Printable View
That game proves nothing. As much as I want to see the 'cards become a powerhouse, carying a lead into the 4th quarter against Miami happens a lot and proves very little about your team. Miami has made a living sleeping all game and then waking up and beating the hell out of everyone in the 4th to win the game the last few years. That is just what they do. Louisville is a good team, but "almost" beating Miami doesn't make them a powerhouse.Quote:
Originally Posted by 13
yup, good ole lsu. dave, i was just wondering if an atmoshphere like that would shake an otherwise good team that might not be used to it. a lot of the teams in the sec really bring that atmoshpere with them wherever they go. most of the road fans have 1/4 mil rv's that they roll wherever the team goes. the rest get there however they can. btw dave, how was the game you were at (and what game/when)?
It's been a few years (maybe 6). Both my brother and sister went to LSU (golf scholarships) so I have been to 3 games all at Thanksgiving time and I think all were against Arkansas. The last game I saw there was when they were still doing construction on the upper deck on one side of the stadium.Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaPowderDaze
Agreed. I was merely pointing out that John L. is a superb recruiter to be able to bring the caliber of players he did into Louisville, Miami game notwithstanding, they are kicking ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSucks
Big things are happening in East Lansing. Mark my words.
Utah vs: USC......................Um No.
Utah vs: Miami....................I don't think so.
Utah vs: Oklahoma...............Yeah right.
Utah vs: Auburn...................Hell No.
Utah vs: FSU.......................Nope
Utah vs: Georgia..................Not this year or next year.
Utah vs: Tennessee..............Ha!
The only teams in the top ten I think they can beat is Wisconsin and Cal. But it would be cool to see the Utes Play with the big boys of the SEC and other big time programs. If they do go to a BCS game I hope you ute fans travel cause all of the teams listed above will.
They manage to pull it off in D-2 and D-3. I can see where it could be a scheduling problem, but it would be doable. The bigest problem is that no one wants to share a piece of the finanacial pie more than they have to. A conference like the SEC, who typically puts more than one school in a BCS bowl, makes millions of off it. Why would they ever support a system that may reduce their economic windfall?Quote:
Originally Posted by scoober
If Utah ends up in the Fiesta Bowl, the payoff is right around $10 million, which is split up 9 ways, Utah gets two shares, the other 7 teams in their conference get one share a piece. If the SEC places 2 schools, they split up $20 million.
I wish Utah would be able to join the Pac 10, but it dosn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon. They are the logical choice to join the conference, because they can compete academically with most (not USC, Stanford, Cal, or UCLA in most subjects) of the schools in the conference, and they certainly can compete with them in most sports (3-0 against Pac 10 football teams the last 2 years, with wins against Oregon, Cal, Arizona) the question is if there is another school in the west that can, because if the Pac 10 expands, it would be to 12 games so they could have a conference championship game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoober
What? Where does that logic come from? What player wouldn't want to settle the matter on the field instead of letting polls take care of it. Are you telling me last year the USC and LSU players would have said "No, we don't want to play an extra game and decide who's really better, we're kinda tired after all the football we've already played?"
Basically, it comes down to money, and the big conferences don't want to give it up. Scheduling and going into February isn't an issue. Don't forget they basically don't play any games all of December.
[QUOTE=CS]What? Where does that logic come from? What player wouldn't want to settle the matter on the field instead of letting polls take care of it. QUOTE]
A lot of NFL bound players don't want to play more games and risk injury. A lot of other players don't want more games because they would rather spend the second semester either studying (haha good one) or drinking/smoking/partying/whatever then freezing thier asses off on the practice field.
Coaches don't want more games because it means more injuries to deal with, plus it cuts into recruiting time in the second semester, and it cuts into the offseason for them as well. Hell, no one likes working more then they have to.
USC and LSU maybe would have loved a playoff last year, but they are some of the only ones, and in different circumstances, I bet they wouldn't want one either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSucks
Well, by that logic, what pro player would want to go to the Super Bowl and what college player would want to play in a bowl game? I mean, then they would have to give up their New Years partying and have to play. Not to mention the extra month a pro guy would have to be playing and working to go to the Super Bowl. Yeah, I'm sure that's sound logic.
most of the college players really want to play all the games they can, but there are those who jump at the chance to go pro as a junior for fear that they will get injured next year and miss out on a chance at the pro's. it does happen. just listen to a few of them speak when they are talking about sticking around for senior year. all most all of them bring up serious injury.
I never said I agree with them, I'm just saying thats the way it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Yes, players want to play, but they don't want to add on more games then they already play. NFL players look at the schedule at the begining of the season and they know that to win a superbowl they have to play at least 19 games, but no more then 20. They accept that as the rules, but I doubt too many players would support adding games to the schedule. The same is true in college for the players and coaches. They look at the schedule and they know that they won't play more then 13 games, and that by new years at the latest, they will be done. They are not going to be easily coerced into giving up even more of thier own time.
College players already sacrifice so much time for football, why make them give up even more? Yes, many get free educations, which is huge, but because of NCAA regulations, they can't hold jobs during the season, and many of them come from low-income familys, so they don't have much spending money. If the season starts earlier, they have even less of a chance to make a little pocket change.
If the season ends later, academics will suffer. College football is far from perfect, but sometimes things have to be sacrificed for the overall good.
It's not logic or an assumption, its the word straight from the mouth of Big Ten players in a survey as mentioned in an article on NPR a few weeks back.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
D-I college players are definitely competitors, but all in all, they are still there to go to school (like I said, except the SEC ;) ), because not everyone goes to the NFL.
Last year's situation is certainly a special case. I am not trying to say LSU and USC didn't want to play each other, I'm sure they did. They had only played 13 games, over the span of a regular season. But when faced with starting games in late July and playing through Jan/Feb, it becomes a little different.
I think people need to give Utah a little more credit. They are winning easily against their conference foes, like they should. They won easily against A&M, UNC, and Arizona, like they should. While they wouldn't be favored against another top 10 team, I think they could definitely be competitive. The top teams aren't as good as many people think, except for USC. There is a lot more parity in college football than 10 to 20 years ago. If the Utes run the table, they deserve a BCS bowl bid. I think all college fans deserve to see what happens when an undefeated smaller conference team plays a top team from a bigger conference.
As for the playoff thing, I have the perfect solution. We need a flexible 2 or 4 team playoff. That is all - not some 16 team playoff. Here's why:
1. When only two teams are unbeaten, they deserve to play each other for the title. How quickly we forget how perfect this system worked 2 years ago when Ohio State played Miami. That was a great game and gave us a true national champion. (Unless you didn't like the officiating) Since there won't be an extra title game, make the extra bowl game a BCS game and allow two more teams to make a BCS game.
2. When there are more than two teams that deserve a shot, play one extra game. (or really make one of the BCS games the title game) Give the top 4 teams a shot at the title by playing the normal bowl schedule, and then having an extra game to decide the title. This would work well for seasons like last year, where 3 teams deserved a shot. We would have had a USC/LSU title game one week after the normal bowls. Big time revenue. It's only one extra game. The student/athletes don't miss any important school as most schools are just starting up again.
3. 8 or 16 teams is too many for four main reasons:
a) It would take too long to play and conflict with final exam time in the middle of December.
b) Teams ranked that low don't deserve a shot at the title
c) It would diminish the value of the regular season. College Football has the BEST regular season because everything is on the line every week. If 16 teams get in, a team like USC knows it can lose one or two games and still win the title.
d) The advent of conference championship games has made it more difficult, as teams now play 12 or 13 games already. If teams were limited to 11 games, a playoff might be more feasible.
Now, who decides whether to have the extra playoff game? This is the tricky point. There should be some good guidelines, but it should ultimitely be left up to some committee of bowl guys and NCAA guys. It's not rocket science - when you have two teams that are far ahead of the rest, they play each other. When it's closer and three or four deserve a shot, then have a playoff.
this is off the topic, but does anyone have a copy of the sports illustrated that had the article about all the fellons of the sec? i remember that it had several players from lsu, fsu and the gators. if anyone has a link please post. it's fakin funny.
Excellent game. Many props to Purdue.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsugar
Purdue's D played far better than I expected against Michigan's passing attack, and Orton managed to keep his cool under pressure.
It will be interesting to see how the Big 10(11) shakes out in the next few weeks.
yeah the Big 10 is all wacky.....although it looks like Wisconsin is going to run the table......if they go undefeated, they win even though U of M is undefeated in the conference, right?
On another note, I can't handle watching Notre Dame lose to fucking Boston College anymore. I just can't do it. It pains me greatly to say this, but I think ND is going to lose every remaining game they have. For the rest of eternity. If I stick to that theory I can't be disappointed. :(
edit: I'm confused 13, are you a State fan or a U of M fan? It doesn't really matter, they both suck, but I'm just curious ;) :D .
MSU all the way, baby. Hopefully we can pull out a win in Ann Arbor this Saturday. :cool:
I agree with you that Wisconsin will take the Big 10 title, followed by Michigan and Purdue.
yeah I'll be rooting for State in that one too......I hate them a little less.
Sorry to pick up on this hijack ND rant but, I completely and wholeheartedly agree. It all started back in '93 I think? they were fresh off a win against FSU and BC comes in and beats ND with a field goal. They are and always will be ND's spoiler, no matter what the stakes. Same thing yesterday, ND just got up into the polls, and then they lose a squeaker to BC. As much as I like Ty Willingham, after some of the decisions that were made yesterday the rest of the alumni will have his head on a stick, and I am starting to agree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsugar
The only thing that could salvage the season is a random out-of-their-ass win against USC, but at this point I don't even think that will save Ty's job.
Who do you think they should replace Willingham with? Neuheisel?
Willingham brought integrity and wins back to ND after Davie mangled the program and the O'Leary scandal. Honestly, I think ND alum need to be a little more patient and give Willingham a chance. You can't bring a national program back into the spotlight with instability at the coaching rank.
I hope Nebraska comes to mind if/when the AD tosses around the idea of firing Willingham.
ND won't be competive for the national title again until they lower their acedemic requirements for players coming into the football program.
its as simple as that.
sucks the big10 doesnt have a championship game
sucks more there isnt a national playoff
That's a good point, [broad sweeping generalization] there are no coaches worthy of taking up the ND program left in the nation. [\broad sweeping generalization] It would require a "step down" move from someone in the NFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by 13
I like Willingham, but losing to BC when you shouldn't is unacceptable, and thats what all the donating alumni will focus on. That was a season ruiner yesterday, a final shot to the head after the loss to Purdue. ND requires an icon coach, or someone that ND will turn into an icon. Who's left? If they fire Willingham, they will just end up with another schlep like Davie or Faust.
RE: academic standards... it's a sad state of education and athletics. ND last won in '88. They've always had the same admissions standards... so are good athletes getting dumber? pampered in high school? apparently.
ND would be crazy to fire Willingham. There is nothing that gaurantees more of the same like firing a coach every 3 years. If they do, the most liekly candidate would be Urban Meyer (Utah's coach). He is a former assistant at ND and is considered one of the hottest coaches in the nation. He is young, and has turned both Bowling Green and the U around. His contract says that he can leave earlyto coach at threee schools, ND, Michigan, or Ohio State. Notre Dame would replace BYU as the most hated school amongst U fans if he were to leave.
Whoa....didn't mean to hijack........
But since it's already done :p i agree with Ripley 110%. Many ND faithful will disagree with this, but you can't have a top flite program and require every freshman to take calculus, and not accept Junior college transfers onto the football team. Many of the top freshman prospects are scared away by the rigorous academic requirements placed on them. Sad but true.
That's why I didn't go ;) :rolleyes: :D
edit: conjunctions connect
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...S!Quote:
Originally Posted by Helicrackjnky