College Football - Week of 9/27

[UMFan83]

I knew Michigan was going to be bad this year, but I didn't think they would be this bad.

[Vanilla Ice]

Well Duke has the same record as Florida and a better record than USC. :wink: . You know what that means...

[Exile on Waveland]

I knew Michigan was going to be bad this year, but I didn't think they would be this bad.

 

Michigan and Texas A&M are both so bad because they have stubborn coaches that refuse to adapt their schemes to their personnel.

[RedFlash]

You know what, I will continue to talk college football, just not on this board, seeing as there are some pity fans. I'll just go to a college football board who knows what they are talking about. I will remain on NSBB to talk Cubs baseball, only.

[UMFan83]

I knew Michigan was going to be bad this year, but I didn't think they would be this bad.

 

Michigan and Texas A&M are both so bad because they have stubborn coaches that refuse to adapt their schemes to their personnel.

 

It's not stubborn in Michigan's case. It's instilling a new offensive system. Everyone knew Michigan was basically punting this year to get the personnel used to running the spread. Obviously the players at key positions aren't suited for the spread, but by the time we get people who can play it well, the rest of the program will have already had a year of experience running it.

[Vanilla Ice]

You know what, I will continue to talk college football, just not on this board, seeing as there are some pity fans. I'll just go to a college football board who knows what they are talking about. I will remain on NSBB to talk Cubs baseball, only.

thank god.

[UMFan83]

This is hilarious. Michigan gets a TO at the Wisconsin 48. First play Threet runs the option and fumbles the pitch, Wisconsin recovers.

[Mephistopheles]

I only started watching when I found it on Yahoo for the 4th quarter, so I'll take your word for it. I just hate long developing plays on 4th and short. If not Tebow up the middle, one of his jump passes might not have been terrible, especially considering how awful you say the kicking game is.

 

 

Well Tebow had a poor game. There were several times were he misfired to wide open WRs. He had the best statistical passing game of the year, but he had poor accuracy all game long. He misfired on the two lob ups late and the first offensive play of the game he misfired on a wide open receiver deep. He had no touch all game long. Really they should have done an option. If there's a crease towards the middle, Tebow can keep it. If not, let Harvin stretch it out for 2 yards.

 

The book on Tebow's kryptonite has been written. He's extremely accurate if you give him time. His accuracy plunges if he's under pressure. Georgia, UGA, Michigan, Auburn, LSU, Miami and now Ole Miss got after Tebow all game long. He wont self destruct, like some QBs under pressure, which is why they stay in the game, but he's not very good. With the Florida o-line struggling all season long, teams have been able to keep constant pressure on Tebow.

 

And really, they're a better offense with Harvin not catching passes. Tebow (and Leak before him) have locked on Harvin as a WR when he's in the game. Look at the game today, Tebow completed 24 passes - 13 of them to Harvin. It's not like they don't have any other capable receivers, they do and every defensive coordinator knows that they do. I don't know if it's Tebow (and Leak) who lock on Harvin when he's in the game or if it's the coaching staff stressing the importance of getting him the ball or a combination of both. The simple fact is the passing game is a lot more efficient with Harvin on the sideline.

 

The lack of a dependable running back isn't that they don't have them. They do. They aren't productive because the offensive line can't open up holes in the middle. They can only be successful when they let Harvin, James or Rainey stretch the field and run a sprint to the outside.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Mephistopheles

[Exile on Waveland]

I knew Michigan was going to be bad this year, but I didn't think they would be this bad.

 

Michigan and Texas A&M are both so bad because they have stubborn coaches that refuse to adapt their schemes to their personnel.

 

It's not stubborn in Michigan's case. It's instilling a new offensive system. Everyone knew Michigan was basically punting this year to get the personnel used to running the spread. Obviously the players at key positions aren't suited for the spread, but by the time we get people who can play it well, the rest of the program will have already had a year of experience running it.

 

Would they not be better running a different system? Why not recruit for a new system and install it when the players can actually run it? Michigan has too much talent -- even this year -- to "punt" a season. It's not what's best for this year's team. It's stubborn in my book.

[TruffleShuffle]

this wisconsin-michigan game is horrendous

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I have no idea what a pity fan is.

[Mephistopheles]

If you wait to install it until you have the players to fit it, then you have to go through an adjustment period when you have the players that fit it. So you're screwed this season and that season. If you install it now, then everyone is fullspeed except incoming players.

[Exile on Waveland]

If you wait to install it until you have the players to fit it, then you have to go through an adjustment period when you have the players that fit it. So you're screwed this season and that season. If you install it now, then everyone is fullspeed except incoming players.

 

I'm not saying stick with a Pro-Style offense. Combine the two; whatever. I just don't see conceding a season at a school like Michigan as a good way to go. It shows a lack of adaptability.

 

*I do understand your argument, I just don't see this as an either or situation.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Exile on Waveland

[Guest]

UCLA scored a touchdown on offense for the first time since the fourth quarter against Tennessee. :shock:

 

2 offensive touchdowns!!! :shock:

 

Fresno State should be embarrassed.

[UMFan83]

I knew Michigan was going to be bad this year, but I didn't think they would be this bad.

 

Michigan and Texas A&M are both so bad because they have stubborn coaches that refuse to adapt their schemes to their personnel.

 

It's not stubborn in Michigan's case. It's instilling a new offensive system. Everyone knew Michigan was basically punting this year to get the personnel used to running the spread. Obviously the players at key positions aren't suited for the spread, but by the time we get people who can play it well, the rest of the program will have already had a year of experience running it.

 

Would they not be better running a different system? Why not recruit for a new system and install it when the players can actually run it? Michigan has too much talent -- even this year -- to "punt" a season. It's not what's best for this year's team. It's stubborn in my book.

 

I can see your side, but I really don't mind at all. They hired a coach who is known for running the spread. It takes time for a team to completely shift its offensive philosophies. Maybe the QB or the WRs might not be there for years 2 and 3, but the coaches might, a guard might, I know the RBs might be there. With Lloyd Carr leaving, and a large class of players leaving, it was the perfect time to strip down and start anew.

 

Jim Tressel did the same thing when he took over OSU, and it worked out well for him.

[Guest]

I have no idea what a pity fan is.

 

That's gold.

[Exile on Waveland]

I knew Michigan was going to be bad this year, but I didn't think they would be this bad.

 

Michigan and Texas A&M are both so bad because they have stubborn coaches that refuse to adapt their schemes to their personnel.

 

It's not stubborn in Michigan's case. It's instilling a new offensive system. Everyone knew Michigan was basically punting this year to get the personnel used to running the spread. Obviously the players at key positions aren't suited for the spread, but by the time we get people who can play it well, the rest of the program will have already had a year of experience running it.

 

Would they not be better running a different system? Why not recruit for a new system and install it when the players can actually run it? Michigan has too much talent -- even this year -- to "punt" a season. It's not what's best for this year's team. It's stubborn in my book.

 

I can see your side, but I really don't mind at all. They hired a coach who is known for running the spread. It takes time for a team to completely shift its offensive philosophies. Maybe the QB or the WRs might not be there for years 2 and 3, but the coaches might, a guard might, I know the RBs might be there. With Lloyd Carr leaving, and a large class of players leaving, it was the perfect time to strip down and start anew.

 

Jim Tressel did the same thing when he took over OSU, and it worked out well for him.

 

I just don't like seeing Michigan bottom out. Nor do I think a whole lot of Rich Rodriguez.

[TruffleShuffle]

God this game is awful, i'm changing the channel.

[UMFan83]

I knew Michigan was going to be bad this year, but I didn't think they would be this bad.

 

Michigan and Texas A&M are both so bad because they have stubborn coaches that refuse to adapt their schemes to their personnel.

 

It's not stubborn in Michigan's case. It's instilling a new offensive system. Everyone knew Michigan was basically punting this year to get the personnel used to running the spread. Obviously the players at key positions aren't suited for the spread, but by the time we get people who can play it well, the rest of the program will have already had a year of experience running it.

 

Would they not be better running a different system? Why not recruit for a new system and install it when the players can actually run it? Michigan has too much talent -- even this year -- to "punt" a season. It's not what's best for this year's team. It's stubborn in my book.

 

I can see your side, but I really don't mind at all. They hired a coach who is known for running the spread. It takes time for a team to completely shift its offensive philosophies. Maybe the QB or the WRs might not be there for years 2 and 3, but the coaches might, a guard might, I know the RBs might be there. With Lloyd Carr leaving, and a large class of players leaving, it was the perfect time to strip down and start anew.

 

Jim Tressel did the same thing when he took over OSU, and it worked out well for him.

 

I just don't like seeing Michigan bottom out. Nor do I think a whole lot of Rich Rodriguez.

 

Oh I don't like it either. I feel like Michigan sports in general is fading away. Basketball used to be relevant almost every year, and now its embarrassingly bad. Seriously, no NCAA tournament appearances since 97-98? Now football is "bottoming out". I'm just worried that the Michigan name will be tarnished and Rodriguez won't be able to recruit the talent we need to dominate again, and we'll end up being Notre Dame in 5-10 years.

 

At the same time, I'm willing to give this a chance before panning it. I really wish we would have stolen Les Miles though.

[Guest]

After today, oh 20 or so.

 

Im pretty sure after the Michigan game everyone still thought Florida was better.

 

I'm pretty sure after the 2006 World Series nobody thought the Cardinals were the best team in baseball. But they're still hanging the banner.

 

I'm pretty sure after the Michigan game that Michigan were the winners and Florida were the losers. No matter how many times Florida wins if the game was replayed it doesn't matter, Michigan won.

 

Did I ever say that wasn't true? Florida ought to fall to around 12 or so. Behind USC and ahead of OSU, I think. Probably behind Auburn too. Either way, they win out, they'll still be in the title game. That being said, they're not a very good chance to win out against their schedule. They still control their own destiny. As a 1 loss team they'd get in over every other 1 loss team. But, with the way the offense has spurted around the first four games, they won't beat LSU and probably won't beat Georgia, much less beating LSU twice or LSU and Alabama or Auburn.

 

Last night you had Florida as clearly the best bet to go undefeated this season and yet now, after losing one of the easier games on the schedule, you say they're not a good bet to win out.

 

Something's not adding up here.

[Mephistopheles]

uh are you serious? wow.

 

Im not stupid. Everything is based on the amount of information that we have. When we get new information, we don't ignore it. We use it to adjust our beliefs from before. Going into the game the Gators had roughly a 18% chance or so of running the table to the NC. Now we learned something, namely, they didn't do as well as expected against Ole Miss, so we would expect their probability of winning each individual game left on their schedule to drop due to this new information.

 

Besides, even if we don't change anything. 20% chance is "not a very good chance". It's certainly lower than 20% now. It's probably going to fall into the 4-6 percent chance range. At the same time, say they come out and drop 50 on LSU in a couple weeks. Then we learn more information and adjust accordingly.

 

(if anyone drops 50 on LSU we should just give them the NC on the spot though ;))

Edited September 27, 2008 by Mephistopheles

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I just hope Jarrett Lee continues tonight with his development into a quality QB. If LSU could get quality play from one of their QB's, the Tigers might be able to return to the BCS championship. I'm convinced if they can win the SEC with one or no losses, they will be there.

[Mephistopheles]

I just hope Jarrett Lee continues tonight with his development into a quality QB. If LSU could get quality play from one of their QB's, the Tigers might be able to return to the BCS championship. I'm convinced if they can win the SEC with one or no losses, they will be there.

 

Yeah a one loss SEC team would be a near lock to make it. The only way they don't is if Penn State or Wisconsin win out and OU or Missouri win out. A one loss SEC team would make it over any one loss team from another conference. Provided there isn't a non conference meltdown. Ie Florida losing to FSU big, and Georgia losing to Georgia Tech big, and etc.

[SouthSideRyan]

Well to be fair, he never had Florida as a good bet to win out, they were at like 37%. Today's performance also wasn't built into that.

[Derwood]

Even if Florida should lose today, any SEC team will have multiple chances to get back into national title contention by the end of the year. Heck, 2 losses isn't out of the question.

 

Which would beg the question: Is a two loss SEC team better then a 1 loss Non-Sec team?

 

Anybody who knows my conference loyalty knows the answer to that question. But I will say it would also depend on who the non-Sec team is. But if LSU proved last yr is that a 2 loss SEC team was better clearly better then what the Big 10 had to offer (and Michigan had to hang on against Florida).

 

Right now the NT game would be Oklahoma and........whoever survives at the end of the season. But we know things should and will change between now and Jan.

 

What a ridiculous all-encompassing question. Love that Michigan had to "hang on" against Florida. Nevermind, that EVERYONE said Florida was clearly superior to Michigan. And then they lost.

 

But I'm sure this game is just proof of the SEC's superiority that even your bad teams are top 20 caliber. Not that Florida is being taken to the wire against a mediocre team.

 

I think the real question is should an 8 loss Mississippi St. Team get a BCS bid instead of another conference winner?

 

I don't appreciate the mocking SSR so cool it. I was asking a question based on what bukie said about the SEC. That is not a question I would ask out the blue. (Because I know Big 10 homers would not like the answer but in their hearts know it to be true) I was asking a simple question in reference to a previous post.

 

And the answer still holds true...Michigan last yr while a good team, still barely hung on and beat the Gators regardless of what Big 10 homers say. And my opinion still is...a 2 loss SEC team is better then 90% 1 loss no SEC teams. If you can't deal with it, that's your problem. I would take Alabama/Georgia/LSU/Florida against other conferences best teams anyday of the week.

 

So save your mocking for your fellow Big 10 fans, or whichever conference holds your loyalty.

 

I don't think there is a single Big Ten fan on here who believes the league is as good as the SEC. It's clearly not. I've yet to see anyone argue it is.

 

However, Michigan beat Florida last year. They were supposed to get blown out. They didn't; they won the game. Who cares if they "barely hung on"? I fail to see what point you are trying to argue here.

 

no, I don't think the Big Ten is as good as the SEC, but that hasn't stopped them from having a winning record against them head-to-head in the last 8 bowl seasons