arbor were a big hit after the YSU game.  Most popular post game tailgates were those with TV's on the same channel.

Leave it to you to finding a silver lining in the dark cloud that swirls over Ann Arbor.

On the other hand, if Meatchicken wins its bowl game convincingly, it'll be like the ASU game never happened, right?  The last one is the only one you look at, right?

I guess we will have to wait until the end of year to find out.  At this point, Michigan will be lucky if they get an invite to the Motor City Bowl.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: thanatopsy on September 03, 2007, 11:17:23 AM
Saturday, September 1 came and went.  Nobody is talking about the Big Ten debacle.  Honestly, I cannot think of a more overrated conference.

Here in Minnesota, in the leadup to any major conference match, all you hear is talk about the Big Ten as if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Then, when one of our teams gets their butts kicked by the Pac 10 or SEC, everyone gets lockjaw and act as if the game never took place.

What a pity.  The Big Ten is terribly overrated - it's reign as top conference in the USA are irretrievably over.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 03, 2007, 11:17:40 AM
Actually WP, I only forgot that Appalachian State was on Michigan's schedule.  Otherwise, I never would have said they have an easy schedule...   ;>


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 03, 2007, 11:36:21 AM
Thanatopsy, I wouldn't say irretrievable, after all OSU won the BCS championship only five years ago.  It's just that the Big Ten hasn't done a very good job of matching the SEC and PAC over the last 5 years in the recruiting war. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 03, 2007, 02:06:02 PM
I am sure Mark Dantonio is chomping at the bit for his first Michigan game.
Just as Joe Paterno is salivating over breaking his losing streak against LLoyd Carr.

I mean, the Spartans and the Nittany Lions could never lose  games against a team that got beat by Appalachian State, could they?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 03, 2007, 02:24:44 PM

[/quote]I guess we will have to wait until the end of year to find out.  At this point, Michigan will be lucky if they get an invite to the Motor City Bowl.[/quote]

realistically, michigan is still the best all around team in the big ten (with apologies to badger fans) and has every possibility of running the rest of its schedule. i anticipate that they'll fall out of the top ten but not much further.

as far as the demise of the big ten as a dominant conference, i think that's a bit overstated altho i'll grant that they are out-recruited (but for only one specific reason).


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 03, 2007, 03:23:10 PM
I am sure Mark Dantonio is chomping at the bit for his first Michigan game.
Just as Joe Paterno is salivating over breaking his losing streak against LLoyd Carr.

I mean, the Spartans and the Nittany Lions could never lose  games against a team that got beat by Appalachian State, could they?

You are without a doubt the king of spin James.

Speaking of wheels spinning, how's that old Carr of yours doing?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 03, 2007, 10:29:18 PM
I would guess Carr is pretty low.  After all he is the head coach at the winningest program ever and HIS winning percentage, 76%, is even better.  I doubt you can ever live down a loss like that one in the eyes of the chat room generation. 

Ironically though, for this upset to to rank as high as the media wants( an upset for the ages) then Michigan needs to rebond and win the Big Ten. Then this upset will surpass the 1999 San Jose State ambush of Pac Ten Champion Stanford(San Jose State was 1-7 against division one-a) or five td undedog Temple beating Virginia Tech(5-0) in Blacksburg in 1998 and ruining its Big East title hopes.  Both of those upsets came later in the season when the favored team had a legitimate claim to higher ranking, not the guesses of the pre-season seers.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 03, 2007, 11:15:41 PM
I think the Big Ten-plus one should expand its conference schedule to 10 games and play Notre Dame, an Armed Forces team and/or a Mid-Ameircan team for its OOC games.  That way it will be able to avoid any more debacles like what happened Saturday.  
On the other hand, if Meatchicken wins its bowl game convincingly, it'll be like the ASU game never happened, right?  The last one is the only one you look at, right?

Well certainly, if Meats and Chickens manages to take out Pascaloosa State at the Procter & Gamble Tidee Bowl in Huntington, AL, then we will certainly reassess at that time.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 04, 2007, 01:55:23 AM
I'm partial to Cal since I spent my first semester there way back in 75 but Sat night showed SPEED.While the 75team(Bart,Muncie,Rivera,Walker)ate speed(good ol Whitecross) this team has it.As for my alma mater Northeastern I hope next time they feel the need to open against a Div 1 team they choose Michigan instead of Northwestern.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 04, 2007, 02:26:36 AM
What gives with the polls?  Were they actually waiting for the outcome of the FSU-Clemson game?  Jbottle should be happy as a clam. 

Jim, regardless of what Michigan does the rest of the season, the Appalachian St. victory ranks as the greatest upset in college football history.  It was the first time a Div. 1-AA team beat a ranked Divison 1-A team, and the winningest Div 1-A program to boot.  Carr will never be able to live this one down, even if Michigan goes on to win the Big Ten, which I doubt they will do.  Cudos to the great job the Mountaineer coaching staff did in getting their boys ready for such a big game, studying endless hours of film, and exposing the many weaknesses in the overhyped Wolverines, which I'm sure Oregon, Penn St., Wisconsin, Michigan St., Ohio St., maybe even Notre Dame will exploit as well.  At this point, I would say the Wolverines will be lucky to finish 8-4.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 04, 2007, 03:13:16 AM
Both of those upsets came later in the season when the favored team had a legitimate claim to higher ranking, not the guesses of the pre-season seers.

But, as we have seen expressed in this forum, Michigan supposedly has the best talent in the Big Ten, so what does that say about the Big Ten?


Title: Feeling the Heat
Post by: Dzimas on September 04, 2007, 08:10:47 AM
Indianapolis Colts defensive back Marlin Jackson, a former Michigan standout, said he was embarrassed by the result.

"We lost to a I-AA program, and we were a top-five team," he said. "To go out and be the first team in history to lose to a I-AA team, it hurts."

Jackson said the loss has been an almost nonstop topic of conversation for him.

"That's all I've been getting the last couple of days. Every text message I get just says `Appalachian State.' That's all it says," he said.

"The Ohio State guys have been all right. It's everybody else around here. Even coach (Tony) Dungy said something to me about it."

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=Ai8WP9XtZaPGcpMHkJSkdYQcvrYF?slug=ap-t25-michigan-carr&prov=ap&type=lgns


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 04, 2007, 08:24:14 AM

Ironically though, for this upset to to rank as high as the media wants( an upset for the ages)

As the media wants?? You're kiddin right.

Young young James, #5 got beat by a Div II team. Could you tell me if that has ever happened? Please don't come up with some more spin. Just tell us if anything even remotely like that has ever happened?? No spinning for Father Carr please.


And when you find it James, "that" other upset of a top 20 team by a Div II team, then "that" was the "second" biggest upset of all time.  :P


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 04, 2007, 09:26:46 AM
If you say so, Captain.

God knows we should never dispute your knowledge of the game,,,as long as your Street and Smith subscription is current, that is.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: desdemona222b on September 04, 2007, 09:59:15 AM
Jake and Steve - that's my mini schnauzer Ivan the Terrible.  Doesn't he have an earnest face?  He says, "Tigers don't play no shit!"



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 04, 2007, 11:43:52 AM

 i anticipate that they'll fall out of the top ten but not much further.


Really?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 04, 2007, 11:46:36 AM
I'm partial to Cal since I spent my first semester there way back in 75 but Sat night showed SPEED.While the 75team(Bart,Muncie,Rivera,Walker)ate speed(good ol Whitecross) this team has it.As for my alma mater Northeastern I hope next time they feel the need to open against a Div 1 team they choose Michigan instead of Northwestern.

Muncie was incredible. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 04, 2007, 12:14:11 PM
If you say so, Captain.

God knows we should never dispute your knowledge of the game,,,as long as your Street and Smith subscription is current, that is.

I don't dispute your knowledge of the game James. Only just your sometimes Homeristic application of it. As far as the Street and Smith subscription goes sure I read it. Along with Lindy's, Sporting News, Phil Steele and probably a half dozen other publications.


I suppose all of your knowledge of the game and the players comes directly from Divine Provenance. Sorry to have the audacity to question you. I'm going straight to Hell now I'm sure.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 04, 2007, 04:23:21 PM
Michigan unranked in AP poll .Now that's a fall.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 04, 2007, 04:38:43 PM
Michigan unranked in AP poll .Now that's a fall.

They fell out of both AP and coaches polls...

Note also that three of USC's opponents are currently in the top 20.  Two of three are on the road.  Oregon and Oregon State are lingering just beyond 25 for now.

I think LSU's schedule is harder--but I don't follow complaining about USC's "easy" schedule.  If they get there they will have earned it...  but there is a lot of football to play between now and then.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 04, 2007, 05:03:50 PM
Michigan unranked in AP poll .Now that's a fall.

They fell out of both AP and coaches polls...



Ludicrous

How many D-1's refused to play App State?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 04, 2007, 06:48:17 PM
I'm partial to Cal since I spent my first semester there way back in 75 ...

Well at least we know that was too early for you to have been thrown out for posting gay porn on the school's intranet.
:o


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 04, 2007, 06:52:40 PM

I don't dispute your knowledge of the game James. Only just your sometimes Homeristic application of it.

I've always thought Jimmah's applications were more Sysiphean, m'self.  Pretty much describes arguing with him as well. ;)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 04, 2007, 06:54:42 PM
Jake and Steve - that's my mini schnauzer Ivan the Terrible.  Doesn't he have an earnest face?  He says, "Tigers don't play no shit!"


Awesome pooch.  I wanted our next dog to be an Irish terrier, but my wife, who knows dogs better than me, and know me, said -- it's cute, but you like huggy dogs better.  So we ended up with a standard poodle.

Can you imagine that?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 04, 2007, 07:40:58 PM
Any Alabama fans on the new board?

I'm sort of hoping for a week by week assessment of Saban's standing with the alumni as the season progresses. 

Particularly after the second loss of the season or so...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 04, 2007, 08:06:47 PM
So if I have my numbers right, the State of Michigan was 1-4 in Division I over the weekend.

WP, you should be very proud indeed--you actually do have the best team record in the state at the moment.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 04, 2007, 08:38:49 PM
Trojan Horse

I will be in Tempe over Thanksgiving for the ASU-SoCal game.

Will you?

It would be fun to ogle the co-eds, drink a 2 dollar Coors and argue football.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 05, 2007, 12:32:00 AM
The funny part is that Div 1 had no problem with Appalachian State before this year.  The Mountaineers were 0-4 against Div. 1 teams over the last two years, when they won titles, thumped by NC State last year, in its season opener.  I guess one can't rank Div. 1-AA teams but the Mountaineers should have at least been given honorable mention.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 05, 2007, 01:18:13 AM
Poor, poor Dzimas.

First,   you were pissed that Michigan got a five ranking.

Then, when Appalachian State won, you loved that  5 ranking.

It appears that all pleasures in your life revolve around  the failings of the Big Ten.

I predict that you will be perpetually pissed.












Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 05, 2007, 02:05:19 AM
I'm not pissed at all now that Michigan is where they belong in the rankings.  I saw that OSU slipped a notch as well.  Seems pollsters had second thoughts about the Big Two after Saturday.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 05, 2007, 08:47:50 AM

I don't dispute your knowledge of the game James. Only just your sometimes Homeristic application of it.

I've always thought Jimmah's applications were more Sysiphean, m'self.  Pretty much describes arguing with him as well. ;)

I bow to your logic Jake. But prefer to call what I and others do as "tutoring" young James, rather than arguing with him.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 05, 2007, 08:55:38 AM
Poor, poor Dzimas.

First,   you were pissed that Michigan got a five ranking.

Then, when Appalachian State won, you loved that  5 ranking.

It appears that all pleasures in your life revolve around  the failings of the Big Ten.

I predict that you will be perpetually pissed.


More spin James?

The guy said Michigan didn't deserve a #5 ranking. He was right.

Perhaps you're better suited to olgling co-eds, drinking Coors, and omiting arguing football segment. Perhaps you could talk knitting or UFOs(Unidentifiable Football Oratory) instead.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 05, 2007, 11:44:14 AM
Trojan Horse

I will be in Tempe over Thanksgiving for the ASU-SoCal game.

Will you?

It would be fun to ogle the co-eds, drink a 2 dollar Coors and argue football.

Arizona State is definitely a good place to ogle.

My wife and I have been talking about going to that game -- have not decided yet, but yes, it would be fun to hook up if so...

I hear you talking about Phoenix a lot - do you live out that way?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 05, 2007, 11:48:55 AM
I guess one can't rank Div. 1-AA teams but the Mountaineers should have at least been given honorable mention.

They may not be able to rank Appalachian State but ESPN did put Michigan in their "bottom 10" this week...I believe it was at #5 in fact.  A bit of irony...no doubt well thought out and partly in jest...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 05, 2007, 11:51:53 AM
No.   I have friends there

And, as an Ohio State follower, i have had plenty of opportunities to visit.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 05, 2007, 12:05:12 PM
So this is where all you NYT's forumites ended up?  It appears not much has changed except for this forum allowing the use of profanity. So then, how the fuck did UF move up in the polls after beating a 1-AA school and tOSU moved down by doing the same?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 05, 2007, 12:13:47 PM
So this is where all you NYT's forumites ended up?  It appears not much has changed except for this forum allowing the use of profanity. So then, how the fuck did UF move up in the polls after beating a 1-AA school and tOSU moved down by doing the same?

One fucking reason is that Michigan, who was ahead of Florida, lost to a Div. 1-AA opponent.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 05, 2007, 12:16:09 PM
MickeyD    

LOL

Hey, pick any game other than MSU and give me an alternative.

And remember, save time for HineyGate, the Varsity Club and the Skull session.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: desdemona222b on September 05, 2007, 01:54:14 PM
Jake -

Sent you a message - check My Messages at the top of the screen.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 05, 2007, 01:59:27 PM
This is fucking fun!! 
Jimm-Illinois or Wisky available?  I am not picky, just want to be in the 'Shoe. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 05, 2007, 02:25:24 PM
Poor, poor Dzimas.

First,   you were pissed that Michigan got a five ranking.

Then, when Appalachian State won, you loved that  5 ranking.

It appears that all pleasures in your life revolve around  the failings of the Big Ten.

I predict that you will be perpetually pissed.


Man, I have seen some tortured logic on these fora in my day, but you are a veritable Abu Ghraib.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 05, 2007, 02:27:51 PM
Jake -

Sent you a message - check My Messages at the top of the screen.


Gotcha!  And yer little dog, too!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 05, 2007, 02:46:06 PM

 i anticipate that they'll fall out of the top ten but not much further.


Really?

well, you were right and all i can do is stand slack jawed at the idiocy of the pollsters. in the 20 some odd years since the ap has expanded the poll to 25, no one has ever fallen this far.

tennessee only fell 9 positions. granted they played a ranked team (cal) but appalachin state has some football creds of their own. they've won their division 2 years in a row playing a 14 game season (incl. 1aa playoffs). so they're no stranger to winning.

i'm not saying michigan shouldn't be humbled by the loss or lambasted by their detractors but this is simply ridiculous in the extreme. they are still a powerfull squad and i, personally, would not be looking forward to next saturday if i were a duck.

i'm taking michigan and laying the 8 points...



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 05, 2007, 03:06:21 PM
So this is where all you NYT's forumites ended up?  It appears not much has changed except for this forum allowing the use of profanity. So then, how the fuck did UF move up in the polls after beating a 1-AA school and tOSU moved down by doing the same?

I guess the Bucs got devalued.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 05, 2007, 03:16:03 PM

 i anticipate that they'll fall out of the top ten but not much further.


Really?

well, you were right and all i can do is stand slack jawed at the idiocy of the pollsters. in the 20 some odd years since the ap has expanded the poll to 25, no one has ever fallen this far.

tennessee only fell 9 positions. granted they played a ranked team (cal) but appalachin state has some football creds of their own. they've won their division 2 years in a row playing a 14 game season (incl. 1aa playoffs). so they're no stranger to winning.

i'm not saying michigan shouldn't be humbled by the loss or lambasted by their detractors but this is simply ridiculous in the extreme. they are still a powerfull squad and i, personally, would not be looking forward to next saturday if i were a duck.

i'm taking michigan and laying the 8 points...


Michigan needs to get their defensive act together if they want to win this game. I don't think Oregon's offense will just roll over and curl up just because the Wolverines are angry. This has the makings of another offensive contest as the Ducks don't seem to be able to stop the run any more than the Wolverines could stop ASU's offense. The Ducks have a good secondary but they may find themselves playing mostly run support in this one.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 05, 2007, 06:37:04 PM

i'm not saying michigan shouldn't be humbled by the loss or lambasted by their detractors but this is simply ridiculous in the extreme. they are still a powerfull squad and i, personally, would not be looking forward to next saturday if i were a duck.



Given a couple of impressive wins, they will no doubt be right back in.  At the end of the season though, if they only have the one loss, I would expect to see them at the bottom of the one loss teams -- unless they really show some stuff in the big games...


Title: Re: Michigan
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 05, 2007, 06:38:43 PM
GIVE the points this week, with confidence


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 05, 2007, 06:44:17 PM
Captain -  what I recalled you saying was basically that Michigan will not "win" just because they are pissed.

I was going to say, sometimes I play more relaxed after a drink or two -- but you are right, anything more than that has got to be detrimental.

I think you worded it differently on second look, but it would have been much funnier if you would have gotten it right in the first place.  Try to tighten up on that would you?  :)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 05, 2007, 06:48:55 PM

Michigan needs to get their defensive act together if they want to win this game.


Yes, the problem with a team exposing a weakness is now "everyone" knows about it.  Expect the Ducks to test it early.  You have to think Michigan will have a solution by next Saturday though don't you?

One week (and one half) too late...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 05, 2007, 07:03:11 PM
The "weakness" the other day was Michigan's special teams.  You didn't expect we'd shut App State out, did you?

File this under the "they played us as well as they could - but we still had the V there for the taking" column.  Great teams so often dodge these bullets.  Very good ones often do not.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 05, 2007, 07:21:32 PM
It was more than their special teams.  The Wolverines left the middle wide open, which Appalachian State exploited from beginning to end of the game.  Carr seemed to correct it somewhat in the second half.  After all, App. State only got two field goals, but when it counted they marched right down the middle again for the go-ahead field goal, as Michigan reverted to form.  I just can't see how anyone except Jimm can rationalize such a pathetic performance.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 05, 2007, 08:28:50 PM

I guess the Bucs got devalued.


Early front runner for LOW Highlights.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 05, 2007, 11:13:43 PM
  I just can't see how anyone except Jimm can rationalize such a pathetic performance.

I did not rationalize anything.  I simply stated that for that game to be the upset of all time Michigan has to have a lot more than a preseason ranking.  If Michigan were to win out and lose out on a BCS Championship game then the game clearly would have a shot at that distinction.   But, at this point, no one can say that the Appalachian State win over Michigan will even be the upset of the year, let alone one for the ages.

You might remember 2003 when Auburn was Sports Illustrated's preseason pick to win it all. The Tigers were  promptly shut out at home by Southern Cal and then managed just 3 points against unranked Georgia Tech.  A preseason number one with just three points after two games.  But it was forgotten in a forgettable 8-5 season with only two quality SEC wins and the other six coming against unranked teams.  If Michigan replicates Auburn in 2003 the Appalachian State loss is hardly a shocker.

So this week how many litas are you putting down on Oregon? ;D





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 06, 2007, 03:26:45 AM
I'm impressed you looked up Lithuanian currency, jimm.  I used to bet Snicker bars with my father, that was about it.  Right now I'm following the Lithuanian national team in the European basketball championship, 3-0 in their bracket, including beating Nowitzki-led Germany.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 06, 2007, 11:15:12 AM
Right now I'm following the Lithuanian national team in the European basketball championship, 3-0 in their bracket, including beating Nowitzki-led Germany.

Does Lithuania have a contender in the upcoming Rugby World Cup?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 06, 2007, 11:24:32 AM
Sorry to say no.  Lithuania pretty much puts all its energy into basketball.  It is the Indiana of European basketball, having one three titles, including one 4 years ago.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 06, 2007, 11:44:47 AM

Michigan needs to get their defensive act together if they want to win this game.


Yes, the problem with a team exposing a weakness is now "everyone" knows about it.  Expect the Ducks to test it early.  You have to think Michigan will have a solution by next Saturday though don't you?

One week (and one half) too late...

Well sometimes it isn't only exploiting the weakness by good play, but also a combination of just out-thinking the other guy when it comes to actual play calling. Didn't actually see it, but it seems like the Wolverines we caught with their pants down(looking for something else) defensively on more than one occasion in that game. Maybe they just kept refusing to think that ASU could actually attempt to do what they were doing. This says as much about Carr and his coaching crew as much as it does Michigan's athletes.

Oregon is a good team that's only going to get better offensively as the year progresses. They've got three quality RBs(4 if you count Dixon) and a solid OL. Certainly good enough to stand toe to toe with the Wolverines IMO. As to their defense the secondary is very good and "should" be able to somewhat contain Michigan's big name receiver. They've got a couple of good corners that lets Aliotti send his beloved blitzes. I think it'll be the play of the Duck front seven that determines whether or not they stay in this game.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 06, 2007, 11:55:13 AM
  I just can't see how anyone except Jimm can rationalize such a pathetic performance.

I did not rationalize anything.  I simply stated that for that game to be the upset of all time Michigan has to have a lot more than a preseason ranking.  If Michigan were to win out and lose out on a BCS Championship game then the game clearly would have a shot at that distinction.   But, at this point, no one can say that the Appalachian State win over Michigan will even be the upset of the year, let alone one for the ages.

You might remember 2003 when Auburn was Sports Illustrated's preseason pick to win it all. The Tigers were  promptly shut out at home by Southern Cal and then managed just 3 points against unranked Georgia Tech.  A preseason number one with just three points after two games.  But it was forgotten in a forgettable 8-5 season with only two quality SEC wins and the other six coming against unranked teams.  If Michigan replicates Auburn in 2003 the Appalachian State loss is hardly a shocker.



And I'd be the first to admit you have a point James, if it were Purdue or Iowa you were trying to make that point about. But not a Michigan or an Ohio State. Sorry nope no sale. The Auburn reference really makes very little sense because we're talking about losing to USC not  DIV II team so we can ignore that. 


Title: Week 2(here it is Steve)
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 06, 2007, 01:31:13 PM
Couldn't argue with any of Steve's outcomes just tweeked the scores a bit.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 27, BOWLING FOR DOLLARS 14: This is State's year. I know Steve has been waiting a long time for me to say that.

MEATCHICKEN 31, OREGON 29: I really REALLY wanted to take Oregon in this game. But every time I picked against the Wolverines last year they seemed to win and vice-versa sooooo....

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 27, VIRGINIA TECH 7: It was hard not to make this game a 27-0 victory for the Bengals. But I'll give the Hokies a luck score.

AUBURN 26, SOUTH FLORIDA 10: Auburn's OL will just get better as the year goes on.

TEXAS 28, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY 20: Should be an entertaining game.

NEBRASKA 27, WAKE FOREST 14: Wake is going to get it's licks in but not quite enough.

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 36, NOTRE DAME 10: Revenge time and it won't be pretty.

OKLAHOMA 20, MIAMI 17: This might be the game of the week.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: desdemona222b on September 06, 2007, 02:07:15 PM
I'll call LSU vs VA Tech 21-zip.  It's going to be madness in Deaf Valley on Saturday!!    :o


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 06, 2007, 02:14:19 PM
where my money goes (or doesn't come) this weekend:

michigan -8
oklahoma -10 1/2
georgia -4
alabama -3 1/2

and a 4 game round robin of the above...

i also liked louisville for the game and the over. but if you can't watch it (dinner engagement), it's no fun betting and sweating.

i don't understand the georgia line (unless it's only local...i live in so. car. and maybe they're balancing). the game is in athens which is normally worth 2 points for home field but i really saw a lot more from uga than the cocks last weekend...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 06, 2007, 02:33:01 PM
also, for those of you who are cross sports cultural...

the rugby world cup starts tomorrow w/ argentina taking on favorite france. this is really good stuff if you've never been exposed. if you were bored by soccer, this is the happy medium into what the rest of the world calls sports.

try it...you'll like it!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 06, 2007, 02:45:11 PM
...but if you can't watch it (dinner engagement), it's no fun betting and sweating.

Gambling is ill-EE-gal at Bushwood, sir... and I never slice...


Title: Re: Week 2(here it is Steve)
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 06, 2007, 03:29:25 PM

CC predictions:

TEXAS 28, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY 20:  This is the only one that surprises me.  Do you really think it will be this close?

OKLAHOMA 20, MIAMI 17: Ok...no wait...this one too...  Miami has a lot of proving to me before I would give them the benefit of the doubt again...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 06, 2007, 03:32:24 PM


i don't understand the georgia line (unless it's only local...i live in so. car. and maybe they're balancing).

It's always nice to meet another USC fan...

ohh...wait...


Title: Re: Week 2(here it is Steve)
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 06, 2007, 03:50:36 PM

CC predictions:

TEXAS 28, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY 20:  This is the only one that surprises me.  Do you really think it will be this close?

OKLAHOMA 20, MIAMI 17: Ok...no wait...this one too...  Miami has a lot of proving to me before I would give them the benefit of the doubt again...


I'm counting on the TCU defensive front six to keep them in this game. Consistantly accounting for Blake, Ortiz "and" Hawthorne might be just a bit difficult for the Horn OL. And the back five are good enough to keep the Horn passing game in check IMO.

As to Miami, Shannon ain't Coker my friend. He's going to make a heckuva college head coach as the years go by. If Oklahoma takes this game lightly IMO they'll be in trouble.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 06, 2007, 04:03:32 PM
also, for those of you who are cross sports cultural...

the rugby world cup starts tomorrow w/ argentina taking on favorite france. this is really good stuff if you've never been exposed. if you were bored by soccer, this is the happy medium into what the rest of the world calls sports.

try it...you'll like it!

Not only like it, but love it, and played it for about ten years through college, bidness school and after.

Have a budddy who scammed tix to France-Ireland in Paris... I'm burning w. jealousy.

Is it available on anything save PPV do you know?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 06, 2007, 04:06:28 PM
also, for those of you who are cross sports cultural...

the rugby world cup starts tomorrow w/ argentina taking on favorite france. this is really good stuff if you've never been exposed. if you were bored by soccer, this is the happy medium into what the rest of the world calls sports.

try it...you'll like it!

Also just built a bocce court in my backyard, for what it's worth!  :D


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 06, 2007, 05:02:42 PM
played it for about ten years through college, bidness school and after.



Where did you go to "B" School Jake?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 06, 2007, 08:16:47 PM
I think my "game to watch" this week is going to be  Boise State at Washington.

At end of last season, you might have predicted no contest. I'm not quite going to predict the upset, but I think it could get very interesting and it will tell me a lot about what is to come.   I picked Washington over Syracuse last week, but I think first games can be all about coaching preparation for the unknown.  Now both of these teams will at least have some film to watch and Boise State personnel depth might be more than enough -- we'll see though.  I like Ty Willingham.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 06, 2007, 10:21:45 PM
CaptainCargo wrote:The Auburn reference really makes very little sense because we're talking about losing to USC not  DIV II team so we can ignore that.



I guess I have to slow it down for you.

In 2003, Auburn was a pre-season #1 and wound up 8-5 with only 2 wins against ranked teams...and four losses against unranked teams.   

If Michigan has a similar season its loss to Appy State is as forgettable as any of Auburn's losses to unranked teams.

If, however, Michigan rebounds and makes it to the Rose Bowl, then the Appy State loss would be of major proportions and would have a legitmate claim as an "upset for the ages".









Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 06, 2007, 10:22:05 PM
If you are trying to build a kitty for the upcoming season, the PSU/LSU teaser is my ***** star lock of the week, and I have never issued more than a **** star lock, ever.  It's early, the Domers have their wallets out and it's time to get atop the mang.  If I'm wrong, I will watch "Brokeback Mountain" during Monday Night Football for all 16 games unless the Raiders or Cardinals or Texans or Browns are playing.  I will do an "It's My Party"/"Brokeback" freaking double feature four days from now if I'm wrong just to kick things off (and as an ERIC ROBERTS FAN, ease into it a bit, but not worried).

Note:  The above is not to be construed as gaming advice or comment.  All opinions expressed are those of the former NYTFF and it's satellite incarnations.  No teams real or imagined were referred to in the above post, and all discernable verbiage or it's construction is something, like most works of the imagination, which takes place in the mind of the beholder.  Nothing contractual is to be construed when parody, sarcasm, irony, whimsy, or folly may be implied.  I really am an ERIC ROBERTS FAN, I will cop to that, but in more of a THAT TRAIN MOVIE WITH JOHN VOIGHT WAY than IMP, again, please do not use the above for the intended use or unintended use.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 06, 2007, 10:33:52 PM
I think my "game to watch" this week is going to be  Boise State at Washington.



I think the game to watch, at any time, is the 2007 Fiesta Bowl taking note of:

the great camera shots of the fans as the game ebbed and flowed.(The Boise State guy with his mouth agape on the Oklahoma interception for a TD is one of the greatest camera shots of all time, any sport.

The great put-down of Tom Brenneman by Barry Alvaraez as Boise State prepared for the winning 2 point conversion.(Brenneman opined about a play-off and Alvarez said, in effect, what more could you ask for in a college football game than what we are seeing right now?)

The fact that that game could never have been duplicated in a play-off was obvious, a few seconds later.

If anyone doubts the excitement of college football, then a replay of this game is mandatory.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 07, 2007, 01:48:04 AM
CaptainCargo wrote:The Auburn reference really makes very little sense because we're talking about losing to USC not  DIV II team so we can ignore that.



I guess I have to slow it down for you.

In 2003, Auburn was a pre-season #1 and wound up 8-5 with only 2 wins against ranked teams...and four losses against unranked teams.   

If Michigan has a similar season its loss to Appy State is as forgettable as any of Auburn's losses to unranked teams.

If, however, Michigan rebounds and makes it to the Rose Bowl, then the Appy State loss would be of major proportions and would have a legitmate claim as an "upset for the ages".

Trust me, jimm, no one will forget the Appalachian State game any time soon, especially Michigan fans.  You seem to miss the point that Michigan lost to a lower division team.  This is the same Appalachian State team that got blown out by North Carolina State in its season opener last year.  The Wolfpack went on to post an impressive 3-9 record, while the Mountaineers won the Div. 1-AA title for the second year in a row.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 07, 2007, 08:57:18 AM
CaptainCargo wrote:The Auburn reference really makes very little sense because we're talking about losing to USC not  DIV II team so we can ignore that.



I guess I have to slow it down for you.

In 2003, Auburn was a pre-season #1 and wound up 8-5 with only 2 wins against ranked teams...and four losses against unranked teams.   

If Michigan has a similar season its loss to Appy State is as forgettable as any of Auburn's losses to unranked teams.

If, however, Michigan rebounds and makes it to the Rose Bowl, then the Appy State loss would be of major proportions and would have a legitmate claim as an "upset for the ages".


I won't slow this down for you Jim as I don't think you can go any slower. Using USC and Auburn doesn't apply in any way shape or form. Even if Michigan has an 8-5 season it just wouldn't apply. Unless of course App St goes on to win the D-1 national championship NNs.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 07, 2007, 09:02:05 AM
CaptainCargo wrote:The Auburn reference really makes very little sense because we're talking about losing to USC not  DIV II team so we can ignore that.



I guess I have to slow it down for you.

In 2003, Auburn was a pre-season #1 and wound up 8-5 with only 2 wins against ranked teams...and four losses against unranked teams.   

If Michigan has a similar season its loss to Appy State is as forgettable as any of Auburn's losses to unranked teams.

If, however, Michigan rebounds and makes it to the Rose Bowl, then the Appy State loss would be of major proportions and would have a legitmate claim as an "upset for the ages".

Trust me, jimm, no one will forget the Appalachian State game any time soon, especially Michigan fans.  You seem to miss the point that Michigan lost to a lower division team.  This is the same Appalachian State team that got blown out by North Carolina State in its season opener last year.  The Wolfpack went on to post an impressive 3-9 record, while the Mountaineers won the Div. 1-AA title for the second year in a row.

Dzimas: Trying to tutor Jimmy isn't easy Bud. And yes, sometimes it seems downright impossible. But you get high grades from us for trying though.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 07, 2007, 11:06:07 AM
Dzimas wrote:
Trust me, jimm, no one will forget the Appalachian State game any time soon, especially Michigan fans.  You seem to miss the point that Michigan lost to a lower division team.  This is the same Appalachian State team that got blown out by North Carolina State in its season opener last year.  The Wolfpack went on to post an impressive 3-9 record, while the Mountaineers won the Div. 1-AA title for the second year in a row.


Trust me Dzimas, no one, especially in Columbus, will ever let the Maize and Blue faithful forget such an embarassment as Appy State.  The win by a FCS team over a ranked BCS team may be a milestone, but unless Michigan rebounds the upset falls far short of "the biggest" in college football history.  By last year computer rankings, alone, Appy State and the best of the FCS teams were ranked near the top half of all Division One teams.  In the last ten years 14 1-aa teams have defeated Division one a  teams,,,,and never have any of the 1-a losers  finished at 500 or better.

So if the Appy State win is to really mean something, Michigan is going to have to become a force in the Big Ten  and the BCS.

And if, later in the year, some unranked conference team derails an undefeated USC or LSU it would make the Appy State-Michigan game much lower on the list of challengers for "Upset of All Time."

There is one undisputed fact about the Appy State win.  It resulted in the largest one-week fall in the rankings of a rated team since the poll was increased to 25 teams in the late 80's.

An embarassing first for Michigan, but one that can be proven, not speculated on by the airheads in Sports Journamism.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 07, 2007, 11:35:52 AM
Lower Division as in 1-aa reflects only the size of the student body, not the strength of the football program as evidenced in the AUS/UM game and L'ville/Mid-Tenn game last night.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 07, 2007, 11:51:36 AM

.. but unless Michigan rebounds the upset falls far short of "the biggest" in college football history. 


Yes it is.

You really should stop embarrassing yourself over this James.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 07, 2007, 02:09:57 PM
Mid-Tenn is not D-1aa. oops


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 07, 2007, 02:11:26 PM
also, for those of you who are cross sports cultural...

the rugby world cup starts tomorrow w/ argentina taking on favorite france. this is really good stuff if you've never been exposed. if you were bored by soccer, this is the happy medium into what the rest of the world calls sports.

try it...you'll like it!

Not only like it, but love it, and played it for about ten years through college, bidness school and after.

Have a budddy who scammed tix to France-Ireland in Paris... I'm burning w. jealousy.

Is it available on anything save PPV do you know?

there is supposedly a free live feed thru the rwc website to pc's. i've tried it without much success. otherwise it's ppv and the timing would be atrocious other than the opener which would air about 3 pm est today.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 07, 2007, 04:30:46 PM
played it for about ten years through college, bidness school and after.



Where did you go to "B" School Jake?

The place that had the best rugby team, of course!

(Tuck)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 07, 2007, 04:34:34 PM
If you are trying to build a kitty for the upcoming season, the PSU/LSU teaser is my ***** star lock of the week, and I have never issued more than a **** star lock, ever.  It's early, the Domers have their wallets out and it's time to get atop the mang.  If I'm wrong, I will watch "Brokeback Mountain" during Monday Night Football for all 16 games unless the Raiders or Cardinals or Texans or Browns are playing.  I will do an "It's My Party"/"Brokeback" freaking double feature four days from now if I'm wrong just to kick things off (and as an ERIC ROBERTS FAN, ease into it a bit, but not worried).

Note:  The above is not to be construed as gaming advice or comment.  All opinions expressed are those of the former NYTFF and it's satellite incarnations.  No teams real or imagined were referred to in the above post, and all discernable verbiage or it's construction is something, like most works of the imagination, which takes place in the mind of the beholder.  Nothing contractual is to be construed when parody, sarcasm, irony, whimsy, or folly may be implied.  I really am an ERIC ROBERTS FAN, I will cop to that, but in more of a THAT TRAIN MOVIE WITH JOHN VOIGHT WAY than IMP, again, please do not use the above for the intended use or unintended use.

I think the guy with the gay porn icon is going to be pissed at you, but fwiw, I loved Julia's little bro in The Pope Of Greenwich Village.

Chahhlie!  Chahllie!   Dey took my tumbs, Challie!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 07, 2007, 04:36:31 PM

The fact that that game could never have been duplicated in a play-off was obvious, a few seconds later.

If anyone doubts the excitement of college football, then a replay of this game is mandatory.

 :'( Shakes head in astonishment. :'(


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 07, 2007, 04:45:23 PM
Just as an aside, I wanted to thank everyone for not stomping all over my (alleged) #8 Cardinals for their piss-poor performance on defense last night against what was to all appearances, a pretty crappy team.

And I have to honestly say that this looks a lot less like "looking past a team" (to the UK game next week) than it does just really shoddy preparation bya much more athletic defensive unit that should have dominated.  I don't know what game films they were looking at all week (maybe the Wildcats'??) but I've never seen a defense so out of position in so many different formations, as well as not "staying home" or in their appointed gaps on run plays.   Worst of all, the amount of egregious personal foul penalties harkened back to the undisciplined John Ell days.  NOT a good sign.

Everyone loves Kragthorpe -- and everyone says he's a much better guy than Petrino... but maybe we need less personality and more discipline in our head coach.  Especially when we have a team that is so ready to drink it's own bathwater.

Thank goodness for young Mr. Allen, who looks like Michael Bush come again.  He was our best defensive player last night.  By running for 275 yards, he kept the damn Blue Raiders off the field throughout most of the fourth quarter.





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 07, 2007, 05:42:08 PM
Just as an aside, I wanted to thank everyone for not stomping all over my (alleged) #8 Cardinals for their piss-poor performance on defense last night against what was to all appearances, a pretty crappy team.



I might have, but I figured I needed to lay low after our less than perfect game against The Vandals last week.  :)

I'm just hoping that Idaho is a LOT better than people gave them credit for.  I do think pert of why they were ranked so low is a new coach and a new freshman quarterback.  They were there with a stellar attitude and this kid, Enderle  can play ball!  They also have a number of returning starters that led their league or even the NCAA I believe  in certain categories, so again, I'm just hopeful that they turn out to not be as bad as everyone predicted...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 07, 2007, 08:44:17 PM
Just as an aside, I wanted to thank everyone for not stomping all over my (alleged) #8 Cardinals for their piss-poor performance ....


Frankly, Jake  it is hardly a compliment to be commended for NOT behaving like you.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 07, 2007, 10:41:31 PM
Just as an aside, I wanted to thank everyone for not stomping all over my (alleged) #8 Cardinals for their piss-poor performance ....


Frankly, Jake  it is hardly a compliment to be commended for NOT behaving like you.

Oh for Christmas sake, Jimmah.  Do you endeavor to be a complete asshole in every post you pen?  Or are you just a naturally irritating ponce and there's no help for it?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 07, 2007, 11:00:16 PM
]quote]

Oh for Christmas sake, Jimmah.  Do you endeavor to be a complete asshole in every post you pen?  Or are you just a naturally irritating ponce and there's no help for it?

[/quote]

Jake, if Life was treated as a game of football, you would be a kick out of bounds.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 08, 2007, 01:55:15 AM
Lower Division as in 1-aa reflects only the size of the student body, not the strength of the football program as evidenced in the AUS/UM game and L'ville/Mid-Tenn game last night.

That maybe true in basketball, but in football, it is an extremely rare day when a Div. 1-AA teams beats a Div. 1-A of any rank.  As I noted before Appalachian State was 0-4 against Div. 1-A teams the last two years, when it won national championships.  You can make the argument that Michigan took Appalachian State too lightly, but to say that Appalachian State is of the same caliber as Div. 1-A teams is a joke.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: liquidsilver on September 08, 2007, 10:25:18 PM
Wisk doesn't have internet access to this site yet at work, so he wanted me to post the following:

1. let jimmengle know that Lloyd Carr is officially on my Most Fired list.
2. tell them that Meatchicken is now 0-4 since Bo Schembechler descent to Hell, and I couldn't be happier about anything short of that Meg Ryan restraining order being lifted.
3. tell them that I am gaining confidence in my prediction of Michigan State University as the #1 team in the country.
4. ask jake if Kragthorpe has a defensive coordinator and if not I would be willing to do it provided I do not actually have to live in the rectal opening that is Louisville.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 08, 2007, 10:35:13 PM
Lower Division as in 1-aa reflects only the size of the student body, not the strength of the football program as evidenced in the AUS/UM game and L'ville/Mid-Tenn game last night.

That maybe true in basketball, but in football, it is an extremely rare day when a Div. 1-AA teams beats a Div. 1-A of any rank.  As I noted before Appalachian State was 0-4 against Div. 1-A teams the last two years, when it won national championships.  You can make the argument that Michigan took Appalachian State too lightly, but to say that Appalachian State is of the same caliber as Div. 1-A teams is a joke.

Are you saying there aren't Divison 1-A calibre players on the Appy State roster?

How bout a slew of em?

Wise man today said the difference is about ten players.

----

Michigan will not be CORRECTLY out of the top 25.

Puuuuuuuuuuu-eeeee.

Go Rutgers, I guess.  (Major OY)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 08, 2007, 10:53:02 PM

but to say that Appalachian State is of the same caliber as Div. 1-A teams is a joke.
Well then, gee, how did Appy State then beat 1-a  Michigan?
And after  the Wolverines' shellacking by Oregon that "upset for the ages" last week may not hang to be the upset of the season.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 08, 2007, 10:56:23 PM
]quote]

Oh for Christmas sake, Jimmah.  Do you endeavor to be a complete asshole in every post you pen?  Or are you just a naturally irritating ponce and there's no help for it?


Jake, if Life was treated as a game of football, you would be a kick out of bounds.
[/quote]

Hilarious.  

Let's get more realistic, Jimmah:

 If life were a game of football, you'd be the skinny, pimpley nerd equipment manager complete with pocket protector, taped together horn rims, and pee stains on your polyester slacks.

Taped to a goal post.

Apologies if I'm bringing back painful memories.

Oh, and the Bucknuts really suck this year.  Enjoy.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 08, 2007, 10:57:43 PM
The previous post was quoting Dzimas, not MickeyD, regarding the caliber of play by Appy State.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 08, 2007, 11:00:30 PM
4. ask jake if Kragthorpe has a defensive coordinator and if not I would be willing to do it provided I do not actually have to live in the rectal opening that is Louisville.

This from a mope that just moved from deep-dyed EPA Superfund city Cleveburg to Shitcago?

Tell him he wouldn't know a good city if he caught a cancer from one.   If it ain't New York, it's just a farking town.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: luee on September 09, 2007, 12:06:42 AM
Rutgers has ruined the Miami team. Stealing all the top athletes in south Florida. You get the best players from NJ, NY, and Fla. how can you lose? Surprised nobody thought of it.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 09, 2007, 12:57:14 AM
Sweet win for the fourth best team in the "second worst" conference tonight.

Let's see one of those pansy arse Big Ten teams knock off an SEC power... lol. 

I know, I know.

Never happen. ::)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 09, 2007, 03:00:35 AM
Well, jimm, you may be right,

Well then, gee, how did Appy State then beat 1-a  Michigan?
And after  the Wolverines' shellacking by Oregon that "upset for the ages" last week may not hang to be the upset of the season.

Michigan looks pretty pathetic right now.  But, need I remind you once again that Appy State is the same team that lost to NC State last year and Furman the year before.  Anyway, like whiskey, I couldn't be any happier about the state of affairs in Ann Arbor.  Lloyd Carr will be lucky if he lasts the season.  As for the PAC, they look like titans right now.  I see Washington had no problem with Boise St.

I also saw that South Carolina knocked off the Bulldogs.  I said to beware of the Gamecocks, I think they will have a good year and challenge Florida in the SEC East.  They have the Gators at home this year. 

As for Va. Tech, I don't know why these Virginia schools get ranked so high each year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 09, 2007, 03:06:13 AM
Are you saying there aren't Divison 1-A calibre players on the Appy State roster?

I'm not saying Appy State doesn't have division 1-A calibre players, but if you are a top high school player, which school would you rather go to before last Saturday, Michigan or Appalachian State?  Div. 1-AA makes due with the best players they can get after Div 1-A has scarfed up the leading tallent around the country.  Appy State has North Carolina and NC State to contend with in its home state, which to this point they hadn't showed any sign of threatening their recruiting base.  But, a win like that makes Appalachian State look that much more attractive.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 09, 2007, 03:40:37 AM
Of course, every once in a while a player like Jerry Rice slips under the Div. 1-A radar screen, having gone to Mississippi Valley State University, as did Deacon Jones.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 09, 2007, 08:10:49 AM
Just as an aside, I wanted to thank everyone for not stomping all over my (alleged) #8 Cardinals for their piss-poor performance ....


Frankly, Jake  it is hardly a compliment to be commended for NOT behaving like you.

Oh for Christmas sake, Jimmah.  Do you endeavor to be a complete asshole in every post you pen?  Or are you just a naturally irritating ponce and there's no help for it?


As I answer Jake's question in my best Arnold Horshack imitation...."Oooh! OOOH!! OOOH!!"


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 09, 2007, 08:17:23 AM
Well, jimm, you may be right,

Well then, gee, how did Appy State then beat 1-a  Michigan?
And after  the Wolverines' shellacking by Oregon that "upset for the ages" last week may not hang to be the upset of the season.

Michigan looks pretty pathetic right now.  But, need I remind you once again that Appy State is the same team that lost to NC State last year and Furman the year before.  Anyway, like whiskey, I couldn't be any happier about the state of affairs in Ann Arbor.  Lloyd Carr will be lucky if he lasts the season.  As for the PAC, they look like titans right now.  I see Washington had no problem with Boise St.

I also saw that South Carolina knocked off the Bulldogs.  I said to beware of the Gamecocks, I think they will have a good year and challenge Florida in the SEC East.  They have the Gators at home this year. 

As for Va. Tech, I don't know why these Virginia schools get ranked so high each year.

Does no good to remind James of anything. We've been reminding him that crap belongs in the toilet for years but he still keeps on putting it in his posts anyways.





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 09, 2007, 08:32:49 AM
Now for some quick observations. If LSU isn't the best team in the nation they're doing a mighty fine job of faking it.

"All the Tigers have done is smoke teams from the SEC and ACC like boudin sausage."

In yet another blow to the crumbling prestige of the ACC, its preseason favorite was blown out of Tiger Stadium within minutes Saturday. The score was 17-0 before Tech had so much as a first down -- and erasing a 17-point deficit against this LSU defense is like trying to run a marathon in snowshoes.

"Those first three drives, we knew we had them," linebacker Ali Highsmith said.

Combine this face-plant with Miami's 38-point whipping at Oklahoma and North Carolina's loss to East Carolina, and you have one rotten ACC weekend. And if you factor in the losses last week by Virginia to Wyoming and North Carolina State to Central Florida, you have one rotten season to date. If it weren't for Georgia Tech's propping up league honor, the conference might as well fast-forward straight to Midnight Madness.


But it would be a mistake to ascribe this blowout to only one facet of LSU's operation. Because an offense that at times was sporadic against Mississippi State more often was dynamic against Tech.

LSU churned out 598 total yards on a unit that led the nation in total defense the previous two seasons. The Tigers were gloriously balanced, throwing it 20 times and running it 20 in the first half and getting production from a variety of sources.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3011241&sportCat=ncf

___________________________________________________________________________________

In all fairness I think Clemson has a pretty decent team this year too. But yeah USC needs to beat the snot out of Nebraska to renew my confidence in them as to being the #1 team.

I'm curious to see just how good Ga Tech really is. But next week we'll all find out. Really looking forward to that game I am.

I'm not sure if I underrated Oklahoma or overrated Miami. I suspect its the former. The Sooners looked real good.

Auburn looked like schlit last night. No easy way to say it.

Bama/Arkansas will be a nice game to watch before USC/Neb and Tech/BC

As I thought TCUs defense kept them in the game until the 4th quarter.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 09, 2007, 09:58:39 AM
...anything short of that Meg Ryan restraining order being lifted.

It'll never happen.  If she ever tries it, my lawyers will tear her apart.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 09, 2007, 10:07:30 AM
I also saw that South Carolina knocked off the Bulldogs...

Georgia should just put all the equipment in storage, shut down football operations, reallocate the resources to girls' gymnastics or something, and start rebuilding the football program for 2008. You cannot lose to the lowly Shamecocks at home and call yourself a real college football team.   

When Clemson lost at home to the Lamecocks in the last game of their regular season last year, they should have said "No thanks, we don't deserve to go" to the Music City Bowl invitation - it would have been the honorable thing to do, and it would have spared them the almost-as-bad indignity of losing to Kentucky.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 09, 2007, 10:30:36 AM
Quote
Lloyd Carr will be lucky if he lasts the season. 

Joe Paterno had just one winning season from 2000-2004.  A stint that included 2 six game losing streaks, and an overall record of 26-33 ( 1-7 against Michigan and Ohio State)  To hear the pundits JoePa was  relic of the past and would soon be put out to pasture.  Of course none of the pundits took into account the class of the Penn State administration who had no thought of firing Paterno, given his totality of accomplisments.

The same holds true for Lloyd Carr and Michigan.  Like Paterno, Carr will leave when he decides to.   


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 09, 2007, 10:59:14 AM
I hate to tell you this oilcan, but the Gamecocks are game and will challenge Florida for the SEC East, especially having Florida at home this year.  I expect SC to finish no worse than 9-3 and as good as 11-1.  Spurrier has them ready to play.

Yea, Cap, there isn't much hope for Jim.  I hope for the sake of the Big Ten Michigan does muddle through a 5-7 or 6-6 year, otherwise these showings are a very sad reflection of the strength of the Big Ten this year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 09, 2007, 12:21:41 PM
I hate to tell you this oilcan, but the Gamecocks are game and will challenge Florida for the SEC East...

You obviously are not familiar with the Chicken Curse. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 09, 2007, 02:14:35 PM

i don't understand the georgia line (unless it's only local...i live in so. car. and maybe they're balancing). the game is in athens which is normally worth 2 points for home field but i really saw a lot more from uga than the cocks last weekend...

well, i understand it now which is why i'm in construction and not de-construction (an oddsmaker). like a lot of other dawgs fans, i was blinded by the headlines...wishful thinking that qb stafford had come into his own and that georgia's young O and D lines were better than anticipated. none of the above, unfortunately.

the overall quality of the game sucked for BOTH teams. let's not get too excited about so. carolina's play either. fortunately both squads have good field goal kickers or this really would have been a yawner. and it was not a "defensive battle" but rather the very flat result of a plethora of missed offensive opportunities on both sides (tho mostly uga).

a lot of the georgia blogs are screaming about richt's decision to go for the FG on 4th and 15. co'mon, stafford is 19 of 44 and the ground game was going nowhere...give the guy a break. it wasn't bad management but lousy execution that did ga in.

georgia is going to win their share of games this year (probably 8-4 or 9-3). the important issue is to season this present team for what should be a monster campaign next year assuming no injuries and an adequate learning curve.

like i said...i'm optimistic...



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 09, 2007, 02:29:01 PM
Okay, I can understand the Cards dropping a slot in the polls after that miserable first half showing against Middle Tennessee State.   In fact, I'm surprised they weren't penalized further.

 But how do the Chokenuts rise two pins after struggling mightily against the Akron Steel Belteds, a team Middle Tennessee State would beat through the kindly auspices of the "mercy rule?"

Is it just a numbers game?  Are there just too many delusional midwest sports editors and coaches with votes in these polls that they will continue to give the Suckeyes a pass until they are finally routed by a team from a BCS-eligible conference?

When do the Sucknuts play Appy State anyway?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 09, 2007, 02:33:03 PM
  I hope for the sake of the Big Ten Michigan does muddle through a 5-7 or 6-6 year, otherwise these showing are a very sad reflection of the strength of the Big Ten this year.

I wouldn't worry too much about the strength of the Big Ten just because Michigan is off to a bad start.  The beauty of college football these days is that it is more competitive than ever.  It started when the NCAA reduced scholarships for the big guys from 95 to 85.  As the regular season expanded more and more of the mid majors and smaller schools were needed to provide the opposition, most always at the homes of the Sooners, Buckeyes, Gators, etc.  These larger pay days help the smaller schools improve their facilities and conditioning programs.  Now with the season at 12 games the FCS schools are beginning to share in more of the wealth.  And, Bowl Games have exploded giving more teams the year ending reward and money for a good season.

All of this means that it is hardly a surprise anymore when a South Florida can beat Auburn , Lousiville and West Virginia in successive years,   or that Mid-Am schools  can beat Big Ten opponents, or that the TCUs and Boise States of the world crack preseason rankings.

All of this has led to college football enjoying the largest attendance in its history and explains why a playoff system will continue to flounder as a bad idea.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 09, 2007, 10:01:02 PM
The insanity... delivered.  Begin with a reasonable statement.

All of this means that it is hardly a surprise anymore when a South Florida can beat Auburn , Lousiville and West Virginia in successive years,   or that Mid-Am schools  can beat Big Ten opponents, or that the TCUs and Boise States of the world crack preseason rankings.

Follow up with a reasonable deduction:
All of this has led to college football enjoying the largest attendance in its history...


...and finish up with a near perfect brain hemorraghing non sequitor:

... and explains why a playoff system will continue to flounder as a bad idea.
   ???   ???    ???

He's unique, at least.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 10, 2007, 01:06:27 AM
Jake concluded:

Quote
...and finish up with a near perfect brain hemorraghing non sequitor:(sic)


This was not one of your better efforts.

As Bernie Machen learned in the "Come to Jesus" talk from Gordon Gee:  64 teams in Bowl Games is a lot better for college football than 16 in a playoff.  Bernie has not been heard from since on the subject.

You do have to wonder how a University President whose conference has won 3 BCS titles and averages 7 teams a year in Bowls could not figure this out on his own.

But once it was explained to him he seems to have had an epiphany.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 10, 2007, 01:33:59 AM
You do have to wonder how a University President whose conference has won 3 BCS titles and averages 7 teams a year in Bowls could not figure this out on his own.

But once it was explained to him he seems to have had an epiphany.

Are you saying he was visited by Three Wiseguys?

As already noted,  there's no need to disrupt the 50 or so WhoGivesaSchit Bowls in order to find out, really, who's the best team in the country.

Last year's NC showed that guessing wasn't a good way to come about it.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 10, 2007, 02:55:50 AM
...and finish up with a near perfect brain hemorraghing non sequitor:

He's unique, at least.

Unique is a nice way of putting it.  Michigan, who persons in this forums felt had the best talent in the Big Ten, starts the year with two humiliating losses, and Jimm tries his best to put a silver lining on it.  If Michigan State doesn't beat Michigan this year, I will be shocked.  The Wolverines are hopeless.  Even in Paterno's losing seasons, he didn't put up two stinkers like Carr did at the start of this year.  As for scholarships, given how many Div. 1-A teams there are now (Jimm seemingly unable to distinguish a Div. 1-A from a Div. 1-AA team) it is surprising there is any talent left at the Div. 1-AA level, but as I noted before a lot of great high school talent ends up at schools like Appalachian State, but one would be pretty hard pressed to say that that level of talent matches any team in the Big Ten, let alone Michigan.  9/1 will live on as the most ignominious date in Michigan football history, even if the Wolverines go 0-12 this year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 10, 2007, 03:00:43 AM
Funny that you would bring up the playoff debate so early in the season, jimm.  Is this your way of trying to cut off the debate before it starts?  As has been said so many times before, a playoff system doesn't mean that other bowl games can't be played.  It just means that the 8 or 16 best teams in the country should have a shot at the national championship, not just the BCS annointed top two.  Need I remind you, that had not a few key votes gone Florida's way, we would have seen an Ohio St.-Michigan rematch last year, and the world may never have known how over-rated these two teams were.

BTW, jake, Louisville certainly doesn't lack for offense.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 10, 2007, 06:06:48 AM
You have to love how these polls work.  Oklahoma scores an impressive victory over Miami and they leapfrog to no. 3 in AP.  Too bad Appy State beat Michigan, otherwise Oregon might have soared into the Top Ten, as it is they could only manage 19.  At this stage of this season, it is obvious no one has any clear idea how good any of these teams are.  I was glad to see Appalachian State got 19 votes this week.  They didn't get any votes last week after knocking off Michigan. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 10, 2007, 06:22:13 AM
...and finish up with a near perfect brain hemorraghing non sequitor:

He's unique, at least.

Unique is a nice way of putting it.  Michigan, who persons in this forums felt had the best talent in the Big Ten, starts the year with two humiliating losses, and Jimm tries his best to put a silver lining on it.  If Michigan State doesn't beat Michigan this year, I will be shocked.  The Wolverines are hopeless.  Even in Paterno's losing seasons, he didn't put up two stinkers like Carr did at the start of this year.  As for scholarships, given how many Div. 1-A teams there are now (Jimm seemingly unable to distinguish a Div. 1-A from a Div. 1-AA team) it is surprising there is any talent left at the Div. 1-AA level, but as I noted before a lot of great high school talent ends up at schools like Appalachian State, but one would be pretty hard pressed to say that that level of talent matches any team in the Big Ten, let alone Michigan.  9/1 will live on as the most ignominious date in Michigan football history, even if the Wolverines went 0-12 this year.

Simply put Jim, Michigan(and Carr) choked.

In Carr's case if you performed the heimlich on him, a lemon rather than a football would most likely pop out.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 10, 2007, 08:20:15 AM
Simply put Jim, Michigan(and Carr) choked.

In Carr's case if you performed the heimlich on him, a lemon rather than a football would most likely pop out.
[/quote]

Similar things, although maybe not as crude, were said about JoePa during from 2000-2004. 

But Penn State never wavered in support of Joe, and Michigan is not about to abandon Carr, who has yet to have a losing season.

But, I can understand your animosity to Carr.  He owns Penn State and your Nittany Lions.

The last time Michigan lost to Paterno and Penn State the world had not yet heard of Monica Lewisnsky.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 10, 2007, 09:20:48 AM

 Similar things, although maybe not as crude, were said about JoePa during from 2000-2004. 

But Penn State never wavered in support of Joe, and Michigan is not about to abandon Carr, who has yet to have a losing season.

But, I can understand your animosity to Carr.  He owns Penn State and your Nittany Lions.

The last time Michigan lost to Paterno and Penn State the world had not yet heard of Monica Lewisnsky.

Never said they "were" going to abandon the guy James.(They should, but they won't)

 As far as owning the Lions thats a matter of perspective. When Carr has as many wins and national titles under his belt as JoPa then he'll have earned a couple of bad seasons. Right now he couldn't carry Joe's jock.(And he never will) He'll certainly never live down the loss to App St thats for sure.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 10, 2007, 09:23:41 AM
 As already noted,  there's no need to disrupt the 50 or so WhoGivesaSchit Bowls in order to find out, really, who's the best team in the country.
Last year's NC showed that guessing wasn't a good way to come about it.
[/quote]

Jake,

I remind you it was not  long ago that Louisville was playing in GMAC, Humanitarian, Liberty, and Pasadena Bowls.
Now that the Cardinals have been to the BCS Orange Bowl you call the others "schit"?  Predictably hypocritical of you.

As for a playoff system providing us with more closely contested Championship games than last year, how do you explain the  Giants' performances in 1961 and 2000?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 10, 2007, 09:55:42 AM
Once again, jimmah, the BCS Championship Game has rendered all bowl games irrelevant as far as the big picture is concerned.  There was a time when two or three bowls could bill themselves as having the national title on the line, but thanks to the BCS they now can only hope to have attractive inter-conference match-ups, such as the Boise St.-Oklahoma game last year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 10, 2007, 09:56:45 AM
Never said they "were" going to abandon the guy James.(They should, but they won't)[/quote]

Captain, that would be an indfensible position.

Carr has been a head coach for 12 years, all in the Big Ten.  Paterno and Penn State have been in the Big Ten 14 years.

The records?

Penn State 107-52(67%) -- Big Ten 63-49(56%)

Michigan 113-38(75%) --- Big Ten 75-21 (78%)

Head to head  Michiagn is 6-2 against Penn State

Paterno has been head coach at Penn State since 1966 and has won 2 National Championships
Carr has won 1 in his 12 year head coaching career. He has never had a losing season and never missed taking his team to a Bowl Game.

This is not an argument over who is the better coach.

It is a statement of the obvious.
Just as Penn State did not turn its back on Paterno in the dark days of the early 2000's, Michigan is not going to abandon Carr, no matter how painful and embarassing the loss to Appalachian State was.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 10, 2007, 10:08:18 AM
Once again, jimmah, the BCS Championship Game has rendered all bowl games irrelevant as far as the big picture is concerned.  There was a time when two or three bowls could bill themselves as having the national title on the line, but thanks to the BCS they now can only hope to have attractive inter-conference match-ups, such as the Boise St.-Oklahoma game last year.

Yeah,   that was a finish a playoff game never would have delivered.

And all those irrelevant bowls keep growing and growing.  Silly me, I laid out a grand  to escape the winter cold of Ohio for the "irrelevance" of watching OSU beat Notre Dame.  I guess the other 75,000 in the seats and the thousands of others outside also missed the "irrelevance" memo.  Another game in a setting and time that a playoff could not have produced short of the title game.   As long as there are people like me who shell out the dough for the travel and the games the Bowls will continue to thrive.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 10, 2007, 10:12:32 AM
I was trying to remember the last time Penn St. won a national championship and I was surprised it was back in '86.  Comparing Carr's record with Paterno's over the last 12 years is not really fair, since Paterno's best years are behind him, although he seems to have the Nittany Lions back in the hunt after two good years.  It had been a long drought between 1994 and 2005.  Carr has a long way to go to match Paterno's overall record, 365-121-3 (75%), and a year like this one isn't going to help him any.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 10, 2007, 10:14:50 AM
Silly me, I laid out a grand  to escape the winter cold of Ohio for the "irrelevance" of watching OSU beat Notre Dame. 

And to think that was supposed to be the prelude to the 2006-07 national championship game. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 10, 2007, 10:44:23 AM
I was trying to remember the last time Penn St. won a national championship and I was surprised it was back in '86.  Comparing Carr's record with Paterno's over the last 12 years is not really fair, since Paterno's best years are behind him, although he seems to have the Nittany Lions back in the hunt after two good years.  It had been a long drought between 1994 and 2005.  Carr has a long way to go to match Paterno's overall record, 365-121-3 (75%), and a year like this one isn't going to help him any.

As I said, the argument is not over whose record is better, although your logic of discounting JoePa's years in the Big Ten escapes me, since he had a perfect 12-0 record one year and a Rose Bowl title, not to mention a 3-1 record against SEC teams in Bowl Games.

Of course, those were in "irrelevant Bowls" ;D


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 10, 2007, 11:15:21 AM
By his own measure, Paterno's years in the Big Ten have not been his best years, but there you were comparing them to Lloyd Carr's 12 years at Michigan. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 10, 2007, 11:18:06 AM

 Michigan is not going to abandon Carr, no matter how painful and embarassing the loss to Appalachian State was.


Of course they won't. Carr should just resign.

Oh and Jim, could you get some help on learning how to use the quote mechanism properly?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 10, 2007, 11:21:51 AM
Maybe you could lay out a grand for lessons.  ;D


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 10, 2007, 11:40:38 AM

 Michigan is not going to abandon Carr, no matter how painful and embarassing the loss to Appalachian State was.


Of course they won't. Carr should just resign.

Oh and Jim, could you get some help on learning how to use the quote mechanism properly?

Direct your advice to Lloyd then.

And did you realize that, according to Dzimas, Penn State prefers to coddle a septaugenarian coach past his prime winning years, and has for the last 14 years?

Scandalous, I tell you, just scandalous.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 10, 2007, 03:11:37 PM
Okay fine rock on with all that, but you've wasted enough of our time for now James.

Now,

Midd Tenn layed 48 points on Louisville. Lets have everyone chime in with how many points they think the Blue Raiders will manage against the Bayou Bengals. I'll start it off with a prediction of 6 points.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: desdemona222b on September 10, 2007, 03:51:01 PM
I'll give them 3 pts against LSU.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 10, 2007, 05:03:22 PM
As already noted,  there's no need to disrupt the 50 or so WhoGivesaSchit Bowls in order to find out, really, who's the best team in the country.
Last year's NC showed that guessing wasn't a good way to come about it.
(end Jake quote, cause Jimmah doesn't know how to do this correctly)

(Start Jimmah quote)
Jake,

I remind you it was not  long ago that Louisville was playing in GMAC, Humanitarian, Liberty, and Pasadena Bowls.
Now that the Cardinals have been to the BCS Orange Bowl you call the others "schit"?  Predictably hypocritical of you.

Jimmah, I've argued here before that 90% of your problem is reading comprehension and here you go providing another example.   Read again, Jimmah.  I did not say "schit" bowls, I said "Who gives a schit? Bowls."

In the case of my L'ville Cards, for years, the only people who gave a schit about their bowl game lived in L'ville and the fans of whatever godforsaken burg we played against in our respective "whogivesaschit Bowl."

I was fine with that Jimmah, and I'm assuming, so are you, since it's been one of the keystone's of your ridiculous argument for years now.

I don't know how that equates to being "hypocritical" now that my Cards may have a chance at the National Championship -- which we did not get last year exactly because of the poor job "eyeballing" does in determining who should make the final two for the Mythical Champeenship.   As Dzimas so correctly pointed out, we almost had TWO lemons in the NCG last year instead of just your chumpzilla team. 

That example alone should be enough to make the scales fall from your eyes... but we've had experience w. your reptilian recalcitrance before, so let's say I'm not ordering any party favors just yet. 


As for a playoff system providing us with more closely contested Championship games than last year, how do you explain the  Giants' performances in 1961 and 2000?

I don't know why you insist on including a league based pro system, where the teams are far far more in parity than they are in college football in your analysis.  The two leagues are simply not compatible.

That said, an occassional upset is what makes both pro and college football exciting, and hence a playoff would make that cumulative event -- the NCG -- even more so.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 10, 2007, 05:33:19 PM
Lower Division as in 1-aa reflects only the size of the student body, not the strength of the football program as evidenced in the AUS/UM game and L'ville/Mid-Tenn game last night.


Is this even true?

It was a long long time ago, but when I was in S.F.,   S.F. State had what I'm almost positive was a Div III  football program, even though it has a HUGE student body.   USF, until just before I started had a Div I basketball program and was maybe 1/4 the size of SF State.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 10, 2007, 05:43:46 PM
What a great weekend of college football.

I particularly enjoyed the Boise State vs. Washington game.  I figured Washington could keep up with them--for them to win convincingly was icing on the cake.   


Title: Re: Week 2(here it is Steve)
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 10, 2007, 05:45:43 PM

TEXAS 28, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY 20:  This is the only one that surprises me.  Do you really think it will be this close?

OKLAHOMA 20, MIAMI 17: Ok...no wait...this one too...  Miami has a lot of proving to me before I would give them the benefit of the doubt again...


I guess I should actuallay start "betting" more...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 10, 2007, 10:28:11 PM

Jake opined:
   
Read again, Jimmah.  I did not say "schit" bowls, I said "Who gives a schit? Bowls.

Wow!  It was a subtle point I cannot believe I missed it.   Thanks for clearing it up for me.



Jake continued:

In the case of my L'ville Cards, for years, the only people who gave a schit about their bowl game lived in L'ville and the fans of whatever godforsaken burg we played against in our respective "whogivesaschit Bowl."I was fine with that Jimmah, and I'm assuming, so are you, since it's been one of the keystone's of your ridiculous argument for years now.

Thanks Jake for recognizing the rivalries that develop from Bowl Games.  I don't remember a "godforsaken burg" that Lousivlle played, although your record against Mid-Am teams, well, in your words, not mine, sucks.



Jake, undaunted, rambles on:

I don't know how that equates to being "hypocritical" now that my Cards may have a chance at the National Championship -- which we did not get last year exactly because of the poor job "eyeballing" does in determining who should make the final two for the Mythical Champeenship.  That example alone should be enough to make the scales fall from your eyes... but we've had experience w. your reptilian recalcitrance before, so let's say I'm not ordering any party favors just yet. 

Well, Jake, maybe had your Cards been able to beat that team from the "burgs" in New Jersey Lousiville would have supplanted Florida.



Jake, but your tortured logic hits new lows with the following:

I don't know why you insist on including a league based pro system, where the teams are far far more in parity than they are in college football in your analysis.  The two leagues are simply not compatible.That said, an occassional upset is what makes both pro and college football exciting, and hence a playoff would make that cumulative event -- the NCG -- even more so.

So let me get this straight.  Ohio State was proven a fraud because of a blow out against Florida?
But any similar blow out in the NFL is proof of parity?

Joseph Heller must be your favorite author.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 10, 2007, 11:17:29 PM
Jake,  remember:


Ohio State  was supposed to lose to Miami and won.
Ohio State  was supposed to beat Florida and got beat.
In both seasons the trip to the title game needed a win over Michigan.

It does not get much better than that.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 10, 2007, 11:42:32 PM
Jimmah, sometimes I wonder if you can read and speak the English language.  Did you actually graduate high school and attend a college, or are you a mere hanger-on?


Jake opined:
   
Read again, Jimmah.  I did not say "schit" bowls, I said "Who gives a schit? Bowls.

Wow!  It was a subtle point I cannot believe I missed it.   Thanks for clearing it up for me.


No. Please, allow me to apologize.   I should have kept it all in single syllable words.  Perhaps then you'd have garnered the distinction.   As it was, mere scatology got you completely flummoxed.  My bad.

Jake continued:

In the case of my L'ville Cards, for years, the only people who gave a schit about their bowl game lived in L'ville and the fans of whatever godforsaken burg we played against in our respective "whogivesaschit Bowl."I was fine with that Jimmah, and I'm assuming, so are you, since it's been one of the keystone's of your ridiculous argument for years now.

Thanks Jake for recognizing the rivalries that develop from Bowl Games.  I don't remember a "godforsaken burg" that Lousivlle (sic) played, although your record against Mid-Am teams, well, in your words, not mine, sucks.


And what, pray tell has that got to do with having a playoff system or not, you illiterate ponce? Do "rivalries" not "develop" in any recurring interaction -- like with a playoff system?  Please don't rely on some kind of slotting philippic, either -- because you know as well as I that all of that is going to the wayside in the "WGAS Bowls" thanks to the BCS system anyway.  

 I mean, I just don't see why you bothered to comment here?  You made zero points to the argument at hand.  Are you that ineffective at simple rhetoric?

I accept that you feel the need to insult my team, even if it's embarassingly obvious that you're grasping at straws.  Your problem there is I don't care.  I know they sucked until about five years ago.  Believe me, that's a lot easier to accept than having to watch some storied, sweater vest of a college fall on hard times after experiencing decades of glory.  Especially when future prospects for said team are so ineffably dim.




Jake, undaunted, rambles on:

(What of any of the above would "daunt" me, exactly?  Your spittle flecked maunderings?)


I don't know how that equates to being "hypocritical" now that my Cards may have a chance at the National Championship -- which we did not get last year exactly because of the poor job "eyeballing" does in determining who should make the final two for the Mythical Champeenship.  That example alone should be enough to make the scales fall from your eyes... but we've had experience w. your reptilian recalcitrance before, so let's say I'm not ordering any party favors just yet. 

Well, Jake, maybe had your Cards been able to beat that team from the "burgs" in New Jersey Lousiville would have supplanted Florida.


What the heck does that have to do with the price of tea, stemwit?  Or -- again -- with the argument at hand?  The fact is that the Cards would've stomped your pathetic Suckeyes, just like Rutgers, WVA and likely Cincinnati (not to mention 2/3's of the SEC, much of the Big 12 and one or two ACC  teams) would have too.  The fact is your team did not belong in that game, Jimmah, but only a playoff would have set things right.   As it was, a farce was foisted upon the public, with the willing aid of clueless fanboy sportswriters from the Midwest and coaches without enough time to actually rate which teams are the best.

The system is broken, Jimmah.  Your crappy team just put an exclamation point on the fact.  Your crappy team and Meats and Chickens, that is.

Jake, but your tortured logic hits new lows with the following:

I don't know why you insist on including a league based pro system, where the teams are far far more in parity than they are in college football in your analysis.  The two leagues are simply not compatible.That said, an occassional upset is what makes both pro and college football exciting, and hence a playoff would make that cumulative event -- the NCG -- even more so.

So let me get this straight.  Ohio State was proven a fraud because of a blow out against Florida?
But any similar blow out in the NFL is proof of parity?

Joseph Heller must be your favorite author.


Actually, Heller is way overrated, but thanks for the Google reference so that at least you got the origin of the phrase you use inaccurately here. (Quelle suprise!)  

Talk about "tortured logic?"  I just said that the two systems are incompatible, because there is parity in the NFL, and the playoff system reveals it.  Teams that have been "great" all year, can still get caught short and "blown" out on any given Sunday.   That's because, largely, pro athletic teams have a similar level of athletes, at least on the first string.

 Not true in the contest between your Sucknuts and Florida, Jimmah.  Everyone outside the state of Ohio knew that your team had one athlete to Florida's ten.  The NCG proved it, of course, but only to the detriment of many more deserving teams that deserved that slot.  Teams that played in better leagues than the crapola Big Ten, and who would have given college football fandom a much better experience in the NCG, had they been allowed to gain that spot through merit, through perhaps a single elimination tournament.

As always Jimmah, I pray a clue will come upon you.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 10, 2007, 11:49:38 PM
Mr.Horse,I do believe the size of the full time undergrad population is all that counts.SF State probably has a lot of part timers and Night students?I know when I "Studied" at Northeastern that when one took into account the continuing ed students and the night programs the total population more than doubled  but the full time undergrad population is what makes them Div 1aa at least that's what we figured out one day when we made it from our Frat house as far as the Cask&Flagon across from NU.We never actually made it across the street that day to Campus cause our brains hurt from all the thinking.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 11, 2007, 12:03:42 AM
The LSU and ND results are the kind that are like manna from heaven, I should've flown to Vegas just to get the job done and fly back with an easy ten grand.  Those obvious opportunities are few and far between, especially as teams are becoming more "fairly valued." 

Dammit.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 11, 2007, 12:17:14 AM
Jake opines:Believe me, that's a lot easier to accept than having to watch some storied, sweater vest of a college fall on hard times after experiencing decades of glory.  Especially when future prospects for said team are so ineffably dim.

Well, I guess you must be right.  Washington will kill us, so will Penn State, and a loss to Michigan will make Carr a hero.  The Horseshoe will be closed and famine and a dust storm will leave old Columbus  a Ghost Town. Who could doubt such a sage as you, Jake? 

Let the playoffs begin.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 11, 2007, 01:03:02 AM
This is fucking fun!! 
Jimm-Illinois or Wisky available?  I am not picky, just want to be in the 'Shoe. 
No, I'm married....


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 11, 2007, 01:14:52 AM
Okay, I can understand the Cards dropping a slot in the polls after that miserable first half showing against Middle Tennessee State.   In fact, I'm surprised they weren't penalized further.

 But how do the Chokenuts rise two pins after struggling mightily against the Akron Steel Belteds, a team Middle Tennessee State would beat through the kindly auspices of the "mercy rule?"
It's called defense, jake, and your Birds should try it some day.  The field goal was enough; Akron wasn't going to get in the end zone, period.  OSU's defense will be what takes them wherever they go.  I figured them for 9-0 before Wisconsin, but right now, it looks like Washington's getting good.  Probably the coaching; maybe ND will hire the guy after they fire Weis.

Big move to the City of Broad Shoulders tomorrow.  No picks this week; not even sure who's playing except, of course, the UM - ND game will be just no end of fun!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 11, 2007, 01:18:01 AM
Quote
Simply put Jim, Michigan(and Carr) choked.

In Carr's case if you performed the heimlich on him, a lemon rather than a football would most likely pop out.

Similar things, although maybe not as crude, were said about JoePa during from 2000-2004. 

But Penn State never wavered in support of Joe, and Michigan is not about to abandon Carr, who has yet to have a losing season.
One recalls similar statements from the same poster about Larry "Most Fired" Coker last year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 11, 2007, 06:50:10 AM
Lower Division as in 1-aa reflects only the size of the student body, not the strength of the football program as evidenced in the AUS/UM game and L'ville/Mid-Tenn game last night.


Is this even true?

It was a long long time ago, but when I was in S.F.,   S.F. State had what I'm almost positive was a Div III  football program, even though it has a HUGE student body.   USF, until just before I started had a Div I basketball program and was maybe 1/4 the size of SF State.



Well "technically" Temple University has over 34000 students enrolled and claims to be the 27th largest university in America. http://www.temple.edu/about.html



I think Texas A&M has around 45000. USC is what 30 thousandish??


Title: Re: Week 2(here it is Steve)
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 11, 2007, 07:00:28 AM

TEXAS 28, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY 20:  This is the only one that surprises me.  Do you really think it will be this close?

OKLAHOMA 20, MIAMI 17: Ok...no wait...this one too...  Miami has a lot of proving to me before I would give them the benefit of the doubt again...


I guess I should actuallay start "betting" more...

I think I either underrated Oklahoma or overrated Miami SS. I suspect its the former.

As to the TCU game I'll stand by it as the final score doesn't do justice to just how tough a game this was for the Horns. The Horned Frogs defense did what I thought they would. Kept them in the game. Remember this game was tied at 10-10 after three quarters. A 4th quarter Frog fumble at their 20 and another turnover, this time an interception, again at their 20 sealed their fate. But the Frogs defense did their job and IMO did it well.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 11, 2007, 07:02:54 AM

Jake opined:
   
Read again, Jimmah.  I did not say "schit" bowls, I said "Who gives a schit? Bowls.

Wow!  It was a subtle point I cannot believe I missed it.   Thanks for clearing it up for me.



Jake continued:

In the case of my L'ville Cards, for years, the only people who gave a schit about their bowl game lived in L'ville and the fans of whatever godforsaken burg we played against in our respective "whogivesaschit Bowl."I was fine with that Jimmah, and I'm assuming, so are you, since it's been one of the keystone's of your ridiculous argument for years now.

Thanks Jake for recognizing the rivalries that develop from Bowl Games.  I don't remember a "godforsaken burg" that Lousivlle played, although your record against Mid-Am teams, well, in your words, not mine, sucks.



Jake, undaunted, rambles on:

I don't know how that equates to being "hypocritical" now that my Cards may have a chance at the National Championship -- which we did not get last year exactly because of the poor job "eyeballing" does in determining who should make the final two for the Mythical Champeenship.  That example alone should be enough to make the scales fall from your eyes... but we've had experience w. your reptilian recalcitrance before, so let's say I'm not ordering any party favors just yet. 

Well, Jake, maybe had your Cards been able to beat that team from the "burgs" in New Jersey Lousiville would have supplanted Florida.



Jake, but your tortured logic hits new lows with the following:

I don't know why you insist on including a league based pro system, where the teams are far far more in parity than they are in college football in your analysis.  The two leagues are simply not compatible.That said, an occassional upset is what makes both pro and college football exciting, and hence a playoff would make that cumulative event -- the NCG -- even more so.

So let me get this straight.  Ohio State was proven a fraud because of a blow out against Florida?
But any similar blow out in the NFL is proof of parity?

Joseph Heller must be your favorite author.


Someone PLEASE sign James up for a course in figuring out the quote mechanism on this forum.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 11, 2007, 07:07:34 AM
Jimmah, sometimes I wonder if you can read and speak the English language.  Did you actually graduate high school and attend a college, or are you a mere hanger-on?


Jake opined:
   
Read again, Jimmah.  I did not say "schit" bowls, I said "Who gives a schit? Bowls.

Wow!  It was a subtle point I cannot believe I missed it.   Thanks for clearing it up for me.


No. Please, allow me to apologize.   I should have kept it all in single syllable words.  Perhaps then you'd have garnered the distinction.   As it was, mere scatology got you completely flummoxed.  My bad.

Jake continued:

In the case of my L'ville Cards, for years, the only people who gave a schit about their bowl game lived in L'ville and the fans of whatever godforsaken burg we played against in our respective "whogivesaschit Bowl."I was fine with that Jimmah, and I'm assuming, so are you, since it's been one of the keystone's of your ridiculous argument for years now.

Thanks Jake for recognizing the rivalries that develop from Bowl Games.  I don't remember a "godforsaken burg" that Lousivlle (sic) played, although your record against Mid-Am teams, well, in your words, not mine, sucks.


And what, pray tell has that got to do with having a playoff system or not, you illiterate ponce? Do "rivalries" not "develop" in any recurring interaction -- like with a playoff system?  Please don't rely on some kind of slotting philippic, either -- because you know as well as I that all of that is going to the wayside in the "WGAS Bowls" thanks to the BCS system anyway.  

 I mean, I just don't see why you bothered to comment here?  You made zero points to the argument at hand.  Are you that ineffective at simple rhetoric?

I accept that you feel the need to insult my team, even if it's embarassingly obvious that you're grasping at straws.  Your problem there is I don't care.  I know they sucked until about five years ago.  Believe me, that's a lot easier to accept than having to watch some storied, sweater vest of a college fall on hard times after experiencing decades of glory.  Especially when future prospects for said team are so ineffably dim.




Jake, undaunted, rambles on:

(What of any of the above would "daunt" me, exactly?  Your spittle flecked maunderings?)


I don't know how that equates to being "hypocritical" now that my Cards may have a chance at the National Championship -- which we did not get last year exactly because of the poor job "eyeballing" does in determining who should make the final two for the Mythical Champeenship.  That example alone should be enough to make the scales fall from your eyes... but we've had experience w. your reptilian recalcitrance before, so let's say I'm not ordering any party favors just yet. 

Well, Jake, maybe had your Cards been able to beat that team from the "burgs" in New Jersey Lousiville would have supplanted Florida.


What the heck does that have to do with the price of tea, stemwit?  Or -- again -- with the argument at hand?  The fact is that the Cards would've stomped your pathetic Suckeyes, just like Rutgers, WVA and likely Cincinnati (not to mention 2/3's of the SEC, much of the Big 12 and one or two ACC  teams) would have too.  The fact is your team did not belong in that game, Jimmah, but only a playoff would have set things right.   As it was, a farce was foisted upon the public, with the willing aid of clueless fanboy sportswriters from the Midwest and coaches without enough time to actually rate which teams are the best.

The system is broken, Jimmah.  Your crappy team just put an exclamation point on the fact.  Your crappy team and Meats and Chickens, that is.

Jake, but your tortured logic hits new lows with the following:

I don't know why you insist on including a league based pro system, where the teams are far far more in parity than they are in college football in your analysis.  The two leagues are simply not compatible.That said, an occassional upset is what makes both pro and college football exciting, and hence a playoff would make that cumulative event -- the NCG -- even more so.

So let me get this straight.  Ohio State was proven a fraud because of a blow out against Florida?
But any similar blow out in the NFL is proof of parity?

Joseph Heller must be your favorite author.


Actually, Heller is way overrated, but thanks for the Google reference so that at least you got the origin of the phrase you use inaccurately here. (Quelle suprise!)  

Talk about "tortured logic?"  I just said that the two systems are incompatible, because there is parity in the NFL, and the playoff system reveals it.  Teams that have been "great" all year, can still get caught short and "blown" out on any given Sunday.   That's because, largely, pro athletic teams have a similar level of athletes, at least on the first string.

 Not true in the contest between your Sucknuts and Florida, Jimmah.  Everyone outside the state of Ohio knew that your team had one athlete to Florida's ten.  The NCG proved it, of course, but only to the detriment of many more deserving teams that deserved that slot.  Teams that played in better leagues than the crapola Big Ten, and who would have given college football fandom a much better experience in the NCG, had they been allowed to gain that spot through merit, through perhaps a single elimination tournament.

As always Jimmah, I pray a clue will come upon you.

This is sometimes used way to often but in this case I really am LMAO. Thanks Jake.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 11, 2007, 11:07:02 AM

One recalls similar statements from the same poster about Larry "Most Fired" Coker last year.
[/quote]

If you mean I defended Coker you are correct.

The chatroom mentality of firing the coach because he did not deliver on the Chatroom's expecttions is not a reasonable approach to building much of a program or tradition.

Paterno has had only a couple of standout seasons since joining the Big Ten and his last national title is over 20 years ago.  No one could seriously argue during his lean years in 2000-2004 that Joe needed to be pushed out of what is now a 41 year term, except of course the media and the chatrooms.

Bo Schembechler led Michigan into a national power without ever winnning a national championship and compiled a terrible won lost record in bowls.  Bo begat Moeller who slipped on a personal transgression and Michigan turned to another Bo assistant, Carr who is now in the 38th year of the Bo era.

Even the hype about John Cooper's inability to beat Michigan was overblown.  Cooper produced some great Ohio State teams and his tenure spanned one of the biggest expansions of facilities in Ohio State history.

All of the chatroom calls for instant championships continues to produce two distinct patterns.
Either a school has no patience and the coach is on a short leash( Mark Dantonio is,what, the third coach at MSU this decade?) or guys like Nick Saban use any success to run to another job for more money.  And who can blame Saban and others for that?  All of Urban Meyer's contracts have had outs for certain schools.

College Football is unique in sports in that the season is marked by great rivalries and season ending Bowl Games for the good teams.  Unreasonable expectations from bloggers and chatters are part of the game, too.  I prefer to  spend my time and money, though, following schools who develop over the long haul and who aren't consantly on the look-out for the latest  Paladin.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 11, 2007, 11:11:15 AM
Whiskeypriest


By the way, MickeyD's use of the word wisky in a previous post was a reference to Wisconsin I do believe.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 11, 2007, 11:14:57 AM
Funny that you are now noting that these haven't been the best years for Paterno in the Big Ten, when a few posts back you were comparing Carr to Paterno over the last 12 years.  I admire your resiliency, if nothing else jimmah.  I think it is natural that if a team wins a conference or national championship, fans expect them to do it again.  Expectations do run high, especially when coaches get the salaries they do today.  Paterno has had a great run.  At 80, I think it is time for him to bow at gracefully.  The last two years were something special and it seems he has one more good year in him, but I don't see him winning anymore championships.  


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 11:19:54 AM
USC has about 16,000 undergraduate students -- that's about 1/2 the total student poulation.

I'm pretty sure that SFSU had a similar number - I recall the total student population to be about 40,000, but yes a lot would be graduate students.


Title: Re: Week 2(here it is Steve)
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 11:21:19 AM

As to the TCU game I'll stand by it as the final score doesn't do justice to just how tough a game this was for the Horns.

I can't disagree.  I recall thinking that Texas was struggling when flipping through the channels.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 11:25:51 AM
By the way...USF (San Francisco) had about 5,000 undergraduate students -- are the rules different for basketball?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 11, 2007, 11:38:21 AM
Funny that you are now noting that these haven't been the best years for Paterno in the Big Ten, when a few posts back you were comparing Carr to Paterno over the last 12 years.   

If your standard of greatness is winning national championships that is fine.

But if that is how you measure your coach, be prepared to go though a lot of coaches.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 11, 2007, 03:10:45 PM


If you mean I defended Coker you are correct.


Actually if I recall correctly you basically avowed there was no way Coker was going to be fired. And I also think you seemed to, in that oh so cutsie $1000 superior little way you have about you, scoff at all of the "chatroom" doofii that thought otherwise.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 05:41:35 PM
I think there is a race on to see who can be the first to 50 posts and get that second star!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 05:45:12 PM
CC,

I think it was you that said you were tempted to leapfrog LSU over USC for #1  (#2 for WP).

Based on what we've seen so far, I would have no problem with that.  Obviously a number of AP voters are thinking the same thing.

If we see another total domination effort from LSU this week and anything less than a "convincing" effort from USC against Nebraska(even with a win), that is exactly what will most likely happen in the AP poll this next week. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 11, 2007, 06:00:32 PM
Okay, I can understand the Cards dropping a slot in the polls after that miserable first half showing against Middle Tennessee State.   In fact, I'm surprised they weren't penalized further.

 But how do the Chokenuts rise two pins after struggling mightily against the Akron Steel Belteds, a team Middle Tennessee State would beat through the kindly auspices of the "mercy rule?"

It's called defense, jake, and your Birds should try it some day.  The field goal was enough; Akron wasn't going to get in the end zone, period.

My Cards tried defense last year.  "Not as fun" they said.   "Let's keep the games closer to really enrage our fans" they said.

As for the Chokenuts, let's say "it's called defense" against the Akron Steel Belted Radials isn't really cutting it.  Maybe try "It's called the Steel Belteds suck, Jake."  A better analysis would be why the Chokenuts didn't attempt something called "offense" against such a pathetic bunch.  Maybe they should send a self addressed stamped envelope to "Ask the Cards?"


 
Big move to the City of Broad Shoulders tomorrow.  No picks this week; not even sure who's playing except, of course, the UM - ND game will be just no end of fun!

Jeezus, Whiskey, you're still moving??  Who's in charge of your moving company, Donatella Versace?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 11, 2007, 06:06:20 PM
USC has about 16,000 undergraduate students -- that's about 1/2 the total student poulation.


(Waggling Groucho Cigar and shooting eyebrows northward):  The other 1/2 is in the film school!

Badoom-cha!

Thanks you very much ladies and gentlemen and don't forget to tip your waiters!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 06:42:18 PM
There was some debate about Charlie Weiss earlier.  I think there is a double standard.  They gave this guy a huge extension after one season before he had really proven himself in my mind...

---------------------

Lifted from a temp story on ESPN.com

Notre Dame football dates to 1887. The current run, dating to last season, of four straight losses by 20 or more points is an Irish first.
Ty Willingham didn't get a free pass. Will Charlie Weis?

When Notre Dame trap-doored Tyrone Willingham after just three years on the job in 2004, it established a precedent for the next coach:

You've got three years, pal. Have it up and running at full speed or else.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3013932&sportCat=ncf


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 06:48:17 PM
Same idea--different take...

Dating back to last season, the Irish have lost four consecutive games by at least 20 points. Last time Notre Dame lost four straight by 20 or more? How does never sound? But then again, they've only been playing football in South Bend since 1887.

(One of the big knocks on Willingham, by the way, was too many blowout losses.)

--------

Oh yeah, and Ty Willingham in his 3rd season at a much worse Washington team that he inherited?   2-0


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 11, 2007, 08:01:58 PM

Oh yeah, and Ty Willingham in his 3rd season at a much worse Washington team that he inherited?   2-0

Well, then... I guess he learned his lesson, didn't he?   ;)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 08:34:11 PM
I never thought of it that way...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 08:35:12 PM
I know how much you all love Jeff Sagarin

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc07.htm

Conference Rankings...
 1  PAC-10              (A) =  82.10      80.93  (  1)     10
 2  SOUTHEASTERN        (A) =  80.39      80.62  (  2)     12
 3  BIG 12              (A) =  78.60      77.81  (  3)     12
 4  BIG TEN             (A) =  77.46      77.34  (  4)     11
 5  BIG EAST            (A) =  76.78      76.03  (  5)      8
 6  ATLANTIC COAST      (A) =  74.64      73.77  (  6)     12


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 08:38:24 PM
Teams

1 LSU
2 Oklahoma
3 USC
4 Texas


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 11, 2007, 08:39:10 PM
There was some debate about Charlie Weiss earlier.  I think there is a double standard.  They gave this guy a huge extension after one season before he had really proven himself in my mind..

Notre Dame was disappointing when it cut Willingham loose after just 3 years.
The 10 year extension for Weiss may be a statement that Notre Dame is not going to play " win a NC in 3 years " or hit the road, anymore.


Are the Chatroom stars equivalent to Buckeye Leaves on helmets? :D

Hey, I have a deal for you.  Get me 2 for the USC-OSU game in LA next September and I will  get you two for the rematch in Columbus in 09.  I have relatives in LA and an extra room for you and Mrs. Trojan Horse if you need a place to stay in Columbus.  I also know of a great Cuban Restaurant in Phoenix if you do make it there for the ASU-Trojan game on Thanksgiving.  


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 08:56:28 PM

Are the Chatroom stars equivalent to Buckeye Leaves on helmets? :D


Roughly...yes


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 08:59:54 PM
He has Appalachian State ranked #53



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 11, 2007, 09:10:35 PM
Games to watch this weekend...

Ohio State vs Washington.   - Ok well, Ohio State is not Boise State--but still...can the giant killers strike again?



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 11, 2007, 09:31:16 PM
Games to watch this weekend...

Ohio State vs Washington.   - Ok well, Ohio State is not Boise State--but still...can the giant killers strike again?



Gee, how many years ago would have Boise State been considered a "Giant" ?

Even Captain Cargo accepts TCU as a force to be reckoned with.

A'int college football, grand?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 11, 2007, 11:05:47 PM
Games to watch this weekend...

Ohio State vs Washington.   - Ok well, Ohio State is not Boise State--but still...can the giant killers strike again?



Gee, how many years ago would have Boise State been considered a "Giant" ?

Even Captain Cargo accepts TCU as a force to be reckoned with.

A'int college football, grand?

Even more cause for the removal of archaic prejudices from the process of deciding who plays in the Nat Champ Game.  Bring on a playoff system to give the Boise States and Horny Frogs a chance, Jimmah!

Sing it with me Jimmah!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 12:15:55 AM
Games to watch this weekend...

Ohio State vs Washington.   - Ok well, Ohio State is not Boise State--but still...can the giant killers strike again?



Gee, how many years ago would have Boise State been considered a "Giant" ?

Even Captain Cargo accepts TCU as a force to be reckoned with.

A'int college football, grand?

Even more cause for the removal of archaic prejudices from the process of deciding who plays in the Nat Champ Game.  Bring on a playoff system to give the Boise States and Horny Frogs a chance, Jimmah!

Sing it with me Jimmah!

Jake, you are terminally tone deaf.

Boise State hit the national stage last year only because of the Bowl System. 

Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 12, 2007, 02:32:36 AM
CC,

I think it was you that said you were tempted to leapfrog LSU over USC for #1  (#2 for WP).

Based on what we've seen so far, I would have no problem with that.  Obviously a number of AP voters are thinking the same thing.

If we see another total domination effort from LSU this week and anything less than a "convincing" effort from USC against Nebraska(even with a win), that is exactly what will most likely happen in the AP poll this next week. 

If Oklahoma can leapfrog Florida and West Virginia with an impressive win over unranked Miami then I don't see why LSU didn't vault to number one in its crushing win over previously 9th ranked Virginia Tech.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 12, 2007, 02:35:20 AM
Notre Dame football dates to 1887. The current run, dating to last season, of four straight losses by 20 or more points is an Irish first.
Ty Willingham didn't get a free pass. Will Charlie Weis?

It seems Willingham will have his day at UW.  Seems he has the Huskies ready to play, after the impressive victory they posted over Boise St.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 12, 2007, 02:41:08 AM
Jake, you are terminally tone deaf.

Boise State hit the national stage last year only because of the Bowl System. 

Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.

I guess you are assuming the WAC wouldn't get a playoff invite.  The WAC has been shut out of the bowl coalition.  It was Boise St's undefeated record and #8 ranking that earned them a spot in a BCS bowl,and I assume that would have been the case in a playoff scenario as well.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 12, 2007, 02:46:23 AM
Boise St. is a former Div. 1-AA national champion (1980).  I remember watching their great comeback victory over Eastern Kentucky.  Can't remember the name of the QB but he was as cool as ice on that final drive for the go-ahead score, after Eastern Kentucky had taken the lead back a short while before.  Not much unlike the Boise St.-Oklahoma game except on a smaller stage.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 12, 2007, 03:05:59 AM
I had to look it up but I recall it sounded like the San Fran mayor back around then.It was Joe Aliotti.That title game was the only one on TV each year as I recall for 1aa.Speaking of Washington my all time fave QB name is ex Huskie Sonny Sixkiller.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 12, 2007, 03:14:20 AM
You are right, bosox.  This article notes Aliotti hitting a big play in a game leading up to the championship game.  It was a memorable year for the Broncos,

http://boisestate.scout.com/2/628202.html


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 07:05:09 AM
I know how much you all love Jeff Sagarin

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc07.htm

Conference Rankings...
 1  PAC-10              (A) =  82.10      80.93  (  1)     10
 2  SOUTHEASTERN        (A) =  80.39      80.62  (  2)     12
 3  BIG 12              (A) =  78.60      77.81  (  3)     12
 4  BIG TEN             (A) =  77.46      77.34  (  4)     11
 5  BIG EAST            (A) =  76.78      76.03  (  5)      8
 6  ATLANTIC COAST      (A) =  74.64      73.77  (  6)     12


As well as the Pac 10 has done early on(16-4) I'm not surprised they edge out an 18-6 SEC. My matrix has the SEC a little closer but also trailing by a very small margin just like Jeff's. Auburn's loss to South Florida tipped the scales. If they win that game my matrix has the SEC leading. But again by a very small margin. There's no doubt that Michigan's bad start penalizes the Big 10 substantially and I actually have the Big East ahead of them.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 07:10:21 AM
Games to watch this weekend...

Ohio State vs Washington.   - Ok well, Ohio State is not Boise State--but still...can the giant killers strike again?



Gee, how many years ago would have Boise State been considered a "Giant" ?

Even Captain Cargo accepts TCU as a force to be reckoned with.

A'int college football, grand?

Well as usual you're half right Jim. I recognized TCU's "defense" as a force to be reckoned with. However I still had them losing that game.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 07:16:39 AM
CC,

I think it was you that said you were tempted to leapfrog LSU over USC for #1  (#2 for WP).

Based on what we've seen so far, I would have no problem with that.  Obviously a number of AP voters are thinking the same thing.

If we see another total domination effort from LSU this week and anything less than a "convincing" effort from USC against Nebraska(even with a win), that is exactly what will most likely happen in the AP poll this next week. 

If Oklahoma can leapfrog Florida and West Virginia with an impressive win over unranked Miami then I don't see why LSU didn't vault to number one in its crushing win over previously 9th ranked Virginia Tech.

But they garnered a lot of first place votes that were previously in the USC camp DZ, and made up a tremendous amount of ground towards first in one week.

Like someone said(SS?)if the Trojans stumble, even a little, against Nebraska and the Tigers dominate again against Mid Tenn I think you'll see even more defections. Personally I think alot of those voters that changed their tune were just waiting for a hero to emerge so they could follow their flag. LSU certainly looks the part of El Cid at the moment.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 07:22:03 AM

Jake, you are terminally tone deaf.

Boise State hit the national stage last year only because of the Bowl System. 

Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.


And you are terminally... Nah why say it what's the point?

Actually there would have been a very likely chance Boise would have been included in a playoff scenario James. Please do us a favor and stop talking just to hear your own voice. You have some football knowledge but you have to stop this obsession for continually letting your mouth outstrip that knowledge. Stay within yourself lad.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 08:57:29 AM

Jake, you are terminally tone deaf.

Boise State hit the national stage last year only because of the Bowl System. 

Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.


And you are terminally... Nah why say it what's the point?

Actually there would have been a very likely chance Boise would have been included in a playoff scenario James. Please do us a favor and stop talking just to hear your own voice. You have some football knowledge but you have to stop this obsession for continually letting your mouth outstrip that knowledge. Stay within yourself lad.

Boise State's win over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl is permanently enshrined into the great moments of College Football.  The winning play, a statue of liberty call on a two point conversion in overtime, would hever have been run in a playoff game.  And a Boise State/Oklahoma matchup would never have taken place in Phoenix at a sold out stadium on New Year's night had it been a playoff game.  In a playoff system Boise would have hosted Oklahoma in early December on a Saturday afternoon before a much smaller TV audience.




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 12, 2007, 09:29:12 AM
Nebraska is a much more formidable opponent than is Middle Tennesse St. so I don't know how LSU could expect to make up any ground on USC even if the Trojans have a tough time with the Cornhuskers, especially with the game at Lincoln.  If the Trojans lose, that's another story.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 10:41:41 AM

Jake, you are terminally tone deaf.

Boise State hit the national stage last year only because of the Bowl System. 

Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.


And you are terminally... Nah why say it what's the point?

Actually there would have been a very likely chance Boise would have been included in a playoff scenario James. Please do us a favor and stop talking just to hear your own voice. You have some football knowledge but you have to stop this obsession for continually letting your mouth outstrip that knowledge. Stay within yourself lad.

Boise State's win over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl is permanently enshrined into the great moments of College Football.  The winning play, a statue of liberty call on a two point conversion in overtime, would hever have been run in a playoff game.  And a Boise State/Oklahoma matchup would never have taken place in Phoenix at a sold out stadium on New Year's night had it been a playoff game.  In a playoff system Boise would have hosted Oklahoma in early December on a Saturday afternoon before a much smaller TV audience.


No no James, all playoff games wouldn't be boring ho-hum affairs just because you love bowl games.

I happen to love bowl games too. And I've said before I'm not all that gungho about a playoff system. But that doesn't change the fact that playoff games could and most likely would produce some great football moments.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 12, 2007, 10:46:46 AM
The West Virginia-South Florida match-up looks more interesting now that the Bulls knocked off Auburn. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 10:54:01 AM
Nebraska is a much more formidable opponent than is Middle Tennesse St. so I don't know how LSU could expect to make up any ground on USC even if the Trojans have a tough time with the Cornhuskers, especially with the game at Lincoln.  If the Trojans lose, that's another story.

With computers you might be right DZ.

But with pollsters thats a different story. Pollsters would most likely see a struggling USC as a weakness and turn to the more dominant team. As far as the computers go, its just as much of a crapshoot. Because there are no set parameters on how the computer matrix has to be set up. Ergo not all computer polls "think" alike any more than the people doing the polls do.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 12:16:32 PM

Gee, how many years ago would have Boise State been considered a "Giant" ?


Yes, well, perhaps I'm guilty of exageration here...but "giant" in relative terms for a team that only won a couple of games the last few seasons...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 12:19:36 PM

If Oklahoma can leapfrog Florida and West Virginia with an impressive win over unranked Miami then I don't see why LSU didn't vault to number one in its crushing win over previously 9th ranked Virginia Tech.


Well they almost did.  If you look at total points, I believe they made up over half of the ground.  But many voters still abide by the tradition of not changing their rankings placements unless a team actually loses.  But LSU did pick up something like 20 first place votes since the season started


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 12:22:05 PM
Speaking of Washington my all time fave QB name is ex Huskie Sonny Sixkiller.

That's going back a time...   Was he really your favorite quarterback...or did you just dig the name?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 12:28:02 PM
Nebraska is a much more formidable opponent than is Middle Tennesse St. so I don't know how LSU could expect to make up any ground on USC even if the Trojans have a tough time with the Cornhuskers, especially with the game at Lincoln.  If the Trojans lose, that's another story.

yeah well...naturally I'm hoping for a blow out so we won't have to worry about it...  Not so sure that is going to happen in the "Sea of Red" however -- we shall see...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 12:45:44 PM
CC...the first S is for Scott

Not sure if Traveller will be making the trip, so I thought I should provide a little imagery for the Cornhusker fans out there...

(http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/IMREC/spirit/traveler/home/travelerpic01a.jpg)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 01:19:36 PM


[/quote]

No no James, all playoff games wouldn't be boring ho-hum affairs just because you love bowl games.

I happen to love bowl games too. And I've said before I'm not all that gungho about a playoff system. But that doesn't change the fact that playoff games could and most likely would produce some great football moments.
[/quote]

Of course playoff games could and would be exciting.
But the point was Boise State's performance in the Fiesta Bowl, a game that to be remembered for a long time, was the result of a perfect storm made possible by the Bowl System.

1.  They drew a tradtional power in Oklahoma
2.  The game was played New Year's night against no other competition.
3.  The game was decided in overtime when the upstarts from Boise gambled on winning rather than playing for a          tie.

Even if a playoff system delivered a similar match up in its title game what would be the odds a team would gamble on a two point conversion ?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 01:54:07 PM
CC...the first S is for Scott

Not sure if Traveller will be making the trip, so I thought I should provide a little imagery for the Cornhusker fans out there...

(http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/IMREC/spirit/traveler/home/travelerpic01a.jpg)

Cool Scott, now I know two guys names here.(Assuming Jake's name isn't really Jake and Jim isn't actually Jim) Yours and WhiskySteve's. And you can call me Casey oh poster of Troy.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 02:01:24 PM

Of course playoff games could and would be exciting.
But the point was Boise State's performance in the Fiesta Bowl, a game that to be remembered for a long time, was the result of a perfect storm made possible by the Bowl System.

1.  They drew a tradtional power in Oklahoma
2.  The game was played New Year's night against no other competition.
3.  The game was decided in overtime when the upstarts from Boise gambled on winning rather than playing for a          tie.

Even if a playoff system delivered a similar match up in its title game what would be the odds a team would gamble on a two point conversion ?

First Jim, buddy, you gotta learn how to figure out the whole quote thing. It ain't that hard. REALLY.

Second, no one's questioning it wasn't a great game. And that that particular game couldn't be reproduced. Hint, no game can unless you're into temporal mechanics. But using that game as an example in no way defends your position that great games would go the way of the dinosaur if a playoff system was effected.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 02:47:05 PM
The Captain wrote:
But using that game as an example in no way defends your position that great games would go the way of the dinosaur if a playoff system was effected.

It is amusing that you make up my argument to fit your rebuttal.

If you can find anything in any statement I ever made to match your above quote I will make sure you are invited to the Lloyd Carr retirement dinner, should there be one.




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 03:14:38 PM

Jake, you are terminally tone deaf.

Boise State hit the national stage last year only because of the Bowl System. 

Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.

Well this post right here pretty much says it James. Just like the dinosaurs will never again be replicated the great Okie/Bronc game would/could be nevermore, quoth the James. Sorry it doesn't rhyme. I'll have the lobster.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 03:49:27 PM
That's right, Captain, you got the quote right
Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.

What that has to do with the billions of other variables contributing to exciting games escapes me.
But if you want to keep trying to explain yourself,go ahead.  I need the posts to get more stars.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 03:55:35 PM
I bet neat things come up all the time for most of us and we forget to share them.  This was an extraordinarily touching moment for all of us at the game...

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plasch...eadlines-sports

Bill Plaschke:
An extraordinary extra point is a reminder of who's missing


Trojans honor the memory of kicker Mario Danelo with an in-game tribute, and those who knew him best continue living the dream for him.
September 12 2007


In his two-year USC career, Mario Danelo was probably on the field for less than two hours.

The Trojans were about touchdowns, Danelo was the squiggly frosting on the edges of those touchdowns. Trojans grandly kicked opponents between the teeth, then Danelo quietly kicked a football between the uprights.

He was just a kicker, right? Who misses a kicker?

Sitting in the Coliseum stands a couple of weeks ago, watching other parents' children play football, Joe and Emily Danelo learned.

We all learned.

The Trojans scored the game's first touchdown in their season opener against Idaho, lined up for the extra point, and, wait a minute. . .

"There's no kicker out there," said Joe, nudging Emily.

"What?" she said.

"Look, they're lining up with no kicker on the field," Joe said.

Turns out, the Trojans missed their late kicker so much, they came out for their first extra-point play of this season without one.

They lined up with 10 men, then waited in silence until the play clock expired and they were given a five-yard penalty.

In the stands, realizing what was happening, Joe and Emily both began crying.

Eight months after their son's death, they were once again reminded of how he lived.

for full story click on above link


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 04:01:19 PM
That's right, Captain, you got the quote right
Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.

What that has to do with the billions of other variables contributing to exciting games escapes me.
But if you want to keep trying to explain yourself,go ahead.  I need the posts to get more stars.

Instead of me explaining(and pretty much everyone else explaining to you too)maybe you should take a few comprehending lessons.

"Nobody would watch the playoff games, they'd be played in toilets, there's no money in them, blah blah blah". Your schtick is getting old and tiresome James. Give it a rest already.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 12, 2007, 04:02:42 PM
I bet neat things come up all the time for most of us and we forget to share them.  This was an extraordinarily touching moment for all of us at the game...

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plasch...eadlines-sports

Bill Plaschke:
An extraordinary extra point is a reminder of who's missing


Trojans honor the memory of kicker Mario Danelo with an in-game tribute, and those who knew him best continue living the dream for him.
September 12 2007


In his two-year USC career, Mario Danelo was probably on the field for less than two hours.

The Trojans were about touchdowns, Danelo was the squiggly frosting on the edges of those touchdowns. Trojans grandly kicked opponents between the teeth, then Danelo quietly kicked a football between the uprights.

He was just a kicker, right? Who misses a kicker?

Sitting in the Coliseum stands a couple of weeks ago, watching other parents' children play football, Joe and Emily Danelo learned.

We all learned.

The Trojans scored the game's first touchdown in their season opener against Idaho, lined up for the extra point, and, wait a minute. . .

"There's no kicker out there," said Joe, nudging Emily.

"What?" she said.

"Look, they're lining up with no kicker on the field," Joe said.

Turns out, the Trojans missed their late kicker so much, they came out for their first extra-point play of this season without one.

They lined up with 10 men, then waited in silence until the play clock expired and they were given a five-yard penalty.

In the stands, realizing what was happening, Joe and Emily both began crying.

Eight months after their son's death, they were once again reminded of how he lived.

for full story click on above link

A really sad sad story Scott.

It's good to see him getting some tribute.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 04:32:12 PM
Quote
"Nobody would watch the playoff games, they'd be played in toilets, there's no money in them, blah blah blah". Your schtick is getting old and tiresome James. Give it a rest already.

Just hit the ignore button then.
As long as you are going to argue with yourself no use boring the rest of us.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 12, 2007, 05:17:12 PM
Speaking of Oklahoma I saw a story last night where a 32 year old guy went into a bar in Oklahoma City recently wearing a Texas T-Shirt and wound up being nearly castrated by a 50 something Oklahoma Fan.He faces up to 5 years for the assault and the Texas guy took a lot of stitches.Some clowns said he got what he deserved for wearing the shirt into the bar. :o


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 12, 2007, 05:20:10 PM

Jake, you are terminally tone deaf.

Boise State hit the national stage last year only because of the Bowl System. 

Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.



Tone deaf is better than stone deaf, Jimmah.  Why in the world-- besides your bizarre blinding self interested prejudice -- would you ass-u-me Boise State would be excluded from a 16 game playoff if they were good enough to play the ChOkies in a BCS Bowl last year?

Jimmah, lean closer and listen up:

Boise State hit the "national stage" because THEY WERE GOOD ALL YEAR!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 12, 2007, 05:27:00 PM
Boise State's win over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl is permanently enshrined into the great moments of College Football.  The winning play, a statue of liberty call on a two point conversion in overtime, would hever have been run in a playoff game. 


Why in the hell not?  What, winning a meaningless bowl (that as ancient and hoary and profitable to travel agents as it may have been, did not lead to an NC, after all), is more important than advancing on the path to the NC??  Why wouldn't Boise pull out all the stops?

And a Boise State/Oklahoma matchup would never have taken place in Phoenix at a sold out stadium on New Year's night had it been a playoff game.  In a playoff system Boise would have hosted Oklahoma in early December on a Saturday afternoon before a much smaller TV audience.


The factual basis for the foregoing having been drawn from the deepest parts of your ass.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 12, 2007, 05:29:33 PM
The West Virginia-South Florida match-up looks more interesting now that the Bulls knocked off Auburn. 


For those of us "in the know" (about WVA's suspect defense)  ;), it's been an interesting match-up ever since the schedules came out...

On a serious note... a lot of people were picking da Bulls as the Big East sleeper this year.   Even Cincy looks pretty strong.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 12, 2007, 05:46:13 PM
CC...the first S is for Scott

Not sure if Traveller will be making the trip, so I thought I should provide a little imagery for the Cornhusker fans out there...

(http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/IMREC/spirit/traveler/home/travelerpic01a.jpg)

Cool Scott, now I know two guys names here.(Assuming Jake's name isn't really Jake and Jim isn't actually Jim) Yours and WhiskySteve's. And you can call me Casey oh poster of Troy.

I've been called Jake in my day, off and on, as it's a derivative of John.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 12, 2007, 05:50:08 PM
I bet neat things come up all the time for most of us and we forget to share them.  This was an extraordinarily touching moment for all of us at the game...

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plasch...eadlines-sports

Bill Plaschke:
An extraordinary extra point is a reminder of who's missing


Trojans honor the memory of kicker Mario Danelo with an in-game tribute, and those who knew him best continue living the dream for him.
September 12 2007



In his two-year USC career, Mario Danelo was probably on the field for less than two hours.

The Trojans were about touchdowns, Danelo was the squiggly frosting on the edges of those touchdowns. Trojans grandly kicked opponents between the teeth, then Danelo quietly kicked a football between the uprights.

He was just a kicker, right? Who misses a kicker?

Sitting in the Coliseum stands a couple of weeks ago, watching other parents' children play football, Joe and Emily Danelo learned.

We all learned.

The Trojans scored the game's first touchdown in their season opener against Idaho, lined up for the extra point, and, wait a minute. . .

"There's no kicker out there," said Joe, nudging Emily.

"What?" she said.

"Look, they're lining up with no kicker on the field," Joe said.

Turns out, the Trojans missed their late kicker so much, they came out for their first extra-point play of this season without one.

They lined up with 10 men, then waited in silence until the play clock expired and they were given a five-yard penalty.

In the stands, realizing what was happening, Joe and Emily both began crying.

Eight months after their son's death, they were once again reminded of how he lived.

for full story click on above link

Wow!  That's really something special.  Brings a tear to my eye for my old favorite (Giant) kicker Joe Danelo, and his family.  Carroll is all class to allow that.  (One wonders how many would?  How many would dare?)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 07:13:10 PM
Speaking of Oklahoma I saw a story last night where a 32 year old guy went into a bar in Oklahoma City recently wearing a Texas T-Shirt and wound up being nearly castrated by a 50 something Oklahoma Fan.He faces up to 5 years for the assault and the Texas guy took a lot of stitches.Some clowns said he got what he deserved for wearing the shirt into the bar. :o



Any time I read "Speaking of Oklahoma..."  not to mention  " a guy walked into a bar..."  I assume a joke is coming

It wasn't very funny actually, but  you didn't take a stand, so i can't tell if you were appalled by the beating...or in favor of it...

Although it sounds like the Oklahoma fan was the aggressor, I'll bet he didn't turn violent just because of the shirt though -- don't you think there had to be words exchanged?   and presumably one of the two parties could have used words that avoided the resultant violence...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 07:17:08 PM

Wow!  That's really something special.  Brings a tear to my eye for my old favorite (Giant) kicker Joe Danelo, and his family.  Carroll is all class to allow that.  (One wonders how many would?  How many would dare?)


You wonder whether he would have made the same choice if the opener had been against Nebraska or a tougher team than Idaho...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 07:23:02 PM

Jake, you are terminally tone deaf.

Boise State hit the national stage last year only because of the Bowl System. 

Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.



Tone deaf is better than stone deaf, Jimmah.  Why in the world-- besides your bizarre blinding self interested prejudice -- would you ass-u-me Boise State would be excluded from a 16 game playoff if they were good enough to play the ChOkies in a BCS Bowl last year?

Jimmah, lean closer and listen up:

Boise State hit the "national stage" because THEY WERE GOOD ALL YEAR!

An 8th ranked team would never be playing a first round playoff game on New Year's Night nor would they go for two in overtime unless they had to.

Only in a "meaningless" Bowl Game would such a setting produce such a memorable ending.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 08:17:33 PM
I saw a couple of people wearing their burnt orange Texas t-shirts to the USC-Idaho game weekend before last and I have to admit my first thought was "why are they choosing to wear that to this game?"  The only reason being of course to rub it in our faces that they were lucky enough to pull out a last minute upset by a few measly points...

Next time though, I have to admit that I will have to pause and remember that my good friend Chauncey is a Longhorn before I just react and beat the crap out of them in a fit of rage...



  :)



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ponderosa on September 12, 2007, 08:37:53 PM
I really dig those USC uniforms.

And Marcus Allen is really cool.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 12, 2007, 08:39:35 PM
Oklahoma and their fans make me puke.I have noticed the past two years that I will see folks on occasion wearing Texas shirts  or hats on the West Side and Santa Monica.I never saw that till they won the SC game.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 09:21:04 PM
I really dig those USC uniforms.

And Marcus Allen is really cool.




You ARE a lurker...and I mean that in the most positive possible way!   

I basically just threw that in there to see if you were listening...

:)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 09:25:14 PM
Oklahoma and their fans make me puke.I have noticed the past two years that I will see folks on occasion wearing Texas shirts  or hats on the West Side and Santa Monica.I never saw that till they won the SC game.

I actually had the opposite experience with Oklahoma fans based on our trip out to Miami a few years back.  They were obviously older, more mature alumni but they were extremely cordial and well mannered.  Prior to this first hand meeting, I did not have a very high opinion based on secend hand info and what I had seen on TV.  But I was very impressed with them from my personal experiences.

You are 100% correct about the sudden and sustained appearance of burnt orange shirts and hats in So Cal...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 12, 2007, 09:31:22 PM
Why does everyone always refer to Jim as a travel agent?  I always assumed it was a joke as if this could be the only reason he has the opinions he does regarding the bowl system?

But John, for the last couple of years, says it like it is factual -- Is it fact based? Or did it start as a joke that took on it's own life?

We ARE ALL just joking around...right?

Jim, for the record...are you a travel agent?  And if so, can you get me a good deal to New Orleans?  :)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 09:32:45 PM
Most often seen quotes on the Lloyd Carr watch:


• Carr's contract was amended in December to allow him to receive a $300,000 bonus in 2008 even if he is not coaching football at Michigan, the Ann Arbor News reported. The contract also states that an associate athletic director's position is Carr's if he wants it when he retires.

• Les Miles has a clause in his LSU contract that would require him to pay LSU $1.25 million if he leaves for Michigan before the contract expires in 2011, USA Today reported. He can leave for any other school at no charge.


Gee, do you think LSU suspects his heart is up north?

Best Carr comeback to stupid question:

A reporter from New Orleans(obviously an LSU partisan) participated in the Big Ten football coaches' teleconference yesterday to ask Lloyd Carr what qualities he'd like to see in his successor as Michigan coach.

"That's in the future … so that's the last thing on my mind," Carr replied. "When that happens, feel free to call me."

The guy I feel for is Miles who has to coach a team favored to play in the BCS title game yet, if Michigan continues to falter, will ultimately have to fashion some statement pledging loyalty to LSU in such a way that allows him an out if Carr retires.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 09:39:47 PM
Why does everyone always refer to Jim as a travel agent?  I always assumed it was a joke as if this could be the only reason he has the opinions he does regarding the bowl system?

But John, for the last couple of years, says it like it is factual -- Is it fact based? Or did it start as a joke that took on it's own life?

We ARE ALL just joking around...right?

Jim, for the record...are you a travel agent?  And if so, can you get me a good deal to New Orleans?  :)

Actually I am a SECRET Agent but that is all I am allowed to say.
Seriously, with sites such as expedia.com and the rest of the web who needs a travel agent anymore?



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 12, 2007, 09:44:43 PM
[
An 8th ranked team would never be playing a first round playoff game on New Year's Night nor would they go for two in overtime unless they had to.

Only in a "meaningless" Bowl Game would such a setting produce such a memorable ending.

Again, I can "hear" this only because  your bib-overall seat is acoustically permissive.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 12, 2007, 09:48:27 PM
Oklahoma and their fans make me puke.

Are you trying to out-unintentional irony Jimmah, chisel chest?

Cause that's a tall order on this board.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 12, 2007, 09:52:36 PM
Actually I am a SECRET Agent but that is all I am allowed to say.
Seriously, with sites such as expedia.com and the rest of the web who needs a travel agent anymore?



Don't sell yourself short, Jimmah, there's still heavy need for travel agents with the acumen to specialize in a particular travel venue.   Like Bowl Tours.   But you know that.

In fact, there was a nice little article in the WSJ about it... I think it was this week...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 12, 2007, 10:36:28 PM
Jake lamented:
Again, I can "hear" this only because  your bib-overall seat is acoustically permissive.[/b     

Man, I have yet to figure out the quote thing and you are telling me there is Sound to be heard on this board.?
Is it in STARE-EE-OH?





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 06:21:59 AM
Quote
"Nobody would watch the playoff games, they'd be played in toilets, there's no money in them, blah blah blah". Your schtick is getting old and tiresome James. Give it a rest already.

Just hit the ignore button then.
As long as you are going to argue with yourself no use boring the rest of us.

You really do have a comprehension disability don't you. You'd be better served posting your slop on the cooking forum.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 06:27:51 AM
]

Tone deaf is better than stone deaf, Jimmah.  Why in the world-- besides your bizarre blinding self interested prejudice -- would you ass-u-me Boise State would be excluded from a 16 game playoff if they were good enough to play the ChOkies in a BCS Bowl last year?

Jimmah, lean closer and listen up:

Boise State hit the "national stage" because THEY WERE GOOD ALL YEAR!

Jake you have to understand according to James not only wouldn't they be there even if they were nobody would watch and nobody would show up at the games. Also there's be no sponsers for the game, the grass would be left unmowed and the parking lots in disrepair. And probably not even any electricity for the stadium lights.

But I think we all know who really doesn't have any electricity for his bulb here.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 06:31:59 AM
The West Virginia-South Florida match-up looks more interesting now that the Bulls knocked off Auburn. 


For those of us "in the know" (about WVA's suspect defense)  ;), it's been an interesting match-up ever since the schedules came out...

On a serious note... a lot of people were picking da Bulls as the Big East sleeper this year.   Even Cincy looks pretty strong.

I know Louisville faithful have been beating themselves up some over their defense Jake. But personally what I took from that game was that there defense locked down tight in the second half and only gave up 7 points. Personally I think tales of the demise of the Cardinals D might be a bit premature.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 06:37:55 AM

Jake, you are terminally tone deaf.

Boise State hit the national stage last year only because of the Bowl System. 

Its game with Oklahoma could never be replicated in a playoff system.



Tone deaf is better than stone deaf, Jimmah.  Why in the world-- besides your bizarre blinding self interested prejudice -- would you ass-u-me Boise State would be excluded from a 16 game playoff if they were good enough to play the ChOkies in a BCS Bowl last year?

Jimmah, lean closer and listen up:

Boise State hit the "national stage" because THEY WERE GOOD ALL YEAR!

An 8th ranked team would never be playing a first round playoff game on New Year's Night nor would they go for two in overtime unless they had to.

Only in a "meaningless" Bowl Game would such a setting produce such a memorable ending.

Jim I've put you in for the next energizer bunny commercial. It's time that pink nightmare had a real challenge getting something dead started.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 06:42:43 AM
Jake lamented:
Again, I can "hear" this only because  your bib-overall seat is acoustically permissive.[/b     

Man, I have yet to figure out the quote thing and you are telling me there is Sound to be heard on this board.?
Is it in STARE-EE-OH?


I hate to break it to you James but you have yet to figure "anything" out.



Have I mentioned lately that I crack myself up?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 13, 2007, 09:12:08 AM
Some perspective on the potential of Michigan having a losing season.
The last losing season was 1967.
The last time Michigan did not appear in a Bowl Game was 1974, despite finishing 10-1.  The Big Ten only allowed its champion to go to the Rose Bowl until 1975.
The current top 25 and the teams in it who have had LOSING seasons since Lloyd Carr has been at Michigan, 1995-2007.

1. Southern Cal
2. LSU
3. Oklahoma
4. West Virginia
6. Texas
7. Wisconsin
8. California
9. Louisville
11. UCLA
12. Penn St.
13. Rutgers
14. Nebraska
15. Georgia Tech
16. Arkansas
17. South Carolina
19. Oregon
20. Clemson
21. Boston College
22. Tennessee
23. Georgia
24. Hawaii
25. Texas A&M

Just 3 of the top 25 have managed to avoid losing seasons in the Carr Era.  The teams and their worst records in the last 13 years:
5. Florida 7-5
10. Ohio State 6-6
18 Virginai Tech 7-5

Other unranked notables who have had losing seasons since 1995
Auburn
Alabama
Notre Dame
Miami



Title: Breaking News!!!!
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 09:17:29 AM
This just in:

AP wire:

Jim's lips still firmly attached to rearend of Carr.  Film at eleven.


Title: Sam Keller
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 13, 2007, 11:13:47 AM
I remember this game against Arizona State two years ago very well.  It was a real roller coaster season...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20747720/

LINCOLN, Neb. - Sam Keller is getting another shot at Southern California and this time he’s out to finish the job.

Keller has been hesitant to reminisce about his near-miss against the Trojans when he was at Arizona State. The emphasis, he said, should be on what lies ahead, not what happened two seasons ago.

But he does acknowledge one of the biggest steps in his maturation as a quarterback came on Oct. 1, 2005, when he led the Sun Devils to a big lead only to see the Trojans come back to win after he came undone in the second half.

Keller was very good for a half against USC on a sun-splashed afternoon in Tempe, Ariz., two years ago, leading the Sun Devils to a 21-3 lead.
But he was intercepted four times in the second half, and USC rallied for a 38-28 win.



Title: Weeky picks:
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 12:43:06 PM
West Va 23 Maryland 18: Short week but the Terp defense will keep them in there for a while. The Terp offense however hasn’t shown squat so far though.

USC 30 Neb 19: The Trojans turn on the power in the 2nd half.

Tenn 18 Fla 30: Tennessee’s defense looks to be a bit down this year.

OSU 22 Wash 23: Gotta be an upset in there somewhere. On the other hand the Bucs may decide that this is a game for the Big 10’s honor and clip the Huskies in a big way.

Arkansas 23 Alabama 18: I really REALLY wanted to go with the Tide in this one. And Sabin should really have some surprises in store for the Hogs if Arkansas tries to be one dimensional and run run run.

Pitt 21 Mich St 24: Like I said Steve, this is State’s year.

Notre Dame 13 Michigan 33: It’s worked so far.

Boston Coll 21 Ga Tech 24: I’m looking for a good game out of these two.

Louisville 33 Kentucky 15: The Cards defense doesn’t mail this one in.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 13, 2007, 02:26:56 PM
can anyone logically explain to me why alabama is favored over arkansas by 3.5 points?

i don't get it. it would seem like the lock of the week. of course, i thought georgia -4 was primo last weekend.

please feel free to educate me on this...


Title: Re: Weeky picks:
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 13, 2007, 02:28:01 PM

OSU 22 Wash 23: Gotta be an upset in there somewhere. On the other hand the Bucs may decide that this is a game for the Big 10’s honor and clip the Huskies in a big way.


This is why I called this the game to watch this week.  I just can't decide either...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 13, 2007, 02:30:45 PM
can anyone logically explain to me why alabama is favored over arkansas by 3.5 points?


It's at home, Alabama has a shiny new coach known for winning, and there are a lot more foolish homers in Alabama than in Arkansas...


Title: "Week"y Picks
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 13, 2007, 02:33:43 PM
Presumably this was a typo on "weekly" and not some cute way of saying that you weren't very confident in your predictions?

:)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 13, 2007, 02:54:32 PM

I know Louisville faithful have been beating themselves up some over their defense Jake. But personally what I took from that game was that there defense locked down tight in the second half and only gave up 7 points. Personally I think tales of the demise of the Cardinals D might be a bit premature.

I guess we'll see this weekend, when we play against a real offense from a real Div I (SEC) team.  Can't afford the mental errors we've been experiencing, that's for sure.


Title: The switch is on
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 13, 2007, 06:57:13 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=fowler_chris&id=3017005

Early poll differences worth a closer look
By Chris Fowler
Special to ESPN.com

Updated: September 13, 2007

 I switched No. 1 teams on my AP ballot this week. I was one of 20 voters to do so. LSU appears to be a complete, comprehensive team that has already accomplished something impressive this season. I wasn't sure how Matt Flynn would play early and didn't know how quickly the playmaking of Craig Davis and Dwayne Bowe could be replaced. I have seen both LSU beatdowns so far in person and came away very impressed with the offensive options. Need I say anything about the defense?

Kirk sticks with USC. I'm giving LSU the nod for now. It's early.

Nothing against USC. I'll get an up-close peek at the '07 Men of Troy when they meet Nebraska on Saturday (ABC, 8 p.m. ET). I am eager to see how they handle their first test. If you don't give the Huskers a chance, consider that the "experts" do (the "experts" being the dedicated men and women who set the lines in Las Vegas).


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 13, 2007, 07:57:51 PM
correct the above post to read "foolish homers with money"


Title: The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 13, 2007, 09:21:20 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3015266


Carr handling Michigan's struggles in stride
By Bruce Hooley
Special to ESPN.com

Updated: September 13, 2007, 11:50 AM ET

 The chorus of critics has been so busy blaming him and beating the pulpit for his resignation that it hasn't bothered to notice that the guy it wants out as Michigan's football coach already appears to be gone.

That Lloyd Carr isn't around to answer questions.

The man doing that these days still looks very much like Carr, who's been in charge at Michigan since 1995. And he sounds like Carr, with that speech pattern featuring an ever-so-slight Jimmy Stewart lilt to it.

Beyond that, the words seem to come from a stranger.

After all, that couldn't have been Carr -- his team down by 25 at halftime Saturday, after Oregon did everything to embarrass the Wolverines short of throwing a bucket of confetti on them in mid-Washington Generals meltdown -- offering a comeback to Bonnie Bernstein's question as he headed for the locker room.

"Do you know what Chad's injury is?" she asked, referring to hobbled quarterback Chad Henne.

"Sure, I do," Carr said with a wry smile as he walked away.

Somewhere in Sideline Reporter Cemetery, there are six or seven corpses fatally stung by Carr's stare in the past, all wondering who that guy was Saturday in the Block M cap.

The same imposter showed up afterward, when someone asked why Carr's defense can't ever seem to corral a spread attack.

Outside The Lines
A devastating 42-39 loss to Ohio State left Michigan out of the 2006 national championship game. Then the Wolverines were dominated by USC in the Rose Bowl. Despite a number of stars returning, Michigan started the season 0-2. Today on Outside the Lines: A look at Michigan's woes, and a discussion on the future of Lloyd Carr and his program (ESPN, 3 p.m. ET). Index 

"Maybe," Carr said, making light of an Ann Arbor News headline from earlier that week, "the game has passed me by."

What's more likely is that Carr has adopted this Mark Twain-style approach because he strongly believes reports of Michigan's death have been greatly exaggerated.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 13, 2007, 09:59:32 PM
What's the poop on West Virginia?

they look pretty fast, but not an extraordinarily difficult matchup for us.  Am I missing anything?

LSU, on the other hand, I'm a little worried about.  I have to watch them some more.  I think our offense is going to need the next several games to mature in order to match up with their defense.  Booty needs to work on his waning confidence when he gets rattled.  As far as I'm concerned, it's been a problem since he got here...

The biggest problem though frankly with the Trojans is still the loss of Norm Chow.  I haven't seen anything in the last two plus years now that leads me to believe we have that issue resolved...  Norm always came up with the exact right play in crunch time...


Title: Re: The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated
Post by: jmmengel on September 13, 2007, 10:16:09 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3015266


Carr handling Michigan's struggles in stride
By Bruce Hooley
Special to ESPN.com

Updated: September 13, 2007, 11:50 AM ET

 The chorus of critics has been so busy blaming him and beating the pulpit for his resignation that it hasn't bothered to notice that the guy it wants out as Michigan's football coach already appears to be gone.

That Lloyd Carr isn't around to answer questions.

The man doing that these days still looks very much like Carr, who's been in charge at Michigan since 1995. And he sounds like Carr, with that speech pattern featuring an ever-so-slight Jimmy Stewart lilt to it.

Beyond that, the words seem to come from a stranger.

After all, that couldn't have been Carr -- his team down by 25 at halftime Saturday, after Oregon did everything to embarrass the Wolverines short of throwing a bucket of confetti on them in mid-Washington Generals meltdown -- offering a comeback to Bonnie Bernstein's question as he headed for the locker room.

"Do you know what Chad's injury is?" she asked, referring to hobbled quarterback Chad Henne.

"Sure, I do," Carr said with a wry smile as he walked away.

Somewhere in Sideline Reporter Cemetery, there are six or seven corpses fatally stung by Carr's stare in the past, all wondering who that guy was Saturday in the Block M cap.

The same imposter showed up afterward, when someone asked why Carr's defense can't ever seem to corral a spread attack.

Outside The Lines
A devastating 42-39 loss to Ohio State left Michigan out of the 2006 national championship game. Then the Wolverines were dominated by USC in the Rose Bowl. Despite a number of stars returning, Michigan started the season 0-2. Today on Outside the Lines: A look at Michigan's woes, and a discussion on the future of Lloyd Carr and his program (ESPN, 3 p.m. ET). Index 

"Maybe," Carr said, making light of an Ann Arbor News headline from earlier that week, "the game has passed me by."

What's more likely is that Carr has adopted this Mark Twain-style approach because he strongly believes reports of Michigan's death have been greatly exaggerated.



Scott,

Hooley is a former Cleveland Plain Dealer sports writer whose beat was the Buckeyes.  He now co-hosts an afternoon talk show with Kirk Herbstreit on a Columbus Radio Station.  Interesting discussion this week on Carr with  several guests concluding that Carr would not retire if the Michigan season ended in disaster becasue it would, instead, provide him the challenge to stay.  All of the guests, Michigan former players, Detroit media, etc. emphasized that Michigan would never fire Carr.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 14, 2007, 12:04:46 AM
So,  did Les ever close the door?


FREE PRESS STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES
Story updated at 9:38 p.m.
Guess what question popped up for LSU coach Les Miles during the Southeastern Conference coaches' media teleconference Wednesday?


Have you considered that Michigan job, Coach?

"To be honest, not at all," Miles said. "I've given very little thought to that. ... The only thing I'm doing is preparing to play and preparing a very talented football team to take on Middle Tennessee State."

Some disgruntled Michigan fans didn't want to hear that. Miles is on the short list of critics plotting the post-Lloyd Carr era because of his resume: He's a former Wolverines player and assistant - better yet, he has LSU ranked No. 2.

But Miles points out U-M doesn't have an opening.

"I can tell you that Michigan's got a great coach," he said. "He's won a national championship, he knows what's going on there and they've been through this before. ... So I know that they'll take care of that, they know what they need to do and I give little or no thought to that. I know that Coach Carr will make the right calls."

OK, maybe you're not interested now, but down the road ...

"Don't ask it, I've got nothing to say," Miles said "I am so happy right where I'm at. I need to work harder with this team. That's my focus and it will not change."

And all those Michigan fans kicking your name around?

"I have not really given much thought to the fan base in Ann Arbor and it's not something I reflect on in any way."

Miles played and coached under Bo Schembechler at Michigan and has a clause in his contract that would require him to pay LSU $1.25 million if he leaves for Ann Arbor before his contract expires in 2011. If he goes to any other school, there is no buyout penalty.

“That would be the only place he would go, but I don’t know if he would want to leave this,” LSU tailback Jacob Hester said over the weekend.

===================================================================


No wonder LSU has that million dollar clause in Miles' contract


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 14, 2007, 06:40:31 AM
Nice game last night. The West Va offense IMO will have trouble against teams with defensive speed and kick the crap out of teams that don't have it.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 14, 2007, 10:16:44 AM
Some perspective on the potential of Michigan having a losing season.
The last losing season was 1967.
The last time Michigan did not appear in a Bowl Game was 1974, despite finishing 10-1.  The Big Ten only allowed its champion to go to the Rose Bowl until 1975.
The current top 25 and the teams in it who have had LOSING seasons since Lloyd Carr has been at Michigan, 1995-2007...

Just 3 of the top 25 have managed to avoid losing seasons in the Carr Era.  The teams and their worst records in the last 13 years:
5. Florida 7-5
10. Ohio State 6-6
18 Virginai Tech 7-5

Other unranked notables who have had losing seasons since 1995
Auburn
Alabama
Notre Dame
Miami



As usual your perspective is tainted.  Florida, under Spurrier,  posted a 122-27-1 record (81%) and never dropped a game to a Div. 1-AA team. More seasons than not Spurrier-led Florida ploughed through the SEC, winning six titles.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 14, 2007, 11:51:15 AM
Nice game last night. The West Va offense IMO will have trouble against teams with defensive speed and kick the crap out of teams that don't have it.

See, I didn't see that...  I saw a pretty average offense with one or two playmakers with some speed.  They don't have Vince Young--Shut down the run, and where do they go?

I was working so I didn't see more than a few plays. What are you seeing that I'm not?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 14, 2007, 11:55:55 AM

As usual your perspective is tainted.  Florida, under Spurrier,  posted a 122-27-1 record (81%) and never dropped a game to a Div. 1-AA team. More seasons than not Spurrier-led Florida ploughed through the SEC, winning six titles.

Actually, I think he was giving Florida props that they were one of only three other teams that had not had a losing season during this time frame.  He wasn't saying Michgan was better than Florida...   at least I don't think he was...

Florida has had a great program and there are obviously many more good years ahead of them.  Now, the real question is, does Urban Meyer have a $1M plus penalty for going to any certain "other" colleges?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 14, 2007, 12:04:44 PM
CC...ooops...I reread your message and see that you said that they "will" have trouble against teams with defensive speed.  I first read it to say they won't have much trouble...


Sorry.   I completely agree.   They are going to look like a number one team against a defense that doesn't "swarm."  They may have trouble moving the ball against those that do...their best bet against those teams will be to throw in some misdirection plays -- but that usually only works for a quarter or two so they better build a big lead.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 14, 2007, 12:33:50 PM
It was just a snapshot of 25 of toay's best teams(based on ratings) and how they have fared in the same 13 years during which Lloyd Carr has never had a losing season.

What Spurrier's record has to do with what I posted is beyond me, especially since his sterlng record at Florida left him unfullfilled and he left.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 14, 2007, 12:52:20 PM
I suppose we will beat the Lloyd Carr issue to death, jimm, but first you were comparing his record to Joe Paterno, then comparing his record against other teams over his same tenure to show what a great coach he has been for Michigan.  Carr has had a great record, one of the best, which is why I and many others have to wonder how he could let a game slip like Appalachian State, and then get blown out the following week by Oregon.  Something seems to have slipped, as by all accounts he had great returning talent, and should have blown the Mountaneers and the Ducks out of Ann Arbor.  Many thought he would be undefeated going into November.  Now it seems he will be lucky if his Wolverines post a win.  Whether it is the ghost of Bo Schembechler, as whiskey seems to be implying, or simply a breakdown in coaching since his loss to Ohio St, one has to wonder what is going on with Carr?  He seems to be simply dismissing the whole thing as an aberration.  I guess we will see Saturday how he handles a similarly woeful Notre Dame, which has started off just about as badly as Michigan, although there weren't as high expectations for the Irish this year.

To me the big game this weekend is Ohio St. v Washington.  This will give us a pretty good idea where the Big Ten stands. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 14, 2007, 01:11:59 PM
Worth a chuckle:

Michigan Drops to Division III After Losing Second Game.


http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/michigan_drops_to_division (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/michigan_drops_to_division)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 14, 2007, 03:00:00 PM
Ohio State vs. Washington
By Scouts, Inc

 Friday, September 14, 2007


Ohio State Offense vs. Washington Defense
With QB Todd Boeckman making his first career road start and the Buckeyes turning the ball over five times last week, look for Ohio State to run early and often. The hope is that staying committed to the run will allow the Buckeyes to sustain long drives that effectively quiet the crowd and reduce the chances of turnovers. However, it will be tough sledding against a Washington run defense that is giving up an average of just 1.8 yards per carry. The Husky defensive line returns all four starters from a year ago and they have done a good job of controlling the line of scrimmage. In addition, OLBs E.J. Savannah and Dan Howell are reliable open-field tacklers who have been relentless in pursuit. Meanwhile, a talented Ohio State offensive line is not yet playing like a cohesive unit. It's struggling to consistently get into position and sustain blocks for RB Chris Wells, who has done little to help the big men up front. Though he has great speed for his size and he's broken some long runs, Wells has been impatient and inconsistent. If the Buckeyes are going to control the tempo of this game with its ground game, Wells will have to do a better job of setting his blocks up. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 14, 2007, 03:01:07 PM
Locker gaining respect and fans across the country
By Ted Miller
Special to ESPN.com

 Updated: September 13, 2007

 The Jake Locker Fan Club inducted a new member this week: Ohio State coach Jim Tressel. "I'm not sure I've ever seen a quarterback run that fast," Tressel said of Washington's redshirt freshman quarterback. "He's unbelievable. And he's not little. He's a big, fast guy." Of course, Tressel is well aware that the 6-foot-3, 225-pound Locker hasn't faced a defense that even approximates what 10th-ranked Ohio State will bring Saturday (ESPN, 3:30 p.m. ET) to Husky Stadium. The Buckeyes have given up just 245 yards and eight points in two games, though the Huskies should offer more resistance than I-AA Youngstown State and Akron.


Locker, however, didn't play the lead role in the Huskies ending Boise State's 14-game winning streak. He did toss his first touchdown pass and ran for another score. The Washington defense set the pace, holding the typically high-powered Broncos offense to just 10 points. It yielded 388 yards but stiffened in the red zone. It's difficult to know what to expect out of the Buckeyes, who have sputtered at times with new starting quarterback Todd Boeckman. This will be Boeckman's first start on the road, so it's likely the Huskies will get a big dose of 235-pound tailback Chris Wells and a huge offensive line. "Obviously, our defensive line has not faced an offensive line like they are going to face this weekend," Huskies coach Tyrone Willingham said. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 14, 2007, 03:57:33 PM
Nice game last night. The West Va offense IMO will have trouble against teams with defensive speed and kick the crap out of teams that don't have it.

See, I didn't see that...  I saw a pretty average offense with one or two playmakers with some speed.  They don't have Vince Young--Shut down the run, and where do they go?

I was working so I didn't see more than a few plays. What are you seeing that I'm not?

Actually Ralph has done quite well recruiting speed to his defense in the last couple of years. But when the Mountaineers play someone a tad slower of foot I think you'll see them score in droves.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 15, 2007, 02:07:57 PM
If USC wins today, the LSU/USC nat'l chamionship game looks like a virtual lock.

WVU may be undefeated, perhaps along with Georgia Tech (maybe), with the Big East's only good team, and with the ACC down this year as Mia, FSU, and Va. Tech all appear soft. 

Auburn is getting hammered by MSU in the first half 17-0, Georgia is gone, and South Carolina will inevitably stumble vs. Fla. or Tenn.

I'm rooting for the Clemson Tigers to get past N.C. St. on the road and get some turnover help from GaTech to run the table and make some kind of miracle season out of a schedule that sets up pretty well, we seem to have good balance on offense and a good D, so dammit, I have a dream...

Love that Mich/ND are already out of every conversation except to not that they both suck this year.  The Mich./OSU fans I witnessed at the bar last year may not have been representative of their school, but they were crude, ungracious, using foul language around women, generally things that will get your @ss kicked in the South, except I was asking for it and was there for purely sociological reasons as well as chicken, but I digress.

I had thought Georgia fans (sorry, bocce, I know they are the ones who mostly didn't attend...) the most obnoxious ever, but I guess it made a big impression on me when multiple sorority girls are puking in the street as toothess hostile blind drunk inbreds howl by in packs and nobody seems to thing that it's anything other than ordinary tailgating.  The experience at Clemson University has always been more civil and serene, and I've always found most ACC schools to be civil except for Duke and UNC basketball fans.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 15, 2007, 03:00:26 PM
I had thought Georgia fans (sorry, bocce, I know they are the ones who mostly didn't attend...) the most obnoxious ever, but I guess it made a big impression on me when multiple sorority girls are puking in the street as toothess hostile blind drunk inbreds howl by in packs and nobody seems to thing that it's anything other than ordinary tailgating.  The experience at Clemson University has always been more civil and serene, and I've always found most ACC schools to be civil except for Duke and UNC basketball fans.

i can't really defend georgia fans other than to say at least they usually fight amongst themselves post game. actually, i think the most obnoxious sec fan is the tennessee volunteer which when considered individually or, more particularly, en masse in their breeding ground (neyland stadium) constitute the archetype of the southerner in northern eyes.

on the other hand, south carolina (statewide, mind you) is not bereft of its share of yahoos and miscreants. i'd be happy to share with you the legendary tale of the female fan of the clemson rugby team and her adventures on the team bus in 1979. trust me, it's not bucolic.

moving along...actually, auburn has pulled ahead 14/13 as of this writing and only need to score two more times to make me a winner. speaking of fans, auburn has the sweetest of all followed only by LSU. one goes to a game in montgomery or baton rouge and after an hour or two of pre-game partying, you're rooting for the host team.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 15, 2007, 03:25:23 PM
"...on the other hand, south carolina (statewide, mind you) is not bereft of its share of yahoos and miscreants..."

No doubt, just perpetuating the Clem, USC, UGA regional squabble about whose fans are "more redneck."  I thank you for your reluctance to repeat any story putting the virtue of any Clemson coed in moral peril, a charge so defamatory that one shudders to imagine for a moment that it even could be true.

Gearing up for Pridebowl 2007, to see who is worst ND or Mich., hoping for general lack of competency, many tunovers, or a blowout either way, where neither team could feel good about the victory, and the demoralization of the other would be complete.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 15, 2007, 03:28:46 PM
And FSU is a nice place to visit with good fans (and the most beautiful women on the planet other than those attending The College of Charleston in my limited regional exposure), but the last time I went it was the it ain't hard to be humble when you the greatest deal, I imagine there is a bit more civil unrest in Tallahassee these days.  Refuse to go to Miami, period.  Looking forward to BC excursion in '08, never been to Boston before.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 15, 2007, 04:26:35 PM
If USC wins today, the LSU/USC nat'l chamionship game looks like a virtual lock.

This early in the season, nothing is a virtual lock.  The PAC looks good this year, so I don't think USC has a clear path.  LSU looked good last year and still managed to drop two SEC games and miss a spot in the SEC title game.  I was a bit surprised to see Troy knock off Oklahoma St.  I can see now why Florida struggled a bit with Troy, as they seem to have no shortage of offense, and the Gators have young cornerbacks.  I see the Gators have jumped all over Tennessee in the first quarter. And how 'bout UCF getting the jump on Tejas!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 15, 2007, 05:35:36 PM
It's a good thing Charlie Weis is locked into a contract, otherwise he wouldn't last the season after three blowouts in three games.  I imagine there are a lot of Irish fans who would like to have his hide.  After all, he supposedly had one of the top recruiting classes in the country, along with the top QB in Clausen.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 15, 2007, 07:23:16 PM
Yeah, but he won last year with a lot of Willingham's players.  Recruiting high-school kids is harder than it must've looked.  Clausen is looking like a transfer at this point. 

No love for Aub's Tommy T., neither.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: ponderosa on September 15, 2007, 10:55:11 PM
And how 'bout UCF getting the jump on Tejas!

Ugh. Three unimpressive wins and Oklahoma is but three weeks away.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 15, 2007, 11:12:53 PM
thank you, jesus (jesus alvarado...my undocumented bookie) for that 1/2 point in the arkansas/alabama game...whew!!!

i'm consistently amazed how close the odds makers get these things. i would have bet my first born that the razorbacks were going to evicerate nick's baby tusker.

vols fans are flooding the allied moving vans phone with directions to phil fulmer's house. if you think lloyd or charlie have some heat, it's an absolute blast furnace in knoxville. a loss to georgia ought to cinch it.

speaking of georgia...we really know how to kick some div. II ass!!!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 16, 2007, 03:06:21 AM
A couple of big surprises -- Kentucky beating Louisville and Utah crushing obviously overranked UCLA.  I was a bit surprised BC had such an easy time with Georgia Tech.  Alabama putting the drop on Arkansas also rates as an upset.  Seems Saban has his pacaderms ready to play football this year.  Tide fans must be feeling pretty good about the situation.  Saban should have Alabama challenging for the title in a short time.  I don't know what gives with Louisville.  They seem to have no defense at all.  And what gives with Texas, which almost pulled a Michigan, which by the way made a mockery of the Fighting Irish.  OSU struggled early against Washington, but nailed them in the end.  And USC had no problem with Nebraska, cementing their number one position.

Fullmer will have a hard time justifying that loss.  Shades of Spurrier rolling up the numbers against the Volunteers in the Swamp.  Tebow looks like he is going to be a dominant quarterback and having Percy Harvin as a go-to guy is a very sweet extra.  Still, the defense needs to come together if they are going to have a chance against LSU.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 16, 2007, 03:47:20 AM
"My confidence isn't shaken," Weis said. "But as an organization, we haven't done a very good job."
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/recap;_ylt=AmyKOnZDrFI6AjYIZu3NqCccvrYF?gid=200709150029&prov=ap

Understatement of the year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 16, 2007, 09:54:13 AM
Great Saturday of college football. Where to start?

With number 1 of course. USC still gets my vote as it was readily apparent that Nebraska wasn't in their league at all. The SC runners looked good. Really good in fact. But make no mistake it was the Trojan OL that was dominant. The size of some of the holes they made were just sick!! Their defense is great too, although I still give the nod to LSU as having the best.(but the difference is very small)

Georgia Tech looked to be somewhat overrated as they looked outmatched against the BC offense.

Louisville?? Jake buddy you were right the defense is not good and I'm being kind.

LSU? I said earlier that Ryan Perrilloux was the better QB of the two and I'm sticking by it. Overall they are a solid team on both sides of the ball.

Florida? Immpressive, most impressive. They may be playing for the right to go to the national championship game come this October 6th. Their special teams, specifically Brandon James, is scary. Harvin is even scarier.

Wisconsin?? 31 points scored on you by the Citadel?? You just dropped out of my top ten.

Texas?? You too.

Oklahoma?? Totally impressed with this team. My wild card to sneak into the BCS Championship game should anyone of the top three falter.(Note: even though I'm going to wait until after week 5 to list a top ten right now it sits at, USC, LSU, Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio State for my top five)

Ohio State? They didn't really look all that good against that Huskie QB. But lucky for them he runs much better than he passes.

Cal? Right on OSU's tail for that 5th spot.

UCLA?? Saw parts of the game and they looked terrible.

Oregon? They are winning me over rapidly.

Auburn? They look like their OL is walking in quicksand.

Notre Dame?? Weiss should know that an unbalanced team offensively is in trouble. You gotta be able too run "and" pass Chuckie!

Michigan? No comment except to say lets see how you do next week.

Lots of other teams I could comment on like Clemson, SC, (Iowa/Iowa St), Penn St, Mich St, Cincinnati(yes Cincy) etc etc. But we've got all week for that.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 16, 2007, 10:56:07 AM
I was surprised that Tebow stayed in so long at the end of the game, but I guess Meyer wanted to lay the half a hundo on Tenn if possible, but with the BCS numbers I guess you have to consider running up the score even if you don't despise the other team, not a problem in this case.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 16, 2007, 11:41:40 AM
No love lost between Florida and Tennessee, that's for sure.  Calling for a Blue day to drown out the Tennessee orange was an interesting move.  Not much orange left in the stadium by game's end.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 16, 2007, 04:25:01 PM
  I don't know what gives with Louisville.  They seem to have no defense at all. 

Yeah, it looks that way.  But it's more about on the field leadership, I think.  Two things...  one, they look confused before the start of almost every single snap.  Two, they are constantly making really boneheaded mental errors.

I think the defensive coach is likely gone if he can't pull a serious save on this nosedive.  The linebackers actually played better this week, but the mental errors on the part of the secondary (like allowing a winger to fly free with 28 seconds to go and the game on the line, on second and 30 or whatever it was...) are just inexcusable.   I don't care how dumb the mofos are, you gotta have them ready for such exigencies.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 16, 2007, 05:35:51 PM
The over/under on the Ohio State Washington game was 41 1/2 , one of the lowest o/u's on the college board this week.  With Ohio State running out the clock Brandon Saine gets the call on a running play with the score at  27-14.  Washington cannot tackle and Saine waltzes in for the TD as the clock runs out.

Now that is that is the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat for the bettors.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 16, 2007, 05:47:31 PM
Clemson coach Tommy Bowden has the audacity and poor karmic instinct to invoke the name of Lloyd Carr after Furman (another [division whatchamacallit team]) has more total yds. and less than 100 rushing but we win 38-10 on D and turnovers:  "We won.  Lloyd Carr can't say that..."

With N.C. State reeling and on their turf next weekend, we really need to mention f-ing Carr.  You win, and you keep jogging.  N.C. State is still big and and home, and there is too much parity to tempt the football gods in that manner, c'mon Tommy, just hold the clipboard, wear the headphones, throw them down on bad calls and occasionally clap.  Then reapply clipboard, headphones.  Repeat.  That's all.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 16, 2007, 08:53:33 PM
Clemson coach Tommy Bowden has the audacity and poor karmic instinct to invoke the name of Lloyd Carr after Furman (another [division whatchamacallit team]) has more total yds. and less than 100 rushing but we win 38-10 on D and turnovers:  "We won.  Lloyd Carr can't say that..."

With N.C. State reeling and on their turf next weekend, we really need to mention f-ing Carr.  You win, and you keep jogging.  N.C. State is still big and and home, and there is too much parity to tempt the football gods in that manner, c'mon Tommy, just hold the clipboard, wear the headphones, throw them down on bad calls and occasionally clap.  Then reapply clipboard, headphones.  Repeat.  That's all.

Sounds more like a chatroom statement from  a couch potato than a member of the coaching fraternity.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 16, 2007, 10:05:03 PM
I don't think that Bowden and Carr belong in the same football coach "fraternity," but, yeah, he sounded like a jerkoff, see above, and above, and above...it's all chatter, but Bowden wasn't exactly witty, and neither was your comment particularly "apt," just more chatter, as you say...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 16, 2007, 11:00:21 PM
I don't think that Bowden and Carr belong in the same football coach "fraternity," but, yeah, he sounded like a jerkoff, see above, and above, and above...it's all chatter, but Bowden wasn't exactly witty, and neither was your comment particularly "apt," just more chatter, as you say...

That is for sure.  When Bowden gets to 13 straight winning seasons without missing a Bowl then he would be in Carr's "fraternity".   Until then he is simply in the overall coaching fraternity.   As you pointed out, Bowden was out of line with his remarks.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 17, 2007, 12:06:36 AM
I see that AP was hard on Texas and Wisconsin and rewarded Florida for its big win, vaulting the Gators up to 3.  But the biggest climber was Alabama, moving up 12 places to 16.  The Tide is a roll.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 17, 2007, 12:45:30 AM
"As you pointed out, Bowden was out of line with his remarks."

I don't think he was so much "out of line," but more, why associate your successful team with a team wrought with failure, and to yeah, count your blessings by being out yarded and still win by a 28 pt. margin.  All you have to say is "Our defense played well and we have to find a way to run the ball," when our quarterback is not perfect, like 18-22 or whatever, when better teams stack the line, the speed will not be as slow in the secondary vs. Va. Tech, who blueprinted our downward decline last year.  But, yeah, why kick Carr when he's down, and why invoke his name when you are 3-0 and teams like The Citadel are playing Wyoming very well and Texas sneaks out of a CFU game...just be happy that you got some breaks, because Clem is still well outside of about 5 teams that are great and only in the huddle of some 6-30 other teams that are indistinguishable at this point.

I thought his off the cuff comments odd, not as a knock on Lloyd Carr so much, that seems commonplace even among Mich. fans, but as, hey, we won 38-10 to a team that out-paced us in O yardage, just say they played well and hit the showers, stay hungry, because the Wolfpack, not a good team this year, is a cornered animal, and dangerous, because there is not a significant deficit in talent that can't be quite easily overcome by a deficit in motivation, a perennial Clemson prob.

I don't think he was trying to get in LC's grill, it's just unnecessary, and points more toward his lack of leadership than anything personal other than saying we haven't gotten embarrassed as a road favorite yet, much less at home, and find some wood to knock on if you want to drop names, much less the name of a highly talented and underperforming rival that you could easily meet in a second-tier bowl game.  I thought our coach was being stupid, more than anything. 

We have a really good QB at this point who hasn't thrown a pick in three games [knock], and that's mos def not going to last, so we need to think about responding when that inevitably happens instead of playing Rosie O'Donnell to Barbara Walters, it makes you looke cheap and dumb, just take the win and STFU.

We need to get amped for NCSU, which looks like a letdown game buttered and baked, so, anyway, he is disappointing when he does anything but let the name recruit with the fact that you will get reps as a true freshman, and then just get out of the way and hope you picked talent and stay healthy.  Clem was riddled with O-line injuries before getting shellacked by VaTech and becoming one dimensional, which is what we were yesterday, but once speed kills picks follow, and we have to know that instead of slapping ourselves on the back for a Furman win, a team that would've likely gotten hammered by NCSt. and not had the yardage discrepancy in doing so.

Lloyd Carr is having a tough time of it, but Clemson winning a down ACC year, even as Tech looks less vulnerable, should make you thinking more of tape on NCSt. than whatever Michigan is messing up.

We are a very, very talented team, but we have to play well to win, and the top-10 will be evident in 2-3 wks., and I just hope we're undefeated and there to enjoy it briefly, but I don't think an undefeated [knock] season is unthinkable when you look at the Clem. schedule, and at least 7 teams have already moved themselves out of national contention leaving somebody ranked 6-15 well in the hunt.

Tommy Bowden should keep his mouth shut.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 17, 2007, 01:00:00 AM
To me it just shows how much the Michigan debacle is on everyone's mind.  I'm surprised more loose comments haven't come out in the press.  Apparently all Meyer had to say was Golly! as losing to a Div. 1-AA team is every Div 1-A coach's worst nightmare. At least Michigan can say it lost to the defending Div 1-AA champion.  As for the chatter in the chat rooms, that's where we are jimmah.  It's all idle chat, and as such we are free to say what we think irregardless of a man of Lloyd Carr's "stature."


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 17, 2007, 02:19:04 AM
BTW, has anyone seen the Marshall movie?

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZVxT9wLOL._SS500_.jpg)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 17, 2007, 11:44:30 AM
Breathing a little easier by half time of the game on Saturday evening.

USC is already racking up the injuries, but the subs are filling in very well.  They practice so hard so the games are not anything out of the ordinary -- but this is the result.  It is a good think they are deep, as every year we tend to thin out considerably.

Owdowd is physically doing a remarkable job as center for a true freshman, although they took the assignment calling away from him.  Josh Pinkard is again lost for the season in a practice injury about a week ago--but Cory Harris is looking strong.

Patrick Turner looked sloppy, but I have no doubt he will come around.  He has not been practicing at full contact after a "practice" injury a few weeks back.  With Turner back in, I didn't see much of Hazelton this week which was dissappointing.  To get the passing game really clicking, I think we are going to need his speed and moves. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 17, 2007, 11:50:12 AM
I don't think that Bowden and Carr belong in the same football coach "fraternity," but, yeah, he sounded like a jerkoff, see above, and above, and above...it's all chatter, but Bowden wasn't exactly witty, and neither was your comment particularly "apt," just more chatter, as you say...

Carr has had the luxury of the writers giving his team a by every year come the first preseason ranking polls. No matter how good his team actually may or may not be.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 17, 2007, 11:56:10 AM
Breathing a little easier by half time of the game on Saturday evening.

USC is already racking up the injuries, but the subs are filling in very well.  They practice so hard so the games are not anything out of the ordinary -- but this is the result.  It is a good think they are deep, as every year we tend to thin out considerably.

Owdowd is physically doing a remarkable job as center for a true freshman, although they took the assignment calling away from him.  Josh Pinkard is again lost for the season in a practice injury about a week ago--but Cory Harris is looking strong.

Patrick Turner looked sloppy, but I have no doubt he will come around.  He has not been practicing at full contact after a "practice" injury a few weeks back.  With Turner back in, I didn't see much of Hazelton this week which was dissappointing.  To get the passing game really clicking, I think we are going to need his speed and moves. 

I thought the USC OL looked totally dominant Scott.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 17, 2007, 12:00:14 PM

I thought the USC OL looked totally dominant Scott.

Agreed.  But, you need many weapons to go all the way...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 17, 2007, 12:50:15 PM
Then they better start calling USC the country's west coast armory because they're stocked full.

Did they redshirt Griffen and McKnight???


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 17, 2007, 01:41:12 PM
Then they better start calling USC the country's west coast armory because they're stocked full.

Did they redshirt Griffen and McKnight???


I have not heard that, nor any specific plans.  I'm not sure what all the requirements are once they have played in their first year - I believe they have some latitude.

Griffen actually "started" the opener, though Kyle Moore still handled the bulk of the work.  Moorse was "late" to a practice and was being punished.

McKnight played again Saturday.    I think he's touched the ball 8 times in two games so far and he's fumbled twice, so if he's still eligable--then it's a possibility.  Though Reggie Bush didn't look too much different in his freshman year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 17, 2007, 02:57:15 PM
Like I said earlier Stefon Johnson looked very VERY good. But I wasn't sure if it was him or those massive holes the SC OL was opening up for him.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 17, 2007, 03:45:25 PM
Like I said earlier Stefon Johnson looked very VERY good. But I wasn't sure if it was him or those massive holes the SC OL was opening up for him.

yes I see now.   I think he is very good--definitely my favorite of the backs right now.  I think Gable is almost tied but a close second for me.  A lot of insiders say Chauncey Washington is the guy--but I still haven't seen it.  McKnight will probably be a very exciting Reggie Bush type back in another year or two, but he needs some seasoning at least.

 But obviously, you don't go up the middle for 15 or more yards without help.  And since Gable and Havili both had very long runs on the day, it is obvious that the runners had some wide paths cleared for them...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 17, 2007, 03:52:34 PM
Although one might expect Stafon Johnson to be the "go to" back now, I don't think that is the history of the Pete Carroll era.

I would expect to see the other backs continue to get a chance to show their stuff early in the next few games with the bulk of the carries coming to the one that establishes himself that day.

Many times, Lendale White would complain about being left out of a game, only to be the "star" the following week.

Havili will continue to be the primary fullback though I would expect...  And I would expect to see a lot more balls thrown to him and tight end Fred Davis, while we are sorting out the wide receivers issue.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 17, 2007, 03:57:05 PM
One game I'm really looking forward to seeing is the LSU/USC(the other USC) this weekend.

I see CFN has Cincy, a team I'm thinking could knock off Rutgers(again) in a few weeks, ranked #26. Mark Dantonio really left that team on solid footing when he left.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 17, 2007, 04:17:19 PM
Best line yet heard on the Bowden slamming of Carr:

Guess all those Peach Bowl appearances have gone to Clemson coach Tommy Bowden's head.(Detroit Free Press)


When Penn State last beat Michigan in 1996:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average passed  6,010.00, the Dow's first close above 6,000.
The Big 12 began play
Bill Clinton was at the end of his first term and no one, yet, knew about Monica Lewsinski.

It is dead certain that Carr's reign over JoePa will end on Saturday.  I mean, how can PSU possibly lose to a team that lost to Appalachian State?   The spread should be PSU-30

Michigan has no chance of rising to the level of Utah, Kentucky, or Central Florida, right?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 17, 2007, 04:31:04 PM
[crickets]


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 17, 2007, 06:23:47 PM


Michigan has no chance of rising to the level of Utah, Kentucky, or Central Florida, right?


Not this year, at least.  :-*


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 17, 2007, 07:30:38 PM
Power 16 - Top 10

USC and LSU a virtual tie.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/powerranking?season=2007&week=4
 

1 USC (8) 2-0 247 The Trojans return to the No. 1 podium after their impressive Lincoln address. Next up on the BCS campaign trail is Saturday's debate with Washington State (ABC, 8 ET).
 2 LSU (7) 3-0 246 The Bayou Bengals have a chance to deliver their response against Steve Spurrier and South Carolina on Saturday.
 3 Florida (1) 3-0 220 It's still great to be a Florida Gator. Florida swamped the Vols, and Tim Tebow added another chapter to his growing legend.
 4 Oklahoma 3-0 214 Allen Patrick, DeMarco Murray and the Sooners road show rumbles up I-44 for a Friday meeting with Tulsa (ESPN2, 8 ET).
 5 West Virginia 3-0 186 Anyone think East Carolina will slow down Pat White, Steve Slaton, Noel Devine & Co. on Saturday (ESPN2, noon ET)? Didn't think so.
 6 California 3-0 173 As Lavelle Hawkins proved on the opening kickoff against Louisiana Tech, DeSean Jackson isn't the only Bear with quick-strike ability.
 7 Ohio State 3-0 136 Don't bet against the Buckeyes rolling into Happy Valley on Oct. 27 with an 8-0 record.
 8 Texas 3-0 131 The Longhorns came thisclose to being road kill at UCF's grand opening of Bright House Networks Stadium.
 9 Penn State 3-0 123 Happy Valley would be overjoyed if the Nittany Lions break their eight-game losing streak to Michigan on Saturday (ABC, 3:30 ET).
 10 Oregon 3-0 119 A Ducks win at Stanford on Saturday would set up a huge Pac-10 collision with Cal on Sept. 29 in Autzen Stadium.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 17, 2007, 07:32:16 PM
btw  not my smiley face with shades.

They got 8 first place votes and apparently   "8" followed by ")" converts automatically here...


like so  8)




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 17, 2007, 10:23:55 PM
Power 16 - Top 10

USC and LSU a virtual tie.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/powerranking?season=2007&week=4
 

1 USC (8) 2-0 247 The Trojans return to the No. 1 podium after their impressive Lincoln address. Next up on the BCS campaign trail is Saturday's debate with Washington State (ABC, 8 ET).
 2 LSU (7) 3-0 246 The Bayou Bengals have a chance to deliver their response against Steve Spurrier and South Carolina on Saturday.
 3 Florida (1) 3-0 220 It's still great to be a Florida Gator. Florida swamped the Vols, and Tim Tebow added another chapter to his growing legend.
 4 Oklahoma 3-0 214 Allen Patrick, DeMarco Murray and the Sooners road show rumbles up I-44 for a Friday meeting with Tulsa (ESPN2, 8 ET).
 5 West Virginia 3-0 186 Anyone think East Carolina will slow down Pat White, Steve Slaton, Noel Devine & Co. on Saturday (ESPN2, noon ET)? Didn't think so.
 6 California 3-0 173 As Lavelle Hawkins proved on the opening kickoff against Louisiana Tech, DeSean Jackson isn't the only Bear with quick-strike ability.
 7 Ohio State 3-0 136 Don't bet against the Buckeyes rolling into Happy Valley on Oct. 27 with an 8-0 record.
 8 Texas 3-0 131 The Longhorns came thisclose to being road kill at UCF's grand opening of Bright House Networks Stadium.
 9 Penn State 3-0 123 Happy Valley would be overjoyed if the Nittany Lions break their eight-game losing streak to Michigan on Saturday (ABC, 3:30 ET).
 10 Oregon 3-0 119 A Ducks win at Stanford on Saturday would set up a huge Pac-10 collision with Cal on Sept. 29 in Autzen Stadium.



Projected BCS From Jerry Palm using 4 of 6 available computers and AP in place of Harris.


Rank          Team       AP         USA       Billingsley,   Colley,    Massey,    Sagarin

1.               LSU         2            2              3               2         8                 2
2.               Fla.          3            3              1               6         5                 5
3.               SoCal       1            1               4            18         12                1
4.               Texas        7           6              12            1           1                 4
5.               W. Va.      5            5              5             15         51                8
6.               Ohio St.    8            9              2               8         15                3





5


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 18, 2007, 01:46:54 AM
I would say LSU looks the best at the moment as well, as they have shown both a strong offense and defense in their initial games.  South Carolina should be their first real test.  LSU is fortunate to have both the Gamecocks and Gators at home this year.  This is their year for a trip to the BCS title game. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 18, 2007, 11:34:11 AM
South Carolina is averaging about 27 points per game offensively. Does anyone think they'll score more than half of that against the LSU defense?

In contrast the Gamecock defense is giving up slightly under 10 points per game. Does anyone think that they will be able to hold LSU to under twice that??

I'd be real surprised if they managed either of those scenarios.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 18, 2007, 12:22:49 PM
I think South Carolina is a higher caliber team than Virginia Tech, so yes I think they will achieve one of those benchmarks.  My pick is LSU 38-27, mostly because of home field advantage.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 18, 2007, 01:23:13 PM
South Carolina will demonstrate whether or not LSU has anything resembling ordinariness.  They look awesome.  UCLA beating USC looks unlikely now.  If LSU hammers the Cocks, and Southern Cal beats Cal later this year, that's your game.  Oh, Oklahoma looks good as well.

Just about everything else is hard to figure as far as relative strengths of teams. 

I don't remember a year when so many good teams had put themselves out of the Nat'l Championship by week three, and where so many average teams are undefeated and waiting on those 2-5 losses.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 18, 2007, 03:45:24 PM
I think South Carolina is a higher caliber team than Virginia Tech, so yes I think they will achieve one of those benchmarks.  My pick is LSU 38-27, mostly because of home field advantage.

Okay DZ duly noted.

Me personally I don't think the Cocks will manage over 14 points unless they get some mop-up points late in the game.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 18, 2007, 04:54:31 PM
UCLA beating USC looks unlikely now.  If LSU hammers the Cocks, and Southern Cal beats Cal later this year, that's your game.  Oh, Oklahoma looks good as well.


Based on a couple of those rankings, it looks like margin of victory may have snuck back in to some of them?  Maybe it is just that it is so early they don't have enough points of comparison yet.  I'm struggling a bit with USC being 18th currently in one of them...

I think it is quite conceivable that USC could lose one or two close games this year.  Cal and Oregon are obvious examples this year, but even a team like Washington State (this weekend) could put together one flawless short passing day and with a couple of breaks come away with a win.  That is the fact of Pac-10 life.

Last year, USC lost to two sort of average Pac-10 teams that they overlooked.  Who would have thought that they would have struggles against UCLA last year?  If they have one weakness institutionally, it is probably that they play to the level of their competition.  But the flip side of that is they tend to get very "up" for the big games.

LSU sort of plays in the same sort of environment, so at least one loss is a real possibility.

Oklahoma has Texas, but that doesn't seem so daunting right now.

This is what makes college football great -there just aren't any sure things!





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 18, 2007, 05:35:42 PM
The below link is what was daunting for me, because Clemson, along with South Carolina and a couple of others are the "what's wrong with this picture," which usually means we are going to drop an unnecessary one such as NcSt this weekend.....there are noticeable absences as well, somehow the symbol by the name really brings it home for me emotionally...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/powerranking


Title: The Scourge of South Bend, And All Mankind
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 18, 2007, 07:53:48 PM
By Pat Forde
ESPN.com

Updated: September 18, 2007

The Scourge of South Bend, And All Mankind
Of course all the accountability for Notre Dame's historic offensive collapse rests with Ty Willingham (2). The Dash deeply regrets not coming to that conclusion last week. It doesn't matter how many three-and-outs occur on the watch of the current head coach; just blame it on the last one.

The Dash can't believe Irish fans are pointing the finger at former coach Ty Willingham.

The Dash has received a few hundred loving, affectionate e-mails from Fighting Irish fans insisting that they knew this horrific season was coming, thanks to the lack of recruiting by Willingham during his final two years in South Bend. Well, sure -- now that you mention it, the preseason pessimism was rampant. Just look at this August post from The Rock Report, a Domer fan blog, which averaged out season predictions from more than 3,000 Notre Dame fans and concluded the Irish would go 8-4:

"For ND fans, if things were to break right, we're looking at a two loss season. If things were to break wrong, we're looking at a possible five loss season. Four losses looks likely from an ND fans(sic) point of view, but that's usually on the optimistic side."

If that doesn't sound like a communal acknowledgement of a terrible season to come, what does? Though The Dash doesn't see anything in there about: "If things break wrong, we're looking at no offensive touchdowns through three weeks and a potential 0-8 start."

In keeping with September revisionist history, Notre Dame fans have unearthed evidence that Hurricane Katrina , high gas prices and defaulted home loans also are directly attributable to Willingham's tenure in South Bend, Ind.


Title: Pat Forde's Top 4
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 18, 2007, 07:57:46 PM


1. USC Trojans
Why the Trojans are No. 1: They're the only one of the four to beat a ranked team on the road -- and they did it convincingly, in a stadium that can still shake with the best of them.

What they're doing best: Dominating up front, on both sides of the ball. USC is sixth nationally in rushing offense and ninth in rushing defense, winning the game at the line of scrimmage.

Stat: Not a single Trojan ranks in the national top 30 in any of the NCAA's major statistical categories. And it doesn't matter at all.

Chinks in the armor: The passing game has been unspectacular so far, but it certainly hasn't hurt the Trojans. You have to figure John David Booty will be ready to take over a game if called upon.

First real test: Might not be until USC visits Oregon Oct. 27.


Title: Pat Forde's Top 4
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 18, 2007, 07:58:47 PM
2. LSU Tigers
Why the Tigers are No. 2: Combined score through three games is 137-7 -- and it took a replay review to determine that even the one touchdown allowed really was a touchdown. And the competition has at least been decent.

What they're doing best: LSU's defense has been insane. It leads the nation in total defense by more than 50 yards per game over the second-best unit, and in points allowed by three per game.

Stat: Opponents have run the ball 91 times at the LSU defense. Only five of those carries have gone for 10 or more yards. Only one has gone for more than 12. That's speed, pursuit and gang tackling.

Chinks in the armor: Is backup quarterback Ryan Perrilloux too good for the team's good? He's 27 of 33 for 403 yards and six touchdowns in relief of highly capable starter Matt Flynn. Any chance of a quarterback controversy here if Flynn struggles? (The Dash is, admittedly, grasping for a weakness.)

First real test: Florida comes to town Oct. 6 for what could be the biggest regular-season game of the year nationwide.


Title: Pat Forde's Top 4
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 18, 2007, 07:59:38 PM
3. Florida Gators
Why the Gators are No. 3: The offense is even more powerful and diverse than the version that won the national title last season. And the defense and special teams each chipped in touchdowns in the annihilation of Tennessee.

What they're doing best: Florida is running the spread offense to near perfection, hitting defenses from all angles. In classic UrbanBall fashion, 60 percent of the Gators' rushing attempts are by non-running backs.

Stat: How's this for efficiency? The Gators are scoring a point for every 9.4 yards of offense. Steve Spurrier's 1996 national champs, which hold the school record for scoring, averaged a point for every 11 yards.

Chinks in the armor: The secondary is young and susceptible to giving up a lot of yards and completions. And the defensive front hasn't generated enough consistent pressure.

First true test: At LSU Oct. 6. Gators lost last time they were there, in 2005.


Title: Pat Forde's Top 4
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 18, 2007, 08:01:32 PM
4. Oklahoma Sooners
Why the Sooners are No. 4: They've crushed three teams, but how good are those three? Combined record for Utah State, Miami and North Texas is 2-6, and the Hurricanes' two victories came against teams currently 0-3.

What they're doing best: The offensive balance is impressive: The Sooners rank 13th nationally in rushing offense and 12th in passing offense. Five backs are doing the damage on the ground and Oklahoma has thrown one touchdown pass for every 7.4 attempts. (Wideout Malcolm Kelly has 14 receptions and seven TDs.)

Stat: Oklahoma's leaders in rushing (DeMarco Murray), passing (Sam Bradford), sacks (Auston English) and tackles for loss (Ryan Reynolds) did not play a down in 2006.

Chinks in the armor: The Sooners are nothing special so far punting the ball and returning punts. That's about it.

First real test: Red River Shootout Oct. 6 against Texas. Oklahoma has lost two straight in that rivalry for the first time since 1998-99.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 18, 2007, 08:03:14 PM
I love that guy...

Oh and we have Arizona State on the road as well this year and they typically have a nice short passing attack also...so another potential speed bump...


Title: Re: The Scourge of South Bend, And All Mankind
Post by: jmmengel on September 19, 2007, 12:00:57 AM
By Pat Forde
ESPN.com

Updated: September 18, 2007

The Scourge of South Bend, And All Mankind
Of course all the accountability for Notre Dame's historic offensive collapse rests with Ty Willingham (2). The Dash deeply regrets not coming to that conclusion last week. It doesn't matter how many three-and-outs occur on the watch of the current head coach; just blame it on the last one.

The Dash can't believe Irish fans are pointing the finger at former coach Ty Willingham.

The Dash has received a few hundred loving, affectionate e-mails from Fighting Irish fans insisting that they knew this horrific season was coming, thanks to the lack of recruiting by Willingham during his final two years in South Bend. Well, sure -- now that you mention it, the preseason pessimism was rampant. Just look at this August post from The Rock Report, a Domer fan blog, which averaged out season predictions from more than 3,000 Notre Dame fans and concluded the Irish would go 8-4:

"For ND fans, if things were to break right, we're looking at a two loss season. If things were to break wrong, we're looking at a possible five loss season. Four losses looks likely from an ND fans(sic) point of view, but that's usually on the optimistic side."

If that doesn't sound like a communal acknowledgement of a terrible season to come, what does? Though The Dash doesn't see anything in there about: "If things break wrong, we're looking at no offensive touchdowns through three weeks and a potential 0-8 start."

In keeping with September revisionist history, Notre Dame fans have unearthed evidence that Hurricane Katrina , high gas prices and defaulted home loans also are directly attributable to Willingham's tenure in South Bend, Ind.

This is along the lines of a baseball story when Johhny Keane replaced the fired Solly Hemus at St. Louis in the early 60's.  Keane found two sealed envelopes in the manager's desk, marked one and two with the instructions to open only in time of trouble.  So, soon the Cardinals were in a losing streak and Keane opened letter number one.  It said simply, "Blame everything on me."  Solly Hemus.    So Keane did.

Before long though the clouds gathered again and Keane opened the second letter.
It read:
"Prepare two letters."

Solly


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 19, 2007, 12:21:18 AM
"Niven Any Saturday" has just been greenlighted by Fox Searchlight.

Anthony Niven, autistic piano prodigy accidentally trades his songbook with the playbook of the STAR QUARTERBACK in a moment of MAGICAL REALISMISH.  He begins to play very unusually when the COOL HOMOSEXUAL MUSIC TEACHER realizes he is calling plays using the keyboard.

A SCEPTICAL coach doubts the findings until, at a key moment during a crosstown rival game he figures WHAT THE FU**, and puts in the NIVEN BOOTLEG, as we hear the interpretation of the play envelop the theater. 

"AWWWWWWWWW....," the crowd roars as the WIDE RECIEVER drops the pass.  [penalty flag]

"You draw up any more plays, MEISTRO???," and the HEAD COACH AND BAND DIRECTOR SHARE A WEIRD SIMPATICO...

"Yeah, as a matter of fact..."

[MONTAGE]

[MILITARY DRUM HALFTIME]

I just wrote the second best movie you won't ever see on screen this year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 19, 2007, 10:47:17 AM

Oklahoma has Texas, but that doesn't seem so daunting right now.




Don't forget Texas A&M plays Oklahoma too. Granted its "at" Norman but you never know.

One team that just might surprise some folks this year in the Big 12 is Kansas. No they won't win the National championship, but they have a fairly favorable schedule and are actually a pretty good team. I expect a bowl game out of them this year.


Title: Re: The Scourge of South Bend, And All Mankind
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 19, 2007, 10:51:27 AM
By Pat Forde
ESPN.com

Updated: September 18, 2007

The Scourge of South Bend, And All Mankind
Of course all the accountability for Notre Dame's historic offensive collapse rests with Ty Willingham (2). The Dash deeply regrets not coming to that conclusion last week. It doesn't matter how many three-and-outs occur on the watch of the current head coach; just blame it on the last one.

The Dash can't believe Irish fans are pointing the finger at former coach Ty Willingham.

The Dash has received a few hundred loving, affectionate e-mails from Fighting Irish fans insisting that they knew this horrific season was coming, thanks to the lack of recruiting by Willingham during his final two years in South Bend. Well, sure -- now that you mention it, the preseason pessimism was rampant. Just look at this August post from The Rock Report, a Domer fan blog, which averaged out season predictions from more than 3,000 Notre Dame fans and concluded the Irish would go 8-4:

"For ND fans, if things were to break right, we're looking at a two loss season. If things were to break wrong, we're looking at a possible five loss season. Four losses looks likely from an ND fans(sic) point of view, but that's usually on the optimistic side."

If that doesn't sound like a communal acknowledgement of a terrible season to come, what does? Though The Dash doesn't see anything in there about: "If things break wrong, we're looking at no offensive touchdowns through three weeks and a potential 0-8 start."

In keeping with September revisionist history, Notre Dame fans have unearthed evidence that Hurricane Katrina , high gas prices and defaulted home loans also are directly attributable to Willingham's tenure in South Bend, Ind.


Personally I think this says what needs to be said about the Irish:

http://cfn.scout.com/2/680943.html

Specifically:

Upon further review, number crunching and analysis, we've found one basic problem: they stink ... New England has spent some draft picks on shoring up the offensive line, but for the most part, the team's philosophy has been to piece together a front five and spend the most time, energy and money elsewhere. That doesn't work in the college game. ND's offensive line has been miserable for the last two seasons, while the defensive line gets shoved all over the place. Until the Irish are better on the lines, the Jimmy Clausens of the world won't matter.


Title: Re: Pat Forde's Top 4
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 19, 2007, 10:54:19 AM

First real test: Florida comes to town Oct. 6 for what could be the biggest regular-season game of the year nationwide.

Seems like there are a lot of big games scheduled for Octoger 6th Scott.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: desdemona222b on September 19, 2007, 12:02:58 PM
2. LSU Tigers
Why the Tigers are No. 2: Combined score through three games is 137-7 -- and it took a replay review to determine that even the one touchdown allowed really was a touchdown. And the competition has at least been decent.

What they're doing best: LSU's defense has been insane. It leads the nation in total defense by more than 50 yards per game over the second-best unit, and in points allowed by three per game.

Stat: Opponents have run the ball 91 times at the LSU defense. Only five of those carries have gone for 10 or more yards. Only one has gone for more than 12. That's speed, pursuit and gang tackling.

Chinks in the armor: Is backup quarterback Ryan Perrilloux too good for the team's good? He's 27 of 33 for 403 yards and six touchdowns in relief of highly capable starter Matt Flynn. Any chance of a quarterback controversy here if Flynn struggles? (The Dash is, admittedly, grasping for a weakness.)

First real test: Florida comes to town Oct. 6 for what could be the biggest regular-season game of the year nationwide.

Enjoyed this one, Captain!  Tigers are awesome this year - I am so utterly happy to watch my team do this - their defense IS insane.  I did not have those stats of the defensive team, though, so thanks. 

RE - Notre Dame - are they not turning into the TEAM EVERYONE LOVES TO HATE or what?  So pleasant to watch LSU had their asses to them during the bowl game last year!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 19, 2007, 12:16:58 PM
no problem...but don't call me Captain!  :)

I saw some random stats on ESPN regarding Notre Dame a couple of nights ago.  They said that ND ranks dead last in Div 1-A in something like three categories and I think one of them was rushing yards.  After three games they have something like negative 16 yards rushing.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 19, 2007, 12:22:17 PM

Enjoyed this one, Captain!  Tigers are awesome this year - I am so utterly happy to watch my team do this - their defense IS insane.  I did not have those stats of the defensive team, though, so thanks. 

RE - Notre Dame - are they not turning into the TEAM EVERYONE LOVES TO HATE or what?  So pleasant to watch LSU had their asses to them during the bowl game last year!

FTR: Peronally I think LSU destroys Steve Spurrier and the Gamecocks.

FTR 2: People have been hating Notre Dame for years now.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: desdemona222b on September 19, 2007, 03:36:55 PM
Ooops - sorry, Trojan!!

 ;D


Title: ESPN's Bottom Ten
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 19, 2007, 06:16:13 PM


  1.  Notre Dame  0-3  "Dance On": "It's time 4 new education, the former rules don't apply," sings Prince. That certainly applies when the Irish land here. 
  2.  FIU  0-3  "Same Old Song and Dance": Like Aerosmith sings: "It's the same old story, it's the same old song and dance" for the Panthers, who have lost 15 straight. 
  3.  Temple  0-3  "Dancing in the Dark": "I ain't nothin' but tired, man I'm just tired and bored with myself." Think the Owls can identify with the Boss? 
  4.  Rice  0-3  "Dancing Days": Is Led Zeppelin on the Owls' iPod? After all, "dancing days are here again" for the bunch from Houston. 
  5.  UCLA
 2-1  "I Hope You Dance": When given the choice to "sit it out or dance" in Utah, the Bruins didn't take Lee Ann Womack's advice. 
  6.  Marshall  0-3  "Let's Dance": After losing to I-AA New Hampshire, the Thundering Herd should listen to David Bowie and "put on your red shoes and dance the blues." 
  7.  Louisiana-Lafayette  0-3  "Dancing With Myself": The Ragin' Cajuns were scheduled for a UL-U Pick 'em reunion, but a home loss to I-AA McNeese State keeps them in Billy Idol land. 
  8.  Northern Illinois  0-3  "I Can't Dance": Don't know if the Huskies can dance. Or talk. Or sing. But the Genesis of a gridiron revival in DeKalb appears to be a ways off. 
  9.  Syracuse  0-3  "Dance The Night Away": The way things have been going, the Orange might as well "Dance, dance, dance the night away" to Van Halen. 
  10.  San Diego State  0-2  "Dance With The Devil": UB40's song is an instrumental, but could lyrics really help describe the Aztecs' loss to the Sun Devils?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 20, 2007, 01:16:15 PM

Did they redshirt Griffen and McKnight???

It currently appears that both of these individuals will be playing out their true freshman seasons.   

update at 11...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 20, 2007, 01:30:10 PM
Why do people like Notre Dame again?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3028303

Former Irish QB won't be released from scholarship
ESPN.com news services

Updated: September 19, 2007, 11:23 PM ET

 SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Former Notre Dame quarterback Demetrius Jones expects to play next season at Northern Illinois, but the Fighting Irish will not make it easy for that to happen.


The Irish will not release Jones from his scholarship this season, a university spokesperson said Wednesday, adding Notre Dame did not think the sophomore's departure "was handled appropriately."

Coach Charlie Weis says he was not involved in the decision not to release Jones.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 20, 2007, 06:24:42 PM


Open Letter to ND, Big Ten
Why the Irish, conference need each other -- now

Posted: Thursday September 20, 2007 11:01AM; Updated: Thursday September 20, 2007 2:52PM
   
Mr. Jim Delany
Commissioner, Big Ten Conference

Dr. Kevin White
Director of Athletics, University of Notre Dame


Gentlemen:

I hope this letter finds you both doing well ... but then, who am I kidding?

I'm sure these past few weeks have not been the most enjoyable for either of you. Commissioner, you've had to deal with such maddening occurrences as Appalachian State stunning Michigan in Ann Arbor, Florida Atlantic beating Minnesota and 0-22 Duke knocking off Northwestern (which must have felt doubly cruel, seeing as you're a UNC guy). The only saving grace is almost no cable customer in America actually saw those take place thanks to your bumbling new television network.

As for you, Dr. White, I'm sure when you handed over that Fort Knox-sized contract extension to Charlie Weis a couple years ago, you were expecting a slightly bigger return on your investment than, say, zero offensive touchdowns through three games. It's too bad you didn't structure the deal so that he'd be paid per rushing yard. That way, he'd owe you money right now.

<click on link for the rest of the antics...>

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/09/19/open.letter/index.html


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 20, 2007, 11:54:42 PM
Why do people like Notre Dame again?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3028303

Former Irish QB won't be released from scholarship
ESPN.com news services

Updated: September 19, 2007, 11:23 PM ET

 SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Former Notre Dame quarterback Demetrius Jones expects to play next season at Northern Illinois, but the Fighting Irish will not make it easy for that to happen.


The Irish will not release Jones from his scholarship this season, a university spokesperson said Wednesday, adding Notre Dame did not think the sophomore's departure "was handled appropriately."

Coach Charlie Weis says he was not involved in the decision not to release Jones.



Indentured servitude is alive and well.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 21, 2007, 12:25:10 AM
Why do people like Notre Dame again?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3028303

Former Irish QB won't be released from scholarship
ESPN.com news services

Updated: September 19, 2007, 11:23 PM ET

 SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Former Notre Dame quarterback Demetrius Jones expects to play next season at Northern Illinois, but the Fighting Irish will not make it easy for that to happen.


The Irish will not release Jones from his scholarship this season, a university spokesperson said Wednesday, adding Notre Dame did not think the sophomore's departure "was handled appropriately."

Coach Charlie Weis says he was not involved in the decision not to release Jones.



Indentured servitude is alive and well.

Perhaps you could define "indentured servitude" as it applies to Jones?

He has a full ride for this year at Notre Dame and can't play at Northern Illinois until next year.
He quit the Fighting Irish because he lost his starting position at QB.
He is mad at Charlie Weiss.

So, Jones has CHOSEN to leave Notre Dame, one of the most competitive academic universities in the country, because he is mad and enroll at Northern Illinois even though he could stay at Notre Dame for a year at no cost while ineligible to play football.  Instead he has CHOSEN to enroll at Northern Illinois and PAY for his education while ineligble to play football.

Would we have fought a Civil War over this kind of "slavery"?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 21, 2007, 01:11:30 AM
You and your venerable institutions, jimmah.  I don't think Jones came to Notre Dame because of its competitive academic atmosphere, but rather its national spotlight in football.  Unfortunately, that light no longer shines so brightly on ND, which ESPN ranked at the bottom of its bottom ten.  Well deserved, I might add.  I don't think it is any fault of Jones that the Irish suck so bad this year, but it seems Weis decided to go with the wunderkid, Clausen, giving him some experience if nothing else until the Irish figure out what all is ailing them.  Jones should be free to abandon the sinking ship if he so chooses, and go to a school where he thinks he will get some playing time.  I think it will take years for the Irish to rebuild (the problem seems to go beyond Weis), as they seem hopelessly out of step with college football at the moment.  Why on earth should a kid like Jones waste those years at Notre Dame?

One of the reasons ND dumped Willingham was because they were hoping to bring Urban Meyer to South Bend.  As I remember, there was some clause where Meyer had to give ND first option, but it seemed there was something he didn't like as he chose Florida instead.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 21, 2007, 02:25:21 AM
I guess one has to look at Miami's win as a mild surprise.  I didn't think they were as bad as they looked against Oklahoma.  I'm looking forward to the Penn St.-Michigan and LSU-South Carolina games this weekend. 

Michigan has Penn St. at home, so it will be looking to make amends for its earlier pathetic home showings, but I think Paterno has Carr's number this year, Penn St. 21-10

I already posted a score for LSU-SC but think it will be lower than what I previously noted, going with LSU 24-14, as Spurrier will probably be relying on his defense to keep them in the game.   Tall order, but I don' t think LSU will run all over South Carolina as they did Virginia Tech. 

Saban should continue his winning ways, Alabama 20 Georgia 13.

Kentucky v. Arkansas seems like an interesting match up.  I think the Razorbacks will end Kentucky's winning streak, Arkansas 31 Kentucky 24.

The rest of the Top 25 games seem like blow outs.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 21, 2007, 02:31:43 AM
And they used to call FSU the Criminoles, but Texas seems to have an even bigger crime problem,

Texas player becomes 6th Longhorn arrested since June
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AplOO7qVTgvyDId0AvfW1AQcvrYF?slug=ap-t25-texas-playerarrest&prov=ap&type=lgns


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 21, 2007, 07:36:08 AM
I see ND might release Jones after all,

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AtA9HRWXsWlJfTMdMlqs3OccvrYF?slug=ap-notredame-jones&prov=ap&type=lgns

provided he doesn't play for a team on the Irish football schedule over the next two years.


Title: Miami/Tex A&m
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 21, 2007, 08:18:12 AM
Now that was the Miami Hurricane team I expected to see against the Sooners earlier this year. I still think Shannon is the man to turn this program around. He's saddled with a weak armed QB but he has some speedy, if somewhat glass handed, recievers to throw to though. And that always helps. A&M has a big OL but they couldn't get untracked versus the also speedy Miami DL. I think purely running teams are going to fare more poorly against the Canes than teams that can also toss the rock as well as run it.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 21, 2007, 09:26:11 AM
You and your venerable institutions, jimmah.  I don't think Jones came to Notre Dame because of its competitive academic atmosphere, but rather its national spotlight in football.  Unfortunately, that light no longer shines so brightly on ND, which ESPN ranked at the bottom of its bottom ten.  Well deserved, I might add.  I don't think it is any fault of Jones that the Irish suck so bad this year, but it seems Weis decided to go with the wunderkid, Clausen, giving him some experience if nothing else until the Irish figure out what all is ailing them.  Jones should be free to abandon the sinking ship if he so chooses, and go to a school where he thinks he will get some playing time.  I think it will take years for the Irish to rebuild (the problem seems to go beyond Weis), as they seem hopelessly out of step with college football at the moment.  Why on earth should a kid like Jones waste those years at Notre Dame?

One of the reasons ND dumped Willingham was because they were hoping to bring Urban Meyer to South Bend.  As I remember, there was some clause where Meyer had to give ND first option, but it seemed there was something he didn't like as he chose Florida instead.

Your opinion of Notre Dame and enumeration of its football travails are duly noted.
As to your charge of "indentured servitude", we are still waiting for an explanation.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 21, 2007, 09:33:37 AM
Jimm
Re: OSU vs. Wisky 11/3

Tickets are purchased, bags already packed. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 21, 2007, 09:34:06 AM
Penn State  minus two and half against a team that lost to Appalachian State in the Big House?

Looks like Las Vegas oddsmakers might have to throw in 2 tickets to Penn and Teller to get the Nittany Lion bettors.  The Carr record against JoePa still has them spooked.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 21, 2007, 09:36:45 AM
Jimm
Re: OSU vs. Wisky 11/3

Tickets are purchased, bags already packed. 

Skull Session and tailgates are waiting.

Drive, Drive on Down That field.........


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 21, 2007, 09:50:46 AM
You and your venerable institutions, jimmah.  I don't think Jones came to Notre Dame because of its competitive academic atmosphere, but rather its national spotlight in football.  Unfortunately, that light no longer shines so brightly on ND, which ESPN ranked at the bottom of its bottom ten.  Well deserved, I might add.  I don't think it is any fault of Jones that the Irish suck so bad this year, but it seems Weis decided to go with the wunderkid, Clausen, giving him some experience if nothing else until the Irish figure out what all is ailing them.  Jones should be free to abandon the sinking ship if he so chooses, and go to a school where he thinks he will get some playing time.  I think it will take years for the Irish to rebuild (the problem seems to go beyond Weis), as they seem hopelessly out of step with college football at the moment.  Why on earth should a kid like Jones waste those years at Notre Dame?

One of the reasons ND dumped Willingham was because they were hoping to bring Urban Meyer to South Bend.  As I remember, there was some clause where Meyer had to give ND first option, but it seemed there was something he didn't like as he chose Florida instead.

Your opinion of Notre Dame and enumeration of its football travails are duly noted.
As to your charge of "indentured servitude", we are still waiting for an explanation.

Personally I'm not sure of Notre Dame's motives for refusing to release him. It "seems" to be a petty thing to me.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 21, 2007, 10:09:08 AM
You and your venerable institutions, jimmah.  I don't think Jones came to Notre Dame because of its competitive academic atmosphere, but rather its national spotlight in football.  Unfortunately, that light no longer shines so brightly on ND, which ESPN ranked at the bottom of its bottom ten.  Well deserved, I might add.  I don't think it is any fault of Jones that the Irish suck so bad this year, but it seems Weis decided to go with the wunderkid, Clausen, giving him some experience if nothing else until the Irish figure out what all is ailing them.  Jones should be free to abandon the sinking ship if he so chooses, and go to a school where he thinks he will get some playing time.  I think it will take years for the Irish to rebuild (the problem seems to go beyond Weis), as they seem hopelessly out of step with college football at the moment.  Why on earth should a kid like Jones waste those years at Notre Dame?

One of the reasons ND dumped Willingham was because they were hoping to bring Urban Meyer to South Bend.  As I remember, there was some clause where Meyer had to give ND first option, but it seemed there was something he didn't like as he chose Florida instead.

Your opinion of Notre Dame and enumeration of its football travails are duly noted.
As to your charge of "indentured servitude", we are still waiting for an explanation.

Personally I'm not sure of Notre Dame's motives for refusing to release him. It "seems" to be a petty thing to me.

Well, there is the principle of a contract.

Jones agreed to play football for Notre Dame in exchange for a scholarship.
Jones decided to leave in a huff because he was no longer the starting quarterback. 

Notre Dame is then left with one less football player on its team and a scholarship that is wasted for a year.
Why should Notre Dame, as a matter of principle, let disgruntled players  run off to other schools for another free ride while Notre Dame is saddled with a lost scholarship?  No school can stop anyone from leaving, but they can make the point that ignoring the contract does come with a price.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 21, 2007, 10:32:38 AM
You and your venerable institutions, jimmah.  I don't think Jones came to Notre Dame because of its competitive academic atmosphere, but rather its national spotlight in football.  Unfortunately, that light no longer shines so brightly on ND, which ESPN ranked at the bottom of its bottom ten.  Well deserved, I might add.  I don't think it is any fault of Jones that the Irish suck so bad this year, but it seems Weis decided to go with the wunderkid, Clausen, giving him some experience if nothing else until the Irish figure out what all is ailing them.  Jones should be free to abandon the sinking ship if he so chooses, and go to a school where he thinks he will get some playing time.  I think it will take years for the Irish to rebuild (the problem seems to go beyond Weis), as they seem hopelessly out of step with college football at the moment.  Why on earth should a kid like Jones waste those years at Notre Dame?

One of the reasons ND dumped Willingham was because they were hoping to bring Urban Meyer to South Bend.  As I remember, there was some clause where Meyer had to give ND first option, but it seemed there was something he didn't like as he chose Florida instead.

Your opinion of Notre Dame and enumeration of its football travails are duly noted.
As to your charge of "indentured servitude", we are still waiting for an explanation.

Personally I'm not sure of Notre Dame's motives for refusing to release him. It "seems" to be a petty thing to me.

Well, there is the principle of a contract.

Jones agreed to play football for Notre Dame in exchange for a scholarship.
Jones decided to leave in a huff because he was no longer the starting quarterback. 

Notre Dame is then left with one less football player on its team and a scholarship that is wasted for a year.
Why should Notre Dame, as a matter of principle, let disgruntled players  run off to other schools for another free ride while Notre Dame is saddled with a lost scholarship?  No school can stop anyone from leaving, but they can make the point that ignoring the contract does come with a price.


You'd have a point if it had never happened before. I mean it isn't like other players have left colleges for somewhat similar reasons in the past. Lots of schools have released players from scholarships. Yes? No??


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 21, 2007, 10:45:47 AM
You and your venerable institutions, jimmah.  I don't think Jones came to Notre Dame because of its competitive academic atmosphere, but rather its national spotlight in football.  Unfortunately, that light no longer shines so brightly on ND, which ESPN ranked at the bottom of its bottom ten.  Well deserved, I might add.  I don't think it is any fault of Jones that the Irish suck so bad this year, but it seems Weis decided to go with the wunderkid, Clausen, giving him some experience if nothing else until the Irish figure out what all is ailing them.  Jones should be free to abandon the sinking ship if he so chooses, and go to a school where he thinks he will get some playing time.  I think it will take years for the Irish to rebuild (the problem seems to go beyond Weis), as they seem hopelessly out of step with college football at the moment.  Why on earth should a kid like Jones waste those years at Notre Dame?

One of the reasons ND dumped Willingham was because they were hoping to bring Urban Meyer to South Bend.  As I remember, there was some clause where Meyer had to give ND first option, but it seemed there was something he didn't like as he chose Florida instead.

Your opinion of Notre Dame and enumeration of its football travails are duly noted.
As to your charge of "indentured servitude", we are still waiting for an explanation.

Personally I'm not sure of Notre Dame's motives for refusing to release him. It "seems" to be a petty thing to me.

Well, there is the principle of a contract.

Jones agreed to play football for Notre Dame in exchange for a scholarship.
Jones decided to leave in a huff because he was no longer the starting quarterback. 

Notre Dame is then left with one less football player on its team and a scholarship that is wasted for a year.
Why should Notre Dame, as a matter of principle, let disgruntled players  run off to other schools for another free ride while Notre Dame is saddled with a lost scholarship?  No school can stop anyone from leaving, but they can make the point that ignoring the contract does come with a price.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 21, 2007, 11:02:01 AM
I see ND might release Jones after all,

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AtA9HRWXsWlJfTMdMlqs3OccvrYF?slug=ap-notredame-jones&prov=ap&type=lgns

provided he doesn't play for a team on the Irish football schedule over the next two years.

fascinating story.  Another layer of the onion peeled...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 21, 2007, 11:09:11 AM
Erickson, Sun Devils looking to win over skeptics
By Ted Miller

Special to ESPN.com

Updated: September 22, 2006

If conversation lags at the next cocktail party, and you find yourself among a gaggle of college football fans, here's a way to get tongues wagging.

Ask folks what they think of Dennis Erickson.

Dennis Erickson is looking for a 4-0 start with a win against Oregon State at home on Saturday.

Everyone has an opinion on Arizona State's first-year coach, whose 3-0 Sun Devils face their first real test Saturday when Oregon State comes to Tempe.

On the one hand, there are national championships and program resurrections. On the other is NFL failure.

What about the mess of NCAA violations he left behind at Miami in 1994? Or the strutting, lawless, undisciplined teams?


rest of story...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3027385


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 21, 2007, 12:05:11 PM
You and your venerable institutions, jimmah.  I don't think Jones came to Notre Dame because of its competitive academic atmosphere, but rather its national spotlight in football.  Unfortunately, that light no longer shines so brightly on ND, which ESPN ranked at the bottom of its bottom ten.  Well deserved, I might add.  I don't think it is any fault of Jones that the Irish suck so bad this year, but it seems Weis decided to go with the wunderkid, Clausen, giving him some experience if nothing else until the Irish figure out what all is ailing them.  Jones should be free to abandon the sinking ship if he so chooses, and go to a school where he thinks he will get some playing time.  I think it will take years for the Irish to rebuild (the problem seems to go beyond Weis), as they seem hopelessly out of step with college football at the moment.  Why on earth should a kid like Jones waste those years at Notre Dame?

One of the reasons ND dumped Willingham was because they were hoping to bring Urban Meyer to South Bend.  As I remember, there was some clause where Meyer had to give ND first option, but it seemed there was something he didn't like as he chose Florida instead.

Your opinion of Notre Dame and enumeration of its football travails are duly noted.
As to your charge of "indentured servitude", we are still waiting for an explanation.

Personally I'm not sure of Notre Dame's motives for refusing to release him. It "seems" to be a petty thing to me.

Well, there is the principle of a contract.

Jones agreed to play football for Notre Dame in exchange for a scholarship.
Jones decided to leave in a huff because he was no longer the starting quarterback. 

Notre Dame is then left with one less football player on its team and a scholarship that is wasted for a year.
Why should Notre Dame, as a matter of principle, let disgruntled players  run off to other schools for another free ride while Notre Dame is saddled with a lost scholarship?  No school can stop anyone from leaving, but they can make the point that ignoring the contract does come with a price.


You'd have a point if it had never happened before. I mean it isn't like other players have left colleges for somewhat similar reasons in the past. Lots of schools have released players from scholarships. Yes? No??

Similar reasons?   You mean getting pissed by being  demoted to back- up quaterback?
I would bet that most football players who are released from scholarships are the result of mutual agreement.

In this case Jones never said anything and bolted for Northern Illinois. 
Never mind the fact that Notre Dame hardly was casting him aside.
As for Jones,  being the second string quarterback at Notre Dame may not gets books and movies centered around you, but it has a lot more to offer than slogging through the MAC.

Notre Dame has little recourse.  It did nothing wrong but it is left with an empty scholarship and a hole in the QB depth chart.

At least it can serve notice to future players that there is a cost to a unilateral decision to walk away from a contract


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 21, 2007, 12:24:06 PM
I am of the opinion that NIU should have told Jones to settle his departure with ND before suiting up for practice.  A courtesy call from NIU to CW also was in order.  No coach or AD should find out a player is leaving by the player not showing up for a game. 

OTOH, ND doesn't have much PR cred and this story doesn't help.  Letting him go quietly would not hurt in that area.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 21, 2007, 12:37:07 PM


Similar reasons?   You mean getting pissed by being  demoted to back- up quaterback?
I would bet that most football players who are released from scholarships are the result of mutual agreement.

In this case Jones never said anything and bolted for Northern Illinois. 
Never mind the fact that Notre Dame hardly was casting him aside.
As for Jones,  being the second string quarterback at Notre Dame may not gets books and movies centered around you, but it has a lot more to offer than slogging through the MAC.

Notre Dame has little recourse.  It did nothing wrong but it is left with an empty scholarship and a hole in the QB depth chart.

At least it can serve notice to future players that there is a cost to a unilateral decision to walk away from a contract

Why do you feel the incessant need to exhibit that fact that you have zero brain cells James? Do you just feel the need to argue whether you're right or wrong?(in this case wrong again) Did you learn it in college? Or were you simply born an asshole?

Yes I said similar. Do you really think this is the first guy to ever transfer because he isn't happy?? For instance just off the top of my head take Mitch Mustain. Not happy, asked for his release, got it from Arkansas, done deal.

 I could probably come up with a dozen(maybe even dozens as its more common than aparently you know[See: Greg Olsen) other examples over the last ten years.

Notre Dame is just being petty dorkwads about it. Most schools realize a disgruntled person like this can be a real cancer to a team and just let the guy transfer.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 21, 2007, 12:39:49 PM
I remember when Rutgers University was an academic school first, and athletic school second.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 21, 2007, 01:06:06 PM
I remember when Rutgers University was an academic school first, and athletic school second.



I remember 25 cents per gallon gasoline.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 21, 2007, 01:10:24 PM


Why do you feel the incessant need to exhibit that fact that you have zero brain cells James? Do you just feel the need to argue whether you're right or wrong?(in this case wrong again) Did you learn it in college? Or were you simply born an asshole?

Yes I said similar. Do you really think this is the first guy to ever transfer because he isn't happy?? For instance just off the top of my head take Mitch Mustain. Not happy, asked for his release, got it from Arkansas, done deal.

 I could probably come up with a dozen(maybe even dozens as its more common than aparently you know[See: Greg Olsen) other examples over the last ten years.

Notre Dame is just being petty dorkwads about it. Most schools realize a disgruntled person like this can be a real cancer to a team and just let the guy transfer.

There is nothing more refeshing on  a crisp pre-autumn day than a clever rejoinder from the Captain who can pepper his posts with such thought inspiring words as " asshole" and the eloquent turn of a phrase such as  "petty dorkwads".

He has never been known to use a word that  might send a reader to the dictionary.

As to the point.

There is no right or wrong in this case.

You choose to castigate Notre Dame for holding Jones to a scholarship.
So be it.
I simply pointed out why Notre Dame would do it.

And your example of Mitch Mustain is not similar to the Jones' Case, since Mustain asked for a release.
Jones still hasn't.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 21, 2007, 01:14:20 PM

Notre Dame has little recourse.  It did nothing wrong but it is left with an empty scholarship and a hole in the QB depth chart.

At least it can serve notice to future players that there is a cost to a unilateral decision to walk away from a contract

I think your basic point here is a valid one Jim.  I just don't recall hearing of a school that did this before.   I'm guessing there is still more to the story that hasn't come out yet...   But perhaps it is just Irish stubborness


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 21, 2007, 01:16:40 PM
I remember 25 cents per gallon gasoline.


:)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 21, 2007, 01:24:35 PM
I remember when Rutgers University was an academic school first, and athletic school second.


I remember when most of the people in the state,i including me, didn't even know Rutgers was the State University


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 21, 2007, 02:05:16 PM


Why do you feel the incessant need to exhibit that fact that you have zero brain cells James? Do you just feel the need to argue whether you're right or wrong?(in this case wrong again) Did you learn it in college? Or were you simply born an asshole?

Yes I said similar. Do you really think this is the first guy to ever transfer because he isn't happy?? For instance just off the top of my head take Mitch Mustain. Not happy, asked for his release, got it from Arkansas, done deal.

 I could probably come up with a dozen(maybe even dozens as its more common than aparently you know[See: Greg Olsen) other examples over the last ten years.

Notre Dame is just being petty dorkwads about it. Most schools realize a disgruntled person like this can be a real cancer to a team and just let the guy transfer.

There is nothing more refeshing on  a crisp pre-autumn day than a clever rejoinder from the Captain who can pepper his posts with such thought inspiring words as " asshole" and the eloquent turn of a phrase such as  "petty dorkwads".

He has never been known to use a word that  might send a reader to the dictionary.

As to the point.

There is no right or wrong in this case.

You choose to castigate Notre Dame for holding Jones to a scholarship.
So be it.
I simply pointed out why Notre Dame would do it.

And your example of Mitch Mustain is not similar to the Jones' Case, since Mustain asked for a release.
Jones still hasn't.

You never cease to amaze me. Castigate??
 

 Maybe you should change your name to the Amazing AD.

Jones is enrolled at NIU, done deal James. And it doesn't matter if ND releases him this year or not as NIU doesn't have a scholarship to give him anyways. It's just childishly petty of ND to act the way they're acting. Of course I can understand that you sympathize with ND since they "are" acting childish and petty. Was that perhaps your major in school??


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 21, 2007, 03:32:39 PM
I remember when Rutgers University was an academic school first, and athletic school second.



I remember 25 cents per gallon gasoline.

And 10 cents for apack of baseball cards, which came with that delicious sugary pink bubble gum that made all those new, stiff cards smell just as wonderful.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 21, 2007, 03:48:09 PM

Notre Dame has little recourse.  It did nothing wrong but it is left with an empty scholarship and a hole in the QB depth chart.

At least it can serve notice to future players that there is a cost to a unilateral decision to walk away from a contract

I think your basic point here is a valid one Jim.  I just don't recall hearing of a school that did this before.   I'm guessing there is still more to the story that hasn't come out yet...   But perhaps it is just Irish stubborness


I think stubborness by any school, not just Notre Dame, is warranted when anyone voids an agreement on his own.

Notre Dame protected its own interests by letting it be known that scholarships are committments. Players that are unhappy and walk out will have a potential price to pay.

Notre Dame could not stand in Jones' way of leaving, but it could guard against the precedent of a future player using a similar set of circumstances to leave and join a ND rival in mid-season.

It also appears that Jones' sold himself a little short.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-070920jones_for_websep21,1,562404.story?ctrack=2&cset=true


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 21, 2007, 11:46:01 PM
Washington State QB, Alex Brink is passing for 73% so far this season with 10 passing TDs, so I would at least expect to see them moving the ball well on USC for the first half.

Final Score  USC 38- Washington State 21


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 22, 2007, 03:04:47 AM

Notre Dame protected its own interests by letting it be known that scholarships are committments. Players that are unhappy and walk out will have a potential price to pay.

Notre Dame could not stand in Jones' way of leaving, but it could guard against the precedent of a future player using a similar set of circumstances to leave and join a ND rival in mid-season.

It also appears that Jones' sold himself a little short.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-070920jones_for_websep21,1,562404.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

Now you make Notre Dame sound like a corporation.  It doesn't seem ND had much interest in Jones, except to hold him if Clausen goes down.  They have other reserves, but I suppose it would be nice to hold onto someone of Jones' talent just in case.  The kid has two good years left and he wants to use them.  Can't say I blame him for that.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 22, 2007, 08:50:20 AM
For the record, if we lose today, we suck.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 22, 2007, 09:16:21 AM
For the record, if we lose today, we suck.

Somehow your confidence level needs a boost,


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 22, 2007, 12:26:52 PM
  The kid has two good years left and he wants to use them.  Can't say I blame him for that.

I  thought it was three years?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 22, 2007, 12:29:23 PM
For the record, if we lose today, we suck.

Regis has given you the Kathie Lee Curse   ...and worse , he has publicly announced that he "doesn't care about Michigan State!"

can you imagine?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 22, 2007, 12:30:49 PM
Game  Day update

It is raining fairly heavily on and off in So Cal.  If this holds through game time, we'll have to take a few points off the prediction.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 22, 2007, 03:50:36 PM
Does Mich play a road game this year?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 23, 2007, 08:32:31 AM
Jee-zus, jake, what the Hell was that?  One of the Big Least's top teams just got beat by a team two mid-level Big 10, +/-, teams treated, more or less, like a roll of Charmin.

Notre Dame is 0-4 for the first time ever and I couldn't be happier.  Gee, underperforming in your third year at ND after two pretty good years used to be enough to get you fired there, as simple as black and white.  So to speak.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 23, 2007, 09:28:06 AM

Notre Dame has little recourse.  It did nothing wrong but it is left with an empty scholarship and a hole in the QB depth chart.

At least it can serve notice to future players that there is a cost to a unilateral decision to walk away from a contract

I think your basic point here is a valid one Jim.  I just don't recall hearing of a school that did this before.   I'm guessing there is still more to the story that hasn't come out yet...   But perhaps it is just Irish stubborness


I think stubborness by any school, not just Notre Dame, is warranted when anyone voids an agreement on his own.

Notre Dame protected its own interests by letting it be known that scholarships are committments. Players that are unhappy and walk out will have a potential price to pay.

Notre Dame could not stand in Jones' way of leaving, but it could guard against the precedent of a future player using a similar set of circumstances to leave and join a ND rival in mid-season.

It also appears that Jones' sold himself a little short.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-070920jones_for_websep21,1,562404.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

FTR James, PTI's Michael Wilbon said exactly the same thing(yes exactly)about this subject. He said and I quote, "Notre Dame is being petty...". Which they were. I say were because I beleive they finally stopped acting like a kid who's girlfriend broke up with them and decided to date the next door neighbor kid.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 23, 2007, 09:29:40 AM
For the record, if we lose today, we suck.

Your boys don't suck Steve. Like I said the other day, this is State's year.

On the other hand my boy's "do" suck. In triplicate.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 23, 2007, 09:31:24 AM
Game  Day update

It is raining fairly heavily on and off in So Cal.  If this holds through game time, we'll have to take a few points off the prediction.


Rained cats and dogs in the LSU/USC game too Scott. It was still a good game to watch. I especially loved the trick fake FG play. WOW.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 23, 2007, 09:33:36 AM
Oh, and Jake, I'm comiserating right along with you Buddy. My team got beat by a team that lost to a DIV II team. I might never live it down.

In fact with James being here I'm sure I won't.  :)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 23, 2007, 10:45:09 AM
Michigan State has some work to do.
The Spartans are 4-0 and Sports Illustrated has them finishing 4-8.
Charlie Weiss said Mark D'Antonio showed class in not running up the score.

Todd Boeckmann only threw 14 passes and still had 4 TD throws. Akron and Youngstown State were better defensive teams than Northwestern.
(* note to Mickeyd)  36th consecutive 100,000 plus game in the Shoe, only because 37 games ago the stadium could not hold 100,000.

22 regular season wins in a row for OSU.  Last loss was, uh oh, to Penn State in 2005.

Ball State seems to have taken some of the luster off the SoCal romp over Nebraska.

61,72,75,76,86=combined point totals in each Pac Ten game yesterday, all league contests. Over/Under bettors take note.





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 23, 2007, 11:21:52 AM
About the only thing I got right was that LSU wouldn't run up the score on South Carolina.  Otherwise, I went 0-3 on my picks. 

Where's whiskeypriest?  His Spartans look like the class of the Big Ten at the moment.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 23, 2007, 11:22:43 AM
Jee-zus, jake, what the Hell was that?  One of the Big Least's top teams just got beat by a team two mid-level Big 10, +/-, teams treated, more or less, like a roll of Charmin.

Notre Dame is 0-4 for the first time ever and I couldn't be happier.  Gee, underperforming in your third year at ND after two pretty good years used to be enough to get you fired there, as simple as black and white.  So to speak.

Whoops!  Didn't see you there.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 23, 2007, 09:18:09 PM
Noteworthy in Week Four

Best Impersonation of a winning quarterback:   Texas Tech QB Grant Harrell-45-66 for 644 yards and 5 TDs in a 49-45 loss to Oklahoma St.
Honorable Mention: Louisville's Brian Brohm- 555 yards with four touchdowns in a 38-35 loss to Syracuse.

Best Impersonation of Boise State:  LSU's trick field goal.

Best Impersonation of Appalachian State:  Syracuse, a 36.5 underdog

Best Impersonation of Michigan :    Louisville (see above)

Worst Media Angle on pre-game story on Notre Dame and Michigan State game:  The Detroit sportswriter who argued Michigan State was faced with a lose-lose situation.

Best Answer to Worst Media Angle on pre-game story on Notre Dame and Michigan State game:
Spartan Coach Mark Dantonio:  I don't know who said it, but there is a big difference between winning and losing. And there is no lose-lose in this game.  You can print that back in Detroit."

Best Response by Jim Tressel that went through and out the head of the reporter:  Asked to comment on the possibility of sign stealing, ala the New England Patriots in college games, he deadpanned and no one "got it":    ""In my mind, the people that we've played against, I've never had a feel that any of them would take part in anything like that, and if they did, we still have to execute. Plus, we only have like three plays, so they'd probably know what we're running, anyway."

Worst Collapse by a Big 12 Team playing a MAC Team:  Gene Chisek's Iowa State Cyclones who scored to take an 11 point leave over Toledo with :5 25 to go in the game.  Iowa State's defense never got on the field again. Toledo returned the ensuing kickoff for 81 yards and a score, then stuffed Iowa State causing a muffed punt fumble in the end zone for a one point lead and then watched a feeble last second Cyclone field goal attempt sail wide and low.

Best Impersonation of the Worst Collapse by a Big 12 Team playing a MAC Team:  Nebraska.  Ball State racked up 610 yards against the Cornhuskers who could only watch the Cardinals drop a TD pass then miss a last gasp field goal.

Best Impersonation of a PAC TEN Game by a BIG TEB Game :   Purdue 45 Minnesota 31

Best Impersonation of a BIG TEN Game  by a PAC TEN Game :   No award given




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 23, 2007, 09:35:16 PM
Does Mich play a road game this year?

no kidding...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 23, 2007, 09:39:15 PM
Gee, underperforming in your third year at ND after two pretty good years used to be enough to get you fired there, as simple as black and white.  So to speak.

yes, this has sure been the conversation at my house.  I was watching GameDay final with my wife last night after getting home from the game and I turned to her and said "what are they (University officials) going to do a month from now when they are 0-8?  How are they going to justify not firing him?"

You can only blame so much on Ty Willingham, gentlemen!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 23, 2007, 09:43:58 PM
Texas Tech QB Grant Harrell-45-66 for 644 yards and 5 TDs in a 49-45 loss to Oklahoma St.
Louisville's Brian Brohm- 555 yards with four touchdowns in a 38-35 loss to Syracuse.


And you were making fun of the Pac-10...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 23, 2007, 10:00:27 PM
Well, I feel a little better about the season now.

We saw LSU and Florida show some weaknesses finally as they played worthy opponents and we saw USC strut their defensive stuff against a strong Washington State passing offense --they were averaging 41 pts per game and were held to 14 last night.  USC also continued the trend of taking what the defense gives them when they are on offense-- 4 TD and almost 300 yds passing for Booty yesterday.

However, they sustained a few more injuries on defense.  I would not be overly surprised to see someone like CJ Gable switching to cornerback over the next week or two--especially if he doesn't get more carries next week.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 23, 2007, 10:08:39 PM
Gee, underperforming in your third year at ND after two pretty good years used to be enough to get you fired there, as simple as black and white.  So to speak.

yes, this has sure been the conversation at my house.  I was watching GameDay final with my wife last night after getting home from the game and I turned to her and said "what are they (University officials) going to do a month from now when they are 0-8?  How are they going to justify not firing him?"

You can only blame so much on Ty Willingham, gentlemen!

Charlie Weiss has a 10 year extension.  He is not going to be fired.
But if Notre Dame upsets  the Trojans SoCal gets the nod as
Best Impersonation of Appalachian State.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 23, 2007, 10:12:17 PM
Although one might expect Stafon Johnson to be the "go to" back now, I don't think that is the history of the Pete Carroll era.

I would expect to see the other backs continue to get a chance to show their stuff early in the next few games with the bulk of the carries coming to the one that establishes himself that day.

Many times, Lendale White would complain about being left out of a game, only to be the "star" the following week.

Havili will continue to be the primary fullback though I would expect...  And I would expect to see a lot more balls thrown to him and tight end Fred Davis, while we are sorting out the wide receivers issue.

Yep...  Chauncey Washington started and got the bulk of the carries last night, but almost everyone got a shot. McNight even got some nice carries in the 4th quarter and he looked great.

Fred Davis did indeed get the bulk of the throws in his directions. 9 catches (I thought it was 10) 124 yards and 2 TDs.

Next week we'll have to see if CJ gets the call and responds.  If this doesn't happen soon, then we'll probably see a move --hopefully to the defense as he's a great athelete and you would hate to lose him.





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 23, 2007, 10:19:50 PM
Charlie Weiss has a 10 year extension.  He is not going to be fired.

I don't think they are planning on firing him either.  I'm just wondering what they will say to justify not doing it...

I haven't read his contract, but I've got to think they were smart enough to put in a "buy out" clause that would prevent them from actually having to pay out another 8 or 9 years...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 23, 2007, 10:44:15 PM
Jee-zus, jake, what the Hell was that?  One of the Big Least's top teams just got beat by a team two mid-level Big 10, +/-, teams treated, more or less, like a roll of Charmin.


Simple explanation.

I was at the game.  :P


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 23, 2007, 10:47:32 PM
For the record, if we lose today, we suck.

Your boys don't suck Steve. Like I said the other day, this is State's year.

On the other hand my boy's "do" suck. In triplicate.

Not as bad as my Drinkin their own Bathwater Mofos do. 

Perhaps it's because I'm an NFL fan, and am not used to it, but I am consistently amazed at how much coaching can mean to a college football team.   This is essentially the same team as last  year (less Okoye, who, legitmately was a huge presence on the line) with arguably a better offense than last year.

But they can't seem to keep from making really boneheaded mistakes this year.   Who knew Petrino was such a disciplinarian?

:'(


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 23, 2007, 10:49:00 PM
Oh, and Jake, I'm comiserating right along with you Buddy. My team got beat by a team that lost to a DIV II team. I might never live it down.



Pretty sure that up until yesterday, 'Cuse was a Div II team as well.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 24, 2007, 12:33:12 AM
Charlie Weiss has a 10 year extension.  He is not going to be fired.

I don't think they are planning on firing him either.  I'm just wondering what they will say to justify not doing it...

I haven't read his contract, but I've got to think they were smart enough to put in a "buy out" clause that would prevent them from actually having to pay out another 8 or 9 years...

Because until the firing of Willingam Notre Dame always honored contracts.  Maybe you are too young to remember Terry Brennan, Joe Kuharich, Gerry Faust and Bob Davie who represnt some of the  most forgettable years at Notre Dame .  I am sure that names like Tollner, Smith, and Hackett conjure up equally bad memories for you when equated to Notre Dame and UCLA results.

Take your licks at Weiss if you want. 

But he is going to be at Notre Dame for a long time.




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 24, 2007, 03:36:47 AM
If Weis continues along this track, I would be very surprised if ND keeps him.  Irish alumni simply won't accept an 0-12 year, but I think the problems are deeper than just Weis.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 24, 2007, 08:51:10 AM
Noteworthy in Week Four

Best Impersonation of a winning quarterback:   Texas Tech QB Grant Harrell-45-66 for 644 yards and 5 TDs in a 49-45 loss to Oklahoma St.
Honorable Mention: Louisville's Brian Brohm- 555 yards with four touchdowns in a 38-35 loss to Syracuse.

Best Impersonation of Boise State:  LSU's trick field goal.

Best Impersonation of Appalachian State:  Syracuse, a 36.5 underdog

Best Impersonation of Michigan :    Louisville (see above)

Worst Media Angle on pre-game story on Notre Dame and Michigan State game:  The Detroit sportswriter who argued Michigan State was faced with a lose-lose situation.

Best Answer to Worst Media Angle on pre-game story on Notre Dame and Michigan State game:
Spartan Coach Mark Dantonio:  I don't know who said it, but there is a big difference between winning and losing. And there is no lose-lose in this game.  You can print that back in Detroit."

Best Response by Jim Tressel that went through and out the head of the reporter:  Asked to comment on the possibility of sign stealing, ala the New England Patriots in college games, he deadpanned and no one "got it":    ""In my mind, the people that we've played against, I've never had a feel that any of them would take part in anything like that, and if they did, we still have to execute. Plus, we only have like three plays, so they'd probably know what we're running, anyway."

Worst Collapse by a Big 12 Team playing a MAC Team:  Gene Chisek's Iowa State Cyclones who scored to take an 11 point leave over Toledo with :5 25 to go in the game.  Iowa State's defense never got on the field again. Toledo returned the ensuing kickoff for 81 yards and a score, then stuffed Iowa State causing a muffed punt fumble in the end zone for a one point lead and then watched a feeble last second Cyclone field goal attempt sail wide and low.

Best Impersonation of the Worst Collapse by a Big 12 Team playing a MAC Team:  Nebraska.  Ball State racked up 610 yards against the Cornhuskers who could only watch the Cardinals drop a TD pass then miss a last gasp field goal.

Best Impersonation of a PAC TEN Game by a BIG TEB Game :   Purdue 45 Minnesota 31

Best Impersonation of a BIG TEN Game  by a PAC TEN Game :   No award given


If you came up with all this yourself James, damn good post.

You forgot one though:

Best Impersonation of a Top 15 team Penn State. The Lions played about as sloppy as a...well...you fill in the blank.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 24, 2007, 08:57:53 AM
Gee, underperforming in your third year at ND after two pretty good years used to be enough to get you fired there, as simple as black and white.  So to speak.

yes, this has sure been the conversation at my house.  I was watching GameDay final with my wife last night after getting home from the game and I turned to her and said "what are they (University officials) going to do a month from now when they are 0-8?  How are they going to justify not firing him?"

You can only blame so much on Ty Willingham, gentlemen!

Yep. Those thoughts, however true or untrue or in between, do tend to run through ones mind Scott.

As I mentioned the other day Cincy looks to be a for real squad to me.

UCONN 4-0, Kansas 4-0. Paper Tigers?

Also how good is Purdue? I touted them last year only to see them fall flat on their face.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 24, 2007, 09:00:42 AM
Michigan State has some work to do.
The Spartans are 4-0 and Sports Illustrated has them finishing 4-8.
Charlie Weiss said Mark D'Antonio showed class in not running up the score.

Todd Boeckmann only threw 14 passes and still had 4 TD throws. Akron and Youngstown State were better defensive teams than Northwestern.
(* note to Mickeyd)  36th consecutive 100,000 plus game in the Shoe, only because 37 games ago the stadium could not hold 100,000.

22 regular season wins in a row for OSU.  Last loss was, uh oh, to Penn State in 2005.

Ball State seems to have taken some of the luster off the SoCal romp over Nebraska.

61,72,75,76,86=combined point totals in each Pac Ten game yesterday, all league contests. Over/Under bettors take note.




jimm, is it me or does Todd Boeckmann remind you of Craig Krenzel?  I loved the comment from Rece Davis about JT's unusual show of exuberance when OSU blocked a field goal attempt by Wash. " Jim Tressel hasn't been this excited since sweater vests went on sale at JC Penney's"  


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 24, 2007, 09:37:03 AM
Noteworthy in Week Four

Best Impersonation of a winning quarterback:   Texas Tech QB Grant Harrell-45-66 for 644 yards and 5 TDs in a 49-45 loss to Oklahoma St.
Honorable Mention: Louisville's Brian Brohm- 555 yards with four touchdowns in a 38-35 loss to Syracuse.

Best Impersonation of Boise State:  LSU's trick field goal.

Best Impersonation of Appalachian State:  Syracuse, a 36.5 underdog

Best Impersonation of Michigan :    Louisville (see above)

Worst Media Angle on pre-game story on Notre Dame and Michigan State game:  The Detroit sportswriter who argued Michigan State was faced with a lose-lose situation.

Best Answer to Worst Media Angle on pre-game story on Notre Dame and Michigan State game:
Spartan Coach Mark Dantonio:  I don't know who said it, but there is a big difference between winning and losing. And there is no lose-lose in this game.  You can print that back in Detroit."

Best Response by Jim Tressel that went through and out the head of the reporter:  Asked to comment on the possibility of sign stealing, ala the New England Patriots in college games, he deadpanned and no one "got it":    ""In my mind, the people that we've played against, I've never had a feel that any of them would take part in anything like that, and if they did, we still have to execute. Plus, we only have like three plays, so they'd probably know what we're running, anyway."

Worst Collapse by a Big 12 Team playing a MAC Team:  Gene Chisek's Iowa State Cyclones who scored to take an 11 point leave over Toledo with :5 25 to go in the game.  Iowa State's defense never got on the field again. Toledo returned the ensuing kickoff for 81 yards and a score, then stuffed Iowa State causing a muffed punt fumble in the end zone for a one point lead and then watched a feeble last second Cyclone field goal attempt sail wide and low.

Best Impersonation of the Worst Collapse by a Big 12 Team playing a MAC Team:  Nebraska.  Ball State racked up 610 yards against the Cornhuskers who could only watch the Cardinals drop a TD pass then miss a last gasp field goal.

Best Impersonation of a PAC TEN Game by a BIG TEB Game :   Purdue 45 Minnesota 31

Best Impersonation of a BIG TEN Game  by a PAC TEN Game :   No award given


If you came up with all this yourself James, damn good post.

You forgot one though:

Best Impersonation of a Top 15 team Penn State. The Lions played about as sloppy as a...well...you fill in the blank.

I think I would have labeled it the Worst Impersonation of a top 15 team...but Penn State against Michigan has been so one-sided  it is difficult to get a handle on either team just from the outcome of this game.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 24, 2007, 09:53:27 AM
Michigan State has some work to do.
The Spartans are 4-0 and Sports Illustrated has them finishing 4-8.
Charlie Weiss said Mark D'Antonio showed class in not running up the score.

Todd Boeckmann only threw 14 passes and still had 4 TD throws. Akron and Youngstown State were better defensive teams than Northwestern.
(* note to Mickeyd)  36th consecutive 100,000 plus game in the Shoe, only because 37 games ago the stadium could not hold 100,000.

22 regular season wins in a row for OSU.  Last loss was, uh oh, to Penn State in 2005.

Ball State seems to have taken some of the luster off the SoCal romp over Nebraska.

61,72,75,76,86=combined point totals in each Pac Ten game yesterday, all league contests. Over/Under bettors take note.




jimm, is it me or does Todd Boeckmann remind you of Craig Krenzel?  I loved the comment from Rece Davis about JT's unusual show of exuberance when OSU blocked a field goal attempt by Wash. " Jim Tressel hasn't been this excited since sweater vests went on sale at JC Penney's"  

It is hard to compare Boeckmann to Krenzel  since Craig spent a lot of time handing off to Clarett and scrambling/running on his own.

Hey most exciting moment of the game was in the second quarter.  Two rows in front of us, during a timeout, the guy gets up and takes his girlfriend to the end of the row, kneels down and pulls out an engagement ring and proposes. She says yes and all of Section 28A is on its feet. 

And did you catch the end of the Georgia/Alabama game?
Right before Georgia's first play in overtime ESPN's Mike Patrick, out of nowhere, asks " What is Britney doing with her life?"  The color guy does all he can to keep from saying "What the F..."?(Didn't stop me from saying it  though, even the my dog was only other body in the room)
Then Georgia scores and the game is over.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 24, 2007, 09:55:10 AM
Let's try it this way:

It is hard to compare Boeckmann to Krenzel  since Craig spent a lot of time handing off to Clarett and scrambling/running on his own.

Hey most exciting moment of the game was in the second quarter.  Two rows in front of us, during a timeout, the guy gets up and takes his girlfriend to the end of the row, kneels down and pulls out an engagement ring and proposes. She says yes and all of Section 28A is on its feet. 

And did you catch the end of the Georgia/Alabama game?
Right before Georgia's first play in overtime ESPN's Mike Patrick, out of nowhere, asks " What is Britney doing with her life?"  The color guy does all he can to keep from saying "What the F..."?(Didn't stop me from saying it  though, even the my dog was only other body in the room)
Then Georgia scores and the game is over.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 24, 2007, 10:08:38 AM
Let's try it this way:

It is hard to compare Boeckmann to Krenzel  since Craig spent a lot of time handing off to Clarett and scrambling/running on his own.

Hey most exciting moment of the game was in the second quarter.  Two rows in front of us, during a timeout, the guy gets up and takes his girlfriend to the end of the row, kneels down and pulls out an engagement ring and proposes. She says yes and all of Section 28A is on its feet. 

And did you catch the end of the Georgia/Alabama game?
Right before Georgia's first play in overtime ESPN's Mike Patrick, out of nowhere, asks " What is Britney doing with her life?"  The color guy does all he can to keep from saying "What the F..."?(Didn't stop me from saying it  though, even the my dog was only other body in the room)
Then Georgia scores and the game is over.

jimm, you can say fuck on this forum


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 24, 2007, 10:15:39 AM
Not that I think ND is going to fire Weis, understand, but I find it interesting that Willingham and Weis are getting held to different standards.  Willingham is a damn good coach (also, a Spartan) and got a raw deal from the dome.

I think this year's OSU team has a chance to do what that Krenzel led team did: run the table (They look like the best Big Ten, +/-, team right now) and make the BCS title game.  All it would take would be the top SEC teams knocking each other down, a loss by Oklahoma or USC.  They could find their way into the title game despite being maybe the fifth or so best team, and thake the prize.  As last year showed, the best team does not always win.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 24, 2007, 10:36:46 AM
Not that I think ND is going to fire Weis, understand, but I find it interesting that Willingham and Weis are getting held to different standards.  Willingham is a damn good coach (also, a Spartan) and got a raw deal from the dome.

I think this year's OSU team has a chance to do what that Krenzel led team did: run the table (They look like the best Big Ten, +/-, team right now) and make the BCS title game.  All it would take would be the top SEC teams knocking each other down, a loss by Oklahoma or USC.  They could find their way into the title game despite being maybe the fifth or so best team, and thake the prize.  As last year showed, the best team does not always win.

Craig James commented that everyone has been pretty quiet about the Buckeyes and that some attention should be paid to what's going on with them. I say stay quiet. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bankshot1 on September 24, 2007, 10:37:41 AM
Quote
Not that I think ND is going to fire Weis, understand, but I find it interesting that Willingham and Weis are getting held to different standards.  Willingham is a damn good coach (also, a Spartan) and got a raw deal from the dome.

What's Charlie got left-8 years of a $40MM contract? So much for AD infallability.  

boz- NYT's Rhoden agrees with you

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/sports/ncaafootball/15rhoden.html?_r=1&n=Top/News/Sports/Columns/William%20C%20Rhoden&oref=slogin

Quote
Even though nearly three years have come and gone, Willingham’s tenure at Notre Dame is frequently mentioned. The nature of Willingham’s firing and Weis’s hiring says a lot about standards and double standards and about the enduring unlevel playing field for African Americans in sports and beyond.




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 24, 2007, 10:40:21 AM
For what it is worth, I have MSU as 6-6, 7-5 if we catch a break, this year.  Two home games against Northwestern and Indiana, and then maybe catch a break against Purdue or Iowa.  But my beloved Eventual 2008 BCS Champions Spartans and 2007 Outland Trophy Winner Jonal Saint-Dic - my second favorite College Footsie name right now, behind Michael Hoomanawanui, an Illini wide receiver - are unbeaten and have beaten ND!  Pessimism can wait until reality requires it!  All the way, bay-bee!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 24, 2007, 10:47:06 AM
For what it is worth, I have MSU as 6-6, 7-5 if we catch a break, this year.  Two home games against Northwestern and Indiana, and then maybe catch a break against Purdue or Iowa.  But my beloved Eventual 2008 BCS Champions Spartans and 2007 Outland Trophy Winner Jonal Saint-Dic - my second favorite College Footsie name right now, behind Michael Hoomanawanui, an Illini wide receiver - are unbeaten and have beaten ND!  Pessimism can wait until reality requires it!  All the way, bay-bee!

Congrats to the Spartans.  I was hoping that they would contribute to the long national nightmare of ND not scoring an offensive TD. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 24, 2007, 10:50:32 AM
Well, when you fumble on the six for your first snap, that "no offensive touchdown" thing is hard to accomplish.

OSU has a championship level defense.  Offense?  Well....


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 24, 2007, 10:55:54 AM
Well, when you fumble on the six for your first snap, that "no offensive touchdown" thing is hard to accomplish.

OSU has a championship level defense.  Offense?  Well....

You know what they say about defense winning championships........


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 24, 2007, 11:25:47 AM
For what it is worth, I have MSU as 6-6, 7-5 if we catch a break, this year.  Two home games against Northwestern and Indiana, and then maybe catch a break against Purdue or Iowa.  But my beloved Eventual 2008 BCS Champions Spartans and 2007 Outland Trophy Winner Jonal Saint-Dic - my second favorite College Footsie name right now, behind Michael Hoomanawanui, an Illini wide receiver - are unbeaten and have beaten ND!  Pessimism can wait until reality requires it!  All the way, bay-bee!

Like I said a couple times earlier Steve, this is State's year. I figure they go 8-4 or even 9-3.

And I'm picking them to beat Wisconsin this week.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 24, 2007, 11:37:00 AM
Let's try it this way:


just make sure your comments are after the final     "/quote in brackets"  when you are using reply

You can also edit the comments for easier reading by deleting everything between the first "quote" (the one that includes the poster to whom you are replying) and the last "\quote"  except what you want to show up in the box...

You can also use preview to make sure it is going to look the way you expected...


Title: Sagarin
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 24, 2007, 11:43:54 AM
5 Pac-10 teams in the top 25...

Interesting though that in predictor he has Oklahoma as number 1 - this is the one that takes point differential into consideration.  But has Oklahoma played anyone yet? I guess I need to watch them next week.

 I think Sagarin is still on Bayesian though, so we'll see after a few more weeks.


HOME ADVANTAGE=  2.93           RATING    W   L  SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 |  ELO_CHESS   |  PREDICTOR 
   1  Southern California  A  = 100.41    3   0   70.53(  43)    0   0  |    1   0  |   99.64    1 |  100.64    2
   2  LSU                  A  =  99.24    4   0   71.41(  38)    0   0  |    2   0  |   98.32    2 |   99.64    3
   3  Oklahoma             A  =  97.41    4   0   61.82( 115)    0   0  |    1   0  |   93.18    3 |  104.63    1
   4  Ohio State           A  =  93.17    4   0   66.76(  80)    0   0  |    0   0  |   92.01    4 |   93.85    5
   5  Florida              A  =  92.89    4   0   69.13(  55)    0   0  |    0   0  |   91.17    5 |   94.30    4
   6  West Virginia        A  =  88.15    4   0   62.85( 112)    0   0  |    0   0  |   85.64   13 |   90.65    6
   7  Oregon               A  =  88.01    4   0   70.09(  49)    0   0  |    0   0  |   86.38   12 |   89.24    7
   8  California           A  =  87.14    4   0   66.90(  79)    0   0  |    0   0  |   88.52    8 |   85.34   10
   9  Texas                A  =  86.87    4   0   62.99( 109)    0   0  |    0   0  |   90.96    6 |   83.29   16
  10  Boston College       A  =  85.59    4   0   68.22(  68)    0   0  |    0   0  |   86.61   11 |   84.09   15
  11  Arizona State        A  =  85.44    4   0   65.56(  87)    0   0  |    0   0  |   84.99   16 |   85.30   11
  12  Clemson              A  =  84.28    4   0   63.63( 101)    0   0  |    1   0  |   88.57    7 |   80.51   24
  13  Kentucky             A  =  84.08    4   0   65.72(  86)    0   0  |    0   0  |   82.63   20 |   85.08   14
  14  Cincinnati           A  =  83.67    4   0   56.22( 149)    0   0  |    0   0  |   80.87   27 |   86.51    9
  15  South Carolina       A  =  83.54    3   1   71.23(  41)    0   1  |    1   1  |   87.98    9 |   79.66   30
  16  Wisconsin            A  =  83.28    4   0   66.99(  77)    0   0  |    0   0  |   87.90   10 |   79.30   32
  17  Nebraska             A  =  83.12    3   1   75.13(  16)    0   1  |    0   1  |   84.01   17 |   81.71   19
  18  Georgia              A  =  82.93    3   1   69.32(  52)    0   0  |    1   1  |   85.12   15 |   80.48   25
  19  Missouri             A  =  82.76    4   0   63.02( 108)    0   0  |    0   0  |   85.32   14 |   80.05   28
  20  UCLA                 A  =  82.33    3   1   73.36(  24)    0   0  |    0   0  |   79.41   30 |   85.30   12
  21  Rutgers              A  =  82.11    3   0   50.44( 179)    0   0  |    0   0  |   79.19   32 |   85.09   13
  22  South Florida        A  =  82.10    3   0   64.98(  93)    0   0  |    0   0  |   82.58   21 |   81.06   23
  23  Purdue               A  =  81.97    4   0   59.24( 132)    0   0  |    0   0  |   81.82   23 |   81.54   20
  24  Hawaii               A  =  81.80    4   0   50.93( 172)    0   0  |    0   0  |   81.04   26 |   82.00   17
  25  Florida State        A  =  81.77    2   1   72.50(  30)    0   0  |    0   1  |   83.66   18 |   79.54   31


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 24, 2007, 11:44:49 AM
Let's try it this way:


just make sure your comments are after the final     "/quote in brackets"  when you are using reply

You can also edit the comments for easier reading by deleting everything between the first "quote" (the one that includes the poster to whom you are replying) and the last "\quote"  except what you want to show up in the box...

You can also use preview to make sure it is going to look the way you expected...

That was actually my bad, I think I have the hang of it nowl


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 24, 2007, 11:52:04 AM
Did anyone catch OSU coach Mike Gundy going off about an article by Jenni Carlson in the Daily Oklahoman?  I saw the presse conference but everytime I go to a link to read the actual article it is not there.  I wonder if they had it deleted after his screaming about it.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 24, 2007, 01:16:18 PM
For what it is worth, I have MSU as 6-6, 7-5 if we catch a break, this year.  Two home games against Northwestern and Indiana, and then maybe catch a break against Purdue or Iowa.  But my beloved Eventual 2008 BCS Champions Spartans and 2007 Outland Trophy Winner Jonal Saint-Dic - my second favorite College Footsie name right now, behind Michael Hoomanawanui, an Illini wide receiver - are unbeaten and have beaten ND!  Pessimism can wait until reality requires it!  All the way, bay-bee!

Yeah, but just remember Ohio State always loses to Penn State in a year when Michigan beats a previously unbeaten Penn State in 3:30 game in  Ann Arbor while Notre Dame is losing in South Bend.  Okay, it is an obscure fact, but a worriesome one.

Actually I doubt any Big Ten team can get through the schedule without a loss.



Title: Re: Sagarin
Post by: jmmengel on September 24, 2007, 01:30:51 PM
5 Pac-10 teams in the top 25...

Interesting though that in predictor he has Oklahoma as number 1 - this is the one that takes point differential into consideration.  But has Oklahoma played anyone yet? I guess I need to watch them next week.

 I think Sagarin is still on Bayesian though, so we'll see after a few more weeks.


HOME ADVANTAGE=  2.93           RATING    W   L  SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 |  ELO_CHESS   |  PREDICTOR 
   1  Southern California  A  = 100.41    3   0   70.53(  43)    0   0  |    1   0  |   99.64    1 |  100.64    2
   2  LSU                  A  =  99.24    4   0   71.41(  38)    0   0  |    2   0  |   98.32    2 |   99.64    3
   3  Oklahoma             A  =  97.41    4   0   61.82( 115)    0   0  |    1   0  |   93.18    3 |  104.63    1
   4  Ohio State           A  =  93.17    4   0   66.76(  80)    0   0  |    0   0  |   92.01    4 |   93.85    5
   5  Florida              A  =  92.89    4   0   69.13(  55)    0   0  |    0   0  |   91.17    5 |   94.30    4
   6  West Virginia        A  =  88.15    4   0   62.85( 112)    0   0  |    0   0  |   85.64   13 |   90.65    6
   7  Oregon               A  =  88.01    4   0   70.09(  49)    0   0  |    0   0  |   86.38   12 |   89.24    7
   8  California           A  =  87.14    4   0   66.90(  79)    0   0  |    0   0  |   88.52    8 |   85.34   10
   9  Texas                A  =  86.87    4   0   62.99( 109)    0   0  |    0   0  |   90.96    6 |   83.29   16
  10  Boston College       A  =  85.59    4   0   68.22(  68)    0   0  |    0   0  |   86.61   11 |   84.09   15
  11  Arizona State        A  =  85.44    4   0   65.56(  87)    0   0  |    0   0  |   84.99   16 |   85.30   11
  12  Clemson              A  =  84.28    4   0   63.63( 101)    0   0  |    1   0  |   88.57    7 |   80.51   24
  13  Kentucky             A  =  84.08    4   0   65.72(  86)    0   0  |    0   0  |   82.63   20 |   85.08   14
  14  Cincinnati           A  =  83.67    4   0   56.22( 149)    0   0  |    0   0  |   80.87   27 |   86.51    9
  15  South Carolina       A  =  83.54    3   1   71.23(  41)    0   1  |    1   1  |   87.98    9 |   79.66   30
  16  Wisconsin            A  =  83.28    4   0   66.99(  77)    0   0  |    0   0  |   87.90   10 |   79.30   32
  17  Nebraska             A  =  83.12    3   1   75.13(  16)    0   1  |    0   1  |   84.01   17 |   81.71   19
  18  Georgia              A  =  82.93    3   1   69.32(  52)    0   0  |    1   1  |   85.12   15 |   80.48   25
  19  Missouri             A  =  82.76    4   0   63.02( 108)    0   0  |    0   0  |   85.32   14 |   80.05   28
  20  UCLA                 A  =  82.33    3   1   73.36(  24)    0   0  |    0   0  |   79.41   30 |   85.30   12
  21  Rutgers              A  =  82.11    3   0   50.44( 179)    0   0  |    0   0  |   79.19   32 |   85.09   13
  22  South Florida        A  =  82.10    3   0   64.98(  93)    0   0  |    0   0  |   82.58   21 |   81.06   23
  23  Purdue               A  =  81.97    4   0   59.24( 132)    0   0  |    0   0  |   81.82   23 |   81.54   20
  24  Hawaii               A  =  81.80    4   0   50.93( 172)    0   0  |    0   0  |   81.04   26 |   82.00   17
  25  Florida State        A  =  81.77    2   1   72.50(  30)    0   0  |    0   1  |   83.66   18 |   79.54   31

The BCS formula to date, still minus two computers
Historically, I think, no team ranked higher than sixth has made the title game once the BCS starts.

Rank   School   W-L   BCS   HARPct   USAPct   CRPct   HAR (Rank)   USA (Rank)   Avg (Rank)   AH   BIL   COL   MAS   SAG   WLF
1   LSU   4-0   0.9703   0.9621   0.9587   0.9900   2742 (2)   1438 (2)    1.25 (1)   -    1    1    1    2   -
2   Southern California   3-0   0.9591   0.9898   0.9873   0.9000   2821 (1)   1481 (1)    3.50 (3)   -    4    6    3    1   -
3   Florida   4-0   0.9028   0.8905   0.8980   0.9200   2538 (4)   1347 (3)    3.00 (2)   -    3    2    2    5   -
4   Oklahoma   4-0   0.8238   0.9007   0.8907   0.6800   2567 (3)   1336 (4)    9.00 (7)   -    7    12    14    3   -
5   Ohio State   4-0   0.7851   0.7372   0.7280   0.8900   2101 (7)   1092 (8)    3.75 (4)   -    2    5    4    4   -
6   West Virginia   4-0   0.7218   0.8453   0.8400   0.4800   2409 (5)   1260 (5)    14.00 (12)   -    5    16    22    13   -
7   Texas   4-0   0.7128   0.7330   0.7353   0.6700   2089 (8)   1103 (7)    9.25 (8)   -    13    7    11    6   -
8   California   4-0   0.6882   0.7765   0.7580   0.5300   2213 (6)   1137 (6)    12.75 (10)   -    9    13    21    8   -
9   Wisconsin   4-0   0.6797   0.6551   0.6840   0.7000   1867 (9)   1026 (9)    8.50 (5)   -    6    9    9    10   -
10   Boston College   4-0   0.6206   0.5846   0.5873   0.6900   1666 (11)   881 (11)    8.75 (6)   -    8    10    6    11   -

The random smileys are a nice feature.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 24, 2007, 02:23:50 PM
A little too much obsession with numbers, eh jim? 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 24, 2007, 02:25:36 PM
yes, if you don;t want those to appear you can sometimes insert a space between whatever character and the ending ")"

for instance the number 8 when combined with ")" becomes a  chillin' smiley with shades...

as so...


8)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 24, 2007, 03:03:35 PM
yes, if you don;t want those to appear you can sometimes insert a space between whatever character and the ending ")"

for instance the number 8 when combined with ")" becomes a  chillin' smiley with shades...

as so...


8)

I liked it better when I didn't know.

Sort of like, what happens when I hit this
one?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 24, 2007, 03:25:36 PM
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/travel/tmagazine/10remix-columbus-t-1.html?ref=tmagazine

jimm; check out what the NY Times had to say about Cbus.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 24, 2007, 05:55:36 PM
Not that I think ND is going to fire Weis, understand, but I find it interesting that Willingham and Weis are getting held to different standards.  Willingham is a damn good coach (also, a Spartan) and got a raw deal from the dome.

I really really really hate when they black/white thing is brought up for any extraneous reason just to stir the pot.  But if StomachStaple continues down this current pike and the Domos do not can him, I don't know what other conclusion one could draw, given the shoddy treatment of Willingham.

I think this year's OSU team has a chance to do what that Krenzel led team did: run the table (They look like the best Big Ten, +/-, team right now) and make the BCS title game.  All it would take would be the top SEC teams knocking each other down, a loss by Oklahoma or USC.  They could find their way into the title game despite being maybe the fifth or so best team, and thake the prize.  As last year showed, the best team does not always win.

From anyone else I would take this as sarcasm...  And I'm still 90% sure it is, but... ???


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 24, 2007, 06:11:19 PM
A little too much obsession with numbers, eh jim? 

Dzimo -- who is that in your pic?  Is it the woman who was running for the French PM, recently?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 24, 2007, 07:29:35 PM
I don't know what other conclusion one could draw, given the shoddy treatment of Willingham.


yup...and that is why I said, I will be very curious to see how they explain "not" firing him at seasons end...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 24, 2007, 09:21:00 PM
I don't know what other conclusion one could draw, given the shoddy treatment of Willingham.


yup...and that is why I said, I will be very curious to see how they explain "not" firing him at seasons end...

Well, he does have a ten year contract and yet to coach a full team of his own recruits.
That's just for starters.

Notre Dame violated its own code of conduct by firing Willingham and no one lets them forget that.

That's a nice insurance package for Weiss.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 24, 2007, 10:08:23 PM
Not many big time games this week, but there are a couple.  I'm trying to cover all the teams represented by fans here:

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 24, UNIVERSITY OF WISONSIN 14

 

Wisconsin's near loss to Ioway makes me rethink my early season belief that they would run the table in the Big Ten, +/-.  Hill is a dynamite back, but the rest of the offense seems, well, not entirely ept.  Meanwhile, MSU's defense, led by eventual 2007 Outland Trophy Winner Jonal Saint-Dic Is making a believer out of me.  Which I am sure shocks the living piss out of all of you.  But then, the time for optimism is BEFORE reality forces you to take the other fork in the road.

 

WEST VIRGINIA 45, SOUTH FLORIDA 44

 

Does anyone in the Big Least play Defense?  Not that isn't exciting, in a UCF sort of way.  Anyway, West Virginia's one loss should come later.  The USFers are at home though, so this could be where the djgrady memorial express comes a cropper.  But mark my words, a cropper it will come.  A team built solely on offense will eventually get outscored, no matter how much offense it has.

 

CALIFORNIA 35, OREGON 31

 

Another smash mouth sort of game, between your uncle Hippie Q. McFreaky's two favorite teams.  In the race to see who finishes with one PAWCP loss before bonging out in their bowl game, I think Cal will lace the Birkenstocks up just a little tighter.

 

PURDUE 31, NOTRE DAME 6

 

Not because the game holds any intrinsic interest.  I just love picking Notre Tie Playing For Dame to go 0-5.

 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 24, ILLINOIS 13

 

The thing is, cap, I think Meatchicken is not as bad a team as the one the stunned us the first two games of the year.  There's a hell of a lot of (not entirely well-coached) talent there, so I was not really surprised that PSU couldn't do anything against them.  PSU does not have the kind of offensive speed to take advantage of Meatchicken's fundamental weakness.  They should do fine against the emerging program Zook has put together, because the defense should keep them in good shape.  But then, there's the possibility of a big game by Michael Hoomanawanui.  God I love typing that name.

 

FLORIDA 28, AUBURN 14

 

Almost losing to Mississippi?  What's with that?  Florida's defense needs to come together, fast.  Their next three games are at LSU, Kentucky, and Georgia.  (Of course, right now Kentucky's signature win is against Lousyville, so I'm going to wait and see on them.)  Auburn's pretty disappointing so far this year.  By the way, whatever happened to coreview?

 

ALABAMA 27, FLORIDA STATE 17

 

A dangerous game for the Traitor Express.  Florida State is just dangerous enough to win it.

 

OHIO STATE 70, MINNESOTA 17

 

Again, no real intrinsic interest in this one, but I note Minnesota has given up on average 35 points - against two MAC schools, a second tier Big Ten, +/-, team, and a 1-AA school.  OSU is exactly twice as good as anyone they've played, so...

 

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 144, TULANE -14

 

Not sure if this is even theoretically a "game."

 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 35, WASHINGTON 7

 

Well, I still think Willingham is a great coach who got screwed.  But there just isn't the talent there to take on SC successfully.  SC let down away a couple of times last year, though, and if they do this week, Washington could put a scare into them.  I just don't expect that to happen.

 

LOUISVILLE 42, NORTH CAROLINA STATE  31

 

NC State's one win was over Wooford.  Wooford beat Appy State.  Appy State beat Meatchicken.  Meatchicken beat PSU.  PSU will beat Illinois.  Illinois beat Syracuse.  Syracuse beat Louisville.  By which chain of logic, NC State should beat Louisville.  Which they won't.  I think Louisville will right the ship in sufficient time to make a late season charge to the Ft. Worth So Lame We Don't Even Have A Corporate Sponsor Bowl.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 24, 2007, 10:11:30 PM
Not that I think ND is going to fire Weis, understand, but I find it interesting that Willingham and Weis are getting held to different standards.  Willingham is a damn good coach (also, a Spartan) and got a raw deal from the dome.

I really really really hate when they black/white thing is brought up for any extraneous reason just to stir the pot.  But if StomachStaple continues down this current pike and the Domos do not can him, I don't know what other conclusion one could draw, given the shoddy treatment of Willingham.

I think this year's OSU team has a chance to do what that Krenzel led team did: run the table (They look like the best Big Ten, +/-, team right now) and make the BCS title game.  All it would take would be the top SEC teams knocking each other down, a loss by Oklahoma or USC.  They could find their way into the title game despite being maybe the fifth or so best team, and thake the prize.  As last year showed, the best team does not always win.

From anyone else I would take this as sarcasm...  And I'm still 90% sure it is, but... ???
Heeee.  Actually, I meant "that" year, but liked it better the way it came out.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 25, 2007, 12:35:03 AM
Not many big time games this week, but there are a couple.  I'm trying to cover all the teams represented by fans here:

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 24, UNIVERSITY OF WISONSIN 14

 

 Meanwhile, MSU's defense, led by eventual 2007 Outland Trophy Winner Jonal Saint-Dic Is making a believer out of me.  


Hold on, hold on, let me fix this...


Meanwhile, MSU's defense, led by eventual 2007 Outland Trophy Winner Jonal Saint-Dic Is making a make-believer out of me.



Ahh, that's better!


 FLORIDA 28, AUBURN 14

 

Almost losing to Mississippi?  What's with that?  Florida's defense needs to come together, fast.  Their next three games are at LSU, Kentucky, and Georgia.  (Of course, right now Kentucky's signature win is against Lousyville, so I'm going to wait and see on them.)  Auburn's pretty disappointing so far this year.  By the way, whatever happened to coreview?

Stop sounding like such an embittered Ages Since I've Seen an Orange Bowl Mediocre Big Ten Team fan, it's not becoming.   Unless you had to go to bed early Sat'day night, you'd note that the "Cates" (as the Rednecks call 'em down here, or at least how they sound like they call 'em) convincingly trounced the Hawgs and Heisman wannabe Darren McFadden that night.  By a site better than they beat my Cards, too.




LOUISVILLE 42, NORTH CAROLINA STATE  31

 
 I think Louisville will right the ship in sufficient time to make a late season charge to the Ft. Worth So Lame We Don't Even Have A Corporate Sponsor Bowl.


I was thinking Poulan Weed Eater since the Liberty Bowl wouldn't take us back.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 25, 2007, 04:22:45 AM
I think this year's OSU team has a chance to do what that Krenzel led team did: run the table (They look like the best Big Ten, +/-, team right now) and make the BCS title game.  All it would take would be the top SEC teams knocking each other down, a loss by Oklahoma or USC.  They could find their way into the title game despite being maybe the fifth or so best team, and thake the prize.  As last year showed, the best team does not always win.

Doesn't seem like they even showed up. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 25, 2007, 04:25:57 AM
Dzimo -- who is that in your pic?  Is it the woman who was running for the French PM, recently?

David Duchovny dressed in drag from an episode of Twin Peaks.  Maybe he can play Ségolène Royal at some point in time.

(http://z.about.com/d/worldnews/1/7/Q/5/-/-/segolene_royal_france.jpg)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 25, 2007, 05:06:29 AM
Seems the game of the week is Cal and Oregon.  I'm taking Oregon at home 24-17.

I think Georgia Tech will rebound against Clemson.  I score this one Georgia Tech 27-14.

The Seminoles will be waiting for Alabama, who looked pretty pathetic last week.  Florida State 21-14.

I figure I have to get at least one of the above right.  Other games of note:

As for Whiskey's Spartans, I have to go with Wisconsin 21-10.

I think West Virginia is too much for South Florida, even at home.  West Virginia 35-21.

Purdue gives up a lot of points, so the Irish should score, but not enough.  Purdue 42-31.

Florida should run up the score on Auburn, Florida 48-14.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 25, 2007, 05:14:54 AM
Well, he does have a ten year contract and yet to coach a full team of his own recruits.
That's just for starters.

Meyer came to Florida and won a national championship within two years.  Irish alums must really be fuming about letting Meyer get away.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 25, 2007, 07:39:19 AM
Well, he does have a ten year contract and yet to coach a full team of his own recruits.
That's just for starters.

Meyer came to Florida and won a national championship within two years.  Irish alums must really be fuming about letting Meyer get away.
No one ever questioned Zook's ability to recruit, after all.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 25, 2007, 09:44:43 AM
Ohio State freshman quarterback arrested
Tuesday,  September 25, 2007 9:16 AM


THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Freshman Antonio Henton, a reserve quarterback on the Ohio State football team, is in Franklin County Municipal Court this morning on a charge of soliciting a prostitute. Court records show that he was arrested at N. High Street and 6th Avenue by an undercover police officer at 8:30 p.m. yesterday.

Isn't being a football player enough to get  a guy laid these days?  What an idiot. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 25, 2007, 09:45:45 AM
Ohio State freshman quarterback arrested
Tuesday,  September 25, 2007 9:16 AM


THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Freshman Antonio Henton, a reserve quarterback on the Ohio State football team, is in Franklin County Municipal Court this morning on a charge of soliciting a prostitute. Court records show that he was arrested at N. High Street and 6th Avenue by an undercover police officer at 8:30 p.m. yesterday.

Isn't being a football player enough to get  a guy laid these days?  What an idiot. 
One would think, in Columbus, at least.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on September 25, 2007, 09:58:09 AM
Tressel tells his players "nothing good happens after 10:00 pm"  guess he will have to move that to 8:00 pm. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 25, 2007, 10:11:35 AM
Tressel tells his players "nothing good happens after 10:00 pm"  guess he will have to move that to 8:00 pm. 
Really, 8:30 seems awful early for desperation, even if you aren't a Buckeye Football player.  Cripes, guy, give the dorm party a chance.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 25, 2007, 10:16:30 AM
Well, he does have a ten year contract and yet to coach a full team of his own recruits.
That's just for starters.

Meyer came to Florida and won a national championship within two years.  Irish alums must really be fuming about letting Meyer get away.
No one ever questioned Zook's ability to recruit, after all.

Weis inherited a pretty solid team as well, and had two good years, so one has to wonder what happened to be 0-4 down with only 3 touchdowns to their credit. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 25, 2007, 10:19:30 AM
In Weis's defense, these are Willingham's seniors.  But where are Weis's juniors?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 25, 2007, 10:25:02 AM
Pretty hard to give Weis any credit, given the thumpings he has taken.  If he was building the Irish from scratch one could cut him some slack, but he isn't.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 25, 2007, 10:31:04 AM
In Weis's defense, these are Willingham's seniors.  But where are Weis's juniors?

They are still sophomores.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 25, 2007, 10:42:54 AM
I assume he started recruiting as soon as he signed onto the job, as much coaches do, so he should have some juniors this year.  He can look on the bright side in that Clausen will only get better, but he needs to build an offensive line around him to offer some protection.  It seemed he should have thought of that when he landed the blue-chip quarterback.  To go from 10-3 to 0-4 is a major come down in anyone's book, and to take it so hard on the chin in each of those games.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 25, 2007, 12:07:09 PM
Ohio State freshman quarterback arrested
Tuesday,  September 25, 2007 9:16 AM


THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Freshman Antonio Henton, a reserve quarterback on the Ohio State football team, is in Franklin County Municipal Court this morning on a charge of soliciting a prostitute. Court records show that he was arrested at N. High Street and 6th Avenue by an undercover police officer at 8:30 p.m. yesterday.

Isn't being a football player enough to get  a guy laid these days?  What an idiot. 
One would think, in Columbus, at least.

Oh I think he'd be pretty much an idiot almost anywheres Steve.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 25, 2007, 12:10:23 PM
Yankees suck!


Title: Since we're bashing ND
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 25, 2007, 12:10:45 PM
Don't know where it came from but this is going around here at work:


South Bend, IN (AP) - A seven-year old boy was at the center of a St. Joseph County courtroom drama
yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him. The boy has a

history of being beaten by his parents and the judge initially awarded custody to his aunt, in keeping
with the child custody law requiring that family unity be maintained to the highest degree possible.

The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly
refused to live with her. When the judge then suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried and
said that they also beat him. After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that
domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of
allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him.

After two recesses to check legal references and confer with the child welfare officials, the judge granted
temporary custody to the Notre Dame University Football Team, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 25, 2007, 12:11:12 PM
Yankees suck!

You swallow.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 25, 2007, 12:20:47 PM
I assume he started recruiting as soon as he signed onto the job, as much coaches do, so he should have some juniors this year.  He can look on the bright side in that Clausen will only get better, but he needs to build an offensive line around him to offer some protection.  It seemed he should have thought of that when he landed the blue-chip quarterback.  To go from 10-3 to 0-4 is a major come down in anyone's book, and to take it so hard on the chin in each of those games.

Weiss was appointed head coach in December of 2004 giving him only 45 days to follow up on Willingham's recruits.  Weiss' first recruiting class did not come until after the 2005 season.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 25, 2007, 12:40:57 PM
Kinda like Sabin. Sabin did a pretty good job. And Sabin will most likely have a winner in his third year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 25, 2007, 12:50:36 PM
http://cfn.scout.com/2/683445.html

Some interesting choices.

Wisconsin and Hawaii seem to be the big winners here.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 25, 2007, 07:12:17 PM
Dzimo -- who is that in your pic?  Is it the woman who was running for the French PM, recently?

David Duchovny dressed in drag from an episode of Twin Peaks.  Maybe he can play Ségolène Royal at some point in time.

(http://z.about.com/d/worldnews/1/7/Q/5/-/-/segolene_royal_france.jpg)

Whew, I'm glad you confirmed.  I thought the picture looked a little "mannish" but then I thought to myself -- what if it's his wife/sister or something?

He really looks like a French actress, not the PM candidate... someone else I can't think of right now.  Or that kook actress Julia what'serface.  The one who was in the remake of Cape Fear and Natural Born Killers with Woody.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 25, 2007, 07:24:18 PM
Pretty hard to give Weis any credit, given the thumpings he has taken.  If he was building the Irish from scratch one could cut him some slack, but he isn't.

Yet another irony.  Weis translated from the German?

"White."

(add the "ey" for effect, if you wish)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 25, 2007, 08:55:25 PM
OSU 3rd string quarterback Antonio Henman spent the night in jail after being caught in a Columbus Police Sting offering $20 for sex to a female undercover agent.
Reports say Henman's girlfreind was with him in court when bond was set at $2500.
Those reports were silent on whether the girlfriend asked for a HIGHER bond.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 25, 2007, 10:36:13 PM
But where are Weis's juniors?

precisely


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 25, 2007, 10:40:49 PM

There are no Weiss juniors.

Not, at least, until next year.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 25, 2007, 10:48:43 PM

Whew, I'm glad you confirmed.  I thought the picture looked a little "mannish" but then I thought to myself -- what if it's his wife/sister or something?



too funny ...that was exactly my thought.  You couldn't say it looks like a guy with a wig and makeup, because it might be all the look over there in Eastern Europe!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 25, 2007, 11:11:13 PM

There are no Weiss juniors.

Not, at least, until next year.



I saw your other post Jim.  I believe Weiss was out recruiting immediately upon hire also-- I seem to recall it in the news at the time.  Now you can say that he was not as effective as if he had been there all along--fine. 

I would argue that Weiss will not be terribly effective at recruiting after this season either...

Willigham was a pretty good recruiter also and the cupboard was not bare.  Willigham may wind up having a better season than Weiss this year (apples to apples) and he inherited a much worse team.

Pete Carroll started winning in his second year and won an AP National Championship in his third and they all said the same thing about the talent he inherited.  If you're Weiss, you've got to bring in better coaches, strength trainers, etc... 

USC also has a monster true freshman starting at center this year. So, we could ask, where are Charlie's freshmen and sophomores?  Why did he concentrate on getting the best freshman QB this last year instead of getting some support for the two really good QBs that he already did have?  There should be competition at every position--not just QB.

I don't think Charlie has much of an excuse, but time will tell...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 25, 2007, 11:38:37 PM

There are no Weiss juniors.

Not, at least, until next year.



I saw your other post Jim.  I believe Weiss was out recruiting immediately upon hire also-- I seem to recall it in the news at the time.  Now you can say that he was not as effective as if he had been there all along--fine. 

I would argue that Weiss will not be terribly effective at recruiting after this season either...

Willigham was a pretty good recruiter also and the cupboard was not bare.  Willigham may wind up having a better season than Weiss this year (apples to apples) and he inherited a much worse team.

Pete Carroll started winning in his second year and won an AP National Championship in his third and they all said the same thing about the talent he inherited.  If you're Weiss, you've got to bring in better coaches, strength trainers, etc... 

USC also has a monster true freshman starting at center this year. So, we could ask, where are Charlie's freshmen and sophomores?  Why did he concentrate on getting the best freshman QB this last year instead of getting some support for the two really good QBs that he already did have?  There should be competition at every position--not just QB.

I don't think Charlie has much of an excuse, but time will tell...


I don't think Charlie is making an excuse over anything.

I understand that the Pac Ten is the best conference ever and that Pete Carroll, having won one BCS Championship, is like a God and everything.

But where does liking USC equate to dissing Charlie Weiss?

Are you still mad that Notre Dame holds the season series over So Cal by a long shot?
What does that have to do with Charlie Weiss?



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 25, 2007, 11:47:53 PM
Only because you are so anal retentive do I say this, but jim it is Charlie Weis.  One "s."  I made the effort to look it up.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 26, 2007, 01:26:07 AM
Only because you are so anal retentive do I say this, but jim it is Charlie Weis.  One "s."  I made the effort to look it up.

OkeyDokey

Pass it on.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 26, 2007, 08:32:47 AM

Whew, I'm glad you confirmed.  I thought the picture looked a little "mannish" but then I thought to myself -- what if it's his wife/sister or something?



too funny ...that was exactly my thought.  You couldn't say it looks like a guy with a wig and makeup, because it might be all the look over there in Eastern Europe!
Eastern European women are in fact stunningly beautiful.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 26, 2007, 01:03:08 PM
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 18, UNIVERSITY OF WISONSIN 17:

I might not have the score right but this rings to me like its going to be a tight game. The two team are very similar in what they do on both sides of the ball. But I think the difference maker might be the State defensive front 7.

 
WEST VIRGINIA 27, SOUTH FLORIDA 28:
 This game intrigues me. On paper the Mountaineers are supposed to whup the, hey what are the S. Florida guys called? Just kidding. But the Bulls have gotten some very good recruits that seem to spring out of the woodwork of the Florida high schools every season over the last few years. And yes Steve they do play decent defense from this Big East school. Of course playing WVa it might not show as much as playing North Carolina. And playing good D against Auburn might not be all that big a deal either. But then again maybe, just maybe, the Bulls really do have some D. Personally I think they do. And IMO they got some game to on the offensive side of the field.


CALIFORNIA 26, OREGON 28:

 Another smash mouth sort of game, between your uncle Hippie Q. McFreaky's two favorite teams.  In the race to see who finishes with one PAWCP loss before bonging out in their bowl game, I think Cal will lace the Birkenstocks up just a little tighter.

I like what you said Steve. I just disagree on the outcome.


PURDUE 29, NOTRE DAME 20:

Notre Dame is not good but at some point in time by sheer repetition they have to get better.

 
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 18, ILLINOIS 12:

 The PSU defense is good. The offensive gameplan needs major work. If the OC gets his head out of his ass the Lions have the talent and are “capable” of opening this game wide open. But he probably won’t so they won’t.

 

FLORIDA 38, AUBURN 10:

 I wonder whatever happened to Core too Steve. As far as the game the Tiger OL is not executing and the QB has limited range on his arm. The Gator defense get to cheat up and the Tigers will remain caged until the QB is replaced with someone that has a real arm.


ALABAMA 20, FLORIDA STATE 17:

 Bama still doesn’t have a very good defense to take care of a balanced attack. Which is why they lost to Georgia. State’s offense under Fisher is never going to be great. I’ll take Bama in a close one.

 

OHIO STATE 70, MINNESOTA 17:
 
Okay Steve if you want to pad your/ours/everyone’s win column who am to complain.

 

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 144, TULANE -14:
 
See the above.

 
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 33, WASHINGTON 17:

Washington has a good frosh QB as far as running the ball goes. But he won’t run much on the Trojans and his passing is still a year or two away. The Huskies have a decent defense. But against the Trojans they’ll eventually wear down just like they did against OSU from being on the field all day.

 
LOUISVILLE 42, NORTH CAROLINA STATE  31:

Hmmm…will Louisville win? Okay I guess so. In truth the Cardinals level of talent defensively is much much better than they’ve shown. I’m not sure where the exact trouble lies or if it’s a combination of factors. Either way the loss of  runstuffer, Amobi Okoye has hurt. But in my opinion the real problem is that the top two defensive backs William Gay and Brandon Sharp and linebacker Nate Harris hurts even more. No doubt this defense needs to get its shit together and fast.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 26, 2007, 01:07:04 PM
What's your record?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 26, 2007, 04:04:04 PM
Beats me.

What's yours?



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 26, 2007, 05:16:51 PM
Clemson will beat the (-3) vs. GaTech, for the psychological reason that they are completely demoralized after losing to UVA.  We have a good defense, and after the adrenaline wears off, Clem should cruise to a 17 pt. victory not without it's moments.

I see South Carolina playing to the level of the competition vs. MissSt, and winning by 10 or so, so I like the MissSt bet.

If you want to get the week started right, you should play Boise putting SoMiss in the hammershack tonight, Boise by 24 easy but the over scares me.

Note:  None of the above is intended nor should be construed as gaming information or advice.  "Escape From Elba" is not a gaming site and the opinions here are just that, and should not be seen as representing teams in the world or the imaginary world which we teeter in and out of...persons real and imaginary should use the above information in a cautionary manner and view most opinions of this author and others with a health skepticism that is common in ordinary sports banter, which this is not supposed to be construed as, here or in other areas of the information cyberweb.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 26, 2007, 05:25:47 PM
I thought WPs comment on Cal v Oregon was hysterical.

That game is too close to call in my mind.  It is in Oregon which is a HUGE advantage.  I would probably have to go with Oregon.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 26, 2007, 05:34:25 PM
Jim,

I don't honestly know why I don't care for Charlie Weis(s).   I think I really liked Ty Willigham and thought he was treated unfairly.  I know that is not CW's fault, per se...

I am definitely not a ND fan.  We call a perfect day when the Trojans win and both the Bruins and ND lose.  But that's mostly for fun and snickers...  I actually respect both schools.

I think honestly it is because he reminds me of exactly the type of coach that I never responded to as a kid.  Tough, gruff and full of pointing out your faults without much in the way of encouragement.  I thought he put the blame on his players when things went wrong in the first two seasons (not so much this year - which is good) and that made me like him even less.  Some kids respond to that style -- I guess...I just wasn't one of them.

Then when ND gave him the big extension for having one decent season -- I think that sealed the deal for me...

But actually the whole thing started as simply, "it will be interesting to see what ND says when they don't fire him"--which I think you answered succinctly -- they will just say they've learned their lesson from the mistake they made with Ty and now realize they have to honor the contract...



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 26, 2007, 08:57:38 PM
Why doesn't ABC just change the name on the west coast to USC Sat night football.3 times in a row.Not that it won't be an entertaining game for a few minutes but really Oregon -Cal  would be a better Sat night prime time this week.Maybe it will rain in Seattle and make it a bit more fun.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 26, 2007, 09:16:25 PM
Jim,

I don't honestly know why I don't care for Charlie Weis(s).   I think I really liked Ty Willigham and thought he was treated unfairly.  I know that is not CW's fault, per se...

I am definitely not a ND fan.  We call a perfect day when the Trojans win and both the Bruins and ND lose.  But that's mostly for fun and snickers...  I actually respect both schools.

I think honestly it is because he reminds me of exactly the type of coach that I never responded to as a kid.  Tough, gruff and full of pointing out your faults without much in the way of encouragement.  I thought he put the blame on his players when things went wrong in the first two seasons (not so much this year - which is good) and that made me like him even less.  Some kids respond to that style -- I guess...I just wasn't one of them.

Then when ND gave him the big extension for having one decent season -- I think that sealed the deal for me...

But actually the whole thing started as simply, "it will be interesting to see what ND says when they don't fire him"--which I think you answered succinctly -- they will just say they've learned their lesson from the mistake they made with Ty and now realize they have to honor the contract...



Fair enough.

I just get tired of the "bash the coach" mentality of the media every time a team under performs. 
Charlie Weis did not inherit Knute Rockne's players, he was stuck with Ty Willingham's.

Before we judge Weis don't we owe him a chance to coach his system with the players HE chose?


Besides, it is much more rewarding to beat Notre Dame when it is good than when it is bad.

I can not remember games that were more fun than when Ohio State beat Notre Dame in 1995 (Cooper vs. Holtz) and the 2005  Fiesta Bowl (Tressel vs Weis)

As for you.  Notre Dame represents a huge hurdle for the Trojans' BCS hopes. An upset makes ND's season and saddles SoCal with not only a loss but a computer- crashing loss to an unranked team.

A top ten Notre Dame, on the other hand, would not carry such a heavy penalty should the Trojans lose.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 26, 2007, 09:41:47 PM
Camp Randall Stadium:Fan Friendly and then some

 The Capital Times
  September 24, 2007

 While the Badgers were scoring frequently in the second
  quarter of their victory over Washington State on Sept. 1,
  a young couple was scoring on their own in a stall in the
  women's restroom in the upper deck, resulting in a court
 appearance today on charges of disorderly conduct.

  The man, 22, of the Grant County community of Stitzer, and
  woman, 23, of Madison, were initially cited by University
  Police for lewd and lascivious conduct, but those charges
  were later changed to disorderly conduct when the case went
  to the District Attorney's office. UW Assistant Police
  Chief Dale Burke, who measures his term of service in decades, said he cannot remember a similar
  incident at a   Badger game in the past, but added
  "sex is a powerful,  powerful motivator."
==============================

Wisconsin  might be a suitable venue for OSU's Antonio Henman to finish his college career.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 27, 2007, 12:51:48 AM
Notre Dame can no longer retrieve black atheletes out of tradition.

Good luck with the offensive line, there may be a lot of Catholic boys to pick from, but the brothers are not going to your school if you are losing and they can go anywhere else.

Domers, get used to the score getting rolled up, if you think there was potential and you got rolled up 4 times this year, I mean, it could be bad like dad on supermad.  It is on like donkeykong for years & tears.

"C'mon, boys (I know I just got zero on my civil suit because I voluntarily subjected myself to stomach re-arrangement, but I'm nothing to do with money...), let's salvage what we have left, a jock-sniffer of a coach who won with pussycam...

Seriously, GOOD LUCK OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD, NOTREDAMUS.

Get in the news by lacrossestripper, or step off for REAL FOOTBALLERS.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 27, 2007, 01:43:19 AM
Notre Dame can no longer retrieve black atheletes out of tradition.

Good luck with the offensive line, there may be a lot of Catholic boys to pick from, but the brothers are not going to your school if you are losing and they can go anywhere else.

Domers, get used to the score getting rolled up, if you think there was potential and you got rolled up 4 times this year, I mean, it could be bad like dad on supermad.  It is on like donkeykong for years & tears.

"C'mon, boys (I know I just got zero on my civil suit because I voluntarily subjected myself to stomach re-arrangement, but I'm nothing to do with money...), let's salvage what we have left, a jock-sniffer of a coach who won with pussycam...

Seriously, GOOD LUCK OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD, NOTREDAMUS.

Get in the news by lacrossestripper, or step off for REAL FOOTBALLERS.

Well, guess that settle that.
Sounds like a candidate for a commencement speaker at Columbia, if you ask me.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 27, 2007, 03:30:04 AM

I just get tired of the "bash the coach" mentality of the media every time a team under performs. 
Charlie Weis did not inherit Knute Rockne's players, he was stuck with Ty Willingham's.

Before we judge Weis don't we owe him a chance to coach his system with the players HE chose?


Weis is an easy coach to bash, because he is such a hard-nosed bastard.  Besides, Ty Willingham's players were pretty good, so Weis had nothing to complain about.  Too bad ND doesn't play Washington this year. The problem was that Weis didn't fill in the holes in his recruiting efforts, which trojan noted. As we know today, there are plenty of freshmen and sophomores who can step up and play big games.  No one has done that yet for ND.  Clausen doesn't stand a chance behind such a porous offensive line.  I can't believe ND gave him such a long extension based on one good year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 27, 2007, 03:53:06 AM
Dzimas,Are you able to view college football at all?I imagine it would be quite the event for you but the hours would be heck if live.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 27, 2007, 04:11:02 AM
Last year, I was able to watch college games on Yahoo! free.  Audio only this year.  I watch NFL on Fox, and one of the European channels carries NFL games as well.  Open to any other Internet options.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on September 27, 2007, 04:18:06 AM
Thanks for reply.Any family members or friends to watch it with?I think I actually like watching some games alone so I can yell and scream.I get into the game more if I'm not watching with friends.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 27, 2007, 05:14:10 AM
No, my wife is not much of a football fan, or sports fan for the matter, and my son is more interested in auto racing, particularly drifting, and motocross events.  However, he likes the Seattle Seahawk jersey I bought him on my last trip to the States and occasionally we go outside and toss a football around.

I suppose I could hook up with the Marines at the US Embassy, but I lost my connection when our next door neighbor returned to the States.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 27, 2007, 07:37:07 AM
Quote
and my son is more interested in auto racing, particularly drifting
As boring as auto racing in general is... drifting?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 09:27:52 AM
Clemson will beat the (-3) vs. GaTech, for the psychological reason that they are completely demoralized after losing to UVA.  We have a good defense, and after the adrenaline wears off, Clem should cruise to a 17 pt. victory not without it's moments.

I see South Carolina playing to the level of the competition vs. MissSt, and winning by 10 or so, so I like the MissSt bet.

If you want to get the week started right, you should play Boise putting SoMiss in the hammershack tonight, Boise by 24 easy but the over scares me.

Note:  None of the above is intended nor should be construed as gaming information or advice.  "Escape From Elba" is not a gaming site and the opinions here are just that, and should not be seen as representing teams in the world or the imaginary world which we teeter in and out of...persons real and imaginary should use the above information in a cautionary manner and view most opinions of this author and others with a health skepticism that is common in ordinary sports banter, which this is not supposed to be construed as, here or in other areas of the information cyberweb.

 :D


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 27, 2007, 09:41:48 AM
As boring as auto racing in general is... drifting?

High speed hair-pin turns, with the cars sliding nearly out of control around every corner, as in 2Fast2Furious Tokyo Drift, which he had me order via amazon.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: yankguy on September 27, 2007, 09:42:23 AM
It would seem to me that excusing Notre Dame and Weiss' coaching because after all "Weiss is coaching with Willingham's players" would allow me to excuse Notre Dame and Willingham's coaching because after all "Willingham was coaching with Davies' players."



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 09:48:17 AM

Fair enough.

I just get tired of the "bash the coach" mentality of the media every time a team under performs. 
Charlie Weis did not inherit Knute Rockne's players, he was stuck with Ty Willingham's.

Before we judge Weis don't we owe him a chance to coach his system with the players HE chose?


I don't often agree with my pal James. But when he has a point he has a point.

Still even that point being acknowleged it still remains that Chuck's(Ty's or a mixture which is really what it is) guys haven't performed.

And the "current head coach" and his staff has had more than ample time to acclimate them to the current system.

The OL looks IMO not so much as being over physicaled(is that even a friggin word?)as being outtechniqued(nuther word?). And that "is" the fault of the current coaching staff.

In the Ga Tech game the Jacket defense seemed to be able to consistantly send more men than the ND offense could handle. Okay blitzes happen. But, I saw no evidence of the offense even having a clue as to what they needed to do to play that type of game. To me they looked totally unprepared. And that is coaching plain and simple.

 With Quinn last year you had a guy that recognized defenses and knew what he was supposed to do. And for the most part he did it even when the OL let him down as they did several times last year. But, maybe even more importantly, he had two excellent WRs and a savy and talented TE with which to work with. I've seen no such evidence out of the WRs and TE this year. Again thats, to me, all coaching and repetitions. The OL needs to play smarter and the QB needs to react quicker. Rookie QB, inexperienced recievers and an OL that doesn't seem able to make adjustments. Add all that up, on any team, and you are going to have some major problems.

Also Chuck's teams to me so far have never proven that they understand that most teams need to be able to run the rock some too in order to keep a defense honest. Which is why I think Auburn is going to get smoked by the Gators and why they've lost the games they have so far this year. That and the fact they have a, as steve put it last year, a noodle armed QB.

Running is fundamental. Always has been.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 27, 2007, 09:57:30 AM
It would seem to me that excusing Notre Dame and Weiss' coaching because after all "Weiss is coaching with Willingham's players" would allow me to excuse Notre Dame and Willingham's coaching because after all "Willingham was coaching with Davies' players."



No one is excusing Weis. He has, after all, a winning record and two BCS Bowls in two years.
Despite a horrible start to this year, there is no justifable reason to fire him.  Except of course to those legions who hate Notre Dame and love to see it in misery.









Title: Re: College Football
Post by: yankguy on September 27, 2007, 10:06:59 AM
Of course there is no justifiable reason to fire him.  Similarly, there was no justifiable reason to fire Willingham, but that didn't seem to bother Notre Dame officials at the time.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 10:19:48 AM

No one is excusing Weis. He has, after all, a winning record and two BCS Bowls in two years.
Despite a horrible start to this year, there is no justifable reason to fire him.  Except of course to those legions who hate Notre Dame and love to see it in misery.


Jim, please knock it off. That's twice(in a row) now I've had to agree with you.(I feel queezy, somebody catch me)

As much as I can't stand Lloyd Carr and say the same thing/s about him, most of the reason for me wanting him canned is because he keeps friggin beating my team.

All of the ND haters really should be defending Chuckie right now so he'll stay.  ;)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 27, 2007, 10:46:26 AM
Of course there is no justifiable reason to fire him.  Similarly, there was no justifiable reason to fire Willingham, but that didn't seem to bother Notre Dame officials at the time.

Which, of course, meant Notre Dame was shown to have feet of clay just like the rest of schools who let braying alumni dictate.  I doubt Notre Dame is about to go down that path, again.  And certainly not after one bad season, even a disaster like the one in the making.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 10:58:46 AM

College football news is agreeing with me in predicting S. Florida will upset the Mountaineers.


http://cfn.scout.com/2/650789.html




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 11:27:35 AM
Why doesn't ABC just change the name on the west coast to USC Sat night football.3 times in a row.Not that it won't be an entertaining game for a few minutes but really Oregon -Cal  would be a better Sat night prime time this week.Maybe it will rain in Seattle and make it a bit more fun.

I agree the Cal - Oregon Game might be more interesting to watch for most folks.

Always a good chance of rain in Seatle of course, but the Trojans played very well in the rain this past Saturday.  Locker is a good mobile QB and the Trojans have displayed weakness in the past against option offenses, And they have two Linebackers out due to injury (although Clay Mathews "might" play some) so it is not a sure thing by any means.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 11:42:30 AM
Quote
and my son is more interested in auto racing, particularly drifting
As boring as auto racing in general is... drifting?

That's all the rage with the kids now WP.  My 17 year old is always talking about the great cars from Subaru and the like.   All you can do is smile and nod your head...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 11:45:10 AM
The frosh Huskie QB has proven(to me at least)that he can run on(and over) good defenses. And he has a powerful arm, but not yet as accurate as it will be(and needs to be after some polish and college game reps. Also his receivers dropped some catchable balls in the OSU game that really killed some Huskie drives. I've no doubt he'll keep the Trojan back 7 on their toes in this one. But I expect the Trojans to pick one or two off on him.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 27, 2007, 11:45:26 AM
Beats me.

What's yours?



I don't post score picks on a website.

If I did I would include my mark.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 11:46:21 AM

In the Ga Tech game the Jacket defense seemed to be able to consistantly send more men than the ND offense could handle. Okay blitzes happen. But, I saw no evidence of the offense even having a clue as to what they needed to do to play that type of game. To me they looked totally unprepared. And that is coaching plain and simple.

 

There's this new thing out that I've heard tell of...  I think they called it "adjustments."  And yes, I'm pretty sure I did hear that it was the coaching staff's responsibility.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 11:46:38 AM
Beats me.

What's yours?



I don't post score picks on a website.

If I did I would include my mark.

Bully for you.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 11:47:27 AM

In the Ga Tech game the Jacket defense seemed to be able to consistantly send more men than the ND offense could handle. Okay blitzes happen. But, I saw no evidence of the offense even having a clue as to what they needed to do to play that type of game. To me they looked totally unprepared. And that is coaching plain and simple.

 

There's this new thing out that I've heard tell of...  I think they called it "adjustments."  And yes, I'm pretty sure I did hear that it was the coaching staff's responsibility.

Yep Scott. And that was my point.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 11:48:58 AM


Despite a horrible start to this year, there is no justifable reason to fire him.  Except of course to those legions who hate Notre Dame and love to see it in misery.



You say that like it is a bad thing for some reason Jim...


:)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 27, 2007, 11:49:43 AM
Scrag - no interest in that Yanks-Sox bet?

I'll even add an IP category, make it so if you advance further than us your relievers likely get more IP (tie in team performance)

Nah - didnt think so.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 11:51:41 AM

All of the ND haters really should be defending Chuckie right now so he'll stay.  ;)

It's a good point.  We used to defend Karl Dorrell until he turned it around and beat us last year...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 11:54:06 AM

Yep Scott. And that was my point.

I know.  I was helping you out...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 12:12:32 PM

I don't post score picks on a website.

If I did I would include my mark.

We only keep track during the bowl games Kid.

The regular season is more about encouraging people to participate.  Usually people (like me) get ragged on for not posting their predictions and playing it "safe."   When you post your predictions, you become a target the following week for mild ridicule anyway, so that is enough of a risk.

But we do have the annual College Bowl pickem in which we do keep daily tabs on people's predictions.  I have almost- but not quite - won the honor of "most wrong" one season.  But I had a good excuse that year as my ex wife passed away right before picks were due.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 01:02:41 PM
Scrag - no interest in that Yanks-Sox bet?

I'll even add an IP category, make it so if you advance further than us your relievers likely get more IP (tie in team performance)

Nah - didnt think so.

It's pretty obvious that you're just here to bust my balls with first the Yankees suck post, the prediction post and now this. Instead of busting my balls why don't you just move 180 degrees and kiss my ass instead.  ;D


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 01:06:37 PM

I don't post score picks on a website.

If I did I would include my mark.

We only keep track during the bowl games Kid.

The regular season is more about encouraging people to participate.  Usually people (like me) get ragged on for not posting their predictions and playing it "safe."   When you post your predictions, you become a target the following week for mild ridicule anyway, so that is enough of a risk.

But we do have the annual College Bowl pickem in which we do keep daily tabs on people's predictions.  I have almost- but not quite - won the honor of "most wrong" one season.  But I had a good excuse that year as my ex wife passed away right before picks were due.

Actually Scott, I think Steve and I do it more for the caption about the game rather than the score. He comes up with some real good shit from time to time.

But nevermind Kid, he's just here to be a douche bag. One of the rare things he's actually good at.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 27, 2007, 01:31:46 PM
I just want to know if I should be paying any attention to your prognostication.

Just about the bucks.

But thanks for putting so much other weight on it.  Always nice to be appreciated.  :)































Oh yeah - YANKEES SUCK


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 27, 2007, 01:39:06 PM
I just want to know if I should be paying any attention to your prognostication.

Just about the bucks.

But thanks for putting so much other weight on it.  Always nice to be appreciated.  :)


And I always appreciate it when you finally get around to buzzing off.  ;D


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 08:06:04 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=fowler_chris&id=3038404

Cris Fowler  ESPN

Tirades live forever. At least the ones that have been recorded do.

Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy's postgame tirade certainly qualifies. It will live forever, joining the pantheon of epic rants that can be quickly located and saved for perpetuity. When it comes to tirades delivered after a dramatic, crucial come-from-behind victory, it might be in a class all its own!

As such, it will always be a part of Gundy's legacy, whatever that turns out to be.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 08:06:48 PM
from the same Chris Fowler page...


Stunning Stat


Notre Dame is struggling. That's not news. But do you realize how many individual players are averaging more yards total offense than the whole Irish offense?
Take a guess.





The answer: 109. That's almost one player per I-A team!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 27, 2007, 08:31:50 PM
Holy Crap...

Memphis is taking to Arkansas State    I just checked scores and it 31-6 at halftime?   I would not have seen that coming...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 27, 2007, 11:41:24 PM
"If you want to get the week started right, you should play Boise putting SoMiss in the hammershack tonight, Boise by 24 easy but the over scares me."

Okay, sorry guys the real number was "22," sorry I couldn't GET THAT TO YOU SOONER...I was scared by the over, unnecessarily, but my blind squirrel get nut pick was kinda bullseye.  I just thought hey, "24," three touches and a chip shot, like THE NUMBER, I didn't go all psychic, but the line was "12," so you're WELCOME, though out of the GAME.

Note:  The above is not to be construed as gaming commentary and is not the opinion of jbottle, real and imagined, or exile on elba.  If the term "SUPERLOCK" is used by this author, real or imaginary, cautionary advice is operative, and such thoughts should ordinarily be dismissed with EXTREME PREJUDICE.  Or bet the bottle, fuck do I care.  Imaginary.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 28, 2007, 12:13:33 AM
So. Fla./Over teaser is the play for tomorrow, in pixie sticks.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 28, 2007, 12:25:44 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=fowler_chris&id=3038404

Cris Fowler  ESPN

Tirades live forever. At least the ones that have been recorded do.

Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy's postgame tirade certainly qualifies. It will live forever, joining the pantheon of epic rants that can be quickly located and saved for perpetuity. When it comes to tirades delivered after a dramatic, crucial come-from-behind victory, it might be in a class all its own!

As such, it will always be a part of Gundy's legacy, whatever that turns out to be.


Fowler was reasoned but still slid by the essential point of the Gundy tirade.

The ESPNS of the world cannot fill out 24/7 programming on games, highlights and poker alone.  They have to have smashmouth shows like Pardon the Interruption which need conflict, or the creation of conflict, to attract viewers.

The rants of the journalists, or wannabe journalists, on these shows are non-stop.

But let a frequent target of these diatribes, namley a coach, fire back at a journalist and we get the overwrought wailings of the nattering nabobs of negativism, to paraphrase Spiro Agnew as written by Wiliam Safire.

And in this case we get, further, the laughable complaint that, because the journalist in question is female, "Gundy would never have said that to a man"!

Walter Lippman opined that " people say journalists are thin-skinned.  That is not true.  The fact is journalists have no skin."

Jenni Carlson wrote a hatchet job on the Arkansas State quarterback and got a toungue lashing from Mike Gundy that is now a YouTube hit.

For that Carlson got an interview on Good Morning America.
Gundy got a lecture from Pat Forde.

No less than Pete Carroll spoke up for common sense:
"I think Coach Gundy made that stand and I hope that it reverberates. It's a clear statement of "let's be conscious of protecting these guys -- and protect the stature of the game." So I'm really in support of what he did. "

Hear, hear.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 28, 2007, 08:24:15 AM
I think Gundy could have gotten his point across without going ballistic.

That said it's easy to understand how he could get emotional about what happened. Proves he's human. So I fault him not at all. But if someone tried(make that did) to publically humiliate my kid I'd want to take a serious round out of their ass too.

I hear most "journalists" chiming in on the side of the twit that wrote the article. Big surprise. And it figures that they would. They'd need to protect their own right to write their own irresponsible sensational career pumping self aggrandising articles at will.

Oh and once again I'm in agreement with James. This is one screwed up year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 28, 2007, 09:09:42 AM
I think Gundy could have gotten his point across without going ballistic.

That said it's easy to understand how he could get emotional about what happened. Proves he's human. So I fault him not at all. But if someone tried(make that did) to publically humiliate my kid I'd want to take a serious round out of their ass too.

I hear most "journalists" chiming in on the side of the twit that wrote the article. Big surprise. And it figures that they would. They'd need to protect their own right to write their own irresponsible sensational career pumping self aggrandising articles at will.

Oh and once again I'm in agreement with James. This is one screwed up year.



This cannot continue.  It ruins my whole "raison d'etre"
Let's try this.
In the eloquent phrasing of that noted observer of the sports world, KidCarter:












Yankees Suck!
 ;D


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 28, 2007, 10:31:40 AM
I think Gundy could have gotten his point across without going ballistic.

That said it's easy to understand how he could get emotional about what happened. Proves he's human. So I fault him not at all. But if someone tried(make that did) to publically humiliate my kid I'd want to take a serious round out of their ass too.

I hear most "journalists" chiming in on the side of the twit that wrote the article. Big surprise. And it figures that they would. They'd need to protect their own right to write their own irresponsible sensational career pumping self aggrandising articles at will.

Oh and once again I'm in agreement with James. This is one screwed up year.



This cannot continue.  It ruins my whole "raison d'etre"
Let's try this.
In the eloquent phrasing of that noted observer of the sports world, KidCarter:












Yankees Suck!
 ;D

Thank you. Your status with me is, once again, as it should be.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 28, 2007, 11:04:57 AM
I think Gundy could have gotten his point across without going ballistic.

That said it's easy to understand how he could get emotional about what happened. Proves he's human. So I fault him not at all. But if someone tried(make that did) to publically humiliate my kid I'd want to take a serious round out of their ass too.

I hear most "journalists" chiming in on the side of the twit that wrote the article. Big surprise. And it figures that they would. They'd need to protect their own right to write their own irresponsible sensational career pumping self aggrandising articles at will.

Oh and once again I'm in agreement with James. This is one screwed up year.



This cannot continue.  It ruins my whole "raison d'etre"
Let's try this.
In the eloquent phrasing of that noted observer of the sports world, KidCarter:












Yankees Suck!
 ;D

Thank you. Your status with me is, once again, as it should be.


Only problem is that in a mediocre year for MLB the Yankess are probably the best of the bunch.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 28, 2007, 11:06:08 AM
Uhhh................yeah.....right


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 28, 2007, 02:10:18 PM

No less than Pete Carroll spoke up for common sense:
"I think Coach Gundy made that stand and I hope that it reverberates. It's a clear statement of "let's be conscious of protecting these guys -- and protect the stature of the game." So I'm really in support of what he did. "

Yes, I caught this in Pete Carroll's Tuesday Press conference  (I Tivo)

It seems that most coaches and players support Gundy - and in fact I believe Chris Fowler pointed that out.  It is hard for me to draw any judgement because I haven't read the article - but it sounds like it was very personal and in that sense--uncalled for.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 28, 2007, 02:12:24 PM


Only problem is that in a mediocre year for MLB the Yankess are probably the best of the bunch.

It's nice to see you two getting along so well...

and all the Yankees need to do is get by Cleaveland right?

We got your back with Boston...no worries there...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 28, 2007, 02:20:37 PM


We got your back with Boston...no worries there...

Yes, you did so well vs Boston last time, after all.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 28, 2007, 03:57:41 PM


Yes, you did so well vs Boston last time, after all.

just messing with you...I will watch as many as I can, but I don't have a particularly good feeling about that series.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 28, 2007, 04:01:26 PM

No less than Pete Carroll spoke up for common sense:
"I think Coach Gundy made that stand and I hope that it reverberates. It's a clear statement of "let's be conscious of protecting these guys -- and protect the stature of the game." So I'm really in support of what he did. "

Yes, I caught this in Pete Carroll's Tuesday Press conference  (I Tivo)

It seems that most coaches and players support Gundy - and in fact I believe Chris Fowler pointed that out.  It is hard for me to draw any judgement because I haven't read the article - but it sounds like it was very personal and in that sense--uncalled for.

And like I said Scott most "journalists" support the writer's standpoint. Pretty much voting to party lines on this one.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 28, 2007, 04:19:06 PM
Colt Brennan was the target of many rather mean spirited articles while here in So Orange County playing for the Gauchos (before transferring to Hawaii).

I think to some degree, if you are in the public eye and get in trouble with the law, then move to try to get away from it--you can only expect marginal success.  An article or two is probably to be expected.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 28, 2007, 04:58:50 PM
Colt Brennan was the target of many rather mean spirited articles while here in So Orange County playing for the Gauchos (before transferring to Hawaii).

I think to some degree, if you are in the public eye and get in trouble with the law, then move to try to get away from it--you can only expect marginal success.  An article or two is probably to be expected.


Here is the article by Carlson that set off Gundy.
http://newsok.com/article/3131543


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 28, 2007, 06:00:58 PM

Here is the article by Carlson that set off Gundy.


I thought there was supposed to be something in there about trouble with the law?

This article didn't seem that bad to me.  Actually I think it reflects poorly on the journalist--as if she is trying too hard to prove how tough she is...

Gundy could have more effectively put her in her place by not losing his cool.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 28, 2007, 07:32:17 PM
Ok...I'm going to say it...

I think Notre Dame actually has a chance of beating Purdue tomorrow... 

Purdue snuck up into the top 25 in the coaches poll this past week so it's just about time for their annual tank...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 28, 2007, 07:34:03 PM
Michigan State vs. Wisconsin
By Scouts, Inc

Friday, September 28, 2007

Michigan State Offense vs. Wisconsin Defense
Michigan State fields a pro style offense that is slightly run-heavy and features more assignment blocking than zone blocking. It can afford to show a strong commitment to the run because RBs Javon Ringer and Jehuu Caulcrick share carries. Ringer makes crisp cuts, explodes through holes and shows a second gear when he gets into the open field. Caulcrick is the big back. He can pick up tough yards between the tackles and run defenders over when he gets into the open field. However, both backs should struggle to find running room in this game and a big reason is the Spartans are dealing with injuries to both starting guards. Roland Minor missed last week's game with an ankle injury and Kenny Shane injured his knee last week. Neither is listed on this week's depth chart raising questions about Michigan State's ability to keep DT's Nick Hayden and Jason Chapman at bay. Hayden and Chapman complement one another well and are coming off a strong performance against Iowa. Their ability to control the middle helps free up ILB Elijah Hodge who takes sound pursuit angles and doesn't miss many open field tackles. In addition, Wisconsin can match up in man coverage on the outside giving it the freedom to move a safety up to strengthen the defensive front.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on September 28, 2007, 08:00:01 PM
Borrowing a page from Charlie Weis?


On Jan. 2, 1961, the Huskies beat No. 1 Minnesota in the Rose Bowl. These Huskies will be wearing the plain gold helmets and dark blue jerseys of that 1960 UW team Saturday, in an attempt to absorb some of that magic.


http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/preview?gameId=272720264

-------------------------------------
I think they have artificial turf in Seattle so at least he can't grow the grass out...



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 28, 2007, 08:09:07 PM

Here is the article by Carlson that set off Gundy.


I thought there was supposed to be something in there about trouble with the law?

This article didn't seem that bad to me.  Actually I think it reflects poorly on the journalist--as if she is trying too hard to prove how tough she is...

Gundy could have more effectively put her in her place by not losing his cool.


Carlson's rant against Reid is lacking one thing; attribution.
She built an attack on Reid's toughness without quoting anyone to back her up.

If she truly feels that way no one can stop her from saying so in the capacity of her job except her editors.

I, for one, do not condemn Gundy for telling her, in public, what he thought of her story.

Carlson is lucky she did not have to write about Woody Hayes and his teams.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on September 29, 2007, 02:06:57 AM

College football news is agreeing with me in predicting S. Florida will upset the Mountaineers.


http://cfn.scout.com/2/650789.html




Oh I think they did a bit more than upset them.  That Grothe kid is like a straight Jeff Garcia.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 29, 2007, 08:23:37 AM
Quote
Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy's postgame tirade certainly qualifies. It will live forever, joining the pantheon of epic rants that can be quickly located and saved for perpetuity.
"The kids are playing their butts off and the coaches keep screwing it up." 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 29, 2007, 08:26:25 AM
One more pretender down.  Wonder how wavygrady is doing.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 29, 2007, 08:29:29 AM
Quote
Only problem is that in a mediocre year for MLB the Yankess are probably the best of the bunch.
They won't get out of the first round.  6-0 against Cleveland this year, but through the chances of the unbalanced schedule, never faced the big man.

By the way, I think kid's "acting out" here because of the semi-historic tank job of his other favorite team.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 29, 2007, 09:00:16 AM
Quote
Jeff Garcia
For what it's worth, Garcia is married to an ex-Playmate who was arrested for kicking the crap out of one of his ex-girlfriends in a Flats bar when Garcia was in Cleveland.  To his immense credit, Garcia has always treated the Gay rumors as merely incorrect, not as insults.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 29, 2007, 09:02:07 AM
Quote
Borrowing a page from Charlie Weis?
Rumor has the Huskies installing artificial turf with an 8 inch nap.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 29, 2007, 10:54:30 AM
i wouldn't be surprised if the huskies covered the 20 1/2. i didn't bet it but, again, i wouldn't be surprised.

now the guy who came up with an O/U of 51 points for syracuse/miami of ohio needs to watch what he's smoking and the O/U for so carolina/miss. state is also suspect @ 41 1/2. none of these schools are exactly scoring machines.

i watched georgia very carefully last weekend and really liked the line play on both sides of the ball (partic. the off line). the QB play still needs improvement and their tight end has to learn how to catch the ball. hell, all of them have the dropsies. i expect georgia to win but not large and, being georgia, the -15 point spread should be avoided like a slobbering mongrel staggering down the middle of the street.

what florida is going to do to auburn is roughly the equivalent of the LSU/tulane matchup and should be illegal. alabama/FSU is interesting as is clemson/ga tech. either is too close to call.

well, we'll see...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 29, 2007, 11:09:14 AM
Go, Yankees!

Go, Mah-ti-ahhhhh-nooo!



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on September 29, 2007, 08:21:41 PM
Good God, Tommy Bowden is such a fucking moron.  I know that none of you watched that game in its entirety, but at about five critical times he made the wrong decision.  Political in nature, and looking for a scapegoat to mask his ignorance, Bowden let our kicker who was finished playing soccer in Durham at 10PM last night go 1-5 from the field, even when 4th and 4 was a completely viable option where you begin to run on and demoralize the opponent.  Missing long field goals on the road is not a good idea in what had already been cast as a "field-position" game.

Despite getting screwed out of a TD pass by some inconsequential "hand to the face" call at the end of the first half that would've sent us to the locker room with a lead, we still should've won by two TDs if Tommy wasn't a moron.

I hope he went straight to the bus so he could let the MEN SHOWER OFF.

He's a pussy and I won't go to a game in Clemson until he is gone.  Period.

A guy who tries to write the headline "we has a bad day kicking" as a job dodge is a loser.  It's football.  Let's play "a game."  We "go for it," you remember "go for it" on 4th and 5 on their 38 when we are running all over them.....or put our guy who has just missed two at a FG that won't give us a lead another strike at it, I mean, at least punt (we have a great punter) and pin them, we need a TD after all, but to lay that on a kid who ran for three hours on a soccer field the night before leads me to the conclusion that you are such a dumb man.

Again, I love Clemson, but until we replace Tommy Bowden, we will never be able to win away games by coaching, and basically that's WHAT COACHING IS.

Also:  HOME GAME FOR DAVIS IF YOU LIKE, you may want to, uh, GIVE HIM THE BALL IN ATLANTA AND LET HIM ROLL ON PUNKS.

sick.  crazy.  sad.

Tech scores 13 and we lose, and we are averaging 6 yds. a carry in the second half, oh math.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 30, 2007, 12:11:03 AM
The " upset for the ages", now seems so long ago.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 30, 2007, 08:08:25 AM
Quote
Only problem is that in a mediocre year for MLB the Yankess are probably the best of the bunch.
They won't get out of the first round.  6-0 against Cleveland this year, but through the chances of the unbalanced schedule, never faced the big man.

By the way, I think kid's "acting out" here because of the semi-historic tank job of his other favorite team.

Probably part of it Steve. But mostly because I'm back and bitchslapped one of his boys pretty badly. But its okay, maybe Kid will actually learn something other than greasing his jaw if he sticks around.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 30, 2007, 08:10:55 AM
what florida is going to do to auburn is roughly the equivalent of the LSU/tulane matchup and should be illegal.

oops...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on September 30, 2007, 08:20:22 AM
Wow.  Half the Top 10 goes down in one weekend, two of the others had scares against unranked opponents, and the OSU 2002 vibe grows stronger.  Gotta love college football.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 30, 2007, 08:47:47 AM
Upset city.

Even USC and LSU seemed like they wanted to participate.

LSU decided they only needed one half to polish off the Wave. But, hint, usually it's the first half fellas! I noticed Miles put in Rahem Alem in for a bit the second half and he really got some fire lit to the Bengal defense. Did Pitman get hurt?

The Sooners OL looked like they forgot to come to play even more than the LSU offensive line did. But also give credit where credit is due, that former Boise coach really is somethin.

Penn State: Bleeeaah!!!!!

Auburn: Winner of this year's Jekyl and Hide award.

Takes a bit of the luster away from the LSU/Florida game. Okie/Tejas too for that matter.

Just goes to show you never know.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on September 30, 2007, 10:11:50 AM
one of the most overused catchphrases that comprise the lexicon of sports talking heads is "they were looking past this game". and while any cliche is valid only in so far as it is (or has been) broadly applicable, it's not always true...

i'm sure LSU, texas and oklahoma fell prey to the syndrome yesterday but for different reasons. in LSU's case there truly was no need to go full bore against a team so obviously outclassed. why chance getting someone hurt when the biggest game of your season is a week away? and why not play some of the other kids and give them some game exposure? while cap is right that they should have tried to put it away early, the need just wasn't perceived against tulane.

texas and oklahoma fell to simple hubris. against teams that really needed to have been put to bed early, they dwaddled and lost the edge that their benches could have maintained against tired opponents in the second halves. colorado and K state came to play while tex and okla tried to coast on their rankings. texas should have at least known better but you know what they say about not learning from history.

on the other hand, florida just simply got out played by a team i can assure you they were NOT looking past. like michigan in the big ten, nobody in the sec thinks auburn is a second rate team just because of a poor start. florida has some secondary problems they need to address in a hurry even tho this kid wright hits a ton. their defensive line didn't look good against the run either. now i'm encouraged about georgia's chances this year. my boys actually ran, threw and caught(!!!) the ball pretty well yesterday (albeit against a truly second rate sec team in ole miss).

i agree with bottle that tommy bowden couldn't call an intermural game but everyone in so. carolina has known this for years. however if he beats the gamecocks they'll probably give him another three year extension. after all...it's clemson for christsake!!!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on September 30, 2007, 12:09:16 PM
Rough week for a lot of teams, Florida included.  Seems Auburn has the Gators number, if no one else's.  They completely smothered them, until the fourth quarter anyway, but still had enough to pull it out.  At least I got Georgia Tech and FSU right.  I was shocked to see Illinois take out Penn St.  Even the Trojans just managed to avoid an upset.  It is a crazy season like this that is going to renew calls for a playoff.  Who knows Appalachian State might be invited.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 30, 2007, 03:50:36 PM
Fans to Coaches after Insanity Saturday:

In Gainesville:
"Pathetic playcalling by the coaching staff;
" Urban, you make Tuberville look like a genius!"
" Zook never lost to Auburn, for chrissakes"

In Austin:

Mack Brown quoted as saying " We are not used to losing like that around here."
Fans answer, " No we are not, what are YOU going to do about it?"

In Baton Rouge:

"Hey Les Miles, was that first half effort due to you looking ahead to coaching Michigan?"

In Los Angeles:

" Hey Pete,   a blocked punt, a missed field goal, 16 penalties, and three turnovers?
You're lucky that instant replay reversed that interception.  Not even Stanford is a lock with play like that."

In Norman:

Hey Bob,  Buffaloes or Broncos, blowing leads and losing games on the last play to underdogs is getting old."

In Columbus:

Hey  Jim,  " Good job surviving on Insanity Saturday.  But the first five opponents are
a combined 11-13, the next 7 are 27-8.  Don't get caught looking ahead to Kent State."



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on September 30, 2007, 04:51:27 PM
Simulated BCS-still with AP in place of Harris and minus two of the computers:

LSU   5-0   0.9832   0.9803   0.9693   1.0000   1593 (1)   1454 (2)    1.00 (1)   -    1    1    1    1   -
2   Southern California   4-0   0.9492   0.9791   0.9887   0.8800   1591 (2)   1483 (1)    4.00 (2)   -    4    4    3    5   -
3   Ohio State   5-0   0.8564   0.8738   0.8753   0.8200   1420 (4)   1313 (4)    5.50 (3)   -    2    9    4    7   -
4   California   5-0   0.8155   0.9077   0.9087   0.6300   1475 (3)   1363 (3)    10.25 (9)   -    9    3    21    8   -
5   Wisconsin   5-0   0.7887   0.7822   0.8340   0.7500   1271 (5)   1251 (5)    7.25 (4)   -    6    2    9    12   -
6   Boston College   5-0   0.7333   0.7212   0.7587   0.7200   1172 (7)   1138 (6)    8.00 (5)   -    8    8    6    10   -
7   Kentucky   5-0   0.6836   0.7034   0.6473   0.7000   1143 (8)   971 (8)    8.50 (6)   -    10    6    7    11   -
8   South Florida   4-0   0.6834   0.7403   0.6400   0.6700   1203 (6)   960 (9)    9.25 (7)   -    12    7    15    3   -
9   Florida   4-1   0.6404   0.6345   0.6667   0.6200   1031 (9)   1000 (7)    10.50 (10)   -    3    15    2    22   -
10   South Carolina   4-1   0.5155   0.5538   0.3527   0.6400   900 (11)   529 (18)    10.00 (8)   -    14    14    10    2   -


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 01, 2007, 12:00:02 AM
It is only natural to be upset when your team loses when it was expected to win, and in the cases of Texas, Oklahoma and Florida they were expected to win handily.  So, something obviously went wrong.  The basic problem with the way Div. 1-A is rigged is that if you lose you are basically out of the title chase, unless you get lucky and someone else loses at season's end.  So, losses like these teams suffered this weekend really hurt.

Meyer found himself in this same situation last year and pulled out a big win against LSU, but that was at home.  It isn't going to happen this year, LSU 27-13.

The Texas-Oklahoma game has lost much of its thunder, but there is still bragging rights, Oklahoma 24-10.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 01, 2007, 02:20:02 AM
I don't know whether S. Florida is proving just how weak the Big East is this year or if they are for real, but they've climbed all the way up to #6 in the AP poll, ahead of Florida.  Too bad the Bulls don't play the Gators or the Seminoles or the 'Canes, then we might know how good they really are.  As it is, S. Florida has a very good chance of going undefeated, with Rutgers and Cincinnati being the highest ranked teams remaining on its schedule.  It seems the Bulls' win over Auburn will stand them in good stead.

I agree that Ohio St. is also sitting pretty, and could find itself slipping into another BCS championship game.  I would imagine the BCS would take the Buckeyes over South Florida, if it came down to one or the other against USC or LSU, assuming one of them drops a game.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on October 01, 2007, 03:58:01 AM
My neighbors are huge USC fans/boosters and I see their paper was in driveway the last two days so I assume they went to the Washington Game.Can't wait to ask Brent for his take cause he is a real homer.I give Cal half a chance Nov 10th if they don't blow it at Ariz St before then.The Bears winning at Oregon was big.They haven't won there since 1987 and both D's showed something.I'll take the top Pac ten teams this year over the Trailer Trash Conference .Boston College is also sitting pretty the rest of the year.


Title: Wrong weekend
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 01, 2007, 08:40:42 AM
http://cfn.scout.com/2/685694.html

As a pure fan of college football, and one who watches more college football than any human being alive, I have no tolerance for lousy matchups and bad games. That's why I live for the big weekends. I love the hype, I love the rivalry games, I love the monster showdowns like Oklahoma vs. Texas and Florida vs. LSU. That's why I selfishly wanted to see all the big boys survive on Saturday, so I could have my epic October 6th.

And then something funny happened halfway through the weekend; I realized that this was the epic weekend I was looking forward to.


I was thinking along the same lines as this guy. I was expecting the Oct 6 weekend to be the big day for college football this year. When in fact when it's looked back on, this past weekend might be considered the "big" weekend.


Title: For James
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 01, 2007, 08:48:08 AM
In that same webpage is this little gem. Since Jim carries the banner of the bowls I'm wondering what Jim has to say in way of rebuttal.

Ask Michigan About Rematch Possibilities

By Michael Bradley

4. If I hear one more person tell me that USC-Cal is an “elimination game” in the race for the BCS title game, I’m going to hurt someone. The rationalization that a late-season game between two teams which could well be worthy of inclusion in a playoff is actually a post-season game is like saying a November meeting between the Colts and Patriots should take the place of the AFC title game. This system is as ridiculous a way of choosing a champion as there is, and its defenders are merely playing into the hands of those who are trying to maximize the dollars available to the BCS conferences through the antiquated bowl system – which was created to attract tourists to warm-weather locations during the holidays, not choose a champion – rather than concoct a tournament that might require spreading the dough around. Whichever team loses that USC-Cal game will be likely eliminated from title consideration, no matter how good it is, and that’s a sin. It’s also the way it goes in the asinine world of I-A football. Accept it but don’t try to defend it, because you sound like a toady for the establishment.







Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on October 01, 2007, 09:14:39 AM
Quote
in LSU's case there truly was no need to go full bore against a team so obviously outclassed. why chance getting someone hurt when the biggest game of your season is a week away? and why not play some of the other kids and give them some game exposure? while cap is right that they should have tried to put it away early, the need just wasn't perceived against tulane.
It is worth mentioning that a similar first half for Ohio State against Akron that was not entirely filled with luster was cited as proof that the Big Ten, +/-, was weak, though I doubt the same arguments will be made now.

I wasn't expecting 12-0, and a close loss at Camp Randall is nothing to be ashamed of.  But the game was in the Spartans' grasp, and they couldn't seal the deal.  Maybe they need another year of Dantonio.

Anywaaaay...

MICHIGAN STATE 27, NORTHWESTERN 13

A touch worried about the eventual 2008 National Champions given the way the defense failed to show up against a Wisconsin team that had been far from an offensive force.  And Northwestern hung tough against Meatchicken (and since I am not picking their game this week, has anyone besides me noticed how much better Meats has looked with Mallett as the starting QB instead of Henne?).  Still, I think we can take these guys.  Especially with a big game by 2007 Outland Trophy Winner Jonal Saint-Dic.

SOUTH CAROLINA 23, KENTUCKY 10

Although I'd like to see Kentucky do well.  Gives hope to the Indianas and Rices of the world.

LSU 23, FLORIDA 21

Why LSU?  Because I have more faith in their over all defense.  Florida's going to try to suck it up after another loss to Auburn; they are certainly capable of putting a huge hole in LSU's title hopes.

OKLAHOMA 31, TEXAS 17

Well, a week ago this looked like a way more important matchup than it does now, eh?  Still, the winner will remain in the National Title chase, while the loser has something like the Meineke Discount Muffler and Car Care Bowl in their future.  That's a lot on the line.

OHIO STATE 27, PURDUE 10

Ask me if I think Purdue is for real.  They aren't for real, they're undefeated.  There's a difference.  OSU's defense may well carry them to another ignominious defeat in the BCS championship game.

RUTGERS 24, CINCINATTI 13

Cinci's winning with Dantonio's players.  Perhaps he can recruit!  Anyway, the Big Least's going to be down to one unbeaten team after this week.

CLEMSON 24, VIRGINIA TECH 13

NEBRASKA 35, MISSOURI 6

In case you were windering who I consider the biggest fraud in the Top 25.

UCLA 49, NOTRE DAME 3

God, but I enjoyed typing that!  There are few things in CFB I'd more like to see than a 0-12 Notre Tie Playing For Dame squad.  One of course being a 12-0 MSU squad.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 01, 2007, 09:31:54 AM
Don't forget, whiskey, this is the same UCLA that lost to Utah 44-6, and the Utes are 2-3.  Notre Dame just might cop its first victory of the season.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on October 01, 2007, 09:32:02 AM
What a great weekend!!  Favorite part?  When the Auburn kicker after making the second field goal, running past the 'Gator fans doing the 'Gator chomp



Title: Re: For James
Post by: jmmengel on October 01, 2007, 09:54:15 AM
In that same webpage is this little gem. Since Jim carries the banner of the bowls I'm wondering what Jim has to say in way of rebuttal.

Ask Michigan About Rematch Possibilities

By Michael Bradley

4. If I hear one more person tell me that USC-Cal is an “elimination game” in the race for the BCS title game, I’m going to hurt someone. The rationalization that a late-season game between two teams which could well be worthy of inclusion in a playoff is actually a post-season game is like saying a November meeting between the Colts and Patriots should take the place of the AFC title game. This system is as ridiculous a way of choosing a champion as there is, and its defenders are merely playing into the hands of those who are trying to maximize the dollars available to the BCS conferences through the antiquated bowl system – which was created to attract tourists to warm-weather locations during the holidays, not choose a champion – rather than concoct a tournament that might require spreading the dough around. Whichever team loses that USC-Cal game will be likely eliminated from title consideration, no matter how good it is, and that’s a sin. It’s also the way it goes in the asinine world of I-A football. Accept it but don’t try to defend it, because you sound like a toady for the establishment.


Not sure what "toady" means, but will wear, proudly, the title of defender of the establishment.

Nothing spreads the wealth around more than the Bowl system.

And no BCS Champion could ever be called a "wild card".

If you send me his address I will gladly send him a post card from the Bowl game I attend this year.







Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 01, 2007, 09:57:17 AM
What a great weekend!!  Favorite part?  When the Auburn kicker after making the second field goal, running past the 'Gator fans doing the 'Gator chomp



That was a nice moment for the Auburn fans.

I am waiting for the game when  a coach pulls that last second timeout and the field goal is no good.

Now THAT post game news conference would be a beauty to attend.



Title: Re: For James
Post by: Dzimas on October 01, 2007, 10:08:47 AM

And no BCS Champion could ever be called a "wild card".


Hmmm, so I guess you mean to say that wild card winners have cheapened the Super Bowl.  If it hurts your sensibilities so much, maybe only conference champs should be invited?  Anyway, the sooner we get rid if this new found establishment, the BCS, the better, as it has degraded the bowls, establishing a two-tier system, that only favors those conferences which are fortunate enough to be included in the BCS.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 11:01:10 AM
Apparently struggling with Tulane for only one half was much more impressive that the fact that USC lost two starting offensive linemen in one play contributing to 160 yards in penalties and a close voctory over a Ty Wilingham coached Pac -10 team that pulled out all the stops including throwback uniforms (ala ND and the Green Jerseys) to pump up the players and crowd.

It is understandable though, Tulane did polish of S.E. Louisiana (of the fabled Southland conference) earlier in the year...


Title: Re: For James
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 01, 2007, 11:31:20 AM
In that same webpage is this little gem. Since Jim carries the banner of the bowls I'm wondering what Jim has to say in way of rebuttal.

Ask Michigan About Rematch Possibilities

By Michael Bradley

4. If I hear one more person tell me that USC-Cal is an “elimination game” in the race for the BCS title game, I’m going to hurt someone. The rationalization that a late-season game between two teams which could well be worthy of inclusion in a playoff is actually a post-season game is like saying a November meeting between the Colts and Patriots should take the place of the AFC title game. This system is as ridiculous a way of choosing a champion as there is, and its defenders are merely playing into the hands of those who are trying to maximize the dollars available to the BCS conferences through the antiquated bowl system – which was created to attract tourists to warm-weather locations during the holidays, not choose a champion – rather than concoct a tournament that might require spreading the dough around. Whichever team loses that USC-Cal game will be likely eliminated from title consideration, no matter how good it is, and that’s a sin. It’s also the way it goes in the asinine world of I-A football. Accept it but don’t try to defend it, because you sound like a toady for the establishment.


Not sure what "toady" means, but will wear, proudly, the title of defender of the establishment.

Nothing spreads the wealth around more than the Bowl system.

And no BCS Champion could ever be called a "wild card".

If you send me his address I will gladly send him a post card from the Bowl game I attend this year.



I thought you'd do better than that Jim.

Oh well.


Title: Re: For James
Post by: jmmengel on October 01, 2007, 11:32:08 AM

And no BCS Champion could ever be called a "wild card".


Hmmm, so I guess you mean to say that wild card winners have cheapened the Super Bowl.  If it hurts your sensibilities so much, maybe only conference champs should be invited?  Anyway, the sooner we get rid if this new found establishment, the BCS, the better, as it has degraded the bowls, establishing a two-tier system, that only favors those conferences which are fortunate enough to be included in the BCS.

I doubt wild cards have cheapened any of the sports that use them.  Wild cards were adopted to make their regular seasons seem more exciting.  College Football never needed such ploys.  College football makes 75% of its revenues in the regular season  since TV networks grovel for the rights to show games that have much greater meaning than any other sport's regular season.

The Bowls offer half the FBS teams a nice post season experience, offer interesting  intersectional matchups, attract more fans than any other sport's post season, and crown a champion.

Life is good.


Title: Re: For James
Post by: jmmengel on October 01, 2007, 11:35:00 AM
In that same webpage is this little gem. Since Jim carries the banner of the bowls I'm wondering what Jim has to say in way of rebuttal.

Ask Michigan About Rematch Possibilities

By Michael Bradley

4. If I hear one more person tell me that USC-Cal is an “elimination game” in the race for the BCS title game, I’m going to hurt someone. The rationalization that a late-season game between two teams which could well be worthy of inclusion in a playoff is actually a post-season game is like saying a November meeting between the Colts and Patriots should take the place of the AFC title game. This system is as ridiculous a way of choosing a champion as there is, and its defenders are merely playing into the hands of those who are trying to maximize the dollars available to the BCS conferences through the antiquated bowl system – which was created to attract tourists to warm-weather locations during the holidays, not choose a champion – rather than concoct a tournament that might require spreading the dough around. Whichever team loses that USC-Cal game will be likely eliminated from title consideration, no matter how good it is, and that’s a sin. It’s also the way it goes in the asinine world of I-A football. Accept it but don’t try to defend it, because you sound like a toady for the establishment.


Not sure what "toady" means, but will wear, proudly, the title of defender of the establishment.

Nothing spreads the wealth around more than the Bowl system.

And no BCS Champion could ever be called a "wild card".

If you send me his address I will gladly send him a post card from the Bowl game I attend this year.



I thought you'd do better than that Jim.

Oh well.

I only use what I need. ;D


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 11:42:32 AM

Takes a bit of the luster away from the LSU/Florida game.


Not if Florida wins!   :)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 11:46:20 AM
Fans to Coaches after Insanity Saturday:


I was actually most interested in hearing what they were saying in Alabama...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 11:59:09 AM
I think Alabama was guilty of looking ahead to next week's meeting with Juggernaut, Houston.   

Houston beat Tulane earlier by roughly the same score as LSU and if not for that nailbiter with East Carolina, would still be harboring hopes of making it all the way to the Poulan Weedeater Bowl this year...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 01, 2007, 12:02:11 PM
Fans to Coaches after Insanity Saturday:


I was actually most interested in hearing what they were saying in Alabama...

From Alabama:

Hey Saban is making 4 million a year, he must know something, so when are we going to find out?
"I make 25k a year  and can throw better than John Parker Wilson. Put the freshman in.
The OL is not doing the job.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 01, 2007, 02:17:31 PM

Takes a bit of the luster away from the LSU/Florida game.


Not if Florida wins!   :)


It could happen Scott. It would certainly put your Trojans in the drivers seat. They'd probably end up facing Ohio State or Wisconsin. Maybe even Boston College.  ;)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 01, 2007, 02:23:01 PM
Fans to Coaches after Insanity Saturday:


I was actually most interested in hearing what they were saying in Alabama...

From Alabama:

Hey Saban is making 4 million a year, he must know something, so when are we going to find out?
"I make 25k a year  and can throw better than John Parker Wilson. Put the freshman in.
The OL is not doing the job.


In all fairness it was a "bit" windy in that game Jim.

In three years, if he's still there, I think Sabin will have the Tide seriously contending for a title.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 01, 2007, 02:48:36 PM
Fans to Coaches after Insanity Saturday:


I was actually most interested in hearing what they were saying in Alabama...

From Alabama:

Hey Saban is making 4 million a year, he must know something, so when are we going to find out?
"I make 25k a year  and can throw better than John Parker Wilson. Put the freshman in.
The OL is not doing the job.


In all fairness it was a "bit" windy in that game Jim.

In three years, if he's still there, I think Sabin will have the Tide seriously contending for a title.

3 years?

$4 Million a year  to deliver in 3 years?

No Nation, let alone 'Bama Nation has that kind of patience.

And the freshman can hurl that pigskin 70 yards in the air against the wind if the offensive line can just block.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 03:02:10 PM
$4 Million a year  to deliver in 3 years?

No Nation, let alone 'Bama Nation has that kind of patience.


Careful now Jim...you're in danger of contradicting yourself...remember Charlie Weis now...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 03:12:10 PM
Corner back depth chart

starter - Josh Pickard  -- out for season
2nd string - Carey Harris - dislocated shoulder
3rd string - Shareece Wright - hamstring
4th string - Mozique McCurtis --  didn't actually do too badly - but come on already with the cornerback injuries...


others:

PROBABLE: LB Brian Cushing (ankle), LB Clay Matthews (shoulder), OT Butch Lewis (ankle), TE Jimmy Miller (back).
POSSIBLE: OG Chilo Rachal (ankle), TB Stafon Johnson (foot), OG Alatini Malu (thigh), CB Cary Harris (shoulder), CB Shareece Wright (hamstring), TB C.J. Gable (groin), C Kristofer O’Dowd (kneecap)
OUT: LB Chris Galippo (back), S-CB Josh Pinkard (knee), OG-C Nick Howell (hernia), TB Broderick Green (foot), CB Kevin Thomas (shoulder), OT Martin Coleman (shoulder), DE Trey Henderson (knee), WR Damian Williams (shoulder).








Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 01, 2007, 03:50:54 PM
$4 Million a year  to deliver in 3 years?

No Nation, let alone 'Bama Nation has that kind of patience.


Careful now Jim...you're in danger of contradicting yourself...remember Charlie Weis now...

Don't confuse what the fans think with what the contract says.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 01, 2007, 03:53:38 PM
Fans to Coaches after Insanity Saturday:


I was actually most interested in hearing what they were saying in Alabama...

From Alabama:

Hey Saban is making 4 million a year, he must know something, so when are we going to find out?
"I make 25k a year  and can throw better than John Parker Wilson. Put the freshman in.
The OL is not doing the job.


In all fairness it was a "bit" windy in that game Jim.

In three years, if he's still there, I think Sabin will have the Tide seriously contending for a title.

3 years?

$4 Million a year  to deliver in 3 years?

No Nation, let alone 'Bama Nation has that kind of patience.

And the freshman can hurl that pigskin 70 yards in the air against the wind if the offensive line can just block.


3 years.

And a strong arm without touch is worthless.

Patience Jim patience.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 01, 2007, 04:26:19 PM
Fans to Coaches after Insanity Saturday:


I was actually most interested in hearing what they were saying in Alabama...

From Alabama:

Hey Saban is making 4 million a year, he must know something, so when are we going to find out?
"I make 25k a year  and can throw better than John Parker Wilson. Put the freshman in.
The OL is not doing the job.


In all fairness it was a "bit" windy in that game Jim.

In three years, if he's still there, I think Sabin will have the Tide seriously contending for a title.

3 years?

$4 Million a year  to deliver in 3 years?

No Nation, let alone 'Bama Nation has that kind of patience.

And the freshman can hurl that pigskin 70 yards in the air against the wind if the offensive line can just block.


3 years.

And a strong arm without touch is worthless.

Patience Jim patience.

Captain.
If you take what the fans say seriously, no one would ever coach.
The greatest players in the world are the ones on the bench when the starters are struggling.
And no matter what Nation it is, the offensive line always sucks when you lose.   ;)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 08:14:33 PM
Although the sportswriters were apparently swayed by Kirk Herbstreit's off the cuff remarks Saturday evening, the coaches held firm and still have USC comfortably in first place.


Title: Colin Cowherd
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 10:16:07 PM
Well not everyone was swayed...I might actually start liking this guy...


http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/player?context=podcast&id=3044865#

I think this link will get you to the podcast from earlier today...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 02, 2007, 12:59:04 AM
Although the sportswriters were apparently swayed by Kirk Herbstreit's off the cuff remarks Saturday evening, the coaches held firm and still have USC comfortably in first place.

Huh?

Coaches and Harris have USC number one.   The computers have LSU number one.

AP Poll is not a factor in the BSC.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 02, 2007, 02:26:50 AM
If LSU beats Florida, which I think they will, that will probably put LSU number one in the BCS, and USC will have to hope that Cal is still number 3 when Nov. 10 rolls around.  A win over Notre Dame won't help them much this year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 02, 2007, 08:31:38 AM
Fans to Coaches after Insanity Saturday:


I was actually most interested in hearing what they were saying in Alabama...

From Alabama:

Hey Saban is making 4 million a year, he must know something, so when are we going to find out?
"I make 25k a year  and can throw better than John Parker Wilson. Put the freshman in.
The OL is not doing the job.


In all fairness it was a "bit" windy in that game Jim.

In three years, if he's still there, I think Sabin will have the Tide seriously contending for a title.

3 years?

$4 Million a year  to deliver in 3 years?

No Nation, let alone 'Bama Nation has that kind of patience.

And the freshman can hurl that pigskin 70 yards in the air against the wind if the offensive line can just block.


3 years.

And a strong arm without touch is worthless.

Patience Jim patience.

Captain.
If you take what the fans say seriously, no one would ever coach.
The greatest players in the world are the ones on the bench when the starters are struggling.
And no matter what Nation it is, the offensive line always sucks when you lose.   ;)

Actually Jim all kidding aside. I attribute it to the fact that State played a pretty good game and the two teams seamed to be pretty evenly matched. The wind IMO played a part. But Bama may have also been a bit overrated "because" of Sabin's rep. And also IMO there's sure signs of improvement on both sides of the ball for the Tide. But Sabin can only work so much miracle magic with the players at his disposal. As his cruits multiply so will the things his defense is able to do under his style/system of play. I'll stick with the three years but heck 2 years isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. He got some real blue chippers in his first recruiting year and is even playing one or two true frosh on defense.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 02, 2007, 08:34:18 AM
Although the sportswriters were apparently swayed by Kirk Herbstreit's off the cuff remarks Saturday evening, the coaches held firm and still have USC comfortably in first place.

Unfortunately Scott if there is one group, oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be as informed when it comes to the people polls its the Coaches. Weird, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. And there's been more than one rumor of coaches not even actually being the ones to fill out there ballots. But rather assistants. Zowie.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 02, 2007, 12:48:02 PM

AP Poll is not a factor in the BSC.

Ok Jim.  ALthough there are many things that I don't necessarily disagree with you on -- I guess this is one.

BCS had to scramble to replace AP when AP pulled out -- Harris is still not legitimate in my mind - although that could change as time goes by.

The two polls that means something to me are AP and Coaches.   And I'm still not that thrilled with the coaches changing their votes a few years ago because of the contractual obligation enforced upon them.  I get it, but it was just a symbol of how crossed up the whole thing had become.

I don't mind the one game playoff if there is a discrepancy between AP and Coaches polls -- but the whole thing went sideways a few years ago...

It's time to go back to the drawing board.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 02, 2007, 12:55:35 PM

Unfortunately Scott if there is one group, oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be as informed when it comes to the people polls its the Coaches.

I remember you saying this a year or two ago.

I don't know that I would agree that they are less informed.  I would agree that they have a different "perspective"  than a sportswriter.  And that is why the "intention" of the BCS was that in the case that there was a disagreement between these two polls, then a playoff would determine the true number 1 team.

If there is no disagreement, then there is no need for a playoff game -- although obviously you can't throw one of those  together at the last minute and there's way too much money to be made -- so fine we are always going to have a one game playoff.

But, I'm still steaming that the #3 team in the country gets to go play in it,  leaving the "unanimous" #1 team in the country out.

I guess I'm entitled to my occassional rants also...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: desdemona222b on October 02, 2007, 01:58:20 PM
LSU 23, FLORIDA 21

Why LSU?  Because I have more faith in their over all defense.  Florida's going to try to suck it up after another loss to Auburn; they are certainly capable of putting a huge hole in LSU's title hopes.


After losing to Auburn?!  Would you give LSU just a little more credit here?  Plus, it's a Death Valley (LSU HOME) game...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on October 02, 2007, 02:12:10 PM
i just ran thru the opening lines for next saturday's games. wisconsin is GETTING 2 1/2 against the illini (on my book)...

can this possibly be right? i realise it's in champaign but even so... big ten knowledgeables please help me out here. shouldn't i jump on this?

on more familiar ground:

the georgia/tennessee outcome will be either phil fulmer's death knell or first step toward redemption
 dependent on which way it goes in knoxville. fulmer has been on such hot coals for so long now that his next gig might be as an indian fakir. after the way georgia played last week...ding dong, phil...

spurrier has 'em wound up in columbia (that's sowcahlinah, boy) and i think kentucky is in some trouble tomorrow night but, like georgia, the gamecocks are a young, precocious team who can flip either way week by week. i think the crowd wins this one.

florida is gonna bring everything they have to baton rouge. will it be enough? i don't think so but it should be a meritorious try. closer game than even the odds reflect...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 02, 2007, 02:44:54 PM

AP Poll is not a factor in the BSC.

Ok Jim.  ALthough there are many things that I don't necessarily disagree with you on -- I guess this is one.

BCS had to scramble to replace AP when AP pulled out -- Harris is still not legitimate in my mind - although that could change as time goes by.

The two polls that means something to me are AP and Coaches.   And I'm still not that thrilled with the coaches changing their votes a few years ago because of the contractual obligation enforced upon them.  I get it, but it was just a symbol of how crossed up the whole thing had become.

I don't mind the one game playoff if there is a discrepancy between AP and Coaches polls -- but the whole thing went sideways a few years ago...

It's time to go back to the drawing board.

No matter what system is proposed it will rely on polls.

And we would all be better off if the polls would wait until we have results as the computers, the Harris Poll and the BCS Rankings do.

But the human polls are needed to sell newspapers so this year we have to live with half of their top ten suffering losses barely into October.

So for my money it is better to have an ocassional irate number 3 at the end of the year and a game that features the consensus 1 and 2 for the NC and 31 Bowl choices left for me and other fans to go to.

After all, you guys still claimed a National Championship. What did you lose?  Certainly not SopCal's ability to recruit and dominate the Pac Ten.

Going back to the drawing board is an option that no one is proposing, except the inevitable teams dissatisfied with the results at the end of the year.

The BCS is not perfect, but it beats all the alternatives.



Title: Power 16
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 02, 2007, 11:26:07 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/powerranking?season=2007&week=6


RANK TEAM RECORD POINTS COMMENTS
 1 USC (9) 4-0 249 After USC's 16 penalties for 161 yards against Washington, Pete Carroll said that it was a horrible night and that his Trojans were fortunate to win. We agree. 
 2 LSU (7) 5-0 247 A No. 1 ranking, an undefeated record, a dominating defense and a Death Valley advantage against Florida on Saturday night. Yes, life is good at LSU.
 3 California 5-0 223 DeSean Jackson's career day (11 catches, 161 yards and two TDs) led the Golden Bears to an impressive victory at Autzen -- and right into the thick of the national championship picture.
 4 Ohio State 5-0 206 How good is the Buckeyes' D? In five games, they've allowed 34 total points. Can they keep it up against a Purdue team that's averaging 45 ppg (ABC, 8 ET)?
 5 Wisconsin 5-0 158 Bret Bielema says the Badgers aren't a pretty team. Perhaps not, but it doesn't get prettier than a 5-0 start and a nation's-best 14-game win streak. Next up: a visit to surprising Illinois (ESPN, noon ET)
 6 Boston College 5-0 153 At 5-0, BC is off to its best start since 1954. The Eagles are also the lone undefeated team in the ACC, and they will host Bowling Green in a nonconference tilt Saturday (ESPNU, noon ET).
 7 South Florida 4-0 146 Its upset of West Virginia puts South Florida in the driver's seat for the Big East title. In only their seventh season of I-A football, the Bulls have officially arrived.
 8 Kentucky 5-0 129 The next three games should indicate how high the Wildcats can climb in the SEC. First up: a road game at South Carolina on Thursday (ESPN, 7:30 ET), then home games against LSU and Florida.
 9 Oklahoma 4-1 126 Think the Red River Shootout has lost some of its luster? The Sooners hope to avoid a three-game losing streak to Texas when the two Big 12 South rivals meet in Dallas (ABC, 3:30 ET).
 10 Florida 4-1 116 The Gators endured their first loss of the season, but don't count them out for the national title just yet. The next three games (at LSU, at Kentucky and at Georgia) will reveal a clearer picture.
 11 Oregon 4-1 103 After the Cal loss in 2006, the Ducks lost five of their last eight games. With home games remaining against USC and Arizona State and a visit to UCLA, Oregon hopes history doesn't repeat itself.
 12 South Carolina 4-1 76 Steve Spurrier had to have liked what he saw from freshman Chris Smelley. The Gamecocks QB provided a spark in his first start (279 yards, two TDs).
 13 Georgia 4-1 55 Freshman Knowshon Moreno and senior Thomas Brown have proved to be an impressive one-two punch in the backfield. The two have combined to rush for 825 yards and nine TDs.
 13 West Virginia 4-1 55 A loss to South Florida wasn't the only hit the Mountaineers took. Coach Rich Rodriguez isn't sure how long QB Pat White might be out after he was injured versus the Bulls. The good news? WVU visits 1-4 Syracuse.
 15 Arizona State 5-0 45 Rudy Carpenter is off to a nice start for the undefeated Sun Devils with 66 percent completion rate and 12 TDs. He also has cut down his INTs this season (4) after throwing 14 in 2006.
 16 Missouri 4-0 26 Is Missouri a legit contender for the Big 12 North title? We'll know a lot more about these Tigers after Saturday's home game against Nebraska (ESPN, 9:15 ET).


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 03, 2007, 02:51:41 AM
All the people polls suffer from regional bias.  I think the sportswriters do a little better job of looking beyond their regions, but not much.  Only natural, I guess, since most people tend to think that the team their conference is in is the best. The polls are also a matter of attrition, because once you drop a game you usually take a fall.  Better to lose early than late.

As for computer polls, they are assessing information along quantitative lines, with various factors weighted into the numbers that may or may not be a fair indication of the strength of schedule of the teams.  The polls tend to track teams through the season, without going back and making adjustments when it is realized that a team like Tennessee is not as good as they were predicted to be at the beginning of the season.  So, Cal's victory no longer looks so big.  This was true of Ohio St.'s victory over Texas last year.  Texas being ranked #2 at the time of the game.  While South Florida's victory over Auburn now looks better in light of Auburn beating Florida. 

But, then on any given Saturday, who knows what can happen, as witnessed this past weekend.  Teams have their ups and downs.  It is very difficult to remain consistent throughout the year.  Even Notre Dame can't remain consistently bad, so I'm looking to them to pull an upset against UCLA, as I don't think Weis wants to see his Irish squad go down as the worst in ND history,

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ap-futileirish&prov=ap&type=lgns


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on October 03, 2007, 08:16:23 AM
Quote
if there is one group, oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be as informed when it comes to the people polls its the Coaches.
Just how many games, aside from tape of their upcoming opponents, do you think the average CFB coach watches during the season?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 03, 2007, 08:51:31 AM
Although the sportswriters were apparently swayed by Kirk Herbstreit's off the cuff remarks Saturday evening, the coaches held firm and still have USC comfortably in first place.

Huh?

Coaches and Harris have USC number one.   The computers have LSU number one.

AP Poll is not a factor in the BSC.

I wonder Jim, does any of the computer polls have the AP factored in in "any" way?? Such as if team A beats team B and team B is in the top 25 of the AP does it enter in for schedule strength if the computer poll matrix has that as one of its equations? I mean how do we know the exact matrix for these computer polls?? Is the exact matrix a matter of public record??


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 03, 2007, 08:55:17 AM

Unfortunately Scott if there is one group, oddly enough, that doesn't seem to be as informed when it comes to the people polls its the Coaches.

I remember you saying this a year or two ago.

I don't know that I would agree that they are less informed.  I would agree that they have a different "perspective"  than a sportswriter.  And that is why the "intention" of the BCS was that in the case that there was a disagreement between these two polls, then a playoff would determine the true number 1 team.

If there is no disagreement, then there is no need for a playoff game -- although obviously you can't throw one of those  together at the last minute and there's way too much money to be made -- so fine we are always going to have a one game playoff.

But, I'm still steaming that the #3 team in the country gets to go play in it,  leaving the "unanimous" #1 team in the country out.

I guess I'm entitled to my occassional rants also...

I just question how much time these coaches have to dwell on some poll when they should be concentrating on their "own" team Scott. I've even heard reports of some coaches even admitting they don't follow whats happening with all the teams. Certainly IMO they can't follow "ALL" the other teams like some of the sportwriters could.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 03, 2007, 10:23:37 AM
Although the sportswriters were apparently swayed by Kirk Herbstreit's off the cuff remarks Saturday evening, the coaches held firm and still have USC comfortably in first place.

Huh?

Coaches and Harris have USC number one.   The computers have LSU number one.

AP Poll is not a factor in the BSC.

I wonder Jim, does any of the computer polls have the AP factored in in "any" way?? Such as if team A beats team B and team B is in the top 25 of the AP does it enter in for schedule strength if the computer poll matrix has that as one of its equations? I mean how do we know the exact matrix for these computer polls?? Is the exact matrix a matter of public record??

Computer rankings are proprietary, although people like Jerry Palm can make a pretty good stab at what factors each of them use to arrive at results.

As for the coaches' poll.  Jim Tressel knows every score and, it seems, all the players on all the high school football games played in the world.   His vote in the USA Today poll is handled by someone else.  I bet, in varying degrees, he is no different than the other coaches.  Which is why there is little difference between the Writers' Poll and the Coaches' Poll, or for that matter, any human poll since they cannot factor out the preseason rankings.

There is, however, sometimes hiuge differences in computer rankings since  each one, using different methods, only ranks teams after games are played, not before


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 03, 2007, 01:16:22 PM
So...that said it may indeed be possible for one computer poll's matrix to include data from the AP poll.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 03, 2007, 01:28:02 PM
So...that said it may indeed be possible for one computer poll's matrix to include data from the AP poll.

Anything is possible.  But I wonder why a computer programmer would care what the AP Poll said?

Computers can be programmed to factor in a home field advantage and other quantifiable data compiled over a span of time.
They would not do so well in unpredictable human factors such as injury, academic suspensions, etc.

The BCS allows the humans to have 2/3rd's of the weight in the rankings which acknowledges that game conditions are volatile and also concedes that the public does not trust computers, alone.

Fine by me.

I just wish the human voters would not make  a ranking until a few games were played.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 03, 2007, 01:38:04 PM
So...that said it may indeed be possible for one computer poll's matrix to include data from the AP poll.

Anything is possible.  But I wonder why a computer programmer would care what the AP Poll said?


Well, if the computers take into account the strength of the opponent. Specifically "wins over ranked" opponents then where would the computers programmer get said ranking info? Just one major source? 2? 3?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 03, 2007, 02:47:02 PM
So...that said it may indeed be possible for one computer poll's matrix to include data from the AP poll.

Anything is possible.  But I wonder why a computer programmer would care what the AP Poll said?


Well, if the computers take into account the strength of the opponent. Specifically "wins over ranked" opponents then where would the computers programmer get said ranking info? Just one major source? 2? 3?

What is the value of a win over Michigan who was "ranked " number 5 at one point?  Or the valiue of a win over Penn State who was ranked in the top ten when defeated by the unranked and previously ranked 5th Michigan?
Any ranking based on no more than guesses is, well, pretty rank.

Why not wait until at least October to put any value on rankings?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on October 03, 2007, 03:31:41 PM
Why not wait until at least October to put any value on rankings?

Why put any value of rankings at all?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 03, 2007, 03:42:02 PM
What would we have to talk about if we waited until October?

Speaking of frivoulous rankings discussion...

Sagarin has been my boy, but this year I'm wondering a bit.  The overall rankings (below) look reasonable enough except he has Oklahoma so high because he still shows them as #1 in his predictor becasue of their margin of victory -- to me this is meaningless as they are one of the few schools that are still making an effort to run up the score--they still haven't played anyone so how can they be ranked #1?

   But Sagarin's ELO-Chess rankings --which are the ones he supposedly submits to BCS are whacked...

ELO CHESS (submitted to BCS)
1 LSU
2 South Carolina
3 Southern Florida
4 Missouri
5 USC
6 Northern Iowa
7 Mississippi State

huh? 

The overall rankings from Sagarin:
   1  LSU                  A  =  96.08    5   0   68.73(  63)    0   0  |    2   0  |  107.04    1 |   94.70    2
   2  Southern California  A  =  93.79    4   0   70.82(  38)    0   0  |    2   0  |   95.07    5 |   90.26    4
   3  Ohio State           A  =  91.64    5   0   68.98(  60)    0   0  |    1   0  |   89.96    8 |   91.53    3
   4  Oklahoma             A  =  89.20    4   1   64.98( 100)    0   0  |    0   0  |   76.78   38 |   99.11    1
   5  California           A  =  88.34    5   0   71.37(  35)    0   0  |    1   0  |   88.77    9 |   85.03   14
   6  South Florida        A  =  88.14    4   0   72.50(  30)    2   0  |    2   0  |   98.67    3 |   86.95   10
   7  West Virginia        A  =  87.74    4   1   71.29(  36)    0   1  |    0   1  |   85.44   17 |   89.79    5
   8  Arizona State        A  =  87.53    5   0   67.89(  76)    0   0  |    0   0  |   82.79   20 |   89.25    6
   9  Florida              A  =  86.34    4   1   70.56(  42)    0   1  |    0   1  |   81.67   24 |   89.03    7
  10  Auburn               A  =  85.22    3   2   76.06(  11)    1   1  |    2   1  |   86.68   14 |   85.32   13

  11  Oregon               A  =  85.17    4   1   73.66(  21)    0   1  |    0   1  |   77.66   33 |   86.88   11
  12  UCLA                 A  =  84.70    4   1   74.47(  19)    0   0  |    2   0  |   75.57   43 |   88.17    8
  13  Georgia              A  =  83.72    4   1   67.02(  85)    0   0  |    0   1  |   86.02   15 |   82.55   18
  14  Cincinnati           A  =  83.64    5   0   58.52( 138)    0   0  |    0   0  |   78.84   32 |   87.69    9
  15  Boston College       A  =  83.37    5   0   68.07(  73)    0   0  |    1   0  |   87.15   11 |   79.43   30
  16  Kentucky             A  =  82.85    5   0   65.70(  92)    0   0  |    0   0  |   86.72   12 |   83.44   16
  17  South Carolina       A  =  82.48    4   1   69.99(  47)    0   1  |    1   1  |   99.16    2 |   77.81   35
  18  Missouri             A  =  82.40    4   0   65.35(  95)    0   0  |    0   0  |   96.00    4 |   79.60   27
  19  Kansas State         A  =  82.21    3   1   69.63(  52)    0   1  |    1   1  |   81.31   26 |   83.35   17
  20  Connecticut          A  =  81.99    5   0   60.63( 126)    0   0  |    0   0  |   85.55   16 |   84.61   15

  21  Florida State        A  =  81.90    3   1   74.62(  17)    0   0  |    0   0  |   81.69   23 |   79.26   31
  22  Boise State          A  =  81.17    3   1   65.59(  94)    0   0  |    0   1  |   79.08   31 |   80.04   26
  23  Purdue               A  =  81.17    5   0   60.72( 124)    0   0  |    0   0  |   79.76   29 |   81.62   22
  24  Wisconsin            A  =  81.13    5   0   66.53(  90)    0   0  |    0   0  |   86.71   13 |   76.78   41
  25  Texas                A  =  80.68    4   1   65.62(  93)    0   0  |    0   1  |   74.03   46 |   79.11   33
  26  Nebraska             A  =  80.26    4   1   71.78(  33)    0   1  |    0   1  |   82.60   21 |   76.57   43
  27  Washington           A  =  80.00    2   3   82.14(   1)    0   2  |    1   3  |   76.74   39 |   82.21   20
  28  Virginia Tech        A  =  79.34    4   1   67.73(  77)    0   1  |    0   1  |   83.12   19 |   75.63   47
  29  Georgia Tech         A  =  79.23    3   2   68.11(  71)    0   0  |    0   1  |   75.46   45 |   79.55   28
  30  BYU                  A  =  79.22    3   2   74.19(  20)    0   0  |    0   1  |   70.08   67 |   80.38   24


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 03, 2007, 03:44:20 PM
So...that said it may indeed be possible for one computer poll's matrix to include data from the AP poll.

Anything is possible.  But I wonder why a computer programmer would care what the AP Poll said?


Well, if the computers take into account the strength of the opponent. Specifically "wins over ranked" opponents then where would the computers programmer get said ranking info? Just one major source? 2? 3?

What is the value of a win over Michigan who was "ranked " number 5 at one point?  Or the valiue of a win over Penn State who was ranked in the top ten when defeated by the unranked and previously ranked 5th Michigan?
Any ranking based on no more than guesses is, well, pretty rank.

Why not wait until at least October to put any value on rankings?


I agree. But that isn't what Jim and I were discussing. He said that the AP doesn't enter into the picture. And he may be right. I'm just playing devil's advocate on that assertion.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 03, 2007, 03:47:59 PM
Why not wait until at least October to put any value on rankings?

Why put any value of rankings at all?

Well they are supposed to be the informed experts right??


Title: Ron Zook
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 03, 2007, 03:50:18 PM
Here is a story we have not spent enough time acknowledging.  Ron Zook has done a fantastic job at Illinois.  They are favored over Wisconsin this weekend...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3047288



Forget the 4-1 start overall, which is as many wins as Illinois managed his first two seasons.

Forget the 2-0 start in Big Ten play, which is double the Illini's conference win total in 2005 and 2006 combined.

And forget the 27-20 upset last week of No. 21 Penn State, which ended Illinois' 17-game losing streak against ranked opponents.

The truest measure of the Illini's rebirth is that those whose wealth depends on never being wrong about these things favor the target of FireRonZook.com over a team ranked fifth in the country and boasting the nation's longest winning streak.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 03, 2007, 04:11:17 PM
Oh but wait, I guess these aren't Zook's Juniors and Seniors so we can't adequately judge him compared to his predecessor yet...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 03, 2007, 04:14:27 PM
What do you mean you shouldn't start paying attention to polls until October.  Beginning with the first week in October, it's already time to start predicting the bowl matchups...   (apparently)

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=bowlprojections5

2007-08 Bowl Projections
Bowl (Matchup) Bruce Feldman Mark Schlabach

Allstate BCS Championship Game
(BCS No. 1 vs. BCS No. 2)  USC vs. LSU  USC vs. LSU 

Allstate Sugar
(BCS vs. BCS)  Florida vs. Oklahoma  Florida vs. Wisconsin
 
FedEx Orange
(BCS vs. BCS)  Florida State vs. South Florida
 Boston College vs. South Florida 

Tostitos Fiesta
(BCS vs. BCS)  West Virginia vs. Missouri
  Oklahoma vs. Hawaii 

Rose Bowl presented by Citi
(BCS vs. BCS)  Ohio State vs. California  Ohio State vs. California 



GMAC
(C-USA No. 2 vs. MAC)  UTEP vs. Ball State  Tulsa vs. Ball State 
International
(MAC No. 3 vs. Big East No. 4)  Toledo vs. Cincinnati  Bowling Green vs. Cincinnati 
Capital One
(Big Ten No. 2 vs. SEC No. 2)  Wisconsin vs.
South Carolina  Purdue vs. Georgia 
Gator
(ACC No. 3 vs. Big 12 No. 4/
Notre Dame/Big East No. 2)  Miami vs. Louisville  Clemson vs. West Virginia 
Outback
(Big Ten No. 3 vs. SEC No. 3/4)  Illinois vs. Kentucky  Michigan vs. Kentucky 
AT&T Cotton
(Big 12 No. 2 vs. SEC No. 3/4)  Texas vs. Alabama  Nebraska vs. Auburn 
Roady's Humanitarian
(WAC vs. ACC No. 8)  Boise State vs.
Maryland  Boise State vs.
Maryland 
Chick-fil-A
(ACC No. 2 vs. SEC No. 5)  Clemson vs. Georgia  Virginia Tech vs.
South Carolina 
Valero Alamo
(Big Ten No. 4/5 vs. Big 12 No. 4/5)  Michigan vs. Kansas State  Michigan State vs. Texas 
Meineke Car Care
(Big East No. 3/Navy vs.
ACC No. 5/6/7)  Rutgers vs. Georgia Tech  Rutgers vs. Florida State 
Champs Sports
(ACC No. 4 vs. Big Ten No. 4/5)  Virginia Tech vs. Penn State  Miami vs. Illinois 
Insight
(Big 12 No. 6 vs. Big Ten No. 6)  Kansas vs. Indiana  Texas Tech vs. Penn State 
AutoZone Liberty
(C-USA No. 1 vs. SEC No. 7)  UCF vs. Tennessee  UCF vs. Tennessee 
Brut Sun
(Pac-10 No. 3 vs. Big 12/Notre Dame/
Big East)  Oregon vs. Texas Tech  UCLA vs. Kansas State 
Gaylord Hotels Music City
(ACC No. 5/6/7 vs. SEC No. 6)  Boston College vs. Auburn  Georgia Tech vs. Arkansas 
Texas
(Big 12 No. 8 vs. C-USA)  Texas A&M vs. Houston  Oklahoma State vs. Houston 
Pacific Life Holiday
(Pac-10 No. 2 vs. Big 12 No. 3)  UCLA vs. Nebraska  Oregon vs. Missouri 
PetroSun Independence
(SEC No. 8 vs. Big 12 No. 7)  Arkansas vs.
Colorado  Alabama vs.
Texas A&M 
Emerald Bowl
(Pac-10 No. 4 vs. ACC No. 5/6/7)  Arizona State vs.
Wake Forest  Arizona State vs. Virginia 
Motor City
(Big Ten No. 7 vs. MAC No. 1/2)  Purdue vs.
Bowling Green  Indiana vs. Central Michigan 
Sheraton Hawaii
(WAC vs. C-USA)  Hawaii vs. Tulsa  Fresno State vs. East Carolina 
Bell Helicopter Armed Forces
(Mountain West vs. Pac-10 No. 6)  Air Force vs. Washington  Air Force vs. Kansas* 
New Mexico
(WAC vs. Mountain West)  Fresno State vs. Wyoming  New Mexico State vs. Wyoming 
PapaJohns.com
(C-USA vs. Big East No. 5)  East Carolina vs. UConn  Southern Miss vs. Louisville 
R&L Carriers New Orleans
(Sun Belt No. 1 vs. C-USA)  Florida Atlantic vs. Southern Miss  Florida Atlantic vs. UTEP 
Pioneer Las Vegas
(Pac-10 No. 4/5 vs.
Mountain West No. 1)  Oregon State vs. BYU  Washington vs. BYU 
San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia
(Mountain West vs. Navy/At-large)  TCU vs. Navy  TCU vs. Navy 

* Pac-10 not projected to qualify enough teams for postseason 




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 03, 2007, 04:38:12 PM
Oh but wait, I guess these aren't Zook's Juniors and Seniors so we can't adequately judge him compared to his predecessor yet...


Didn't stop the annointment of Urban Meyer as Grand Poobah of all coaches after winning with Zook's players at Florida.





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 03, 2007, 05:11:39 PM
That was deadpan Jim...   

I was actually referring back to your comments about Charlie Weis inheriting poor players...   I think Zook inherited worse players and has done a better job of coaching.  Obviously there are lower expectations at Illinois as well, so that has to be factored in, I will admit...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 03, 2007, 11:53:02 PM
I agree with one of jim's earlier comments that we should all be thankful ND gave Weis an extension so that we can gleefully watch Notre Dame get dragged down to the worst level of football in its 100+ year history.  ND has had some losers before, but Weis after Saturday may very well be the biggest loser of them all.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 04, 2007, 12:25:24 AM
What do you mean you shouldn't start paying attention to polls until October.  Beginning with the first week in October, it's already time to start predicting the bowl matchups...   (apparently)

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=bowlprojections5

2007-08 Bowl Projections
Bowl (Matchup) Bruce Feldman Mark Schlabach

Allstate BCS Championship Game
(BCS No. 1 vs. BCS No. 2)  USC vs. LSU  USC vs. LSU 

Allstate Sugar
(BCS vs. BCS)  Florida vs. Oklahoma  Florida vs. Wisconsin
 
FedEx Orange
(BCS vs. BCS)  Florida State vs. South Florida
 Boston College vs. South Florida 

Tostitos Fiesta
(BCS vs. BCS)  West Virginia vs. Missouri
  Oklahoma vs. Hawaii 

Rose Bowl presented by Citi
(BCS vs. BCS)  Ohio State vs. California  Ohio State vs. California 



GMAC
(C-USA No. 2 vs. MAC)  UTEP vs. Ball State  Tulsa vs. Ball State 
International
(MAC No. 3 vs. Big East No. 4)  Toledo vs. Cincinnati  Bowling Green vs. Cincinnati 
Capital One
(Big Ten No. 2 vs. SEC No. 2)  Wisconsin vs.
South Carolina  Purdue vs. Georgia 
Gator
(ACC No. 3 vs. Big 12 No. 4/
Notre Dame/Big East No. 2)  Miami vs. Louisville  Clemson vs. West Virginia 
Outback
(Big Ten No. 3 vs. SEC No. 3/4)  Illinois vs. Kentucky  Michigan vs. Kentucky 
AT&T Cotton
(Big 12 No. 2 vs. SEC No. 3/4)  Texas vs. Alabama  Nebraska vs. Auburn 
Roady's Humanitarian
(WAC vs. ACC No. 8)  Boise State vs.
Maryland  Boise State vs.
Maryland 
Chick-fil-A
(ACC No. 2 vs. SEC No. 5)  Clemson vs. Georgia  Virginia Tech vs.
South Carolina 
Valero Alamo
(Big Ten No. 4/5 vs. Big 12 No. 4/5)  Michigan vs. Kansas State  Michigan State vs. Texas 
Meineke Car Care
(Big East No. 3/Navy vs.
ACC No. 5/6/7)  Rutgers vs. Georgia Tech  Rutgers vs. Florida State 
Champs Sports
(ACC No. 4 vs. Big Ten No. 4/5)  Virginia Tech vs. Penn State  Miami vs. Illinois 
Insight
(Big 12 No. 6 vs. Big Ten No. 6)  Kansas vs. Indiana  Texas Tech vs. Penn State 
AutoZone Liberty
(C-USA No. 1 vs. SEC No. 7)  UCF vs. Tennessee  UCF vs. Tennessee 
Brut Sun
(Pac-10 No. 3 vs. Big 12/Notre Dame/
Big East)  Oregon vs. Texas Tech  UCLA vs. Kansas State 
Gaylord Hotels Music City
(ACC No. 5/6/7 vs. SEC No. 6)  Boston College vs. Auburn  Georgia Tech vs. Arkansas 
Texas
(Big 12 No. 8 vs. C-USA)  Texas A&M vs. Houston  Oklahoma State vs. Houston 
Pacific Life Holiday
(Pac-10 No. 2 vs. Big 12 No. 3)  UCLA vs. Nebraska  Oregon vs. Missouri 
PetroSun Independence
(SEC No. 8 vs. Big 12 No. 7)  Arkansas vs.
Colorado  Alabama vs.
Texas A&M 
Emerald Bowl
(Pac-10 No. 4 vs. ACC No. 5/6/7)  Arizona State vs.
Wake Forest  Arizona State vs. Virginia 
Motor City
(Big Ten No. 7 vs. MAC No. 1/2)  Purdue vs.
Bowling Green  Indiana vs. Central Michigan 
Sheraton Hawaii
(WAC vs. C-USA)  Hawaii vs. Tulsa  Fresno State vs. East Carolina 
Bell Helicopter Armed Forces
(Mountain West vs. Pac-10 No. 6)  Air Force vs. Washington  Air Force vs. Kansas* 
New Mexico
(WAC vs. Mountain West)  Fresno State vs. Wyoming  New Mexico State vs. Wyoming 
PapaJohns.com
(C-USA vs. Big East No. 5)  East Carolina vs. UConn  Southern Miss vs. Louisville 
R&L Carriers New Orleans
(Sun Belt No. 1 vs. C-USA)  Florida Atlantic vs. Southern Miss  Florida Atlantic vs. UTEP 
Pioneer Las Vegas
(Pac-10 No. 4/5 vs.
Mountain West No. 1)  Oregon State vs. BYU  Washington vs. BYU 
San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia
(Mountain West vs. Navy/At-large)  TCU vs. Navy  TCU vs. Navy 

* Pac-10 not projected to qualify enough teams for postseason 




Ya know,  the actual season seems to get in the way of the predictions.

But before we talk Bowls there is more interesting what-ifs courtesy of Jerry Palm


Purdue's game against Ohio State this week is the last one it has against a higher ranked team.  That's because Purdue and Wisconsin don't meet this year. So it is possible that the Big Ten could wind up with 2 undefeated teams. Possible, but not probable.

Also possible is that Missouri and South Florida could win out.

So what would the pollsters and the computers do if:
Florida wins out which would require road wins at LSU,Kentucky,  and South Carolina and the SEC Championship game;
or If LSU loses to Flordia but wins out and wins  the SEC Game?

And what about the loser of the SoCal/Cal game, assuming it is the only loss?

Would the one loss teams be ranked ahead of an undefeated Purdue, or An undefeated Missouri, or An undefeated South Florida?

Lots of ifs.

Lots of fun.


Nice of you to notice Zook and Illinois. The only loss was the first game against Missouri when the Illini's quarterback phenom Juice Williams missed most of the second half with an injury.  Missou won by only 6, at home.




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 04, 2007, 12:33:24 AM
I agree with one of jim's earlier comments that we should all be thankful ND gave Weis an extension so that we can gleefully watch Notre Dame get dragged down to the worst level of football in its 100+ year history.  ND has had some losers before, but Weis after Saturday may very well be the worst loser of them all.

Those may be your thoughts, they certainly are not mine.

Don't misstate my remarks to buttress your obvious glee in seeing Notre Dame struggle.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 04, 2007, 02:38:47 AM
My picks this week, for what they are worth:

LSU 27 Florida 13, the Gators have had too much turmoil this past week to get their act together this Saturday.

South Carolina 21 Kentucky 17, should be a good game, but I think the Gamecocks will crack down on the Wildcats.

Oklahoma 24 Texas 10, not much more than pride at stake in this game after last week's debacles.

Notre Dame 24 UCLA 17, Weis will save himself from the ignominity of the longest losing streak in ND history.

Illinois 24, Wisconsin 21, Zook has done wonders with the Illini, make it 5 in a row.

Tennessee 31 Georgia 24, Fulmer seems to find a way to answer the critics with at least one big win during the year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on October 04, 2007, 03:07:10 AM
I have to give you credit but at this point I think Notre Dame would have their hands full with Temple let alone UCLA on the road.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on October 04, 2007, 03:36:07 AM
The UCLA-Notre Dame game at least on the west coast is the ABC prime time game which is 5 p.m. here in L.A..USC must have asked for a week off from the later start ;)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on October 04, 2007, 08:10:52 AM
I agree with one of jim's earlier comments that we should all be thankful ND gave Weis an extension so that we can gleefully watch Notre Dame get dragged down to the worst level of football in its 100+ year history.  ND has had some losers before, but Weis after Saturday may very well be the biggest loser of them all.
The bariatric surgery of ND coaches?  Oooh, but I'd love that.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 04, 2007, 08:30:20 AM
Oh but wait, I guess these aren't Zook's Juniors and Seniors so we can't adequately judge him compared to his predecessor yet...


 :D :D :D


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 04, 2007, 09:55:33 AM
Those may be your thoughts, they certainly are not mine.

Don't misstate my remarks to buttress your obvious glee in seeing Notre Dame struggle.

I remember you saying something to that effect, probably in jest, but since I couldn't find a reference, my apologies.  I enjoy watching ND flounder around in the mud as much as the next guy, but it must be remembered that the reason for firing Willingham was that the Irish thought they could hook Meyer that year.  Strange they didn't go after Saban or Pitino or even Dan Hawkins.  Hell, they might have even lured Spurrier up to South Bend if the price was right.  Anyone of whom would have been better than Weis, having all coached college football for years. 

BTW, jim, 45 days is an eternity when it comes to signings.  Coaches have had less days than that and made their imprint the first year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 04, 2007, 10:25:54 AM
MICHIGAN STATE 37, NORTHWESTERN 13:

This game shouldn’t even be close.


SOUTH CAROLINA 20, KENTUCKY 29:
The old ball coach is in for a fight in this one. I don’t think his defense is up to the job.

LSU 33, FLORIDA 18:

LSU owes Florida one. And specifically they owe T-bone one. T-bone won’t be able to sneak in on selected plays and sneak out this time. So look for some payback in this game and don’t be surprised if T-bone doesn’t finish the game.


OKLAHOMA 31, TEXAS 17:
I’ll stick with Steve’s score. The Sooners looked ahead and got ambushed last week. Shouldn’t happen this time. I think the Sooners special teams play could be a telling factor in this one.


OHIO STATE 37, PURDUE 10

Ask me if I think Purdue is for real.  They aren't for real, they're undefeated.  There's a difference.  OSU's defense may well carry them to another ignominious defeat in the BCS championship game.

I’ll buy Steve’s take on this one.

RUTGERS 21, CINCINATTI 30:

Cincy has a defense to go along with the good offense they have. Rutgers will be surprised.

CLEMSON 24, VIRGINIA TECH 13:

I really don’t have a good feel for this game. If the Tigers come to play they win it. But you never know what Tiger team is going to show up.


NEBRASKA 23, MISSOURI 29:

Missou iz my pick. Huskers can’t pressure the QB and because of this Daniel will pick them apart with his exceptional TEs. And you’re right Steve one of these teams is a fake.


UCLA 23, NOTRE DAME 24:
“If” Chuckie starts the guy that “should have”(like I said in the first place)started the first game of the season, the Irish have a real shot at winning this game. Anybody that watched the Purdue/ND game can see that Sharpley has real ability and also the maturity needed to handle ND’s crop of young receivers. Sharpley(recruited by I think Chuckie) was, if memory serves, ranked in the top 15 pro-style QBs by Scout.com and UCLA can be passed on.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 04, 2007, 11:54:07 AM


 


BTW, jim, 45 days is an eternity when it comes to signings.  Coaches have had less days than that and made their imprint the first year.

Where was he going to find high school players in December, except from the Willingham staff?
Oh, and one other thing, Weis was kind of busy through February with that thing called the Super Bowl.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 04, 2007, 12:31:33 PM

Ya know,  the actual season seems to get in the way of the predictions.


:)


If I was runnning the Laugh Of the Week still, this would be frontrunner for LOW Highlights of the week!


Title: Heisman Watch
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 04, 2007, 12:40:23 PM


Here is ESPN's poll--which looks like it is significantly upgraded from prior years.  They used to just have eight or so guys on staff give their votes I believe.

Woodson and McFadden are virtually tied so far...


Name Position School Year 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total

Darren McFadden RB Arkansas Jr. 9 1 4 0 1 62
Andre' Woodson QB Kentucky Sr. 5 8 1 0 1 61
DeSean Jackson WR Cal Jr. 1 1 5 5 2 36
Tim Tebow QB Florida So. 0 2 2 2 0 18
Matt Ryan QB Boston College Sr. 0 1 1 3 3 16
Colt Brennan QB Hawaii Sr. 0 0 0 2 2 6
Brian Brohm QB Louisville Sr. 0 1 0 1 0 6
John David Booty QB USC Sr. 0 1 0 0 1 5
Mike Hart RB Michigan Sr. 0 0 1 0 2 5
Chase Daniel QB Missouri Jr. 0 0 1 0 0 3


Title: Re: Heisman Watch
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 04, 2007, 02:15:55 PM


Here is ESPN's poll--which looks like it is significantly upgraded from prior years.  They used to just have eight or so guys on staff give their votes I believe.

Woodson and McFadden are virtually tied so far...


Name Position School Year 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total

Darren McFadden RB Arkansas Jr. 9 1 4 0 1 62
Andre' Woodson QB Kentucky Sr. 5 8 1 0 1 61
DeSean Jackson WR Cal Jr. 1 1 5 5 2 36
Tim Tebow QB Florida So. 0 2 2 2 0 18
Matt Ryan QB Boston College Sr. 0 1 1 3 3 16
Colt Brennan QB Hawaii Sr. 0 0 0 2 2 6
Brian Brohm QB Louisville Sr. 0 1 0 1 0 6
John David Booty QB USC Sr. 0 1 0 0 1 5
Mike Hart RB Michigan Sr. 0 0 1 0 2 5
Chase Daniel QB Missouri Jr. 0 0 1 0 0 3


For me right now it's between McFadden and Jackson.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on October 04, 2007, 02:23:10 PM
Whoever wins the Heisman can be sure of a couple of things:  You didn't deserve it.  The award means nothing anymore.  You will tank in the NFL.  Congratulations though!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 04, 2007, 02:59:16 PM
Whoever wins the Heisman can be sure of a couple of things:  You didn't deserve it.  The award means nothing anymore.  You will tank in the NFL.  Congratulations though!

Not to mention no one from the West Coast can win because of bad TV contracts and the bias of the east coast writers.

Thanks for the link to the Short North article in the Times.
Here is one for you from the actual Short North  www.shortnorth.org
The November Gallery Hop conincides with the Wisky game.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on October 04, 2007, 04:23:29 PM
I can't wait!! It looks like the West Village in NYC. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 04, 2007, 05:02:18 PM
So this is where we will shop when we come to watch the Trojans beat the Buckeyes in a couple of years?

















:)
don't hit me...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 04, 2007, 09:58:55 PM
So this is where we will shop when we come to watch the Trojans beat the Buckeyes in a couple of years?

















:)
don't hit me...

You certainly can, but there are no sports bars there.
It would be a better place for you if OSU wins. ;)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on October 04, 2007, 10:20:08 PM
Woodson sucks.  Anybody that thinks he's an NFL prospect, check Woodson v. South Carolina, stat., tomorrow, stats.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 04, 2007, 11:45:07 PM
I guess we will see on Saturday how good Woodson is.  Both he and McFadden suffer from lack of exposure.  It would surprise me if either one took home the Heisman.  I don't see how the Heisman has lost its value over the years.  Granted there have been some questionable choices, but there have been some great choices as well.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 05, 2007, 09:29:43 AM
Was anyone buying UK?

Spurrier on the other hand, is the real deal.  Wait, isn't this his third year also?

and agreed...Woodson stock down...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 05, 2007, 09:36:08 AM
Best start in 40 years.  Something good was happening in Lexington, but the Wildcats aren't in the top tier yet.  I figured Spurrier would have the Gamecocks ready this year.  I think they will take the SEC East.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 05, 2007, 09:44:43 AM
I didn't realize Bear Bryant was their coach early on...I even watched the movie a couple of years ago...but that part slipped right past me.

I guess I'm just a Left Coaster...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on October 05, 2007, 02:24:14 PM
I figured Spurrier would have the Gamecocks ready this year.  I think they will take the SEC East.

You are obviously unfamiliar with The Chicken Curse.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on October 05, 2007, 08:20:42 PM
The SEC is terrible this year with the possible exception of LSU.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 06, 2007, 02:36:23 AM
Oilcan, I don't think Spurrier or his players believe in "chicken" curses.

The SEC doesn't look any worse this year than last.  Florida and LSU are in the exact same positions they were last year.  Arkansas and Auburn appear to be weaker this year but then South Carolina and Kentucky are stronger this year. Alabama also appears to be much improved.  If anything, the SEC is only going to get stronger in the years ahead as Miles, Meyer, Saban, and Spurrier continue to develop their teams. 



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on October 06, 2007, 06:57:17 AM
jeez, what happened to louisville? they are the chernobyl of division I. i knew they didn't have much defense but to be blown out (the score was closer than the game) by the meyerless utes and at home, no less....jake?...jake???...

dzimas...oilcan is right: you obviously are not aware of "the chicken curse". this is so. carolina's remarkable propensity to turn a promising start to shit right before your eyes. while by no means the beginning, it hit its apotheosis in 1984 when a 9-0, #2 gamecock squad (poised to be #1) fell to the mighty middies in what can only be said to be the defining instance of "looking past an opponent". it is not football specific either but runs the gamut of the atheletic department...

while sure to the brunt of many jokes, i'm taking the fairly rated (they suck) notre dame and the points over an over rated UCLA. i'm just hoping they don't suck by more than 20 1/2...

and i couldn't pass up auburn -7 vs. vandy at home nor #5 wisconsin +2 1/2 at unranked illinois. this one really mystifies me but, hey, i've lost many other apparent "locks"...

i wish my UGA puppies the best but wouldn't touch a georgia spread with a ten foot pole...

anybody who beats florida is fine with me so it might as well be a team i truly like...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 06, 2007, 07:46:02 AM
Curses are such a joke, bocce.  The Gamecocks finished strong last year.  They very nearly knocked off the Gators in Gainesville, beat Clemson and won their bowl game.  So, where is the curse?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on October 06, 2007, 10:30:20 AM
dzi...

you really need to tune up those irony receptors a bit. "the chicken curse" is so.carolina's version of "the billy goat" and "bambino" curses. it is mostly affectionately referenced to explicate carolina's inexplicable history of self-immolation and to assuage the broken hearts of their fans.

sure long traditions can be momentarily broken (cf. boston's series win/ chicago's division title) and perhaps this is the gamecock's turn. but i, personally, prefer to take a wait and see stance based on long and painful experience...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on October 06, 2007, 04:18:28 PM
The Gamecock's played well against LSU and with a couple of bounces here or there could've won that game.  If the Gamecock's win the SEC or are a BCS team the "curse" will have been lifted.  Until that happens, all they did for you lately was beat a severely overrated KY team.  The Jellies showed that their QB is average and not only not an All-American, Heisman candidate, or NFL Prospect, not a particularly good athlete as the SEC goes.  If Smelly has a better day than you do, you are not only not great, but joining the ranks of the 40-50 "average" D1 QB's.  UGA is down this year and the Cocks win between the hedges, while impressive, is a rivalry game where there are occasional Cock moments of brilliance and UGA overlooks.  South Cack will get their curse on and finish with 3-4 losses and no SEC title and no BCS bid.  Is Spurrier an offensive genius.  Sure.  Even this is in shuddering insignificance against the POWER OF THE CHICKEN CURSE.  Trust me on this. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on October 06, 2007, 09:58:21 PM
Curses are such a joke, bocce.  The Gamecocks finished strong last year.  They very nearly knocked off the Gators in Gainesville, beat Clemson and won their bowl game.  So, where is the curse?

They finished 8 and 5.  The curse is that 8 and 5 is as good as it will get.  The curse is that their last 10-win season was 23 years ago - the year Bocce cited above, when they lost to NAVY.  The curse is that, just when you think they're going to bust a move into a legit top-10 team, they'll lose to Navy, or to Coppin State or something like that.

The curse is over when they string three years in a row of 9 or more wins.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on October 06, 2007, 09:59:44 PM
If the Gamecock's win the SEC or are a BCS team the "curse" will have been lifted.   

Yeah, or that. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on October 06, 2007, 10:50:55 PM
Lets see with the 41 points that makes the final Stanford 65-USC 23.I can't wait to see my SC buddy this week.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on October 06, 2007, 10:53:42 PM
Cal could be #1 by the time the night is over.How strange would that be.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 07, 2007, 12:34:46 AM
After what has happened the last two weeks I am tempted to take Kent State and the points.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on October 07, 2007, 12:58:16 AM
Well Dzimas you were right about Notre Dame but then I didn't think UCLA would be down to some 3rd or 4th string QB just a bit into the game.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 07, 2007, 01:37:56 AM
My picks this week, for what they are worth:

LSU 27 Florida 13, the Gators have had too much turmoil this past week to get their act together this Saturday.

South Carolina 21 Kentucky 17, should be a good game, but I think the Gamecocks will crack down on the Wildcats.

Oklahoma 24 Texas 10, not much more than pride at stake in this game after last week's debacles.

Notre Dame 24 UCLA 17, Weis will save himself from the ignominity of the longest losing streak in ND history.

Illinois 24, Wisconsin 21, Zook has done wonders with the Illini, make it 5 in a row.

Tennessee 31 Georgia 24, Fulmer seems to find a way to answer the critics with at least one big win during the year.

Hate to gloat, but 6-0 is pretty good.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 07, 2007, 02:00:16 AM
To have outgained Stanford 457 yards to 237 yards and lose because of a missed PAT is really something, especially at home.  Talk about not being able to close the deal.  Looks like the PAC is as good as the SEC this year when it comes to beating each other up.  LSU dodged a bullet in Baton Rouge.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 07, 2007, 05:32:00 AM
Curses are such a joke, bocce.  The Gamecocks finished strong last year.  They very nearly knocked off the Gators in Gainesville, beat Clemson and won their bowl game.  So, where is the curse?

They finished 8 and 5.  The curse is that 8 and 5 is as good as it will get.  The curse is that their last 10-win season was 23 years ago - the year Bocce cited above, when they lost to NAVY.  The curse is that, just when you think they're going to bust a move into a legit top-10 team, they'll lose to Navy, or to Coppin State or something like that.

The curse is over when they string three years in a row of 9 or more wins.

Clemson hasn't exactly distinguished itself since it won an ACC title back in 1991, so does that mean the Tigers are cursed too.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bocce on October 07, 2007, 06:50:01 AM
wisconsin +2 1/2 at unranked illinois. this one really mystifies me but, hey, i've lost many other apparent "locks"...

ah, all is illuminated...we knew zook could recruit and now, miraculously, he's learned how to coach. the badgers were outplayed AND out-coached on both sides of the ball. i should have seen it coming from the michigan state game. oh, well...

and for your consideration: the 2007 BCS championship game btwn the cal bears and the so. florida bulls...with all the excitement of a heavy trading day on the floor of the NYSE...should pack the superdome and be a monster on the nielsen ratings...

as i said earlier on, georgia can PLAY with anyone. they just can't BEAT them. this is such typical UGA football. while we might not have a specific "curse", it's almost a sure thing that years with high expectations yield low performance and dashed hopes. conversely, when they're supposed to be a doormat, they jump up and bite you in the ass...

sure long traditions can be momentarily broken (cf. boston's series win/ chicago's division title) and perhaps this is the gamecock's turn.

dzi...cancel that 2nd example...DBACKS SWEEP CUBS....BAAAaaa....BAAAaaa...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 07, 2007, 08:23:09 AM
My picks this week, for what they are worth:

LSU 27 Florida 13, the Gators have had too much turmoil this past week to get their act together this Saturday.

South Carolina 21 Kentucky 17, should be a good game, but I think the Gamecocks will crack down on the Wildcats.

Oklahoma 24 Texas 10, not much more than pride at stake in this game after last week's debacles.

Notre Dame 24 UCLA 17, Weis will save himself from the ignominity of the longest losing streak in ND history.

Illinois 24, Wisconsin 21, Zook has done wonders with the Illini, make it 5 in a row.

Tennessee 31 Georgia 24, Fulmer seems to find a way to answer the critics with at least one big win during the year.

Hate to gloat, but 6-0 is pretty good.

Pretty damn good DZ!

6-3 for me with the real shocker being Mich St's loss to Northwestern. Hey Steve what gives??!!!

But USC was the real shocker of the weekend. Last year getting knocked off by UCLA and this year Stanford??? Oy!!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 07, 2007, 08:26:33 AM
To have outgained Stanford 457 yards to 237 yards and lose because of a missed PAT is really something, especially at home.  Talk about not being able to close the deal.  Looks like the PAC is as good as the SEC this year when it comes to beating each other up.  LSU dodged a bullet in Baton Rouge.

I bet LSU would have been happy to have let USC play Florida and they take on the Big Red Cardinal of mighty Stanford.

USC dominated the stats in that game but turnovers can kill.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 07, 2007, 08:28:24 AM
Curses are such a joke, bocce.  The Gamecocks finished strong last year.  They very nearly knocked off the Gators in Gainesville, beat Clemson and won their bowl game.  So, where is the curse?

They finished 8 and 5.  The curse is that 8 and 5 is as good as it will get.  The curse is that their last 10-win season was 23 years ago - the year Bocce cited above, when they lost to NAVY.  The curse is that, just when you think they're going to bust a move into a legit top-10 team, they'll lose to Navy, or to Coppin State or something like that.

The curse is over when they string three years in a row of 9 or more wins.

Clemson hasn't exactly distinguished itself since it won an ACC title back in 1991, so does that mean the Tigers are cursed too.

Clemson's offense looks like schlit. And IMO the athletes they have shouldn't be looking that bad. I watched the game and questioned the timing of about a dozen of the plays they called.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 07, 2007, 11:36:12 AM
As to the ND/UCLA game the Irish offense looked like schlit(again). Luckily they rattled the Bruin third string frosh QB. Weis is seemingly committed to his frosh QB even though he's not the best qualified guy to lead the team. Apparently he's given up on this season and is willing to sacrifice it for the sake of getting Claussen some experience.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 07, 2007, 11:51:42 AM
Oh and a little sidenote to a couple of the refs in the LSU/Florida game. If the QB is still inbounds you're allowed to hit him dumbasses.


Title: LSU/Florida
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 07, 2007, 11:55:12 AM
Nice article.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/687913.html


It was only after he emptied his tank and spent his last ounce of energy that Jacob Hester finally allowed his body to collapse. As long as his teammates needed him, however, No. 18 would not be denied. Joe Haden and the rest of Florida's superb defense would hit him many times, but Jacob Hester--bruised but never beaten--would have the last yard... and the last laugh. With that kind of warrior in the backfield, no wonder Les Miles was so fearless in chasing fourth-down glory instead of field goals and punts.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on October 07, 2007, 12:55:52 PM
"Clemson's offense looks like schlit. And IMO the athletes they have shouldn't be looking that bad. I watched the game and questioned the timing of about a dozen of the plays they called."

Baker's dozen or about every one--VaTech had everything sniffed out so that one of out guys has a broken rib/fractured sternum....at some point you move from a fan into simply a person with empathy for the players.  Clemson's defense is fucking awesome, top ten.  Our offense has players, but if you don't protect your QB or examine the defensive strengths against a team like "VPI," you get introduced to you own backside.  I think that our OC draws up a series of plays that, if they don't work, you fail.  They understand that.  I've never coached at any level, but you would think play-calling would be more of a decision tree than a tree,  we walk in with a tree and get every limb cut off.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 07, 2007, 03:04:31 PM
The thing that gets me Captain, is how these top teams let the simple games get away from them.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I can see being a bit flat like LSU was against Tulane, but to squeak by Washington and then get tripped up by Stanford makes me wonder what is going on with the Trojans.  And there is pesky Ohio St. right in the thick of it, despite what is a down year for the Big Ten. But, it seems to be to their advantage provided they can close the deal in Ann Arbor.

Spurrier must have torn his visor to shreds after seeing South Carolina slip from #11 to #12 after beating #8 Kentucky.  I don't know how Oregon, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Missouri slipped past the Gamecocks? Oregon didn't even play this weekend, and the others played lesser opponents.  South Carolina should have been #8.  Maybe there is a curse?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on October 07, 2007, 05:15:41 PM

Clemson hasn't exactly distinguished itself since it won an ACC title back in 1991, so does that mean the Tigers are cursed too.

1987 - 10 wins
1988 - 10 wins
1989 - 10 wins
1990 - 10 wins
1991 - 9 wins

Finished <.500 twice in the last 30 years

No curse in sight.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 07, 2007, 09:35:31 PM
October 6, 2007  notes:

Les Miles' had an incredible second half strategy against Florida- If we have the ball, they can't score or win Heisman Trophies.  So LSU kept  the ball for 22 of the 30 minutes even if it meant using all four downs to keep the chains moving.
Miles even eschewed a chip-shot-game-tying field goal on 4th down to make a first down.
I thought that only happened in bowl games.

Meanwhile Urban Meyer was nonchalant about stopping the clock with timeouts and wasted at least 30 seconds(probably more).  Would it made a difference?  Probably not, but Florida would have had more than the one Hail Mary it did get.


Strategy that failed, miserably:

Western Michigan, leading by 7 against Akron was backed up to its own end zone on 4th down with 15 seconds left in the game.  Rather than punt from its own end zone the Broncos took a safety and a free kick from the 20.  Akron returned it 89 yards for a toucdown and a 2 point win.

The Near-Upset not seen by many-Florida Atlantic falling in the 4th quarter to South Florida before a record 21,000 fans at FAU's stadium in Fort Lauderdale.  For the few of us watching on cable the lasting images-Howard Schellenberger(the man who put Miami and Lousivlle on the college football map) coaching the Owls sporting a white shirt, tie, suspenders and Sport Coat, and coming so close to a Sun Belt upset of a Big East team.  Best play that made no highlight show, FAU Tight End Jason Harmon hauling in a pass and jumping over a Bull defender as if he were a mere high hurdle in a 40 yard race.   

Numbers:

1092-   combined total yards in Northwestern 48-41 win over MSU in overtime

0  -      turnovers in the same game

63-      combined points given by Las Vegas Oddsmakers to Stanford(41) and Notre Dame (22)

Maybe I Should Have Kept My Mouth Shut:

 (May 2007) ""the [Michigan] athletic department has ways to get borderline guys in and, when they’re in, they steer them to courses in sports communications. They’re adulated when they’re playing, but when they get out, the people who adulated them won’t hire them."--Jim Harbaugh

Now that the whole college football world knows about Stanford Coach Jim Harbaugh, a Michigan Quarterback from the mid-80's, who would give him much of a chance to succeed Lloyd Carr whenver he retires?

South Bend Match-up:

It was expected to be an undefeated USC and hapless Notre Dame with the Irish spoiling for an upset.

That won't happen, now.

But this week the undefeated Boston College Eagles, often referred to as "Jesuit Scum" by the ND Catholics, will be putting their BCS hopes on the line at Notre Dame.  Yesterday, after a 55-24 BC thrashing,  Bowling Green coach Gregg Brandon called BC the most talented team he has ever seen.

Uh, oh.


Best guess BCS Numbers a week away from the official first release.:
BCS Data   Polls   Computer Rankings
Rank   School   W-L   BCS   HARPct   USAPct   CRPct   HAR (Rank)   USA (Rank)   Avg (Rank)   AH   BIL   COL   MAS   SAG   WLF
1   LSU   6-0   0.9996   1.0000   0.9987   1.0000   2825 (1)   1498 (1)    1.00 (1)   -    1    1    1    1   -
2   Ohio State   6-0   0.9227   0.9356   0.9327   0.9000   2643 (3)   1399 (3)    3.50 (3)   -    2    4    2    6   -
3   California   5-0   0.9012   0.9395   0.9440   0.8200   2654 (2)   1416 (2)    5.50 (5)   -    4    6    7    5   -
4   Boston College   6-0   0.8257   0.8517   0.8553   0.7700   2406 (4)   1283 (4)    6.75 (6)   -    5    8    6    8   -
5   South Florida   5-0   0.8134   0.7667   0.7633   0.9100   2166 (6)   1145 (5)    3.25 (2)   -    3    3    5    2   -
6   South Carolina   5-1   0.6730   0.6404   0.5487   0.8300   1809 (9)   823 (12)    5.25 (4)   -    6    7    4    4   -
7   Missouri   5-0   0.6126   0.5699   0.5980   0.6700   1610 (11)   897 (11)    15.00 (12)   -    49    5    3    3   -
8   Virginia Tech   5-1   0.6106   0.5533   0.6087   0.6700   1563 (12)   913 (10)    9.25 (7)   -    8    12    8    9   -
9   Oklahoma   5-1   0.6095   0.7851   0.7633   0.2800   2218 (5)   1145 (5)    19.00 (16)   -    15    20    16    25   -
10   West Virginia   5-1   0.6091   0.6566   0.6207   0.5500   1855 (8)   931 (9)    12.25 (9)   -    7    16    14    12   -
11   Oregon   4-1   0.5610   0.5989   0.6240   0.4600   1692 (10)   936 (8)    14.50 (10)   -    20    11    12    15   -
12   Arizona St   6-0   0.5466   0.4811   0.5087   0.6500   1359 (14)   763 (13)    9.75 (8)   -    17    2    9    11   -
13   Southern California   4-1   0.5300   0.7133   0.6667   0.2100   2015 (7)   1000 (7)    20.75 (19)   -    9    25    23    26   -
14   Florida   4-2   0.4296   0.4828   0.4760   0.3300   1364 (13)   714 (14)    17.75 (15)   -    12    19    20    20   -
15   Cincinnati   6-0   0.4029   0.3834   0.3853   0.4400   1083 (17)   578 (17)    15.00 (12)   -    19    10    15    16   -


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 07, 2007, 11:17:44 PM
You don't read very well, do you oilcan?  I said since 1991.

Apparently, I don't read very well either, I mistook the US Today Poll for the AP Poll and saw that South Carolina is where they should be #7 in the AP Poll and #9 in the Harris Poll.  South Carolina moved up 6 places in the US Today Poll from 18 to 12.  No curse in sight.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 07, 2007, 11:34:52 PM
Quote
But this week the undefeated Boston College Eagles, often referred to as "Jesuit Scum" by the ND Catholics, will be putting their BCS hopes on the line at Notre Dame.  Yesterday, after a 55-24 BC thrashing,  Bowling Green coach Gregg Brandon called BC the most talented team he has ever seen.

As opposed to Michigan State?

Quote
The Near-Upset not seen by many-Florida Atlantic falling in the 4th quarter to South Florida before a record 21,000 fans at FAU's stadium in Fort Lauderdale.  For the few of us watching on cable the lasting images-Howard Schellenberger(the man who put Miami and Lousivlle on the college football map) coaching the Owls sporting a white shirt, tie, suspenders and Sport Coat, and coming so close to a Sun Belt upset of a Big East team.  Best play that made no highlight show, FAU Tight End Jason Harmon hauling in a pass and jumping over a Bull defender as if he were a mere high hurdle in a 40 yard race. 


I had wondered where Schellenberger had ended up.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 08, 2007, 12:59:17 AM
Gee, All sports, especially college footbal, thrives on upsets.

But, when sportswriters spend capital on teams and get stuffed, it really gets ugly.

During the next round of the inevitbale upsets, remember the following diatribe which can best be decribed as "how could you do this to me?"

http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-simers7oct07,1,2822957.column?coll=la-headlines-sports-coll-usc&ctrack=8&cset=true


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: bosox18d on October 08, 2007, 03:27:08 AM
Simers is a Horses Ass.He has no talent except to write  dumb or nasty things he thinks are full of wit.He's the "Family Guy" of sportswriters.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 08, 2007, 08:46:12 AM
The thing that gets me Captain, is how these top teams let the simple games get away from them.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I can see being a bit flat like LSU was against Tulane, but to squeak by Washington and then get tripped up by Stanford makes me wonder what is going on with the Trojans.  And there is pesky Ohio St. right in the thick of it, despite what is a down year for the Big Ten. But, it seems to be to their advantage provided they can close the deal in Ann Arbor.

Spurrier must have torn his visor to shreds after seeing South Carolina slip from #11 to #12 after beating #8 Kentucky.  I don't know how Oregon, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Missouri slipped past the Gamecocks? Oregon didn't even play this weekend, and the others played lesser opponents.  South Carolina should have been #8.  Maybe there is a curse?

At least Mizzou is undefeated DZ.(Told ya Stevo) ;)

But it seems to me that the coaches poll is a bit effed up and the AP poll seems to be better thought out in general.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 08, 2007, 11:35:39 AM
Out coached

out played

out "hearted"

The only question remaining is how will they respond...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 08, 2007, 11:42:07 AM
Angels?

I think they'll be fine.

:)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 08, 2007, 12:34:01 PM
Out coached

out played

out "hearted"

The only question remaining is how will they respond...

If they expect to get back in the hunt Scott they need to thoroughly kick some Arizona ass.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 08, 2007, 03:51:23 PM
How can anyone justify the human polls.

Oklahoma and USC in the top 10 both losers to unranked teams but still ranked ahead of undefeated teams in their own conferences?

Florida 9-11 spots better than Auburn, a team it lost to?

Illinois beat Wisconsin but the coaches rank the Badgers higher?

At least in the Computers there is sanity:

Computers                               
                                             
1. LSU               6-0
2. South Florida 5-0
3. Ohio State      6-0
4. California        5-0
5. South Carolina 5-1
6. Boston College 6-0
7. Arizona State     6-0 
8. Missouri             5-0 
9. Illinois                 5-1 
10.Va. Tech            5-1
11.West Va.            5-1
12.Cincinnati          6-0
13.Oregon              4-1
14.Kentucky           5-1
15.Auburn               4-2
16.Florida                4-2
17.Kansas                 5-0
18.Wisconsin          5-1
19.USC                   4-1
20.Oklahoma          5-1
21.Fla. State           4-1
22.Purdue               5-1
23.Virginia             5-1
24.Connecticut      5-0
25.Maryland        4-2

I am all for the human element when unforseen game conditions change, but being overrated in the first half of the season is not unforseen, it is common.   




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 08, 2007, 04:28:18 PM
How can anyone justify the human polls.

Oklahoma and USC in the top 10 both losers to unranked teams but still ranked ahead of undefeated teams in their own conferences?

Florida 9-11 spots better than Auburn, a team it lost to?

Illinois beat Wisconsin but the coaches rank the Badgers higher?

At least in the Computers there is sanity:

Computers                               
                                             
1. LSU               6-0
2. South Florida 5-0
3. Ohio State      6-0
4. California        5-0
5. South Carolina 5-1
6. Boston College 6-0
7. Arizona State     6-0 
8. Missouri             5-0 
9. Illinois                 5-1 
10.Va. Tech            5-1
11.West Va.            5-1
12.Cincinnati          6-0
13.Oregon              4-1
14.Kentucky           5-1
15.Auburn               4-2
16.Florida                4-2
17.Kansas                 5-0
18.Wisconsin          5-1
19.USC                   4-1
20.Oklahoma          5-1
21.Fla. State           4-1
22.Purdue               5-1
23.Virginia             5-1
24.Connecticut      5-0
25.Maryland        4-2

I am all for the human element when unforseen game conditions change, but being overrated in the first half of the season is not unforseen, it is common.



At least in the Computers there is sanity:

I have to admit I agree with you on several points James(Its been a real effed up year like that)

But the computers still don't "think". Ergo the comps have Cincy(who I've been high on since the beginning of the year)ranked ahead of USC. Now I realize that Cincy is undefeated but I'm not ready to annoint them better than USC based on the fact that the Trojans played sloppily against Stanford and lost by a single point.

Remember Fla lost a game last year too. But is there any doubt about the total asskickin they gave to OSU???


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on October 08, 2007, 04:30:13 PM
You don't read very well, do you oilcan?  I said since 1991.


I read what you posted, and then I posted some information that leads me (5 straight years of 9-10 wins) to the conclusion that Clemson does not suffer from anything remotely close to the Chicken Curse.  I didn't say that those years were after 1991.  

That only adds up to "oilcan doesn't read very well" if there is some authority for the assertion that the presence or lack of a Chicken Curse is to be measured only with post-1991 data.




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on October 08, 2007, 04:31:47 PM
South Carolina moved up 6 places in the US Today Poll from 18 to 12.  No curse in sight.

They were #2 in 1984 when they lost to Navy.  The Chicken Curse is in plain sight, and on a collision course with 2007 Cocky.   Beware the Powder Puffs, Commodores, etc...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 10, 2007, 12:14:36 AM
Computers are only as good as the data human beings put into them to compute the rankings. There is no AI at work here.  As such, computers vary as widely as do human polls.  Just because a team is undefeated it is no reason to vault them to the head of the class, otherwise Hawaii would be in the Top Ten. But, who knows, maybe Hawaii will be the Boise St. of 2007.

Oily, I think it has less to do with curses than it does with coaches and the teams they field. By your logic, California is similarly accursed, as are any one of a number of other teams.  Look at the long dry spell Michigan had in the Rose Bowl, including 3 successive defeats between 1977-79, before finally beating Washington in 1981.  The joke during Ford's administration was that the only bowl Michigan would go to was the Toilet Bowl, since Ford had a Michigan emblem on his lid cover.  Florida went over 50 years without an SEC championship before finally taking its first championship back in 1991. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 10, 2007, 01:43:01 AM
How can anyone justify the human polls.

Oklahoma and USC in the top 10 both losers to unranked teams but still ranked ahead of undefeated teams in their own conferences?

Florida 9-11 spots better than Auburn, a team it lost to?

Illinois beat Wisconsin but the coaches rank the Badgers higher?

At least in the Computers there is sanity:

Computers                               
                                             
1. LSU               6-0
2. South Florida 5-0
3. Ohio State      6-0
4. California        5-0
5. South Carolina 5-1
6. Boston College 6-0
7. Arizona State     6-0 
8. Missouri             5-0 
9. Illinois                 5-1 
10.Va. Tech            5-1
11.West Va.            5-1
12.Cincinnati          6-0
13.Oregon              4-1
14.Kentucky           5-1
15.Auburn               4-2
16.Florida                4-2
17.Kansas                 5-0
18.Wisconsin          5-1
19.USC                   4-1
20.Oklahoma          5-1
21.Fla. State           4-1
22.Purdue               5-1
23.Virginia             5-1
24.Connecticut      5-0
25.Maryland        4-2

I am all for the human element when unforseen game conditions change, but being overrated in the first half of the season is not unforseen, it is common.



At least in the Computers there is sanity:

I have to admit I agree with you on several points James(Its been a real effed up year like that)

But the computers still don't "think". Ergo the comps have Cincy(who I've been high on since the beginning of the year)ranked ahead of USC. Now I realize that Cincy is undefeated but I'm not ready to annoint them better than USC based on the fact that the Trojans played sloppily against Stanford and lost by a single point.

Remember Fla lost a game last year too. But is there any doubt about the total asskickin they gave to OSU???

I think you confuse the purpose of rankings.

They are NOT predictors of what will happen.

They ARE yardsticks used to judge what has happened.

If the human polls were any good we would not need any more than the first one.
As it is now, 9 of the top ten teams in the human polls in August have one loss and 4 of them have two losses.
So much for the humans and what they can predict.

The computer rankings in my previous post are based on what has happened.  No team ranked ahead of USC and Oklahoma has lost to a lower ranked team except Auburn, a loser to # 27 Missippi State.  But the Tigers also defeated a top 20 team, number 16 Florida,  while USC has defeated no ranked team, and Oklahoma's best win was against  number 25, while both were embarassed by losing to huge underdogs.  No other team in the top 25 has been a victim of a similar upset.

It is interesting you bring up the Florida blowout of OSU in the 2006 title game since it is an example of what happens when the humans base votes on results and not predictions.

OSU was 12-0 and #1  and Florida 11-1 and #2. After the game they were both 12-1. The final human polls  ranked  Fla number 1 and OSU number 2 based on the results of the season. 

Too bad the humans don't use the same criteria  each week of the entire season.








Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 10, 2007, 01:48:18 AM
Egad! more numbers.  Although I see you have since edited them out.  You must be an accountant, jim.  As for your earlier comment,

Quote
Illinois beat Wisconsin but the coaches rank the Badgers higher?

Wisconsin had been ranked #5 and Illinois wasn't even in the Top 25, so it was hard to make the twain meet.  Even still,  AP had Illinois ahead of Wisconsin.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 10, 2007, 02:11:59 AM
Egad! more numbers.  Although I see you have since edited them out.  You must be an accountant, jim.  As for your earlier comment,

Quote
Illinois beat Wisconsin but the coaches rank the Badgers higher?

Wisconsin had been ranked #5 and Illinois wasn't even in the Top 25, so it was hard to make the twain meet.  Even still,  AP had Illinois ahead of Wisconsin.

Better reread my quote.
Quote
Illinois beat Wisconsin but the coaches rank the Badgers higher?

As for editing previous comments, I am lucky to get posts up.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 10, 2007, 04:29:00 AM
As I said, it depends largely where the teams were in the polls before the game.  Illinois had to climb alot and Wisconsin had to fall a lot.  Same with Florida and Auburn.  You don't believe that Stanford should be vaulted into the Top 25 and USC drummed out after the upset on Saturday, do you?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 10, 2007, 05:04:13 AM
Speaking of the Florida-Ohio St game, it surprised me that Chris Leak not only went undrafted but that the Bears dropped him in favor of Kyle Orton this year.  It seems size wins out again.  Danny Wuerffel likewise failed to impress in the NFL, ending up in NFL Europe.  But Leak had to settle for the AAFL. Troy Smith meanwhile managed to just make the Ravens squad.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 10, 2007, 09:30:00 AM

I think you confuse the purpose of rankings.

They are NOT predictors of what will happen.

They ARE yardsticks used to judge what has happened.

If the human polls were any good we would not need any more than the first one.
As it is now, 9 of the top ten teams in the human polls in August have one loss and 4 of them have two losses.
So much for the humans and what they can predict.

The computer rankings in my previous post are based on what has happened.  No team ranked ahead of USC and Oklahoma has lost to a lower ranked team except Auburn, a loser to # 27 Missippi State.  But the Tigers also defeated a top 20 team, number 16 Florida,  while USC has defeated no ranked team, and Oklahoma's best win was against  number 25, while both were embarassed by losing to huge underdogs.  No other team in the top 25 has been a victim of a similar upset.

It is interesting you bring up the Florida blowout of OSU in the 2006 title game since it is an example of what happens when the humans base votes on results and not predictions.

OSU was 12-0 and #1  and Florida 11-1 and #2. After the game they were both 12-1. The final human polls  ranked  Fla number 1 and OSU number 2 based on the results of the season. 

Too bad the humans don't use the same criteria  each week of the entire season.


First I'd like to thank you for making me feel that this year is returning to a more normal format.

Second:

I think you confuse the purpose of rankings.

They are NOT predictors of what will happen.

They ARE yardsticks used to judge what has happened.


No I don't believe I'm confused. Maybe I just see the purpose of the ranking a bit differently than you. And this will start out sounding like I'm agreeing with you again.(but I'm not) Yes they are in effect predictors of what will happen. Or more correctly what "should" happen. According to the rankings #1 "should" defeat #2. And yes the oddsmakers don't always see it that way.(but thats an entirely different argument) As far as being yardsticks to judge what has happened you're partly correct. Of course since the rankings start off with nobody having played a single game that statement is kind of flawed from the very beginning. Yes? But I feel fairly confident that when most folks rank teams they like to go from the team they consider the best to the next and the next and so on and so forth. Obviously I'm not going to rank a 11-0 TCU(or Boise State) team over a 10-1 USC or a Florida or an LSU again so on and so forth. Otherwise you wouldn't have had Florida mopping the house with Boise last year rather than OSU. But scarily instead you might have had OSU defeating Boise and falsely claiming the crown of National Champion. Or even worse(and a quite possible scenario given they win over Oklahoma)you might have had Boise beating OSU and they claim the NC. RUBBISH!!!

If the human polls were any good we would not need any more than the first one.
As it is now, 9 of the top ten teams in the human polls in August have one loss and 4 of them have two losses.
So much for the humans and what they can predict.


The same can be said for the comp polls. That thinking works both ways. And because different comp matrices "think" differently thus the need for some variety.

Bottomline, blindly accepting numbers will get you an undefeated Kansas team ranked higher than it resalistically "should" be. For proof of that simple fact check where Kansas ranks at season's end Jimbo. My buddy Jeff Sagarin has them at # 13 right now. Care to make a little wager as to where they will be at season's end??



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 10, 2007, 10:13:53 AM
As I said, it depends largely where the teams were in the polls before the game.  Illinois had to climb alot and Wisconsin had to fall a lot.  Same with Florida and Auburn.  You don't believe that Stanford should be vaulted into the Top 25 and USC drummed out after the upset on Saturday, do you?


Of course not, although it was not hard for the humans to bump Michigan out of the rankings after losing to Appalachian State, a game which is now not even in the top two upsets this year.

But USC and Oklahoma based on who they beat and who they lost to don't stand up to honest scrutiny.

If you are going to maintain that rankings are based on where teams were in the polls BEFORE the game then how to you explain:

South Florida, Oregon, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, South Carolina, Illinos, Wisconsin, and Kentucky being ranked lower than USC and Oklahoma in the human polls, when none of these teams has lost a game to an unranked team?
And then we have two undefeated teams in Missouri and Arizona State also ranked behind both USC and Oklahoma.
Arizona State killed Stanford and Missouri's wins include a win over a top 15 team(Illinois).
Neither USC nor Oklahoma have a win over a top 20 team.

Of course there is a long way to go.   But I am glad the BCS factors in the computer rankings which corrects the obvious tendency of humans to weight the traditional powers a little heavier.

If the BCS rankings were in force right now  the top ten would be

LSU(6-0)
OSU(6-0)
CAL(5-0)
BC (6-0)
S.CAR (5-1)
Missouri (5-0)
W.Va. (5-1)
Va.Tech. 5-1
ASU (6-0)

Oklahoma is 11th and USC 13th.  Each have a chance to claw back toward the top but need a lot of teams to lose and lose more than once.  It would also help their causes if Colorado and Stanford finish strong so as to make those upsets less punishing in the computers.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 10, 2007, 10:20:46 AM
Appalachian State's win still ranks as the biggest upset of the year.  The Stanford victory is just the most recent in a long line of upsets this year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 10, 2007, 10:51:05 AM

I think you confuse the purpose of rankings.

They are NOT predictors of what will happen.

They ARE yardsticks used to judge what has happened.

If the human polls were any good we would not need any more than the first one.
As it is now, 9 of the top ten teams in the human polls in August have one loss and 4 of them have two losses.
So much for the humans and what they can predict.

The computer rankings in my previous post are based on what has happened.  No team ranked ahead of USC and Oklahoma has lost to a lower ranked team except Auburn, a loser to # 27 Missippi State.  But the Tigers also defeated a top 20 team, number 16 Florida,  while USC has defeated no ranked team, and Oklahoma's best win was against  number 25, while both were embarassed by losing to huge underdogs.  No other team in the top 25 has been a victim of a similar upset.

It is interesting you bring up the Florida blowout of OSU in the 2006 title game since it is an example of what happens when the humans base votes on results and not predictions.

OSU was 12-0 and #1  and Florida 11-1 and #2. After the game they were both 12-1. The final human polls  ranked  Fla number 1 and OSU number 2 based on the results of the season. 

Too bad the humans don't use the same criteria  each week of the entire season.


First I'd like to thank you for making me feel that this year is returning to a more normal format.

Second:

I think you confuse the purpose of rankings.

They are NOT predictors of what will happen.

They ARE yardsticks used to judge what has happened.


No I don't believe I'm confused. Maybe I just see the purpose of the ranking a bit differently than you. And this will start out sounding like I'm agreeing with you again.(but I'm not) Yes they are in effect predictors of what will happen. Or more correctly what "should" happen. According to the rankings #1 "should" defeat #2. And yes the oddsmakers don't always see it that way.(but thats an entirely different argument) As far as being yardsticks to judge what has happened you're partly correct. Of course since the rankings start off with nobody having played a single game that statement is kind of flawed from the very beginning. Yes? But I feel fairly confident that when most folks rank teams they like to go from the team they consider the best to the next and the next and so on and so forth. Obviously I'm not going to rank a 11-0 TCU(or Boise State) team over a 10-1 USC or a Florida or an LSU again so on and so forth. Otherwise you wouldn't have had Florida mopping the house with Boise last year rather than OSU. But scarily instead you might have had OSU defeating Boise and falsely claiming the crown of National Champion. Or even worse(and a quite possible scenario given they win over Oklahoma)you might have had Boise beating OSU and they claim the NC. RUBBISH!!!

If the human polls were any good we would not need any more than the first one.
As it is now, 9 of the top ten teams in the human polls in August have one loss and 4 of them have two losses.
So much for the humans and what they can predict.


The same can be said for the comp polls. That thinking works both ways. And because different comp matrices "think" differently thus the need for some variety.

Bottomline, blindly accepting numbers will get you an undefeated Kansas team ranked higher than it resalistically "should" be. For proof of that simple fact check where Kansas ranks at season's end Jimbo. My buddy Jeff Sagarin has them at # 13 right now. Care to make a little wager as to where they will be at season's end??



Thanks.  I think your reasoning is a perfect example of the flaws in the human polls.

But that is okay.

For every Kansas or Boise State denied access to the upper regions of the polls because of where they "should " be, we have the computers serving as a counter balance to help us arrive at the proper ranking of the teams.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 10, 2007, 10:57:01 AM
Appalachian State's win still ranks as the biggest upset of the year.  The Stanford victory is just the most recent in a long line of upsets this year.

Maybe to you.

But not to veteran observers of the college scene, such as Pat Forde of ESPN who wrote:

The operative theme for this season: Anything can happen, and will, and the more unlikely it sounds, the more likely it seems to be. When five Top 10 teams lose on a single weekend (Sept. 28-29) and that's not even in the top three most shocking developments of the year, you know it's been nuts.

1. Stanford 24, USC 23 (Oct. 6).

As heroic Cardinal receiver Mark Bradford said Sunday, "This feels like Disney really happened to us." Pete Carroll, however, might not share that warm-and-fuzzy feeling after losing to his new nemesis, Jim Harbaugh.
First Harbaugh disclosed last spring that he'd been told this was Carroll's final year at Troy before returning to the NFL. Pete didn't like that. Then Harbaugh said at Pac-10 media day in July that USC might be the best football team ever. Pete didn't like that. Now Harbaugh's team turned a presumed beatdown into the biggest shocker of this or any other century. Don't think Pete liked that much, either.

2. Syracuse 38, Louisville 35 (Sept. 22).

In its five games other than this one, the Orange averaged 12 points per game -- and lost all five. So scoring 38 and ending the Cardinals' 20-game home winning streak officially qualifies as preposterous. And provides utter condemnation of Louisville
.
3. Appalachian State 34, Michigan 32 (Sept. 2). The game hailed as the new gold standard for upsets couldn't last three weeks without being topped, and couldn't last five without being topped again.

The above excerpted from ESPN's Pat Forde


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 10, 2007, 11:59:01 AM


Thanks.  I think your reasoning is a perfect example of the flaws in the human polls.

But that is okay.

For every Kansas or Boise State denied access to the upper regions of the polls because of where they "should " be, we have the computers serving as a counter balance to help us arrive at the proper ranking of the teams.

Possibly you didn't quite get what I am driving at here Jim.

The comp ranking(in this case my buddy Jeff) seems to have a higher "opinion" of Kansas(13th) than the people rankings do.(20th)

Which one do you think is "more wrong" in this instance in regards to where Kansas will likely end up at years end?  Take your time and get back to me.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 10, 2007, 12:03:38 PM

Maybe to you.

But not to veteran observers of the college scene, such as Pat Forde of ESPN who wrote:

The operative theme for this season: Anything can happen, and will, and the more unlikely it sounds, the more likely it seems to be. When five Top 10 teams lose on a single weekend (Sept. 28-29) and that's not even in the top three most shocking developments of the year, you know it's been nuts.

1. Stanford 24, USC 23 (Oct. 6).

As heroic Cardinal receiver Mark Bradford said Sunday, "This feels like Disney really happened to us." Pete Carroll, however, might not share that warm-and-fuzzy feeling after losing to his new nemesis, Jim Harbaugh.
First Harbaugh disclosed last spring that he'd been told this was Carroll's final year at Troy before returning to the NFL. Pete didn't like that. Then Harbaugh said at Pac-10 media day in July that USC might be the best football team ever. Pete didn't like that. Now Harbaugh's team turned a presumed beatdown into the biggest shocker of this or any other century. Don't think Pete liked that much, either.

2. Syracuse 38, Louisville 35 (Sept. 22).

In its five games other than this one, the Orange averaged 12 points per game -- and lost all five. So scoring 38 and ending the Cardinals' 20-game home winning streak officially qualifies as preposterous. And provides utter condemnation of Louisville
.
3. Appalachian State 34, Michigan 32 (Sept. 2). The game hailed as the new gold standard for upsets couldn't last three weeks without being topped, and couldn't last five without being topped again.

The above excerpted from ESPN's Pat Forde

Pat Forde would also probably be most impressed with hooker he did last. A crude example I'll admit but probably a correct one.

My point is that Pat seems to be more impressed with whatever upset happened "last".

And I'll add that for every Pat Forde out there, there probably is three other guys(err veteran observers) that disagree with him.

I'll also add I never much cared for Forde. I'm a Chevy man.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 10, 2007, 12:45:55 PM


Thanks.  I think your reasoning is a perfect example of the flaws in the human polls.

But that is okay.

For every Kansas or Boise State denied access to the upper regions of the polls because of where they "should " be, we have the computers serving as a counter balance to help us arrive at the proper ranking of the teams.

Possibly you didn't quite get what I am driving at here Jim.

The comp ranking(in this case my buddy Jeff) seems to have a higher "opinion" of Kansas(13th) than the people rankings do.(20th)

Which one do you think is "more wrong" in this instance in regards to where Kansas will likely end up at years end?  Take your time and get back to me.

The projected BCS and the average of the computers used put Kansas at 20, the same as the humans.

You are free to specualte all you want on where Kansas will wind up.
The computers, though, will not make a determination on Kansas's postion until the games have been played.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 10, 2007, 01:03:41 PM

The projected BCS and the average of the computers used put Kansas at 20, the same as the humans.

You are free to specualte all you want on where Kansas will wind up.
The computers, though, will not make a determination on Kansas's postion until the games have been played.

The forum-world really is getting back into balance Jim. Thanks for annoying me once again in your usual manner.

Sagarin(a comp ranker and probably the most famous) has Kansas 13th. "Either" human poll has them at 20th.

Who    do    you   think    is    most    likely    to   be   more    wrong   at    season's    end????

Answer please.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 10, 2007, 02:49:40 PM
The Syracuse-Louisville game doesn't rank as much of an upset, given Louisville's tailspin, whereas Michigan has won four straight since its early season woes.  Michigan is even receiving votes these days, whereas Louisville get no honorable mention.  As big a win as it was for Stanford, it hardly ranks with a Div. 1-AA team beating a premier Big Ten team.  Sorry, Jim, no dice.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 10, 2007, 03:29:28 PM
The Syracuse-Louisville game doesn't rank as much of an upset, given Louisville's tailspin, whereas Michigan has won four straight since its early season woes.  Michigan is even receiving votes these days, whereas Louisville get no honorable mention.  As big a win as it was for Stanford, it hardly ranks with a Div. 1-AA team beating a premier Big Ten team.  Sorry, Jim, no dice.

Actually DZ it really is a no brainer as to which of the three is the bigger upset.

In this case Mich(whether they one a single game all year or if they ran the table) clearly outweighs the other two much the same way that the Jolly Green Giant would outweigh Mickey and Minnie Mouse.

So you're absolutely right, no mice...errr...dice.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on October 10, 2007, 11:29:13 PM
My picks this week, for what they are worth:

LSU 27 Florida 13, the Gators have had too much turmoil this past week to get their act together this Saturday.

South Carolina 21 Kentucky 17, should be a good game, but I think the Gamecocks will crack down on the Wildcats.

Oklahoma 24 Texas 10, not much more than pride at stake in this game after last week's debacles.

Notre Dame 24 UCLA 17, Weis will save himself from the ignominity of the longest losing streak in ND history.

Illinois 24, Wisconsin 21, Zook has done wonders with the Illini, make it 5 in a row.

Tennessee 31 Georgia 24, Fulmer seems to find a way to answer the critics with at least one big win during the year.

Holy shit, nice bunch o' calls, Dzimo.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: JakeJoliet on October 10, 2007, 11:49:12 PM
Appalachian State's win still ranks as the biggest upset of the year.  The Stanford victory is just the most recent in a long line of upsets this year.

Maybe to you.

But not to veteran observers of the college scene, such as Pat Forde of ESPN who wrote:



"Veteran observer" Pat Forde?  Who is maybe about my age?  And who, until about three or four years ago, was slagging L'ville in the L'ville Communist Journal?  That "veteran observer??"


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 11, 2007, 03:02:27 AM
No big games this week, unless you're a Missouri fan.  I doubt I will be so lucky with my picks this week, but here it goes,

LSU 38, Kentucky 24, The Bayou Bengals should have no problem with the Wildcats, but then they struggled with Tulane.  I look for them to have a big second half.

Oklahoma 41, Missouri 31, This will be the end of the Mizzou express, should be a high scoring game. 

Boston College 45, Notre Dame 17, the Irish won't be so fortunate this week.

Penn St. 24, Wisconsin 17, I'll give the edge to Penn St. at Happy Valley

Arkansas 21, Auburn 16, just when things were looking good for the Tigers, or War Eagles, or Plainsmen, or whatever they call themselves these days.

Arizona St. 24, Washington 14, ASU had a tough time in Spokane last weekend, but should continue their winning ways with the better Huskies.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 11, 2007, 11:31:25 AM
DZIMAS

Since you mentioned that the AP poll and regional bias I thought you might find this breakdown interesting.   It is from a blogger who broke down the AP voters by region:

New England - - - 6 states - - - 2 BCS Schools - - - 2 votes

East - - - - - - - - - 8 states - - - 18 BCS Schools - - 10 votes

Mid East - - - - - -7 states - - -24 BCS Schools - - 13 votes

South - - - - - - - -9 states - - -31 BCS Schools - - 15 votes

Mid West - - - - - 7 states - - -17 BCS Schools - - 10 votes

Mountain - - - - - 7 states - - -13 BCS Schools - - 7 votes

Pacific - - - - - - - 6 states - - - 14 BCS Schools - -14 votes

------------------------50 states - - -119 BCS Schools – 65 votes

Seems pretty balanced and able to overcome any regional biases.

Of course the research stopped short of determining if the voters actually have a clue about college football ;D




Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 11, 2007, 03:56:58 PM
Miami 20--Ga Tech 26:

Miami's defense is better than they showed against NC. I think. On the other hand the Tech defense has been a bit more consistant. Wright can't handle pressure and he's sure to get it from the Jackets.

UCONN 20--Virginia 23:

Interesting matchup of two teams that only have one loss between them. UCONN has a decent defense and Virginia's offense ain't all that shiny. My buddy Jeff Sagarin has the Huskies ranked 19th on the ole computer scale(15th on the EOL-CHESS) so they must be one of the best teams in the nation right? With UCONN "at" Virginia the Cavs should have the advantage. But who can go against Jeff and his amazing dancing computer??

LSU 35--Kentucky 16:

Its hard to gauge how LSU will come out for this game. They may come out a little flat and if so could find themselves down early to the Wildcats. In a year of upsets this could be a trap game for the Tigers if they don't come into this game with their heads screwed on right. Make no mistake about it the game against Florida was a nastily physical affair and the Tigers D-is sure to be banged up a bit. Most experts have this game as being closer than it probably will be for that reason. Don't bet on it.

Auburn 22--Arkansas 23:

Didn't really want to pick this game as it's a tough read for me. The Tiger's will need their LBs to be in their best form for this one. But the LB corps is banged up and Groves has a bad foot. Some say that Groves is only needed for the pass rush but I disagree. A slowed Groves will allow the Hogs to get to the LB and run outside. That could spell disaster for Auburn.

Wisconsin23--Penn St 27:

Call me an incurable homer but I really think the Lions will be up for this one in a big way.

Mizzou 27--Oklahoma 28:

I'm not quite ready to annoint the Tigers as the best team in the Big 12 yet. But I think they'll give the Sooners a real scare. Stoops needs to realize just how good DeMarco Murray really is and turn this kid loose more.

Texas Tech 30--Texas A&M 23:

Two 5-1 teams here that aren't in the top 25. I think the Tech offense will be too much for A&M's defense because the Aggies pass rush is a bit on the anemic side. If you give Harrell time he will eat your lunch. The Aggies will get their rushing yards and probably own time of posession when its all said and done. But the Red Raiders will own the scoreboard.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 11, 2007, 04:01:29 PM
Like any balloting, voters tend to vote for teams from their region.  Assuming those figures to be correct, I noticed that 35 votes come from the East, New England, Mid East and Mid West, which gives conferences like the Big 10 and Big 12 which spread across those regions a big edge over the 15 votes the South (SEC) gets and the 21 votes the Pacific and Mountain (WAC, PAC) regions get.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 12, 2007, 12:55:05 AM
Uh-huh


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 12, 2007, 01:00:37 AM
Like any balloting, voters tend to vote for teams from their region.  Assuming those figures to be correct, I noticed that 35 votes come from the East, New England, Mid East and Mid West, which gives conferences like the Big 10 and Big 12 which spread across those regions a big edge over the 15 votes the South (SEC) gets and the 21 votes the Pacific and Mountain (WAC, PAC) regions get.


Maybe it would help to see the schools and the regions.

New England- Boston College & Connecticut.

East- Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, West Virginia, & Penn State.

Mid East- Cincinnati, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa State, & Notre Dame.

South- Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, South Florida, Louisville, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Arkansas, & Louisiana State.

Mid West- Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M,, & Texas Tech

Mountain- Colorado.

Pacific- Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, & Arizona State.

Notice that some of the schools in the EAST could be considered SOUTH, too.

Of course , if you are of a mind to see bias no amount of facts will dissuade you.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 12, 2007, 01:25:49 AM
I know you are an establishment guy, jimmah, so it figures you support most systems, even when the AP is no longer part of the BCS. I know which scools are in which regions, and I know which conferences stretch over the biggest regions, and the Big Ten covers a lot of ground.  Much more than does the SEC, so it is not surprising to see Big Ten get more votes, even in an off year such as this one for the Big Ten.  The computers are better in this regard, but then it all depends on how a computer assesses strength of schedule.

Anyway, until we have a playoff system there is no way to know who the real champion is.  Look at Colorado wiping up the National League competition, and it squeezed into the playoffs on a play-in game.  Teams that finish strongest at the end of the season, even if they have one or two losses, probably would fair better in a playoff, but then we can't have any 2-loss champions can we?  That seems what these polls are trying to protect ourselves against.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 12, 2007, 01:32:19 AM
The champ's whoever YOU say it is.

"kay, pal?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 12, 2007, 01:39:06 AM
I know you are an establishment guy, jimmah, so it figures you support most systems, even when the AP is no longer part of the BCS. I know which scools are in which regions, and I know which conferences stretch over the biggest regions, and the Big Ten covers a lot of ground.  Much more than does the SEC, so it is not surprising to see Big Ten get more votes, even in an off year such as this one for the Big Ten.  The computers are better in this regard, but then it all depends on how a computer assesses strength of schedule.

Anyway, until we have a playoff system there is no way to know who the real champion is.  Look at Colorado wiping up the American League competition, and it squeezed into the playoffs on a play-in game.  Teams that finish strongest at the end of the season, even if they have one or two losses, probably would fair better in a playoff, but then we can't have any 2-loss champions can we?  That seems what these polls are trying to protect ourselves against.

College Football has never had a two loss Champion.

College Football has real Champions.

By the way, Colorado is in the National League.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 12, 2007, 01:52:16 AM
National League, excuse me. 

Quote
College Football has never had a two loss Champion.

Depends on what you consider college football, doesn't it?  A team that goes through the year undefeated but had a relatively weak schedule, or a team that wins a championship game, despite dropping a game or two during the year.  At Div. 1-AA, Appalachian State dropped three games in 2005, but still won the championship game.  Are they not the real champion? 

BTW, I see they have since dropped a game to Wofford. 

If we are to use your means of reckoning, jimmah, we should have had Ohio St. v. Boise St. in the BCS game last year.  Florida shouldn't have even been considered for the championship game.  Have to avoid those one-loss teams as well, especially when there are so many of them.  Who's to say which is the best? I just hope for the BCS sake that LSU and Ohio St. finish the year undefeated.

The only thing I can say in defense of the nature in the way the Div. 1-A champion is decided, is that it puts more emphasis on games played during the year.  You lose, you are essentially out of the running, unless you get lucky and a few teams drop late games, and you find yourself squeezing into number two, as Florida did last year.  Better to lose early than lose late.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 12, 2007, 02:10:42 AM
National League, excuse me. 

Quote
College Football has never had a two loss Champion.

Depends on what you consider college football, doesn't it?  A team that goes through the year undefeated but had a relatively weak schedule, or a team that wins a championship game, despite dropping a game or two during the year.  At Div. 1-AA, Appalachian State dropped three games in 2005, but still won the championship game.  Are they not the real champion? 

BTW, I see they have since dropped a game to Wofford. 

If we are to use your means of reckoning, jimmah, we should have had Ohio St. v. Boise St. in the BCS game last year.  Florida shouldn't have even been considered for the championship game.  Have to avoid those one-loss teams as well, especially when there are so many of them.  Who's to say which is the best? I just hope for the BCS sake that LSU and Ohio St. finish the year undefeated.

The only thing I can say in defense of the nature in the way the Div. 1-A champion is decided, is that it puts more emphasis on games played during the year.  You lose, you are essentially out of the running, unless you get lucky and a few teams drop late games, and you find yourself squeezing into number two, as Florida did last year.  Better to lose early than lose late.

No team with a weak schedule has ever made it to the BCS title game.
More emphasis on the games played during the year?
Wow, you seem to be catching on.
Too bad the rest of the Sports World needs goofy wild cards to make their seasons more interesting.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 12, 2007, 02:37:28 AM
Quote
No team with a weak schedule has ever made it to the BCS title game.

Yet, there have been some real drubbings in the BCS title game,

Oklahoma 13, Florida St. 2
Miami 37, Nebraska 14
USC 55, Oklahoma 19
Florida 41, Ohio St. 14

Quote
More emphasis on the games played during the year?
Wow, you seem to be catching on.

I figured that out long ago, jimmah, since television ratings is what drives the BCS and Div. 1-A football in general.  The BCS is generally looking for the highest television rated title game and having South Florida in the mix kind of confuses the issue. If South Florida finishes undefeated, I doubt they will get the nod over a one-loss team for the title game. They've already been passed over by Boston College (albeit undefeated) in the AP poll, which has played a much weaker schedule.  The toughest team BC has played thus far is Georgia Tech. For that matter, South Florida has played a tougher schedule than Ohio St, whose highest ranked opponent thus far has been Purdue.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 12, 2007, 03:00:02 AM
I see Sagarin has South Florida all the way down at #10, which doesn't make any sense at all, especially with West Virginia, which USF beat, at #4.  And you say there is a science to this, jim?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 12, 2007, 11:40:48 AM
DZIMAS

Since you mentioned that the AP poll and regional bias I thought you might find this breakdown interesting.   It is from a blogger who broke down the AP voters by region:

New England - - - 6 states - - - 2 BCS Schools - - - 2 votes

East - - - - - - - - - 8 states - - - 18 BCS Schools - - 10 votes

Mid East - - - - - -7 states - - -24 BCS Schools - - 13 votes

South - - - - - - - -9 states - - -31 BCS Schools - - 15 votes

Mid West - - - - - 7 states - - -17 BCS Schools - - 10 votes

Mountain - - - - - 7 states - - -13 BCS Schools - - 7 votes

Pacific - - - - - - - 6 states - - - 14 BCS Schools - -14 votes

------------------------50 states - - -119 BCS Schools – 65 votes

Seems pretty balanced and able to overcome any regional biases.

Of course the research stopped short of determining if the voters actually have a clue about college football ;D


I blocked them together a bit diferently Jim with a three way designation.

Northeast/Midwest 25 votes

South 25 votes

West 11 votes

I left out the 4 Texas schools because I really don't know where to put them. They could be in the Midwest, South or the West depending on how you wanted to look at it.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 12, 2007, 11:52:33 AM
I see Sagarin has South Florida all the way down at #10, which doesn't make any sense at all, especially with West Virginia, which USF beat, at #4.  And you say there is a science to this, jim?

While you're at it Jim. I'll take your refusal to answer my question about Kansas as an admission that you don't think they should be ranked that high. Neat.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 12, 2007, 12:24:30 PM


By the way, Colorado is in the National League.



Interestingly the Rockies were 5-1 against the Yankees and the Red Sox this year in interleague play. In fact they gave Beckett his first loss in a big way. Kicking his mouthy ass to the tune of 6 Runs on 10 Hits(2 Hrs) in 5 innings. They also took 2 out of 3 from the Sox "at" Fenway. Outscoring them 20 runs to 5 in the process.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 12, 2007, 12:24:57 PM
Uh-huh.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 12:41:26 PM
Angels?

I think they'll be fine.

:)

Yes, one could apply this there as well, but I think the Angels just didn’t have the horses so it’s a bit different.

I’ve been out of pocket for about a week.  Don’t worry I’ll check in with A.L. soon and take my lumps over there…   ?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 12:43:08 PM

If the human polls were any good we would not need any more than the first one.



Careful of logic fallacies in your arguments Jim. 

Ergo, if Computer polls were any good we would not need more than the first one?  Did I misinterpret your intention?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 12:48:08 PM

 it was not hard for the humans to bump Michigan out of the rankings after losing to Appalachian State, a game which is now not even in the top two upsets this year.


Sure it is.

I think the two games were similar in the fact that both USC and Michigan did not give proper respect to another team and wound up paying the ultimate price.

But I hear people trying to say that the Stanford game was a bigger upset and to that I would say they are not paying very close attention. The 40 point spread was a joke and that should have been obvious to anyone.   

Appy State is no doubt a very good team, but they are not in the same division.  Stanford is a Pac 10 conference rival on the rebuild. USC has a history of overlooking these opponents in the Pete Carroll era – this is now a well known flaw in his system.   To his defense (and I don’t offer much), It is difficult to GamePlan against a QB you've never seen before (that no one has ever seen before). And frankly the kid was on fire--how many "4th and longs" did he complete in that winning drive at the end of the game alone.  That stuff just doesn't usually happen.  On the flip side, Patrick Turner alone dropped four or five 20+ yard passes that were very "catchable"

 I have many many thoughts on the USC Stanford Game which I would be happy to share but I hesitate to bore everyone with it...  He (they) played brilliantly and they earned their "W."  No Whining here

I'm just wondering whether we will see Mark Sanchez this week.  My guess is he got a lot more reps this week.  If Booty struggles and the game is close--I bet it happens.  They will blame his finger to save face or something...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 12:49:33 PM

Oklahoma is 11th and USC 13th.  Each have a chance to claw back toward the top but need a lot of teams to lose and lose more than once.  It would also help their causes if Colorado and Stanford finish strong so as to make those upsets less punishing in the computers.

I would contend that if USC wins out from here, they will need exactly one other loss to occur - either LSU (which looks unlikely at this point--although there is always the SEC championship) or Ohio State, which could still most definitely happen.

Oklahoma is another story—their schedule is not as strong.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 12:50:34 PM

I'll also add I never much cared for Forde. I'm a Chevy man.

ba dump bump


That was "LOW"  Casey -- and I mean that in the most complimentary way possible...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 12:51:27 PM
I see Sagarin has South Florida all the way down at #10, which doesn't make any sense at all, especially with West Virginia, which USF beat, at #4.  And you say there is a science to this, jim?

I like Sagarin's method the best but sometime I get confused by the results also.

You need to make sure which of the "rankings" you are looking at and what it means.  He is the first to say that he does not particularly like the restrictions placed on him in the version he provides to the BCS.

I'll look at this USF anomaly when I get a chance...



Title: Game To Watch
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 01:30:56 PM

Game to Watch   Alabama at Ole Miss.

I think  the steam is escaping at Ole Miss, but they might just have enough to make the seat warm for Saban  (or is that just wishful thinking?)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 12, 2007, 02:58:34 PM

I'll also add I never much cared for Forde. I'm a Chevy man.

ba dump bump


That was "LOW"  Casey -- and I mean that in the most complimentary way possible...


Well we could "Chase" that one around for awhile. But I think I'll just Dodge the whole debate entirely. It's just a revolvoing door anyways.



Title: Some nice stuff
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 12, 2007, 03:53:39 PM
Some nice stuff here:

http://cfn.scout.com/2/689809.html

I especially liked this:

I'm still trying to get over the biggest shock of the year. Not App. St. over Mich, not Syracuse over UL, not even Stanford over USC. The biggest shock is easily USC only falling 6/8 spots. I have always believed that the human polls have been the cancer to the BCS. Might this cause a change to the way the human polls are done? I forsee a scenario where USC climbs up to 3rd, and LSU loses a close game in the SEC championship. Should USC even be allowed a chance at the BCS title? - Aaron

A: If Stanford’s fourth down touchdown pass fell incomplete, where would USC be ranked? 2nd? 4th? 1st? It’d be somewhere in the top three in the rankings. Mark Bradford caught the pass, so that one play is the difference between No. 2 and out of the top 25?! Among all the problems with the rankings, one of the big issues is the lack of movement. Yeah, it’s fine to knock USC out of the top 25 this week, and then move it back into the top five if it starts rocking and rolling again. USC is seventh in the Coaches’ Poll, but if you were hooked up to a lie detector and had to bet the house, would you take South Florida or Boston College over the Trojans on a neutral field? Maybe, but would you take Hawaii, Texas, Purdue or Kansas over USC? The rankings are tough, and I’m all for ripping on the process, but it’s not an easy puzzle to put together from a practical, or philosophical level. As far as being “allowed” a chance at the BCS title, sure. If Cal is number two, and it gets blasted by USC by double-digits, then what are the rankings like? The remaining schedule, after the Arizona game this week, is at Notre Dame, at Oregon, Oregon State, at California, at Arizona State and UCLA. If USC runs the table impressively, yeah, it has to be in the mix.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 12, 2007, 05:22:45 PM
Quote
No team with a weak schedule has ever made it to the BCS title game.

Yet, there have been some real drubbings in the BCS title game,

Oklahoma 13, Florida St. 2
Miami 37, Nebraska 14
USC 55, Oklahoma 19
Florida 41, Ohio St. 14

Quote
More emphasis on the games played during the year?
Wow, you seem to be catching on.

I figured that out long ago, jimmah, since television ratings is what drives the BCS and Div. 1-A football in general.  The BCS is generally looking for the highest television rated title game and having South Florida in the mix kind of confuses the issue. If South Florida finishes undefeated, I doubt they will get the nod over a one-loss team for the title game. They've already been passed over by Boston College (albeit undefeated) in the AP poll, which has played a much weaker schedule.  The toughest team BC has played thus far is Georgia Tech. For that matter, South Florida has played a tougher schedule than Ohio St, whose highest ranked opponent thus far has been Purdue.

Ever look at the number of blowouts in the Super Bowl?
As for TV ratings, the FBS, with no playoff, outperforms the championship game of March Madness,
To suggest that TV ratings determine who plays in the BCS game is silly.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 12, 2007, 05:25:47 PM
I see Sagarin has South Florida all the way down at #10, which doesn't make any sense at all, especially with West Virginia, which USF beat, at #4.  And you say there is a science to this, jim?

While you're at it Jim. I'll take your refusal to answer my question about Kansas as an admission that you don't think they should be ranked that high. Neat.

I never answered the question since I consider it irrelevant and immaterial.

Rankings don't predict.  Where Kansas finishes will be determined by results after 12 games,

Where you choose to predict  they finish is your concern, not mine.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 12, 2007, 05:28:01 PM

If the human polls were any good we would not need any more than the first one.



Careful of logic fallacies in your arguments Jim. 

Ergo, if Computer polls were any good we would not need more than the first one?  Did I misinterpret your intention?


Computer rankings are not polls.

Pre season polls are made by humans for no other reason than to sell newspapers.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 12, 2007, 05:47:07 PM

Oklahoma is 11th and USC 13th.  Each have a chance to claw back toward the top but need a lot of teams to lose and lose more than once.  It would also help their causes if Colorado and Stanford finish strong so as to make those upsets less punishing in the computers.

I would contend that if USC wins out from here, they will need exactly one other loss to occur - either LSU (which looks unlikely at this point--although there is always the SEC championship) or Ohio State, which could still most definitely happen.

Oklahoma is another story—their schedule is not as strong.


I think you are overlooking  a few other undefeated teams, in addition to LSU and Ohio State.
Right now USC sits 13th in the projected BCS.
The Trojans are going to need to win out, and in doing so derail BCS # 3 Cal and BCS# 9 Arizona State, but still need losses by BCS#4 South Florida, BCS#5 Boston College and BCS #6 Missouri.
And another thorn is BCS#14 Cincinnati, also undefeated, who has yet to play South Florida. 

The Trojans might be able to overcome the Stanford loss against a bevy on one loss teams......but it seems to me to be pretty hard for them to pass two or more or the above mentioned undefeated teams.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 07:57:09 PM

Computer rankings are not polls.


semantic corrections, while a nice distraction are only that.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 08:01:37 PM

I think you are overlooking  a few other undefeated teams, in addition to LSU and Ohio State.
Right now USC sits 13th in the projected BCS.
The Trojans are going to need to win out, and in doing so derail BCS # 3 Cal and BCS# 9 Arizona State, but still need losses by BCS#4 South Florida, BCS#5 Boston College and BCS #6 Missouri.
And another thorn is BCS#14 Cincinnati, also undefeated, who has yet to play South Florida. 

The Trojans might be able to overcome the Stanford loss against a bevy on one loss teams......but it seems to me to be pretty hard for them to pass two or more or the above mentioned undefeated teams.

I disagree Jim.  Their strength of schedule could easily carry them over USF or Boston College in the computer rankings...not to mention the human polls.

And someone else mentioned those two schools in another context.  If USC were to play either of those schools next week even at their fields, that is a bet I would easily take.

Usc has lost one or two games to an unranked Pac 10 opponent almost every year.  Why on earth would this shock anyone?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 08:04:52 PM
Just heard we won't have to wait until half time.

Sanchez will start tomorrow.

After the game last week, Patrick Turner was asked why he dropped what appeared to be a relatively easy catch that would have kept an important drive alive.  His response was a muttered  "it was a pass from Booty...I don't know..."  Shortly after that Coach Carroll mentioned that they would watch the films and make sure all the coaches are on the same page.   Something is going on inside the clubhouse.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 12, 2007, 10:37:13 PM
I finally re watched the game.  Booty lost that game - with serious help from Patrick Turner.

The defense played well.  Even in the final drive,  Stanford had a pass interference call for a first down.  Then a QB scrambleon a broken pass play for a first down.  Then a 4th and 20 desperation throw that was right at the marker and could have gone either way.

The final 4th and 10 was a pushoff (that probably should have been called) on the 5th string cornerback.

Booty on the other hand threw 4 picks on really bad passes -- not tips--including one on the final drive where a field goal would have won the game.  Patrick Turner dropped 4 balls that would have all continued drives, including one which would have been a first down and put them very  close to field goal range on the final drive.

Ok...so this is a little close to whining I guess, but I can;t say I'm dissappointed to see Sanchez get a chance.  I think if he would have been in the game last week, we would have played more conservatively on offense, had fewer turnovers and won easily.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 12, 2007, 11:37:29 PM

I think you are overlooking  a few other undefeated teams, in addition to LSU and Ohio State.
Right now USC sits 13th in the projected BCS.
The Trojans are going to need to win out, and in doing so derail BCS # 3 Cal and BCS# 9 Arizona State, but still need losses by BCS#4 South Florida, BCS#5 Boston College and BCS #6 Missouri.
And another thorn is BCS#14 Cincinnati, also undefeated, who has yet to play South Florida. 

The Trojans might be able to overcome the Stanford loss against a bevy on one loss teams......but it seems to me to be pretty hard for them to pass two or more or the above mentioned undefeated teams.


I disagree Jim.  Their strength of schedule could easily carry them over USF or Boston College in the computer rankings...not to mention the human polls.

And someone else mentioned those two schools in another context.  If USC were to play either of those schools next week even at their fields, that is a bet I would easily take.

Usc has lost one or two games to an unranked Pac 10 opponent almost every year.  Why on earth would this shock anyone?

You can be excused for partisan wishful thinking.
But a loss to Stanford is not going away.

There are so many games left that scenarios are mind boggling.
But  some things are certain:

An undefeated LSU and Ohio State will not be overtaken by a one loss USC.
Nor can the Trojans overtake an undefeated South Florida.  The Bulls, if that happens , will have beaten 4 top 25 teams and are already ranked # 2 by the computers. Not even the fickle humans will jump USC past a flawless South Florida, especially since the loss was to hapless Stanford.

Likewise an undefeated Missouri will not finish behind the Trojans.  The common game, Nebraska, is already a plus for Missouri, and the computers have Missouri number 4.

Your other nightmare is South Carolina who could go to the SEC title game with one loss.  No matter who they play if the Gamecocks win they cannot be surpassed by USC since South Carolina's  only loss would have been to LSU. 

Your best hope, short of praying for a lot of teams to collapse, is to win the Pac Ten and head to the  Rose Bowl.

Not a bad consolation.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 13, 2007, 03:05:57 AM
Of course, we aren't even considering California in all this.  Maybe this is finally the Golden Bears year.  They currently sit at #2.  Given what a crazy year this has been, I would be very surprised if any of the teams end up undefeated, even South Florida, who probably has the easiest route.  Not considering Hawaii.

I don't know what to think of the Big 12 this year.  Kansas, Mizzou undefeated.  A&M and Tech both with only one less.  Colorado is even playing well this year, knocking off Oklahoma.  I guess we will have to wait and see how it all shakes out.

But, yes jim, the BCS has everything to do about television ratings, and an undefeated South Florida will not be in the title game,  They can expect to finish no better than #3, and get the BCS consolation prize, a trip to the Orange Bowl.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 13, 2007, 08:05:41 AM


But, yes jim, the BCS has everything to do about television ratings, and an undefeated South Florida will not be in the title game,  They can expect to finish no better than #3, and get the BCS consolation prize, a trip to the Orange Bowl.

If that was the case then the BCS would certainly have made sure Southern Cal, the AP and Coaches' number one in 2003, got to the BCS title game.  The same for last year when Michigan would have been picked over Florida, or  2001 when Oregon would have been a better TV choice than Nebraska to face Miami.





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 13, 2007, 11:22:32 PM
If by some mircle USC wins out they would probably be healthy again and the "fickle humans" would recall that about 1/2 the starters were out injured way back mid season...

Cal Losing tonight ahead of us did not help.

But LSU losing did.

Go Blue!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 14, 2007, 01:18:09 AM
I guess it won't be Cal's year.  Another crazy weekend, with LSU going down as well.  A mild surprise is Iowa taking out Illinois.  Zooker has a way of losing these games.  We should get our first BCS poll today.  Curious to see who will end up on top?  My guess is that Ohio St. will be number one, followed by Boston College, Oklahoma, South Florida and USC.  I wouldn't be surprised if USC edges out South Florida.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 14, 2007, 01:21:53 AM

Oklahoma 41, Missouri 31, This will be the end of the Mizzou express, should be a high scoring game. 


Couldn't have called this game any closer, although had to settle for 4-2 this week, provided ASU holds off the Huskies.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on October 14, 2007, 02:43:49 AM
"The Chicken Curse"

I felt a little shiver up the spine in the first half of the USC (cack)/UNC game, when there was a fumble off a punt or whatever.  The curse turned an ear toward Chapel Hill.

Then the Curse heard that Butch Davis had gone for two for no good reason and given up an easy 3 on a 4th and 4 fade route that never works.  This gets The Curse interested, for The Curse, if you can not use ordinary coaching decisions to win, especially with a good kicker and apparently resilient defense, becomes uneasy at having to exert it's mostly unnecessary intervention into Gamecock History. 

Butch Davis morons his way into his D blanking the Cock in the second half.

The Curse is furious and bubbling.

The Curse gives lowly UNC two hail fairies to the end zone just to assure the Curse that the Curse isn't doing any first half work anymore.

The Curse is steaming, for the Curse, the only purpose is that South Carolina's FOOTBALL HOPES ARE DASHED.  When the Curse wakes up with a hangover and realises that LSU got beat by the KY Jellies that just got beat by the Cocks, I mean, he's going totally like Freudian slippage into the Vandy Commonscores, or Vagy Lesserwhores...

...but this is only the pale and sick squalid failing reporting of a monitor of The Curse, but like a volcano that hasn't seen a virgin in a while, he's pissed, so expect the Clownonwheels to smack the Cack attack this Sat.

But is he like pissed pissed, or PISSED PISSED?  The ORANGE CRUSH should be coming, if there is a God in the universe and not just weirdo demi-gods assigned to the Chicken Curse and managing the rule of two's, seeing that Hasselhoof gets pop in Deutchland, etc., I imagine hell as a beauracracy of shit detail, there, I said it.

South Florida, you story, way to go...what a season that proves the point of being undefeated means usually zero...no dis to SF at all with quality wins but you can't just be drunk and hold up a zero anymore and have that work out as your reason to be number one.  Myth debunked, and don't even give me Ohio State, which, I have to admit, HAVENT LOST YET MUTHERFUCKER LAST TIME I COUNTED, no, I get it, but it's really fun to catch this season, of what...

Kentucky, South Florida, Stanford, and that team that beat Mich., etc., make names for themselves...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 14, 2007, 08:13:39 AM
I see Sagarin has South Florida all the way down at #10, which doesn't make any sense at all, especially with West Virginia, which USF beat, at #4.  And you say there is a science to this, jim?

While you're at it Jim. I'll take your refusal to answer my question about Kansas as an admission that you don't think they should be ranked that high. Neat.

I never answered the question since I consider it irrelevant and immaterial.

Rankings don't predict.  Where Kansas finishes will be determined by results after 12 games,

Where you choose to predict  they finish is your concern, not mine.

Uhhhhh....YEAH. Okay you run with with that if you feel you have to Jim. It was relevant to the discission. But if you want to duck the issue it's okay by me old sock.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 14, 2007, 08:15:05 AM

If the human polls were any good we would not need any more than the first one.



Careful of logic fallacies in your arguments Jim. 

Ergo, if Computer polls were any good we would not need more than the first one?  Did I misinterpret your intention?


Computer rankings are not polls.

Pre season polls are made by humans for no other reason than to sell newspapers.

Interesting that Jeff Sagarin is "exclusively" in the USA Today. One of America's biggest newspapers.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 14, 2007, 08:18:40 AM

Oklahoma is 11th and USC 13th.  Each have a chance to claw back toward the top but need a lot of teams to lose and lose more than once.  It would also help their causes if Colorado and Stanford finish strong so as to make those upsets less punishing in the computers.

I would contend that if USC wins out from here, they will need exactly one other loss to occur - either LSU (which looks unlikely at this point--although there is always the SEC championship) or Ohio State, which could still most definitely happen.

Oklahoma is another story—their schedule is not as strong.


I think you are overlooking  a few other undefeated teams, in addition to LSU and Ohio State.
Right now USC sits 13th in the projected BCS.
The Trojans are going to need to win out, and in doing so derail BCS # 3 Cal and...

Or Cal could just "derail" themselves just like LSU did yesterday.

This could go down as the year with the most bigtime upsets in college football history. Michigan set it off with an upset for the ages and its just continued to spiral out of control. Someone said we never had a nationa champion with 2 losses. Well this too might change. Wacky year for sure.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 14, 2007, 08:28:11 AM

Computer rankings are not polls.


semantic corrections, while a nice distraction are only that.

Actually Jim is very good a clutching at "semantic" straws like that.

To be perfectly correct Scott human polls are no different(that's "no different" Jim)than computer rankings.

Broken down human "polls" are a collection of "rankings" by individual writers or coaches. Jim knows that but prefers to try and confuse the issue by various methods.

The computers are "polled" the same basic way by the BCS when they are combined by a "poll" to determine where they average out. Just like the human polls do.

James is very good at either answering a question with clever subterfuge, misdirection or simply not answering the question at all(See Kansas or UCONN) by using one of his favorite buzzwords such as irrelevant and so on and so forth.

James would make a pretty damned good politican IMO.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 14, 2007, 08:35:18 AM

Oklahoma 41, Missouri 31, This will be the end of the Mizzou express, should be a high scoring game. 


Couldn't have called this game any closer, although had to settle for 4-2 this week, provided ASU holds off the Huskies.

5 and 2 for me this week DZ, with the two losses very close games. I have to admit I was shocked by the way LSU's defense came to play that game. Also I have to question Miles/Crowton for not seeing a good thing and pounding the Kentucky defense with Charles Scott when it was obvious that the Wildcats had no answer for him.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 14, 2007, 09:51:57 AM
I guess it won't be Cal's year.  Another crazy weekend, with LSU going down as well.  A mild surprise is Iowa taking out Illinois.  Zooker has a way of losing these games.  We should get our first BCS poll today.  Curious to see who will end up on top?  My guess is that Ohio St. will be number one, followed by Boston College, Oklahoma, South Florida and USC.  I wouldn't be surprised if USC edges out South Florida.

I assume your USC reference is South Carolina since SoCal could not be ranked ahead of either Oregon or Arizona State not to mention about 10 other teams.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 14, 2007, 10:11:41 AM

Oklahoma 41, Missouri 31, This will be the end of the Mizzou express, should be a high scoring game. 


Couldn't have called this game any closer, although had to settle for 4-2 this week, provided ASU holds off the Huskies.

5 and 2 for me this week DZ, with the two losses very close games. I have to admit I was shocked by the way LSU's defense came to play that game. Also I have to question Miles/Crowton for not seeing a good thing and pounding the Kentucky defense with Charles Scott when it was obvious that the Wildcats had no answer for him.

I thought Kentucky's answer was pretty good.  The Tigers needed 2 yards on 4th down in overtime and the Wildcats held Scott to one.  Miles, if anything was pretty conservative a week after being much more of a gambler against Florida.  Miles admitted he did not do a good job of coaching in his post game news conference.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 14, 2007, 11:10:18 AM
It is a wacky year?

What is wacky about Ohio State and Michigan being the only undefeated teams in Big Ten play?

And time to give Mike Hart his due.  974 consecutive plays without a fumble, 7 straight one hundred yard games, the last one yesterday even though he left the game with an ankle sprain in the second quarter.

If Hart can lead the Wolverines to his first win over Ohio State it would be hard to keep him off the Heisman stage.


Speaking of injuries:
 Oregon Receiver Cameron Colvin apparently broke an ankle  and RB Jeremiah Johnson blew out his knee in a  53-7 win over Wash. State.  Both, according to Head Coach Mike Bellotti, are done for the season.

California needed a red shirt freshman, Kevin Riley, to fill in for starting quarterback Nate Longshore.  Riley played pretty well and had sparked the Bears out of a late 10 point hole with a cluth TD pass and then had them poised to either win or tie with a last second drive.  However his gamble to run and not throw the ball away with 7 seconds to play, and no timeouts, failed and the Bears were upset.  I doubt the polls will cut much slack for California.

And Kentucky replaced injured tailback Rafael Little with  freshman Derrick Locke in the seccond half who responded
for 21 yards in the drive that brought the Cats to within six, and he finished with 64 yards on 20 carries. LSU's Miles said he was surprised how well Keunctuky was able to run the ball.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: desdemona222b on October 14, 2007, 11:10:18 AM
AARRRGGGGHHGHH!!!!!!!!  I'm still recovering from the LSU/Kentucky game last night.  I keep telling myself, "It's only a football game.  It's only a football game."

 :-[


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 14, 2007, 12:15:11 PM
I guess it won't be Cal's year.  Another crazy weekend, with LSU going down as well.  A mild surprise is Iowa taking out Illinois.  Zooker has a way of losing these games.  We should get our first BCS poll today.  Curious to see who will end up on top?  My guess is that Ohio St. will be number one, followed by Boston College, Oklahoma, South Florida and USC.  I wouldn't be surprised if USC edges out South Florida.

I assume your USC reference is South Carolina since SoCal could not be ranked ahead of either Oregon or Arizona State not to mention about 10 other teams.

Southern Cal is already ranked ahead of Oregon, ASU and about 10 other teams that might be worthy of higher ranking in the human polls, so why should the BCS be any different,


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 14, 2007, 12:16:50 PM
"The Chicken Curse"

I felt a little shiver up the spine in the first half of the USC (cack)/UNC game, when there was a fumble off a punt or whatever.  The curse turned an ear toward Chapel Hill.

Then the Curse heard that Butch Davis had gone for two for no good reason and given up an easy 3 on a 4th and 4 fade route that never works.  This gets The Curse interested, for The Curse, if you can not use ordinary coaching decisions to win, especially with a good kicker and apparently resilient defense, becomes uneasy at having to exert it's mostly unnecessary intervention into Gamecock History. 

Butch Davis morons his way into his D blanking the Cock in the second half.

The Curse is furious and bubbling.

The Curse gives lowly UNC two hail fairies to the end zone just to assure the Curse that the Curse isn't doing any first half work anymore.

The Curse is steaming, for the Curse, the only purpose is that South Carolina's FOOTBALL HOPES ARE DASHED.  When the Curse wakes up with a hangover and realises that LSU got beat by the KY Jellies that just got beat by the Cocks, I mean, he's going totally like Freudian slippage into the Vandy Commonscores, or Vagy Lesserwhores...

...but this is only the pale and sick squalid failing reporting of a monitor of The Curse, but like a volcano that hasn't seen a virgin in a while, he's pissed, so expect the Clownonwheels to smack the Cack attack this Sat.

But is he like pissed pissed, or PISSED PISSED?  The ORANGE CRUSH should be coming, if there is a God in the universe and not just weirdo demi-gods assigned to the Chicken Curse and managing the rule of two's, seeing that Hasselhoof gets pop in Deutchland, etc., I imagine hell as a beauracracy of shit detail, there, I said it.

South Florida, you story, way to go...what a season that proves the point of being undefeated means usually zero...no dis to SF at all with quality wins but you can't just be drunk and hold up a zero anymore and have that work out as your reason to be number one.  Myth debunked, and don't even give me Ohio State, which, I have to admit, HAVENT LOST YET MUTHERFUCKER LAST TIME I COUNTED, no, I get it, but it's really fun to catch this season, of what...

Kentucky, South Florida, Stanford, and that team that beat Mich., etc., make names for themselves...

A curse is a curse only when you lose.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 14, 2007, 12:26:26 PM

Oklahoma 41, Missouri 31, This will be the end of the Mizzou express, should be a high scoring game. 


Couldn't have called this game any closer, although had to settle for 4-2 this week, provided ASU holds off the Huskies.

5 and 2 for me this week DZ, with the two losses very close games. I have to admit I was shocked by the way LSU's defense came to play that game. Also I have to question Miles/Crowton for not seeing a good thing and pounding the Kentucky defense with Charles Scott when it was obvious that the Wildcats had no answer for him.

I thought Kentucky's answer was pretty good.  The Tigers needed 2 yards on 4th down in overtime and the Wildcats held Scott to one.  Miles, if anything was pretty conservative a week after being much more of a gambler against Florida.  Miles admitted he did not do a good job of coaching in his post game news conference.


Scott had 7 carries for 94 yards and a 13.4 YPC. He should have had 22 carries and about 200 yards.

Once again though I congratulate you you your deceptive answer concerning 1 carry in overtime.

If Miles/Crowton had rode Scott like the horse he was showing to be there probably never would have been any need for overtime.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 14, 2007, 12:37:20 PM
I guess it won't be Cal's year.  Another crazy weekend, with LSU going down as well.  A mild surprise is Iowa taking out Illinois.  Zooker has a way of losing these games.  We should get our first BCS poll today.  Curious to see who will end up on top?  My guess is that Ohio St. will be number one, followed by Boston College, Oklahoma, South Florida and USC.  I wouldn't be surprised if USC edges out South Florida.

I assume your USC reference is South Carolina since SoCal could not be ranked ahead of either Oregon or Arizona State not to mention about 10 other teams.

Southern Cal is already ranked ahead of Oregon, ASU and about 10 other teams that might be worthy of higher ranking in the human polls, so why should the BCS be any different,

From the BCS predictions yesterday on TV and today on the Blogs, Southern Cal is expected to be ranked behind  these one loss teams:   LSU, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kentucky,Oregon, West Virginia and Virginia Tech, and, of course, the unbeaten teams, South Florida, Ohio State, Boston College and Arizona State.

The good news for Southern Cal is that the number of undefeated teams is shrinking.  But the Trojans also need to see the pile of one loss teams shrink a lot.  None of the avove mentioned one loss teams has a Stanford-equivalent one.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 14, 2007, 12:41:47 PM

Oklahoma 41, Missouri 31, This will be the end of the Mizzou express, should be a high scoring game. 


Couldn't have called this game any closer, although had to settle for 4-2 this week, provided ASU holds off the Huskies.

5 and 2 for me this week DZ, with the two losses very close games. I have to admit I was shocked by the way LSU's defense came to play that game. Also I have to question Miles/Crowton for not seeing a good thing and pounding the Kentucky defense with Charles Scott when it was obvious that the Wildcats had no answer for him.

I thought Kentucky's answer was pretty good.  The Tigers needed 2 yards on 4th down in overtime and the Wildcats held Scott to one.  Miles, if anything was pretty conservative a week after being much more of a gambler against Florida.  Miles admitted he did not do a good job of coaching in his post game news conference.


Scott had 7 carries for 94 yards and a 13.4 YPC. He should have had 22 carries and about 200 yards.

Once again though I congratulate you you your deceptive answer concerning 1 carry in overtime.

If Miles/Crowton had rode Scott like the horse he was showing to be there probably never would have been any need for overtime.

Video replay confirms the call on my afore- mentioned post.  The Kentucky stuff of Scott stands.
Game over.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 14, 2007, 03:03:28 PM
I guess AP wasn't too impressed with USC's 20-13 win over Arizona, and bumped the Trojans down 3 spots, but the Trojans remain in the Top Ten of the US Today poll.  Glad to see South Florida get the #2 spot in the AP poll. Still, it is hard to say how good they really are, but I think they are better than BC, and Ohio St. hasn't done anything to impress me yet.  I would have thought the Sooners win over previously unbeaten Mizzou would have stood them in better stead.  Anyway, we will soon see what the all and powerful BCS has to say on the matter.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 14, 2007, 04:12:09 PM
I guess AP wasn't too impressed with USC's 20-13 win over Arizona, and bumped the Trojans down 3 spots, but the Trojans remain in the Top Ten of the US Today poll.  Glad to see South Florida get the #2 spot in the AP poll. Still, it is hard to say how good they really are, but I think they are better than BC, and Ohio St. hasn't done anything to impress me yet.  I would have thought the Sooners win over previously unbeaten Mizzou would have stood them in better stead.  Anyway, we will soon see what the all and powerful BCS has to say on the matter.
Just for fun

Here is a projected order of the BCS from BCS guru Jerry Palm  with the
Coaches' Rankings and the Computer consensus rankings---rememember this is just a snapshot of where the teams stand today with five weeks to go.  Historically, though, no team has climbed to the top two after being ranked lower than 12th in the first BCS of the year.

BCS 1    Ohio State      7-0      Coaches  1   Computers   3
BCS 2    South Florida  6-0      Coaches  3   Computers   1
BCS 3    Boston Col.    7-0      Coaches  2   Computers   4
BCS 4    LSU               6-1      Coaches  5   Computers   2
BCS 5    Oklahoma       6-1      Coaches 4   Computers   9
BCS 6    South Car.      6-1      Coaches 8    Compuers   7
BCS 7    Kentucky        6-1      Coaches 13  Computers  6
BCS 8    Oregon           5-1      Coaches  6   Computers  10
BCS 9    ASU               7-0      Coaches 12   Computers  5
BCS 10  West Va.         5-1      Coaches 7    Computers  12
BCS 11  Va. Tech         6-1      Coaches 11  Computers   8
BCS 12  California         5-1      Coaches 9    Computers  15
BCS 13  Kansas            6-0      Coaches 15   Computer  11
BCS 14  USC                5-1      Coaches 9    Computers  20
BCS 15  Florida             4-2      Coaches 14   Computers 17
BCS 16  Missouri          5-1       Coaches  17 Computers  16

This is just a guess since the Harris Ranking  and one computer ranking is missing.



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 14, 2007, 04:27:44 PM
Who was it said KY wasnt for real?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 14, 2007, 05:05:22 PM
I guess AP wasn't too impressed with USC's 20-13 win over Arizona, and bumped the Trojans down 3 spots, but the Trojans remain in the Top Ten of the US Today poll.  Glad to see South Florida get the #2 spot in the AP poll. Still, it is hard to say how good they really are, but I think they are better than BC, and Ohio St. hasn't done anything to impress me yet.  I would have thought the Sooners win over previously unbeaten Mizzou would have stood them in better stead.  Anyway, we will soon see what the all and powerful BCS has to say on the matter.
Just for fun

Here is a projected order of the BCS from BCS guru Jerry Palm  with the
Coaches' Rankings and the Computer consensus rankings---rememember this is just a snapshot of where the teams stand today with five weeks to go.  Historically, though, no team has climbed to the top two after being ranked lower than 12th in the first BCS of the year.

BCS 1    Ohio State      7-0      Coaches  1   Computers   3
BCS 2    South Florida  6-0      Coaches  3   Computers   1
BCS 3    Boston Col.    7-0      Coaches  2   Computers   4
BCS 4    LSU               6-1      Coaches  5   Computers   2
BCS 5    Oklahoma       6-1      Coaches 4   Computers   9
BCS 6    South Car.      6-1      Coaches 8    Compuers   7
BCS 7    Kentucky        6-1      Coaches 13  Computers  6
BCS 8    Oregon           5-1      Coaches  6   Computers  10
BCS 9    ASU               7-0      Coaches 12   Computers  5
BCS 10  West Va.         5-1      Coaches 7    Computers  12
BCS 11  Va. Tech         6-1      Coaches 11  Computers   8
BCS 12  California         5-1      Coaches 9    Computers  15
BCS 13  Kansas            6-0      Coaches 15   Computer  11
BCS 14  USC                5-1      Coaches 9    Computers  20
BCS 15  Florida             4-2      Coaches 14   Computers 17
BCS 16  Missouri          5-1       Coaches  17 Computers  16

This is just a guess since the Harris Ranking  and one computer ranking is missing.



So Palm was pretty close,  the only differences were ASU is 8th, West Va. 9th and Oregon 10th.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 14, 2007, 11:48:52 PM
I have to wonder if any of these teams are for real.  What a strange year it has been.  I don't think there is a single dominant team.  Certainly not Ohio St. or South Florida or Boston College?  Interesting to see the computers put South Florida number one, I guess by virtue of wins over Auburn and West Virginia, and then only because these two teams represent tougher competition than OSU and BC have had.  The toughest opponent OSU has played is Purdue. Well, good luck determining a national champion this way!


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 15, 2007, 12:13:33 AM
I have to wonder if any of these teams are for real.  What a strange year it has been.  I don't think there is a single dominant team.  Certainly not Ohio St. or South Florida or Boston College?  Interesting to see the computers put South Florida number one, I guess by virtue of wins over Auburn and West Virginia, and then only because these two teams represent tougher competition than OSU and BC have had.  The toughest opponent OSU has played is Purdue. Well, good luck determining a national champion this way!

Before you get yourself wound into a Lithuanian knot why don't you take a deep breath and wait for the rest of the games to be played? 

I cannot see any current undefeated team staying that way and, if the right teams lose, even Southern Cal can climb back into the hunt.

There has not been a single dominant team since 2001 when Miami ran the table.

And here is a scenario a Big Ten and OSU hater can really hope for:

Michigan and OSU each win their next 4 and then  Michigan upsets OSU in the final game of the season.( it ain't unprecedented)
The Wolverines would knock OSU out of the BCS title game, out of the Rose Bowl and, if Hawaii is still unbeaten and ranked in the top 16, OSU could lose out on ANY BCS game.

If that happened to an 11-1 SEC team you would be calling for a Congressional investigation.
If it happens to an 11-1 OSU team you will be laughing.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 15, 2007, 12:27:19 AM
Well, jimbo, since the rankings are based on the games to date, I am making my observations on the games to date.  As for knots, you seem to be the one all balled up here defending this pathetic system that only works when there are dominant teams that run the table.  USC and Texas did just that in 2005.  Ohio State did it last year.  The BCS self-destructs when confronted with a bevy of one-loss teams which well may be the case this year.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 15, 2007, 01:14:29 AM
Well, jimbo, since the rankings are based on the games to date, I am making my observations on the games to date.  As for knots, you seem to be the one all balled up here defending this pathetic system that only works when there are dominant teams that run the table.  USC and Texas did just that in 2005.  Ohio State did it last year.  The BCS self-destructs when confronted with a bevy of one-loss teams which well may be the case this year.

You are right, I love the system.
Even if it means OSU at 11-1 could be left out of a BCS Bowl.
If that happens it will be the fault of OSU, not the BCS.
And there will still be another Bowl Game.

And then there will be next year.





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 15, 2007, 06:31:15 AM

Oklahoma 41, Missouri 31, This will be the end of the Mizzou express, should be a high scoring game. 


Couldn't have called this game any closer, although had to settle for 4-2 this week, provided ASU holds off the Huskies.

5 and 2 for me this week DZ, with the two losses very close games. I have to admit I was shocked by the way LSU's defense came to play that game. Also I have to question Miles/Crowton for not seeing a good thing and pounding the Kentucky defense with Charles Scott when it was obvious that the Wildcats had no answer for him.

I thought Kentucky's answer was pretty good.  The Tigers needed 2 yards on 4th down in overtime and the Wildcats held Scott to one.  Miles, if anything was pretty conservative a week after being much more of a gambler against Florida.  Miles admitted he did not do a good job of coaching in his post game news conference.


Scott had 7 carries for 94 yards and a 13.4 YPC. He should have had 22 carries and about 200 yards.

Once again though I congratulate you you your deceptive answer concerning 1 carry in overtime.

If Miles/Crowton had rode Scott like the horse he was showing to be there probably never would have been any need for overtime.

Video replay confirms the call on my afore- mentioned post.  The Kentucky stuff of Scott stands.
Game over.

Video evidence may very well also confirm your empty head if we ever get the footage.

Stuff that.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 15, 2007, 06:32:28 AM
Who was it said KY wasnt for real?

I give up who?



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 15, 2007, 06:45:27 AM
I have to wonder if any of these teams are for real.  What a strange year it has been.  I don't think there is a single dominant team.  Certainly not Ohio St. or South Florida or Boston College?  Interesting to see the computers put South Florida number one, I guess by virtue of wins over Auburn and West Virginia, and then only because these two teams represent tougher competition than OSU and BC have had.  The toughest opponent OSU has played is Purdue. Well, good luck determining a national champion this way!

Like I said DZ. It would surprise me if this finally was the year that a 2 loss team is declared national champion. A scenario whereby 2 loss Florida wins the SEC championship and beats undefeated Ohio State(again) is not totally out of realm of possibility. And not nearly as crazy as one would have thought only a couple of weeks ago. Of course a lot of other schlit would have to happen but the way this season is going nobody is safe.

For example BC still has its toughest games ahead of it and could easily lose a couple of games. South Florida could also drop a couple as could Arizona St. And USC could lose again, as could Cal and Oregon in the round robin that the PAC-10(and other conferences) seem to be this season.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 15, 2007, 10:32:18 AM
Who was it said KY wasnt for real?

I give up who?



I seem to remember TrojanHorse asking " was anyone buying Ky?" after its loss to South Florida.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jbottle on October 15, 2007, 11:16:23 AM
I don't think Woodson is a legitimate Heisman candidate after handing the game to South Carolina, but the Jellies seem to be pretty good, especially at home.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on October 15, 2007, 11:58:53 AM
Hey Jimm; check out the "extra letters" to Ray Stein in the Dispatch.  We both have a letter printed


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 15, 2007, 12:25:25 PM
Who was it said KY wasnt for real?

I give up who?



I seem to remember TrojanHorse asking " was anyone buying Ky?" after its loss to South Florida.

Do you mean their loss to South Carolina?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 15, 2007, 12:36:04 PM
Who was it said KY wasnt for real?

I give up who?



I seem to remember TrojanHorse asking " was anyone buying Ky?" after its loss to South Florida.

Do you mean their loss to South Carolina?

Teams from the South all look alike to me ::)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 15, 2007, 01:22:11 PM
Hey Jimm; check out the "extra letters" to Ray Stein in the Dispatch.  We both have a letter printed

Thanks.

Yours was so succinct and to the point that I was surprised it did not make the cut.
And it was so true.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 15, 2007, 01:26:12 PM
Who was it said KY wasnt for real?

I give up who?



I seem to remember TrojanHorse asking " was anyone buying Ky?" after its loss to South Florida.

T/Y

Gators next to fall


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 15, 2007, 01:48:37 PM

James would make a pretty damned good politican IMO.

How do you know he isn't?   You're only assuming he is a travel agent.  This has neither been confirmed nor denied...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 15, 2007, 02:03:04 PM

I seem to remember TrojanHorse asking " was anyone buying Ky?" after its loss to South Florida.

yeah well...maybe LSU isn't as good as everyone thought either...  :)


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 15, 2007, 02:17:10 PM
Yes Jim, a sinking feeling came over me when I saw Trojans at #14.   It is looking unlikely , but still possible…

We need some of our opponents to actually win against somebody else...  it seems that everyone we’ve played this year is just falling apart and that is killing our SOS.

The focus really needs to be on trying to go to the Rose Bowl again --even that I think it is a tall order --since they will probably need to beat Cal Oregon and Arizona State all on the road just to win the Pac 10.   But although the reports of another weak performance against lowly Arizona were proffered by the media Saturday Night, I actually saw some pretty neat things happening.

Basically we need to heal.  The offensive line had trouble adjusting when Sam Baker went out during the second quarter, but by the fourth quarter they put together another nice long drive. And outscored Az 10-0.  They had one long drive in the first quarter also before Baker’s injury.

Arizona has a very good defense and their special teams just killed us all day.  Our defense looked superb except for the one long drive that Az put together in the second quarter.

I think Sanchez played very well – he rallied the team for a fourth quarter win and that is something Booty has really struggled with.  At the beginning of this season, I believe I mentioned that as being one of my biggest concerns.  Booty panics far too easily.   Unless Sanchez totally blows it against Notre Dame, I think it will be difficult to bring Booty back.  I’m sure the coaches are hoping for a much better than average performance so they don’t have to struggle with that decision.


Title: Do we really need instant replay?
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 15, 2007, 02:22:22 PM
I figured this would be a good one...


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncf&id=3062110


OXFORD, Miss. -- John Parker Wilson passed for 265 yards and Alabama scored 10 points in the final eight minutes and benefited from a critical replay reversal in the closing seconds to beat Mississippi 27-24 on Saturday.

Ole Miss quarterback Seth Adams completed a 41-yard pass to Shay Hodge to give the Rebels possession at the Alabama 4 with 7 seconds left.

After a 5-minute review clearly showed Hodge stepped out of bounds and returned to the field to make the catch, the play was ruled illegal and Alabama (5-2, 3-1 Southeastern Conference) took over on downs for a final snap to seal the victory.





Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 15, 2007, 03:53:42 PM
Who was it said KY wasnt for real?

I give up who?




I seem to remember TrojanHorse asking " was anyone buying Ky?" after its loss to South Florida.

T/Y

Gators next to fall

Don't bet the rent money on it.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 15, 2007, 03:55:57 PM

I seem to remember TrojanHorse asking " was anyone buying Ky?" after its loss to South Florida.

yeah well...maybe LSU isn't as good as everyone thought either...  :)


I think they are. I just think they were flat after the Florida battle. I'd love to see a rematch in the SEC championship game. But since Kentucky is going to get stomped by Florida this weekend I won't hold my breath.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 15, 2007, 03:57:50 PM
what?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 15, 2007, 05:13:14 PM

I think they are. I just think they were flat after the Florida battle.


I wasn't really serious about LSU.  I think they look pretty darn good.  Very impressive win for Kentucky -- and I was rooting for them all the way...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 02:02:01 AM
This season reminds me of 1990 when Colorado and Georgia Tech ended up splitting the national championship.  Colorado, btw, was 11-1-1.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 02:09:23 AM
For me, the most memorable "national championship game" remains the 1973 Sugar Bowl between Notre Dame and Alabama played on New Year's Eve.  Ara Parseghian vs. Bear Bryant in a thrilling 24-23 game,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQwRdb5m-ws

Notre Dame (3) and Alabama (1) were two of seven undefeated teams at the end of the regular season. Ohio State, Miami-OH, Michigan, Oklahoma and Penn State were the others.  OSU and Michigan playing to a tie.  Oklahoma also had a tie that year.  And, of course, Miami of Ohio (15 or there about) wasn't even in the running and Penn St. was ranked fifth.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0746869.html


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 02:44:36 AM
Yes Jim, a sinking feeling came over me when I saw Trojans at #14.   It is looking unlikely , but still possible…

We need some of our opponents to actually win against somebody else...  it seems that everyone we’ve played this year is just falling apart and that is killing our SOS.

The focus really needs to be on trying to go to the Rose Bowl again --even that I think it is a tall order --since they will probably need to beat Cal Oregon and Arizona State all on the road just to win the Pac 10.   But although the reports of another weak performance against lowly Arizona were proffered by the media Saturday Night, I actually saw some pretty neat things happening.

Basically we need to heal.  The offensive line had trouble adjusting when Sam Baker went out during the second quarter, but by the fourth quarter they put together another nice long drive. And outscored Az 10-0.  They had one long drive in the first quarter also before Baker’s injury.

Arizona has a very good defense and their special teams just killed us all day.  Our defense looked superb except for the one long drive that Az put together in the second quarter.

I think Sanchez played very well – he rallied the team for a fourth quarter win and that is something Booty has really struggled with.  At the beginning of this season, I believe I mentioned that as being one of my biggest concerns.  Booty panics far too easily.   Unless Sanchez totally blows it against Notre Dame, I think it will be difficult to bring Booty back.  I’m sure the coaches are hoping for a much better than average performance so they don’t have to struggle with that decision.


USC has a killer schedule with Oregon, California and Arizona St. all on the road.  If they can run this gauntlet, and not let themselves get tripped up by Oregon St. or UCLA, then they should be in the hunt.


Title: Year of the Rooster (or the Cat)?
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 03:27:59 AM
If Kentucky can get past Florida, then I like their chances in the SEC.  Of course, South Carolina, which also has a favorable remaining schedule, chicken curses aside, would have to drop a game to make the Wildcats' dream reality.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 16, 2007, 06:07:09 AM
what?

I didn't stutter moke.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 16, 2007, 07:03:21 AM
For me, the most memorable "national championship game" remains the 1973 Sugar Bowl between Notre Dame and Alabama played on New Year's Eve.  Ara Parseghian vs. Bear Bryant in a thrilling 24-23 game,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQwRdb5m-ws

Notre Dame (3) and Alabama (1) were two of seven undefeated teams at the end of the regular season. Ohio State, Miami-OH, Michigan, Oklahoma and Penn State were the others.  OSU and Michigan playing to a tie.  Oklahoma also had a tie that year.  And, of course, Miami of Ohio (15 or there about) wasn't even in the running and Penn St. was ranked fifth.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0746869.html

IMO Penn State "could" have beaten either ND or Bama that year. But I always thought the best team that year was OSU. Even after the bowl games were finished. I remember that year Michigan had a problem with Navy. A team that Penn State and ND, if memory serves, stomped fairly easily.

I also seem to remember, being a PSU fan, a bit of trivia from that year. I think in the regular season Bama only faced 4 teams that ended up having a winning record. And PSU, I think, faced 6 teams that ended up with a winning record in regular season play. I also remember that in that year NC State was the cream of the ACC in 1973-74(Not Clemson I think they started their run about 1977 or so)and the Pack thrashed Kansas in the Liberty Bowl. I'm not sure if Ted Brown was on that 73 Wolfpack team or not, I think he came after. I remember Cappletti rushed for 220 yards against NC State but I'm not sure if it was in 73 or 72. But I do know that PSU had a wild game with the Wolfpack in 73. 

I also seem to remember that Roman Gabriel came from NC State but now I'm rambling as only senile old farts can remember schlit like that.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 16, 2007, 07:04:25 AM
Yes Jim, a sinking feeling came over me when I saw Trojans at #14.   It is looking unlikely , but still possible…

We need some of our opponents to actually win against somebody else...  it seems that everyone we’ve played this year is just falling apart and that is killing our SOS.

The focus really needs to be on trying to go to the Rose Bowl again --even that I think it is a tall order --since they will probably need to beat Cal Oregon and Arizona State all on the road just to win the Pac 10.   But although the reports of another weak performance against lowly Arizona were proffered by the media Saturday Night, I actually saw some pretty neat things happening.

Basically we need to heal.  The offensive line had trouble adjusting when Sam Baker went out during the second quarter, but by the fourth quarter they put together another nice long drive. And outscored Az 10-0.  They had one long drive in the first quarter also before Baker’s injury.

Arizona has a very good defense and their special teams just killed us all day.  Our defense looked superb except for the one long drive that Az put together in the second quarter.

I think Sanchez played very well – he rallied the team for a fourth quarter win and that is something Booty has really struggled with.  At the beginning of this season, I believe I mentioned that as being one of my biggest concerns.  Booty panics far too easily.   Unless Sanchez totally blows it against Notre Dame, I think it will be difficult to bring Booty back.  I’m sure the coaches are hoping for a much better than average performance so they don’t have to struggle with that decision.


USC has a killer schedule with Oregon, California and Arizona St. all on the road.  If they can run this gauntlet, and not let themselves get tripped up by Oregon St. or UCLA, then they should be in the hunt.

I think USC needs to get its OL problem fixed or it will continue to struggle.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 07:24:53 AM

IMO Penn State "could" have beaten either ND or Bama that year. But I always thought the best team that year was OSU. Even after the bowl games were finished. I remember that year Michigan had a problem with Navy. A team that Penn State and ND, if memory serves, stomped fairly easily.

I also seem to remember, being a PSU fan, a bit of trivia from that year. I think in the regular season Bama only faced 4 teams that ended up having a winning record. And PSU, I think, faced 6 teams that ended up with a winning record in regular season play ...


Your memory is better than mine, cap, as about all I remember well from the '73 season is the Sugar Bowl.  Penn St. got little respect in those days. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 07:35:26 AM
Quote
I also seem to remember that Roman Gabriel came from NC State but now I'm rambling as only senile old farts can remember schlit like that.


He did indeed,

A two-time All-American, he starred at quarterback for North Carolina State University in the early 1960's and finished his career holding virtually every Wolfpack passing record. An academic All-American, Gabriel saw his jersey retired and presented to him by North Carolina governor Terry Sanford on Jan. 20, 1962 at half-time of an NC State-Maryland basketball game in Reynolds Coliseum. The number one A.F.L. draft pick (Roman was chosen second in the N.F.L. draft), by the Oakland Raiders[1], he went on to a distinguished professional career. Gabriel was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Gabriel



Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 07:44:26 AM
Interesting that the Fiesta Bowl was created in the 70s to showcase WAC teams, Arizona State in particular, as the WAC then as now, was being passed over by the major bowls.  ASU had a big year in '75, as I remember, going undefeated and beating Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl, but the best they could do was finish second to Oklahoma.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 16, 2007, 09:56:08 AM
Interesting that the Fiesta Bowl was created in the 70s to showcase WAC teams, Arizona State in particular, as the WAC then as now, was being passed over by the major bowls.  ASU had a big year in '75, as I remember, going undefeated and beating Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl, but the best they could do was finish second to Oklahoma.

1973 was the year of the 10-10 tie between OSU and Michigan.  Big Ten AD's voted to send OSU to the Rose Bowl.
Big Ten allowed no other Bowl Games in those days.  From 1972-1974 Michigan went something like 30-2-1 and never got to a Bowl Game.  OSU went to four straight Rose Bowls from 1972-1975 and Archie won 2 Heismans. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 16, 2007, 10:47:29 AM

I think USC needs to get its OL problem fixed or it will continue to struggle.

no question.  I keep waiting for them to heal and it keeps going in the wrong direction...   more problems in practice yesterday.

They've finally decided to move a backup defensive lineman over to offensive line as a precautionary step.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on October 16, 2007, 11:02:07 AM
Quote
From 1972-1974 Michigan went something like 30-2-1 and never got to a Bowl Game.
Sweeeeeeet.

By the way, I am sure that the prospect of a Central Florida/Boston College BCS title game is just making the network exec's mouths water.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 11:09:06 AM
That's South Florida, you bucknut!  Where have you been hiding?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on October 16, 2007, 11:10:25 AM
That's South Florida, you bucknut!  Where have you been hiding?
Eh, one directional school is very much like another.

I've been hiding under an airport.  Also, Tucson, for a wedding.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 11:14:24 AM

 OSU went to four straight Rose Bowls from 1972-1975 and Archie won 2 Heismans. 


... and OSU compiled an impressive 1-3 record. 


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 16, 2007, 11:19:24 AM
Quote
From 1972-1974 Michigan went something like 30-2-1 and never got to a Bowl Game.
Sweeeeeeet.

By the way, I am sure that the prospect of a Central Florida/Boston College BCS title game is just making the network exec's mouths water.

Of course I must painfully point out that also means the Spartans got no bowl game love either Stevo.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: whiskeypriest on October 16, 2007, 11:20:32 AM
Quote
From 1972-1974 Michigan went something like 30-2-1 and never got to a Bowl Game.
Sweeeeeeet.

By the way, I am sure that the prospect of a Central Florida/Boston College BCS title game is just making the network exec's mouths water.

Of course I must painfully point out that also means the Spartans got no bowl game love either Stevo.
I do not mourn a single Astro-Bluebonnet Bowl part in which we did not take.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 16, 2007, 11:28:43 AM
Quote
From 1972-1974 Michigan went something like 30-2-1 and never got to a Bowl Game.
Sweeeeeeet.

By the way, I am sure that the prospect of a Central Florida/Boston College BCS title game is just making the network exec's mouths water.

It would easily draw more viewers than a Cleveland/Denver World Series.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 16, 2007, 12:33:52 PM
Quote
From 1972-1974 Michigan went something like 30-2-1 and never got to a Bowl Game.
Sweeeeeeet.

By the way, I am sure that the prospect of a Central Florida/Boston College BCS title game is just making the network exec's mouths water.

Of course I must painfully point out that also means the Spartans got no bowl game love either Stevo.
I do not mourn a single Astro-Bluebonnet Bowl part in which we did not take.

If it was allowed I'm sure they would've been buttering up the Big 10 plenty. And the Spartans would have been the toast of Houston.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: CaptainCargo on October 16, 2007, 12:35:49 PM
Quote
From 1972-1974 Michigan went something like 30-2-1 and never got to a Bowl Game.
Sweeeeeeet.

By the way, I am sure that the prospect of a Central Florida/Boston College BCS title game is just making the network exec's mouths water.

It would easily draw more viewers than a Cleveland/Denver World Series.

Actually I wouldn't have watched an inning of a D-Back-Angel series. But a Denver/Indian series I'd want to see. I suppose of course I'd be the only guy in America outside of those two burgs watching though.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 16, 2007, 12:46:37 PM
Quote
From 1972-1974 Michigan went something like 30-2-1 and never got to a Bowl Game.
Sweeeeeeet.

By the way, I am sure that the prospect of a Central Florida/Boston College BCS title game is just making the network exec's mouths water.

It would easily draw more viewers than a Cleveland/Denver World Series.

Actually I wouldn't have watched an inning of a D-Back-Angel series. But a Denver/Indian series I'd want to see. I suppose of course I'd be the only guy in America outside of those two burgs watching though.

Well, I have jumped on the Tribe bandwagon and Whiskeypriest would be there, so we are up to three.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 16, 2007, 12:53:16 PM

 OSU went to four straight Rose Bowls from 1972-1975 and Archie won 2 Heismans. 


... and OSU compiled an impressive 1-3 record. 

Didn't matter much after winning 3 of four against  Michigan and keeping the Wolverines home for the Holidays.
Truth is that after the vote in 1973,  Woody felt compellled to open up his offense and OSU won handily.
I don't think the OSU-Michigan rivalry was ever bigger than in the 10 years of Woody and Bo.  It probably never  will be again...since the all or nothing days are gone.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 16, 2007, 12:59:22 PM
That's South Florida, you bucknut!  Where have you been hiding?
Eh, one directional school is very much like another.


It's understandable, having spent all that time in West Lansing up there in Northern Michigan...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 16, 2007, 01:03:17 PM
whatever happened to Clinard?

He should be here crowing like only he can...


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 16, 2007, 01:14:52 PM
Which team cheats the most in College Football?

That should take you a while to narrow down.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: jmmengel on October 16, 2007, 01:16:09 PM
Which team cheats the most in College Football?

That should take you a while to narrow down.

Appalachian State


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 16, 2007, 01:26:08 PM

Appalachian State

:)

I probably would have said Miami or something, but I like yours.

I guess following that lead, "I" should say Stanford ?


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: mickeyd on October 16, 2007, 02:03:14 PM

 OSU went to four straight Rose Bowls from 1972-1975 and Archie won 2 Heismans. 


... and OSU compiled an impressive 1-3 record. 

Not nearly as impressive as UF during the same years
1973 Tangerine Miami (Ohio) 7-16 L
1974 Sugar Nebraska 10-13 L
1975 Gator Maryland 0-13 L


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: yankguy on October 16, 2007, 02:10:01 PM
Steve Atkins rushed for about a million yards against Florida in that Gator Bowl.  I thought he was going to be one of the best ever.  Wrong again.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: Dzimas on October 16, 2007, 03:12:18 PM

 OSU went to four straight Rose Bowls from 1972-1975 and Archie won 2 Heismans. 


... and OSU compiled an impressive 1-3 record. 

Not nearly as impressive as UF during the same years
1973 Tangerine Miami (Ohio) 7-16 L
1974 Sugar Nebraska 10-13 L
1975 Gator Maryland 0-13 L


The Gators biggest handicap back then was Doug Dickey.  Hard to believe he was so successful at Tennessee before.


Title: Re: College Football
Post by: yankguy on October 16, 2007, 03:24:40 PM
Probably for the same reason that Norman Sloan won a National Championship at N.C. State (and likely would have won 2 but for probation) but never did much except wear loud sports jackets at Florida-in either of