football

Considering Ok. State's demolition in progress of Oklahoma, I ask that you take this survey:  Who should play in the BCS Title game, and why?

Feel free to discuss what you think below.  I'm voting for Ok. St, because I hate rematches, and feel that after this game, they deserve a shot.

Edit:  If Ok. St. were to move up, it would be highly unlikely that we would play in the Sugar Bowl.  We would almost certainly go to the Fiesta Bowl and play Stanford.

Edit 2:  Survey Monkey limits me to getting the results to the first 100 responses before paywalling me.  So I'll talk results here:

1.  You overwhelmingly believe that Ok. State should be in it over Alabama, by a 85-15 margin.

2.  #1 reason:  Anti-rematch/we got jobbed 2006.  Over half of you cited this as your reason.

3.  Even among those who claimed that they chose the better team, they chose Ok. St.

Only #3 comes as a suprise.  

Edit 3:  Whoever's response to this question was F Ohio, +1.

Why do we have these games? I know I know--money. But is there any rationale at all for them besides money? In every conference title game this year, one team in the matchup is either clearly inferior (UCLA), has already proven in the regular season that they are worse that the team they are playing (Georgia), is totally irelevant (any Big East squad) or has already beeaten their foe in the regular season (MSU). Even in the supposed best conference in football (SEC) the average margin of victory for the winner in the 20 championship games that have been played is two touchdowns. In a playoff scenario, playing teams you have already beaten is ok if everyone is going for the national title, but failing that, most of the teams have already proven themselves superior. The majority of teams in the title games have already played each other. Why play another game? I know...

Listen, I realize this isn't a news flash, but I have to say that I didn't pay much attention to these games (other than watching them) before because the B1G didn't have a championsip game. Now I watch most and think: why is this happening? I know I know...

But maybe I'm mistaken? Do any of you like these games and find a rationale for them? Maybe any extra college football is ok with you? 

7:30 PM ESPN2 BYU vs. Hawaii (root for whoever you want)

8 PM ESPN Virginia Tech vs. Clemson (root for Virginia Tech I think)

8 PM FOX Michigan State vs. Wisconsin (It looks like we'll be in the BCS anyway so go ahead and root for Wisconsin)

8 PM ABC Oklahoma state vs. Oklahoma (root for OK State)

8 PM CBSSN Freno State vs. San Diego State ( root for whoever you want)

On ESPN's Michigan site there is an article assesing Michigan's RB play this season. It points on some things that "worked" and some that didn't. Specifically it notes that: 

Perhaps it wasn't worth it to burn an entire season for 13 carries.

So that got me thinking...Isn't it possible he could still be eligable for a medical redshirt? I know the rules are a bit wonky (specially since we have to sweat out Gardner's) but a little bit of internet research returned the following:

To receive a medical hardship waiver - in any sport - the injury must limit the student-athlete’s participation to no more than 20 percent of the team’s contests (rounded to the next whole number), with all participation occurring in the first half of the season.

Therefore, for a football player, the maximum number of games that he can play in and still receive a medical hardship waiver is three (20 percent of 11 equals 2.2, which is rounded up to 3), and none of his time on the field can occur after the fifth game (the sixth game of an eleven game season is considered in the second half of the season).

In the case of a 12 game regular season (ie. Michigan 2011), none of the player's time on the field can occur after the sixth game.  The seventh game of a 12 game season is considered in the second half of the season.

Does anyone know if that's accurate? If it is, Rawls was still technically eligible after his 10 carries against Minny (assuming he came down with "an injury"), but it looks like his 1 carry against Purdue is going to cost him a full year of eligibility.

I remember reading somewhere that the staff told Rawls he wouldn't reshirt but was it really worth it for one carry?

Is it possible they played him knowing he'd reshirt next season?

Was he THAT good that the staff needed to get him on the field?

I hold Hoke in incredibly high regard, and I'm certain he didn't just goof, so what's the deal?

Did I miss something?

With So. Miss polishing off a big win vs. Houston, we can look forward to this afternoon's late games:

Iowa St. at #11 KSU - FSN (currently 17-13 K-State at half.  They could get a BCS spot if TCU is unable to move up)

UNLV at #18 TCU - Vs. (currently 21-3 in 2nd.  See BCS potential)

#22 Texas at #17 Baylor - ABC (No, Baylor will not be in BCS)

#14 Georgia vs. #1 LSU - CBS

Hopefully this last weekend will deliver some more good games.  Discuss and enjoy.

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9RD77AG2%40news.ap.org%3...

Apparetenty he was visiting his home town and lost control of a 1970 coupe.  Nobody injured and he wasn't drunk.