Frank the Tank’s BlogPoll Week 4 Ballot, Football Parlay and Open Thread – 9/24/2010

Posted: September 24, 2010 in Big Ten, Chicago Bears, College Football, NFL Football, Sports
Tags: ,

Unfortunately, this is going to be another short post because of time constraints, although I will note that my positioning of Oregon State at #4 instead of Oregon was evidence of my failure at basic click-and-drag skills.  That was a clear mistake that Brian Cook caught and it certainly was not my intent – the Ducks should be at #4.  I’ll have some views on recent conference realignment-related stories coming up next week.  Until then, here are this week’s parlay picks for both college football and the NFL (home teams in CAPS and odds from bodog via Yahoo!):

COLLEGE FOOTBALL

  • PENN STATE (-14) over Temple
  • Oregon State (+17) over BOISE STATE
  • Georgia (PK) over MISSISSIPPI STATE 

Frank the Tank’s College Football Parlay Record
Last Week: 1-2

Illini Games for the Season: 1-1
Overall Season: 3-5-1

NFL FOOTBALL

  • Lions (+11) over VIKINGS
  • Titans (+3) over GIANTS
  • Packers (-3) over BEARS

Frank the Tank’s NFL Football Parlay Record
Last Week: 2-1

Bears Games for the Season: 1-1
Overall Season: 3-3

As always, feel free to use this post as an open thread for the weekend’s games and non-expansion college sports news.  If you want to talk about conference realignment in general, please continue the discussion on the Big Ten Division-palooza post, while the college hockey discussion should be under the Big Ten Expansion Hits the Ice post.  Have a great weekend!

(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    First!? GEAUX TIGERS!!!

    Like

    • duffman says:

      alan,

      I am fast thinking that the lads from LSU may be the Calvin Borel of the SEC circa 2007. It may not look pretty but they seem to have that survive and advance thing down pretty well, and I am picking them to take out WVU this week. Maybe we will see a real slugfest in the SEC west this fall. I can see Bama beating Arky, LSU beating Bama, and Arky beating LSU (not saying it will happen, but saying it might happen).

      Like

  2. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Tigers win the game. Mountaineers (+10) probably cover.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      alan,

      they probably could have added an extra 7 points at the end of the game but chose to run the clock instead. I am not sure about your tigers offense, but they seem to know how to hit people very hard and they say that defenses win championships.

      Like

  3. Bamatab says:

    Ok Frank, how can you have Oregon St. at 4 and ranked ahead of TCU? TCU has already beat Oregon St. this year. Until they beat someone worth a crap, I just don’t see where Oregon St. deserves to be in the top 20, much less in the top 5 and ahead of TCU. JMHO

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      I would assume that is a type for Oregon.

      Like

    • Bamatab says:

      Oops…I guess I should’ve read your full article. Sorry about that Frank. I wish there was a delete option on posts.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        @Bamatab

        So what do you think about playing Michigan in Jerry World in 2012? (Saban says its almost a done deal).

        Like

        • Bamatab says:

          Yep, I replyed to your other post on the subject. Coach Saban has been talking about the fact that this game is practically done from a negotiation standpoint at several alumni/booster meetings recently. I would say that it is a done deal. I think the holdup on the official announcement (from what I gathered from the first reported article on it a month or two ago) was that Michigan may have asked for more than Bama was willing to go for (such as payouts and tv rights and stuff). It’ll be interesting to see what the terms will be once it is finalized. Bama will have no problem whatsoever in selling their allotment of tickets (I’ll be one of them). Bama travels very very well. Do you think Michigan will have trouble selling theirs (I’m not familiar with how well they travel)?

          Saban also supposedly stated that the Chick-fil-a folks are working to get Bama to play in their opening season game at the Georgia Dome in 2013 & 2014 (probably against ACC teams).

          I can’t wait to play Michigan in 2012. They should have their offense in full gear by then, especially if that QB of theirs is still there. It should be a big time game for sure.

          Like

          • Bamatab says:

            Here is a link to an article talking about the game.

            http://www.tidesports.com/article/20100924/NEWS/100929811/1011?Title=Tide-Wolverines-to-play-in-2012

            Apparently Saban discussed it on his weekly radio show last night.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Chick-Fil-A has always done well, but Atlanta is easy to get to by car (well, only tolerable from TN-always a pain getting through Nashville & Chattanooga-TN is the only state spending less per capita on its roads than GA). Charlotte & Birmingham are less than 3 hours away. DC is only 8 or 9 hours. Distances in Texas are a different story. It will be interesting to see if Jerry can get this type of matchup to work w/o Texas or Oklahoma schools to anchor.

            Like

          • Hank says:

            fwiw the Michigan Alabama game at JerryWorld was mentioned about a month ago on MGoBlog.

            I think the initial delay in finalizing the deal was related to Michigan waiting to see what happened regarding the Big Ten divisions, scheduling and the number of conference games. Now that that is determined I’m wondering if there may be a Notre Dame issue that is also being dealt with. As background Michigan and Notre Dame have an agreement to play every year until 2031 but it is a handshake agreement and only formally agreed for a couple of years at a time in order to allow both schools scheduling flexibility and arrange for a hiatus if they schedule anothe big name opponent in Septemebr. Notre Dame has scheduled Alabama in September for 2015 and 2016 and it is rumored there will be a hiatus with Michigan those years. Recently Michigan’s AD has said that he wants to get the contract with ND negotiated out to 2015 and then wait till further developments re conference scheduling.

            So how does this impact the Alabama negotiaions? Michigan has had another issue with Notre Dame. Michigan currently has Notre Dame and Ohio State on the same schedule. Both home the same year and away the same year. They have wanted to change it. The reason is not for competitive reasons but for the attractiveness of the season ticket package. They want to have at least one marquee match up at home each year. Notre Dame hasn’t agreed for the same reason. They currently have Michigan and USC on alternating cycles and don’t want them on the same cycle.

            So it has me wondering if one of the attractions of a one time neutral site game with Alabama instead a home and home is that it can be used as a lever to negotiate a one year hiatus with Notre Dame thus getting the game on a different cycle. Can Notre Dame resist since its asking for a hiatus for the scheduling the same school?

            So I wonder if the delay in finalizing the Michigan Alabama game has something to do with the Notre Dame extension being negotiated at the same time.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Bullet – we’ll find out next year when LSU/Oregon opens the 2011 season in Cowboys Stadium. For the record, Dallas is about a 7 hour drive from Baton Rouge.

            Like

          • Bamatab says:

            Hank, I don’t think that Bama and ND have games scheduled for 2015 & 2016. Bama was trying to get a game set up for the 2012 game at Jerry’s World, but that fell through. Now there is still rumors that Bama still wants a game(s) with ND in the future, and they may be negotiating games for those years, but nothing official has been announced as of yet.

            Like

          • Bamatab says:

            Alan, I’m not worried about Bama or LSU selling their allotment of tickets (especially Bama since I’m very familiar with how well we travel), I’m just wondering if the other teams will sell theirs.

            Like

          • Hank says:

            @Bamatab

            thanks. I thought I saw a future ND schedule site recently that had the games listed. But then they have Michigan games listed that haven’t been formally contracted yet and are just part of the handshake.

            In any event I still wonder if there is a retionship to the time its taking to finalize the Michigan Alabama game. If nothing else they are currently formalizing an extension with ND right now. And I know Michigan very much wants to change the cycle of the Notre Dame game. What I forgot to mention in the previous post is that unless they change it in future Big Ten cycles the Ohio State and Nebraska games would be on the same cycle. That would make three marquee games on one cycle with only Iowa on the offset.

            Like

          • yahwrite says:

            Michigan will not have a problem selling tickets. They travel well, and alumni all over the country. Not related to travel, but The Big House is still selling out despite the economy and the last two seasons.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Michigan probably has the best base in terms of ability to travel. One of the wealthiest and largest alumni bases out there, as well as being one of the most dispersed for a public school. If there was any school to be worried in terms of selling an allotment, it’s definitely not Michigan.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            interesting in this conversation is looking back at history. I still think the UM with only 1 loss (Big 10 sans UM went 67 – 51 including 18 of the 51 losses between NU and Iowa) vs BAMA (SEC sans BAMA went 70 – 59 including USC’s 0 – 11 team) game in the Orange Bowl was the MNC game. Like the Boise State debate this season we got FSU in a weak 9 team ACC (Ga Tech was next in line at 8-4 and the conference finished 45 – 48 = under 50%) vs VT in a weak 8 team BE (Miami was next at 9-4 and the conference finished 36 – 45 = well under 50%). Back then only the Big 12 and SEC had a CCG (adding an extra top team to their schedule by default). Look at how the conferences stacked up that year:

            ACC: FSU goes 11 – 0 in a weak conference

            BE: VT goes 11 – 0 in a weaker conference

            Big 10: UM and Wisconsin both go 11 – 1 in a strong conference

            Big 12: UNL goes 11 – 1 in a strong conference, and has to beat Texas in the CCG (22-6)

            SEC: BAMA goes 10 – 2 in a strong conference, and has to beat Florida in the CCG (34-7)

            I could argue that Wisconsin, UM, UNL, or BAMA all should have been in the MNC game that year. Wisconsin had to play an Stanford team that went 8-3 in the regular season. UNL played a strong Tennessee team and beat them (31-21). I still consider the Orange Bowl that year as the true MNC game based on the whole schedule as a resume. I note that since the ACC went to 12 teams and a CCG (and harder season schedules) they have not had the success at FSU and Miami that they enjoyed when they only had 2 -3 tough games a year (see Boise State and TCU this season). With the schedule the Big 10 and SEC play, if Boise State and TCU play for a MNC I think it will be a crime of epic proportions. If tOSU does not win a MNC game with and SEC team, life will go on. However, if tOSU loses to Boise State or TCU, we as a conference will have to hang our head in collective shame in the national media.

            Just something to think about this season as it progresses and why I would not vote Boise State or TCU in the top 5 unless they hold at least a 2 game edge in wins. I would still put a 2 loss tOSU or UNL ahead of them. Why reward undefeated teams with patsy schedules!

            Like

          • Richard says:

            They don’t get to choose most of the games they play. It’s an argument for a plus-1, if anything (or a playoff, but that would devalue the regular seaon too much).

            Like

  4. HerbieHusker says:

    add

    Like

  5. M says:

    No love for the 3-0 Wildcats and their Heisman trophy candidate qb?

    Like

    • StvInIL says:

      Love is all you need wildcats. Even if its only from wildcats fans. I love it that way. Always used to like watching Corso with egg on his face when his pompous @ss misjudged the wildcats. Anybody can constantly pick the team to win who have had an ancient history of winning.
      Now for the concerns. Defensively plays of over 20 yards are considered big plays. I would like to see those checked.
      Offensively I am concerned that Arb Fields is not a more productive back. I personally think he is more explosive than he looks.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I’d just say to be careful what you wish for…

        We all saw Iowa fans talking big saying they should be getting a lot more love for their beatdown of Iowa State…; prove it on the field and over time the accolades will come.

        Lest we forget, Boise State has been winning for 3-4 years to get to this point. Every program has to do that to get to legitimacy unless they’re a legacy program like Michigan or Notre Dame or any of those kinds of programs…

        Like

    • bullet says:

      Good start for the Wildcats
      NW 3-0
      KSU 3-0
      UK 3-0
      AZ 3-0
      Villanova 2-1 but #1 in FCS and invited to the BE

      Like

      • Jay says:

        Kentucky seems to be a trendy pick to upset Florida. I haven’t seen them play this season, but I have seen the Gators look like garbage every week just to get lucky and stretch out the margin of victory a little bit in the fourth quarter. If Kentucky is any good, maybe 14 points is a bit much.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          I think UK is just getting the pub like they usually do pre florida. they are playing in the swamp, and the media has been pumping UK as the upset. my guess is the gators give them the wakeup chomp by halftime.

          bullet,

          with all 4 teams a combined 12 – 0 either that will change quickly or that Mayan calendar thing has some legs! 😉

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Looking at the schedule, only UK is an underdog this week. The FL/GA/TN stranglehold is due to breakdown sometime. Maybe this week starts it. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Arkansas/S. Carolina in SEC championship game. Maybe even UK could make it. I’d say they have a better chance than TN or UGA (2 losses already in conference) this year.

            I haven’t looked it up, but I guarantee that if all 4 start 4-0 the same year it will be the 1st time in history.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            bullet,

            UK got pounded but 3 are still undefeated:

            NU, Arizona, and KSU

            Like

  6. jj says:

    Badgers seem a little high after last week.

    What a load of crap games for the B10 this week. When Temple v Penn State is the best, you know we need that 9th game.

    Come on dude, the Lions can cover 11. I mean, I know it is the Lions, but 11 in the NFL is a lot.

    Two for the bank this week:

    Bama – 31
    Ark – 28

    NW – 45
    Chips – 14

    I’m getting a good vibe for NW this year, they have a favorable schedule and a good coach.

    Like

    • Hank says:

      I don’t think 9 conference games would effect this particular week. Seems every conference team is trying to schedule one of their weakest opponents for the week before conference play. So to the extent that everybody is likely to have at least one cupcake on the schedule this is the week we are going to get it.

      Like

      • jj says:

        Yeah. Maybe B10 needs to start scheduling more like the SEC seems to.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          The Big Ten doesn’t really need a 9 game conference schedule to fix this.

          Just move a half of the Week 5 (Big Ten Week 1) games to Week 4…

          Like

          • jj says:

            i suppose. these schedules are just a friggin joke. look at ND – first 4 games, Pur, UM, MSU and Stan. I realize they are 1-2, but come on. they’re not pussy-footing around and it makes for good tv and happy fans.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            ND has to front-load their schedule because as an independent, they can only get the likes of Navy, Tulsa, and Western Michigan to play them once conference play starts.

            Like

          • jj says:

            that’s just flat out wrong.

            take this year for instance

            no 1-aa, tulsa is the one true crap game – maybe army, but that’s 2 to many others’ 4. they play a real schedule and aren’t big pussy-heads about it on the front end.

            9/04/10 vs. Purdue Notre Dame, Ind. W, 23-12
            09/11/10 vs. Michigan Notre Dame, Ind. L, 28-24
            09/18/10 at Michigan State East Lansing, Mich. L, 34-31
            09/25/10 vs. Stanford Notre Dame, Ind. L, 37-14
            10/02/10 at Boston College Chestnut Hill, Mass. 8:00 p.m. ET
            10/09/10 vs. Pittsburgh Notre Dame, Ind. 3:30 p.m. ET
            10/16/10 vs. Western Michigan Notre Dame, Ind. 2:30 p.m. ET
            10/23/10 at Navy East Rutherford, N.J. 12:00 p.m. ET
            10/30/10 vs. Tulsa Notre Dame, Ind. 2:30 p.m. ET
            11/13/10 vs. Utah Notre Dame, Ind. 2:30 p.m. ET
            11/20/10 vs. Army Bronx, N.Y. (Yankee Stadium) 7:00 p.m. ET
            11/27/10 at USC

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I’m sorry, you’ll have to explain again what part was “flat out wrong”?

            I’ll give them credit for scheduling Utah instead of SDSU (as they did a few years back), but their fear of not being able to get opponents late in the season isn’t exactly not well-known.

            Like

    • Jay says:

      Yeah, can Ole’ Farv even score 11 these days?

      Of course, as a Lion fan I fully expect to lose every game by a few touchdowns.

      Like

  7. M says:

    FWIW, Kirk Bohls says that an anonymous source said he’s heard “high-level people” say that the Big 12 only has 2-3 year until its next crisis. If that isn’t actionable information, I don’t know what is.

    http://www.statesman.com/sports/collegefootball/expect-big-12-expansion-talks-to-bubble-up-934631.html

    Like

    • zeek says:

      The funny thing is that this really is all up to Texas and A&M.

      I mean, Texas is the only way that the Pac-16 becomes a reality. And A&M is probably the most likely SEC expansion candidate, since the SEC wouldn’t want to be shut out of the Texas TV markets.

      If those two want to hold the Big 12 together, then it will be sustainable well into the future. If either wants to leave, then the conference will probably collapse. The question is whether A&M can leave politically without an “okay” from Texas if it wants to bolt to the SEC. As for Texas, it can probably do what it wants as long as A&M has its spot in the SEC (which by all indications it does)…

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Zeek – the SEC isn’t shut out of ANY market right now, let alone the Texas TV markets. Almost every game is on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, or CBS. A few are farmed out to FSN or CSS. The syndicated SEC Network currently has affiliates in Abilene, Beaumont, DFW, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio, San Antonio, Tyler, and Waco markets. For example, LSU will probably have one PPV game this year (McNeese St.).

        I’ll go back to my premise from this Summer. If the SEC expands, it won’t be about markets, it will be about adding more compelling games that make for higher ratings on their existing platforms. That way CBS & ESPN pay more to the SEC and the SEC grows the pie. None of the current 12 want a smaller piece of pie. That’s why the list of potential SEC additions would include some schools that are already within the SEC footprint.

        For the SEC to take A&M, there also would need to be a #14 team.

        Like

        • StvInIL says:

          “That’s why the list of potential SEC additions would include some schools that are already within the SEC footprint”

          That did not sound like good strategy to me so I did not give it much credence. Besides, i think the SEC is sitting pretty right now. If I were it’s comish, I would not be making any knee jerks regardless of what the Big ten does. I think its really their turn to take a long look at the expansion thing and not make a knee jerk reaction. A Texas school or two and Miami or VT are the only things that make sense to me.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Stv – we agree. The SEC won’t make any knee jerk decisions. They will only make expansion decisions that work for them from a money standpoint, from a competitive standpoint, from a cultural standpoint, and, yes, from an academic standpoint.

            Like

          • Jay says:

            I’m not convinced that Virginia Tech is always going to be as competitive and, thus, as much of a viable brand as they happen to be under Beamer. Weren’t they irrelevant until the 1990s?

            Plenty of teams can put together a very good decade under an excellent coach, but they can fade back into being average if the base code for football success isn’t built into the program, the school and its region. I don’t necessarily think Boise State is guaranteed to be a top program in 10 years, for example.

            Of course, I’m probably wrong. After all, you could have said the same thing about Miami once.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            You’re right, but Virginia Tech is a much bigger, broader school than when they were VPI and a doormat. They also were Big East and ACC instead of Southern Conference or Independent. And they also fill a 66k stadium now. Like the Florida schools, demographics have changed their situation.

            Virginia Tech will continue to be solid, barring bad coaching choices.

            Like

          • StvInIL says:

            I don’t know what Boise’s academics are like but if its like the SEC schools, no offense, then they really have an advantage. The program I’m looking at right now does not settle in to the bottom half of the Pac 10 if invited today. A lot of Pac Ten schools will be looking up at them from where they finish the season. Something is definitely going on in Boise.

            Like

        • zeek says:

          Alan, sure they’d need a 14th team.

          But they’d take A&M as the 13th while they search for a 14th.

          I’d reiterate that there’s no way they let both Texas and A&M go west without trying to grab one away.

          And we have to look forward, there’s no guarantee that distribution platforms will be the same over time in 20 or 30 years, maybe there will actually be an SEC cable channel by then…

          Either way, I still think the SEC takes A&M if A&M ever wants to make the jump.

          It makes too much sense to take them and then figure out a 14th. You make a run as VaTech, FSU, or whoever, but you still take them since they’re easily worth more than 1/13th of the pie…

          Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Loved this typical Husker troll in the comments section:

      huskers06

      10:59 AM on September 24, 2010

      (responding to: “That’s true, because the University of the Joneses has its pick of any conference in the nation.”)

      Except the Big 10, of course, which picked Nebraska.

      Like

  8. Matthew says:

    like the Penn St pick, kind of like the Oregon St one too (up to 18.5 last I checked), totally unsure about UGA-MSU.

    For the record, I also like:
    Stanford -4.5 (just not convinced ND is much good this year)
    Bama -7 (I just think Vegas is underrating them consistently)
    Oklahoma -13.5 (up to 14 now, anything over 14 I’d probably pass on)
    Duke -6.5 (Army is awful)
    Toledo +11.5 (close to a tossup IMO)
    Fresno +2.5 (down to 2 now)
    Idaho -7.5 (up to 8 now)
    SJ St +31 (a few too many points I think)

    Like

  9. Jay says:

    I love your analysis, Frank, but for your sake I hope you’re not wagering hard-earned money on college football…. I was already seriously considering the first two picks you’ve made, and seeing that you went the other way I just might have to pick up that phone.

    Like

  10. Jay says:

    For the record, I like Arkansas getting a touchdown at home against an Alabama team that I’m not sure will stop them consistently. I LOVE Oregon only giving 10.5 at Arizona State. The Sun Devils overachieved against a Wisconsin team that tends to play down to its competition and that caused the line to be a little low. The Ducks are the fastest, most conditioned team in the West and might just win this one by 40.

    Finally, one more Pac 10 match-up that jumps out at me is Arizona only laying 6.5 at home against a terrible Cal squad. Printing money, folks!

    Like

  11. Playoffs Now says:

    Another way that Nick Saban and Alabama cheat the system and get away with it:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703384204575509901468451306.html

    Basically they oversign each year and then later pressure players to dishonestly take a medical redshirt to fit under the limit. In the last 3 years Alabama has had 12 medical redshirts, while the other 11 SEC school had just 13 total.

    Dirty coach, dirty program, dirty fans that look the other way and condone it.

    Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      More here:

      http://oversigning.com/testing/

      (Sep 23/10 entry)

      Like

    • bullet says:

      While this sounds pretty bad, the reality is that the scholarships are year-to-year, not 4 year. They could just dump these players. Of course, they would be blackballed from a lot of high schools if this happened a lot.

      I do think the numbers mean its impossible Alabama is doing anything other than abusing the rules (13 Alabama-12 rest of SEC) and they ought to be hit with another probation. But they are being abusive of the rules, not really of the players as some schools are. They still get their scholarship.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Well, dumping players he forces to take a medical redshirt doesn’t exactly make me think of Saban as being less slimy.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        Sorry, I mean to say, yes, they are getting a scholarship, but their NFL dreams are probably dead. Is it likely that they would have made it in the NFL? Eh. Now they’re definitely dead, though. One thing for a recruit to be cautious about if considering ‘Bama, I suppose.

        I’m also surprised other SEC schools aren’t crying bloody murder. Then again, oversigning is a common crime in the SEC.

        Like

        • Bamatab says:

          I want to preface this by saying that I do believe that Bama is probably using this medical scholarship rule to make room for newer players that have a chance to see and contibute on the field. But the players that were asked to take these medical scholarships to make room weren’t ever going to see the field anyways. Their NFL dreams are already dead. These aren’t freshmen and sophmores that we are talking about. These are seniors and maybe some juniors that would never see the field at Bama, much less the NFL. And it’s not like they still didn’t have the option to transfer either.

          Keep in mind that out of 12 players, only 3 came forward with only one (Kirschman) going on record saying that he felt bitter about having to take the medical redshirt and that he could’ve played with his injuries (keep in mind that he didn’t argue that he had back problems, just that he thought he could play with them). And he admitted that the decision was ultimately his. It’s not like Saban told him that if he didn’t take the medical that his football scholarship wouldn’t be renewed (which can happen since they are year to year and not 4 year scholarships). Heck, Bama even offered to pay for his graduate degree. And Giffin (the only other player on record that even hinted that he might’ve been pushed to take the medical after he failed his physical) was given the chance to be a student coach.

          So do I think that Saban is taking advantage of this medical scholarship loophole to a level that some other coaches aren’t, of course. But it’s not like he is giving them no other choice and then kicking these players to the curb, he’s just telling them that since they do have medical issues and that they won’t be seeing the field anyways, this is probably best for the team. He’s making sure that they still get there education paid for and finding them other avenues (like coaching and graduate degrees) to pursue. But then again, maybe I’m just seeing this through crimson colored glasses.

          Like

          • M says:

            Let’s be clear about the “He had a choice” nonsense. If the head coach comes to you and says “I would like to remove you from the team”, that’s not a situation the player can return to.

            It doesn’t rank with kicking a kid out of his dorm room in August though.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            True. What’s interesting is that there’s a pretty wide discrepancy even in the SEC. We’ve heard about Saban at ‘Bama (probably because he won recently) and Miles at LSU (because he f*cked things up to such a massive extent), but Auburn has actually signed the most players on average from 2002-2010 in FBS (incidently, in the Outback Bowl last year, Auburn played against the team tied for the least signings from ’02-’10, Northwestern; we probably should have oversigned another kicker), and Georgia actually ranks second from last (to Vandy) in the SEC.

            BTW, thinking about this more, the raw signing numbers probably aren’t the best gauge of sliminess, because a program like K-State that relies on juco transfers is always going to sign a bigger class, even if they don’t screw any of their players over. What’s the best gauge is how much a coach/school signs over their recruiting “budget” (http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-budgets/), but figuring that out for every school would take a lot more legwork.

            Like

          • jj says:

            Saban’s a narcissistic butthole. That said, he’s pretty clever.

            I’ve researched that one out a lot. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. lol!

            Like

          • Bamatab says:

            M, first off these players are not removed from the team. They still kept their access to the team and athletic department, they were just removed from the roster. As matter of a fact, the article even states that Kirschman said that he kept some of the perks like getting the player tickets and such and Griffen was asked to be a players coach.

            Now, I believe these kids did have a choice. The question is what were their choices. They never had the choice to play meaningful minutes on the field whether they had been asked to take the medical or not because the just weren’t good enough and there were too many players with more ability or more potential behind them. So their choices were to take the medical, transfer to another school, or to tell the coaches and medical staff to shove the medical and deal with the fallout of not doing what was preceived (whether it is true or fair) as doing what was best for the team by clearing room for newer players. It’s not like there was ever a chance that Saban was going to not renew their scholarship and kick the kids to the curb (if for no other reason than the public relations fallout that would have incurred).

            Do I believe that Saban exploiting a loophole using medical scholarships, yes. Now I know that I’m a Bama fan and am bias, but I just don’t see how he is doing these players some sort of major injustice. Unfortunately, these players never had a future as football players. But he is at least making sure that they keep their scholarships and can get their graduate degrees, or get into coaching, or do whatever to move on in their college life.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Richard – here’s how Les Miles has f*cked things up at LSU:
            1. 5 year record of 51-15 (1 game behind Florida during that time);
            2. 1 BCS National Championship, 2-0 in BCS games;
            3. 1 SEC Championship, 2 SEC Championship game appearances;
            4. 4-1 in bowl games;
            5. 3 Top 5 finishes;
            6. Highest winning percentage in LSU history;
            7. Graduated 116 players in 5 years, most of those that haven’t graduated are making millions in the NFL.

            I’m sure a lot of schools would like to be that f*cked up.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Well yes, if you only care about winning (and most college football fans do), then it doesn’t bother you if Miles oversigns and then yanks a scholarship from a kid who he had verbally promised a scholarship to, who had already come to campus, and was already enrolled in classes.

            I will grant you that Saban and Miles are playing within the rules (they’re just a little more ruthless than most). That doesn’t make what they do moral. I’ll also say that the system is at fault if a coach can gain an advantage from treating an athlete of his crappily (Miles more than Saban), in which case, the solution should be to reform the system by changing the rules.

            Like

          • jj says:

            les has been great except in the eyes of nuts who demand multiple back to back NC’s. that said, he makes a lot of crazy decisions.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            FWIW: does anybody have injury statistics? If the Power conferences (Big 10 and SEC) have a higher injury (the ones that take an athlete our for the season) rate, it would make sense to over sign just to account for the attrition rate. Sure Boise State has maybe 1 – 3 tough games all season, so they should see fewer injuries (hence need fewer over signs to keep a full roster).

            I know in college classes are overloaded at the start of a semester to deal with the eventual attrition that happens over the course of a semester / quarter. Anybody have any data on this issue?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Oversigning doesn’t help with injuries. Everyone still has to get down to 85 scholarship players by the time the season starts, and I don’t believe schools can revoke the scholarship of injured players in-season.

            Unless you’re saying the practices are so much more physical that thre are a bunch more injured players during spring practice. However, the Big10 doesn’t allow oversigning; if a Big10 coach has 70 kids expected to be under scholarship in the fall, he can only give out 15 scholarships in January, not 25 in January and then figure out how to take away athletic scholarships from 10 kids before the season starts.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Richard,

            that was a question about preseason. it is in my mind that some coach in the last 20 years in one of the bigger conferences went with very limited contact because of injuries and limited roster.

            the bigger issue was qualifying! It seems harder to gets these kids to clear through or clear through at the last moment. even a certain lofty acc school is well know for having a different set of standards for ball players. Now kids seem less tied down, and more crazy agent stuff.

            Like

  12. duffman says:

    The Conference Count = realignment included

    Big 10 (7) = tOSU, UNL, Wisconsin, UM, Iowa, PSU, MSU = +1
    SEC (6) = BAMA, Arky, UF, USC, LSU, Auburn = NC
    Pac 10 (5) = Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Stanford, U$C = -1
    MWC (3) = Boise State, TCU, Fresno State = NC
    LC (2) = UT, OU = NC
    ACC (1) = Miami = NC
    CUSA (0) = 0 = -1
    Ind (0) = 0 = NC
    BE (1) = WVU = +1

    Big 10

    Big 10 could go 10 – 0! UNL should make it 11 – 0. Illinois off

    SEC

    At least 3 SEC teams will have a loss after saturday and alan’s tigers face a top 25 challenge in WVU. Vandy off

    Pac 10

    All 4 remaining undefeated Pac 10 teams face action this weekend. The beavers vs broncos is the game folks will watch. Washington off.

    ACC

    NC State vs Ga Tech and can VT beat BC? Clemson off

    Undefeated teams left:

    Big 10 = (7) = UM, MSU, NU, tOSU, Wisconsin, IU, UNL
    SEC = (7) = UF, USC, UK, LSU, Arky, Auburn, BAMA
    Big 12 = (6) = KSU, Missouri, UT, OU, OSU, A&M
    Pac 10 = (5) = Stanford, Arizona, Oregon, USC, Utah
    MWC = (4) = Fresno State, Nevada, Boise State, TCU
    ACC = (2) = NC State, Boston College
    BE = (2) = West Virginia, Rutgers
    MAC = (1) = Temple

    What games will you guys be watching this weekend?

    Like

  13. Richard says:

    What’s hilarious about the oversigning.com site is that there are actually people _defending_ oversigning. Something about how the practice of making the kids compete to keep their scholarships is just fine and dandy. Which would be a defensible position if players could leave a school for another, better one (in FBS without the penalty of sitting out a year). The fact that a coach can get away with cutting a kid who works hard, studies hard, and is a model citizen with no penalty, yet the kid can’t leave for a better school with no penalty dosn’t strike these people as a tad unfair?

    It’s crazy how easily some folks let their own self-interests (in this case, their fandom) overrule whatever sense of fairness that they have. Or maybe they just have none.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      The best idea I’ve heard so far on how to deal with oversigning:

      “Simply eliminate the total scholarship limit and institute an annual limit (I prefer 20-25). Oversigning and grayshirting will no longer exist. While we’re at it let’s give 5 years of eligibility and send redshirts to the dustbin of history as well.
      An annual limit forces coaches to make the best possible recruiting decisions. A player that does not stick can not be replaced. When faced with a choice between an academically or behaviorally marginal recruit and another (perhaps less talented) more likely to stay with the team, the more likely to stay-and-play is the the best recruit.”
      from
      http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2010/08/08/lets-talk-solutions/#comments

      I’m not in favor of getting rid of redshirts, and scholarships can still be yearly (to provide some incentive to the kid to keep up his grades and not get in trouble, but this would keep a kid from being forced out because there’s a shinier bauble out there). Another key benefit is that it would give an edge to coaches who can develop kids rather than just coaches who are good salesmen.

      Like

      • schwarm says:

        I agree with the idea of yearly signing maximums w/o a total maximum, but unless you cut the number of new scholarships available down to 20 or less, there will be increased expense to keep everyone offered on scholarship the full 4-5 years.

        If the number of scholarships available is adjusted based on the number of spots available, there will be incentive to cut players before signing day.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Better than waiting until after spring practice, IMHO. The kid has more time to find a new school, accrue credits at his new school, and participate in spring practice/get to know the system/impress his coaches at his new school.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        There is an annual limit of 25, but some schools sign 29 or 30 expecting some won’t qualify academically and others can come in January.

        Like

  14. jj says:

    Weeks like this are what the hell is wrong with college football. It’s no fun watching teams pummel the crap out of high schools.

    Like

    • Vincent says:

      But it was fun to see Iowa in those Forest Evasheski (sic)-era throwback uniforms, instead of looking like the poor man’s Pittsburgh Steelers. Please wear them more often, Hawkeyes.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      The Big Ten really needs to join the rest of the conferences in moving up non-conference games if we’re not going to move to a 9 game conference schedule.

      Week 4 cannot continue to be a slate of horrible matchups. Either make that the 9th conference game or move a half of the Week 5 games to Week 4. That way we finish almost all of the non-conference games by Week 5 at the latest but still have some compelling matchups in both weeks…

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Er, I meant moving up conference games…

        Like

      • jj says:

        yeah. this is just horseshit. honestly.

        the league needs to just take a stand and say no more 1-aas / fcs games, period.

        i’d be in favor of 10 conference games, which would be more fair than 9.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Money makes the world go round, and so long as schools can still fill stadiums playing FCS teams, they’ll do so. Nearly every big-time football program is dependent on at least 7 home games to meet their bottomline.

          Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            And at the end of the season the only thing people watching are going to care about are W’s and L’s.

            People will pay for high win, low loss seasons, even if they can’t make runs at the NC. They want to be entertained and winning is always entertaining.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah I agree with you guys.

            But even if money is the reason to keep 4 non-conference games, we don’t have to load them all into the first 4 weeks, which creates a really bad week 4 schedule (although I think Northwestern and Penn State had more legitimate opponents in the top two MAC teams than any other schools).

            There’s no reason why we can’t exchange 3 of the Big Ten matchups in week 5 for 6 of the non-conference games in week 4 and create two weekends each with 1/2 conference and 1/2 non-conference.

            It’s just not good having such a black hole on the schedule in terms of games of interest nationally…

            Like

          • Hank says:

            @ zeek

            “although I think Northwestern and Penn State had more legitimate opponents in the top two MAC teams than any other schools”

            Michigan played UConn who was a preaseason pick for winning the Big East (and still may) and @Notre Dame with their hot new coach and plethora of offensive weapons.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Hank, I was speaking of week 4 opponents strictly. I have no complaints about Weeks 1-3, but that Week 4 slate was the worst I’ve ever seen.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            My point is the Big Ten should move a half of the Week 5 Big Ten games to Week 4.

            That way we don’t have an entire slate of bad games in Week 4.

            I get that everyone needs a tune up, but there’s really no reason to put that many bad matchups in one week.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            zeek:

            You can blame the Big10’s old-fashionedness. After ND and MSU played the “Game of the Century”, the Big10 decided that no nonconf games can be played late in the season. That “rule” has been loosened in recent years (especially after PSU joined, when finishing the season before Thanksgiving and an odd number of teams in the conference meant all schools had to schedule nonconf games deep in the season some years).

            I agree with the proposal of moving half the conference games up a week the first week, though. That should be especially easy once we split in to divisions; just start one division before the other, and there wouldn’t be any unfair advantage either if the first 2 weeks of conference play are all intradivisional games.

            Like

          • jj says:

            If 7 is the magic number, then let’s just make the season 14 “real” games. We could do this all day.

            They can’t balance the budget b/c they spend like fools. It sure as hell isn’t because there isn’t money coming in.

            It’s a matter of just doing the right thing for the fans in my view. If you’ve ever been a season ticket holder you know what a piece of crap this type of stuff is. Playing D-2s is a joke and they should all be ashamed of theyselves!

            Off my soapbox now. I’ll get back on this one next year.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Right. Sacrificing the bodies of unpaid student-athletes with no negotiation rights for 2 more games to “do the right thing for the fans” doesn’t sound wrong to you.

            If you’re so disgusted, then don’t buy tickets. Plenty of other people still will. Learn some economics, will ya?

            Like

        • bullet says:

          Listening to Atlanta sports talk show and they were ragging on B10 schedules (nothing about Alabama or Florida though). Amazing how uninformed people making their living at this can be (lots of issues-they didn’t know the 1 in 4 FCS rule was repealed, thought TCU deserved in B12 in 1996-TCU was lousy at the time). But they did make an interesting point that perhaps the 12th game was responsible for all the FCS games. That 12th game drove up the price for the UNLVs of the world, so a lot of schools are opting for 250-400k for FCS schools instead of 750k-1000k for FBS.

          Like

        • jj says:

          I guess you just like watching whomever your team is beat the shit out totally inferior competition. I guess watching bruce lee beat the shit out ralph machio would just be good sport?

          Like

          • Richard says:

            I don’t get that worked up about it. I certainly don’t think that student-athletes go to school solely to provide entertainment to fans.

            BTW, if you want to see good OOC games, you should definitely be against a 9-game Big10 conference slate, as that would definitely mean the end of any home-and-home OOC games against decent opponents (outside of traditional rivalry games like the 3 ND games and Iowa-ISU) for all schools except maybe Northwestern.

            Like

        • Jay says:

          I don’t agree. I don’t like watching the Ohio States of the world beat MAC teams by seven touchdowns but when you increase the number of conference games you increase the number of losses the conference’s teams sustain. That seems to hurt the Pac-10 every year as it seems their teams have lower rankings and worse records than their performance should indicate. As long as there is no playoff system in place and it’s more about looking good to pollsters than being exciting for fans, take all the gimmie games you can get! Especially since the stadium will be full (or at least sold out) no matter who Michigan or Penn State plays and Bowling Green isn’t going to demand a rematch at their place next season.

          Like

  15. zeek says:

    UCLA up 27-6 over Texas near the end of the 3rd.

    Arkansas up 20-14 over Alabama near end of 3rd.

    That UCLA result is astonishing since this is the same team that lost 35-0 to Stanford and 31-22 to Kansas State…

    Yeah they got a big win over Houston last week 31-13, but still…

    Like

  16. Hopkins Horn says:

    AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!

    Last freakin’ time I fly back to a game in Austin with in-laws who attended our opponent’s school.

    That is all.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I was out of town and didn’t get to watch, but sounds just like route 66 (which I actually did stay the whole game along with only about 5,000 UT(about 50,000 people claim to have stayed) and 2,500 UCLA fans). Then on a hot September day in 1997, an 0-2 underachieving UCLA squad played an inexperienced highly ranked 2-0 UT squad and UT turned the ball over so many times I lost track. Texas actually outgained UCLA yesterday. It was “only” 5 turnovers yesteday-but all in UT territory.

      Like

  17. Vincent says:

    Not the strongest of days for the Big Ten, especially when MAC teams win at Purdue and Minnesota, the latter against a Northern Illinois team Iowa State defeated with little difficulty Sept. 2. (This almost ensures there will be a “help wanted” sign at the Gophers’ new stadium come November.) And Penn State was unimpressive against Temple.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      When Northwestern actually has a realistic chance of running the table, you know the conference isn’t filled with strenghth top to bottom.

      Like

      • Big Ten Jeff says:

        Richard, we’ve been singing this song now for 15 years. When will NU get any respect? NU has a good program and a good team. Let’s start giving it the props it has worked so hard to earn, even if your point is well taken 🙂

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          How about a Stanford/Northwestern Rose Bowl? The two highest ranked academic schools in the BCS playing in the Grandaddy of them all.

          While unlikely, we’re going into October and its still a possibility.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            What’s extremely ironic is that if OSU and NU both go undefeated (they don’t play each other), NU would be kept out of the Rose Bowl even if OSU goes to the championship game, because the Rose Bowl is obliged to take take a non-AQ school if they lose a team to the championship game this year.

            Like

          • @Richard – This is true, except if that non-AQ school makes the championship game itself. So, if Boise State or TCU make it to the championship game and play Ohio State, then the Rose Bowl can take another Big Ten school.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Good point; hadn’t thought of that.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          Just being realistic. NU’s a good team and can play with 90% of the schools in the country, but it’s not at the level of OSU or ‘Bama.

          Like

          • Big Ten Jeff says:

            My point was why does NU’s success have to reflect negatively on the ‘weakness’ of this Big Ten instead of positively on NU? We wouldn’t make the same comment regarding Iowa or Wisky, and NU’s had more conference titles since 1995 as those two combined.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Er, I think I have a pretty good grasp of this NU team’s talent level. I wouldn’t want to see us play a top 5 team. Right now, the Big10 has a NC contender in OSU and a bunch of teams that I don’t think are close to that level.

            Like

          • Big Ten Jeff says:

            Richard, noone’s saying NU’s a championship contender (yet!!). I just don’t want us to act like Charlie Brown still hasn’t kicked the ball!!

            Like

    • zeek says:

      To be fair, Minnesota is Minnesota and Purdue is having one of the worst injury runs possible. Most of their top players are injured.

      Those two losses were very easy to imagine. Temple is way outperforming as the top MAC team, and CMU put a lot of pressure on Northwestern in the second half (winners of 3 of the last 4 MAC titles).

      Those two schools have good coaching and do a decent job of developing recruits. Yes, they’re still MAC, but not exactly a surprise to see them perform well against middle of the road Big Ten teams.

      The Minnesota and Purdue results should surprise no one though, so I don’t know what to say; they’re clearly the worst two teams in the conference this year.

      Like

      • mnfanstc says:

        It pains me to hear the quote “Minnesota is Minnesota” when only Michigan and Ohio State have more conference FB titles, and only Michigan and Ohio State have more national FB titles than the Gopher’s 6.

        The reality is that in my lifetime they have won zero conference FB titles, and zero national FB titles, hence, the quote strikes reality… I cannot understand how TPTB at the U can continue to accept football play that is below mediocre.

        Even our vaunted hockey program has been mediocre (at best) over the last few years.

        It is time for change, starting with the AD… He who seems more interested in track and field, than the sports that bring revenue.

        New AD, new football coaching staff…

        A new stadium might bring in fans to see the stadium… But… continued poor play by the football team is not going to bring them back…

        The once proud “Mighty Minnesota” needs to be restored…
        I am embarrassed to be a Gopher football fan at this juncture.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          yes, not the gophers finest hour. but last week had it not been for a critical kickoff return late in the 3rd quarter things might have been a bit different. for one quite used to being in the football cellar I feel your pain.

          Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, as someone who recognizes that Minnesota should be a team that performs like Iowa/Wisconsin it is painful to have to say that about Minnesota given its history as a great football school.

          Indiana is really the only school that should be a perennial bottom dweller, especially with the massive push that Minnesota has made with respect to facilities.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            And no one spends the gigantic amount of $ that Minnesota has spent on facilities in order to have their worst non-conference record since the 1800s (I think)…

            Like

        • Search the Web on Snap.com says:

          The Gophers have been the Goofers for as long as I can remember….I have never understood why there is so little interest in Minnesota football. Yes, there is pro competition, but there ought to be great pride in such a large and prominent state school. I don’t sense that there is. Where are all the business leaders, lawyers, doctors……….

          And why in the world did the U build a new stadium that seats only 50,000??? Talk about low expectations………..

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Well it is expandable to over 70,000, and it cost a lot of money to build it to just 50,000 capacity.

            There’s no reason to build it to 70,000 to start and have it 1/3 empty…

            Like

        • Jay says:

          How the heck are we supposed to have a consistently good football team playing in Minneapolis? The best players come from Texas, Florida and California, and they’re not going to come up to play in Minnesota – especially in an outdoor stadium. Even the kids from Ohio, Michigan, and other states in the region would probably pick almost any other conference school over Minnesota.

          It’s going to take scheduling even more garbage opponents (maybe the Dakotas are too tough, but I bet we could beat Manitoba or Alberta) and definitely paying players under the table. Maybe we could encourage them to take PEDs as well.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Dunno if you were being sarcastic, but Northwestern has as many disadvantages as Minnesota has and possibly more.

            No history, small fanbase of 25,000+. Only part of Illinois that really cares about Northwestern is Evanston which is a suburb of 100,000. The rest of Chicago belongs to the rest of the Big Ten and especially Illinois.

            Really, the only thing that’s gotten Northwestern out of its historical rut as the worst college football team in the country is coaching.

            Three good coaching hires in a row have built some momentum.

            Just find a good coaching hire; Minnesota has good facilities, a brand new beautiful stadium, etc.

            And you guys do get better recruits on paper than schools like Northwestern and Indiana in a lot of years…

            Just need a coach to develop them and who can win.

            Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            I agree with you, Zeek, regarding coaching…

            Minnesota CAN sell it’s history, it’s academics (as any Big 10 school can), it’s historic rivalries, it’s beautiful Minneapolis campus, it’s great facilities. BUT, without dedication by the institution, starting with the university president and AD, to restore it’s once proud football program by investing more into the coaching and recruiting, and in selling the program to Minnesota’s constituents, the status-quo will continue.

            I am 100% positive that if the U would pay more attention to the revenue sports (in MN’s case, FB, Men’s BB, Men’s Hockey), things would change for the better. The Tubby Smith hire was a very positive change for BB. Even if he doesn’t stay, he at least has put the program back on the map in a positive light.

            The U doesn’t necessarily have to get Tony Dungy (though, it would be awesome to have a great alum coaching–I don’t see that as being likely)… Find an up and coming winner… There are plenty out there… Northern Iowa coach, Golden out at Temple (though he looks to be next at PSU), …

            If the U truly commits to getting better, a better coaching staff can be had. With better coaching, comes winning. With winning, you will sell tickets and gain/restore fan interest.

            Minnesota fans are fickle, but, if we have something to cheer for, we will…

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Yeah, remember that Iowa has consistently done better than Minny even though they have an even smaller population (and have to get skill players from elsewhere as well), while Wisconsin was a joke before Alvarez.

            In hindsight, getting rid of Mason (or at least getting away from his pound-the-ground philosophy) was detrimental to Minny. Up there, the only football recruits you’re going to have in abundance are big slow linemen. However, build a tradition of having good O-lines, and you’ll start attracting quality running back recruits. Get a good ground game, and your defense becomes better/tougher as well.

            If Devaney&Osborne could build a juggernaut on the plains in a tiny population state, Fry&Ferentz could get Iowa regularly to bowl games, and Alvarez could get a Wisconsin team that’d been in only 3 bowl games over 3 decades to the Rose Bowl mutiple times, the right coach can win at Minny.

            Like

          • Jay says:

            I’d say building that nice new on-campus stadium was a heck of a commitment to football. How many other programs have done that lately? Also, it’s not like the Gophers have been terrible. They’ve reached a bowl game in nine of the past eleven seasons, don’tcha know?

            I just don’t think it’s very realistic to demand Big Ten titles and double-digit victories in a season. I think a sensible expectation is to win at least three or four games a year at a minimum, to never go winless in the conference season and to make a bowl a few times a decade. If we can do better, great! If not, can the coach and try a new guy.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Well, Mason did that, and they canned him.

            Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        To be fair…if Temple was still in the Big East it’d be ranked (20-25 IMO).

        That is a well coached team with some nice talent, but just doesn’t have the depth.

        PS – Head coach, OC, and DC are all PSU football players. No wonder why they’re well coached!

        Like

    • 84Lion says:

      “And Penn State was unimpressive against Temple.”

      I admit bias as a Penn State fan but I did watch the game so I believe I have some basis to comment. Temple got 2 TDs, one off a turnover with PSU on about their own 30 yard line or so when Pierce was still healthy. Temple had the one good drive, otherwise the PSU “D” made adjustments and held Temple otherwise. PSU has issues finishing drives, they have trouble getting TDs. At least this week Bolden didn’t turn the ball over in the red zone. I think his experiences at Alabama may have made him a little gun-shy in that area of the field. PSU still needs to find a presence at running back.
      But “unimpressive?” I thought they did pretty well by maintaining composure and avoiding the upset. PSU will probably get clobbered at Iowa next week but I think most “experts” were probably figuring that would happen anyway. PSU is growing, if they come out of the season 9-3 or even 8-4 I would consider that good for as young a team as they have.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Yeah, I don’t know what people are expecting out of Penn State in what is a rebuilding year of sorts. Contrast Penn State to Texas and I think you have to give Penn State a lot of composure. That was an easily losable football game…

        Like

        • zeek says:

          should have been “a lot of credit for handling themselves with composure”

          Like

        • 84Lion says:

          Thanks. Prior to the tough games I like to look at stats. This is interesting:

          http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&conference=I-A_BIG10&year=2010

          Even with the Alabama game, PSU is right up there with Iowa on defense, #2 in PPG. They have allowed a lot of rushing yards but I’d bet a lot of that was due to ‘Bama. Now if you go to the Offense tab that’s a different story, PSU is next to last in PPG and is unimpressive in any of the other stats. But, they’re doing well in TOP and for a young team they are disciplined, lowest penalties and yards in the Big Ten. I think Bolden has a lot of potential; if PSU can get a running game going they will be dangerous.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            This Penn State team could easily be the class of the Big Ten in a year or two as other schools (especially Iowa/Wisconsin enter rebuilding mode); probably right up there with where Ohio State and Nebraska should be.

            They’re just young and need a lot of work. But especially on the defensive end, they have much higher potential than Michigan or Michigan State.

            Temple was the strongest opponent any Big Ten school faced this past weekend.

            The only schools that we really learned anything about this past weekend were Penn State, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Purdue. Most of the other wins were meaningless.

            Like

          • Jay says:

            Wouldn’t it be more likely for Penn State to take a step back with their legendary coach’s inevitable departure with in a year or two? I think Michigan will be a force in the conference if they stay the course with Rodriguez and that silly system he runs. Especially since they’ll reap the benefits of a weak division. The Buckeyes aren’t ever going anywhere, but Nebraska has shown in recent years that it isn’t guaranteed to be a perennial title contender.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            PSU has a natural recruiting advantage over both Michigan and Nebraska. In the short-term, JoePa going away may lead to a dip, but long-term, PSU should be in better shape.

            Like

    • StvInIL4NW says:

      It was a different N.Illinois team that froze offensively against Iowa state. They are actually playing their best QB now. NIU has actually beaten Big Ten teams a well as a good SEC team in the past ten years.
      Defensively Minn needs to go back to the drawing board. Offensively they need to replace the one dimentional four year starter at QB with their best atelete. I believe his name is Gray. The look like the will lose 6 games this year anyway, they should have made this move early. The difference between Minnesota and Michigan is a more potent offense with DR. That’s all really. The glass is half full with UM.

      Like

  18. duffman says:

    Undefeated teams left:

    Big 10 = (7) = UM, MSU, NU, tOSU, Wisconsin, UNL (all 4-0) IU 3-0
    Big 12 = (5) = KSU, Missouri, OU (all 4-0) OSU, A&M (all 3-0)
    Pac 10 = (5) = Stanford, Arizona, Oregon, USC, Utah (all 4-0)
    SEC = (4) = UF, LSU, Auburn, BAMA (all 4-0)
    MWC = (3) = Nevada 4-0, TCU 4-0, Boise State 3-0
    ACC = (1) = NC State 4-0

    Like

    • Eric (ohio1317) says:

      I keep a list like this too. It’s kind of fun to move teams from one list to another. 🙂

      Like

      • duffman says:

        now that it is conference time the list can shrink quickly

        on saturday morning the SEC had 7 undefeated

        bama played arky
        usc played auburn
        uk played uf

        by saturday nite 3 were gone from head to head undefeated teams playing each other in conference. This weekend the Big 10 has two such matchups

        IU vs UM
        MSU vs Wisconsin

        so by the end of the week the Big 10 will have 2 fewer undefeated teams no matter what. other undefeated matchups this week include

        TAMU vs oSu
        Stanford vs Oregon
        Alabama vs Florida

        so the list will be at least five names shorter by next sunday

        PS anybody on here going to the IU vs UM game?

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Duff–

          Sad to say, IU flat out sucks.

          Belcher, Doss, and the two TEs are the only things keeping us from being Minnesota.

          Lynch is and has always been a fraud. I have a mole on my ass that can coach better than Lynch.

          Glass doesn’t want to fire the moron, but he’ll have no choice when IU gives up 40 points a game in the BT. And IU football continues as the BT’s bastard redheaded stepson.,,,,

          On a brighter note, did you see Lyles, class of ’14, committed to IU basketball? He and Blackman are probably top 15 guys in that class. Like Moses, Aaron and the boys, IU basketball is emerging from the desert and will soon be entering the promised land………..

          Like

          • duffman says:

            shroom,

            I am gonna go to the Pizza Pit the night before to watch X play Trinity. I will probably not get to the IU vs UM game. Maybe it is sour grapes, but I am still upset at the calls last year.

            Like

  19. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Coaches’ Poll just released.

    SEC – #1 Bama, #7 Florida, #10 LSU, #11 Auburn, #15, Arkansas, #22 South Carolina.
    Big Ten – #2 Ohio State, #9 Wisconsin, #18 Iowa, #19 Michigan, #20 Penn State, #21 Michigan State.
    Big XII – #6 Nebraska, #8 Oklahoma, #16 Texas, #23 Mizzou, #24 Oklahoma State.
    Pac 10 – #4 Oregon, #13 Stanford, #14 Arizona.
    WAC – #3 Bosie State, #25 Nevada.
    MWC – #5 TCU, #12 Utah.
    ACC – #17 Miami.
    Big East, CUSA, MAC, and Sunbelt – no ranked teams.

    Looking ahead to WEEK 5 match-ups, there are five games pitting ranked teams against each other.

    #7 Florida at #1 Bama
    #16 Texas v. #8 Oklahoma in Dallas
    #13 Stanford at #4 Oregon
    #9 Wisconsin at #21 Michigan State
    #20 Penn State at #18 Iowa

    Look for the #10 LSU Tigers to (hopefully) break out of their offensive funk against the Tennessee Vols next Saturday. The Vols gave up 429 passing yards to UAB yesterday in Tennessee’s double overtime victory.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      UAB’s kicker missed FIVE field goals. 1 was 49 and another 54, but the other 3 were in the 30-41 range. To his credit, he finally started hitting FGs in OT, but TN got a TD.

      Like

    • duffman says:

      10 years ago would you take a bet that UT and UGA would be the cellar dwellers in the SEC East a decade later?

      from your list of 5 games:

      I want to see Oregon vs Stanford most as I want to see just how good the Ducks are!

      Alabama = San Jose State, PSU, Duke, Arky (UF)
      Ohio State = Marshall, Miami (FL), Ohio, E Michigan (Illinois)
      Boise State = VT, Wyoming, Oregon State (New Mexico St)
      Oregon = New Mexico, Tennessee, Portland, ASU (Stanford)

      If the Ducks win, as do the 3 above them, I think you have to bump them to the #3 spot over Boise State.

      If the Bearcats had not shot themselves in the foot in Paul Brown, both Texas and Oklahoma would have gone into the weekend with losses!

      Glad the Big 10 gets into conference play!

      Like

      • Jay says:

        I don’t like how Alabama is ranked No. 1 over Ohio State and Boise, let alone Oregon. They should have lost last weekend. I think the Buckeyes are a clear No. 1, and there’s no way I’d move Oregon over Boise State as long as the Broncos don’t lose. They’ve spanked the Ducks two years straight – at home and on the road – with pretty much the same personnel as they’ve got now.

        Like

  20. M says:

    Some thoughts:

    Wow Minnesota sucks. I thought they did, but I didn’t expect how bad.

    I actually thought Purdue would be better this year, around the 7-8 win mark. To me, they are the most surprising team so far in a bad way.

    Penn State just isn’t as good this year. 4-4 in conference seems possible.

    I’m still not sold on MSU and Michigan. Their best win for each them was against an increasingly hapless looking ND.

    Northwestern’s schedule for the next 5 games: @Minn, Purdue, MSU, @Indiana, @Penn State. 6-0 should be easy, 8-0 seems very doable, and 9-0 is not unthinkable.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Purdue is having the worst run of injuries I’ve seen in a while. They would be a much better team if they were healthy, but injuries will probably cause them to be one of the worst this season.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      8-0 is very doable.

      The toughest remaining games for NU are @PSU & @Wisconsin (we have Iowa in Evanston).

      None of those 3 teams are all that impressive or far above NU this year (unlike OSU), but NU never plays well at PSU, and @Wisconsin is always tough.

      BTW, I realized that the Big10 is the only conference that can still have 3 teams that finish 2010 undefeated in the regular season in its conference next year.

      Like

      • StvInIL says:

        Questions: Will Illini QB S-house be able to win a game with his arm when he HAS to win a game with his arm? Will the Illini win the games they would have lost last year?

        MICHIGAN – has looked like a juggernaut offensively with Denard Robinson at the helm. This team was capable on offense last year but was not a juggernaut.
        Questions: Is the new 2010 version of Michigan’s defense the same as the old 09’ boss? Minus Brandon Graham that is. Could this Michigan defense slay the 2010 Michigan offensive juggernaut? Will the smallish DR stay healthy given all the times he handles the ball?

        INDIANA – Don’t know what to make of Indiana. They always have a dept problem but have had better talent than Minnesota for a few years now and do not finish ahead of them. Having Ben Chappell and his receiving corps will make the first half a game.
        Questions: Will the running game be consistent enough to keep the defense off the field? Will the defense be able to keep the scoring down enough for IU to win the ones they should have won?

        MINNESOTA – is does less with more resource than most big ten football programs. For years you could just pencil this program in to the middle of the pack just for showing up and having just enough talent.
        Questions: Will Minnesota now become good bedfellows with Indiana? Should Adam Webber continue to log 100% of the QB time while Gray sits or waits for an errant pass? “Where have all the flowers gone?” Well forget the flowers its Minnesota where winter overstays its welcome as Tim Brewster soon will maybe? Where has the Defense gone?

        PURDUE – has got to be the hard luck team of the past 4 years. Injuries have brought them to a tipping point in the wrong direction.
        Questions: When Purdue wins it’s next game it will probably be on pure heart? without a healthy Robert Marve will they win another this year? Warning, warning, warning Will Robin- I mean Minnesota!

        Like

  21. StvInIL4NW says:

    4 GAMES IN. MY CONFRENCE EVAL
    OHIO STATE – is a strong team that maybethe only team that can beat by tosu when not playing an (top 6) elite team.

    Questions: Is T pryor there best running back? What will this mean against the Iowas and Penn State and Wisconsins later in the season?
    IOWA- is another strong team and will be there at the end.
    Questions: Will Ricky stanzy step up not as a winner but as a QB that can take the team on his shoulders for a game or a stretch?

    WISCONSIN – A solid team that seemes it wants to play down to competition aside from this weeks Austi n who? Autopsy.
    Questions: will their lack luster play put them at a higher risk to stumble against the middle of the confrence types NW, MSU and IL.

    PENN STATE – a good team but lets face it, this IS a rebuilding year for them. The selection of the Freshman QB signals that but it was the only the right choice but thebest one. PSU fans should conced 3 -4 losses this year not because the team is 3 -4 losses bad. Just because this is a period of growth and adjustment that should yield a stronger team shortly to come.
    Questions: where in the world is Senior RB E. Royster? Better yet who is his replacement upon grduation and why is he not seeing the lions share of the time.

    MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY – looking good in a reload year. Loss of head coach presents some adversity but not as much as a star RB , QB or LB.
    Questions: Will the MSU defense be enough to win a CCG or the game that get them to a CCG?
    They need a combo of the Offense staying on the field and keeping a prolific offense off out of the end zone to to take the confrence. Can they?

    NORRTHWESTERN – looks busy doing what they do. Wionning quietly. They could possibly have the confrence best QB in their mits and have a scheduel setup for their success.
    Questions: Can the the wildcats discover the next tyrell sutton or the like on campus? The wildcats have had a string of strong running back play for a decade but fell off the table last year and this. What will this mean against the Iowas and Penn State and Wisconsins later in the season? The defense is bending and not breaking currently. If the offense can not continue to score and the Defense not get turnovers, will they break?

    ILLINOIS – Illinois is on the rise. The defense is looking stoudt at times and the offense is moveing the ball. Look to then to crawl out of the 3rd division.

    Like

  22. Hank says:

    enjoy JJ

    Like

  23. jj says:

    Here’s an one clasic one for the Badgers fans. Not a proud moment for that state waterboy guy, but maybe they should have put him on the team instead of whatever he was doing. Let’s get all fired up for this week.

    Like

  24. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    SEC TV Schedule for October 9. CBS has placed a 6 day hold on Bama/USCe and LSU/UF. The game that CBS doesn’t pick will be on ESPN. Once again, every game is on national TV.

    SEC Network, 11:21 a.m. CT, Tennessee at Georgia
    CBS, 2:30 p.m. CT, Alabama at South Carolina or LSU at Florida
    ABC, 2:30 p.m. CT, Arkansas vs. Texas A&M (in Dallas)
    ESPNU, 6 p.m. CT, Eastern Michigan at Vanderbilt
    ESPN or ESPN2, 6:30 p.m. CT, Alabama at South Carolina or LSU at Florida
    ESPN or ESPN2, 6:30 p.m. CT, Auburn at Kentucky
    CBS College Sports, 7 p.m. CT, Miss. State at Houston

    Like

  25. Playoffs Now says:

    Now rooting for a Stanford vs. Boise St MNC game. But not if Petersen let’s them repeat the thuggish cheap shots they were taking on Oregon St. for part of the game.

    Intentional blows to the head could be reduced with a new rule: If a player is injured by hit to the head such that time has to be stopped and the referee determines that he was knocked unconscious at any point, the player initiating the hit is removed from the game and cannot play another game until the victim is cleared to play. Presumes a rules tweak that any player knocked unconscious is assumed to have a concussion and is not allowed back into the current game. Removes any advantage to targeting the head.

    Still think TX will upset NE, even though the roles are reversed this year with TX coming in with a stellar defense and maddening inept offense.

    Even with all their weaknesses, P10 football is fun to watch, especially as midnight approaches. Which makes the stillbirth of the P16 even more annoying. Hopefully that buttwhipping will motivate TX AD Dodds instead of scare him.

    Pretty cool that NV is much better than we assumed.

    Sad that a rapist may soon lead the NFL’s pet team to the first 19-0 season.

    Shameful that Rex Ryan let the drunk driver play. But it was funny when Ryan turned the tables and gave the winning Gatoraid bath instead of receiving it.

    Miami’s orange special uniforms are some of the best in football.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Still got that huge Texas-OU game to think about before we get anywhere close to Texas-Nebraska.

      We’ll learn a lot about Texas and OU this weekend that’ll sort out the Big 12 picture.

      Like

      • schwarm says:

        Kstate/UNL two Thursdays from now will be interesting, too. UNL is better, I think, but its at KSU and they have a good running game, while the Husks strength on defense is against the pass.

        The Missou and KSU games should decide the North again this year.

        Like

  26. bullet says:

    George Blanda R.I.P. Amazing athlete to still be playing at 48 and in an age of soccer style kickers.

    See http://chron.com front of Houston Chronicle website.

    Like

  27. mushroomgod says:

    Duffman—Lyles rated #1 and Blackman #7 in EPSN bball class of ’14………..

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Your earlier Moses analogy! 😉

      the tan one is turning the corner, now they need to get it done on the floor, and get back to where they should be. Blackman is the get just from the dad playing for UK. sweet! Now that Huggy has gone to WVA, 15 second rick is not gonna be top banana in the Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio triangle like he though he would a year or two ago.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Yes….sweet to get Blackman after his dad went to the Root of all Evil……and his brother is rated #1 in the class of ’16….

        See where IU-Michigan is close to a sell-out? We just got 6 of the $5 tickets for my son and his buddies…..should be a hell of a tailgate on the grass lots, if nothing else……I’m supervising………

        I’m hopeful, but rooting for Bill Lynch to beat Michigan is like rooting for Mr. Ed to win the Kentucky Derby………..

        Like

  28. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    There’s an interesting article in ESPN.com’s Insider section about “should be” College Football Super Powers that aren’t, by Ryan McGee.

    His list is:
    5. Arizona
    4. Michigan State
    3. North Carolina
    2. Minnesota
    1. Texas A&M

    I would add Rutgers and NC State.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      I would rank them
      1. UCLA
      2. TAMU
      .
      .
      .
      UNC, NCSU, Georgia, Illinois, Rutgers, and Virginia are each disappointing in their own way.

      The inclusion of Minnesota & Arizona make no sense; neither are in big population states or have fertile recruiting grounds in-state.

      Including MSU but not Auburn doesn’t make much sense either. Is he saying Auburn’s a power? They’re about equal in success, and Auburn has better access to recruiting.

      Like

      • StvInIL says:

        5. Arizona
        4. Michigan State
        3. North Carolina
        2. Minnesota
        1. Texas A&M

        I don’t see how Illinois does not get include on this list.
        Minnesota could not possibly support a Football Super Powers list as it has not got the kind of instate recruiting possibilities as an Ohio, Pennsylvania or even Illinois. There are just not enough Division 1 Athletes in the state of Minnesota to do this. This would be different if Minnesota was a boarder state to Texas, California or Florida otherwise this is just crazy. What Minnesota does have is financial and facilities resources.
        Arizona is at least close enough to California to greatly augment its limited recruiting base. I don’t know about their financial resources.
        Michigan State could be on that list but will forever be second fiddle to Michigan. Hence they need a reliable out of state recruiting base just to stay in the ball game so they are a little iffy here.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        Still can’t emphasize enough how much UCLA should be there (especially since TAMU is). They’re both second-fiddle in their backyard, but the backyard of each school is one of the top 3 recruiting hotbeds in the whole country.

        Like

      • StvInIL says:

        On second thought Richard, you are right. UCLA could lose the upper hand to USC and still field a really good crop of recruits from SoCal alone. When USC is on its national recruiting binges that should leave more local talent for UCLA which is a public school.
        Due to its central location and population I could consider putting Missouri on this list. Their academics wont scare away to many recruits and they have a tax base that may allow for prime infrastructure.

        5. Missouri
        4. North Carolina
        3. Illinois
        2. UCLA
        1. Texas A&M
        POSSIBLES: Arizona, Virginia, UNCS, Michigan State, Houston

        Like

      • jj says:

        totally agree re georgia & rutgers. i’d add ole miss to that pile as well.

        Like

    • Vincent says:

      I think North Carolina, and to a lesser extent Michigan State, have a problem of perception and campus culture. UNC has a wonderful campus, good facilities and is the top public college in a fairly large state. But in the post-Charlie Justice days, football has played second fiddle to basketball in Chapel Hill; recruits know it, and a lot of them find that unacceptable for their ego. Many five-star football recruits don’t want to go to a “basketball school.”

      Things aren’t quite so severe in East Lansing, but since Earvin Johnson and now under Tom Izzo, MSU is considered basketball-oriented. Duffy Daugherty was succeeded in public consciousness by Izzo, just as Ben Schwarzwalder was “replaced” by Jim Boeheim at Syracuse (although SU at least can attribute its relative football weakness in recent years to both its geography and being a private institution).

      Maryland is sort of similar to UNC in having a basketball orientation, but Big Ten membership — and the cachet its football has compared to the lackluster ACC — would do wonders to making things more balanced in College Park.

      Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      This would appear to be a list of teams that have had little success in the past 10 years (if any college football writer is aware of anything before 10 years ago, you wouldn’t know it from their writing).

      Based on that criteria, I would say UCLA is a glaring omission but A&M needs to be #1 or #2. A&M finished in the top 25 almost every year from 1985 to 1999, but has not done that once in the last 10 years.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Historically, #1 has to be Rutgers. There’s no excuse for Rutgers not really having any period of history where it’s not been a dominant team, especially since they should have all of NJ’s prime recruiting.

      I’d say #2 historically is a battle between North Carolina and UCLA. Illinois is somewhat of a disappointment as well since it should be an Ohio State or Michigan class school but just isn’t for some reason. They have the ability to get great recruits, it just never works out…

      Like

      • jj says:

        seems right to me. rut is in a bit of an island out there.

        Like

      • Vincent says:

        Has anyone looked at Rutgers’ history when making such statements? For decades, it was at best a lower-tier eastern independent, sort of an ersatz Ivy. (As late as 1980, Ivy League teams were on Rutgers’ schedule.) It didn’t really begin to upgrade football until the late 1970s, so New Jersey players didn’t really grow up with the “stay home and play for state U” mentality prevalent in other states. So why should it have been a dominant team? It wasn’t trying to be a UNC or UCLA.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Well by historical, I mean at some point in the past 140 years, Rutgers should have been a power.

          Even the Ivies were powers 100 years ago…; Rutgers went off the map as soon as it started, I guess…

          Like

    • Bamatab says:

      I would list these schools as schools that “should be” super powers:

      1 UGA – because they are in a HS talent rich state in which they are the flagship school with a rbid fanbase. Some might say that they are a super power, but I wouldn’t since they can’t seem to win a nation championship since 1980 and only played in 2 SEC championship games since 1992.
      2 Maryland – They should have fertile recruiting grounds in DC and Baltimore and should have their pick of recruits being the flagship school in the state.
      3 Illinois – See Maryland except replace DC & Baltimore with Chicago.
      4 Virginia – Flagship school in a growing and populous state. At the very least, they should be the better football program in the state as opposed to VT. (I almost put North Carolina here but it is too much to ask to be a super power in both basketball & football)
      5 Arizona – See Maryland except replace DC & Baltimore with Pheonix & Tuscon

      I don’t think that the teams like MSU, Auburn, or NCST should be or could be super powers over long periods of time because they are not the flagship schools in those states. It is just too hard to recruit the level of talent over a long history when you have to split players with the other, more prestigous schools. FSU & Miami (and you could argue UF as well) were only able to do it for stretches (from the late 80s through the early 2000s).

      I guess it would be possible for those schools in Florida, or aTm in Texas, or UCLA in California to do it in those state since they have such large population bases. But with that said, it has proven hard to sustain those 3 top level teams in Florida with the emergance of USF & UCF. And OU gets better recruits out of Texas than does aTm, so it would be difficult for aTm to out recruit UT & OU. And UCLA has to contend with Stanford & Cal in California. Not to mention all of the other schools in the country that recruit those states.

      I just think that the flagship schools in states that can sustain high levels of good recruits are the ones that should be super powers.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        UGA is consistently in the hunt. They don’t belong on that list anymore than LSU. If national championships is all you look at, Nebraska should have been on that list while Tom Osborne was coach up until 94. And FSU with Bobby Bowden while they were in the top 5 for about 10 straight years until they finally won.

        You also have to consider whether you are talking about last 10 years (as m(Ag) points out) or historically. If you haven’t won a Big 10 title since 1967, no matter what you did prior, that would put you in consideration for the list.

        I’d have it:
        1. Rutgers
        2. Illinois (NW has 3 Big 10 titles since 94-how far back does Illinois have to go to get to 3?)
        3. Minnesota (fairly populous state, B10 recruiting area, ONLY Division I school in state)
        4. Cal (UCLA, other than last 5 years, has
        been much more successful. Stanford has been more successful!)
        5. Virginia

        If you are just talking last 10 years, schools like UCLA, Texas A&M, Colorado, Michigan State and Syracuse come to mind.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I wouldn’t hold UCLA’s success against Cal. SoCal has several times NoCal’s population. UCLA _should_ be better. Stanford is a litle embarrassing, but they have a different profile (recruit nationally; high academic standards are both a plus and a minus). For instance, you wouldn’t say Indiana or Purdue underacheive because ND is so much better.

          Oh, and UGa is definitely a disappointment. Over the past 2 decades, they’d had 74 losses to 66 for Tennessee (which has a far less fertile in-state recruiting base) and 52 for Florida (which really should be their equal).
          Georgia also has twice Louisiana’s population, so if they perform only as well as LSU, then that’s disappointing.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            The Bay Area still has 7 million people which is more than most states. And they are still in-state, so they have an in-road on S. California talent also. Cal really should be a power.

            Like

      • Richard says:

        Arizona’s a small population state. Granted, SoCal is close by, but they still have to go out of state to get the vast majority of their talent. Totally agree about Georgia, though.

        Like

        • Bamatab says:

          I was on the fence with AZ. I just thought with Pheonix and around 4 other cities with a 6 digit population base, that they should be able to get enough recruits in state and then be able to suppliment the rest by going into SoCal, West Texas, & New Mexico to getting when they need.

          And I stand by my stance on UGA. There is no reason at all that they shouldn’t be in the league with Bama, Michigan, OSU, PSU, USC, & Neb. They have a rich talent base in GA. They also have a very loyal and committed fanbase/boosters. Yet with the exceptions of the early 80, and mid-2000s, they historically have not been real contenders. JMHO

          Like

        • StvInIL says:

          Lets redefine this argument. Superpower?
          Some get hung up on this word Superpower. Let’s just say they should be a consistent have and not often on the have nots list. This would mean to me.
          Let’s replace Super power with these.
          Routinely appears on preseason top 25.
          Fairly regular Bowl appearances.
          Belongs to a major conference (currently) or is Notre Dame
          Routinely penciled in to the top 3rd of their conference finals

          The state will have these advantages:
          1. A large population base. 6 million or better.(more money for the institution)
          2. A sizable Division recruiting base. 1 and 2 are not a given.
          3. If not 2 is bordered by a state that has a significant overflow of talent
          4. Wealth of some business and industries
          5. A great love or significant history in the sport
          The School itself will have these advantages:
          1 Singular flagship status in state (no other publics on this level)
          2 A campus people want to come to (especially out of staters)
          3 Facilities in the top 25%
          4 located 25 miles or more outside of a professional sports city (attendance downer)
          5 is not an elite academic institution ( a recruiting downer)
          Now if they have all these going for them and they are not being mentioned more regularly, they go on the list.

          Like

          • Jay says:

            That sounds like Colorado ought to be close to meeting those qualifiers. Heck, maybe even Nevada. It doesn’t have the population base, but it’s primed to take on California’s overflow. I don’t think Western states require as much population as those East of the Mississippi since there is so much more area between them and their neighbors.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Nevada doesn’t have nearly enough population to qualify. Otherwise, you could throw New Mexico on the list as well. Colorado might qualify except it doesn’t exactly have a wealth of football-talent in-state. Not sure why being more spread-out should decrease the population requirement. You’re not going to find better football players just because there’s more land.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            UGA had a couple of weak coaches following Vince Dooley. But over the last 10 years, they have a 2nd place and a 3rd place finish in the final polls. The list of schools with more top 5 finishes in that time frame is is pretty short. It does NOT include Alabama or Tennessee or FSU or Michigan or Notre Dame or Penn St or Nebraska. Only UT, OU, Ohio St., USC of the traditional powers along with FL, LSU and Miami have done better.

            As for LSU, Louisiana is one of the leaders in talent per capita, they really have only 1 top level school (La. Tech and LaLa aren’t Georgia Tech), they have Texas next door and they don’t have Clemson, Auburn and Florida within an hour of their borders. The rest of the SEC and ACC don’t recruit Louisiana as hard as they do Georgia. And LSU was a serious underachiever from the 80s until the last 10 years. They’ve had a LOT more losing seasons that UGA over the last 35 years. UGA’s worst season since the mid 60s was 4-7. They’ve only had 3 losing years since Vince Dooley became coach. LSU has had 3 seasons with 2 or 3 wins since the 80s along with a couple of 4 win years.

            UGA has underachieved only if your criteria is a national championship in the last 25 years or you only look at the Goff and Donnan years who still had 57% and 67% winning percentages.

            Like

          • Playoffs Now says:

            I’ve got to go with Richard:

            1) UCLA

            2) aTm

            then a big dropoff, maybe

            3) IL

            4-5) ASU and AZ

            UCLA should be a dynasty program like USC. Those are the only two schools I potentially fear in a recruiting war with TX. UCLA and USC have it all: Weather, women, glam, glitz, big city, biggest media center after NYC, star power, hip factor, beaches, skiing, everything you could possible want within a few hours drive. No other school in the country can compete with that when luring athletes. However for so long UCLA football has only flirted with success that many kids these days don’t associate them with the programs that have a chance to win big. But if they string together two or three 10+ win seasons, watch out.

            Disagree on UGA, they’ve had enough intermittent success at a high level where they don’t really belong on the list.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            On the subject of UGA, as we have discussed scheduling here:

            UGA WIMPS OUT! NEW AD AFRAID TO PLAY ON ROAD! That’s the gist of the article:

            http://www.ajc.com/sports/uga/uga-has-a-new-646385.html

            UGA cancelled their games with Oregon through mutual agreement. UGA’s new AD is scared to play on the road (Tempe, Stillwater, Boulder in recent years) and is adopting Florida’s philosophy of scheduling close to home. He previously worked at Florida. The previous AD wanted to build the Bulldog “brand” by playing around the country. The new AD wants easy games to try to improve their winning percentages.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            For those of you who may have missed it, UGA’s previous AD was a young up and comer who was a risk taker. Unfortunately, he was caught in a DUI with a woman who wasn’t his wife. That right after a rash of fb arrests and an emphasis on avoiding DUIs. So he got fired. UGA also dismissed a player who got arrested for DUI this week.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            UGA completes their copycat of the hated Florida Gators. Having dropped Oregon, they added Charleston Southern for $450,000 in 2014 and Georgia Southern for $525,000 in 2016. AJC article says the going rate for an FBS team w/o return trip is close to $1,000,000 (what Boise asked for from UNL).

            They dropped the count once in 4 years for bowl eligibility rule to help FCS, but its getting abused with the rash of bowls out there and the cowardly powers. Its one thing for Kent St. to play FCS, but Florida, Alabama & Georgia have no business doing so. I really want some 5-7 teams in bowls this year to make them re-think all this.

            Pac 10 schools have traditionally played very few FCS. SEC and ACC have always played a lot.

            Like

  29. Jay says:

    I was wondering about what that article would say, but it’s one of those Insider-only pieces. And I’d say Auburn’s had considerably more success than MSU. The Spartans will have a 6-win or losing season here or there, and they’ll drop games to MAC schools. Auburn’s had an undefeated season in the BCS era and has been to conference championship games. When was the last time Sparty even went to the Rose Bowl? The late 80s?

    Like

  30. jj says:

    per teddy:

    Toughest remaining schedule: Michigan State. OK, the Spartans don’t play Ohio State. Huge break there. But they open with Wisconsin and have to visit Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa and Penn State.

    Easiest: Northwestern. The Wildcats visit Minnesota amid calls for Brewster’s head, then get depleted Purdue at home. And no Buckeyes or Wolverines to tangle with.

    I think this is exactly right. NW has a cakewalk. OSU could get upset, but NW is in the driver’s seat. My beloved sparties have a tough 2 weeks ahead. Let’s do it. By the way, UM’s schedule from here on is pretty hard as well, OSU’s is pretty favorable – come on Wis & Iowa – get those guys! I think the divisions will do wonders for the schedules. We’ll see.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      If Northwestern can’t take advantage of a schedule without Ohio State and Michigan, I don’t know what to think.

      Every team on their schedule is beatable even though they will be underdogs in at least 4 of their games. But still, there’s a lot of W’s to be had and momentum to be built up if they get the job done.

      Like

  31. mushroomgod says:

    Duff and others………

    Not much talk on here about the BT Icons…….

    Steve Alford at #17? I LOVED the guy, but no way he belongs that high..top 50,yes, but no nearly that high.

    When the BTN gets done screwing it up, I’ll publish Mush’s Top 50 BT Icons….which will be a lot better………..

    Like

  32. Jake says:

    Frank – don’t have time to read all of the comments, but any discussion going on about the TCU-to-Big East rumors? I’d love to talk about that one – my opinion on the issue has definitely shifted over the last month or two.

    Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Pure speculation, but if I were BEast commish and they really are trying to start a BEast Network, I’d be pushing hard to add 4 of:

      TCU
      Houston
      Boise
      BYU
      UCF

      TCU and Boise would ensure keeping the AQ.

      TCU, Houston, and UCF could provide easier access to get the channel in the household-rich TX and FL markets. None carry their market, but each add incremental appeal in the biggest markets available. And note that Orlando is a separate market from Tampa Bay (USF’s influence is thus limited) but together they are around 7 million persons. Houston approaches 6 and DFW 7 million. All growing faster than nearly any other metro besides Phoenix and Atlanta.

      BYU probably would insist on keeping its own channel, but you would still get cross-promotion, mixing, and perhaps bundle the BEN and BYUTV as a package deal. Niche but national following, adds another increment when trying to reach the critical mass to get the BEN on cable systems at the right price.

      Boise is way out there travel wise, but getting into an AQ might be enough for them to bite the bullet and join. For the other schools it is just 1 trip every other year, or 1 per year if BYU was a travel partner. In some ways Boise is the new Notre Dame, with a national name and growing appeal as the Everyman underdog. Americans love underdogs. No other realistically available school would provide more national publicity and interes for the BEast (no, ND isn’t a realistic option.)

      So I’d convince Villanova that they can’t afford to step up and don’t have a shot at most recruits (who think the school is a flavor.) Then extend bids to TCU, Boise, BYU, and Houston. Go with UCF if one of them says no. Do it now even though the B10+2 could shake everything up and go to 16 in a few months. Should that happen and the P16 and SEC16 form, at least the BEast would then have a shot at beating out the ACC to be the surviving 4th 16-school league, or perhaps make a convincing case for the conferences to agree to 5×16 instead of 4×16. Stand pat at 8 or only adding Villanova (and maybe TCU) would leave them vulnerable to the ACC and even perhaps a B12-2 castoff grabbing MWC finishing them off if the B10+2 comes raiding.

      Like

      • Jake says:

        Or the Big East could just add TCU and stop. That’s my preference.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        I don’t see the BE choosing BSU over UCF or Houston or TCU. Definitely not BYU. Market size matters more than football prowess. Tons of people still watch ND even when they’re mediocre. If BSU stop being in the BCS discussion, how many people would still care about BSU? I’d say even Memphis is more attractive than BSU.

        In any case, I’m not sure how expanding would help the BE. Unless the ACC is completely picked apart by the Big10 and SEC making a joint raid (slim to none chance), the BE would still be the weakest league and most vulnerable to losing members in any shakeout.

        Like

        • Jake says:

          There’s nothing they can do to prevent a raid, so the BE just has to move forward as if everyone is sticking around and do the best they can for themselves. Adding TCU gives them nine for football (the best number, IMO), strengthens their football rep, and moves them into a huge market in a huge, football-crazy state. Presumably that helps them if they try to launch their own network. If they want to add another basketball team to even out, maybe they could get another non-football school. Any candidates out there? Maybe someone from the A10? Is 17 really a problematic number?

          Anyway, I’m pretty positive about a TCU move to the Big East. Mo’ money, more media attention, big-time basketball, a BCS AQ. Travel’s kind of a push. Ever since these rumors started flying I’ve had “Empire State of Mind” stuck in my head. Weird.

          Like

        • Jake says:

          Also, regarding Boise – they aren’t just a flash in the pan. Those guys have been good at football at every level they’ve played at (only two coaches in school history have losing records, IIRC, and one of them was Houston Nutt, who went 5-6 in one season). They’re the biggest school in Idaho and by far the biggest athletic draw. Compare that to Memphis, who are the third most popular college football team in their own state, not to mention some pro sports. If BYU is the Notre Dame of the West, then I’d call Boise the Nebraska of the West. They’ll inevitably fall of from where they are now, but they’ll continue to have a following. And I think their commitment to developing facilities shows that they won’t far off too far or for too long.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Yeah, but the following’s small. Also, I’m not sure BSU fans are as fanatical and as spread out as UNL fans. Nebraska fans set PPV records when their team can only be seen on PPV. Would BSU fans?

            Like

          • Jake says:

            No, they aren’t close to the devotion of the Husker faithful, but who really is? But both programs have devoted fan bases in their sparsely populated home states (Neb 1.7 mil, Ida 1.5 mil), plus a following across the country whenever they play a game of national interest. Maybe Notre Dame-lite and Nebraska-lite would be a better way to phrase it. I think Boise brings more to a conference than someone like Houston or Memphis, who have trouble even getting noticed in their home markets. But maybe the TV folks don’t feel the same way.

            And I really hope Nova doesn’t move up to FBS. I don’t feel like they will, but I would be steamed if an FCS team jumped straight into a BCS AQ conference while some of us are actually earning it.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            TCU has earned it from every way. In terms of athletic budget, facilities, fan support, it is a BCS school in all but conference affiliation. More so than any non-BCS school in the country.

            Such is life though; the Villanova compromise is ridiculous, but the Big East sees it as a way to bind the basketball and football schools together.

            For the sake of Big East football, I really hope Villanova turns it down and TCU get the bid instead.

            Like

      • StvInIL says:

        Sounds like your doing it for them. And you make some points for. Unfortunately such league would be so disjointed it would be obvious its just a financial marriage of convenience and nothing more. I just don’t see any cohesion in this plan And I don’t see any based on regional interest. That said I could see a better plan for the Big East if they could talk Mizzu, Iowa St, Kansas and Kansas State into the Big East mix.

        Like

        • Vincent says:

          Those four schools wouldn’t do it unless the Big East football conference schools broke off to form their own league, something they apparently lack the courage to do. Iowa State has no interest in being in a conference with Providence and Seton Hall.

          Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        When you look at the map, TCU in the current and new MWC looks better until you consider the time zones and the actual mileage between campuses.

        Distances from Fort Worth to the New MWC campuses (driving distances courtesy of Mapquest):

        Nevada – 1,645 miles;
        Boise St. – 1,584 miles;
        Fresno St. – 1,536 miles;
        San Diego St. – 1,333 miles;
        UNLV – 1,196 miles;
        Wyoming – 898 miles;
        Colorado St. – 817 miles;
        Air Force – 704 miles; and
        New Mexico – 626 miles.

        Distances from Forth Worth to Big East campuses:

        UConn – 1,735 miles;
        Rutgers – 1,560 miles;
        Syracuse – 1,543 miles;
        Pitt – 1,254 miles;
        West Virginia – 1,238 miles;
        South Florida – 1,140 miles;
        Cincy – 973 miles; and
        Louisville – 869 miles.

        As the Star-Telegram article pointed out, the Big East is only one time zone away, while several of the MWC schools would be two time zones away.

        TCU to the Big East, from a geographic/travel/time perspective ain’t that crazy.

        Like

        • Jake says:

          And as one of the S-T columnists pointed out, Big East travel is the “right way,” meaning you gain the hour coming back. That’s important for athletes getting back and having time to sleep before class, which some people still care about. Also, BE schools are in or near bigger cities, which should make it easier to fly in and out.

          Another point I like about the BE is the academic fit. With BYU and Utah gone, no one in the MWC other than Air Force is really close to TCU academically. In the BE they’d be among some of the top schools in the country, including (with basketball) other private schools.

          Like

        • StvInIL says:

          Alan, those are some good supporting numbers. I would throw this in to it though. To people in these Western/ Southwestern these distances are par for the course in these big open lands. But in the major metropolitan areas of the East and Midwest. Those distances are Ridicules.
          Happy Valley to Chicago 696 Miles
          Minneapolis to Chicago 403 miles (7.5 hour car ride to Chicago)
          Columbus to Chicago 300 miles
          Anne Arbor to Chicago 243 miles
          Bloomington to Chicago 234 miles
          East Lansing to Chicago 223 miles
          Iowa City to Chicago 222 miles
          Madison to Chicago 147 miles
          Champaign to Chicago 138 miles
          West Lafayette to Chicago 123 miles
          Evanston to Chicago > 1 mile

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Steve – here are the maximum in-conference travel distances for the 6 BCS conferences:

            Pac-10: Washington to Arizona – 1574;
            ACC: BC to Miami – 1511;
            Big East: Syracuse to Tampa – 1274;
            Big Ten in 2011: Penn St. to Nebraska – 1074;
            Big XII-2: Iowa St. to Texas – 965; and
            SEC: LSU to Kentucky – 800.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            CORRECTION: SEC max distance is Arkansas to Florida – 975 miles.

            Like

          • StvInIL says:

            Yeah Alan, those most recent outliers to the conferences do skew those numbers some.
            It also mask the point I was trying to get across. The drive to the neighboring opponents stadium will virtually become a thing of the past is these spread-out conferences. The Ucons to Forth Worth thing has got to be a plane trip unless someone wants to take a week off and just drive. Not a lot of working people want to do that. I don’t fly a lot anymore so I don’t know if airlines traveling fans by numbers are comparable to caravanning fans. Somehow, I don’t think so. It is that aspect of it that I was thinking of.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Steve – I got your point. LSU is an outlier in the SEC, but I can still drive to Oxford, Little Rock (LSU plays Arky in LR, not Fayetteville), Stark-Vegas, Tuscaloosa and Auburn. But I fly to the SEC East schools.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            I can verify alan’s point by the purple and gold that pass through the Cincinnati airport when they play Kentucky.

            😉

            Like

  33. bullet says:

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/09/30/1361109/part-of-every-day-is-bcs.html

    Interview with MWC commissioner talking about potential changes to BCS, their discussions with CUSA and their invitation of WAC schools. On the WAC, he says it was a battle of survival. He only sees room for 2 conferences in west. On CUSA, he’s trying to get numbers on his side, 22 schools instead of 10. One of the problems with the 4 superconferences idea is it drops the BCS schools from 66 (soon to be 67) of 120 to 64 of 120.

    Like

  34. Jay says:

    It just keeps getting worse for Boise, doesn’t it? A few months ago, the new Mountain West sounded pretty impressive. Now it’s about to sound just like the current WAC!

    Like

    • Richard says:

      They still have Air Force!

      Like

    • bullet says:

      No wonder the WAC is in such a hurry. If TCU leaves and MWC raids one more time, its time to turn out the lights.

      Like

      • Jay says:

        What’s left to raid? It seems the WAC may finally be done for.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        Well, there’s really nothing left to raid in the WAC. Maybe Utah St. _Maybe_ LaTech. I can’t see why the MWC would want anyone else. What’s more likely is that the MWC at 9 teams (+BSU +Fresno +Nevada -Utah -BYU -TCU) would get together with CUSA to try to get the winner of their 20 team championship in to the BCS via an automatic slot. Things would be easier if the BE takes a CUSA school as well (Houston/UCF/Memphis). Then an extra CUSA school would just have to be moved over to the MWC to set up 10-team leagues that would meet in a championship game for a BCS berth.

        Like

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          That’s probably the best case scenario for CUSA by a long shot. Send Houston with TCU to the BE. Ship UTEP to the MWC. Take one more from the WAC and kill it off. Playoff for the winners of the MWC and CUSA to host the Cotton Bowl as the sixth BCS bowl.

          Like

  35. Hopkins Horn says:

    Future Big 12 conference schedules have been announced.

    I’m not sure how much of this is set in stone and how much individual schools will be allowed to freelance to either move games into September (as Texas-Texas Tech has been the last two seasons) or to the first Saturday in December. But as it stands, conference play will begin the first Saturday in October and will proceed for nine straight weeks without a bye until conference play ends Thanksgiving weekend.

    This means that, as of now, the Big 12 will be dark when other conferences are playing their championship games. I’m not sure that’s a good idea, though, as a Texas fan, I’m not sure which game would be good for us to play that weekend, since our two big rivalry games are tied into the State Fair in October and Thanksgiving night/week. Any other game Texas played that first Saturday in December would be a bit of a letdown.

    I wouldn’t be surprised (if the conference permits it) if OU-OSU and/or KU-Mizzou move to that first Saturday in December. They seem like the most logical candidates to me.

    Revising the schedule also means some teams will be playing back-to-back games against other teams in the same stadium. For Texas, we’ll play home games against OSU in consecutive years, and we’ll host KU and visit Mizzou in consecutive games, though with this year off in between visits. I have to imagine all schools have similar repeat visits.

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Hop – You have to like the optimism/wishful thinking coming out of the Big XII office, by setting up a conference schedule through 2026.

      That being said, the Big XII (and the Big Ten for that matter) should really mix in a few conference games in September to avoid that “Big MAC” weekend situation that we were subjected to last Saturday. Also, there’s nothing wrong with scheduling either an Open Date or an OOC punching bag in October/November.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Yeah, someone pointed out the same thing on BON. The bad news is, if we do last that long (which I don’t think we will, of course) is that there is a certain monotony to the scheduled. We always open against Iowa State? Yawn. We always get KSU (our kryptonite school) the next-to-last week of the season? Ouch.

        My guess is that some schools will push some games to September for the reasons you mention.

        How has the Pac 10 done their 10-game round robin? Have they mixed in byes or plowed through, as the Big 12 seems prepared to do, nine straight weeks?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I don’t like KSU the week before A&M either. That is asking for trouble.

          Of course, KSU and Baylor don’t get any favors. They both play Texas and A&M back to back.

          I’m sure after 2-4 years they will revise it.

          I’m also certain 1 or 2 games each year will be moved to that 1st week in December. Texas/Texas A&M has occassionally been moved from TG weekend and its certainly been bounced around from TH to F to Sat that week.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          The Pac10 always moves games around. Otherwise, there’s no way for USC and Stanford to fit in their games against ND in the middle of the Pac10 schedule. Ironically, now that they have almost all their rivalry games in December, they’ll have to move them back again since they’ll have a championship game.

          Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          Yes, It’s depressing to think these schedules are ‘permanent’.

          Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            I wouldn’t worry about the schedules being ‘permanent’. I think they just didn’t bother much with anything post 2014 because they figure the conference will be gone by then. 😉

            Like

    • Jay says:

      Why wouldn’t a few Big IIXII teams (especially those with title game aspirations) schedule a game AFTER the conference schedule against a non-conference opponent? Preferably a competitive one (say Notre Dame, BYU, TCU?), so a win over that opponent would give a boost in the rankings.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        I think the problem with scheduling a high-profile OOC in December, given the way the schedules are currently set up, is that it would mean using both available byes in September.

        As of now, though, everyone is scheduled to use one of the two in December. I think it would have made more sense to move the last game to the first Saturday in December. It will be interesting to hear their explanation on that decision.

        Like

        • Bamatab says:

          If you are using one of the byes in the first week of December, and yet won’t be playing another game (bowl game) for several weeks anyways, wouldn’t that be a waste of an off week? You would get a couple/several weeks off anyways during the second week of December even if you go to a crappy bowl.

          Like

    • Jake says:

      Once that Texas-OU game leaves the Cotton Bowl for Cowboys Stadium (and you know it will), that game won’t have much reason to remain in October, will it? No reason to play during the State Fair if you aren’t AT the State Fair. Move that one to early December so it can decide the conference title most years, like OSU-UM no longer will.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the game will move away from the Cotton Bowl anytime soon. If it ever was going to move, it would have been in conjunction with the opening of JerryWorld. Instead, the City of Dallas sprang for adding another 10K seats to the Cotton Bowl for this game alone and the schools renewed with the Cotton Bowl for the considerable future.

        I think there are large segments in both fan bases who would just as soon see the game move to a home-and-home rather than move to JerryWorld. If it’s not at the State Fair, there’s really no point in keeping it a neutral site game.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I agree with this. If this goes the way of the Iron Bowl, it’ll end up as a home-home; when you have massive 101k and 85k stadiums sitting around; that makes much more sense than Jerry’s stadium.

          And he’s busy paying off teams to come play neutral site games every year like FedEx and New Meadowlands…

          His goal is going to be to get a 5th BCS game in his stadium, not the Texas-OU game…

          Like

          • duffman says:

            I have thought that for quite some time. when I was younger the cotton bowl was a big deal. when miami played PSU 87?? in the fiesta bowl ages ago when they were both independent, that is when the pendulum took a swing away from the cotton bowl.

            I think the jerryworld and the state of texas would love to get that swagger back to texas from the fiesta bowl folks. I feel sure if the rose or sugar got such a demotion, they would want to get back on top.

            Like

        • bullet says:

          Jerry’s going to have to offer a lot of money to get it out of the Cotton Bowl. It would be special as a neutral site game w/o the state fair, but just not quite as special.

          Like

        • Jake says:

          Just because Laura Miller decide to waste taxpayer money on the Cotton Bowl doesn’t mean the game will stay there; they’d probably be gone already if they didn’t have a contract to stay for a couple more years. Maybe they’ll go to a home-and-home series, but the point still stands: once you’re out of the Cotton Bowl, move the game to the end of the season. Sure, UT will be playing OU the week after A&M, but its a long break.

          Like

      • Playoffs Now says:

        TX-OU will never leave the Cotton Bowl while the B12-2 still exists. Anytime OU wants to argue home and home, TX will simply say, “P16. Gosh, if those politicians force Baylor on us, there just isn’t room for you and Okie St…”

        Anyway, here’s a great read on just another reason TX-OU is on another level:

        http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/09/29/one-more-time-why-this-game-is-special/comment-page-1/#comment-129399

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I remember that game well. But 77 was a very similar game, 13-6 Texas. I was watching it in the dorm and everyone was cheering for Erxeleban (punter/placekicker) every time he came out. How many games is the punter a hero? He averaged about 50 yards a punt in that game and had a 50+ and 60+ field goals. Don’t think there has been as good a college placekicker since (great accuracy and phenomal distance) and definitely not a punter/placekicker. Interestingly, A&M (Tony Franklin?) and Arkansas (Steve Little?) also had guys kicking 60+ field goals the same year.

          Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      WTH, I thought we ran this damn conference? TX having Okie St the week after OU and 4 in a row of TTech, MO, KSU, and aTm on a Thursday? Much too risky, those cheaters in Norman have a far more favorable draw.

      Need to move Aggie to December and KSU to Thanksgiving (and thus ISU-KSU can slip to Dec, let ’em counter program the SEC or B10+2 CCG since no one will be watching anyway.) And perhaps OK St to Sept. For the, um, good of the conference…

      Just more signs pointing to a P16.

      Like

      • Playoffs Now says:

        Better yet, give aTm the undivided spotlight on Thanksgiving versus KS (which pushes KS-MO to Dec and gives the conference 11, 2:30, and night games that weekend) and let TX-KSU be the Friday game to replace NE-Colo.

        Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        But wait, I though the Big 12 was going to be oh so weak after it collapsed to 10 teams. You mean there’s still a degree of difficulty there?!?

        On BON, someone argued, using the “Texas runs the conference,” that Dodds probably pushed for the Iowa State gimmie to be permanently the week before OU. Well, OK, but in a conference with two traditional gimmies remaining (ISU and Baylor), why burn one of those gimmies in Week One? That sets up a tougher backstretch as you mention.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Kansas isn’t a gimme for Texas?

          Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            @Richard:

            I’d say not quite. Remember that KU damn near derailed our first Rose Bowl team in 2004 before VY pulled off some heroics, and I would say that they’ve played well enough, in general years, not to be considered an automatic gimmie.

            Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            @ Richard:

            That being said, KU is the team that struck me as the ideal team to play pre-OU, if we really had a chance to dictate it. Should be winnable, plus you keep ISU and BU in the bag for later in the season.

            Like

          • StvInIL says:

            VY, boy that guy was special. He grudgingly made me want to watch Texas Football> My Nephew was attending UT at the time and for kicks and giggles always bet against Texas with him and lost. Great Rose bowl and a great game against USC and still hate him for the win at tOSU.

            Like

        • Vincent says:

          Maybe the Longhorns had fears of visiting Ames in November when it can get, well, kinda cold.

          Like

  36. loki_the_bubba says:

    I assume Hopkins enjoyed the epic Aggie fail tonight.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      loki,

      texas a&m
      oklahoma a&m

      question. are they both technically “aggies”?

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        oSu changed their name to the Cowboys. We must accept this.

        Although we do not have to accept PC name changes. Stanford is still the Indians, Syracuse is still the Orangemen, St Johns is still the Redmen, Marquette is still the Warriors, etc.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Honestly, I’m among those who thought Northwestern should have kept the name Fighting Methodists, even after it became a secular school…

          That had a much better ring to it than the overused Wildcats even if we were among the earlier schools to use Wildcats I guess…

          Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            I knew USC was the Fighting Methodists. I did not know NW used the same name.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            zeek

            Fightin Methodists
            vs
            Demon Deacons
            vs
            Blue Devils
            vs
            Fightin Irish (by default)

            🙂


            loki,

            USC = Fightin Methodists?!

            Childs = Methodists
            Hellman = Jewish
            Downey = Catholic
            (why I think the ND vs USC rivalry is so etched in stone)

            these 3 men got USC going. Hellman was a banker, and Downey was the former governor, and affiliation with the Methodist Church came via Childs. Did SMU have such a diverse starting point?

            Like

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          Don’t you mean that Syracuse is still the Indians as well?

          Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            I don’t recall Syracuse being the Indians. Perhaps that was before my time. But the change from Orangemen to Orange was one of the dumber moves.

            Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            @loki:

            Looking it up on Wiki, it appears as though the nickname was always the Orange or the Orangeman, but they did have an Indian mascot on the sidelines, which was eventually banned by the school. So it’s kind of in a league of its own here.

            Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          . . . and Notre Dame is still the Fighting Irish.

          Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      You assume correctly. And it doesn’t even have to be an epic fail in order for me to enjoy it.

      Still doesn’t make up for last week. (I mean, we lost to a team not named Navy which hung 34 on us and only ran the ball nine times. Nine!)

      Like

  37. Playoffs Now says:

    Fascinating email from the Montana AD that touches on many topics facing college football. Especially interesting that FCS may collapse and how clueless zealous idealogues in the Obama Admin may kill some football programs through Title IX insanity. So typical.

    ———–

    http://bobcatnation.com/bobcatbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22219

    Jim O’Day wrote:Tony,

    I understand your concerns – you are not alone. This is, perhaps, the most critical decision to ever face the intercollegiate athletic program at The University of Montana.

    With state funding flat and student athletic fees holding tight, and with expenses growing year-by-year at a steady pace (at least $250,000 per year alone in just scholarship costs and related room/board costs for out student-athletes), we find ourselves at a cross roads. With revenues presently capped at about $13 million per year, we are having to find ways to cut expenses… and one option may have to be scholarships to out-of-state student athletes if we cannot find new revenue sources. We realize this could hurt our competitiveness as we cannot just take out of certain non-revenue generating sports because of Title IX issues. In addition, our insurance continues to rise, as does rent and travel. We can assume our expenses will jump at least $500,000 annually… and really no new revenue to meet these increases. We have continued to cut our expenses about $250,000 or more per year for the past three years…. But now we are down to the bare bone. Any further cuts will affect programs. You can see that already — our entire budget for recruiting for all 14 sports is $178,000; at Montana State it’s $408,000 per the recently released NCAA audit numbers.

    Currently, we charge the highest prices at the Football Championship Subdivision level for football tickets. How much more can we ask of our fans to try and keep us competitive (there are no guarantees). We generate about $4.2 million in football tickets right now…. Twice the $2.1 million brought in by Appalachian State at No. 2 amongst FCS schools. By comparison, Montana State brings in about $1.2 million per year – Washington State at $3.8 million – and Idaho at $900,000. To stay with us, MSU is making up the difference with institutional support and student athletic fees (MSU is at $144/student/year; UM is $72/student/year; the UM and MSU athletic budgets are almost identical – yet the expense lines vary because of our private funding successes). Student-athletic fees vary across the country. At James Madison, they are $1,400 per student per year. Old Dominion and Appalachian State are about $700 per student/year; while the average in the Big Sky Conference is $200/student/year. Note: Northern Arizona does not yet pay a student-athletic fee. Instead, they get the same state appropriation as Arizona and Arizona State – or about $8 million per year. On the other end of the spectrum, Sac State receives little institutional support, yet the student-athletic fee is about $265/student/year — and generates almost $9 million for the athletics department.

    Here’s an estimated breakdown of how we produce our revenues….

    Football tickets $4,200,000 (MSU – $1.2 million)

    Institutional support $4,500,000 (MSU – $6.7 million)

    Grizzly Scholarship Association $1,500,000 (MSU – $1 million)

    Student Fees $1,000,000 (MSU – $1.8 million)

    Corporate/Grizzly Sports Prop. $ 650,000 (MSU – $350,00)

    Men’s basketball $ 400,000 (MSU – $200,000)

    Women’s basketball $ 350,000 (MSU – $50,000)

    Game guarantees $ 150,000 (MSU – $800,000)

    NCAA monies $ 300,000 (MSU – $300,000)

    Big Sky Conference $ 125,000 (MSU – $125,000)

    Television $ 75,000 (MSU – $65,000)

    CLC $ 20,000 (MSU – $160,000)

    Now we face the ever-mounting challenge of how to produce more revenue?

    At the same time, we also have Title IX issues that Montana State does not have. UM has a 54% female population; Montana State is 54% male. We have a 40% female to male student-athlete ratio (we need to be at 54% or close – or spend 54% of our funding on female sports – neither of which is possible with football. Montana State is just the opposite as it needs a ratio of about 54% male, or 54% spending on male sports… thus, not an issue to them). We are struggling with the third and final prong for Title IX compliance, which is currently under heavier scrutiny based on recent Obama Administration interpretation. We will most likely need to add two female sports shortly or face possibly penalty. Those penalties do not affect the athletic programs – but schools in general as their federal funds/grants/research dollars can be impacted – or about $150 million annually at UM that could be at risk. Thus, somehow, we need to find about $2 million more per year (not counting facilities) to run two new programs. Thus, we most likely will need higher student fees to meet these Title IX and related expenses. Doubt it any of this money would help any other concerns (maintaining football funding, facility improvements, etc.). Also, additional institutional support is out of the question…. It is so tight right now.

    Looking at our present revenue structure, one way to increase funding is to consider a move to the Football Bowl Subdivision (NCAA revenues, game guarantees, television, conference dollars and corporate dollars are significantly higher. For example, Idaho receives almost $2.5 million in league revenues, and another $500,000 in television revenues) – but this is not a “for sure” situation either. Instead, it might be considered a gamble – maybe not necessarily a risk. Could we lose fans in the stands? Absolutely. Could we right now if we went 6-5 or less? Absolutely. Would fans continue to come if we charge high prices for Western States of Colorado, or maybe even Montana Tech? Who knows. Will they come if our schedule consists of Idaho, Utah State, Hawaii, San Jose State… and non-conference games against schools such as Boise State, Nevada, Wyoming and Washington State? Possibly. Note: Wyoming is hosting Nebraska next year. In exchange, they will travel to Nebraska in 2012 and 2013. In 2013, Nebraska will pay Wyoming $1 million for making the trip. Last year, Wyoming hosted Texas as part of a home-and-home contract. Those are not available to us now. In fact, WAC or Mountain West schools are no longer allowed to play at FCS schools via by-law changes. They also are recommending they don’t play ANY FCS school – home or away. That begs the question: Who do Montana fans want to see in the next 2-10 years in Washington-Grizzly Stadium. At the FCS level, there are fewer and fewer out there who will come here.

    Couple other things to realize:

    — Both the Big Sky Conference and the WAC NEED Montana. Where ever we end, that conference will most likely survive at a higher level. The commissioners of both conferences know that, as do the schools (although some at the Big Sky level would hate to admit it).

    — Montana is THE school west of the Mississippi in the FCS – and the only one since Boise in 1994 to make the championship game (which the Broncos lost). The Big Sky losing Montana would be devastating to some as they need the traveling Montana fans to attend their contests, and purchase tickets. We are also responsible for the television dollars associated with each of the league schools. For example, KPAX/MTN bid $100,000 to television the Griz-Cat game, the next highest bidder was Max Media at $20,000. Our other games were bid at $10,000 each by KPAX; Max Media pays $2,500 to do Bobcat telecasts. Thus, Max Media is spending more money in production equipment; while the schools are getting the cash from KPAX. By league policy, 60% of the revenue from these telecasts go to the HOME team (not UM), 35% to the visitor and 5% to the league. So how out-of-line is this: Last year, MSU received $60,000 of KPAX’s bid (to do UM games), while Montana received $35,000 and the conference $5,000. These are the reasons why Boise State left the Big Sky in the mid-1990s; why BYU and Texas are doing what they’re doing right now. They want to control their television money. The television money should be following UM, but we get outvoted on this 8-1 whenever it comes up.

    — Football at UM breaks even. We generate $6.5 in revenues; and the expenses associated with football at $6.5. Thus, others are probably losing $3-$4.5 million annually. How long can that continue at some schools?

    — We are struggling to find opponents to play in Missoula…. Cost is high, plus we win 93% of our games here. People do not like to come here. Even Division II schools are asking “guarantees” in excess of $125,000 to come here. That cuts drastically into our revenues.

    — We are NOT guaranteed home playoff games. We have been extremely fortunate in the past. To put in perspective, we made about $100,000 for the three home playoff games last year – and sent another $1.1 million to the NCAA. A regular season home game nets between $400,000 and $1 million (Montana State, App State, etc.). Being in the WAC, we are allowed 12 games instead of 11 – and 13 when you play at Hawaii. So instead of $100,000 at max, we would be seeing additional dollars… at a minimum of $300,000.

    — The FCS playoff system is hurting financially. We produced $1.1 million of last year’s budget of $2.5 million. The other 11 games produced less than $1 million TOTAL. The NCAA lost almost $500,000 again, and it will not continue to tolerate to follow this plan. Now we’ve added another round and four more teams…. Being on the committee, and as chair, I know this is a major concern to the NCAA – and a last-gasp reason for changing to Frisco, Texas, in hopes of attracting more attention and support. It won’t help to move the championship back three weeks into January – let alone that it will be taking place 40 minutes away from the Cotton Bowl, which has also been moved to that night. So much for FCS exposure on national television. Just to keep the student-athletes on campus during Christmas will also cost the two schools in the championship an additional $100,000 – none of which is budgeted. And to put in perspective, we LOST $150,000 each of the past two year going to the championship game. Had we won, the incentives for coaches would have put the losses over $200,000 each time. We get no additional revenue for any of this.

    — AND OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE: We are NOT considering the health and welfare of the student-athletes, who are having to spend at least one month of playing 4-5 more games — which is permanently damaging their bodies – and hurting their academics. This is not fair to them – nor their coaches. This is where all of us are selfish, and want the playoff system vs. a bowl. At the FBS level, there is a month off to recover bodies, take care of academics and finals, and at the end, a reward of a bowl and some fun — and the schools don’t lose money like we do at the FCS level.

    History will determine if the decision by the new President (Royce Engstrom) to either remain where we are, or take a new direction, was correct. There are no easy answers. Heck, had we gone to the WAC a few years ago, we’d probably be in a much more lucrative Mountain West Conference right now with schools we consider on academic par – Wyoming, Colorado State, etc. Who knows what will happen. I would venture to say there are only about four conferences right now who appear to be solid and control their own destiny — the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12 (unless Texas and Oklahoma do an “about face” in the next few years) and the Pac 12 Even the ACC and the Big East have issues, let alone those like Conference USA. The Mountain West is starting to look more like the old WAC (especially if TCU bolts, which is likely). Could that mean a merger of the Mountain West and WAC down the road…. Again. This could be a distinct possibility. That being said, where does that leave the Big Sky? Should the FCS fail – which is another possibility, especially with Appalachian State, James Madison, Villanova, Delaware, Georgia Southern, Richmond and others being considered for moves into other conference alliances within FBS conferences – would we be all alone? How many schools in the Big Sky would still be offering football, or would we become a basketball conference? Would it even be Division I, or would we be forced out to Division II? If you don’t have an invitation from a Division I conference, you may have no choice. This may be the only opportunity UM gets to be “invited” to a true Division I conference.

    As you can see, there are no easy answers – and it is very, very complicated. These points and many others will be presented — and have been closely reviewed and monitored by our national consultants — who do these independent studies for schools for a living. Other responsible schools are doing the same, as are conferences. They give you the most accurate, up-to-date information available.

    Finally, I will end this long message with an interesting observation by the consultants.

    In asking faculty and deans who are their “peers,” they mentioned schools such as Idaho, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado and Colorado State. The consultants asked why no Big Sky schools – with the exception of Montana State for “tied in” reasons,” the faculty responded they do not see the Idaho States, Eastern Washingtons, Northern Colorados, etc., as “peer academic institutions.” Au contraire, the consultants’ studies show: “You are who you hang out with.” This is true across the board in life — and here as well. Thus, this is extremely important to consider as well as we move forward.

    Right now, we have a heavy saturation of Montana students attending UM (1,500 more Montana residents now attend UM than MSU – hard to believe… a complete turn-around from 10-15 years ago). But, census reports show the numbers of Montana high school graduates spiraling downward rapidly. Each Montana student costs UM about $2,300… a loss-leader for us in the business world. Thus, they need higher tuition being paid by out-of-state students to make up the difference. That out-of-state market is becoming increasingly competitive… and national exposure from an athletic program can help open the door to those out-of-state students who might consider coming here. This, too, has to be considered in any decision making…. A vision for future enrollment.

    I have a motto: “Don’t make decisions based on ego or emotion. Base them on fact and figures.” That will be no different here. Right now, our emotions are high… we want what we had… We like being at the top and play for championships bigger than the Big Sky Conference – but we have to define “at the top of what?” We have great regional/state-wide recognition, but not much nationally. Look at the direction Boise State is taking. The consultants believe Montana could be the next Boise State – not the next Idaho. Actually, Idaho may now be in a better financial situation than we do – and their college is growing nationally.

    Today is a new day. It is NOT business as usual – particularly in the area of intercollegiate athletics at the NCAA Division I level… where budgets range from $8 million annually to Texas and Ohio State at $120 million.

    I’m sure you see now why this will be such a difficult decision by President Engstrom – and one that will have to be made in the very near future. We will feed him all the latest information, but ultimately, it will be his decision — and will have to be supported by the Board of Regents. Wish it were easier, but it isn’t. At least UM has options — others are only followers in all of these discussions. We’re in a good place… and that separates us both academically and athletically from the others.

    Keep the faith …. And GO GRIZ!!!!

    Jim O’Day

    Director of Athletics

    The University of Montana

    Phone: 406.243.5348

    Like

    • M says:

      Wow.

      That is the most open, honest, and thorough writing I have ever seen from a university president.

      So much stuff…

      -I didn’t realize FCS was in such a precarious position. He says just a few schools are propping the whole system up.

      -I am still a fan of Title IX, though perhaps the scholarship numbers for football should be reduced (football has 4x the scholarships of any other sport).

      -The dependence on out of state students seems unstable. I don’t think its special to Montana though.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        I hesitate to ask because I don’t want to inject a political element to this, so trying to keep this on a strictly policy analysis:

        If Title IX disappeared today, what would happen?

        I find it somewhat hard to believe that a college universe without Title IX, in this day and age, would lead to a return of widespread discrimination (or even not-so-widespread) against female collegiate athletes.

        Am I being hopelessly naive in believing that?

        Like

        • Ross Hatton says:

          I would agree with you. While Title IX’s intentions were fine, they have really become an obstacle for a lot of schools.

          At this point, I think there would be enough social backlash that such discrimination would never occur. Plus, it would be nice to think we have progressed to the point where such discrimination would not happen anyway.

          Like

        • M says:

          I would expect a fairly widespread reduction in women’s sports programs. If Title IX wasn’t the only obstacle to cutting these programs, why does everyone cite it as the reason?

          Like

        • bullet says:

          I think they are politically correct enough it would not happen. I don’t think the Obama administration should be blamed too much for the strict interpretation. I’ve been hearing about the scholarships/% of students for some time. Maybe Montana needs to point out their 54% female ratio to the male population of Montana.

          Sounds like its clear where the AD stands. Either ones a risk, but FCS has no upside.

          I’ve really been surprised scholarship FCS hasn’t already started disentegrating. More schools have been adding than dropping. Non-scholarship schools have added scholarships. Schools that dropped it in the past are adding it back. Schools seem to value football enough that FCS won’t fall apart. They’ll make the investment.

          Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          Sorry man, but you’re flat wrong on that idea. You get rid of Title IX and you can kiss most (if not all) of female collegiate sports away.

          What’s more, you’re likely to see a drastic reduction in mens sports as well since outside of football and bball, why have any sports that don’t create positive revenue streams?

          Oh don’t get me wrong, there’d be a few institutions who continued their ways (Notre Dame springs to mind), but by and large the collegiate sports landscape would drastically change.

          IMO, anyway.

          Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            Which schools, in this day and age, would use the elimination of Title IX as an excuse to get rid of women’s sports?

            From a Texas perspective, it would be hard for me to imagine any women’s sports going away.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Virtually no athletic department anywhere is as wealthy as Texas. Without Title IX, women’s sports at schools where the athletics department just breaks even or even operates at a loss (most schools) would be cutting women’s sports left and right. Political Correctness doesn’t meet the bottom line.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Texas had its women’s AD at its press conference and she was heavily involved in the conference realignment discussions. Women’s sports would absolutely not get axed any more than men’s sports. Now you might see some schools eliminating men’s swimming and women’s swimming instead of men’s swimming and men’s track.

            Now you wouldn’t see a lot of new women’s rowing teams. Those teams require a lot of athletes and so have become popular to offset men’s football scholarships. The ONLY reason those programs exist in any numbers is title IX. There aren’t a whole lot of high school girls doing rowing. There was a WSJ article about colleges pursuing tall athletic women and giving them full rides for rowing even though they had NEVER done rowing before. Its absurd.

            I am certain you are right that we wouldn’t have started all these women’s programs w/o Title IX, but they aren’t going to go away if it disappeared.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            OK, again, if you’re using Texas as an example, you don’t have a realistic picture of the college athletics landscape. Most athletic departments lose money. However, having a football team still helps in bring in money from rich alums. Women’s track doesn’t. You think that Middle Tennessee State would still keep their women’s soccer team if there was no Title IX?

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            It should also be noted that as far as athletics is concerned Texas is actually a “minimalist”.

            The number of total sports it now supports seems to be the exact amount it needs to to maintain its bball/football eligibility.

            Point being, right now they don’t even heavily involve themselves in “second tier” sports. What’s going to happen when they aren’t required to?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Your point is that women’s sports don’t bring in money. Neither do most men’s sports. Even at Texas, revenue from men’s sports other than fb, basketball and baseball is minimal. And with a few exceptions, Division I schools outside the Big 6 conferences tend to be true minimalists. They sponsor just enough sports to meet NCAA requirements to stay in the division. They’ve already cut all they can. And the Big 6 Presidents aren’t going to cut women’s non-revs any more than men’s non-revs. It would be frowned on in Madison and Berkeley.

            And the NCAA is the ultimate in political correctness. They aren’t going to change their requirements for the number of men’s & women’s sports.

            Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          What would happen? Some women’s rowing teams would be dropped……….

          Title 9 sucks as applied.

          Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            And Penn State Women’s Volleyball wouldn’t have had three National Championships in a row, going undefeated and racking up 109 straight wins (longest “single score” streak in college athletics).

            Course who really cares…how about the thousands of female students who get a scholarship, who otherwise wouldn’t, and better their lives via a college degree. You know…what the university system is SUPPOSED to be about.

            Screw that…this is college athletics we’re talking about…I mean we’d still have men’s bball…and football…and did I mention men’s bball?

            You know…the only sports that make money….err I mean matter!

            Like

          • duffman says:

            shroom,

            I have to agree 1000% with PSUGuy and so should you if you have daughters, granddaughters, nieces, cousins, etc! Title nine means the women in your life get an education! I follow several women’s sports because people I know (including several from Indiana) are getting a shot at an education at a good school they would be unable to attend otherwise.

            I have watched many women go on from these scholarships (because of the lack of pro demand) and become vital members of their communities as educators, health care specialists, etc. I am quite happy that these women actually use their athletic scholarship to get an education (unlike their male counterparts who use their athletic scholarship to get a professional sports job – especially those who do not stay all 4 years to get a degree that actually matters).

            I was good enough to play sports at the D1 level and was recruited by an excellent school I really wanted to attend. I was crushed when they informed me that they had no athletic scholarships at their school, so I wound up at a state school instead. Granted this was a long time ago, but the women in your world (specifically indiana women) have opportunities now to make a better life for themselves because they have a way to attain a degree from a good school because they were blessed with athletic ability.

            I am sorry if you have hit a nerve here, but I follow several females because they can use sports to better themselves, and some of them are close to me. I am quite aware of one female who did quite well for Frank’s alma mater on an athletic scholarship wearing the colors of the Fighting Illini!

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            My problem with Title 9 is that the f—ing federal government should stay out of education.

            It’s a little thing called “freedom”.

            The feds threaten to cut off “federal funds’ unless the states do X, W, and Z. They do the same with “federal” highway funds.

            What exactly are “federal funds”? I believe they’re called taxes.

            So basically the federal govt takes a ton of our $, and offers a portion of it back to us, if we agree to spend it the way the feds desire.

            They do so because they believe the people, through their local and state governments, are not smart enough to tax an appropriate amount, and correctly prioritize spending.

            That is called serfdom, not freedom.

            These are decisions that should be made by the people, their representatives, the schools, and the conferences. The feral govt should stay the f—out of it.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            shroom (purple)

            If they do, then what about all that federal money that finds a new home in the Big 10 via research grants? Would you feel like the feds should get out of the research business as well?

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            You know, the founding fathers were pretty smart people.

            They intended a system of decentralized government.

            The federal government had certain well-defined powers. The remaining powers were to remain with the states and with the people.

            How is the federal government doing on immigration, regulating interstate and international markets, and their other core reponsibilities? Not so hot.

            By what legit constitutional authority does the federal government tax the people, and then return it in the form of “federal funds”? The answer given is the Commerce Clause………….please.

            So my answer is, no, don’t tax us in the first place, or tax us at the state level. Then the reserch can be funded by state funds or by individual giving…except in the very limited areas actually relating to commerce, the national defense etc…..

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            Oh no, we like the Feds being involved in that business 😛

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            @mushroom

            We had that in the US once. It was a period of unmitigated coruption in the governmental ranks where the common man was exploited literally to death while the wealthy ammased fortunes that would have shamed Midas. And even if you remove the $$$ aspect to it, the rights and freedoms of large swaths of the US were withheld and subjugated to the desires of those in power.

            Believe me I’m no “give it all away” type of person, and in fact have studied economics greatly and consider myself a free market capitalist, but I’m aslo a student of history and that means I’m well aware that an “isolated government”, as the founding fathers intended, quickly becomes the tool of those most able, and willing, to influence it.

            You say “don’t tax me and leave me alone” (and fair enough on that), but that ignores the simple fact that government, by design, is MEANT to interfere in the daily lives of its citizens.

            Good government does so only to protect the freedoms and lifestyles of its citizens, but the problem has always been what “exactly” defines those “freedoms and lifestyles”.

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            @PSUGuy
            You are confused. On one hand you claim to be a “free market capitalist”; on the other you castigate the wealthy for amasing fortunes by exploiting the common man. Hello? You can’t have it both ways. Make up your mind: Capitalist (freedom) or Socialist (lifestyle). Which are you?

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            PSU GUY==

            Not “isolated” government….”limited” government….

            Some of the things you talk about would fall within the Fed’s constitutional reponsibilities….certainly standards of working conditions, minimum wage laws etc “effect commerce”.

            And actually, your main point is 100% wrong. It is not a limited govt, but rather an expansionist govt, that is most affected by special interests.

            With so much $ at the federal teat, you see Wall St. and the Chamber of Commerce running the Republican Party, and the teachers and govt unions and the tort lawyers running the Democratic Party.

            There is so much $ coming in and going out that only the special interests have the time and money to follow it……tell me how a “Bridge to Nowhere” gets voted on and built if the entire system is not corrupted.

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            @Steve

            Spoken like a true believer.

            Capitalist =! freedom.
            Not even sure what you mean by Socialist = lifestyle.

            Fact is free market capitalism is the single greatest and most efficient way to price and distribute goods and services assuming those goods and services fall within certain boundaries (non quantifiable goods/services have a very hard time in this system), but in the end is nothing more than a means of economic production. It has nothing, inherently, to do with freedom or rights.

            That is the purview of government.

            Thus why I can believe in a free market capitalist society (which dominates the economic landscape) where the government takes an active role in protecting the rights and freedoms its citizens enjoy (which dominates the political landscape).

            While certain “non-idealisms” can obviously be found, the fact is…that’s what America has right now (again, mostly).

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            @mushrooom

            I understand the distinction and agree in principle. However history has simply shown that “limited” quickly becomes isolated when $$$ gets involved (which it always does). At that point the mantra of “limited government” gets spouted far and wide as reason why government shouldn’t get involved while special interests deny freedoms and rights.

            Listen, I’m well aware the current system is as $$$ driven as the historical times I speak to. The thing differing now to then is government takes an active role in ensuring the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

            Does it go overboard and dabble in areas in which it probably shouldn’t? Sure, but in the end the idea that government has a responsibility to actively protect citizens rights and is unable to shirk those responsibilities via some lip service given to “limited government” is something I think is good despite the real (and many) problems the present system faces.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            @mushroom

            I just want to add:
            many of the ideals of libertarianism or are even commendable (and I agree with), but what I find is that many libertarians don’t read history (or at least with an open mind), and they don’t realize that their ideals wouldn’t hold up as they want in reality because they have blind spots on how people use power (they don’t just do it the way libertarians say they should).

            For instance, you say that it’s proper for the federal government to set the minimum wage, but back when things were truly laissez-faire, the moneyed interests controlled the politicians to such a degree that such a thing was impossible even if it was desired by the majority. Remember that setting the 40-hour workweek had to be paid for, literally, with blood.

            A libertarian laissez-faire society is inherently unstable. If you look through history, no industrialized (or even semi-industrialized) country has stayed laissez-faire (unless they are a small protectorate like HK where financial power is separated from political & military power), because they eventually devolve in to totalitarianism, communism, or a crony capitalistic banana republic; or evolve in to a social democratic welfare state.

            Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      This helps me understand why Rice should remain in D1A if it wants to compete in NCAA athletics. The only other options are D1AAA and D3, both of which are seriously limited by geography.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Chicago dropped major sports and so now they play schools in New York, Pittsburg, Massachusetts, Atlanta and Rochester along with Cleveland and St. Louis. They travel more than B10 schools. And the UAA is where Rice would go if not in Division I.

        Like

    • zeek says:

      And when we consider that a school like Cal in the “safe” Pac-10 fold is dropping sports left and right including baseball (the clear #3 on the pecking order out west), the plight of schools in worse situations is even more bleak.

      In any case, thanks for posting that; that kind of information is why I’m still hanging around…

      Like

    • Richard says:

      I think every single FCS football program loses money (or at best breaks even). Seriously, I’m not sure why FCS football should exist, or rather, why so many schools should sponsor it. Either move up (and up your chances of making money) or drop down and live by the amateur ideal.

      Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        I actually agree with this mentality.

        I mean last time I checked schools were “in business” to provide an education, not play football (or sports).

        If you can support it, great play the sports. If you can’t roll the funds up into the academic side of the fence, where they probably should be going anyway…

        Like

  38. Playoffs Now says:

    FTT just put up a new post for this week, and I copied the Montana AD’s email over to there. Should we continue over there, since many only check the newest thread for updates?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s