College Football Week 10 thread (spoilers inside) - Page 3

k0ruptr · 11-02-2006, 10:45 PM

I now think the Rutgers - Louisville matchup will be one hell of a game!

Warhammer · 11-02-2006, 10:47 PM

This is one of the problems I have with the BCS and college football in general. Not only does when you lose matter, but it also depends upon the how the school you lost to was viewed at the time.

Texas got manhandled by OSU at Austin. Texas doesn't drop very far because OSU is viewed as the best team in the country.

Notre Dame gets manhandled by Michigan in South Bend, Notre Dame drops 10spots because no one looks at Michigan as a great team. Now Michigan is the #2 team in the country and some think they might beat OSU in Columbus, not a ton of people but some.

Arkansas gets drilled by USC at home. They are unranked at the time, they are the only undefeated team in SEC play, yet they sit at #13 because, in part, they got drilled by USC at home and they were unranked to begin the season.

etc.
etc.

Easy Mac · 11-02-2006, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I'm hoping they don't fall past 10 or 11, since their loss was on the road against the #5 team.

Depends on if the pollsters think Louisville is really the #5 team or if they just feel compelled to rate them that high, but don't think they're that good.

bhlloy · 11-03-2006, 12:14 AM

I don't agree with the consensus here. WVU has beaten absolutely nobody that 99% of the top 50 couldn't have beaten. They come up short in their first game against another team that haven't beaten anyone in the top 25, and they stay in the top 10? Ahead of ND (one loss to the #2 team), Cal (one loss to a top 25 team and a couple of quality wins) and Arkansas (one loss to the #9 team with their star player hobbled). To me it doesn't add up. VPI has it dead on.

I also fail to see how Rutgers are behind WVU. WVU & Louisville can be top 5 without beating anyone of note, but somehow Rutgers get penalised for it? For all we know, Rutgers could still be the best team in the conference. It's just the fact that they weren't at all rated in the preseason polls and WVU & Louisville were.

Swaggs · 11-03-2006, 12:46 AM

I don't have too big of a problem with people criticizing West Virginia after the game tonight, but they had earned their position in the polls entering this game. They had won 18 of their last 19 games (w/ the only loss to #3 VT last year), hadn't had a game closer than 17 points this year, returned 15 starters from a BCS-winning team, and have two of the best offensive players in the game (and both are just sophomores

).

Mr. Wednesday · 11-03-2006, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swaggs

How far do you guys think WVU drops in the human polls?

They should fall to at least ca. 12th, behind the one-loss teams that have actually beaten somebody.

Ragone · 11-03-2006, 02:48 AM

Well lets see.. Louisville beat at the time #17 miami.. went on the road no less to play K-state who is gonna be bowl eligible in the big 12, and hell Kentucky is even 2 wins away from bowl eligibility

the lesser quality teams Louisville played.. Temple/Middle tennessee state.. they played ON THE ROAD

At this point, i just hope Louisville can represent the Big east in the Bcs title game 2-3 years after the whole "big east doesn't deserve an automatic bcs bid" debacle.

That mantra now belongs to the acc

So the arguement that Louisville hasn't played anyone is completely bogus

Butter · 11-03-2006, 06:54 AM

I still don't buy Louisville as a title contender, but I hope they make it vs. the OSU-UM winner so we can settle this "is the Big East any good" crap.

Ksyrup · 11-03-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I also fail to see how Rutgers are behind WVU. WVU & Louisville can be top 5 without beating anyone of note, but somehow Rutgers get penalised for it? For all we know, Rutgers could still be the best team in the conference. It's just the fact that they weren't at all rated in the preseason polls and WVU & Louisville were.

For the life of me, I don't understand why people get so worked up about rankings like this. Who cares if Rutgers is still behind WVU after this week's polls? Rutgers plays Louisville next week! If they beat them, they'll end up in front of WVU. And then they play WVU later on. They'll have plenty of opportunity to prove they should be ranked ahead of WVU (and maybe Louisville) by the end of the regular season, which is all that matters. If they don't/can't prove it, then they're right where they belong.

As far as last night's game, I was surprised at how well Louisville's offense came together. Throw out the first 5 minutes of the 2nd half, and that game is a "whoever scores last wins" type game. That doesn't say much for either team's defense, but I knew WVU was going to put up a bunch of points. I just didn't know if Louisville could do so as consistently. But they did, and they got the fumble TD and the punt return TD (I thought Herbstreit did a great job explaining what happened there - the punt team went left, the punter shanked it right, and WVU was screwed), and that was all they needed.

ISiddiqui · 11-03-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhilloy

Ahead of ND (one loss to the #2 team)

Notre Dame?! They beat Georgia Tech, got pummled by the #2 team in the country while at home (it was Michigan's biggest margin of victory all season, btw), and have barely gotten past a pair of mediocre teams in UCLA and Michigan State.

Warhammer · 11-03-2006, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Of the one-loss teams, Texas at least has the best lost (to Ohio State). When you start looking at all of the SEC teams and USC/Cal, they have all beaten up on one another (Tenn. over Cal, Florida over Tenn., Auburn over Florida, Arkansas big over Auburn, USC big over Arkansas, and then USC losing to an unranked Oregon St.) and it is really hard to differentiate one from the other in my opinion, because through the chain, USC is the best team, but they lost to an unranked team.

By this logic, Notre Dame should be the second 1-loss team in line because they had the second best loss. Would anyone agree with that?

ChiMatt · 11-03-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Texas got manhandled by OSU at Austin. Texas doesn't drop very far because OSU is viewed as the best team in the country.

That is just not true. Sure they lost the game but it was because of turnovers, great Ohio St special teams, and not being able to finish drives. Texas outrushed OSU 172-79 and total yards went to OSU 348-326. This was all in McCoy's second start ever. So, of course OSU won and won comfortably but they were in no way manhandled. You don't average 5.5 yards a rush for 172 yards when a team is allegedly pushing you around.

albionmoonlight · 11-03-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ragone

"big east doesn't deserve an automatic bcs bid" debacle.

That mantra now belongs to the acc

Serves the ACC right. "Oh, I have an idea! Let's water down and destroy the premeire basketball conference in the country by engaging in a football motivated expansion. Yep. Then we will be really cool, just like the SEC and the Big 12!"

You sleep in the bed that you make for yourself. For now, the ACC is a watered-down basketball conference and a mid-major football conference. And it is all their fault.

Butter · 11-03-2006, 08:10 AM

They really do need to weight Strength of Schedule more. It should be human polls 50%, Computer polls 30%, and some RPI-esque rating 20%. As it stands, there's too much argument about who has the toughest road. I think if Florida finishes as a 1-loss team and there are no other unbeaten teams besides the OSU-UM winner, Florida should get the 2nd title game berth.

albionmoonlight · 11-03-2006, 08:12 AM

Human polls should not be a factor in the BCS at all, IMHO.

ChiMatt · 11-03-2006, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Human polls should not be a factor in the BCS at all, IMHO.

I might agree if they were allowed to take margin of victory into account. Without it the computers come up with some crazy results sometimes.

Swaggs · 11-03-2006, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

By this logic, Notre Dame should be the second 1-loss team in line because they had the second best loss. Would anyone agree with that?

Believe me, I am no Notre Dame fan, but if they beat USC, which I don't think they will, they will have a pretty solid argument.

st.cronin · 11-03-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

By this logic, Notre Dame should be the second 1-loss team in line because they had the second best loss. Would anyone agree with that?

No. Wisconsin lost to Michigan in a closer game IN MICHIGAN. That was a significantly better loss.

Warhammer · 11-03-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I don't have too big of a problem with people criticizing West Virginia after the game tonight, but they had earned their position in the polls entering this game. They had won 18 of their last 19 games (w/ the only loss to #3 VT last year), hadn't had a game closer than 17 points this year, returned 15 starters from a BCS-winning team, and have two of the best offensive players in the game (and both are just sophomores

).

But this is the problem with college polls. What WVU did last year should not have any impact on what they do this year. Should the Pittsburgh Steelers who didn't lose any major players from last year (Bettis was not a major part of the team on the field) be given an automatic playoff birth since they won it all last year? Anyone would think that is laughable.

Yet, in college football we go back to bowl games from last year and performance from last year to justify rankings this year. That is just wrong. Who is to say that the most valuable player in the WVU locker-room wasn't the 2nd string DE that graduated, etc., etc.

Warhammer · 11-03-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiMatt

That is just not true. Sure they lost the game but it was because of turnovers, great Ohio St special teams, and not being able to finish drives. Texas outrushed OSU 172-79 and total yards went to OSU 348-326. This was all in McCoy's second start ever. So, of course OSU won and won comfortably but they were in no way manhandled. You don't average 5.5 yards a rush for 172 yards when a team is allegedly pushing you around.

You can say that about any game. Teams often lose because of turnovers and special teams on the other side. How did Va. Tech win so many games under Beamer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiMatt

I might agree if they were allowed to take margin of victory into account. Without it the computers come up with some crazy results sometimes.

The problem with margin of victory is that a meaningless TD or FG either way can have a significant effect. Plus, once you get over 15 points in margin does it really matter how much you beat the other team by?

The other thing about college football that rubs me raw is how you can't have one day off. Now some people think that is great, but a botched call by an official can ruin your year. Look at Oklahoma v. Oregon, or the Auburn v. LSU game where problems with the officials conceivably cost both Oklahoma and LSU a win.

Warhammer · 11-03-2006, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No. Wisconsin lost to Michigan in a closer game IN MICHIGAN. That was a significantly better loss.

OK, then Wisconsin should be #2 in that line. That just makes my argument stronger, who thinks Wisconsin is the second best one loss team. Yet, they very well could be!

st.cronin · 11-03-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

OK, then Wisconsin should be #2 in that line. That just makes my argument stronger, who thinks Wisconsin is the second best one loss team. Yet, they very well could be!

Certainly not me. I think they are the BEST one loss team.

Swaggs · 11-03-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But this is the problem with college polls. What WVU did last year should not have any impact on what they do this year. Should the Pittsburgh Steelers who didn't lose any major players from last year (Bettis was not a major part of the team on the field) be given an automatic playoff birth since they won it all last year? Anyone would think that is laughable.

Yet, in college football we go back to bowl games from last year and performance from last year to justify rankings this year. That is just wrong. Who is to say that the most valuable player in the WVU locker-room wasn't the 2nd string DE that graduated, etc., etc.

How do you judge talent then? If a very successful team returns 70%+ (including all of their starting skill players) of their starters, I think you can look at their previous season as a measuring stick of their overall talent and a predicator of their teams' chances this year.

ChiMatt · 11-03-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You can say that about any game. Teams often lose because of turnovers and special teams on the other side. How did Va. Tech win so many games under Beamer?

Of course. But do you consider winning that way manhandling them? Now Michigan manhandled Notre Dame. They pushed them all over the place and dominated. OSU beat Texas solidily but they weren't pushed around and dominated either.

Butter · 11-03-2006, 08:46 AM

Illinois had them down 14 points, Wisconsin is worse than many of the 2 loss teams.

Warhammer · 11-03-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiMatt

Of course. But do you consider winning that way manhandling them? Now Michigan manhandled Notre Dame. They pushed them all over the place and dominated. OSU beat Texas solidily but they weren't pushed around and dominated either.

Which is why Texas would be the #1 one loss team by strength of loss.

But why should anyone be in the position to have to decide among all the one loss teams which one gets the chance to play for the national title. Maybe we get it right, but who is to say that an undefeated Rutgers shouldn't get that shot? Are we really getting a true matchup of the real top two teams with the BCS?

cthomer5000 · 11-03-2006, 09:03 AM

I think the "best loss" argument is pretty stupid, unless talked about in conjunction with "good wins."

We went 11-0 against Temple but lost to Ohio State, we deserve to be #2!!!!!

albionmoonlight · 11-03-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Which is why Texas would be the #1 one loss team by strength of loss.

But why should anyone be in the position to have to decide among all the one loss teams which one gets the chance to play for the national title. Maybe we get it right, but who is to say that an undefeated Rutgers shouldn't get that shot? Are we really getting a true matchup of the real top two teams with the BCS?

This causes us to consider what we really want in a championship game. Are we trying to match up the two best teams in the country, or the two most deserving teams in the country.

Sometimes, those are the same, and sometimes they are not.

Team A may be a 1 loss team who played quality competition all season long and who, if you asked people in the know, is one of the two best teams in the country.

Team B may be an undefeated team who is pretty good, but probably would get beaten by Team A, according to most "experts."

Do we want Team A or Team B in the title game. Team B has done everything that we have asked of it--win every game on its schedule. But Team A is probably the better team despite its loss.

I think that people can't even really agree on what we actually want out of a title game.

Blade6119 · 11-03-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I think the "best loss" argument is pretty stupid, unless talked about in conjunction with "good wins."

We went 11-0 against Temple but lost to Ohio State, we deserve to be #2!!!!!

I agree, but that applies to all teams. Who rutgers has beaten pails in comparison to most top 25 teams in my opinion, so them being so highly ranked basically for beating pitt is just as akward as texas saying they deserve a shot at the title right now over florida or cal(the two one-loss teams playing best right now in my opinion)

ISiddiqui · 11-03-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiMatt

I might agree if they were allowed to take margin of victory into account. Without it the computers come up with some crazy results sometimes.

Yep.. like who really believes Rutgers is better than Texas or Tennessee at this moment (well, aside from usual fanboys

)? Yet the computers think so.

cthomer5000 · 11-03-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I agree, but that applies to all teams. Who rutgers has beaten pails in comparison to most top 25 teams in my opinion, so them being so highly ranked basically for beating pitt is just as akward as texas saying they deserve a shot at the title right now over florida or cal(the two one-loss teams playing best right now in my opinion)

And I have never, even once pimped Rutgers for the national title game. Go back and read all of my posts. Even if the finish 12-0 I won't be upset in the least when thay aren't playing the Big 10 champ. So no real point in draggin them into this.

I just think the whole "best loss" argument is pretty weak to use as the only tool. I think it's fine to use it as one part of an argument, but some people use it exclusively.

Ragone · 11-03-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Serves the ACC right. "Oh, I have an idea! Let's water down and destroy the premeire basketball conference in the country by engaging in a football motivated expansion. Yep. Then we will be really cool, just like the SEC and the Big 12!"

You sleep in the bed that you make for yourself. For now, the ACC is a watered-down basketball conference and a mid-major football conference. And it is all their fault.

And you know what? i'm loving it

Huckleberry · 11-03-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The problem with margin of victory is that a meaningless TD or FG either way can have a significant effect. Plus, once you get over 15 points in margin does it really matter how much you beat the other team by?

Which is exactly why the good computer systems don't judge margin of victory linearly. Meaningless TDs and FGs do not have a significant effect. As an example, for nearly all computer systems that use MOV winning by 4 instead of 3 has more of an impact than winning by 40 instead of 30. Not much either way.

cartman · 11-03-2006, 11:45 AM

I just read that the Texas-Oklahoma State game will be shown on TBS with no commercials. That should be interesting.

Swaggs · 11-03-2006, 10:58 PM

Some good news from the WVU-UL game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2648764

Quote:

West Virginia-Louisville game a big hit with viewersAssociated Press

BRISTOL, Conn. -- The Louisville-West Virginia game drew ESPN's biggest audience for a Thursday night game and the second-most ever for a college football broadcast on the cable network.

ESPN said Friday that Louisville's 44-34 victory over West Virginia delivered an average of 4,916,000 households, based on a 5.3 rating.

The previous Thursday high was the Florida State-Virginia matchup Nov. 2, 1995, exactly 11 years earlier, when ESPN drew an average of 4,097,000 homes.

ESPN drew its biggest college football audience Sept. 4, when an average of 6,318,000 watched the Florida State-Miami game. A ratings point represents 923,000 households.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

Pretty good news for the Big East, when one of their games can deliver that type of viewership.

TazFTW · 11-04-2006, 01:02 AM

From KFFL

Quote:

NCAA | B. Davis offered North Carolina job
Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:53:39 -0800
Ivan Maisel and Joe Schad, of ESPN.com, reports former Cleveland Browns head coach Butch Davis has been tacitly offered the head coaching job at North Carolina University. A source said Butch Davis has the job if he wants it, but the school "would like a commitment soon, in two to three weeks from Butch." The school fired sixth-year head coach John Bunting, effective at the end of the 2006 season. Davis has started to assemble a coaching staff from the ranks of NFL and major college programs should he accept the job from North Carolina.

Here's a link to the ESPN.com article, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2648903

JonInMiddleGA · 11-04-2006, 11:50 AM

35 yd INT return and Ball State leads Michigan 9-7 at the end of Q1.

edit to add: Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Michigan drives the field quickly & easily to take a 14-9 lead.

Kodos · 11-04-2006, 12:06 PM

It's tough being a Hoosiers fan. You start to get a little confidence in them after some solid wins, and then you find yourself down 35-0 to Minnesota in the second quarter...

st.cronin · 11-04-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodos

It's tough being a Hoosiers fan. You start to get a little confidence in them after some solid wins, and then you find yourself down 35-0 to Minnesota in the second quarter...

That's really pathetic. Minnesota is a really bad football team this year.

Kodos · 11-04-2006, 12:31 PM

Yep. But we beat #15 Iowa a couple weeks ago, and thrashed MSU last week. Really inconsistent team. A bunch of young guys playing.

mauchow · 11-04-2006, 12:32 PM

Strange thing happened during the Badger-PSU game.. The Badgers just scored a touchdown with 24 seconds left in the half. The Badger coach decides to purposely run his players offsides during the kick not once, but twice. A tactic that ran the rest of the time off the clock for the half. LOL

Mustang · 11-04-2006, 12:32 PM

Well, that kickoff rule is definitely broken.

23 seconds left in the half in the Wisconsin game.. Wisconsin just scored and was kicking off. They ran the cover team obviously offsides and kicked.. the clock started and went to 14 seconds. Penn State took the penalty and Wisconsin rekicked.. sending everyone offsides again and winding the clock down to 4 seconds.

Smart doing that but, rule is still crap..

st.cronin · 11-04-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yep. But we beat #15 Iowa a couple weeks ago, and thrashed MSU last week. Really inconsistent team. A bunch of young guys playing.

What do you think of Juice? Does he excite you?

MJ4H · 11-04-2006, 12:57 PM

Miss. State handling Bama in Tuscaloosa right now. 24-10 MSU approaching halftime.

Oilers9911 · 11-04-2006, 01:11 PM

My God, you'd think Paterno was dying the way they are focusing on him on the bench. He got hit on the knee. Can we see the football game instead please?

INDalltheway · 11-04-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

My God, you'd think Paterno was dying the way they are focusing on him on the bench. He got hit on the knee. Can we see the football game instead please?

The thing is, there is a chance he might die.. You don't want to miss the opportunity of seeing the great JoPa die on the sidelines..

duckman · 11-04-2006, 01:40 PM

You can stick a fork into Missouri. They're done.

mauchow · 11-04-2006, 01:47 PM

According to the referee in the Badger game, Stocco brought the back into him, therefore he did fumble... except all the motion was going forward still for it to be an incomplete pass These refs are retarded.

cartman · 11-04-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

You can stick a fork into Missouri. They're done.

They still have a faint pulse. They need a 3 and out here.

Joe · 11-04-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's really pathetic. Minnesota is a really bad football team this year.

Yep.

http://www.fireglenmason.com

11-02-2006, 10:45 PM	#101
k0ruptr Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Las Vegas	I now think the Rutgers - Louisville matchup will be one hell of a game! __________________ Xbox Live Gamertag: k0ruptr My Favorite Teams : Chicago White Sox - Carolina Panthers - Orlando Magic - Phoenix Suns - Anaheim Ducks - Hawaii Warriors - Oregon Ducks

11-03-2006, 12:46 AM	#105
Swaggs Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I don't have too big of a problem with people criticizing West Virginia after the game tonight, but they had earned their position in the polls entering this game. They had won 18 of their last 19 games (w/ the only loss to #3 VT last year), hadn't had a game closer than 17 points this year, returned 15 starters from a BCS-winning team, and have two of the best offensive players in the game (and both are just sophomores ). __________________ DOWN WITH HATTRICK!!! The RWBL Are you reading In The Bleachers?

11-03-2006, 06:54 AM	#108
Butter Coordinator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Dayton, OH	I still don't buy Louisville as a title contender, but I hope they make it vs. the OSU-UM winner so we can settle this "is the Big East any good" crap. __________________ My listening habits Last edited by Butter : 11-03-2006 at 06:54 AM.

11-03-2006, 08:10 AM	#114
Butter Coordinator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Dayton, OH	They really do need to weight Strength of Schedule more. It should be human polls 50%, Computer polls 30%, and some RPI-esque rating 20%. As it stands, there's too much argument about who has the toughest road. I think if Florida finishes as a 1-loss team and there are no other unbeaten teams besides the OSU-UM winner, Florida should get the 2nd title game berth. __________________ My listening habits

11-03-2006, 08:46 AM	#125
Butter Coordinator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Dayton, OH	Illinois had them down 14 points, Wisconsin is worse than many of the 2 loss teams. __________________ My listening habits

11-02-2006, 10:47 PM	#102
Warhammer Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Dayton, OH	This is one of the problems I have with the BCS and college football in general. Not only does when you lose matter, but it also depends upon the how the school you lost to was viewed at the time. Texas got manhandled by OSU at Austin. Texas doesn't drop very far because OSU is viewed as the best team in the country. Notre Dame gets manhandled by Michigan in South Bend, Notre Dame drops 10spots because no one looks at Michigan as a great team. Now Michigan is the #2 team in the country and some think they might beat OSU in Columbus, not a ton of people but some. Arkansas gets drilled by USC at home. They are unranked at the time, they are the only undefeated team in SEC play, yet they sit at #13 because, in part, they got drilled by USC at home and they were unranked to begin the season. etc. etc.

11-03-2006, 12:14 AM	#104
bhlloy Coordinator Join Date: Nov 2003	I don't agree with the consensus here. WVU has beaten absolutely nobody that 99% of the top 50 couldn't have beaten. They come up short in their first game against another team that haven't beaten anyone in the top 25, and they stay in the top 10? Ahead of ND (one loss to the #2 team), Cal (one loss to a top 25 team and a couple of quality wins) and Arkansas (one loss to the #9 team with their star player hobbled). To me it doesn't add up. VPI has it dead on. I also fail to see how Rutgers are behind WVU. WVU & Louisville can be top 5 without beating anyone of note, but somehow Rutgers get penalised for it? For all we know, Rutgers could still be the best team in the conference. It's just the fact that they weren't at all rated in the preseason polls and WVU & Louisville were.

11-03-2006, 02:48 AM	#107
Ragone Pro Rookie Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kansas City, Mo	Well lets see.. Louisville beat at the time #17 miami.. went on the road no less to play K-state who is gonna be bowl eligible in the big 12, and hell Kentucky is even 2 wins away from bowl eligibility the lesser quality teams Louisville played.. Temple/Middle tennessee state.. they played ON THE ROAD At this point, i just hope Louisville can represent the Big east in the Bcs title game 2-3 years after the whole "big east doesn't deserve an automatic bcs bid" debacle. That mantra now belongs to the acc So the arguement that Louisville hasn't played anyone is completely bogus

11-03-2006, 08:12 AM	#115
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	Human polls should not be a factor in the BCS at all, IMHO.

11-03-2006, 11:45 AM	#134
cartman Death Herald Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas	I just read that the Texas-Oklahoma State game will be shown on TBS with no commercials. That should be interesting. __________________ Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint

11-04-2006, 11:50 AM	#137
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	35 yd INT return and Ball State leads Michigan 9-7 at the end of Q1. edit to add: Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Michigan drives the field quickly & easily to take a 14-9 lead. __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis Last edited by JonInMiddleGA : 11-04-2006 at 11:54 AM.

11-04-2006, 12:06 PM	#138
Kodos Resident Alien Join Date: Jun 2001	It's tough being a Hoosiers fan. You start to get a little confidence in them after some solid wins, and then you find yourself down 35-0 to Minnesota in the second quarter... Last edited by Kodos : 11-04-2006 at 12:06 PM.

11-04-2006, 12:31 PM	#140
Kodos Resident Alien Join Date: Jun 2001	Yep. But we beat #15 Iowa a couple weeks ago, and thrashed MSU last week. Really inconsistent team. A bunch of young guys playing. __________________ Author of The Bill Gates Challenge, as well as other groundbreaking dynasties.

11-04-2006, 12:32 PM	#141
mauchow Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Murfreesboro, TN	Strange thing happened during the Badger-PSU game.. The Badgers just scored a touchdown with 24 seconds left in the half. The Badger coach decides to purposely run his players offsides during the kick not once, but twice. A tactic that ran the rest of the time off the clock for the half. LOL

11-04-2006, 12:32 PM	#142
Mustang Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wisconsin	Well, that kickoff rule is definitely broken. 23 seconds left in the half in the Wisconsin game.. Wisconsin just scored and was kicking off. They ran the cover team obviously offsides and kicked.. the clock started and went to 14 seconds. Penn State took the penalty and Wisconsin rekicked.. sending everyone offsides again and winding the clock down to 4 seconds. Smart doing that but, rule is still crap.. __________________ You, you will regret what you have done this day. I will make you regret ever being born. Your going to wish you never left your mothers womb, where it was warm and safe... and wet. i am going to show you pain you never knew existed, you are going to see a whole new spectrum of pain, like a Rainboooow. But! This rainbow is not just like any other rainbow, its...

11-04-2006, 12:57 PM	#144
MJ4H Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hog Country	Miss. State handling Bama in Tuscaloosa right now. 24-10 MSU approaching halftime. __________________ My YouTube channel My Twitch channel My Sharona

11-04-2006, 01:11 PM	#145
Oilers9911 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2006	My God, you'd think Paterno was dying the way they are focusing on him on the bench. He got hit on the knee. Can we see the football game instead please?

11-04-2006, 01:47 PM	#148
mauchow Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Murfreesboro, TN	According to the referee in the Badger game, Stocco brought the back into him, therefore he did fumble... except all the motion was going forward still for it to be an incomplete pass These refs are retarded. Last edited by mauchow : 11-04-2006 at 01:54 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)