500, dead or alive!
this week in unintentionally grim-sounding recruiting headlines
500, dead or alive!
...when you schedule a rematch with that FCS team that embarrassed you at home four years ago.
I'd like to think our program will be above a Minnesota level in 2014.
...is that from a public-perception standpoint these FCS games are a disaster. Look at Indiana and Minnesota tonight--N.D.State's Massey rating is well ahead of North Texas and I think that's probably accurate, but I suspect the general feeling tomorrow is going to be that Minnesota's loss was a lot worse. There's a perceived gap between the top of the FCS and the bottom of the FBS that I don't think is actually there, and the casual fan isn't familiar enough with the FCS to differentiate the teams. Good team or bad, it's just an FCS loss.
I'm sure the average FBS AD is aware of this. The reason FCS teams keep getting scheduled is simple: someone has to fill those slots. It's getting increasingly difficult to get teams to agree to come without a return trip. The FCS teams will still do it, so they get scheduled.
There are 37 teams in the C-USA, Sun Belt, WAC, and Mountain West conferences. Is it really the case that none of them (aside from SDSU) would come to Michigan Stadium without a return trip? I find that hard to believe.
ADs at BCS schools all say the same thing. For whatever reason, it's becoming hard to fill those slots.
Some of those schools in the leagues you mention would come play a guarantee game. But they may not have an open week at the same time as us - or if even they do, it may be inconvenient for them (they may have a rivalry game the next week). They may demand too much of a financial guarantee. The FCS schools are generally dying for publicity and will come cheap.
Which is why we're playing an FCS team in 2013 that we've never played before.
The name escapes me at the moment, but all I know is that we've NEVER PLAYED THEM BEFORE.
I don't want to get too ahead of myself for next week, but. It's amazing how bad Minnesota looks tonight.
USC @ ASU in fifteen minutes. Go Devils!
Minnesota-ND St stats look even before turnovers w/ Minny's 2 perhaps the deciding factor. So, maybe the Gophers are just even w/ an FCS team. Yikes, the Big 10 stinks.
With Illinois just holding on, who can you be impressed with, besides Wisconsin? Nebraska is starting to put away with Wyoming, but the D has been a disappointment. I gotta believe the Big Ten gets only 1 BCS team.
Minnesota and Indiana suck, but I'm not sure we can evaluate the entire conference based on the bottom-feeders.
Nebraska looks pretty good. Wisconsin looks like a legitimate juggernaut (thanks, B1G Schedulers!!!), Michigan and Illinois look decent, and Ohio State doesn't suck as much as I had hoped.
...and seeing a bit of Toledo/Syracuse, maybe the Western win was better than we thought? And maybe OSU's and PSU's struggles with Toledo and Temple weren't as embarrassing as we thought? Temple put an absolute beatdown on Maryland today--it was 31-0 at the half.
The Western performance today is a good signal for the good guys, and you're certainly right about Temple. On the other hand, Miami losing to Kansas State isn't a vote of confidence for the bad guys. While I have a hard time rooting for some Big Ten teams, yeah, I'd rather the conference look good than not. The fanbase that really as to have its panites in a knot is Wisconsin. Can't you see the Badgers going undefeated but standing outside of the BCS championship game this year? It's a long season, but I can't say it wouldn't be undeserved depending on who else has an equal record.
OU looks like it's about to score again.
That KSU-Miami game was kind of weird - Miami was able to move the ball reasonably well, but just couldn't score when it mattered. They nearly stole the game at the end as it was, and after a tough game against OSU I figured they overlooked the Wildcats a bit.
I do agree about Western and Temple, though. Temple in particular looks like a very tough MAC team, one that could knock off a couple of ranked teams on a neutral field.
I hear you, but Nebraska and OSU are relative disappointments, as are Iowa, Penn State and perhaps Northwestern. The bottom is really bad, and that also includes Purdue. Overall, the list you gave isn't all that impressive compared to other non Big East conferences. To be sure, it's one of those things and shouldn't be extrapolated to future years. But for 2011, da-y-ng. Just keeping it real dog. Given your avatar, that's funny.
If the Big Ten has two 10 win teams, they'll get two BCS bids. It has nothing to do with merit or quality, and everything to do with alumni base, tv ratings, and butts in seats.
With 4 open spaces, you're probably right. Even on merit, the Big 10 number 2 will be better than the Big East #2 and probably better than any non-BCS conference, non-Boise team (I'm looking at you ND). So, on merit, it just has to be better than one of the #2 ACC and #2 Pac-10. Those odds are decent, even before you consider "butts in the seats".
When I line them up, the Big 10 isn't any worse than the ACC and Pac-10 and certainly better than the Big East. But, for 2011, it's way behind the SEC and Big 12.
I think the SEC is the class of college football - well, actually LSU and Alabama are the class of CFB, the rest of the SEC being a bunch of meh programs with outsized ambitions - but I'm not sold the Big 12 is that much better than the Big 10. Yes, Texas A&M and Okie St. are also highly ranked, but I'll reserve judgment on both until they play anyone else. And Baylor is a great story, but that TCU win might not be as huge an upset as we once thought, and again lets see how they handle a full season. I actually think the Big 10 and Pac 12 are vying for #2 right now, since I'd take Oregon and Stanford over anyone from the ACC or Big 12 save Oklahoma. And Clemson looks really good now, but they've beaten two good teams in a row for the first time since I was in college (early 00's), and I've seen this act from them before on their way to 7-6.
Unreal. Offense? Good enough -- and then some.
Loving the Beatdown in Morgantown.
Interesting that Minnesota lost at home to North Dakota State the week before playing us in Ann Arbor in 2007 as well. I went to that game (the weather sucked) and I'll be at next week's game too.
WVU scores again. I like the screen pass on 1st and long.
Absolute backbreaker and crowd quieter.
The 'eers scratch and claw their way back to within one score, and then their kickoff return team suddenly forgets how to tackle. The crowd shots were great, too.
I would pay money to be the cameraman for ESPN and only get reaction shots from horrified and disgusted fans.
Wow, it's windy at ASU.
The WVU offense is spreadtastic!
The great D teams like LSU always have these tall, rangy, ball-hawking DBs. I miss that. No more smurf-backs.
LSU's Ware (# 11) is a best. Sorry about the cliche, but he's a guy who is very hard to tackle.
LSU goes for 2 and misses. Hmm, I'm suprised Les didn't find a way to go for three.
I don't know if he was trying to be a jerk. The immortal "chart" says you should go for two when you score to go up 19.
at least. Couple of RB's, Rueben Randle, the DL, virtually the entire seconday. Man, they are stacked.
Is that fog in WV or couch smoke?
LSU has some interesting treatments on the sidelines...
I respect Rodney Gilmore, but he just said something dumb. Burfect (sp?) just had a great interception against Barkley (ASU-USC). Barkley tackled Burfect downfield, and Burfect went ove to help Barkley up. Gilmore called it sportsmanship. Obviously not a penalty, but no way was that a show of respect. That was gamesmanship---a very creative one at that.
LSU Alabama look like the class of college football right now, but I guess we'll see how it plays out during the year.
Now, this is probably sour grapes, but I can't wait until the NCAA really looks into some of these SEC teams and sees just how shady they are. There is a reason Urban Meyer constantly complained about some of the issues he saw in the conference, and how unlikely it is that a single conference would win so many titles "fairly" despite the fact that most of the arguments for it (better local talent, strong fanbases, better coaching, etc.) have all been largely disproven and/or shown to be inconsequential. It just drives me crazy that you see teams trotting out stud players left and right and realize that they basically cut the bottom 20% of their team every year to make room for them, while everyone else tends to stick it out with the kids they brought in.
How has the "better local talent" argument been disproven? It's not a coincidence that practically every program in the country recruits the South (especially Florida and Texas), while Southern schools often don't bother recruiting outside their home region.
Anyone watching the USC at ASU game?
Go Sun Devils. USC is at least as evil as Texas and Alabama.