PDA

View Full Version : Michigan Losing To Oregon At The Half:



goreds2
09-08-2007, 06:23 PM
Oregan is beating Michigan 32-7. It is halftime. :p:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/scoreboard

SirFelixCat
09-08-2007, 06:26 PM
Go Ducks


:oregonian:

Milwaukie HS class of '93 :thumbup:

Spring~Fields
09-08-2007, 06:36 PM
I am getting the feeling that it's not going to be a good year for the Big Ten in football this year. Ohio State even has a weak schedule and doesn't look like much to me. :( yeah it's still early :eek:

Unassisted
09-08-2007, 06:42 PM
A thrashing at the Big House. Chad Henne is "injured" to start the 2nd half.

Matt700wlw
09-08-2007, 06:53 PM
Ha!!

(not to the injury, to the butt whipping)

guttle11
09-08-2007, 06:59 PM
I almost feel bad for them.

No, that's not true.

OSUredsFAN
09-08-2007, 07:26 PM
I love it. its now 39-7.

Go Bucks!!!!!!

BoydsOfSummer
09-08-2007, 07:30 PM
Quack!Quack!Quack!

OnBaseMachine
09-08-2007, 07:39 PM
Michigan player kicks Oregon player and there was no penalty called.

OnBaseMachine
09-08-2007, 07:46 PM
And now they call a 15 yard roughing the kicker when the kicker slipped and fell. Add in the non-touchdown call when Stewart was clearly in and you wonder if these refs are blind.

RedFanAlways1966
09-08-2007, 09:46 PM
And now they call a 15 yard roughing the kicker when the kicker slipped and fell. Add in the non-touchdown call when Stewart was clearly in and you wonder if these refs are blind.

Blind? Funny you should mention that, OBM. I think the blind ones are the people who voted Michigan as a top-5 team in the pre-season polls. Goes to show what a poll means that is done before the 1st kickoff.

uoduck1017
09-08-2007, 11:08 PM
I hope Dennis Dixon can play this well against USC. The Ducks will need everything to fall into place to pull off the upset.

pedro
09-08-2007, 11:14 PM
I hope Dennis Dixon can play this well against USC. The Ducks will need everything to fall into place to pull off the upset.

Dixon looked really good today.

RBA
09-08-2007, 11:32 PM
Dixon looked really good today.

It's early, but the Pac 10 is looking tough this year. USC, CAL, UCLA, AND NOW OREGON.

OnBaseMachine
09-08-2007, 11:49 PM
It's early, but the Pac 10 is looking tough this year. USC, CAL, UCLA, AND NOW OREGON.

Washington beat #22 Boise State today by two touchdowns to improve to 2-0. Jake Locker is going to be a star QB.

paintmered
09-09-2007, 12:13 AM
So who is Carr's replacement going to be?

pedro
09-09-2007, 12:14 AM
So who is Carr's replacement going to be?

Maybe Les Miles from LSU.

paintmered
09-09-2007, 12:21 AM
Maybe Les Miles from LSU.

He's got the connections and it's hard to argue with his success at LSU. He's a logical choice.

Please please anyone but Brian Kelly.... :pray::pray:

KronoRed
09-09-2007, 01:07 AM
Maybe Les Miles from LSU.

He fails to win the NC this year and Tiger fans will pay for his air fare ;)

Unassisted
09-09-2007, 01:12 AM
The ESPN article about Michigan's loss pointed out that the Wolverines have not won a football game since the death of Bo Schembechler.


Washington beat #22 Boise State today by two touchdowns to improve to 2-0. Jake Locker is going to be a star QB.

The Buckeyes will have their hands full next week at Washington.

RBA
09-09-2007, 01:40 AM
4th Qtr. Plenty of time left, but UNLV just took a 13-12 lead over No. 5 Wisconsin.

Unassisted
09-09-2007, 02:09 AM
4th Qtr. Plenty of time left, but UNLV just took a 13-12 lead over No. 5 Wisconsin.

The Badgers pulled it out 20-13 with some 4th Quarter heroics.

Were you pulling for TCU against Texas? I wouldn't have minded seeing the burnt orange crowd humbled. At least they swallowed 2 quarters of humble pie.

GAC
09-09-2007, 08:28 AM
The ESPN article about Michigan's loss pointed out that the Wolverines have not won a football game since the death of Bo Schembechler.



The Buckeyes will have their hands full next week at Washington.


What do you mean? The had their hands fulll Saturday! I was over in Columbus (Nationwide-district), and they had the game on the big screen TV outdoors.

3-2 at halftime? Give me a break!

I don't expect much from the Bucks this year; but I hope these "pick up games" help them to work the bugs out somewhat.

But I expect Washington to roll next week unless Tressell performs a miracle.

Unassisted
09-09-2007, 11:35 AM
What do you mean? The had their hands fulll Saturday! I was over in Columbus (Nationwide-district), and they had the game on the big screen TV outdoors.

3-2 at halftime? Give me a break!

I don't expect much from the Bucks this year; but I hope these "pick up games" help them to work the bugs out somewhat.

But I expect Washington to roll next week unless Tressell performs a miracle.

I didn't get to watch or listen yesterday, so I missed that halftime feeling of futility. These games against unranked non-conference opponents don't seem to merit being carried on XM or ABC or the ESPNs on my cable.

It's the "2" part of that score which gives me hope for their chances against Washington. The defense will keep them in games this season. We'll see whether Tressel has held back enough cards in his offense to outscore Washington.

LoganBuck
09-09-2007, 01:02 PM
It's the "2" part of that score which gives me hope for their chances against Washington. The defense will keep them in games this season. We'll see whether Tressel has held back enough cards in his offense to outscore Washington.

I have been rather bearish on Ohio State's prospects all along. The defense has held a 1-AA opponent and a team with two worthless quarterbacks and three freshman offensive lineman, without a touchdown. I think it is fair to say that the defense has not been tested yet. They outclassed Akron quite a bit yesterday, it wasn't even close, Ytown St had a better offense. Washington will be much tougher.

The offense is still a work in progress, and most noticeable, is the center, right guard, right tackle combination not working in the running game. I understand that they are young but wow, they get beat at the point of attack everytime. It happened last year with the veterans as well. Kirk Barton may be a decent pass blocker, but he doesn't have the strength to blast wide open holes. It also should be pointed out that they have been playing against defenses playing a safety in the box at all times, because teams are not respecting the passing game. Same thing happened in the national championship game, when Ginn went down, Florida moved the safeties up, because they don't have a speed merchant. Boeckman may become an decent QB down the road, but I have no use for Shoenbutt. He is a massive QB that ran the St Xavier option in HS, and still looks to run too much, and his mechanics of throwing the ball are very poor. He is pressing and it is showing.

I don't think they can win against Washington or Penn State. Wisconsin hasn't shown me that much yet, and Michigan is a train wreck.

How would you like to be the guys in Vegas this week setting the line for the Notre Dame-Michigan game?

Matt700wlw
09-09-2007, 01:32 PM
My prediction...if ND beats Michigan, which I could see...Carr's gone by next Monday.

pedro
09-09-2007, 01:36 PM
My prediction...if ND beats Michigan, which I could see...Carr's gone by next Monday.

Not a chance in hell in hell Michigan ever fires Lloyd during the season. Unless, of course, he pulls a Gary Moeller, which I don't see happening.

Lloyd will be here all year long, even though it looks like they'll probably struggle to win 6 games this year, then he'll retire at the end of the season.

KronoRed
09-09-2007, 02:30 PM
It's foolish to dump your coach 4 weeks in, then the season is totally shot as you hear non stop coaching rumors for the rest of the year.

Unassisted
09-09-2007, 02:45 PM
Not a chance in hell in hell Michigan ever fires Lloyd during the season. Unless, of course, he pulls a Gary Moeller, which I don't see happening.

Lloyd will be here all year long, even though it looks like they'll probably struggle to win 6 games this year, then he'll retire at the end of the season.

I agree. Based on Carr's calm, determined demeanor and well-chosen comments at the post-game press conference, I don't see him going off the deep end.

It would be extremely bad form for UM to cut the guy loose just for losing a few games when he's so close to vesting in his retirement bonus. A school can't do something like that and think that top-flight coaches will not take it into consideration when they're being courted by the school for future openings.

OnBaseMachine
09-09-2007, 02:52 PM
What do you mean? The had their hands fulll Saturday! I was over in Columbus (Nationwide-district), and they had the game on the big screen TV outdoors.

3-2 at halftime? Give me a break!

I don't expect much from the Bucks this year; but I hope these "pick up games" help them to work the bugs out somewhat.

But I expect Washington to roll next week unless Tressell performs a miracle.

Washington is improving quickly but I don't think they are quite ready to knock off Ohio State just yet.

LoganBuck
09-09-2007, 03:25 PM
Washington is improving quickly but I don't think they are quite ready to knock off Ohio State just yet.

Ohio State's offense is a house of cards built on a card table with Doritos under the legs to keep it level.

Sea Ray
09-09-2007, 04:21 PM
Dixon looked really good today.

Slow, Big Ten defenses will make you look that way.

Sea Ray
09-09-2007, 04:21 PM
A big mistake Mich made was scheduling these two spread offense teams. I can't understand why they did that. Does any Big Ten team run a spread O?

Mich doesn't recruit athletes to defend the spread nor are their coaches trained to defeat it. Mich is set up to win Big Ten games vs teams like Penn St, OSU and Wisc 'cause that's how you get to the Rose Bowl. They don't have enough speedy athletes to chase down a quick QB like Dixon nor cover 5 scat back WRs. I blame U of M as a whole for scheduling these teams as much as Lloyd Carr.

pedro
09-09-2007, 05:02 PM
A big mistake Mich made was scheduling these two spread offense teams. I can't understand why they did that. Does any Big Ten team run a spread O?

Mich doesn't recruit athletes to defend the spread nor are their coaches trained to defeat it. Mich is set up to win Big Ten games vs teams like Penn St, OSU and Wisc 'cause that's how you get to the Rose Bowl. They don't have enough speedy athletes to chase down a quick QB like Dixon nor cover 5 scat back WRs. I blame U of M as a whole for scheduling these teams as much as Lloyd Carr.


It sure would be nice if OSU had the guts to schedule better teams.

LoganBuck
09-09-2007, 05:33 PM
It sure would be nice if OSU had the guts to schedule better teams.

:thumbdown:

Texas and UC last year
When the Washington game was scheduled for this year they were very good, and now on the rebound
USC home and away 08 and 09
Miami(Fl) home and away 2010 and 11
Oklahoma home and away 2012 and 13
Home and away with UC in those years as well, like UC or not, they are a BCS team.

LoganBuck
09-09-2007, 05:38 PM
A big mistake Mich made was scheduling these two spread offense teams. I can't understand why they did that. Does any Big Ten team run a spread O?

Mich doesn't recruit athletes to defend the spread nor are their coaches trained to defeat it. Mich is set up to win Big Ten games vs teams like Penn St, OSU and Wisc 'cause that's how you get to the Rose Bowl. They don't have enough speedy athletes to chase down a quick QB like Dixon nor cover 5 scat back WRs. I blame U of M as a whole for scheduling these teams as much as Lloyd Carr.

Ohio State has run a version of the spread the last three years, and they will come back to it, as the offense matures.

Northwestern runs the spread and they are good every 3-4 years.

Purdue, runs the spread, but they haven't had the players since the Drew Brees years.

Penn State should run the spread this year, they have speed.

If Michigan hasn't learned enough about the spread from watching Troy Smith and Co, they never will.

OSUredsFAN
09-09-2007, 05:42 PM
A big mistake Mich made was scheduling these two spread offense teams. I can't understand why they did that. Does any Big Ten team run a spread O?

Mich doesn't recruit athletes to defend the spread nor are their coaches trained to defeat it. Mich is set up to win Big Ten games vs teams like Penn St, OSU and Wisc 'cause that's how you get to the Rose Bowl. They don't have enough speedy athletes to chase down a quick QB like Dixon nor cover 5 scat back WRs. I blame U of M as a whole for scheduling these teams as much as Lloyd Carr.

Not the last few years. Go Bucks!!!!

MWM
09-09-2007, 06:12 PM
It sure would be nice if OSU had the guts to schedule better teams.


What Logan said. OSU can be criticized for a lot of things, but lack of willingness to schedule tough teams isn't one of them. How many good programs have the "guts" to schedule USC, Oklahoma, and Texas? Not many.

Unassisted
09-09-2007, 06:36 PM
It sure would be nice if OSU had the guts to schedule better teams.

You can't pin that one on the Buckeyes. The unforgiving nature of the BCS poll has put an end to that practice for most BCS contenders. Incentive-laden deals to coaches put a premium on running the table and gaining that invitation to the biggest game in January. Putting a Top 25 counterpart on the non-conference slate these days is like going double or nothing on your team's chances of playing in the BCS Championship - half the time, you wind up with nothing.

pedro
09-09-2007, 08:00 PM
What Logan said. OSU can be criticized for a lot of things, but lack of willingness to schedule tough teams isn't one of them. How many good programs have the "guts" to schedule USC, Oklahoma, and Texas? Not many.

This years schedule is pretty soft. (although Michigan's should have been too, if they were any good.)

pedro
09-09-2007, 08:02 PM
You can't pin that one on the Buckeyes. The unforgiving nature of the BCS poll has put an end to that practice for most BCS contenders. Incentive-laden deals to coaches put a premium on running the table and gaining that invitation to the biggest game in January. Putting a Top 25 counterpart on the non-conference slate these days is like going double or nothing on your team's chances of playing in the BCS Championship - half the time, you wind up with nothing.


I hate that type of thinking. It lessens college football IMO and leads to a world where everyone schedules patsies so they can hopefully go undefeated.

Sea Ray
09-09-2007, 08:05 PM
What Logan said. OSU can be criticized for a lot of things, but lack of willingness to schedule tough teams isn't one of them. How many good programs have the "guts" to schedule USC, Oklahoma, and Texas? Not many.

I don't know. OSU tends to schedule one "real" team in its non conference schedule and two teams like Akron, Youngstown St, Northern Illinios, Miami (OH), etc. This year Washington is a formidable opponent. It will be an impressive win if OSU can pull it off.

MWM
09-09-2007, 08:14 PM
I don't know. OSU tends to schedule one "real" team in its non conference schedule and two teams like Akron, Youngstown St, Northern Illinios, Miami (OH), etc. This year Washington is a formidable opponent. It will be an impressive win if OSU can pull it off.

How many teams schedule more than one premier non-conference team? Not many. The only ones I can think of are the schools that have non-conference rivalries that are also powerhouses. The Florida schools always play each other, and USC and Michigan also play Notre Dame. Other than that, I can't think of anyone who does it. And there's a reason why there was talk of Notre Dame and Michigan taking a few year hiatus from their rivalry.

Heck, Michigan rarely schedules powerhouse schools, if ever. They've got Notre Dame, but it's only been the past couple of seasons that they've been any good. And I don't see the equivalent of a Texas or USC on their schedule either.

For the record, I think OSU gets beat handily this week against Washington. The Buckeyes just aren't that good either. The defense has looked good, but the offense is not good at all.

Sea Ray
09-09-2007, 08:17 PM
Ohio State has run a version of the spread the last three years, and they will come back to it, as the offense matures.

Northwestern runs the spread and they are good every 3-4 years.

Purdue, runs the spread, but they haven't had the players since the Drew Brees years.

Penn State should run the spread this year, they have speed.

If Michigan hasn't learned enough about the spread from watching Troy Smith and Co, they never will.


What really makes a spread offense is a speedy, mobile QB and no Big Ten team has an athletic QB like Oregon State and App St have. Any team can send out 5 wides and call it a spread but a mobile QB is what really makes it go. This is why you don't see it in the NFL. The QBs would need run and running QBs get killed in the NFL.

I agree that at this point Mich never will understand how to beat a spread O. I'll give 'em a clue: you rush more guys than there are blockers. In a spread you only have 5 guys in to block. You send in a speedy zone blitzer to either sack the QB or at least make him make a quick decision.

Sea Ray
09-09-2007, 08:33 PM
How many teams schedule more than one premier non-conference team? Not many. The only ones I can think of are the schools that have non-conference rivalries that are also powerhouses. The Florida schools always play each other, and USC and Michigan also play Notre Dame. Other than that, I can't think of anyone who does it. And there's a reason why there was talk of Notre Dame and Michigan taking a few year hiatus from their rivalry.


It'd be nuts to schedule more than one premier non conference opponent, although it would be nice for us fans. But really there's no reason why OSU should be scheduling a 1-AA team and Akron.

It's scheduling like that which causes the Big Ten to be overrated as they go into the Bowl season. In December last year the debate was not whether OSU was heads and tails better than any other team in the country but whether any team other than the Buckeyes could beat Mich. The reason that looked so silly was because of the putz schedules played by OSU and Mich. No championship game, no Wisconsin on OSU's schedule, and a very weak Big Ten field.

BuckeyeRed27
09-09-2007, 08:54 PM
It'd be nuts to schedule more than one premier non conference opponent, although it would be nice for us fans. But really there's no reason why OSU should be scheduling a 1-AA team and Akron.

It's scheduling like that which causes the Big Ten to be overrated as they go into the Bowl season. In December last year the debate was not whether OSU was heads and tails better than any other team in the country but whether any team other than the Buckeyes could beat Mich. The reason that looked so silly was because of the putz schedules played by OSU and Mich. No championship game, no Wisconsin on OSU's schedule, and a very weak Big Ten field.

I don't have time to look up the exact stats right now but the Big 10 has done pretty well in bowl games over the past few years. I think two years ago they had the best record of any conference.

Yachtzee
09-09-2007, 10:47 PM
It'd be nuts to schedule more than one premier non conference opponent, although it would be nice for us fans. But really there's no reason why OSU should be scheduling a 1-AA team and Akron.

It's scheduling like that which causes the Big Ten to be overrated as they go into the Bowl season. In December last year the debate was not whether OSU was heads and tails better than any other team in the country but whether any team other than the Buckeyes could beat Mich. The reason that looked so silly was because of the putz schedules played by OSU and Mich. No championship game, no Wisconsin on OSU's schedule, and a very weak Big Ten field.

Actually, there is a lot of political pressure on OSU to schedule in-state opponents, especially since the schedule expanded to 12 games. Those games bring a lot of money in for the Akrons, BGSUs, Kents, Miamis, etc., who are then able to improve their own programs. Kent State's football program has improved by leaps and bounds since the Big 10 started playing MAC teams regularly. BGSU is successful enough against Big 10 teams (4-5 now) that they could almost be a Big 10 candidate themselves. But this wasn't always the case. From what I've heard, OSU has gotten pressure in the past from Ohio politicians, with state funding and investment as a carrot, to schedule more in-state match-ups to help out other programs and keep some of the revenue OSU football generates in-state.

Personally, I like it. It helps non-major conference schools improve their programs. It's not unlike SEC teams feasting on teams like Troy State only to see Troy State using the money they make on those match-ups to improve their program to give those teams a run for their money. This past weekend, I watched Akron-OSU, BGSU-Michigan State, and Miami-Minnesota and the MAC teams held on long enough to make each of those teams really sweat. I think it's a sign of improvement in the level of play in the MAC. In the 90's, each of those games would have been blowouts in favor of the Big 10 teams.

paintmered
09-09-2007, 10:56 PM
I don't have time to look up the exact stats right now but the Big 10 has done pretty well in bowl games over the past few years. I think two years ago they had the best record of any conference.


2001: 2-4
2002: 5-2
2003: 3-5
2004: 3-3
2005: 3-4
2006: 2-5

Combined: 18-23, .439

LoganBuck
09-10-2007, 01:12 AM
Actually, there is a lot of political pressure on OSU to schedule in-state opponents, especially since the schedule expanded to 12 games. Those games bring a lot of money in for the Akrons, BGSUs, Kents, Miamis, etc., who are then able to improve their own programs. Kent State's football program has improved by leaps and bounds since the Big 10 started playing MAC teams regularly. BGSU is successful enough against Big 10 teams (4-5 now) that they could almost be a Big 10 candidate themselves. But this wasn't always the case. From what I've heard, OSU has gotten pressure in the past from Ohio politicians, with state funding and investment as a carrot, to schedule more in-state match-ups to help out other programs and keep some of the revenue OSU football generates in-state.

Personally, I like it. It helps non-major conference schools improve their programs. It's not unlike SEC teams feasting on teams like Troy State only to see Troy State using the money they make on those match-ups to improve their program to give those teams a run for their money. This past weekend, I watched Akron-OSU, BGSU-Michigan State, and Miami-Minnesota and the MAC teams held on long enough to make each of those teams really sweat. I think it's a sign of improvement in the level of play in the MAC. In the 90's, each of those games would have been blowouts in favor of the Big 10 teams.

Yep the boys at Broad and High were sick of seeing Rice and Pittsburgh brought in to be pounded and taking home hundreds of thousands of dollars, while the MAC schools were cutting scholarships and programs to get in line with Title IX. All the while running athletic programs in the red. It is the only thing that I give any credit to Bob Taft for. Remember Youngstown State is in the same boat, just a level down. As part of the deal they got Ohio State to throw in wireless headsets for the coaches, because they could not afford them.

bucksfan2
09-10-2007, 10:45 AM
Actually, there is a lot of political pressure on OSU to schedule in-state opponents, especially since the schedule expanded to 12 games. Those games bring a lot of money in for the Akrons, BGSUs, Kents, Miamis, etc., who are then able to improve their own programs. Kent State's football program has improved by leaps and bounds since the Big 10 started playing MAC teams regularly. BGSU is successful enough against Big 10 teams (4-5 now) that they could almost be a Big 10 candidate themselves. But this wasn't always the case. From what I've heard, OSU has gotten pressure in the past from Ohio politicians, with state funding and investment as a carrot, to schedule more in-state match-ups to help out other programs and keep some of the revenue OSU football generates in-state.

Personally, I like it. It helps non-major conference schools improve their programs. It's not unlike SEC teams feasting on teams like Troy State only to see Troy State using the money they make on those match-ups to improve their program to give those teams a run for their money. This past weekend, I watched Akron-OSU, BGSU-Michigan State, and Miami-Minnesota and the MAC teams held on long enough to make each of those teams really sweat. I think it's a sign of improvement in the level of play in the MAC. In the 90's, each of those games would have been blowouts in favor of the Big 10 teams.

I am all for OSU giving the state schools a game ever 5 years. Playing Akron, Kent St., and BGSU are good for recruiting and playing OU brings in quite a bit of income. I would almost throw Toledo in there but I don't think they are as good of recruiting area and they also have a pretty goo football program and could give OSU a scare every once in a while. I think with UC playing in the Big East you will see OSU go away from playing them. OSU usually schedules 1 game per year against a BCS conference team. This year it is Washington (which was scheduled years agon) and USC and Miami are on the horizon. I dont know if you want to play 2 games in a row against BCS schools right before big 10 play. As for YSU good for them. They gave us Tressel and they are rewarded with a huge payday for a D2 school.

Sea Ray
09-10-2007, 10:50 AM
I don't have time to look up the exact stats right now but the Big 10 has done pretty well in bowl games over the past few years. I think two years ago they had the best record of any conference


2001: 2-4
2002: 5-2
2003: 3-5
2004: 3-3
2005: 3-4
2006: 2-5

Combined: 18-23, .439

I am continually amazed at the inflated view Big Ten fans have of their conference. The above illustrates this beautifully. This Buck fan honestly thought that the Big Ten had done well in recent Bowl games whereas the facts say otherwise. One winning year out of 6 is about as poor as it gets.

Being a fan is great. We're all big fans of something around here but don't lose sight of reality.

Chip R
09-10-2007, 10:56 AM
As for YSU good for them. They gave us Tressel and they are rewarded with a huge payday for a D2 school.


YSU is a Division 1 school.

Sea Ray
09-10-2007, 11:21 AM
YSU is a Division 1 school.

Division 1 but aren't they a 1-AA?

OUReds
09-10-2007, 11:29 AM
I am continually amazed at the inflated view Big Ten fans have of their conference. The above illustrates this beautifully. This Buck fan honestly thought that the Big Ten had done well in recent Bowl games whereas the facts say otherwise. One winning year out of 6 is about as poor as it gets.

Being a fan is great. We're all big fans of something around here but don't lose sight of reality.

Bowl winning percentage is just one piece of a larger puzzle. Last year the Big East had the best bowl winning percentage, were they the best conference? Maybe so, but I would need more then that to make that claim.

The Big Ten year in and year out is very competitive in OOC BCS winning percentage, and has the most BCS berths over the past 9 years, with the second most BCS wins over that span.

Honestly, the BCS is based in part on the theory that over the long run, all the BCS conferences are more or less equal to each other. Given that every conference has won a championship since the BCS began, that assumption is pretty solid.

While conferences obviously cycle up and down, arguing which is better then the other in the long run is just pointless smack-talk.

Chip R
09-10-2007, 11:51 AM
Division 1 but aren't they a 1-AA?

It's called FCS: Football Championship Subdivision now. But they were 1-AA but that is different than Division 2.

Sea Ray
09-10-2007, 12:06 PM
While conferences obviously cycle up and down, arguing which is better then the other in the long run is just pointless smack-talk.

Agreed. Best conference talk goes on and on and has no end. That's why I limited my post to an apples to apples fact. One poster said the Big Ten had fared well in Bowl games thus I pointed out that was pure folly while making no mention of what conference may be better.

OUReds
09-10-2007, 12:29 PM
Agreed. Best conference talk goes on and on and has no end. That's why I limited my post to an apples to apples fact. One poster said the Big Ten had fared well in Bowl games thus I pointed out that was pure folly while making no mention of what conference may be better.

Point taken, but quotes such as....

"Slow, Big Ten defenses will make you look that way."

"Mich doesn't recruit athletes to defend the spread nor are their coaches trained to defeat it."

"The reason that looked so silly was because of the putz schedules played by OSU and Mich."

....are hardly dispassionate, neutral, or fair statements. They say a lot about how you perceive the quality of Big Ten Football.

As silly as it is to claim that Big Ten football is the best thing since sliced bread (something that honestly doesn't happen all that often on this particular board), it's equal folly not to acknowledge it's many strengths.

Sea Ray
09-10-2007, 12:41 PM
Point taken, but quotes such as....

"Slow, Big Ten defenses will make you look that way."

"Mich doesn't recruit athletes to defend the spread nor are their coaches trained to defeat it."

"The reason that looked so silly was because of the putz schedules played by OSU and Mich."

....are hardly dispassionate, neutral, or fair statements. They say a lot about how you perceive the quality of Big Ten Football.

As silly as it is to claim that Big Ten football is the best thing since sliced bread (something that honestly doesn't happen all that often on this particular board), it's equal folly not to acknowledge it's many strengths.

If you want to debate those statements have at it. Do you want dispassionate, neutral statements on this board? You won't get that from me. They do say a lot about how I perceive Big Ten football. But what's your gripe, that I didn't acknowledge the Big Ten's many strengths?

I didn't post here to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the Big Ten. I did point out issues such as the slow foot speed of Big Ten defenses and the schedule thus far by Ohio State.

OUReds
09-10-2007, 01:01 PM
[QUOTE=Sea Ray;1462157]But what's your gripe, that I didn't acknowledge the Big Ten's many strengths?[QUOTE]

Yes, that's my gripe. You take the Big Ten fans to task for "losing sight of reality" (the big ten iz the bestest evar!) based on a single fact that tells only a fraction of the whole story, while you essentially do the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum (look at thoze slow big ten teeamz LOL, they'll never compete).

I could debate the points I listed, but since they are purely subjective statements with no facts behind them (which is fine, I don't expect a dissertation attatched to every post), there isn't anything to debate other then to say that I disagree with much of it.

No offense meant mate, I just think you are being unfair.

registerthis
09-10-2007, 01:03 PM
How many teams schedule more than one premier non-conference team? Not many.

A better question is, why would you? Teams that play in top-tier conferences don't gain anything by scheduling more than one top-notch non-conference opponent anyway. You schedule one game against a top 10 non-conference opponent, and you're pretty much guaranteed to play 3-4 conference games against teams in the top 25, if not higher. That's more than sufficient to prove a team's mettle. And very, very few teams play more than 4-5 games in a season against top 25 teams. Criticizing OSU's schedule is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

registerthis
09-10-2007, 01:16 PM
One poster said the Big Ten had fared well in Bowl games thus I pointed out that was pure folly while making no mention of what conference may be better.

The Big 10 is 8-7 all-time in BCS games. The 8 wins is second in all conferences (behind the SEC's 9) and the 15 BCS games is first among all conferences.

Perhaps the Big 10 doesn't fare so well in second-tier Toilet Bowl games, but they've more than held their own in the games that actually mean something; i.e. the BCS games. So, as long as we're just throwing out facts to support the "pure folly" of thinking that the Big 10 is successful in postseason play, I'm throwing out some context.

registerthis
09-10-2007, 01:18 PM
It's called FCS: Football Championship Subdivision now.

What an idiotic mandate by the NCAA to "officially" change the names of 1-A and 1-AA. Aside from the unnecessary verbiage, it makes Division 1-AA (the "Championship" subdivision) sound more legitimate. Heck, maybe they are...

KronoRed
09-10-2007, 02:29 PM
It's a plot to show people that playoffs in college football are possible for the small schools, so why not the big schools

Oh yes..it's a plot :)

Chip R
09-10-2007, 02:39 PM
A better question is, why would you.

Couple of reasons come to mind. Money is one of them and that goes hand in hand with television exposure. Let's say you're tOSU and ESPN or ABC come to you with a proposal to play someone like Texas. You know Texas is going to be really tough every year and there's a chance you might lose that game which could dampen any BCS aspirations. You could play Bowling Green or Akron or UC but they are offering not only a pile of money but a national TV game too whereas the other game may not be televised or may be on the Big 10 Network. National exposure is always good for a program since potential recruits from all over the country will be watching.

Another reason may be to make your program stronger. When Bobby Bowden forst started out at Florida State, they had little tradition to speak of. The program wasn't even on anybody's radar. But he said he would play anyone anywhere. This led to them playing at places like Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, etc. They eventually got good enough to start beating some of those teams and going to bowl games and look where they are now. They are one of the elite schools in college football. Playing tough opponents on the road may not have been the catalyst for that but when you play a tough opponent, you know where you stand.

If it were in the best interests for these schools to play cupcakes, they would. tOSU would play lower level Division 1 schools and get the automatic win.

Chip R
09-10-2007, 02:40 PM
What an idiotic mandate by the NCAA to "officially" change the names of 1-A and 1-AA. Aside from the unnecessary verbiage, it makes Division 1-AA (the "Championship" subdivision) sound more legitimate. Heck, maybe they are...


Whatever they call them, they are still Division 1 and crown the only NCAA champion in football.

registerthis
09-10-2007, 02:49 PM
Whatever they call them, they are still Division 1 and crown the only NCAA champion in football.

...which I'm not arguing against. Heck, look around and you'd find me to be among the biggest proponents of a true playoff system for divison 1-A.

registerthis
09-10-2007, 02:56 PM
Couple of reasons come to mind. Money is one of them and that goes hand in hand with television exposure. Let's say you're tOSU and ESPN or ABC come to you with a proposal to play someone like Texas. You know Texas is going to be really tough every year and there's a chance you might lose that game which could dampen any BCS aspirations. You could play Bowling Green or Akron or UC but they are offering not only a pile of money but a national TV game too whereas the other game may not be televised or may be on the Big 10 Network. National exposure is always good for a program since potential recruits from all over the country will be watching.

True, which is why most major programs schedule at least one marquee non-conference matchup each year.


If it were in the best interests for these schools to play cupcakes, they would. tOSU would play lower level Division 1 schools and get the automatic win.

It's in the best interests of schools to play a mix of opponents--not too many cupcakes, but not too many difficult matchups, either. Personally, I'd have liked to have seen a team other than Akron in Ohio Stadium last Saturday. And Washington doesn't thrill me much, either (even though they will probably give tOSU a game). But I don't want OSU to play Florida, Texas and USC every year, either. With the way division 1-A college football is set-up, a single loss can be cataclysmic for a team. When other marquee teams are out there playing the Florida International's and San Jose State's of the world, why out your team unnecessarily at risk? Particularly when you're a name school in a marquee conference, there just isn't that much of a reward for chocking your schedule full of top 10 teams.

bucksfan2
09-10-2007, 03:05 PM
True, which is why most major programs schedule at least one marquee non-conference matchup each year.



It's in the best interests of schools to play a mix of opponents--not too many cupcakes, but not too many difficult matchups, either. Personally, I'd have liked to have seen a team other than Akron in Ohio Stadium last Saturday. And Washington doesn't thrill me much, either (even though they will probably give tOSU a game). But I don't want OSU to play Florida, Texas and USC every year, either. With the way division 1-A college football is set-up, a single loss can be cataclysmic for a team. When other marquee teams are out there playing the Florida International's and San Jose State's of the world, why out your team unnecessarily at risk? Particularly when you're a name school in a marquee conference, there just isn't that much of a reward for chocking your schedule full of top 10 teams.

I agree with you that I dont want to see OSU playing Washington but I realize that it is so tough to schedule a meaningful game years in advance. This game at washington was part of the home and home series that OSU first played in the 2003 when Washington had a good football team. This was also scheduled probably 5-10 years prior to that. What I found interesting is that in OSU's student newspaper i believe in 2002 (natl championship season) they wrote how Miami was signed to a home and home game in 2012 and 13 (or something like that). You can't just go out and make your schedule the year before you have to do it years in advance which is even more difficult.

Sea Ray
09-10-2007, 03:20 PM
Yes, that's my gripe. You take the Big Ten fans to task for "losing sight of reality" (the big ten iz the bestest evar!) based on a single fact that tells only a fraction of the whole story, while you essentially do the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum (look at thoze slow big ten teeamz LOL, they'll never compete).


No offense meant mate, I just think you are being unfair.

This is not the forum to tell the whole story. It'd be boring to list all the strengths and weaknesses of the Big Ten.

Don't worry about me being offended. I don't get offended at anything around here. This ain't real life. This is what we do in our breaks from real life. :)

pedro
09-10-2007, 03:32 PM
did I mention that I absolutely loath the BCS?

registerthis
09-10-2007, 03:35 PM
did I mention that I absolutely loath the BCS?

I think that's pretty much a universal sentiment.

gonelong
09-10-2007, 03:49 PM
2001: 2-4
2002: 5-2
2003: 3-5
2004: 3-3
2005: 3-4
2006: 2-5

Combined: 18-23, .439

Any idea of where the teams were ranked heading into the game?

I could be wrong on a larger scale but one of buddies and I noticed one season the Big10+1 seemed to be the lower ranked team in every bowl game that season, and predictably didn't fare all that well.

I did a few google searches but was unable to come up with anything.

GL

Sea Ray
09-10-2007, 04:00 PM
did I mention that I absolutely loath the BCS?

The BCS system is the pits but it's the best thing short of a playoff. Seeing how OSU and MICH fared in the post season last year I doubt the Big Ten would have had a representative in the Championship game if there'd been a playoff of 8 or 16 teams.

Chip R
09-10-2007, 04:09 PM
It's in the best interests of schools to play a mix of opponents--not too many cupcakes, but not too many difficult matchups, either. Personally, I'd have liked to have seen a team other than Akron in Ohio Stadium last Saturday. And Washington doesn't thrill me much, either (even though they will probably give tOSU a game). But I don't want OSU to play Florida, Texas and USC every year, either. With the way division 1-A college football is set-up, a single loss can be cataclysmic for a team. When other marquee teams are out there playing the Florida International's and San Jose State's of the world, why out your team unnecessarily at risk? Particularly when you're a name school in a marquee conference, there just isn't that much of a reward for chocking your schedule full of top 10 teams.


I think that's up to the coach and AD of the program. Maybe they feel that playing tough OOC opponents is the best way to build a winning team/program. Maybe they feel a mix is good and maybe they feel that they have to schedule cupcakes. I know it's a different sport but Denny Crum would play a terrible tough OOC schedule when he was at LOU. On the other hand John Thompson would play cupcakes at Georgetown. Both had great success. Other coaches have had success playing schedules that are a mix. So who knows?

KronoRed
09-10-2007, 04:15 PM
I think that's pretty much a universal sentiment.

Compared to the old system of everyone being locked into a different bowl game, I'll take the BCS

pedro
09-10-2007, 04:18 PM
The BCS system is the pits but it's the best thing short of a playoff. Seeing how OSU and MICH fared in the post season last year I doubt the Big Ten would have had a representative in the Championship game if there'd been a playoff of 8 or 16 teams.

Then so be it. Can't say I'm convinced at this point that running the table in the Big Ten and beating a couple of non conference patsies really means a team is deserving of being in the title game. That stands true whether it's OSU, Michigan or anyone else in the conference.

Cedric
09-10-2007, 04:24 PM
Agreed. Best conference talk goes on and on and has no end. That's why I limited my post to an apples to apples fact. One poster said the Big Ten had fared well in Bowl games thus I pointed out that was pure folly while making no mention of what conference may be better.

Pure folly? Look at the bowl tie ins and the overall record isn't as damning as you make it seem. The Big Ten has the toughest bowl match ups year in and year out.

Danny Serafini
09-10-2007, 04:44 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that when you send two teams to BCS games, which happens more often than not with the Big 10, lesser teams wind up moving into higher bowl slots, making tougher matchups for the conference. Lets say a game normally has Big 10 #3 vs. SEC #3. With the BCS bowls taking an extra Big 10 team, the #3 Big 10 team moves up into the #2 bowl slot, and the #4 team moves up into the #3. It does put you in a matchup disadvantage.

Sea Ray
09-10-2007, 05:06 PM
Pure folly? Look at the bowl tie ins and the overall record isn't as damning as you make it seem. The Big Ten has the toughest bowl match ups year in and year out.

Big Ten Bowl Tie-ins:


As of 2006, the Big Ten champion has a tie-in with the Rose Bowl, a BCS bowl. The Big Ten also has tie-ins with six non-BCS bowls. Picks are made after BCS selections; if two Big Ten teams participate in BCS bowls, the bowl with the #2 pick will select the third team from the conference:

Capital One Bowl: Orlando, Florida (Big Ten #2 pick against SEC #2 pick)
Outback Bowl: Tampa, Florida (Big Ten #3 pick against SEC #3/4 pick)
Alamo Bowl: San Antonio, Texas (Big Ten #4/5 pick against Big 12 #4 pick)
Champs Sports Bowl: Orlando, Florida (Big Ten #4/5 pick against ACC #4 pick)
The Alamo Bowl has the 4th pick in 2007 and 2008, while the Champs Sports Bowl has the 4th pick in 2009.

Insight Bowl: Tempe, Arizona (Big Ten #6 pick against Big 12 #5 pick)
Motor City Bowl: Detroit, Michigan (Big Ten #7 pick against MAC)

Looks pretty fair to me. I don't see any mismatches. Which matches do you think is overly tough?

registerthis
09-10-2007, 05:18 PM
Then so be it. Can't say I'm convinced at this point that running the table in the Big Ten and beating a couple of non conference patsies really means a team is deserving of being in the title game.

Well then let's just make the title game between the winners of the SEC and Big 12 and just stop all of this other nonsense.

dabvu2498
09-10-2007, 05:19 PM
Well then let's just make the title game between the winners of the SEC and Big 12 and just stop all of this other nonsense.

Ehhh... this year the PAC 10 should be in that mix also.

;)

registerthis
09-10-2007, 05:20 PM
Compared to the old system of everyone being locked into a different bowl game, I'll take the BCS

Isn't that like death by drowning vs. death by garroting?

registerthis
09-10-2007, 05:20 PM
Ehhh... this year the PAC 10 should be in that mix also.

;)

Let's make a playoff. How about that? :)

dabvu2498
09-10-2007, 05:25 PM
Let's make a playoff. How about that? :)

Novel concept. However did you dream up such a thing?!?!?!? :D

registerthis
09-10-2007, 05:28 PM
Novel concept. However did you dream up such a thing?!?!?!? :D

From the National Championship Division, or whatever the heck it's called.

dabvu2498
09-10-2007, 05:35 PM
From the National Championship Division, or whatever the heck it's called.

Sweet! I'll have to look that up!

RichRed
09-10-2007, 06:15 PM
From the National Championship Division, or whatever the heck it's called.

We fans of the "lower tier" schools still call it I-AA. It's just easier.

paintmered
09-10-2007, 07:26 PM
The Big 10 is 8-7 all-time in BCS games. The 8 wins is second in all conferences (behind the SEC's 9) and the 15 BCS games is first among all conferences.

Perhaps the Big 10 doesn't fare so well in second-tier Toilet Bowl games, but they've more than held their own in the games that actually mean something; i.e. the BCS games. So, as long as we're just throwing out facts to support the "pure folly" of thinking that the Big 10 is successful in postseason play, I'm throwing out some context.

To me, it suggests that the Big 10 has been top heavy this decade.

KronoRed
09-10-2007, 07:44 PM
Isn't that like death by drowning vs. death by garroting?

Nah, the BCS's main problem is its wacky ratings, other then that..;)

Marc D
09-12-2007, 04:50 PM
Myth #1 The SEC owns the B10:
In the BCS era(1998-2006) the B10 is 13-11 in direct head to head Bowl game competition with the SEC including 2 out of 3 last year.

Myth #2 OSU has big slow plodding B10 stereotypical players:
The past 4 years alone OSU has had 34 players drafted by the NFL with 10 being 1st rounders.

OSU had a horrible game vs UF and paid the price. It does not mean that the SEC is forever and always superior to the B10 anymore than it meant the B12 owned the SEC when Nebraska dropped 62 points on UF in 1995's NC game. People are painting with way too large of strokes based on the outcome of a single football game.

Michigans recent exploits are just the culmination of what many have seen coming for the past 4 years. They recruit defensive players that would be good at stopping their offense, not the spread option that is becoming so prevelant in todays game. Their fans used to make fun of Tressel for recruiting so many DB's..well I don't think they laugh at that anymore.

Of the 15 committments they have so far this year I think 11 are offensive players. Carr's issue is that his philosophy is wrong, the game has passed him by and he still won't adapt. Tressel started building a defense to play in nickel and dime coverage from the day he stepped foot on campus. He saw the spread and knew it was coming, he's even run it for 3 years with Troy Smith.

As far as all the Washington love this week, we shall see. OSU hasn't looked good offensively but a lot of its just due to mental mistakes and turnovers with a very young team. I think it will be close but UW hasn't exactly played anyone either and has a younger, less experienced QB with a weaker supporting cast than OSU does. OSU has an edge in Special Teams but UW has a tough home field environment. I'm excited to see where we stand vs a real 1A team for the first time this year.

BuckeyeRedleg
09-13-2007, 10:49 AM
Great post, Marc D. Great post.

registerthis
09-13-2007, 11:11 AM
To me, it suggests that the Big 10 has been top heavy this decade.

Hey, if other conferences want to trumpet their victories in the Continental Tire Bowl, be my guest.

LoganBuck
09-13-2007, 01:16 PM
As far as all the Washington love this week, we shall see. OSU hasn't looked good offensively but a lot of its just due to mental mistakes and turnovers with a very young team. I think it will be close but UW hasn't exactly played anyone either and has a younger, less experienced QB with a weaker supporting cast than OSU does. OSU has an edge in Special Teams but UW has a tough home field environment. I'm excited to see where we stand vs a real 1A team for the first time this year.

I have heard several times this week national radio guys, say things like if Washington beats Ohio State it just goes to show how much of a problem the Big Ten has, and how it is in decline. The have called out the Ohio State defense as slow, just like the rest of the Big Ten. It will also show a resurgence of the Husky program and how far the PAC10 has come. Now that is where the line has been crossed. Ohio State is definitely overrated in terms of the polls right now, but I would not call them slow on defense. They are untested but I see more speed on the defense and much better safety play compared to the end of last season. I have been predicting a Washington win for awhile now, but mainly because they are taking such a young group on the road. These far reaching statements about conferences are out of hand. Lets be fair here Washington, beat a HORRIBLE Syracuse team, and a rebuilding Boise State team that did not have any experience at QB, and about one third the defensive talent Ohio State has. They don't have anyone even close to James Laurinitis on that team. I don't see Locker beating Ohio State with his legs. This game will be decided by the Ohio State offense good or bad.

BoydsOfSummer
09-15-2007, 04:09 PM
This might be the only day I've ever rooted for Notre Dame. I want Michigan stomped while they are down.