PDA

View Full Version : UC Football 2009 Season



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

travisgrimes
10-20-2009, 08:59 PM
If UC wins out they will be in the national title game. Boise State's schedule is absolutely terrible and yes they beat Oregon in Week 1 but that ducks team was a mess. Anybody think Boise could be Oregon now? No. Pitt and WVU will be in the top 20 when we play them adding to our SOS and giving us some big wins. In the end I think Texas loses to Oklahoma State and I got this feeling USC will lose to Oregon. Yes people will say well Oregon beat USC so Boise looks even better... well maybe but Boise can barely beat UC Davis and Tulsa so I'm sorry they just aren't good enough and will slide back in the polls. And of course Florida and Alabama will win out and face each other in the SEC title game leaving one team with a loss, I think Alabama wins the game and the National Championship game will be Alabama vs. Cincinnati.

And if that matchup should happen I give Cincinnati a GREAT chance of winning the game. Why? Greg McElroy (Alabama's QB) doesn't handle the pass rush well at all he becomes a terrible QB when someone is in his face. Yes the Alabama defense is ridiculously good but so is the UC offense and with Brian Kelly's intelligence you know the Bearcats will score at least 17. If Cincinnati can put pressure on the QB, contain Julio Jones and keep the run game in check.... I think the Bearcats win the National Championship.

Reds4Life
10-20-2009, 09:05 PM
If UC wins out they will be in the national title game. Boise State's schedule is absolutely terrible and yes they beat Oregon in Week 1 but that ducks team was a mess. Anybody think Boise could be Oregon now? No. Pitt and WVU will be in the top 20 when we play them adding to our SOS and giving us some big wins. In the end I think Texas loses to Oklahoma State and I got this feeling USC will lose to Oregon. Yes people will say well Oregon beat USC so Boise looks even better... well maybe but Boise can barely beat UC Davis and Tulsa so I'm sorry they just aren't good enough and will slide back in the polls. And of course Florida and Alabama will win out and face each other in the SEC title game leaving one team with a loss, I think Alabama wins the game and the National Championship game will be Alabama vs. Cincinnati.

And if that matchup should happen I give Cincinnati a GREAT chance of winning the game. Why? Greg McElroy (Alabama's QB) doesn't handle the pass rush well at all he becomes a terrible QB when someone is in his face. Yes the Alabama defense is ridiculously good but so is the UC offense and with Brian Kelly's intelligence you know the Bearcats will score at least 17. If Cincinnati can put pressure on the QB, contain Julio Jones and keep the run game in check.... I think the Bearcats win the National Championship.

Sorry, I'm a UC fan and all, but we'd get destroyed by Alabama. I've watched them play a lot this year, they could probably beat some NFL teams. UC's offense is good (With Pike) but they haven't played anyone with anything close to the level of defense that Alabama plays.

GAC
10-20-2009, 10:20 PM
If UC wins out they will be in the national title game. Boise State's schedule is absolutely terrible and yes they beat Oregon in Week 1 but that ducks team was a mess. Anybody think Boise could be Oregon now? No. Pitt and WVU will be in the top 20 when we play them adding to our SOS and giving us some big wins. In the end I think Texas loses to Oklahoma State and I got this feeling USC will lose to Oregon. Yes people will say well Oregon beat USC so Boise looks even better... well maybe but Boise can barely beat UC Davis and Tulsa so I'm sorry they just aren't good enough and will slide back in the polls. And of course Florida and Alabama will win out and face each other in the SEC title game leaving one team with a loss, I think Alabama wins the game and the National Championship game will be Alabama vs. Cincinnati.

Would love to see your "projection" pan out; but UC needs help to get to that game - losses by the teams above them. And that may very well happen. There are some good match ups coming up that could produce that.

But as goods as UC is, I don't know how well they would fair vs a Florida, Alabama, Texas, or even USC. But I'd love to be wrong. ;)

paintmered
10-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Sorry, I'm a UC fan and all, but we'd get destroyed by Alabama. I've watched them play a lot this year, they could probably beat some NFL teams. UC's offense is good (With Pike) but they haven't played anyone with anything close to the level of defense that Alabama plays.

Outside of maybe Florida, is there a team in the country that Alabama doesn't destroy? I don't think there is.

dougdirt
10-20-2009, 10:31 PM
Sorry, I'm a UC fan and all, but we'd get destroyed by Alabama. I've watched them play a lot this year, they could probably beat some NFL teams. UC's offense is good (With Pike) but they haven't played anyone with anything close to the level of defense that Alabama plays.

I think Alabama is the best team in the country. They wouldn't be within 3 touchdowns of ANY NFL team. Everywhere that they don't have an NFL quality player, much less when we get into depth issues, they would be absolutely taken apart.

6-4-3
10-20-2009, 10:34 PM
Alabama would not beat NFL teams. Depth, speed, scheme factors would lead to them getting smoked by every NFL team.

Highlifeman21
10-20-2009, 11:12 PM
Because does anybody really want to see a MAC/WAC/CUSA team in the National Championship?

The ACC/Big East/Big 12/Big 10/Pac 10/SEC are BCS conferences for a reason...these are the BIG BOYS!

If a MAC/WAC/CUSA team is ranked between #1 - #8, why not let them in the 8 team playoff?

The problem with a playoff is the conference champions that are ranked higher than #8. Every now and then, you'll see a team get into a BCS game b/c they won their conference championship, yet are ranked not near the top 8.

If you expand the playoff to 16 teams, you sorta solve that problem, but then you're just having too many games, and IMO the level of talent drops exponentially between teams that are ranked between 6-8 and 14-16. You're really gifting the top 4 teams by letting them play teams ranked 13-16.

If you include the top 8 ranked teams in a playoff, then you make conference championships absolutely meaningless, especially for conferences that play a conference championship game.

Highlifeman21
10-20-2009, 11:16 PM
Anyway, to bring this back to UC -- reports indicate that Collaros took the majority of the first team snaps today in practice.

Be very afraid.

Expect to see a lot of QB draws against UoL then...

Caveat Emperor
10-21-2009, 12:12 AM
Collaros doesn't have much of a passing game, IMO. He tries to float all of his passes, and they begging to be picked off. I know a lot of UC fans think he'll be perfectly fine out there, but I don't share the same confidence.

I'm a UC fan, but I wouldn't be suprised in the least if Louisvlle beats UC and Collaros throws a couple INT's.

Pretty much where I'm at.

If Collaros or Anderson plays, it'll be a tight game. Limiting turnovers should be job #1.

WMR
10-21-2009, 01:05 AM
Louisville isn't horrible. They've got some talent at a few skill positions.

travisgrimes
10-21-2009, 02:47 AM
I'm telling you guys Alabama is not as good as they look. They beat who? A virginia tech team in week 1 who isn't really ALL that good. After that they have feasted on lesser SEC opponents and an otherwise weak non-conference schedule. Ther O-line is average at best, their QB is only effective when he has alot of time to throw, and they have one real good WR. Yes their defense is tough but it's the same defense that last year gave up points to Florida and UC has a better offense than Florida. This team can be beat and like I said before if you contain the run and put pressure on the QB they cant score. Plus it helps that McElroy hasn't figured out his best WR is Julio Jones who IMO is the best in country and rarely targets him.

*BaseClogger*
10-21-2009, 03:10 AM
I think Alabama is the best team in the country. They wouldn't be within 3 touchdowns of ANY NFL team. Everywhere that they don't have an NFL quality player, much less when we get into depth issues, they would be absolutely taken apart.

Think of the special teams...

*BaseClogger*
10-21-2009, 03:11 AM
I'm telling you guys Alabama is not as good as they look. They beat who? A virginia tech team in week 1 who isn't really ALL that good. After that they have feasted on lesser SEC opponents and an otherwise weak non-conference schedule. Ther O-line is average at best, their QB is only effective when he has alot of time to throw, and they have one real good WR. Yes their defense is tough but it's the same defense that last year gave up points to Florida and UC has a better offense than Florida. This team can be beat and like I said before if you contain the run and put pressure on the QB they cant score. Plus it helps that McElroy hasn't figured out his best WR is Julio Jones who IMO is the best in country and rarely targets him.

If Alabama hasn't beaten anyone good, who has?

UC has a better offense than Florida? :lol:

will5979
10-21-2009, 09:55 AM
Seriously, you're going to rip Ohio State and your program has reached TWO BCS games? Really? TWO? Hasn't OSU played in like seven?

I do think it's hilarious that Will thinks WVU is part of the elevated pantheon of college football by virtue of its membership in the Big East....from where I'm sitting, the Big East is closer to the Mountain West than the SEC in terms of prestige and results.

(Sorry to take this afield from UC.)

Ok, when did I rip Ohio State? All I said was the 07 Eers would have beaten them in the National Championship because you know as well as I do that Ohio St. could not defend the spread offense. I know several Ohio St. fans admitted that WVU would have destroyed them. I don't know why you are getting so defensive cause Ohio St. IS a premiere college program and I know that.

And sorry to burst your bubble but in this decade and from here on out WVU is a national powerhouse. We don't rebuild, since we have Doc Holliday, we reload. Our speed and talent is nasty. Just wait.

Highlifeman21
10-21-2009, 10:17 AM
I'm telling you guys Alabama is not as good as they look. They beat who? A virginia tech team in week 1 who isn't really ALL that good. After that they have feasted on lesser SEC opponents and an otherwise weak non-conference schedule. Ther O-line is average at best, their QB is only effective when he has alot of time to throw, and they have one real good WR. Yes their defense is tough but it's the same defense that last year gave up points to Florida and UC has a better offense than Florida. This team can be beat and like I said before if you contain the run and put pressure on the QB they cant score. Plus it helps that McElroy hasn't figured out his best WR is Julio Jones who IMO is the best in country and rarely targets him.

I like UC's offense and all, but I don't know how you can say UC has a better offense than Florida.

Also, it seems that teams playing Alabama know that Julio Jones is the best WR in the country and often scheme him accordingly. It doesn't seem that Alabama has other weapons to force their opponent to then have to man cover or better zone cover Jones. Bama opponents more often than not can make sure 2 guys are paying attention to Jones on every play.

Redlegs23
10-21-2009, 10:45 AM
I like UC's offense and all, but I don't know how you can say UC has a better offense than Florida.


From what I've seen of UC and Florida I wouldn't say that Florida's offense is any better than UC's offense, but I'm not sure that UC's offense is better either. It's on objective observation, there's no truly correct answer, but from my standpoint UC's offense is every bit as good with a healthy Pike.

Florida scored 23 on Arkansas, 23 on Tennessee, and 13 on LSU, which are the three best teams they've played. The only decent team they've played where they scored more than 23 was Kentucky where they scored 41. UC's lowest scoring game was 28, and that includes putting up 34 on South Florida's 5th ranked defense (with a backup qb for half the game). Nothing there tells me that Florida's offense is any better than UC's.

That being said I would take Florida over UC as a team, because I'm still not sold on UC's defense being on the same level as Florida's. UC's team defense numbers look great, but I'm still cautious as to how they will respond when playing a high powered offense.

DTCromer
10-21-2009, 11:24 AM
I'm telling you guys Alabama is not as good as they look. They beat who? A virginia tech team in week 1 who isn't really ALL that good. After that they have feasted on lesser SEC opponents and an otherwise weak non-conference schedule. Ther O-line is average at best, their QB is only effective when he has alot of time to throw, and they have one real good WR. Yes their defense is tough but it's the same defense that last year gave up points to Florida and UC has a better offense than Florida. This team can be beat and like I said before if you contain the run and put pressure on the QB they cant score. Plus it helps that McElroy hasn't figured out his best WR is Julio Jones who IMO is the best in country and rarely targets him.

You're severely underestimating Alabama's defense.

And IMO, Mark Ingram should be considered the top Heisman candidate right now.

Who else could you make a better argument for? he's their ENTIRE offense for the most part.

DTCromer
10-21-2009, 11:27 AM
From what I've seen of UC and Florida I wouldn't say that Florida's offense is any better than UC's offense, but I'm not sure that UC's offense is better either. It's on objective observation, there's no truly correct answer, but from my standpoint UC's offense is every bit as good with a healthy Pike.

Florida scored 23 on Arkansas, 23 on Tennessee, and 13 on LSU, which are the three best teams they've played. The only decent team they've played where they scored more than 23 was Kentucky where they scored 41. UC's lowest scoring game was 28, and that includes putting up 34 on South Florida's 5th ranked defense (with a backup qb for half the game). Nothing there tells me that Florida's offense is any better than UC's.

That being said I would take Florida over UC as a team, because I'm still not sold on UC's defense being on the same level as Florida's. UC's team defense numbers look great, but I'm still cautious as to how they will respond when playing a high powered offense.



I agree on all accounts. Florida's offense isn't THAT good this year. They miss harvin BIG TIME. Tebow never could do anything by himself. They don't really have any playmakers this year. Sure, James and Demps are very fast, but they're not FOOTBALL PLAYERS like Harvin was. AND they have no play makers are WR.

If Florida wins the NC this year, it'll be because of their defense.

Hoosier Red
10-21-2009, 11:52 AM
If UC wins out they will be in the national title game. Boise State's schedule is absolutely terrible and yes they beat Oregon in Week 1 but that ducks team was a mess. Anybody think Boise could be Oregon now? No. Pitt and WVU will be in the top 20 when we play them adding to our SOS and giving us some big wins. In the end I think Texas loses to Oklahoma State and I got this feeling USC will lose to Oregon. Yes people will say well Oregon beat USC so Boise looks even better... well maybe but Boise can barely beat UC Davis and Tulsa so I'm sorry they just aren't good enough and will slide back in the polls. And of course Florida and Alabama will win out and face each other in the SEC title game leaving one team with a loss, I think Alabama wins the game and the National Championship game will be Alabama vs. Cincinnati.

And if that matchup should happen I give Cincinnati a GREAT chance of winning the game. Why? Greg McElroy (Alabama's QB) doesn't handle the pass rush well at all he becomes a terrible QB when someone is in his face. Yes the Alabama defense is ridiculously good but so is the UC offense and with Brian Kelly's intelligence you know the Bearcats will score at least 17. If Cincinnati can put pressure on the QB, contain Julio Jones and keep the run game in check.... I think the Bearcats win the National Championship.


The other team you have to watch out for is Iowa. If they run the table(big if) they'll probably catch UC from behind not so much because the teams they play are better, but rather because they play all the tough games on the road. If they run the table, I believe they'll have a road win over Michigan, tOSU and tPSU. The computers love them some big road victories.

Sea Ray
10-21-2009, 04:23 PM
I do think it's hilarious that Will thinks WVU is part of the elevated pantheon of college football by virtue of its membership in the Big East....from where I'm sitting, the Big East is closer to the Mountain West than the SEC in terms of prestige and results.


You're right about the Big East but unfortunately the Big Ten is also closer to the Mountain West than the SEC

Sea Ray
10-21-2009, 04:29 PM
I wonder if Hawaii can give Boise a scare this weekend? Chances are more of the country won't see it since it starts at 11pm EDT but traditionally Hawaii has been pretty tough at home. I know absolutely nothing about what kind of team they have this year but it might be worth keeping an eye on this one

*BaseClogger*
10-21-2009, 04:40 PM
You're right about the Big East but unfortunately the Big Ten is also closer to the Mountain West than the SEC

Why bring that up in a UC thread? :rolleyes:

Caveat Emperor
10-21-2009, 04:52 PM
Why bring that up in a UC thread? :rolleyes:

My question exactly.

Try to stay on topic everyone -- this is a thread about UC football, not the Big 10 and M-West.

jimbo
10-21-2009, 05:25 PM
You're right about the Big East but unfortunately the Big Ten is also closer to the Mountain West than the SEC

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Cyclone792
10-21-2009, 05:39 PM
Josh Katzowitz blog update on Jake Rogers and Demetrius Jones from gobearcats.com ....

http://www.gobearcats.com/blog/katz-on-the-cats/


Admit it: after junior place-kicker Jake Rogers missed an easy 31-yard field goal against Oregon State that would have given the Bearcats a 13-point lead late in the fourth quarter, you had to wonder.

How will Rogers respond to an error like that? Will he go in the tank? Will he recover and continue to play to a high standard? What will happen next?

The past two years, Rogers had proven that when, after missing an extra point attempt or a short field goal, he allowed that miscue to play mind games with him. He let the doubts creep into his brain and into his leg. He had a hard time forgetting the mistake.

This year, through, has been different. He missed the short field goal against Oregon State, but the next week against Fresno State, he averaged 44.7 yards on three punts. He missed an extra point vs. Miami, but he nailed a 42-yarder later in the game and punted three times for 46.7 yards.

He's not letting the mistakes affect his psyche any more, and to a Bearcats squad that has watched him struggle with his emotions during his freshman and sophomore seasons - and a team that will need to count on him to help defend the Big East title - that must be a relief.

"After the Oregon State game, I was pretty upset with myself because it was a missed field goal I felt like I should have made," Rogers said. "I hold myself to a high standard. I want to perform well, and I don't like letting the team down."

Yet, he's also learned to relax.

"As the Miami game goes, definitely," he said. "The first kick, I missed the PAT. But you're only as good as your next kick, and that's the mindset I had. I came out for the kickoff and hit it well. I had a 42-yard field goal, and I ended up punting well as well. That's the mindset you have to have."

To me, Rogers carries himself a little differently this year. It's hard to describe exactly what that means. But Tuesday was the first time I've interviewed him this season, and he just seemed ... I don't know ... a little different. Maybe a little more sure of himself.

"I roomed with Jake his true freshman year, and I've seen the same changes," senior center Chris Jurek said. "With Kevin Huber doing so well, Kevin took him under his wing and taught him some of the ropes and how he should carry himself. Jake has matured as a player and as a person."

All while taking over more responsibilities for the Bearcats. Namely, he's won the punting job, as well, and he's performed well. He's averaging 41.3 yards per kick, and he's dropped five punts inside the 20-yard line (against only one touchback). Before this season, Rogers had never punted in a game before, but he's taken to it surprisingly well.

"It's technique," Rogers said. "All summer long, I worked with my kicking coach and worked with (backup punter Michael) Cooke and (long snapper) Mike Windt probably three or four times a week. We all knew there was a huge hole there without Huber, and we needed to bound in and buck up. I feel comfortable out there. It doesn't feel foreign to me anymore. That's another thing to add - kickoff, punt, and field goal. I feel great doing them all."

And honestly, he just looks like a different player.

"The way I've carried myself this season as opposed to the last two seasons, I know I'm here for a reason," he said. "There's no point in being nervous anymore. You're out there to kick field goals and you're out there to make them. Everyone misses one. Even the pros miss. Nobody is perfect. That's the mindset you have to have."

--Demetrius Jones sat out much of Tuesday's practice with a huge ice pack on his lower left leg, and Brian Kelly said he's going to be limited for practice this week and the Louisville game on Saturday.

Jones - who didn't practice at all last week and sat out the South Florida game - has an inflamed tendon/nerve in his lower leg. Jones has taken a steroid shot, but for now, it's still too sore for him to get much time on the field.

"It's just cranky," Kelly said. "He's better. He can probably play a little bit. This week, he's practicing a little bit, and I think he'll get in some emergency work. But it's been tough on him. We're OK now because we've got Curtis Young back. It gives us the flexibility. We're OK, but I'd like to get him back. He helps us, because he's a more athletic kid."

paintmered
10-21-2009, 06:32 PM
Andy Katz blog update on Jake Rogers and Demetrius Jones from gobearcats.com ....

http://www.gobearcats.com/blog/katz-on-the-cats/

That's Josh Katzowitz, not Andy Katz.

Cyclone792
10-21-2009, 06:44 PM
That's Josh Katzowitz, not Andy Katz.

Yep, my bad, you're right.

This H1N1 I've had all week is getting to my head now ...

Sea Ray
10-21-2009, 10:56 PM
My question exactly.

Try to stay on topic everyone -- this is a thread about UC football, not the Big 10 and M-West.


You asked a question, you deserve an answer.

Just for the record, I didn't bring up the Big Ten. The Big Ten was clearly already a subject in the post which I was referring to. Just for clarity's sake I'll show it in its entirety:


Seriously, you're going to rip Ohio State and your program has reached TWO BCS games? Really? TWO? Hasn't OSU played in like seven?

I do think it's hilarious that Will thinks WVU is part of the elevated pantheon of college football by virtue of its membership in the Big East....from where I'm sitting, the Big East is closer to the Mountain West than the SEC in terms of prestige and results.

(Sorry to take this afield from UC.)


Obviously this person was already comparing OSU and W Va thus my bringing up the Big Ten did not happen in a vacuum. Why my I'm being climbed on is beyond me...:dunno:

Caveat Emperor
10-21-2009, 11:24 PM
You asked a question, you deserve an answer.

Just for the record, I didn't bring up the Big Ten. The Big Ten was clearly already a subject in the post which I was referring to. Just for clarity's sake I'll show it in its entirety:

I did say "try" -- when things reach a point of needing a new thread, don't hesitate to open one up if the topic veers off course. :thumbup:

Chip R
10-21-2009, 11:39 PM
Kelly thinks the SEC and Big 12 should only play for the BCS championship. :lol:

http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/17856/cfb-week-7-big-east-notebook

By Mitch Vingle
Published: October 20th, 2009 Athlon Sports Contributor

A spotlight was turning toward the Big East with three of eight teams situated in the Top 25 this week.

Then a brighter light, Jasper Howard, was extinguished after being fatally stabbed in Storrs, Conn.

Now, a makeshift candlelight vigil is taking place around the league to honor Howard, the starting cornerback for the Connecticut Huskies who died outside a school-sanctioned dance over the weekend.

At West Virginia, where UConn is scheduled to play this Saturday, school officials are planning to honor the 20-year old. Mountaineer coach Bill Stewart said he opened a team meeting with the news.

“The youngsters from the Miami area took it very, very hard,” Stewart said. “Our guys were quite shaken, as they should be. They really, really liked that young man immensely.”

Stewart added that he’s sure Saturday’s game would be “an emotional football game for Connecticut — and the nation as well.”
Rutgers coach Greg Schiano called it a “terrible tragedy.”

“It’s times like these that a close conference like the Big East needs to come together,” Schiano said.

Connecticut coach Randy Edsall said his team would wear stickers on helmets with Howard’s initials for the rest of the season. The former corner’s helmet or jersey will be taken to each away game.

“Everyone will handle this differently,” Edsall said. “We have to love each other and hug each other and respect the way others grieve.”

The coach said he’d experienced an outpouring of support from around the Big East.

“That’s the great thing about this conference,” he said. “I’ve heard from all the coaches in the last day or so. That’s what makes the conference so special. I’m grateful to all those offering support in this tragic moment.’‘

Howard recorded a career-high 11 tackles in his last game, a Huskies’ win over Louisville.

“He played a great football game against us,” said U of L coach Steve Kragthorpe. “I had a lot of respect for him coming into the game and even more coming out of the game.”

Edsall, by the way, said postponing Saturday’s game in Morgantown was not discussed.

“Jasper wouldn’t want us to do that,” said the UConn coach. “He was a competitor... It would be his want and will for us to play.”

Scoreboard

Cincinnati 34, South Florida 17
Pittsburgh 24, Rutgers 17
Connecticut 38, Louisville 25
West Virginia 24, Marshall 7

Waiting on word from the docs

West Virginia, as well as Pittsburgh, joined the Top 25 lists this week. Now the question in Morgantown is whether quarterback Jarrett Brown will play against Connecticut. Brown’s helmet was sandwiched by two from Marshall in last Saturday’s 24-7 win and he briefly lost consciousness.

WVU coach Stewart called Brown’s situation “day-to-day” and said he couldn’t participate in the week’s first practice without pads, “which tells us it’s not good.”

Brown, though, on his Twitter page, said, “I’m OK. My concussion was minor.”

What WVU might consider, though, is Connecticut lineman Lindsey Witten is second in the country with 9.5 sacks this season. The Huskies have 19 overall.

Ditto in Cincinnati

Cincy, like West Virginia, awaited word on starting QB Tony Pike, who injured his left (non-passing) forearm against South Florida. UC coach Brian Kelly said sophomore reserves Zach Collaros and Chazz Anderson would split snaps during the week to determine the starter if Pike can’t go against Louisville.

“We’ll prepare for all three,” said Louisville coach Kragthorpe. “The offense they use remains the same, though, no matter who is in there.”

Standing up for his team

Cincinnati coach Kelly took a few shots this week at those questioning the No. 5 Bearcats’ credentials in regard to a national title run.

“I think we should close it all down and just have Big 12 and SEC teams play for national championships,” he quipped.

Later, he said, “just let the teams play. It’s kind of silly. It will work itself out.”

Important game, take two, for South Florida

After losing at home to Cincinnati and dropping out of the Top 25 lists, South Florida will visit the media’s pick to win the league, Pittsburgh, at noon Saturday.

“You have to move on,” said USF coach Jim Leavitt. “The Big East is strong. You have to handle things and move on. We’ll address our mistakes (in the Cincinnati game) and move forward. It’s not a problem.”

He, as well as Pitt coach Dave Wannstedt, pointed to both teams’ strong defensive lines.

“There are a lot of similarities,” Wannstedt said. “Both teams use a 4-3 scheme. Both turn their defensive linemen loose. And both have athletic and veteran lines.”

USF’s main chore will be to contain Pitt freshman back Dion Lewis, who had 180 yards against Rutgers last week and is now the nation’s No. 3 rusher, averaging 131.1 yards.

“From his tape out of high school, we saw he averaged 12.5 yards a carry,” Wannstedt said. “We watched four plays on the tape, turned it off and offered him a scholarship.”

Stepping out — of conference

Two Big East teams will take a break from league play this week. Rutgers, 4-2, will travel to West Point, N.Y., to face 3-4 Army. RU coach Schiano said the Black Knights present a “whole different set of challenges,” like the defensive “double eagle flex,” which features an eight-man front lined up in non-traditional spots.

Syracuse, meanwhile, will try for its third win of the season by hosting 1-5 Akron. SU coach Doug Marrone said Greg Paulus would be his starter at quarterback even though backup Ryan Nassib came off the bench to throw for two touchdowns in the second half against West Virginia.

NorrisHopper30
10-22-2009, 12:56 AM
I love BK. No homo.

will5979
10-22-2009, 09:05 AM
[QUOTE] Kelly thinks the SEC and Big 12 should only play for the BCS championship. :lol: [QUOTE]

I love it, tell em like it is coach!

[QUOTE][url]West Virginia, as well as Pittsburgh, joined the Top 25 lists this week. Now the question in Morgantown is whether quarterback Jarrett Brown will play against Connecticut. Brown’s helmet was sandwiched by two from Marshall in last Saturday’s 24-7 win and he briefly lost consciousness.[url][QUOTE]

As a WVU fan this is the very reason why I hate this stupid game. I was sitting at the 35 yard line where this hit occured and it was dirty. It is ashame that you take a school like Marshall that has "little man syndrome" and has envy of WVU and they play out of their butts considering that game their super bowl and try to ruin the season for a BCS contender. This is the reason I wish the Big East would try to add 2 teams, we have too many out of conference games.

If two teams could be added I'd love to see Notre Dame join but that would never happen. Another entry could be Navy.

Hoosier Red
10-22-2009, 11:31 AM
Will,

I gotta tell you. If I didn't know any better I'd say that WVU fans sound pretty arrogant.

If you don't want to schedule Marshall don't do it. If WVU doesnt' want to play teams that have WVU as their super bowl, they can schedule major D1 conferences only, it doesn't have to be so bad for you.

The out of conference schedule has really helped UC in a way two extra teams never would. Right now, Oregon State may be the best win on UC's schedule. And while its true Illinois is going to let them down this year, the alternative is someone like Memphis or East Carolina.

And no, Notre Dame is not coming to the Big East. They specifically signed with the Big East so they wouldn't have to have their football team join. Navy would be crushed in the Big East. If Navy was in the Big East they'd bring the quality down, not up.

As a traditionalist, I'd sort of like for Penn State to move, but the Big 11 won't ever let them.

DTCromer
10-22-2009, 11:38 AM
It is ashame that you take a school like Marshall that has "little man syndrome" and has envy of WVU and they play out of their butts considering that game their super bowl and try to ruin the season for a BCS contender.

10 years ago, most of the teams in the current Big East had "little man" syndrome. Heck, some still do. USF has a MAJOR complex being in Florida.

joshnky
10-22-2009, 12:09 PM
I gotta tell you. If I didn't know any better I'd say that WVU fans sound pretty arrogant.


I agree. There is an awful lot of teams you hate and/or feel superior to.

And I think you're in the minority if you think WVU is still a top tier program after losing Pat White, Steve Slaton, and Rodriguez.

Just like Louisville dropped when they lost their coach and star players so has WVU, although not as far.

will5979
10-22-2009, 12:21 PM
Will,

I gotta tell you. If I didn't know any better I'd say that WVU fans sound pretty arrogant.

If you don't want to schedule Marshall don't do it. If WVU doesnt' want to play teams that have WVU as their super bowl, they can schedule major D1 conferences only, it doesn't have to be so bad for you.

The out of conference schedule has really helped UC in a way two extra teams never would. Right now, Oregon State may be the best win on UC's schedule. And while its true Illinois is going to let them down this year, the alternative is someone like Memphis or East Carolina.

And no, Notre Dame is not coming to the Big East. They specifically signed with the Big East so they wouldn't have to have their football team join. Navy would be crushed in the Big East. If Navy was in the Big East they'd bring the quality down, not up.

As a traditionalist, I'd sort of like for Penn State to move, but the Big 11 won't ever let them.

Unfortunately we didn't schedule them...our great governor forced them to play in the Friends of "Joe" bowl.

Arrogant I am not when it comes to WVU...I feel great that they are 5-1, but this could change any week with 6 tough games upcoming all Big East opponents. I'm getting a little tired of the Big East not receiving its due from the NCAA whether it be us, Cincy, Lousiville, or whomever. I hope and pray that our teams can win out until they play each other. Will be great for national hype. I don't come on this board trying to start trouble, I am a Big East fan as well and hold no ill will towards Cincy (I save that for Pitt). We have a great series going right now.

About the OOC game victories, you say Oregon State is the best win...what about South Florida, or Pitt, or WVU if you guys beat them? They are all ranked. If Cincy were to win out they would beat a RANKED USF, Pitt, and WVU...looks pretty good to me.

Agree with you about Penn State, they would make a great addition to the conference, but like ND it won't happen, just wishful thinking on my part. One thing I do love is that the Big East has been considerable better this decade than the ACC.

will5979
10-22-2009, 12:36 PM
I agree. There is an awful lot of teams you hate and/or feel superior to.

And I think you're in the minority if you think WVU is still a top tier program after losing Pat White, Steve Slaton, and Rodriguez.

Just like Louisville dropped when they lost their coach and star players so has WVU, although not as far.

I only hate Pitt, Virginia Tech due to our intense rivalry we had, and Michigan for obvious reasons.

And its kind of hard not to feel superior to Marshall considering as how they've NEVER beaten us and we've dominated this so-called "rivalry."

About our program falling since we lost Rod, well we've won a total of 15 games including a BCS bowl and another bowl since his departure. Yeah we had a down year last year, but we are capable of winning the Big East, it will all come down as to whether or not our boys limit the turnovers hence the loss to Auburn this year.

Slaton may be gone, no big deal we have Noel Devine, Rodriguez is gone, but we have a much better MAN (something you can't call Rodriguez) coaching our boys.

WMR
10-22-2009, 02:08 PM
Yeah, I'm sure WVU fans wouldn't love to still have Rich Rod as their coach. They've got a better family man now, after all.

joshnky
10-22-2009, 02:26 PM
Yeah, I'm sure WVU fans wouldn't love to still have Rich Rod as their coach. They've got a better family man now, after all.

I felt similarly about Petrino vs. Kragthorpe. Losing kind of changes your perspective. While I'd rather have neither, I would certainly prefer Petrino back over the current coach.

I'm not convinced Stewart is the guy at WVU. Give it another year or two for the Rodriguez players to graduate and then we'll see how WVU feels about him.

dabvu2498
10-22-2009, 03:16 PM
Would the Big East have been invited to join the BCS in 98 if the makeup of the conference was the same as it is now? Ie, no Miami or VaTech?

joshnky
10-22-2009, 03:27 PM
Would the Big East have been invited to join the BCS in 98 if the makeup of the conference was the same as it is now? Ie, no Miami or VaTech?

Tough to say. Really, for all the abuse it gets the Big East is solidly in a second tier that includes the ACC and Big Ten. The SEC is in the top tier with the Big 12 and Pac10 close depending on the year.

Was the Big East really any stronger in 1998? Miami didn't hit their resurgence until early 2000s and Virginia Tech wasn't much pre-Vick and really still isn't.

I looked it up:


Syracuse 6-1 8-4
Miami-FL 5-2 9-3
Virginia Tech 5-2 9-3
West Virginia 5-2 8-4
Boston College 3-4 4-7
Rutgers 2-5 5-6
Temple 2-5 2-9
Pittsburgh 0-7 2-9


Really nothing spectacular.

dabvu2498
10-22-2009, 03:47 PM
True, but Miami and VaTech both have pretty large and loyal fanbases. And with that comes $. And sad as it is, that was what the BCS is all about. Without UM and VT in 98, the BE had WVU, a bad Pitt program, hit and miss Cuse and BC and some rubbish.

bucksfan2
10-22-2009, 03:50 PM
Tough to say. Really, for all the abuse it gets the Big East is solidly in a second tier that includes the ACC and Big Ten. The SEC is in the top tier with the Big 12 and Pac10 close depending on the year.

Was the Big East really any stronger in 1998? Miami didn't hit their resurgence until early 2000s and Virginia Tech wasn't much pre-Vick and really still isn't.

I think it is program size more than anything. Both Miami and Va Tech draw very well and have large stadiums. The thing with the Big East is that with the exception of WVU they don't have an established program that has a strong draw. Pitt is close but when you look more closely at it UConn, UC, South Florida, Rutgers, and Louisville are either new programs, or new programs to BCS football.

Caveat Emperor
10-22-2009, 03:58 PM
Would the Big East have been invited to join the BCS in 98 if the makeup of the conference was the same as it is now? Ie, no Miami or VaTech?

I think they would.

For better or worse, the conference has a couple built-in advantages that keep it on the table with the big-boys:

1. Several good media markets with teams (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Tampa, and to a lesser extent, Louisville)
2. Large presence in the Northeast / ESPN Home Territory (Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse)
3. Couple of state schools (WVU, Rutgers)
4. All games played in EST (and you're kidding yourself if you think that doesn't matter)

Plus, there are all sorts of little things working in the Big East's favor -- including (but not limited to) history of being considered a "power conference," and reputation for high-level hoops (which I think is a factor in the overall good name of the Big East).

All in all, I think they'd still be included today. But, I think if there was a decision to be made, it wouldn't be "Big East v. Mountain West" -- it'd be "Big East v. Only 5 Conferences."

Chip R
10-22-2009, 04:27 PM
Would the Big East have been invited to join the BCS in 98 if the makeup of the conference was the same as it is now? Ie, no Miami or VaTech?


I don't think they would have. This was - and is - about getting the powerhouse teams into the championship. That's why there's a Notre Dame clause in there. Both Miami and VT were championship contenders at the time. To not involve them would have unthinkable. If Florida State went to the SEC or the Big 12, the ACC would most likely been left out of the BCS since no other school in that conference was - and is - a championship contender.

Boston Red
10-22-2009, 05:41 PM
I think it is program size more than anything. Both Miami and Va Tech draw very well

That's really only true of VaTech. Miami really only draws when they're REALLY good and it's a big game.

bucksfan2
10-22-2009, 05:50 PM
That's really only true of VaTech. Miami really only draws when they're REALLY good and it's a big game.

Thats true. When they used to play at the orange bowl with a bad team the place was empty. I guess you can say that Miami was a dormant powerhouse and that is why the Big East took them. You can't say that about any of the current Big East teams.

Cyclone792
10-22-2009, 06:00 PM
Would the Big East have been invited to join the BCS in 98 if the makeup of the conference was the same as it is now? Ie, no Miami or VaTech?

Yes.

http://bcsguru.blogspot.com/2008/12/bcs-fairness-doctrine.html

http://www.bcsguru.com/bcs_qualifier.htm

Hoosier Red
10-22-2009, 06:22 PM
I think they would.

All in all, I think they'd still be included today. But, I think if there was a decision to be made, it wouldn't be "Big East v. Mountain West" -- it'd be "Big East v. Only 5 Conferences."

I agree with this, I think if the Mountain West is serious about becoming a major power conference, it has to bring the top WAC teams into the fold.
Kick out Colorado State and bring in Boise St. Kick out UNLV and bring in Idaho.

Except the top programs will change in 5-10 years.
When the Mountain West was formed, getting the 12-1 Air Force Falcons was a boon to the conference.

dsmith421
10-22-2009, 06:57 PM
I love it, tell em like it is coach!


Of course, you're completely fine with imposing a cartel that excludes a Mountain West or WAC team from playing in the title game. So, to summarize, limiting the teams eligible for the National Championship to two conferences = bad, limiting the teams eligible for the NC to six conferences plus Notre Dame = fine. This doesn't set off anyone's BS radar?

dabvu2498
10-23-2009, 07:47 AM
Yes. http://bcsguru.blogspot.com/2008/12/bcs-fairness-doctrine.html http://www.bcsguru.com/bcs_qualifier.htm Sorry, but that study has nothing to do with the question I asked. The current Big East belongs in the BCS, but would it have belonged in 98 when the BCS was formed? No right or wrong answers, just something to chew on.

will5979
10-23-2009, 08:58 AM
Of course, you're completely fine with imposing a cartel that excludes a Mountain West or WAC team from playing in the title game. So, to summarize, limiting the teams eligible for the National Championship to two conferences = bad, limiting the teams eligible for the NC to six conferences plus Notre Dame = fine. This doesn't set off anyone's BS radar?

I believe his argument is regarding the eligibility of Big East teams, which is my argument. Granted it may sound hypocritical on my part not wanting the MAC/WAC/CUSA/MW teams not to be NC eligible, but maybe those programs should strive to join bigger conferences. I'm sorry but the Big East is a tough balanced conference and should be included in NC consideration with 1 loss teams...you have to admit it is tough to go undefeated in the Big East, let alone a regular season.

I'm also referring to the major Big East defection of 2003-04 when UM, VT, and BC all went to the ACC (although I really miss the VT game I'm glad Miami left because we only had 3-14 record against them). Then we added Cincy, Louisville, and USF. So far TWO of those teams has represented the BE in the BCS. It is possible for some of these teams to someday become members of BCS conferences, just ask Cincy and Louisville.

Cyclone792
10-23-2009, 09:48 AM
Sorry, but that study has nothing to do with the question I asked. The current Big East belongs in the BCS, but would it have belonged in 98 when the BCS was formed? No right or wrong answers, just something to chew on.

What's the point of the question?

Three programs were CUSA programs back then during CUSA's infancy, and CUSA was created as a basketball conference, not a football conference. Connecticut was just beginning the process of upgrading from I-AA status. The Big East didn't lose its BCS bid during the realignment 4-5 years ago so why wouldn't it had received its BCS bid in 1998?

will5979
10-23-2009, 10:06 AM
What's the point of the question?

Three programs were CUSA programs back then during CUSA's infancy, and CUSA was created as a basketball conference, not a football conference. Connecticut was just beginning the process of upgrading from I-AA status. The Big East didn't lose its BCS bid during the realignment 4-5 years ago so why wouldn't it had received its BCS bid in 1998?

Good point. I also don't understand why were are all arguing/discussing this BCS/Big East debate. We have an automatic BCS bid, and all you have to do is win and the rest will take care of itself. It is also vital that all Big East teams stick together and root for one another in the bowl games (unless its Pitt :p:) cause it is important to get as many victories as possible especially in the BCS games.

The BCS wins for the conference since the 03-04 ACC defection have been 06 WVU Sugar Bowl, 07 UL Orange Bowl, and 08 WVU Fiesta Bowl. Pitt represented in 04, losing to someone can't remember who at the moment, and of course Cincy last year. We need to have a BE representative bring home a Rose Bowl and ultimately a National Championship. Take care of that and there should not be an argument as to why the Big East has an automatic BCS bid.

Hoosier Red
10-23-2009, 11:06 AM
I believe his argument is regarding the eligibility of Big East teams, which is my argument. Granted it may sound hypocritical on my part not wanting the MAC/WAC/CUSA/MW teams not to be NC eligible, but maybe those programs should strive to join bigger conferences. I'm sorry but the Big East is a tough balanced conference and should be included in NC consideration with 1 loss teams...you have to admit it is tough to go undefeated in the Big East, let alone a regular season.

I'm also referring to the major Big East defection of 2003-04 when UM, VT, and BC all went to the ACC (although I really miss the VT game I'm glad Miami left because we only had 3-14 record against them). Then we added Cincy, Louisville, and USF. So far TWO of those teams has represented the BE in the BCS. It is possible for some of these teams to someday become members of BCS conferences, just ask Cincy and Louisville.

Right, All Boise State needs is for Oregon and Oregon State to leave the Pac 10 for the WAC, that should happen soon.
The fact of the matter is an undefeated Boise State, UC, Iowa or TCU have or will have played tough enough schedules that they should be in the National Championship game over any 1 loss team regardless of the conference.

will5979
10-23-2009, 11:13 AM
Right, All Boise State needs is for Oregon and Oregon State to leave the Pac 10 for the WAC, that should happen soon.
The fact of the matter is an undefeated Boise State, UC, Iowa or TCU have or will have played tough enough schedules that they should be in the National Championship game over any 1 loss team regardless of the conference.

Every conference has its weak team that is expendable, why not try to weed out the bottom feeder teams to add a powerhouse to a conference to boost its prestige? Of course Oregon and Oregon St. aren't going anywhere...but what about a team such as Washington St.?

In the Big East I wish we could get rid of team such as Syracuse and add a team like Notre Dame (wishful thiking I know). Of course they have a great tradition, but since the McNabb days that have brought nothing to the conference.

Kinda like in MLB I wish we could do away with the Pittsburgh Pirates, sure a great tradition, but has brought nothing to the league since the Bonds/Leyland era.

Revering4Blue
10-23-2009, 11:20 AM
Pitt represented in 04, losing to someone can't remember who at the moment

It was Urban Meyer's last Utah squad. IIRC, it was the undefeated Alex Smith-led team.

No shame in Pitt losing there.

Hoosier Red
10-23-2009, 11:22 AM
The Pac 10's going to kick out a school that's been a member since 1916? Yeah probably not.

This is the problem with a conference formed all the way back in the 1980's, there's no tradition associated with the conference.

Admittedly this bugs me more than other people but the Pac 10 is really an ideal conference, all the schools are pretty well related to each other, have a lot in common and benefit from the association. This is true of the Big 11 as well.

SeeinRed
10-23-2009, 11:25 AM
To get back to UC football, there are a lot of stories going into tomorrows game. Tony Pike did practice yesterday with a cast. BK said he did well and will be a game time decision. This decision will be made by the doctors and Tony Pike. Lets just say I'll be really suprised if he plays. The question then becomes who will play if Pike can't go? You'd have to think that Collaros did enough to be considered a favorite against USF, but BK isn't tipping his hat. I'd guess that all this Pike talk is a distraction for Louisville, but I don't know that I believe that he will be out as long as Denny Janson sources say.

What does this all mean? Your guess is as good as mine. That BK, he's a tricky one.

Revering4Blue
10-23-2009, 11:32 AM
In the Big East I wish we could get rid of team such as Syracuse and add a team like Notre Dame (wishful thiking I know). Of course they have a great tradition, but since the McNabb days that have brought nothing to the conference

No way.

Brought nothing to the conference? What about the 2003 NCAA BBall Championship.

Syracuse is more than just a Hoops factory. if Rutgers, a virtual football wasteland a decade ago can rebound, why cant the 'Cuse? The Absurd firing of Coach "P" in 2004 set the program back at least five years.

Revering4Blue
10-23-2009, 11:46 AM
One Louisville blogger isn't optimistic at all.


Louisville Football In For A Hammering

By Paul Sykes

One could hardly blame the Louisville football team if it dipped into the Keg of Nails for Saturday’s game at Cincinnati to mend a porous defense and wobbly offense. The keg, of course, is the traditional prize for the team winning the game, which hardly seems to be in doubt this time around.

Issues that will plague Louisville:

* Cincinnati coach Brian Kelly is trying to keep people guessing whether Tony Pike will start after injuring his left arm and wrist. Spare us the drama, Kelly. The starter will be Zach Collaros who ran for 132 yards and two touchdowns. Any of his reserve quarterbacks would start at U of L.

* Wide Reciever Mardy Gilyard leads the Big East in all-purpose yards. He averages 166 a game and has caught at least one touchdown pass per game . Louisville’s Johnny Patrick will probably be assigned to him, but there are plenty of other threats to go around.

* Cincy leads the nation in tackles for a loss at 10.2 a game, ranking second in sacks with 4.2 sacks per game. They’re in the top 10 in forcing turnovers. Restock the aspirin bottle for the Cards QB’s and running backs.

* The Bearcats average 40.7 points a game and have only committed four turnovers this year, all interceptions, tied for the lowest turnover rate among BCS teams.

Predicting a Cardinal win this year would be akin to old guy Paul winning the Boston Marathon. It’s just not going to happen. Cincinnati 44, Louisville 14. Sonja is calling for a lower scoring game due to the chances of rough weather in the Queen City, 24-7 Cincinnati.


http://uoflcardgame.com/louisville-football-in-for-a-hammering/10943

will5979
10-23-2009, 12:28 PM
No way.
Brought nothing to the conference? What about the 2003 NCAA BBall Championship.

Sorry, I meant in football. I'm not a basketball fan. Well they could stay in basketball then! There are several BE basketball teams that are not football, cough cough ND.

dsmith421
10-23-2009, 12:44 PM
Every conference has its weak team that is expendable, why not try to weed out the bottom feeder teams to add a powerhouse to a conference to boost its prestige? Of course Oregon and Oregon St. aren't going anywhere...but what about a team such as Washington St.?


The Pac-10 is not going to oust Washington State (who, for what it's worth, won the Pac-10 in 2002). Many of the conferences in this country (thinking especially of the Pac-10 and Big Ten, but others may qualify) have academic and institutional ties that go way beyond football and have existed for decades. Not to mention the fact that a school can be a weak sister in football, but be a power in basketball and other sports (I'm looking at you, Vanderbilt).

dabvu2498
10-23-2009, 02:49 PM
What's the point of the question? Three programs were CUSA programs back then during CUSA's infancy, and CUSA was created as a basketball conference, not a football conference. Connecticut was just beginning the process of upgrading from I-AA status. The Big East didn't lose its BCS bid during the realignment 4-5 years ago so why wouldn't it had received its BCS bid in 1998? Because it would have been a BAD football conference in 98.

Cyclone792
10-23-2009, 02:59 PM
Because it would have been a BAD football conference in 98.

Who cares? It isn't 1998 anymore. And besides, the current conference alignment would have been impossible 11 years ago anyway because UConn was still transititioning from a 1-AA program. That alone means it would have been a bad conference so what's the point? This entire discussion is just flat pointless because it has no basis in reality.

This is a thread about UC football. If you want to talk about a hypothetical conference using teams from over a decade ago, start a different thread.

SeeinRed
10-23-2009, 03:31 PM
This is a thread about UC football. If you want to talk about a hypothetical conference using teams from over a decade ago, start a different thread.


I agree that this thread has gotten pretty far off topic. Coming here to look at discussions about UC is near impossible. I don't know if a new thread is the answer or not, but this one has gone stale as far as UC talk.

Redlegs23
10-23-2009, 03:49 PM
Back on topic, UC vs. Louisville tomorrow. I think there's about a .0001% chance of Tony Pike playing in this game, and I think we're going to get a full dose of Zach Collaros, which I'm ok with. Collaros will run for more than 100 yards tomorrow, and he will throw for 150+. Louisville's defense can't stop anyone. It doesn't matter if we run every play and Louisville knows we're going to run every play, they're not going to stop it unless they stack the box, and if they do that Collaros is capable of hitting someone on the play action like he showed against South Florida with the Guidugli pass.

Many people are expecting this to be closer that the spread of 17, I initially thought it was going to be a fairly close game, but the more I think about it I'm not worried. Louisville's defense can't stop anyone, including letting about 38 or so up to UCONN and their horrible offense. UC averages 40 a game, and UC will drop 40+ on Louisville tomorrow while controlling the time of possession, which UC does not typically do with Pike. UC's defense isn't going to let up near that much, not at home, and not on homecoming in front of a sell-out crazy crowd. My prediction is 40-13 UC wins and easily covers the spread.

dabvu2498
10-23-2009, 03:52 PM
Sorry that my rather innocuous question raised so much ire. I shall return to the rock from which I crawled out from under.

Caveat Emperor
10-23-2009, 04:03 PM
Back on topic, UC vs. Louisville tomorrow. I think there's about a .0001% chance of Tony Pike playing in this game, and I think we're going to get a full dose of Zach Collaros, which I'm ok with. Collaros will run for more than 100 yards tomorrow, and he will throw for 150+. Louisville's defense can't stop anyone. It doesn't matter if we run every play and Louisville knows we're going to run every play, they're not going to stop it unless they stack the box, and if they do that Collaros is capable of hitting someone on the play action like he showed against South Florida with the Guidugli pass.

Many people are expecting this to be closer that the spread of 17, I initially thought it was going to be a fairly close game, but the more I think about it I'm not worried. Louisville's defense can't stop anyone, including letting about 38 or so up to UCONN and their horrible offense. UC averages 40 a game, and UC will drop 40+ on Louisville tomorrow while controlling the time of possession, which UC does not typically do with Pike. UC's defense isn't going to let up near that much, not at home, and not on homecoming in front of a sell-out crazy crowd. My prediction is 40-13 UC wins and easily covers the spread.

I actually expect Chazz Anderson to play the majority of tomorrow's snaps -- Collaros can play an exciting brand of football, but he can't run Brian Kelly's offense. Collaros showed last week that his passing still isn't where it needs to be, and that he's best utilized in a run-first setup. Anderson, while not quite as athletic, is a better fit for the pass-first / no-huddle offense that Kelly likes to run.

Collaros is a great guy to have coming off the bench cold if a starter gets hurt; running the option-read is generally a low-turnover risk and lets him use his skills to keep a game close or put a game away. However, he's not starter material. I think BK knows and recognizes this, but he keeps his name out there (with talk about splitting practice time) to give Louisville something else to think about.

It'll be a close game with lots of offensive sputters from UC. Defense earns their scholarships tomorrow, hopefully.

SeeinRed
10-23-2009, 04:41 PM
Sorry that my rather innocuous question raised so much ire. I shall return to the rock from which I crawled out from under.


FWIW, it wasn't your question. This thread was headed in the wrong direction before that. I have no problem with the conversation either. It just doesn't belong in this thread.

Anyway, back to UC football, I think this is a game that could be closer than it should be if BK doesn't keep his players grounded. They just got a new shiny #5 ranking, they are coming off a big win at USF and they are probably without their starting QB. This game could say a lot about the Cats.

NorrisHopper30
10-23-2009, 07:50 PM
Louisville has a weak defensive backfield..I hope Pike plays so he can get back in a groove.

BearcatShane
10-23-2009, 09:20 PM
In the Brian Kelly era, when you think a team that UC should clearly beat might be able to hang with UC, Brian Kelly's Bearcats hammer them. 38-10 Bearcats.

P.S. I have a source around the UC football team and Zach Collaros, Chazz Anderson or Tony Pike will start the game according to him.

GAC
10-24-2009, 06:29 AM
P.S. I have a source around the UC football team and Zach Collaros, Chazz Anderson or Tony Pike will start the game according to him.

It's simply just sound strategy for a coach not to announce his QB until game time. But IMO, I don't see them playing Pike. I especially don't see him starting the game. And if he does play, it may only be for limited series.

UC just needs to get of to a good start, and build a lead where playing Pike is not an issue. ;)

Redlegs23
10-24-2009, 09:10 AM
P.S. I have a source around the UC football team and Zach Collaros, Chazz Anderson or Tony Pike will start the game according to him.

Haha, I too have a source and he said the same thing, only he left out Pike and Anderson's name. ;)

SeeinRed
10-24-2009, 09:18 AM
Am I the only one who wonders if BK might take the Pike situation as far as calling him the starter and playing him the first series with some hand offs and some quick screens just to fake out L'ville and future opponents? UC can get some big plays off WR screens to Gilyard for sure, however they usually let the defense bear down on the QB before tossing it out. Pretty risky. I know it isn't likely to happen, but I don't rule anything out with BK. Just something I thought about with too much free time on my hands.

Chip R
10-24-2009, 11:13 AM
P.S. I have a source around the UC football team and Zach Collaros, Chazz Anderson or Tony Pike will start the game according to him.


That narrows it down.

Revering4Blue
10-24-2009, 12:46 PM
If Cincinnati is going to maintain their No. 5 ranking this weekend, they'll have to do so without starting quarterback Tony Pike, ESPN.com's Joe Schad is reporting.

Citing a person close to the situation, Schad reports that Zach Collaros will start in place of the injured Pike.

Pike underwent a surgical procedure earlier this week after a plate in his left forearm shifted in the win over South Florida.

Even as it was Collaros who replaced Pike and played well against the Bulls, there was still some mystery as to whether he or Chazz Anderson would get the start if Pike couldn't go. Apparently, said mystery has been solved.

Caveat Emperor
10-24-2009, 01:42 PM
Man, that's disappointing. I was holding out hope that Pike would still manage to play somehow.

I'm heading down to the game. I've got an incredibly bad feeling about today now that I know they're playing Collaros. I hope the D is up to the task, because I smell at least 2 or 3 turnovers from the QB position.

OnBaseMachine
10-24-2009, 05:33 PM
Man, that's disappointing. I was holding out hope that Pike would still manage to play somehow.

I'm heading down to the game. I've got an incredibly bad feeling about today now that I know they're playing Collaros. I hope the D is up to the task, because I smell at least 2 or 3 turnovers from the QB position.

Still have a bad feeling? ;)

Cincy is winning 21-0 in the second quarter and Collaros is 12-for-13 passing for 185 yards and two TD's. Also has 51 yards rushing on eight carries.

reds1869
10-24-2009, 05:37 PM
Still have a bad feeling? ;)

Cincy is winning 21-0 in the second quarter and Collaros is 12-for-13 passing for 185 yards and two TD's. Also has 51 yards rushing on eight carries.

That is pretty impressive. UC has a very good football team with more depth than they are given credit for.

Tony Cloninger
10-24-2009, 06:44 PM
This QB looks better than Pike or is LOU that bad?

If this defense could figure out how to stop the Cardinals QB from running for yards...they would probably have a shutout.

dougdirt
10-24-2009, 07:09 PM
This QB looks better than Pike or is LOU that bad?

If this defense could figure out how to stop the Cardinals QB from running for yards...they would probably have a shutout.

Louisville is that bad. Against a good defense, Collaros probably has 2 interceptions. He has just kind of 'tossed' a few passes up there that Pike would have thrown. Collaros has had some good looking throws though.

Reds4Life
10-24-2009, 07:13 PM
Louisville is that bad. Against a good defense, Collaros probably has 2 interceptions. He has just kind of 'tossed' a few passes up there that Pike would have thrown. Collaros has had some good looking throws though.

Collaros does that constantly, and you are right, against a good team those are INT's. Luckly for him, Louisville sucks.

dougdirt
10-24-2009, 07:33 PM
Collaros does that constantly, and you are right, against a good team those are INT's. Luckly for him, Louisville sucks.

It just seems like his arm isn't strong enough to get something on a pass when he is throwing on the run. When he made strong throws today, he was stepping into the throw from the pocket. Just my opinion though.

BearcatShane
10-25-2009, 01:03 AM
I know but he will practice with the first teamers this week and after the Louisville game I'm confident we'll all be saying how amazing it is that when someone gets hurt, no matter who, the replacement always seems to do a great job. Next man in.


:)

NorrisHopper30
10-25-2009, 02:53 AM
Louisville has a weak defensive backfield..I hope Pike plays so he can get back in a groove.

Weak defensive backfield was an understatement, Collaros 15-17 250ish yards.

Caveat Emperor
10-25-2009, 04:01 AM
:)

At the game, Collaros still looks like he floats passes (as was noted on here), and he doesn't protect the football well while moving in the pocket.

Having said that, it's tough to argue with the results. He did have a very pretty throw to Mardy for the one TD as well.

For a replacement, it'll definitely do.

BearcatShane
10-25-2009, 04:09 AM
At the game, Collaros still looks like he floats passes (as was noted on here), and he doesn't protect the football well while moving in the pocket.

Having said that, it's tough to argue with the results. He did have a very pretty throw to Mardy for the one TD as well.

For a replacement, it'll definitely do.

He did float 2 passes in the first quarter that Armon Binns bailed him out on because he went up and caught the football and did not let the defensive backs make plays. After that as the game went on Collaros gunned the ball right on the money on plays in middle of the field. He is not perfect, but I think he can be pretty good next year.

GAC
10-25-2009, 08:09 AM
See.... you Bearcat fans need to listen to me. I told you you wouldn't need Pike to beat the Cardinals. :D

Collaros 15/17 for 253 and 3 TDs!

Great game, and great win for the Bearcat fans! :thumbup:

Eric_the_Red
10-25-2009, 09:48 AM
The more I watch Alabama & Florida the less fear I have of UC playing them in a (THE?) bowl game. I realize their defenses are their strength, but I have to think that UC offense could get a couple scores on them, which may be all it takes to win.

Matt700wlw
10-25-2009, 10:18 AM
UC can score on anybody. I believe that.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 10:36 AM
Nice win for the Cats yesterday, and I'm in agreement with everyone else on Collaros. He did get away with a few questionable passes, but he also looked sharp on a few other passes. Fortunately against Louisville it was easy to get away with those floaters.

We didn't receive much help across the college football world yesterday either. Michigan State blew it last night and gave up a score to Iowa as the clock expired, and I expect the Hawkeyes to pass UC in the BCS today by a few thousandths. Oregon State gave USC a run, but fell short. Fresno State does keep on winning in the WAC though, and that continually boosts up our win from late September.

Finally, that December 5th game against Pitt is looming large. I was really hoping that UC would have the Big East Championship wrapped up before that game, but I don't think it's going to happen. Pitt would have to lose at home to Syracuse and on the road at West Virginia, and the former isn't going to happen.

Tony Cloninger
10-25-2009, 11:39 AM
How can they give Iowa the spot over UC with the way they barely won and seem to be barely winning to begin with?

I still think USC should be in the Top 3....I think Florida, especially when Tebow is on but even with him being average ..is still Number 1.

Being from out in the LA area ...I do not understand sometimes why the SEC is given the hands down winner as the best conference while the Pac 10 is looked at as almost being some version of the WAC. I guess the really bad teams in the Pac 10 drag the whole conference down.

Hoosier Red
10-25-2009, 11:53 AM
How can they give Iowa the spot over UC with the way they barely won and seem to be barely winning to begin with?

I still think USC should be in the Top 3....I think Florida, especially when Tebow is on but even with him being average ..is still Number 1.

Being from out in the LA area ...I do not understand sometimes why the SEC is given the hands down winner as the best conference while the Pac 10 is looked at as almost being some version of the WAC. I guess the really bad teams in the Pac 10 drag the whole conference down.

It really depends on who "they" are. I doubt the pollsters would move Iowa ahead of UC, but the computers will likely reward Iowa for winning so many tough games on the road.

There are a couple of computer polls which have Iowa ranked #2 because the win at Penn State is the best win of any undefeated team.

schmidty622
10-25-2009, 12:03 PM
Looking at the schedule the last 4 weeks of the season, I think UC is going to be hard pressed to escape without a loss. WV and Pitt look pretty outstanding, UConn has the potential to surprise, and Illinois is a team with a lot of talent that hasn't quite put it together.

I think UC is really, really good, but this stretch of games would be tough for any team.

Tony Cloninger
10-25-2009, 12:04 PM
I guess "they" would be the HAL 2000?

Some announcers (the ones who do vote) rank them in the Top 4...I do not think they are better than UC...... or USC.

dougdirt
10-25-2009, 02:42 PM
UC stays at #5 in the AP, falls to #7 in the coaches poll despite gaining votes.

cincrazy
10-25-2009, 03:10 PM
UC stays at #5 in the AP, falls to #7 in the coaches poll despite gaining votes.

Falling in the coaches poll is bad news for them. If TCU jumped them, then Iowa is likely to if they continue winning. It's looking like a tough road to the national title game for the Bearcats, unfortunately.

Revering4Blue
10-25-2009, 03:11 PM
Bear with it: Cincinnati is in the BCS argument
Lack of top-10 power bodes well for Cincinnati's BCS title-game hopes.


Replacing Tony Pike? It's no problem for Bearcats backup Zach Collaros, who is nearly perfect.

OK, snobs, soak in the reality of the Cincinnati Bearcats. With each week of ugly that passes this season, Cincinnati looks more and more attractive. Maybe even BCS national championship game attractive.

While the nation's heavyweights continue to struggle, No. 5 Cincinnati used a backup quarterback and moved to 7-0 for the first time since 1954 with an easy 41-10 win over Louisville.

"There were 104 guys that wanted to make sure they knew they had something to do with winning," Cincinnati coach Brian Kelly told reporters. "It's a tight group of guys."

It's not just one guy (injured starting quarterback and Heisman Trophy candidate Tony Pike); it's one team forcing itself on the nation.

You want Florida, Alabama or Texas? Why not Cincinnati?

Well, look around the rest of the top 10.

No. 1 Alabama: Crimson Tide needed a last-second blocked field-goal attempt to beat Tennessee at home 12-10. That's the same Tennessee team that lost at home to UCLA and will be scratching to become bowl eligible.

No. 2 Florida: For the second consecutive week, the Gators struggled to dispense of an SEC bottom-feeder. The Gators finally pulled away for a 29-19 win over Mississippi State, a week after escaping Arkansas at home.

No. 3 Texas: The Longhorns whipped Missouri on Saturday night, but don't kid yourself, the Longhorns have issues.

No. 4 USC: Trojans nearly got knocked off by another Pacific Northwest team in escaping Oregon State.

No. 7 Iowa: Stayed undefeated with a last-second, 15-13 win at Michigan State, but this still is a team that escaped Northern Iowa and Arkansas State.

No. 8 Miami: Lost at home in overtime to Clemson, eliminating the Hurricanes from the national title race.

And Cincinnati's case? Here are three reasons:

1. While Florida and Alabama struggled to beat middling conference opponents, Cincinnati has beaten every Big East opponent by at least 17 points.

2. The Bearcats replaced 10 starters from last year's defense — and changed defensive coordinators and schemes — and got better.

3. While Heisman leaders Tim Tebow (two interception returns for touchdowns) and Mark Ingram (key fourth-quarter fumble) had their worst games of the season, Cincinnati replaced its Heisman candidate with a backup better known for baseball skills and got a career game from Zach Collaros.

Last year, the Bearcats used four different quarterbacks to win the most games in school history, and Pike might not return until next month when Cincy finishes with three key league games -- UConn, West Virginia and at Pitt.

So while the rest of the nation focuses on TCU or Boise State as the underdog, Cincinnati has a better resume than either of the non-BCS darlings.

"It feels really good that we are making the proper steps to be a team that you see on ESPN," said Cincinnati linebacker Andre Revels.

And maybe a team you'll see in the BCS national championship game.


http://www.sportingnews.com/college-football/article/2009-10-24/bear-it-cincinnati-bcs-argument

dougdirt
10-25-2009, 03:38 PM
Falling in the coaches poll is bad news for them. If TCU jumped them, then Iowa is likely to if they continue winning. It's looking like a tough road to the national title game for the Bearcats, unfortunately.

Beat WV and Pitt and it will take care of itself. Where they are right now means nothing. They will jump TCU if they take care of business.

BearcatShane
10-25-2009, 03:40 PM
Falling in the coaches poll is bad news for them. If TCU jumped them, then Iowa is likely to if they continue winning. It's looking like a tough road to the national title game for the Bearcats, unfortunately.


If UC beats the teams on their schedule, they will jump TCU no matter what. UC needs Oregon to Beat USC and Oklahoma State to beat Texas this weekend.

cincrazy
10-25-2009, 03:57 PM
Beat WV and Pitt and it will take care of itself. Where they are right now means nothing. They will jump TCU if they take care of business.

True, I overlooked their last few games, good point there.

However, I could still see Iowa jumping them with a Hawkeyes win in the Shoe.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 04:28 PM
UC was going to fall back a bit over the next few weeks because the teams on their immediate schedule (Louisville yesterday and Syracuse next week) are awful.

One thing that helps UC vs. Iowa is the fact that Iowa's season ends on November 21st and UC will still have two games remaining after that (home vs. Illinois, then at Pitt). Pitt is absolutely steamrolling opponents right now, and it's not out of the question that they could be a top 10-15 team by December 5th. If UC beats say a #10 ranked Pitt team in Pitt on December 5th to finish 12-0, it would be awfully hard for voters to ignore that.

I think next week will determine a lot though. If Texas wins at Stillwater, the UC/Iowa talk will likely be moot because Texas won't lose any game the rest of the way after Stillwater, and that includes the Big 12 Championship.

UC also needs to find a route into a BCS game should they lose at Pitt - that game is starting to look terrifying. There is a very real chance UC could be 11-0, lose at Pitt and then lose the Big East Championship and get shut out of the BCS altogether. UC needs a back door safety valve route to a BCS game should they lose at Pitt, and the following is the best chance for that:

1) UC needs to obviously finish 11-1 at minimum
2) West Virginia needs to win out except for the November 13th game at UC - this includes beating Pitt in Morgantown
3) We probably need Notre Dame to beat Pitt on November 14th

Basically, the back door route to the BCS for UC should they lose at Pitt is hoping for a three way tie between UC, Pitt and West Virginia. We would need to beat West Virginia, then have West Virginia beat Pitt. That would put all three teams 1-1 against each other, and the tiebreaker is BCS ranking. If the above three stipulations fall into place, UC could likely lose at Pitt but still win the Big East.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 04:42 PM
UC also needs to find a route into a BCS game should they lose at Pitt - that game is starting to look terrifying. There is a very real chance UC could be 11-0, lose at Pitt and then lose the Big East Championship and get shut out of the BCS altogether.

Worse than that, Notre Dame is likely to take the Big East's Gator Bowl bid this year, meaning that the loser of an 11-0 UC vs. 10-1 Pitt game could end up in Charlotte.

Chip R
10-25-2009, 04:50 PM
It'll be interesting to see UC fans root for tOSU when Iowa comes in and plays them in a few weeks.

Both Iowa and UC really need to stay undefeated if they think they should get a shot at the BCS title game. Their problem is that they are both handicapped by the reputation of their conferences. If they lose, they are done as far as the big game goes. A one loss Florida/Alabama/Texas/USC would go before they would.

BearcatShane
10-25-2009, 04:53 PM
Texas probably would get the nod for the title game over UC but lets take a look at their schedule

La. Monroe
At Wyoming
Texas Tech
UTEP
Colorado
Oklahoma
At Missouri
At Oklahoma State
UCF
AT Baylor
Kansas
At Texas A&M


Their best non conference win would probably be vs Central Florida? Hmmmm.. If UC is 4th and Texas is 3rd to end the season could a win over a top 15 Pitt team cause UC to jump Texas? We'll see. UC's resume would be much better in my opinion. Hopefully Okalhoma State knocks them off and hopfully Oregon can beat USC.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 04:56 PM
Worse than that, Notre Dame is likely to take the Big East's Gator Bowl bid this year, meaning that the loser of an 11-0 UC vs. 10-1 Pitt game could end up in Charlotte.

Yep, though UC would be in better shape than Pitt in that scenario. Notre Dame must finish within two wins of the Big East #2 so if Notre Dame would only finish 8-4 then an 11-1 UC would still have the Gator Bowl as an option. Given Notre Dame's remaining schedule, I could see them finishing anywhere from 10-2 at best by winning out or 8-4 at worst. I think they'll win their remaining home games against Washington State, Navy and Connecticut. Their road games at Pitt and at Stanford will be tough though.

Honestly, I never thought I'd say this, but I'd just assume see Notre Dame win out. They'd probably climb into the BCS top 14 giving them an at large bid if they won out and finished 10-2. Under that scenario, the Orange Bowl would gobble them up as an at-large and that would open up the Gator Bowl to the Big East. Plus South Bend would be happy with the Fat Man, solidifying his job security and smashing those rumors of Kelly to Notre Dame for the time being.

The fact that a 10-11 win Big East team could get sent to Charlotte and a 9-10 win Big East team could get sent to Toronto/Birmingham/St. Pete is sad. The Big East bowl tie-ins are not all that good even if they do land the Gator Bowl, but they're abysmal if Notre Dame steals the Gator Bowl.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 05:12 PM
UC in points this week vs. last week in both the Coaches poll and Harris poll relative to other teams (+ points is good, - points is bad) ...

Harris Poll

Texas: +40 points
Boise State: +67 points
TCU: -53 points
Iowa: +10 points
USC: +129 points

The Harris poll helped UC greatly. UC picked up a load of points on USC and Boise State, plus a small handful of points on Iowa. The only team we lost points to was TCU, but that's understandable considering TCU's nice win at BYU. In the end, UC really shouldn't have to worry about TCU (or Boise State) in the BCS race. A 12-0 UC team will be ranked ahead of both TCU and Boise State.


Coaches Poll

Texas: +18 points
Boise State: +23 points
TCU: -40 points
Iowa: -27 points
USC: + 15 points

UC picked up points on USC and Boise State, but dropped points to TCU and Iowa. TCU is understandable, but the points lost on Iowa hurts a bit.

Fortunately, the good news is that UC is picking up points on USC. It's obvious the voters are now giving the undefeated teams more points over a one loss USC team. Of course, if USC wins at Oregon next week that trend very well likely could get reversed and USC may start picking up a pile of points again.

EDIT: I added Texas in - UC gained points on Texas in both polls.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 05:31 PM
I don't think the new contract with the Gator Bowl has the "within 2 games" rule for Notre Dame anymore. Fairly certain the Gator can now take an 8-4 ND over an 11-1 UC. And they would in a heartbeat.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 05:46 PM
I don't think the new contract with the Gator Bowl has the "within 2 games" rule for Notre Dame anymore. Fairly certain the Gator can now take an 8-4 ND over an 11-1 UC. And they would in a heartbeat.

The within two game rule still applies.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 08:29 PM
A 12-0 UC team will be ranked ahead of both TCU and Boise State.

I think it will be awfully, awfully close with TCU. The Big East isn't much better than the MWC, and TCU's non-conference work is looking a bit better (a win in death valley over Clemson is going to look better than a win in Corvallis, and UVA is probably going to be better than any other team on UC's non-conference schedule).

And Boise's overall schedule is weak, but they could well end up with a win over another team that is in the top 5 in the BCS rankings in Oregon. It's going to be very interesting the rest of the way.

Matt700wlw
10-25-2009, 09:37 PM
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs

UC falls 3 spots...USC gets the #5 position even though they struggled, at home, against the same Oregon St. team UC beat, on the road, by 10.

Caveat Emperor
10-25-2009, 09:39 PM
I think it will be awfully, awfully close with TCU. The Big East isn't much better than the MWC, and TCU's non-conference work is looking a bit better (a win in death valley over Clemson is going to look better than a win in Corvallis, and UVA is probably going to be better than any other team on UC's non-conference schedule).

At the end of the day, the Big East is a BCS conference and the MWC isn't. As much as people keep wanting to talk the MWC up, that fact is not going to change anytime soon.

As for the MWC and Big East being similar, sorry -- but the middle and back end of the MWC is utter garbage. After you get past BYU (who, themselves, were hideously overrated after beating a Bradford-less Oklahoma squad and then getting spanked in Provo by a bad Florida State team), you've got Wyoming, Air Force, San Diego State, UNLV, New Mexico, and Colorado State. That's some bad football.

The BE has Louisville and Syracuse, who are both awful, but the rest of the BE blows that crap out of the water.

And, as for TCU? The beat a "ranked" BYU team that had already been drilled once by Florida State (the same Florida State, mind you, that USF beat in Tallahassee), a 4-3 Clemson and a 3-4 Virginia. They've got one ranked opponent on their schedule remaining (a Utah team who has exactly 1 victory vs. a BCS opponent -- a home win vs. Louisville).

UC has 2 road victories vs. BCS opposition (both of whom were ranked at the time of the game) and has 2 remaining opponents who should be ranked when they play, one of which is a road game.

Sorry, but the idea that TCU should be ranked ahead of UC if they both finish undefeated is absolutely laughable. UC's remaining schedule is against all BCS-opposition. If they win out, they'll have won 3 road games against ranked BCS opposition (@Oregon State, @USF, @Pitt), and 4 ranked games total.

TCU can't compete with that. Neither can Boise State, for that matter.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 09:52 PM
Pitt will be the only one that will count as ranked at year's end in the polls. Utah could still be ranked in the polls, and Clemson could very well win the ACC. Right now, Sagarin has UC with a 76th ranked schedule and TCU with a 40th ranked schedule (check out the BCS rankings for how much higher the computers rate TCU than Cincinnati now). UC's finishing schedule is obviously tougher, but it's going to be very, very tight as to who ends up with the better schedule.

And just to make sure we're being fair, Bradford played the entire first half of the BYU/Oklahoma game, and it was tied at the half.

If they both go undefeated, I think it's a photo finish between the two.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 09:57 PM
CE is correct on TCU and Boise State. UC would pass them up on their own merit by simply winning out. In fact, this looks like the current order of BCS title contenders vs. the SEC Champion (I'm assuming one of Florida/Alabama will be in the game - that's too likely).

Texas is currently in.

By far their toughest remaining game this season, including the Big 12 Championship, is this Saturday night in Stillwater at Oklahoma State. After the Halloween tilt in Stillwater, the rest of the Longhorns regular season schedule has mediocre teams. And unfortunately the Big 12 North division stinks so that division isn't likely to put a serious contender in the Big 12 Championship. I thought Nebraska could have been that contender, but they've laid two straight eggs and now sit at 1-2 in the conference.

As UC fans, we must root for Oklahoma State this Saturday.

USC is on-deck should Texas falter.

Assume Texas loses in Stillwater, but USC wins out. Under that scenario, I think the Trojans are in, and a big part of that is because Oregon has helped them out immensely by giving USC an opportunity to pick up a huge win on the road. If the Trojans beat the Ducks in Oregon and win out, they'll pass Iowa even if Iowa wins out. Since Iowa currently has a 1.000 BCS computer ranking, they have no room for more computer points which means USC has an opportunity to chip away at that computer point edge Iowa currently maintains.

As UC fans, we must root for Oregon this weekend.

Iowa & Cincinnati sit in the hole behind USC

Iowa has only four games remaining, three of which are against mediocre schools at home. Home game wins against Minnesota, Northwestern and Indiana won't do the Hawkeyes many favors, especially in the computers. November 14th at Ohio State is Iowa's only remaining opportunity to add a signature win to their resume.

Frankly, despite Iowa's current BCS lead, the UC/Iowa undefeated comparison is still a crapshoot. While Iowa has one very good opponent and three mediocre opponents left, UC has two very good opponents (home vs. WVU, @ Pitt), one mediocre opponent (home vs. UConn) and two crappy opponents left (@ Syracuse and home against Illinois).

Which future schedule carries more weight? In the end, likely UC's remaining schedule. UC's game @ Pitt theoretically cancels out Iowa's game @ Ohio State. That leaves UC's home game against West Virginia as the type of trump card still left in UC's pocket; Iowa doesn't have a second opponent remaining that can carry the type of weight that UC's game against West Virginia carries.

Nevertheless, it is still a crapshoot. That means as UC fans we must be rooting for Ohio State to beat Iowa on November 14th, if Iowa is still undefeated at that point (and I think they will be). Sweater Vest damn well better pull his head out of his rear end and figure out how to use Pryor by that point.

TCU currently sits behind Texas, USC, UC and Iowa. For the Horned Frogs to get in the NCG, all four of those teams must lose.

Boise State needs Texas, USC, UC, Iowa and TCU to lose to reach the NCG. And depending on when and against whom those teams would lose, they'd maybe need somebody to lose twice.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 10:00 PM
Pitt will be the only one that will count as ranked at year's end in the polls. Utah could still be ranked in the polls, and Clemson could very well win the ACC. Right now, Sagarin has UC with a 76th ranked schedule and TCU with a 40th ranked schedule (check out the BCS rankings for how much higher the computers rate TCU than Cincinnati now). UC's finishing schedule is obviously tougher, but it's going to be very, very tight as to who ends up with the better schedule.

And just to make sure we're being fair, Bradford played the entire first half of the BYU/Oklahoma game, and it was tied at the half.

If they both go undefeated, I think it's a photo finish between the two.

An undefeated UC would pass an undefeated TCU team; that would not be in doubt. UC has picked up points on TCU in every single week-to-week human poll except this week, and the only reason for that was the opponent. By next week, UC will likely pick up more votes than TCU. In two weeks, if UC beats Connecticut, they will for sure pick up more votes than TCU.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 10:01 PM
I think you guys are seriously underestimating TCU's chances at holding off UC, but I am obviously not going to change your minds.

joshnky
10-25-2009, 10:03 PM
I think you guys are seriously underestimating TCU's chances at holding off UC, but I am obviously not going to change your minds.

It likely won't matter. Hypotheticals often don't turn out the way we expect. All of these teams could lose and throw the BCS into a mess.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 10:03 PM
In two weeks, if UC beats Connecticut, they will for sure pick up more votes than TCU.

And what if TCU rips a BCS top 15 Utah team November 14th?

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 10:05 PM
I think you guys are seriously underestimating TCU's chances at holding off UC, but I am obviously not going to change your minds.

No I'm not. It's called understanding how the system works, from following the human voters week-to-week to following the computer models.

Outside of a home game against Utah, TCU's remaining schedule is pretty much garbage. Their last game is a home game against 0-7 New Mexico. You want to hear a thud, just listen to the sound of TCU's computer ranking once a home game against a team currently 0-7 gets factored in.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 10:05 PM
And what if TCU rips a BCS top 15 Utah team November 14th?

It doesn't matter - see previous post.

And FWIW, UC hosts West Virginia that week anyway.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 10:07 PM
I know how it works plenty well. It's very, very close. Cheer against Clemson is my advice.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 10:08 PM
I know how it works plenty well.

If your previous posts are any indication, no you don't know how it works plenty well.

No offense, but that reminds me of people saying they understand how run scoring works while quoting BA w/RISP.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 10:08 PM
It doesn't matter - see previous post.

And FWIW, UC hosts West Virginia that week anyway.

And if TCU beats Utah 41-3 and UC sneaks by WV 24-23? And if Pitt loses to ND and WV, knocking them out of the top 25 before the December showdown?

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 10:10 PM
If your previous posts are any indication, no you don't know how it works plenty well.

No offense, but stay tuned. You may end up being right, but if they both win out it's going to be a LOT closer than you seem to think.

Cyclone792
10-25-2009, 10:14 PM
And if TCU beats Utah 41-3 and UC sneaks by WV 24-23? And if Pitt loses to ND and WV, knocking them out of the top 25 before the December showdown?

TCU won't have the computer ranking, and the computer doesn't take into account margin of victory. Those games against Wyoming, San Diego State, UNLV and New Mexico will crush them in the computers, especially that game against New Mexico.

You want to know how bad that game against New Mexico is? UC's win at Miami (OH) will be a better win in the computers than TCU beating New Mexico at home. TCU would be better off having a bye week than beating New Mexico by whatever point margin you can dream of.

Caveat Emperor
10-25-2009, 10:16 PM
I think you guys are seriously underestimating TCU's chances at holding off UC, but I am obviously not going to change your minds.

Tell me where the analysis is flawed, then?

Here is TCU's remaining schedule:

UNLV - Garbage
@SDSU - Garbage
Utah - Top 20 (but, see my other post, they've got no quality wins of their own and 1 loss already -- they'll fall out of the rankings with a 2nd loss and no signature wins)
@Wyoming - Garbage
New Mexico - Garbage

Here is UC's remaining schedule:

@Syracuse - Garbage
UConn - Mediocre
WVU - Top 20
Illinois - Garbage
Pitt - Top 20 Road

SOS clearly favors UC from here on out.

Sure, TCU has wins @Clemson (4-3) and @VA (3-4), but they need those wins just to balance out the awful that is their MWC schedule. We're not even talking about UC's road win @Rutgers to open the season -- which is as good a victory as either of those for these purposes.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 10:20 PM
I agree with all that. But remember, TCU is working with a cushion. And if Clemson wins out (which they very well could), and Pitt loses to ND (which they shouldn't, but Wannstedt is on the sideline), then I wouldn't bet on UC coming all the way back.

Also, the above was mostly in response to your assertion that UC was certain to overtake TCU among the human voters. Maybe likely, but style points will certainly matter there. TCU got them this weekend, and if they do the same against Utah, that will make it tougher unless UC does the same against WV.

And you and I both know that UC isn't going to get the same protection from voters vis a vis TCU that an Iowa or a USC or a Texas will.

Boston Red
10-25-2009, 10:26 PM
Tell me where the analysis is flawed, then?

Here is TCU's remaining schedule:

UNLV - Garbage
@SDSU - Garbage
Utah - Top 20 (but, see my other post, they've got no quality wins of their own and 1 loss already -- they'll fall out of the rankings with a 2nd loss and no signature wins)
@Wyoming - Garbage
New Mexico - Garbage

Here is UC's remaining schedule:

@Syracuse - Garbage
UConn - Mediocre
WVU - Top 20
Illinois - Garbage
Pitt - Top 20 Road

SOS clearly favors UC from here on out.

Sure, TCU has wins @Clemson (4-3) and @VA (3-4), but they need those wins just to balance out the awful that is their MWC schedule. We're not even talking about UC's road win @Rutgers to open the season -- which is as good a victory as either of those for these purposes.

Well number 1, as I said in my other post, the two are not starting out on equal footing. TCU has a nice lead for now, so UC has to play comeback. UC's remaining schedule is tougher, but tough enough to catch TCU? Also, you can't discount Utah if you don't do the same for Pitt. Both top 20, but neither has really beaten anyone, and Pitt lost to an awful NC State team. Also, Pitt could lose to ND and WV and not be ranked by December 5. And Clemson is 4-3 right now, but they could easily finish 9-3 and in the ACC title game. If they win that and go 10-3, don't you think that's going to make things a lot tighter? That would probably make Clemson the highest rated team on either team's schedule, and a road win to boot. That would certainly mitigate some of UC's ability to make hay in the computer rankings.

Caveat Emperor
10-25-2009, 10:41 PM
We'll have to see where everyone ends up -- as you point out, there's a ton of different permutations to all of this that will impact the final vote.

I will say this, though -- if an undefeated TCU holds off an undefeated Cincinnati, they should blow the BCS process up and start over. But, I have no doubt in my mind that motivation is helping some voters keep TCU and Boise State at their respective rankings.

travisgrimes
10-26-2009, 01:55 AM
these things need to happen for UC to be in the National Championship game:

1. Oklahoma State beats Texas
2. Ohio State beats Iowa
3. USC loses to a team other than OREGON
4. Florida vs. Alabama in the SEC title game cancels one out

TCU will be jumped by Cincinnati if both teams win out HOWEVER if Oregon beats USC that only make Boise State look better because they did beat Oregon. If that happens then I don't think even with UC playing Pitt and WVA that they can jump Boise.

dabvu2498
10-26-2009, 02:05 AM
Would Oregon jump UC by winning out?

BearcatShane
10-26-2009, 02:12 AM
these things need to happen for UC to be in the National Championship game:

1. Oklahoma State beats Texas
2. Ohio State beats Iowa
3. USC loses to a team other than OREGON
4. Florida vs. Alabama in the SEC title game cancels one out

TCU will be jumped by Cincinnati if both teams win out HOWEVER if Oregon beats USC that only make Boise State look better because they did beat Oregon. If that happens then I don't think even with UC playing Pitt and WVA that they can jump Boise.




UC needs Oregon to beat USC. The reason I say this is because if USC does indeed beat Oregon then I do not see USC losing another game. They will stay in front of us. After Oregon, USC has one raod game at Arizona State and they finish up the regular season with three home games against Stanford, UCLA and Arizona. Yes, an Oregon Victory over USC would make Boise St. look even better but I think we'd be better off just hoping that UC eventually jumps Boise them and hoping that Oregon falls to an Oregon State or another PAC 10 team.

Eric_the_Red
10-26-2009, 08:55 AM
We'll have to see where everyone ends up -- as you point out, there's a ton of different permutations to all of this that will impact the final vote.

I will say this, though -- if an undefeated TCU holds off an undefeated Cincinnati, they should blow the BCS process up and start over. But, I have no doubt in my mind that motivation is helping some voters keep TCU and Boise State at their respective rankings.

No matter what happens, they should blow the BCS process up and start over.

Reds Freak
10-26-2009, 08:59 AM
Just win, baby. It will all work out in the end...

bucksfan2
10-26-2009, 10:34 AM
FWIW I think the Mountain West is a much better conference than the Big East. I like TCU, BYU, and Utah are all quality teams with good wins year in year out. I think most of the voters think along the same lines and if TCU runs the table I see them leap frogging UC in the polls.

As for the New Mexico or Miami who is worse debate, the Miami game is much worse. TCU has to play NM. They can't do anything about it because they are in the same conference. The Miami game is a non conference schedule game that has done nothing but hurt UC over the past 5 years.

If I were a voter, and the voter still play a large roll in the BCS polls, here is the way I would see the UC TCU match up.

Mountain West > Big East
I think the Big East has better balance, but I like the top of the Mountain West as well as Air Force.

TCU non conference > UC non conference.
I like Virginia and Clemson more than Oregon St. and Illinois. I also think Miami is one of the worst teams in football.

I think it will all come down to perceptions and exposure. Don't discount the kind of national exposure that TCU got for beating a good BYU team as the marque game of the weekend.

joshnky
10-26-2009, 01:15 PM
FWIW I think the Mountain West is a much better conference than the Big East.

This is going to ignite a furor because it is so blatantly untrue as proved by the computer polls of the conferences.

From the BCS computer rankings:
Sagarin - BE 4th, MWC 8th
Anderson - BE 3rd, MWC 7th
Colley - BE 3rd, MWC 8th
Billingsley - BE 3rd, MWC 7th

Most would agree that these are an objective measure, especially for comparison of conferences and it appears that they say the opposite of you. The Big East is, in fact, a much better conference than the MWC.

I will also add that in every one of these polls the Big East was ranked higher than the Big Ten. So, if you believe the MWC is better than the Big East you must also believe it is better than the Big Ten.

Caveat Emperor
10-26-2009, 02:07 PM
FWIW I think the Mountain West is a much better conference than the Big East. I like TCU, BYU, and Utah are all quality teams with good wins year in year out. I think most of the voters think along the same lines and if TCU runs the table I see them leap frogging UC in the polls.

Throw out the "Year in, year out" talk -- we're talking this year, right now. I couldn't care less what happened last year in any of the major conferences for the purpose of this debate.

Right now, the voters have rightly recognized BYU as a sham, dropping them from the Top-25 in both polls. Looking at their schedule, it's not hard to see why:

BYU:

9-5-09 vs. Oklahoma @Arlington, TX WON 14-13
9-12-09 at Tulane WON 54-3
9-19-09 FLORIDA STATE LOST 28-54
9-26-09 COLORADO STATE WON 42-23
10-2-09 UTAH STATE (Fri.) WON 35-17
10-10-09 at UNLV WON 59-21
10-17-09 at San Diego State WON 38-28
10-24-09 TCU LOST 7-38


That's 1 win over a Sam Bradford-less Oklahoma squad on a neutral site, opening weekend, a home blowout loss to a bad Florida State squad (who was beaten by the BE's USF at the Doak in Tallahassee), and nothing victories over bad teams in between. Hardly what I'd call an impressive resume.

Though, I give them credit for at least having one solid win on their schedule -- it makes the positively champions compared to Utah, your other feather in the MWC's cap:

Utah:

9-3-09 UTAH STATE (Thur.) WON 35-17
9-12-09 at San Jose State WON 24-14
9-19-09 at Oregon LOST 24-31
9-26-09 LOUISVILLE WON 30-14
10-10-09 at Colorado State WON 24-17
10-17-09 at UNLV WON 35-15
10-24-09 AIR FORCE WON 23-16 (OT)

That's a loss against their only ranked opposition, 1 win vs. a BCS-conference opponent (lowly Louisville), and nothing but crap filling the gaps. No quality home victories, no quality road victories, but a quantity of bad road opponents.

Another loss, will rightly send Utah to the land of the "who cares" and leave the MWC with 1 ranked team.

MWC better than the Big East? Preposterous when you look at the computers, and preposterous when you look at the teams involved.



TCU non conference > UC non conference.
I like Virginia and Clemson more than Oregon St. and Illinois. I also think Miami is one of the worst teams in football.

You can't determine this until the end of the season, so alot will ride on where Clemson ends up and where Oregon State ends up. As of right now, I think a road victory in Corvalis is equally impressive with a win at Clemson. That can change, but I know if I was scheduling games with the idea of winning I'd stay away from going cross-country to play the Pac 10.

Virginia is a road win, but Virginia is legitimately mediocre. They'll be lucky to finish .500 when ACC play is done. A win @Virginia is no better than a win @Rutgers or @South Florida -- TCU needs that win just to stay in this conversation because they don't have those kind of road trips anywhere else on their schedule in MWC play. @Air Force and @SDSU certainly don't provide that kind of quality road win, to say nothing of @Wyoming.

TCU has no road victories that will be on par with a win @Pitt. They have no home victories that will be on par with a win against WVU. They need Clemson to win the ACC just to keep the conversation going, IMO.

bucksfan2
10-26-2009, 02:50 PM
This is going to ignite a furor because it is so blatantly untrue as proved by the computer polls of the conferences.

From the BCS computer rankings:
Sagarin - BE 4th, MWC 8th
Anderson - BE 3rd, MWC 7th
Colley - BE 3rd, MWC 8th
Billingsley - BE 3rd, MWC 7th

Most would agree that these are an objective measure, especially for comparison of conferences and it appears that they say the opposite of you. The Big East is, in fact, a much better conference than the MWC.

I will also add that in every one of these polls the Big East was ranked higher than the Big Ten. So, if you believe the MWC is better than the Big East you must also believe it is better than the Big Ten.

I think the Big East has better depth. They don't have the bottom feeders that the MWC has. It is really a conference of haves and have nots. However, I will take the MWC's haves (TCU, Utah, and BYU) over the Big East haves.

I think its all a matter of perception and right now I think that the rest of the country think the MWC is better than the Big East.

joshnky
10-26-2009, 03:40 PM
I think its all a matter of perception and right now I think that the rest of the country think the MWC is better than the Big East.

Big East:
7 Cincinnati
17 Pittsburgh
20 West Virginia

MWC:
6 TCU
19 Utah
BYU receiving votes

Even in the polls, this doesn't hold up. According to the pollsters, Cincy and TCU are about even and the Big East has two more top 25 teams to the MWC's one. Now, this is fine as your opinion but to suggest that others share it just doesn't hold up. Just based on the coaches poll it would seem that they feel that the Big East is slightly better than the MWC at the top.

bucksfan2
10-26-2009, 04:19 PM
Big East:
7 Cincinnati
17 Pittsburgh
20 West Virginia

MWC:
6 TCU
19 Utah
BYU receiving votes

Even in the polls, this doesn't hold up. According to the pollsters, Cincy and TCU are about even and the Big East has two more top 25 teams to the MWC's one. Now, this is fine as your opinion but to suggest that others share it just doesn't hold up. Just based on the coaches poll it would seem that they feel that the Big East is slightly better than the MWC at the top.

TCU leap frogged the Bearcats this past week after beating BYU on the road. That should show you were the perception lies.

Boston Red
10-26-2009, 04:23 PM
TCU leap frogged the Bearcats this past week after beating BYU on the road. That should show you were the perception lies.

And if UC played and won 38-7 at Pitt next weekend, UC would leapfrog TCU (uh oh, now I'm on both sides).

joshnky
10-26-2009, 04:56 PM
TCU leap frogged the Bearcats this past week after beating BYU on the road. That should show you were the perception lies.

I don't understand your argument. Of course TCU should have jumped over Cincy this week. BYU is a better team than Louisville so that is a more impressive win. TCU beat a top three team in their conference while Cincy beat the worst team in their conference. But I don't understand how that means that they think the MWC is a better conference. In my mind, the computers favor the Big East and the Top 25 polls favor the Big East so I would say people perceive the Big East is the better conference. Now if you're trying to say that they perceive TCU as better than Cincy then I agree with you because they're ranked higher in the polls.

bucksfan2
10-26-2009, 05:11 PM
I don't understand your argument. Of course TCU should have jumped over Cincy this week. BYU is a better team than Louisville so that is a more impressive win. TCU beat a top three team in their conference while Cincy beat the worst team in their conference. But I don't understand how that means that they think the MWC is a better conference. In my mind, the computers favor the Big East and the Top 25 polls favor the Big East so I would say people perceive the Big East is the better conference. Now if you're trying to say that they perceive TCU as better than Cincy then I agree with you because they're ranked higher in the polls.

The polls should reflect the best teams in order, not the team that had the best week. I think TCU jumped ahead of UC because most voters perceive them as the better overall team, not the hotter team. UC will have a chance for an impressive win, but that won't come until the last game in the season, away at Pitt. WVU could/should help, but I don't know if it will do enough to leap ahead of TCU.

I think TCU has better top teams. I like the big 3 of TCU, BYU, and Utah over any three that the Big East has. I am not very high on Pitt or WVU. The Big East as a conference has a pretty balanced middle tier of teams whereas the MWC is top heavy with 3 good teams and the rest bottom feeders.

Again this is a personal opinion, you can disagree with my opinion if you like.

dougdirt
10-26-2009, 05:28 PM
A win vs West Virginia isn't more impressive than a win vs BYU? Please. BYU is an absolute sham. We will see how the polls look if both teams win out. If that happens there is no way that UC is behind TCU. Not a chance. The Big East is better than the Mountain West. The top teams are better and the bottom teams are better.

joshnky
10-26-2009, 05:52 PM
Again this is a personal opinion, you can disagree with my opinion if you like.

I don't have a problem with this but you stated that the polls reflect a perception that people (not just you) think the MWC is a better conference than the Big East.

I would say the perception (based on polls), is that TCU is better than Cincy, while Pitt is better than Utah, and WVU is better than BYU.

And as an aside, I've seen Louisville play both Pitt and Utah and Pitt is the much better team of the two. I don't think WVU is all that great but as others have said, neither is BYU.

Boston Red
10-26-2009, 06:12 PM
OK, how is WV less of a sham than BYU? At least BYU has one good win. WV?

dougdirt
10-26-2009, 06:38 PM
OK, how is WV less of a sham than BYU? At least BYU has one good win. WV?

BYU has one good win against Oklahoma who lost Sam Bradford in the game. Against the other teams with good talent they have been obliterated. West Virgina lost to Auburn, who is a good but not very good team. We haven't seen WV play any other real good teams. UCONN is a solid team. I guess the difference is that BYU has shown us that they are a sham. WV hasn't. Not yet at least. Well that and that WV has the athletes to match up with anyone and BYU clearly doesn't.

paintmered
10-26-2009, 06:44 PM
Since this year's already been posted, here's the 2008 Sagarin Conference Rankings:


CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS

1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 78.31 79.08 ( 1) 12
2 BIG 12 (A) = 77.86 77.80 ( 2) 12
3 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 77.70 77.67 ( 3) 12
4 PAC-10 (A) = 76.14 75.39 ( 4) 10
5 BIG EAST (A) = 75.23 74.11 ( 5) 8
6 BIG TEN (A) = 73.21 73.49 ( 6) 11
7 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 70.90 71.72 ( 7) 9



2007:


CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS

1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 81.99 81.83 ( 1) 12
2 PAC-10 (A) = 79.47 79.63 ( 2) 10
3 BIG 12 (A) = 78.62 78.35 ( 3) 12
4 BIG EAST (A) = 77.46 77.12 ( 4) 8
5 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 75.21 74.98 ( 5) 12
6 BIG TEN (A) = 74.63 74.17 ( 6) 11
7 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 70.95 70.84 ( 7) 9


2006:


CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS

1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 81.60 81.23 ( 1) 12
2 BIG EAST (A) = 79.57 79.90 ( 2) 8
3 PAC-10 (A) = 78.78 79.15 ( 3) 10
4 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 75.49 73.79 ( 6) 12
5 BIG TEN (A) = 74.89 75.62 ( 4) 11
6 BIG 12 (A) = 74.34 74.01 ( 5) 12
7 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 68.34 69.30 ( 7) 9


2005:


CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS

1 BIG TEN (A) = 80.72 80.55 ( 1) 11
2 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 78.96 78.26 ( 4) 12
3 BIG 12 (A) = 78.96 80.02 ( 2) 12
4 PAC-10 (A) = 77.92 78.65 ( 3) 10
5 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 75.28 74.92 ( 6) 12
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 74.44 75.02 ( 5) 3
7 BIG EAST (A) = 72.12 72.42 ( 7) 8
8 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 69.51 69.58 ( 8) 9

Boston Red
10-26-2009, 06:53 PM
BYU has one good win against Oklahoma who lost Sam Bradford in the game.

The play before halftime. And the game was tied.

And Bradford-less OK is still better than anyone WV has beaten to date. I don't think BYU is fantastic, but I don't really see WV as being any better.

Caveat Emperor
10-26-2009, 07:03 PM
OK, how is WV less of a sham than BYU? At least BYU has one good win. WV?

WVU also hasn't been blown out at home by a sub-.500 team.

joshnky
10-26-2009, 07:07 PM
OK, how is WV less of a sham than BYU? At least BYU has one good win. WV?

Because of the FSU loss.

And in my post, I think I said that neither team is all that great. If they played on a neutral field, WVU would probably be a slight favorite.

The point of this whole conversation is that the MWC is not the better conference by any objective measure. The only way it comes out ahead is in the comparison of the top team from each league, where TCU (currently) comes out slightly ahead.

joshnky
10-26-2009, 07:12 PM
By the way, I don't think the Big East is a very good conference by any measure. But I do believe it is better than the MWC by every measure.

dougdirt
10-26-2009, 07:44 PM
The only way it comes out ahead is in the comparison of the top team from each league, where TCU (currently) comes out slightly ahead.

Well that is unless you look at the AP poll or ESPN Power Rankings or Sports Illustrated Power Rankings.....

joshnky
10-26-2009, 07:49 PM
Well that is unless you look at the AP poll or ESPN Power Rankings or Sports Illustrated Power Rankings.....

I'm not arguing that they're better just that currently, the human polls that count as well as the BCS poll rank TCU higher. Because of that, the point could be made that people feel TCU is the better team. I don't agree but that is a point with some basis in reality. The rest of his claims about conference comparison are so baseless that they're funny, especially from a Big Ten fan.

jimbo
10-27-2009, 12:06 AM
The rest of his claims about conference comparison are so baseless that they're funny, especially from a Big Ten fan.

Just observing, but it looks like you are the only one bringing the Big 10 into the discussion. What does the Big 10 have to do with this thread, or the discussion at hand?

joshnky
10-27-2009, 07:15 AM
Just observing, but it looks like you are the only one bringing the Big 10 into the discussion. What does the Big 10 have to do with this thread, or the discussion at hand?

I was pointing out his bias against the Big East and that he wouldn't admit the same thing about the Big Ten.

SeeinRed
10-27-2009, 08:48 AM
Any argument that starts with the what the human polls say should be thrown out at hand IMO. The polls are not a good measure of teams at this point and very fickle. Obviously, this is all opinion, but there is no way I take the to 3 in the MWC over the top 3 in the BE. Even then, if it is considered a push or slightly edges one way or another, the rest of the BE definitely takes the rest of the MWC. There is not logical way I see to compare conferences than as a whole, and considering the top three aren't a runaway in either direction, there is not logical way for me to pick the MWC. The computer polls seem to agree with that year in and year out.

joshnky
10-27-2009, 08:53 AM
Any argument that starts with the what the human polls say should be thrown out at hand IMO. The polls are not a good measure of teams at this point and very fickle. Obviously, this is all opinion, but there is no way I take the to 3 in the MWC over the top 3 in the BE. Even then, if it is considered a push or slightly edges one way or another, the rest of the BE definitely takes the rest of the MWC. There is not logical way I see to compare conferences than as a whole, and considering the top three aren't a runaway in either direction, there is not logical way for me to pick the MWC. The computer polls seem to agree with that year in and year out.

Agreed.

will5979
10-27-2009, 09:28 AM
The play before halftime. And the game was tied.

And Bradford-less OK is still better than anyone WV has beaten to date. I don't think BYU is fantastic, but I don't really see WV as being any better.

WVU beat Oklahoma WITH Bradford. And they didn't just beat them, they OWNED them making Lee Corso go beserk. That tool stated "OK will stick it to em' they'll beat em' by 3 TDs! Mark it down." Final score WVU-48 OK-28. I pretty sure WVU would beat TCU, but then again its football and nothing is a sure thing.

And fwiw, WVU is 6-1 ranked 20th while undefeated in Big East play. If they beat USF this week they'll come to Cincy 8-1 for possibly the Big East game of the year, I may come out for that game.

How are scalper ticket prices for Cincy games (probably not as good as cheap Reds seats!)?

SeeinRed
10-27-2009, 09:41 AM
Also, let me add this, there are some good arguments that could be made that the Big East and Big Ten are pretty close one way or the other. I don't care which is better, don't want to get into that, but if the BE got the same respect at the beginning of the season that the B10 had then the BE teams would likely be rated higher. As many have pointed out, the BE being awful was overblown and the BE teams had to climb from way back to get where they are currently. Pitt might even be a top 10 team by now. That is why those human polls are so ludicrous. Its all a popularity contest.

will5979
10-27-2009, 09:44 AM
Also, let me add this, there is some good arguments that could be made that the Big East and Big Ten are pretty close one way or the other. I don't care which is better, don't want to get into that, but if the BE got the same respect at the beginning of the season that the B10 had then the BE teams would likely be rated higher. As many have pointed out, the BE being awful was overblown and the BE teams had to climb from way back to get where they are currently. Pitt might even be a top 10 team by now. That is why those human polls are so ludicrous. Its all a popularity contest.

Agreed. Just win and everything eventually works itself out. That is what coached need to stress to their players...take it one game at a time and one victory at a time. If you look too far ahead you can lose focus and easily lose games.

bucksfan2
10-27-2009, 09:57 AM
BYU has one good win against Oklahoma who lost Sam Bradford in the game. Against the other teams with good talent they have been obliterated. West Virgina lost to Auburn, who is a good but not very good team. We haven't seen WV play any other real good teams. UCONN is a solid team. I guess the difference is that BYU has shown us that they are a sham. WV hasn't. Not yet at least. Well that and that WV has the athletes to match up with anyone and BYU clearly doesn't.

BYU beat the #2 team in college football, with the returning Heisman trophy winner. Bradford played almost the entire first half and was unable to do much. The BYU win over OU may top any win UC has had in their entire football program, at least for as long as I can remember.

WVU's loss over Auburn keeps looking worse and worse and Auburn's slide continues. Im not sold on WVU, and haven't been since Rich Rod and Steve Slaton left. We will see how their season progresses along, but so far this season they have played two decent teams (Auburn and UConn) and lost one of them.

The Big East is going to have better conference rankings because their second tier teams are much better than the likes of UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico State and the likes. As of right now I will take Utah, BYU, and TCU over UC, Pitt, and WVU.

SeeinRed
10-27-2009, 10:13 AM
The BYU win over OU may top any win UC has had in their entire football program, at least for as long as I can remember.

I'd say UC's win over an undefeated Rutgers in 2005(?) was at least very close to that win by BYU. Rutgers came in at 9-0 and sitting 6th in the BCS standings. Even if Bradford played a half, that also means he didn't play for a half against BYU. Like it or not, losing your starting QB halfway through is a big deal. If you don't believe me, look how OU has been since they lost him. Not quite the same team huh? I don't know why this argument has to be made right now, but it is one that is easily dismissed as well.


The Big East is going to have better conference rankings because their second tier teams are much better than the likes of UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico State and the likes. As of right now I will take Utah, BYU, and TCU over UC, Pitt, and WVU.

Your original argument was that the MWC is a better conference, no? Even if you like the MWC top 3 better, it is very close either way. You have to concede that at least. If you are to call one conference better than the other, then you have to consider the whole conference, not just the top 3. Based solely on what you already said about the rest of each conference, calling the MWC better doesn't make any logical sense to me.

Cyclone792
10-27-2009, 10:35 AM
The Big East is going to have better conference rankings because their second tier teams are much better than the likes of UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico State and the likes.

And that's all part of what makes the Big East a better conference. You know, having better teams and stuff ...

Nevertheless, back to UC news ... Jibreel Black, a high 3-star defensive end recruit from Wyoming HS, has gone back on his committment to Indiana and has decided to commit to Cincinnati. Black was arguably Indiana's best recruit so this is a very nice swipe for Kelly and the Cats.

SeeinRed
10-27-2009, 10:44 AM
And that's all part of what makes the Big East a better conference. You know, having better teams and stuff ...

Nevertheless, back to UC news ... Jibreel Black, a high 3-star defensive end recruit from Wyoming HS, has gone back on his committment to Indiana and has decided to commit to Cincinnati. Black was arguably Indiana's best recruit so this is a very nice swipe for Kelly and the Cats.


I have a feeling it won't be long until you see some more big recruits looking at UC. We haven't even started to see the fruits of Kelly's labor as far as recruiting goes. He can make lower recruits big time contributors, but it will sure be nice to get some big recruits and see what he can do. He has a pretty good backyard full of recruits that I'm sure will be thinking about staying close to home.

If UC can keep winning, there is no reason they can't become a big time program. The facilities are on the horizon, an expanded stadium is a big possibility, and the fan base it growing. UC is on a definite upswing that could have lasting results. Very exciting to be along for the ride. Pretty soon, there will be some NFL players contributing to the program as well. We'll see where it all ends up, but there is a lot to be positive about for UC fans. Even the possibility of bringing back a winning basketball program could mean good things for football.

will5979
10-27-2009, 10:51 AM
Im not sold on WVU, and haven't been since Rich Rod and Steve Slaton left.

To be honest not a lot of us have since they left, but I personally am glad Rich isn't here any longer. I lost a lot of respect for him early in his career when he couldn't win any bowl games against a few teams that could have been victories, also when he flirted with Alabama about becoming their head coach. That man is not about a team, all he cares about is number 1. I believe that is why he went to Michigan, he wants to go pro someday.

As far as this season goes I've been realistically skeptical all year because Jarret Brown is about as bright as a burned out light bulb. His dumb fumbles and lackidaisicle plays against Auburn are why we aren't undefeated. I'm hoping he'll prove me wrong the rest of the year and hoping we can win out, BUT we still can realistically lose 3 of the next 5; USF, Cincy, and as much as it pains me to say SPitt. If we can't win the Big East I'll be happy with a bowl trophy, anything after that is icing. Last year was a big disappointment. We had a chance to go 11-1 and bad coaching blew that.

SeeinRed
10-27-2009, 12:22 PM
Here is an interesting little debate between the B10 blogger and BE blogger on ESPN.com about Iowa vs. UC:


Blogger debate: Iowa vs. Cincinnati

October 27, 2009 9:00 AM

Posted by ESPN.com's Brian Bennett and Adam Rittenberg


Several teams remain alive in the BCS title game hunt. But outside of the Big Three (Florida, Texas, Alabama), only two BCS conference teams are still unbeaten -- Iowa and Cincinnati. And both are the subject of considerable debate.

So let's break it down now with Big Ten blogger Adam Rittenberg and Big East blogger Brian Bennett.


AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Mardy Gilyard has scored 10 touchdowns so far this season.
Brian Bennett: First of all, Adam, do you think either the Hawkeyes or the Bearcats are worthy of playing for the national title this season?

Adam Rittenberg: Brian, I think both teams are worthy, and before getting to each case, let's look at the sport as a whole. Who is really good this year? Florida has flaws, Alabama has flaws, Texas has flaws, USC certainly has flaws. The most dominant teams to me have been TCU, Boise State and yes, your Cincinnati Bearcats, but those teams will always face questions about overall strength of schedule.

When it comes to Iowa, I know the Hawkeyes don't win many style points with the voters outside the Big Ten region. I know they should have beaten Arkansas State and Northern Iowa by a lot more. But trust me, it can't be understated how hard it is for a team to go into State College, Madison and East Lansing and come out with victories. If Iowa completes its road circuit with a win at Ohio State, I don't know how you leave that team out of the title chase.

So let's hear it. Make your case for Cincinnati. Are they worthy? I feel like Wayne and Garth right now.

BB: Party time, it's excellent. (We're dating ourselves here, Adam.)

Well, Cincinnati has been simply dominant, winning its three Big East games by an average of 27 points. Two of those were on the road. In fact, the Bearcats are 4-0 on the road, including a 10-point victory at Oregon State. Mighty USC just beat those same Beavers by 7 at home.

Look at the national statistics, and Cincinnati is everywhere: second in scoring offense, 11th in scoring defense, first in sacks, third in turnover margin, ninth in kickoff returns. This is a complete, well-rounded football team with a couple of real stars on offense (Tony Pike, Mardy Gilyard) and one of the best coaches in the business right now, Brian Kelly.

Iowa has had a great year, but I just can't shake those close shaves to Northern Iowa and Arkansas State out of my mind. Can a team that has as much scoring as the Hawkeyes do really be taken seriously as a national championship contender?

AR: I'll admit to having a man-crush on Brian Kelly. He's an amazingly innovative coach, and I love the way he never lets a setback like losing a quarterback affect his plan.


Stephen Mally/Icon SMI
Tyler Sash leads the Big Ten in interceptions with five.
As for Iowa, does a team have to be an offensive juggernaut to win the national title? I know it's a quarterback's game, but we seem to build up those players so much and then get disappointed (like with Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy and Sam Bradford this year). Iowa's defense has more dynamic playmakers than most offenses in the FBS. The defensive line is a joy to watch, as all four guys, especially ends Adrian Clayborn and Broderick Binns, totally wreak havoc. Safety Tyler Sash leads the Big Ten in interceptions for the second straight year and makes a ton of exciting plays. Same goes for cornerback Amari Spievey, safety Brett Greenwood and linebacker Pat Angerer. Really, how can you not love a middle linebacker named Pat Angerer?

The offense has some bright spots as well (tight end Tony Moeaki, running back Adam Robinson, wideout Derrell Johnson-Koulianos) and while quarterback Ricky Stanzi has had his ups and downs, he's incredibly resilient and just knows how to win games. He's 16-3 as the starter.

I just keep pointing to the road wins, plus a nice home victory against surging Arizona. Corvallis is a tough place to play, but it isn't State College, Madison or Columbus. The Big Ten still has the intimidation factor going for it. Does Cincinnati run the table with Iowa's road slate?

BB: I think Cincinnati would win at Wisconsin and possibly at Penn State, given that Syracuse stuck around there in Week 2 without any offense at all. As for Ohio State, well, that's a subject of great interest for many Bearcats fans that we'll have to take up later this week.

I do seem to remember, however, Iowa losing at Pitt last year. Different year, I know, but a lot of the same players on both sides. And it proves that the Big Ten and Big East aren't too far apart.

I wonder if we should be watching the Arkansas State-Louisville score this weekend, since Cincinnati beat Louisville 41-10 and of course Arkansas State nearly knocked off the Hawkeyes. Unfortunately, given the system, comparative scoring is about all we have.

Well, that and opinion. So in your opinion, who's better between Cincinnati and Iowa?

AR: You're right in that there isn't much to compare these two leagues, but this Iowa team is totally different than the one that lost at Pitt last September. The quarterback situation was messy back then, and Stanzi's presence has completely changed things and provided the offense a new degree of confidence.

As for who's better, it's a tough call. Cincinnati is certainly the sexier team. Heck, Iowa even admits that it isn't the prettiest car in the lot. It's almost a point of pride. I would certainly pay to see Clayborn, Binns and the Iowa defense go up against the Bearcats' offense. Stanzi and the Iowa offense would need to limit mistakes and try to control the clock to keep Pike or Zach Collaros or Brian Bennett or whomever is playing quarterback for UC off of the field.

But if the game is close, and you'd figure this game would be, you simply can't bet against Iowa. The Hawkeyes are fail-safe in the clutch, while Cincinnati hasn't been in many down-to-the-wire games. You need a special quality to dig deep and pull out the close ones, and Iowa has that quality this season. If the Hawkeyes could keep things close until the fourth quarter, I would like their chances.

OK, you get the last word on this. Who's better?

BB: I've got to stick with Cincinnati (assuming that Bennett kid is far away from the huddle). I just think the Bearcats would definitely score some points on offense and that they have a much more modern attack than Iowa sees most weeks in the Big Ten. I have no confidence that the Hawkeyes could score enough against a very underrated Cincinnati defense. Stanzi is clutch but is nowhere near Pike's league. And I have learned to never bet against Kelly.

Let's just hope that neither team gets shut out of the BCS title game if indeed it can go undefeated. Or that would make a lot of fans Angerer.

Hoosier Red
10-27-2009, 12:29 PM
And that's all part of what makes the Big East a better conference. You know, having better teams and stuff ...

Nevertheless, back to UC news ... Jibreel Black, a high 3-star defensive end recruit from Wyoming HS, has gone back on his committment to Indiana and has decided to commit to Cincinnati. Black was arguably Indiana's best recruit so this is a very nice swipe for Kelly and the Cats.

And Jibreel's brother is a starting DT for IU. That's cold blooded man.

will5979
10-27-2009, 12:38 PM
Check this article out, sorry if it has already been posted.

http://bigeastclubhouse.com/fe...ber-to-remember

SeeinRed
10-27-2009, 12:40 PM
Check this article out, sorry if it has already been posted.

http://bigeastclubhouse.com/fe...ber-to-remember


That link may be broken... At least it was for me. I think this is the link you wanted us to see. http://bigeastclubhouse.com/features/predictions/275-a-november-to-remember

Roy Tucker
10-27-2009, 12:45 PM
Yeah, if UC runs the table and loses a NC game slot to a 1-loss SEC, PAC-10, or Big 12 team, the BCS discussions will get veeeeery interesting.

But UC has some tough games left. WVU and Pitt will be tough and I'm still waiting for Illinois to wake up. However, if they do win out, I don't see how they can keep UC out of that game. Go undefeated in a BCS conference and win a PAC-10 road game and a Big 10 home game? I can see where TCU or Boise State could get omitted but not UC.

will5979
10-27-2009, 12:50 PM
That link may be broken... At least it was for me. I think this is the link you wanted us to see. http://bigeastclubhouse.com/features/predictions/275-a-november-to-remember

thats it, sorry

SeeinRed
10-27-2009, 01:02 PM
Part of me would like to believe UC getting left out could be a good thing if it really sets in motions a BCS blow-up, but the more realistic part of me knows the BCS isn't going anywhere. Omitting an undefeated UC for a one-loss team means that even being a BCS conference doesn't help when the "big boys" can make money. I have little faith in the system as it is currently set up.

Boss-Hog
10-27-2009, 01:06 PM
Nevertheless, back to UC news ... Jibreel Black, a high 3-star defensive end recruit from Wyoming HS, has gone back on his committment to Indiana and has decided to commit to Cincinnati. Black was arguably Indiana's best recruit so this is a very nice swipe for Kelly and the Cats.
Wyoming's my alma mater, and I'm going to their game this Friday against Indian Hill, so I'm looking forward to seeing him play. I've heard he's really good.

Reds4Life
10-27-2009, 01:10 PM
I'm not sure any of the BCS conference teams will end up undefeated. I could see UC losing 1 game, either to WVU, or Pitt. Iowa will lose to Ohio State. Florida and Alabama haven't been very impressive on offense the last couple weeks, and they will play each other in the SEC title game.

Caveat Emperor
10-27-2009, 01:34 PM
Here is an interesting little debate between the B10 blogger and BE blogger on ESPN.com about Iowa vs. UC:

Watching Iowa, I've had a lot of flashbacks to that Ohio State national championship team. Plucky, tenacious, and a Konami-code's worth of extra lives.

I can't get over this feeling, though, that they're gonna get blown out by Ohio State. It makes no sense whatsoever, but I just see that game coming out lopsided -- 28-7 OSU, something like that.

We'll have to see, though.

Reds4Life
10-27-2009, 02:12 PM
Watching Iowa, I've had a lot of flashbacks to that Ohio State national championship team. Plucky, tenacious, and a Konami-code's worth of extra lives.

I can't get over this feeling, though, that they're gonna get blown out by Ohio State. It makes no sense whatsoever, but I just see that game coming out lopsided -- 28-7 OSU, something like that.

We'll have to see, though.

I don't think Iowa is that good, personally. Ohio State should beat them, easily. Although with the way OSU has played sometimes this year you never know.

bucksfan2
10-27-2009, 02:28 PM
I don't think Iowa is that good, personally. Ohio State should beat them, easily. Although with the way OSU has played sometimes this year you never know.

Iowa just doesn't do anything good, but like most college football teams, if you protect the ball and don't beat yourself, you have a very good chance of winning. Talent wise OSU has them beat but if Pryor turns the ball over Iowa will win.

As for UC what I fear is how well they will play in a bad weather game. What happens if they play in a rain storm? What happens if they play at Pitt on a sloppy, wet, muddy field? They have troubles running the ball, will that be exposed?

Redlegs23
10-27-2009, 02:36 PM
Iowa just doesn't do anything good, but like most college football teams, if you protect the ball and don't beat yourself, you have a very good chance of winning. Talent wise OSU has them beat but if Pryor turns the ball over Iowa will win.

As for UC what I fear is how well they will play in a bad weather game. What happens if they play in a rain storm? What happens if they play at Pitt on a sloppy, wet, muddy field? They have troubles running the ball, will that be exposed?

I too think OSU will beat Iowa by two touchdowns. As for UC playing in bad weather, I think they're fine running the ball if they need to, they showed that in the second half at South Florida.

Reds4Life
10-27-2009, 02:45 PM
Iowa just doesn't do anything good, but like most college football teams, if you protect the ball and don't beat yourself, you have a very good chance of winning. Talent wise OSU has them beat but if Pryor turns the ball over Iowa will win.

As for UC what I fear is how well they will play in a bad weather game. What happens if they play in a rain storm? What happens if they play at Pitt on a sloppy, wet, muddy field? They have troubles running the ball, will that be exposed?

I'm more concerned with Pike. How will he play after the surgery? He might be a little scared of being hit and doing more damage to the arm. Even after the Louisville game, I'm still not very high on Collaros. He was lucky in the fact Louisville sucks, a couple of the passes he threw are INT's against a good team. Binns bailed him out big time with a great catch. He doesn't seem to have the arm strength and floats way to many passes. Against Pitt, or WVW, those passes are turnovers.

OSU should be fine against Iowa, the defense is good. I don't think it will take a crap ton of offense to beat them. Will probably be a low scoring game, IMO.

bucksfan2
10-27-2009, 02:47 PM
I too think OSU will beat Iowa by two touchdowns. As for UC playing in bad weather, I think they're fine running the ball if they need to, they showed that in the second half at South Florida.

Here is the thing. UC was struggling to run the ball with Pike at QB. They didn't start running the ball well until Collaros took a QB draw to the house. It almost looked like a busted play that Collaros surprised everyone, including himself. If the game is sloppy, I just don't see UC being able to sustain a running game throughout the entire game.

Cyclone792
10-27-2009, 02:54 PM
Wyoming's my alma mater, and I'm going to their game this Friday against Indian Hill, so I'm looking forward to seeing him play. I've heard he's really good.

Please provide a full scouting report. :D

Here's a recent interview with Black regarding his decision:

http://www.idsnews.com/blogs/hoosierhype/?p=7631


I just got off the phone with Jibreel Black, previously IU’s top recruit who confirmed that he did indeed switch his commitment to Cincinnati.

Black, whose brother Larry starts at defensive tackle for the Hoosiers, is rated a four-star recruit according to Scout.com and a three-star recruit according to Rivals.com.

What went into the decision to switch from IU to Cincinnati?

I have been thinking about the decision for the past two weeks. I just really wanted to do something that was in my heart from the start and that was to attend the University of Cincinnati.

What other schools were you originally considering?

I was looking at Indiana, Cincinnati, Michigan, Michigan State and Kentucky.

How much did the success of both programs this season play a part in the decision?

That kind of played a part. I would be lying to tell you it didn’t. The past is what you have as an indicator of the future.

I told Coach Lynch I was thankful for everything he did for me, but I think I will have a better opportunity at the University of Cincinnati right now than I do at IU.

Follow the jump for more thoughts on the decision.

Did you speak with your brother Larry (current starting defensive tackle for IU) before making the choice?

I talked to him to let him know. He said, ‘do what is best for you. Whatever fits you, do it.’ I did what I felt was best for me.

In years past, many of the top football recruits in the Cincinnati area have gone to schools such as Ohio State and Notre Dame. What does it mean to you to stay in your hometown?

It kind of starts a new thing that top Cincinnati players are going to go to UC. I would be lying to say that it didn’t play a big role.

Caveat Emperor
10-27-2009, 03:33 PM
Here is the thing. UC was struggling to run the ball with Pike at QB. They didn't start running the ball well until Collaros took a QB draw to the house. It almost looked like a busted play that Collaros surprised everyone, including himself. If the game is sloppy, I just don't see UC being able to sustain a running game throughout the entire game.

UC "struggles" to run the ball because they choose not to. It's a point of mild contention a lot of fans will have with Kelly during the middle of a game.

They have the talent at RB to be a very good running team, with Pead, Ramsey and Goebel. They just will get stuck in their mind, for extended periods of time, that they need to be throwing on every down.

Pead is scary-quick. If he had a coaching staff that was determined to get him 10-15 "touches" per game, he'd be racking up some huge yardage.

Sea Ray
10-27-2009, 04:53 PM
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet but our Bearcats have made it into Wall Street Journal.

This article came out last week and it makes the point that Ohio State is no longer the best team in Ohio and how the Bearcats accomplished it

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487483196226454.html

Redlegs23
10-27-2009, 05:01 PM
It almost looked like a busted play that Collaros surprised everyone, including himself.

It was a designed play, not a busted play.

Cyclone792
10-27-2009, 06:29 PM
Not that I enjoy seeing other teams lose players to injury (I don't), but it's notable that Iowa's starting running back Adam Robinson is likely out for the season after suffering an ankle sprain at Michigan State. This weakens the already below average Iowa offense, opening the door up a bit more for them to drop a game. Additionally, it may cost them a few points in the human polls even if they do continue winning.

Regardless, with or without Robinson, I expect Iowa to lose on November 14th anyway which gives UC a chance to pass them by simply doing their job on the field.

Tony Cloninger
10-28-2009, 12:12 AM
Not being from Ohio...but understanding how the Buckeyes are the team and have been for years..... I have seen letters to the editors of SI...and many comments from OSU fans who are basically showing their complete distaste for any ...ANY... suggestion that UC might be better than OSU...this year.

I mean the sarcasm and the complete disgust in some of these words..... One lady wrote that if Tony Pike was any good...he would have never gone to UC at all and he would have been at OSU already. OSU fans sound like an even worse version than Yankee or Cubs fans.

travisgrimes
10-28-2009, 02:59 AM
Back to one of my other posts, everyone here thought I was crazy when I said Alabama is not as good as advertised. Tennessee did exactly what they needed to do to win the ballgame. They contained Ingram and put pressure on McElroy and IF the Vols had a decent kicker than they win that game. Alabama has been exposed and I believe Florida has too. The best two teams in the country right now are TCU and Cincinnati.

SeeinRed
10-28-2009, 12:11 PM
Not being from Ohio...but understanding how the Buckeyes are the team and have been for years..... I have seen letters to the editors of SI...and many comments from OSU fans who are basically showing their complete distaste for any ...ANY... suggestion that UC might be better than OSU...this year.

I mean the sarcasm and the complete disgust in some of these words..... One lady wrote that if Tony Pike was any good...he would have never gone to UC at all and he would have been at OSU already. OSU fans sound like an even worse version than Yankee or Cubs fans.


I'm not touching that one with a ten foot stick... LOL.

With UC looking at another start for Collaros, how do you feel about the game at Syracuse. Pike is "a possibility" to play, but I see no reason to push him anyway. Kelly said last year it took 3 weeks for Pike to fell comfortable, I see no way it goes any faster this time. Pike will be needed for the stretch run. I think UC pulls out with an easy victory, but it won't help their position in the standings. UC is in good position down the stretch if they can keep winning, but those games against WVU and Pitt are gonna be HUGE. Very exciting games in November for the BE.

Sea Ray
10-28-2009, 12:18 PM
Kelly said last year it took 3 weeks for Pike to fell comfortable, I see no way it goes any faster this time.


I certainly hope it goes faster this time. All they had to do this time was re-adjust the plate.

Cyclone792
10-28-2009, 12:34 PM
I'm not touching that one with a ten foot stick... LOL.

With UC looking at another start for Collaros, how do you feel about the game at Syracuse. Pike is "a possibility" to play, but I see no reason to push him anyway. Kelly said last year it took 3 weeks for Pike to fell comfortable, I see no way it goes any faster this time. Pike will be needed for the stretch run. I think UC pulls out with an easy victory, but it won't help their position in the standings. UC is in good position down the stretch if they can keep winning, but those games against WVU and Pitt are gonna be HUGE. Very exciting games in November for the BE.

I don't think Pike is necessary to win this game, though I expect the game to be closer than the Louisville game. Syracuse is a slightly better team than Louisville, and the game will be played in the Carrier Dome. If UC plays smart, avoids mistakes and avoids turnovers, I think they win the game by a pair of touchdowns. The problem will be if UC has a turnover problem then it could be a closer game than we'd like to see.

As for the polls, my guess is a UC win moves them up to 7th in the BCS. The one difference in the Syracuse game vs. the Louisville game is the Syracuse game is at least on the road. The computers will like a road win over a bad team better than a home win over a bad team. If USC beats Oregon, my guess is UC will move ahead of Boise State. If Oregon beats USC, UC will move ahead of USC and will have to wait until beating Connecticut and possibly West Virginia to move ahead of Boise State.

SeeinRed
10-28-2009, 12:51 PM
I certainly hope it goes faster this time. All they had to do this time was re-adjust the plate.


I don't really know what went into the surgical procedure, but I would think re-injuring an injury could cause more problems than the original injury. I wouldn't be suprised to see him miss 3 weeks.

Puffy
10-28-2009, 02:13 PM
Worse than that, Notre Dame is likely to take the Big East's Gator Bowl bid this year, meaning that the loser of an 11-0 UC vs. 10-1 Pitt game could end up in Charlotte.

I think this is prob wrong - if Pitt is 10-1 heading into showdown with Cincy that means they beat ND and ND has three losses and is 9-3. Thus a 1 loss Cincy team and a 1 loss Pitt team gets into Gator over ND, IMO.

I know Gator can pick whoever they want and a 9-3 ND is probably more attractive that a 1 loss Cincy team though since the Gator knows ND fans travel and Cincy does not have that "rep" just yet. I am actually hoping ND gets that Gator Bowl bid cause that means I am off to Jacksonville! But 1 loss Big East team still probably goes over 3 loss Notre Dame team

Boston Red
10-28-2009, 02:30 PM
But 1 loss Big East team still probably goes over 3 loss Notre Dame team

Unfortunately, not a chance. Bowl games are about money and nothing else.

Puffy
10-28-2009, 02:38 PM
You might be right and I used "probably" for a reason. Like I stated I am hoping ND ends up in Gator because thats a four hour ride and I'm a Notre Dame fan, so I guess if we lose to Pitt we will see who is right.

Caveat Emperor
10-28-2009, 04:49 PM
You might be right and I used "probably" for a reason. Like I stated I am hoping ND ends up in Gator because thats a four hour ride and I'm a Notre Dame fan, so I guess if we lose to Pitt we will see who is right.

The more interesting scenario to me would be this:

TCU: Undefeated
Boise: Undefeated
Note Dame: BCS Eligible (but BCS rank in the teens)

Would the BCS select a BCS-eligible Notre Dame team, who travels exceptionally well, and snub one of the two undefeated "BCS Buster" schools?

Money meets "Doing the Right Thing."

bucksfan2
10-28-2009, 05:44 PM
The more interesting scenario to me would be this:

TCU: Undefeated
Boise: Undefeated
Note Dame: BCS Eligible (but BCS rank in the teens)

Would the BCS select a BCS-eligible Notre Dame team, who travels exceptionally well, and snub one of the two undefeated "BCS Buster" schools?

Money meets "Doing the Right Thing."

Its pretty simple what will happen. TCU will get a BCS bid. I think we will see that an undefeated team in the MWC will get a BCS bid regardless of situations. Boise will get left out and it is really their fault. They just don't play a difficult enough schedule. If Pat Hill and Fresno St. can schedule away games against anyone and everyone, then BSU should.

ND will get a BCS berth. They have too much of a following and will create too much media stir to be left out. While BSU is a neat story and I like to see them go up against the big boys, they don't have the body of work that a BCS eligible team like ND has. FWIW I do not like ND one bit.

Puffy
10-28-2009, 05:47 PM
FWIW I do not like ND one bit.

I forgive you cause I like OSU less than one bit ;)

Cyclone792
10-28-2009, 05:55 PM
I say this with an understanding that I have absolutely no interest in Notre Dame football at its core. I've never disliked them; I'm just indifferent on them.

Nevertheless, as far as I'm concerned, I want to see Notre Dame win out and become BCS eligible. For 1) it opens up the Gator Bowl to a very deserving second place Big East team, and 2) more importantly the Notre Dame natives would likely be pretty satisfied with the Fat Man, at least for the time being, and thereby squash those rumors of the Irish canning the Fat Man and chasing Brian Kelly.

SeeinRed
10-29-2009, 10:58 AM
Its funny that there is a huge group with the perception that it is more important that the fans see a game they want to see instead of a game that is a true championship game in almost every sport. It is afterall what makes the money. It does however make a complete mockery of the game IMO. I just had to laugh and shake my head when I read this in the Sporting News Today this morning about 5 BCS Games fans don't want to see (http://today.sportingnews.com/sportingnewstoday/20091029?sub_id=Bp7ljGs7n4aak&folio=CGI#pg21).

The BCS is nothing but a Dog and Pony show for the bluebloods of College Football. Every time I read something like this, the more I disgusted I get with it. I know its nothing that hasn't been said before, but it does become more personal when your team is the one that could get snubbed. It really hits hard when your team is in a conference that is supposed to BCS worthy but you still get the 2nd class treatment. I know its me being impatient and UC has to keep proving itself, but if a 12-0 (still gotta get there I know) season doesn't get you a chance at a championship, whats the point of playing the season.

Every team should have a chance, reguardless of conference or tradition. As a fan of sports, thats what I believe. Baseball does it, Basketball does it, Pro football does it, why doesn't college football do it? /rant


As for UC, Tony Pike didn't practice yesterday. Coach Kelly said he has an appointment with the doctor today and they will know more after that. Somehow I doubt that it will be any clearer after that. My guess is he is back against WVU.

Tony Cloninger
10-29-2009, 11:47 AM
Who cares what some smarmy little reporter has to put down in a paper that is not even relevant anymore? So he thinks for everyone? UC ..if they go undefeated and win a bowl game....will be relevant and next year if they show the goods again will be taken seriously.

joshnky
10-29-2009, 11:50 AM
Who cares what some smarmy little reporter has to put down in a paper that is not even relevant anymore? So he thinks for everyone? UC ..if they go undefeated and win a bowl game....will be relevant and next year if they show the goods again will be taken seriously.

My opinion as well. He wrote an article on games that fans wouldn't enjoy and for the most part I agree with his picks. He isn't saying those teams won't deserve it, just that it would be a poorly regarded game.

It appears that he thinks a match up between USC and Florida would have the biggest draw and most excitement. I tend to agree, although personally I would like to see someone new get a shot.

SeeinRed
10-29-2009, 12:33 PM
The problem isn't this guy's article. The problem is that this is a similar article that is written every year by national writers. When bowls are picked by who travels well and who fans want to see, it is a complete dis-service to the players and fans who want to see the best teams play. This is the system and how it works. Opinion determines championships in the BCS, not play. As long as this view holds relevance to the powers that be, there will be no change. Thats my beef with it.

joshnky
10-29-2009, 12:53 PM
When bowls are picked by who travels well and who fans want to see, it is a complete dis-service to the players and fans who want to see the best teams play.

But that is not the case with the championship, which is the point of the article. Because the process for selecting the teams in the championship includes a computer component, the bowl organizers can't just pick who they'd most like to see in the game. And while the traditional powers certainly gain a small edge in the human polls, I doubt pollsters are ranking teams based on how well they travel and who has the biggest fan base. However, your point is certainly true regarding the other BCS bowl games but really, outside of the championship, they're all just glorified exhibition games (although with a lot of money involved).

SeeinRed
10-29-2009, 01:04 PM
Who cares what some smarmy little reporter has to put down in a paper that is not even relevant anymore? So he thinks for everyone? UC ..if they go undefeated and win a bowl game....will be relevant and next year if they show the goods again will be taken seriously.


Paul Daugherty wrote this (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091027/COL03/310270076/1007/SPT0101/BCS+one+game+UC+can+t+win) Tuesday and it holds true for me. How many more seasons does it take before UC is considered a "legitimate" team? Why does a team have to have a track record to be the best team in any given year? Who says UC would be relevant next year? Why should we be content with the promise that if we keep doing it, we will be able to possibly be the best someday? This should be settled on the field, not on a computer. UC, Boise State, TCU, they should have a chance to prove they are the best any time they have the record to put them in the mix, not after they win for 5-10 years. Those are just my thoughts. We shouldn't be talking about who gets picked for the championship game.

joshnky
10-29-2009, 03:49 PM
How many more seasons does it take before UC is considered a "legitimate" team?

Win a BCS game and you'll be relevant. People began to buy in to both Louisville and WVU after they won their BCS games in impressive fashion. People doubt Cincy because they were in a similar position last year and Virginia Tech exposed them.

WMR
10-29-2009, 04:02 PM
I really really hope that UC gets matched up with one of the big boys from the SEC in a bowl game. I want to see what they're really made of. Creaming Big East competition just doesn't tell me very much.

joshnky
10-29-2009, 04:11 PM
I really really hope that UC gets matched up with one of the big boys from the SEC in a bowl game. I want to see what they're really made of. Creaming Big East competition just doesn't tell me very much.

Agreed. They will have doubters until they beat a top notch team in January, in one of the premier BCS games.

bucksfan2
10-29-2009, 04:22 PM
Win a BCS game and you'll be relevant. People began to buy in to both Louisville and WVU after they won their BCS games in impressive fashion. People doubt Cincy because they were in a similar position last year and Virginia Tech exposed them.

Louisville rise coincided with them landing one of the recruits in the nation. It didn't hurt that they had a good team in place when Brohm stepped onto campus, but he brought a lot of press with him. They also had a near miss at Miami, Fl that really opened up some eyeballs. Then if I recall correctly didn't they beat Miami the next season?

If UC gets a BCS bowl bid this season, wins the game, and then then beats OU next season they will have arrived. Unfortunately at the same time they could get a BCS bowl game, lose to TCU in a BCS after thought, and then get beat by OU and the skeptics will still be out there.

cincrazy
10-30-2009, 02:00 AM
I don't think there's any doubt Cincy could compete with an SEC team. The SEC has been unbelievably average this year, and that's being charitable. However, the same can be said for all of college football.

Except the Big 10.

The Big 10 is all kinds of horrific, not average.

will5979
10-30-2009, 09:47 AM
Win a BCS game and you'll be relevant. People began to buy in to both Louisville and WVU after they won their BCS games in impressive fashion. People doubt Cincy because they were in a similar position last year and Virginia Tech exposed them.

Its also about all Big East teams. Right now we have 3 in the top 20. We also need for all the Big East teams to win their bowls (except Pitt). For Example, the top 2 will get the most important bowls. Lets say for arguments sake Cincy wins the BE and WVU is runner up. BCS bowl possibly MNC game and Gator Bowl. Those top 2 teams need to win to impress the pundits. Then the lesser bowl games featuring Big East teams need wins to make the postseason record look good. WVU and Louisville can't carry the BE torch for everyone, Louisville has experienced a TKO, and WVU is struggling just to stay in the top 25. My point is that we need different BE teams WINNING their BCS games to make a good impression. For that reason I'll cheer for all BE teams in the postseason, except Pitt!

will5979
10-30-2009, 09:49 AM
I don't think there's any doubt Cincy could compete with an SEC team. The SEC has been unbelievably average this year, and that's being charitable. However, the same can be said for all of college football.

Except the Big 10.

The Big 10 is all kinds of horrific, not average.

Gawd I get so sick and tired of hearing about how Big East teams can't compete with the SEC. Just ask certain SEC teams about the Big East teams that have defeated them in this decade including major bowl games.

joshnky
10-30-2009, 10:26 AM
Gawd I get so sick and tired of hearing about how Big East teams can't compete with the SEC. Just ask certain SEC teams about the Big East teams that have defeated them in this decade including major bowl games.

Like how WVU represented against a bad Auburn team?

will5979
10-30-2009, 10:46 AM
Like how WVU represented against a bad Auburn team?

Sad, we coulda/shoulda won that game, but we didn't! We gave that game away with dumb turnovers, granted turnovers happened but 6 and 4 of those 6 by your QB? Unexceptable. Besides we beat Auburn last year. And beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, and Ole Miss in the Music City Bowl and that was when WVU was coached by Nehlen. And we have beat Miss St. twice this decade. We have a great record vs. the SEC.

Caveat Emperor
10-30-2009, 02:45 PM
Like how WVU represented against a bad Auburn team?

A fair point, but I think WVU wins that game @ Morgantown if you went back and replayed it.

dabvu2498
10-30-2009, 03:10 PM
A fair point, but I think WVU wins that game @ Morgantown if you went back and replayed it. And Auburn may have won last year's game if it had been played on The Plains.

joshnky
10-30-2009, 03:42 PM
A fair point, but I think WVU wins that game @ Morgantown if you went back and replayed it.

But the perception is that Auburn and WVU appear to be about even this year. WVU is seen as one of the top teams in the Big East while Auburn is solidly in the middle of the SEC. That alone leads people (including me) to believe that the SEC is quite a bit better than the Big East, and definitely deeper.

I'm a Louisville fan and wish the Big East well but it doesn't do us any good to get indignant when people say that the SEC is superior. It is superior to the Big East, just like it is superior to the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, and probably the PAC10. That doesn't mean our conference is bad, just that the SEC is very good.

Caveat Emperor
10-30-2009, 04:00 PM
I'm a Louisville fan and wish the Big East well but it doesn't do us any good to get indignant when people say that the SEC is superior. It is superior to the Big East, just like it is superior to the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, and probably the PAC10. That doesn't mean our conference is bad, just that the SEC is very good.

Oh, I agree the SEC is still top dog -- but I think the gap isn't quite as big this year as it has been in years past. This is especially true at the top of the SEC, where I don't think Alabama and Florida are nearly the dominant juggernauts everyone figured them for early in the year.

SeeinRed
10-30-2009, 04:08 PM
But the perception is that Auburn and WVU appear to be about even this year. WVU is seen as one of the top teams in the Big East while Auburn is solidly in the middle of the SEC. That alone leads people (including me) to believe that the SEC is quite a bit better than the Big East, and definitely deeper.

I'm a Louisville fan and wish the Big East well but it doesn't do us any good to get indignant when people say that the SEC is superior. It is superior to the Big East, just like it is superior to the Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, and probably the PAC10. That doesn't mean our conference is bad, just that the SEC is very good.


It tough to disagree that the SEC is better IMO. I think the main issue people have is the perception that an Alabama or Florida would whoop up on a Cincy, Pitt or WVU. I'm not saying they wouldn't, but it would suprise me if they did absolutely blow the BE team out of the water like some think would happen. Just my opinion.

Also, I don't think the SEC teams are heads and shoulders about the others. They are very good, don't get me wrong, but the percieved separation by some individuals is far greater than reality.

Using UC as an example since this is a UC thread, I don't think any of the top 3 teams would just throttle them. UC would give any of those teams fits and could win any of those games. Not saying they would or they should be favored in any of them, just saying that IMO they aren't so greatly overmatched that it wouldn't even be a contest.

joshnky
10-30-2009, 04:13 PM
Using UC as an example since this is a UC thread, I don't think any of the top 3 teams would just throttle them. UC would give any of those teams fits and could win any of those games. Not saying they would or they should be favored in any of them, just saying that IMO they aren't so greatly overmatched that it wouldn't even be a contest.

I agree with this regarding UC. However, I'm not sure how well WVU or Pitt would hold up against those teams. Brown and Stull just aren't very good QBs.

bucksfan2
10-30-2009, 04:56 PM
Using UC as an example since this is a UC thread, I don't think any of the top 3 teams would just throttle them. UC would give any of those teams fits and could win any of those games. Not saying they would or they should be favored in any of them, just saying that IMO they aren't so greatly overmatched that it wouldn't even be a contest.

I disagree. UC would get beat handily by Florida, Alabama, and Texas. They just don't have the horses on the lines yet. I think that is the biggest difference where the Bearcats are right now and where they hope to be.

SeeinRed
10-30-2009, 05:01 PM
I disagree. UC would get beat handily by Florida, Alabama, and Texas. They just don't have the horses on the lines yet. I think that is the biggest difference where the Bearcats are right now and where they hope to be.


Thats just a difference in opinion. I've seen nothing to prove that Florida, Alabama or Texas are that much better than UC. I think a lot of this is based on preconcieved notions that UC can't be anywhere near those schools. I'm not saying UC would win, just that they Florida, Alabama or Texas would have their hands full against a team with very potent offense and an under-rated defense. Again, thats just my humble opinion.

Any argument that UC hasn't faced a tough enough team to consider them potent offensively or under-rated defensively may hold water, but I would contend that Florida, Alabama and Texas haven't faced teams like UC. Not saying the teams they faced weren't good, just that UC has a style of play that would absolutely give those teams fits.

Boston Red
10-31-2009, 03:14 AM
UC is certainly better than Arkansas and Tennessee. Florida didn't exactly smoke either of those teams, and Bama was a FG away from losing to Tennessee. Cincy is likely better than Oklahoma. Texas didn't exactly smack the Sooners around.

Caveat Emperor
10-31-2009, 04:07 AM
WVU laid an egg tonight against USF.

It was a must-win game for USF (after losing back-to-back games vs. Cincinnati and Pitt), but a game WVU probably should have won. The win should help UC's current SOS (based on their victory over USF), but will greatly diminish the impact (both in the computers and the minds of voters) of any victory over WVU later this season.

Tonight (10/31) will determine, in large part, what UC fans can hope for. If Texas and USC both lose their road games, the door will be wide open for an outside contender to make the NCG (Iowa and UC, step forward). If either of them win, it'll be the longest of longshots at that point.

Boston Red
10-31-2009, 12:12 PM
I have to think WV's loss tonight will be harmful to UC among the human pollsters. While TCU is playing a ranked Utah in a couple weeks, UC was going to be able to counter with a game against a ranked WV. No more. UC needs to hope Pitt doesn't slip up, too.

texasdave
10-31-2009, 03:17 PM
Indiana up by two touchdowns over Iowa with about 5 minutes left in the third quarter.

**Touchdown call now under review.**

**Touchdown called back.**

Indiana still up 7 late in the third.

Caveat Emperor
10-31-2009, 04:13 PM
I have to think WV's loss tonight will be harmful to UC among the human pollsters. While TCU is playing a ranked Utah in a couple weeks, UC was going to be able to counter with a game against a ranked WV. No more. UC needs to hope Pitt doesn't slip up, too.

Utah hasn't played anyone -- until they do, penciling them in to still be undefeated in that game is premature.

I'm honestly not worried about TCU. There is no way the voters will let an undefeated non-member school play for the BCS national title over a member-school that is undefeated. People can scream "unfair," and they'd probably be right, but that's the way it works. I'm fairly confident that the voters and the computers will take care of business for UC -- if it ever reaches the point where UC is the last remaining undefeated BCS school or one of two undefeated BCS schools.

In other news, Iowa expends another of it's 9 lives coming back from a 5 INT performance from Stanzi to beat Indiana. Have to hand it to them -- they keep finding new holes to put themselves in and ne ways to dig out.

Reds4Life
10-31-2009, 04:25 PM
In other news, Iowa expends another of it's 9 lives coming back from a 5 INT performance from Stanzi to beat Indiana. Have to hand it to them -- they keep finding new holes to put themselves in and ne ways to dig out.

The good news is, Iowa is going to get eaten alive by Ohio State. They could pull off the comeback against a sub-par Indiana defense. They won't be able to do that against OSU.

Hoosier Red
10-31-2009, 04:51 PM
Iowa is terrible. Bad news is IU is worse.

joshnky
10-31-2009, 05:22 PM
Utah hasn't played anyone -- until they do, penciling them in to still be undefeated in that game is premature.


Especially considering the fact that they've already lost.

HeatherC1212
10-31-2009, 05:55 PM
Congrats to UC on winning again today! :D

redsfandan
10-31-2009, 06:24 PM
It doesn't look like they've missed Pike that much.

Eric_the_Red
10-31-2009, 07:13 PM
It doesn't look like they've missed Pike that much.


I agree. Collaros may not be that polished, or have the stature of a prototypical QB, but he is great at improvising and making things happen. Bodes well for next season.

Cyclone792
10-31-2009, 07:36 PM
Another nice win for UC, and it's always nice to win road conference games, even if the opponents are down such as Syracuse today. UC did catch some breaks today though, notably two Syracuse turnovers deep in UC territory and then the Collaros touchdown pass on the botched field goal attempt.

UC is having a solid day from the computer perspective ... so far. The Rutgers and South Florida wins over Big East opponents will likely even the SOS out later on, but UC did beat those teams on the road and they both won today. Florida State also won, which will help boost up South Florida and make UC's win over the Bulls a bit stronger. Oregon State is beating UCLA 19-11 in the 4th quarter, and it'd be very nice if the Beavers could hold on. Louisville is beating a bad Arkansas State team 21-13. Miami (OH) is up 31-24 on Toledo, and it'd be nice to see the Redhawks finally contribute something. And for future SOS matters, Illinois is blowing out Michigan.

Hopefully Oregon State and Miami (OH) hold on to win. The only downside so far is Fresno State is struggling at home to a 2-5 Utah State team and currently trail 27-17 at halftime. Fresno State has the firepower to score quick so hopefully they can pull out a win.

Oh, and let's not forget about the two big games tonight ... go Oklahoma State and go Oregon!

redsfandan
10-31-2009, 08:03 PM
Hopefully Oregon State and Miami (OH) hold on to win. The only downside so far is Fresno State is struggling at home to a 2-5 Utah State team and currently trail 27-17 at halftime. Fresno State has the firepower to score quick so hopefully they can pull out a win.


Well Oregon St and Miami both won so that helps.

edit: chalk up a win for Fresno St as well.

HeatherC1212
10-31-2009, 10:12 PM
Oregon is doing it's part and playing great football right now (up 17-10 on USC in the 2nd quarter) but with the way other games have gone today, I fully expect USC to win this one somehow even if they play like total crap. I guess I'm just cynical right now after a insanely weird day of football. :eek: :rolleyes:

Cyclone792
11-01-2009, 01:57 AM
Oregon does their job by blowing out USC, but Oklahoma State failed miserably in their bid to knock off Texas.

The Longhorns have the inside track to the BCS title game now considering there really isn't any strong competition remaining on their schedule. Of course, they still have to play the games, and chances are they won't play as well in one or two remaining games. But I still think they head to the Big 12 Championship game undefeated. And unfortunately, the Big 12 North isn't going to put an outstanding team in that game either.

I guess I'll root for Nebraska to win the Big 12 North to face Texas in the Big 12 Championship, because they've probably got the best shot to knock off Texas if they play well. Still, I won't hold out hope that Texas is going to lose - it'd be an insanely pleasant surprise at this point.

Nevertheless, while the BCS ranking probably doesn't mean as much to UC anymore considering the Texas victory, it will be interesting to see where they land this week. UC's seven opponents they already have beaten went 6-1 this weekend (Southeast Missouri State was the lone loser) so the SOS will get a nice boost from this weekend's games. And while Syracuse is a pretty bad team, UC's victory over them was at least on the road which will be a factor in their favor amongst the computers.

NorrisHopper30
11-01-2009, 01:13 AM
We probably won't move up.

USC will fall below us...and I believe Oregon will hop us. We may hop TCU, but probably not Boise (they beat Oregon). Every team on our schedule that we have beaten this year won this week, so that'll help our SoS..but will it be enough to hop TCU or hold off Oregon? Probably not.

BearcatShane
11-01-2009, 02:50 AM
I think the BCS standings will look like this:

1. Florida
2. Alabama
3. Texas
4. Iowa
5. Boise State
6. Oregon
7. Cincinnati
8. TCU

UC could end up 8th again, wouldn't shock me if TCU was still ranked above UC.

Cyclone792
11-01-2009, 10:26 AM
It looks like our previous opponents may have helped out a bit more than I'd have thought: UC moved up to 3rd from 6th in the Sagarin ratings. We'll see if we get similar bumps in the other computer ratings.

Texas, even coming off a road win at Oklahoma State, still sits 9th in the Sagarin computer rankings.

I'll have to wait to see the BCS standings tonight, but there may be an outside chance that an undefeated UC could slide past an undefeated Texas. We're probably talking less than a five percent chance, but we'd have a good idea if that chance may even exist once tonight's standings are updated.

Essentially, UC would have to finish 2nd in the computers ahead of Texas (very possible if Ohio State beats Iowa and UC wins out) and 3rd in the human polls directly behind Texas. The hope would be that a computer advantage could outweight the human point edge for Texas. We'd have to start getting a lot of help from our opponents though (i.e. Oregon State and Fresno State winning out, beating a 10-1 Pitt team, etc.).

I don't think it's all that possible, but something to watch for depending how the standings look now.

BearcatShane
11-01-2009, 04:39 PM
UC is 4th in the new AP poll and 7th in the coaches.

Also, the UConn at UC game will be telivised nationally on ABC at 8:00 Saturday.

Tony Cloninger
11-01-2009, 04:53 PM
Somebody actually gave Iowa a 1st place votes. Reminds me of when that writer...gave Alabama the only 1st place vote almost all year...and he was proven right. I think it was back in the middle 90's.

I just do not see Iowa as a legitimate team...does anyone else?

dougdirt
11-01-2009, 05:00 PM
I looked at the AP poll voters.... a guy who writes for a paper in Louisianna has UC ranked 11th. No one else has them worse than 8th.

OnBaseMachine
11-01-2009, 09:02 PM
Cincy is #5 in the new BCS rankings.

travisgrimes
11-01-2009, 11:07 PM
IMO Iowa is about as lucky/overrated a football team as I have ever seen. I think when they go play Ohio State in two weeks they will be beaten soundly. But in order for Cincinnati to be in the title game: of course we have to win out but Texas needs to lose and Florida/Alabama need to play in the SEC title game.

BCS National Title Game: Cincinnati vs. Alabama
Prediction: Cincinnati 23 Alabama 17

Sea Ray
11-02-2009, 03:00 PM
Also, the UConn at UC game will be telivised nationally on ABC at 8:00 Saturday.


It'll be televised regionally, not nationally. Check your local listings. Folks out west have no interest in seeing this game

joshnky
11-02-2009, 03:07 PM
It'll be televised regionally, not nationally. Check your local listings. Folks out west have no interest in seeing this game

Truthfully, I have no interest in seeing this game either. I've seen UConn play enough to know that this game will neither be close nor exciting.

SeeinRed
11-02-2009, 09:22 PM
So, its that time of the week again, Kelly said Pike will practice this week. How much and if he will be able to play remains to be seen, but at least he will get some reps. UConn has been in two hard fought, emotional games (both losses no less) and I honestly don't know how much of a fight they can muster. You never want to under-estimate an opponent and UConn certainly could win, but I think UC will take care of business. I don't think Pike plays this week or if he does he only plays for the first half at most. After this game is where I start to get nervous.

NorrisHopper30
11-02-2009, 09:27 PM
Kirk Herbstreit, Brent Musberger and Erin Andrews will be at the game from what I hear.