good luck with that
I thought it was interesting that the line has moved from Wisc -5.5 to Wisc -4 in the last day. For those of you who are not gamblers that is a pretty big swing during the middle of the week. This is especially surprising given the news attention being on Wisc scoring 83 points last week.
Anybody have any theories on why this could have moved so much? My only thought was the news of J. Clay maybe not being ready to play.
Now that Dallas Crawford is blue, my question on his teammate Sammy Watkins is rather simple... With the depth UM is bringing back; Roundtree, Hemingway, Stonum, Odoms, not to mention Ricardo Miller and Je'Ron Stokes, what are the odds that Sammy Watkins plays from day one? I know he's highly ranked - Scout's #2 WR - but is he so good that he'd jump over Miller/Stokes/Grady, and see the field from day one? Could our depth hurt us here?
This morning I posted an open question on why DB had not yet given RR a contract extension yet. I didn't use any of the famed banned terms, didn't swear and I think used reasonably correct grammer and punctuation. The topic had a lot of interest based upon the number of responses and the posts were seemingly all well thought out and expressed a variety of different viewpoints on the question. In short, it was exactly why I posted it in the first place - to get the thoughts of my fellow bloggers and hear their opinions on my "why" question.
And then it was pulled down by the Mods. Why? What protocol did it violate? I really want to know because for the life of me it seemed a whole lot more relevant to me than a lot of the stuff that's allowed to stay up on the board.
The score was 17-10 Wisconsin, with Indiana having missed a field goal on Chappell's last drive. The stats:
Indiana: 7 first downs, 95 yards rushing, 62 yards passing (8 of 14, one TD)
Wisconsin: 7 first downs, 93 yards rushing, 46 yards passing (4 of 7)
Even if you count the Wisconsin drive (2 plays, 66 yards) after Chappell got hurt, before his replacement fumbled the first snap, it's still not a total blowout, 24-10 with Indiana moving the ball effectively (that is, 24-17 at the half would have been possible).
In short, Wisconsin is good, but the fact they blew out Indiana and we did not (42-35) probably doesn't mean as much as might seem. If Chappell is in for the whole game, it's much closer, with Wisconsin winning by at most 20.
Although we've gotten to the bowl-eligibility threshold and beyond, there is a school of thought that believes "we haven't beaten anybody of substance, so 7-5 is meaningless, so RR should still be fired."
Kirk Ferentz's first season in 1999 was a 1-10 disaster; his second in 2000 was marginally better at 3-9. His third season in 2001 was 6-5 in the regular season, with a victory over Texas Tech in the Alamo Bowl. Here's the rundown of who Iowa played during the regular season in 2001, with the opponent's season record in parentheses:
W Kent State (6-5)
W Miami OH (7-5)
W Penn State (5-6)
L Purdue (6-5)
L MSU (6-5)
W Indiana (5-6)
L Michigan (8-3)
L Wisconsin (5-7)
W Northwestern (4-7)
W Minnesota (4-7)
L Iowa State (7-4)
So, in his third season at Iowa, the only teams with winning records that the Hawkeyes beat were two MAC teams, and they lost to their instate rival Iowa State for the third year in a row. While it certainly represented progress from years one and two, it was hardly a scintillating record. I wonder if there were Iowa fans clamoring for his dismissal after the regular season. Ferentz was following the legendary Hayden Fry, and while Fry's last season in 1998 was disappointing, he nonetheless was the guy who had resurrected Iowa football and made it truly competitive in the Big Ten. I have to believe there were Hawkeye fans who were wondering if Ferentz was going to be able to get it done.
In Ferentz's fourth year in 2002, Iowa went undefeated in conference play, shared the Big Ten title with OSU (who they did not play) and played on New Year's Day in the Orange Bowl.
I'm not saying that RR = KF or that UM football = Iowa football or that Ferentz's record is all that we should hope for. What I am saying is that focusing solely on who we've beaten in RR's third year, and deciding that the coach should be fired on that basis, is likely to be as short-sighted as firing Ferentz after his third season would have been. Brandon has said repeatedly that the number of wins and losses will not be the sole measuring stick in his season-end review.
James, I fully agree with you that Wisconsin will not score 83 on us this weekend. I also appreciate the fact you guaranteed that fact since I don't find it within the realm of reason. What is strange, however, is how this is somehow turned into you daring Wisconsin to run up the score. I think this is an overeager copy editor more than anything else.
Michigan CB daring Bucky to run up score?
08:15 AM ET 11.17 | As part of a team that has had its troubles stopping opponents, Michigan cornerback James Rogers may have set a carrot out there for Wisconsin. [Rogers] didn't go out on much of a limb when asked on Monday about the University of Wisconsin football team scoring 83 points against Indiana. "I guarantee they're not going to score 83 points on us," said Rogers, whose Wolverines host the Badgers on Saturday. Then again, Michigan allowed 65 points in a triple-overtime win over Illinois two weeks ago, so maybe the limb is not unbreakable.