College Football - Championship Week

[dew1679666265]

I understand that's likely what they're trying to claim, but if they truly wanted a better character coach they would have hired almost anyone else.

 

The problem with that is that it in reality, Nutt was fired because they just wanted him GONE. Even the most diehard Hog fan will tell you that their planning was poor, to put it mildly. But that is how bad thay wanted him gone, and to tell you the truth, both sides needed to go their own way.

The Petrino hiring came much later down the road after a few job offers. At that point they just wanted a head coach, and yes, he is a good coach even with the baggage. It was not meant to be a good character hire to contrast Nutt, it was to hire ANYONE else. Honestly, you can ask alot of Arkansas ppl and they will tell you they are glad Nutt is gone no matter what the record would be this past season.

OK, there's a Louisiana perspective on the Arkansas Razorbacks.

 

That they wanted him gone sounds a lot more plausible than the were looking for a coach with more character and hired Petrino.

 

It's still a dumb reason (much like Tennessee fans wanted change for the sake of change with Fulmer), but at least it's plausible.

[CubinNY]

Wasn't Tubberville almost fired a couple of years ago by the "boosters". Didn't they go directly to the board of directors of Auburn and demand he be fired?

[NOLA]

I understand that's likely what they're trying to claim, but if they truly wanted a better character coach they would have hired almost anyone else.

 

The problem with that is that it in reality, Nutt was fired because they just wanted him GONE. Even the most diehard Hog fan will tell you that their planning was poor, to put it mildly. But that is how bad thay wanted him gone, and to tell you the truth, both sides needed to go their own way.

The Petrino hiring came much later down the road after a few job offers. At that point they just wanted a head coach, and yes, he is a good coach even with the baggage. It was not meant to be a good character hire to contrast Nutt, it was to hire ANYONE else. Honestly, you can ask alot of Arkansas ppl and they will tell you they are glad Nutt is gone no matter what the record would be this past season.

OK, there's a Louisiana perspective on the Arkansas Razorbacks.

 

That they wanted him gone sounds a lot more plausible than the were looking for a coach with more character and hired Petrino.

 

It's still a dumb reason (much like Tennessee fans wanted change for the sake of change with Fulmer), but at least it's plausible.

 

Again, 2 separate issues. Nutt's very questionable actions and just the whole fiasco had burned plenty of bridges with fans and administration. No way to fix the damage, so he gets fired. Fans would not have stood for another year of Nutt.

 

OK, again...anyone got the scoop on Mallett?

[dew1679666265]

Wasn't Tubberville almost fired a couple of years ago by the "boosters". Didn't they go directly to the board of directors of Auburn and demand he be fired?

 

I believe he was all but fired after the 2003 season. If I recall correctly, Tuberville was basically fired after the year and Petrino was set to be hired. Then, for whatever reason, Petrino backed out or Auburn boosters decided not to go through with it or something.

 

Thus, Tuberville remained the head coach and went 13-0 the next season and got screwed out of a national championship berth.

[cubweiser03]

OK, again...anyone got the scoop on Mallett?

Rocket arm no really like flames come off the ball, more mobility and speed than you would think for a guy his size, not a statue in the pocket like John Navarre. Can make all the throws but was inconsitent at times. For a true freshman i though he played well but needs work which is to be expected.

[NOLA]

OK, again...anyone got the scoop on Mallett?

Rocket arm no really like flames come off the ball, more mobility and speed than you would think for a guy his size, not a statue in the pocket like John Navarre. Can make all the throws but was inconsitent at times. For a true freshman i though he played well but needs work which is to be expected.

 

Thanks. Apparantly he is lighting it up on the scout team while he sits out. Now if only LSU could keep a quarterback who's good and stays out of trouble.

[Guest]

When did Tuberville win one? He got robbed of a deserved chance in 2004, but I don't remember him winning another.

 

I'm in the minority I'm sure, but I personally consider Auburn to have won a National Championship in 2004. It's the SEC homer in me, I suppose.

 

It was one of the biggest travesties the BCS has wrought yet. It should have been USC and Auburn in that game.

 

Why? Because Oklahoma ended up getting beat down in the title game? I don't remember anybody complaining about Auburn getting left out of the title game (in terms of them being more deserving, not that there should be a playoff) before it happened. Also, if Oklahoma loses that game by a touchdown, nobody is complaining either. USC and Oklahoma were regarded as the top two teams in the nation going into the year and everybody wanted to see the matchup between the two at the end of the year.

 

Also, people thought Auburn deserved to get a share of the National Title, they would have gotten plenty of first place votes. Instead, they got 3 in the AP poll and none in the Coaches Poll. USC the year before (when they were the 1-loss team that got left out) got 48 of the 65 AP votes and was ranked first after the bowls.

[TruffleShuffle]

I don't remember anybody complaining about Auburn getting left out of the title game (in terms of them being more deserving, not that there should be a playoff) before it happened.

 

you didn't talk to me apparently. i said all year that auburn was better than oklahoma. the biggest advantages they had were in the backfield, o-line and secondary, and jason campbell was better than white (though most people didn't think so at the time).

[dew1679666265]

I don't remember anybody complaining about Auburn getting left out of the title game (in terms of them being more deserving, not that there should be a playoff) before it happened.

 

you didn't talk to me apparently. i said all year that auburn was better than oklahoma. the biggest advantages they had were in the backfield, o-line and secondary, and jason campbell was better than white (though most people didn't think so at the time).

 

Yeah, I was saying quite a bit that OU would likely get beat down by USC and the only team that year that could stand a chance was Auburn.

 

That Auburn team was really, really good.

[Mephistopheles]

Guys go check ebay for some of the prices on SEC Championship tickets. Even crappy seats are fetching a pretty penny.

[Mephistopheles]

Washington State's basketball team leads the Pac-10 in scoring defense, giving up 43.8 points per game.

 

Washington State's football team is ranked last in the Pac-10 in scoring defense, giving up ... 43.8 points per game.

[rchap24]

Washington State's basketball team leads the Pac-10 in scoring defense, giving up 43.8 points per game.

 

Washington State's football team is ranked last in the Pac-10 in scoring defense, giving up ... 43.8 points per game.

 

hahaha :lol:

[mul21]

Ball State just got called out on Tirico and Van Pelt for not taking the game against Boise in Boise. I see no reason they were at fault since they (according to our own Andy anyway) offered to play the game wherever on a neutral field. Thoughts?

[Derwood]

Ball State just got called out on Tirico and Van Pelt for not taking the game against Boise in Boise. I see no reason they were at fault since they (according to our own Andy anyway) offered to play the game wherever on a neutral field. Thoughts?

 

I don't think teams should be able to host bowl games. It pretty much runs directly against the entire point of bowl games (which is two similarly talented teams meeting on a neutral field)

[mul21]

Ball State just got called out on Tirico and Van Pelt for not taking the game against Boise in Boise. I see no reason they were at fault since they (according to our own Andy anyway) offered to play the game wherever on a neutral field. Thoughts?

 

I don't think teams should be able to host bowl games. It pretty much runs directly against the entire point of bowl games (which is two similarly talented teams meeting on a neutral field)

 

Disclaimer: I'm a Big Ten homer (I know you're a PSU guy)

 

How do you feel about USC getting to play in the Rose Bowl, LSU in the Sugar Bowl, ASU (once in a blue moon) in the Fiesta, or Miami in the Orange Bowl?

[Derwood]

Ball State just got called out on Tirico and Van Pelt for not taking the game against Boise in Boise. I see no reason they were at fault since they (according to our own Andy anyway) offered to play the game wherever on a neutral field. Thoughts?

 

I don't think teams should be able to host bowl games. It pretty much runs directly against the entire point of bowl games (which is two similarly talented teams meeting on a neutral field)

 

Disclaimer: I'm a Big Ten homer (I know you're a PSU guy)

 

How do you feel about USC getting to play in the Rose Bowl, LSU in the Sugar Bowl, ASU (once in a blue moon) in the Fiesta, or Miami in the Orange Bowl?

 

I'm not thrilled by it, but it is what it is. Ticket sales are supposed to be split down the middle by school, but I'm sure local fans end up buying tix from the other school all the time.

[UMFan83]

Ball State just got called out on Tirico and Van Pelt for not taking the game against Boise in Boise. I see no reason they were at fault since they (according to our own Andy anyway) offered to play the game wherever on a neutral field. Thoughts?

 

I don't think teams should be able to host bowl games. It pretty much runs directly against the entire point of bowl games (which is two similarly talented teams meeting on a neutral field)

 

Disclaimer: I'm a Big Ten homer (I know you're a PSU guy)

 

How do you feel about USC getting to play in the Rose Bowl, LSU in the Sugar Bowl, ASU (once in a blue moon) in the Fiesta, or Miami in the Orange Bowl?

 

Hawaii in the Hawaii Bowl, Georgia Tech in the Peach Bowl (or whatever they call it now), UAB in the GMAC Bowl, etc etc etc. College football bowls are littered with these examples.

[Flames24Rulz]

When did Tuberville win one? He got robbed of a deserved chance in 2004, but I don't remember him winning another.

 

I'm in the minority I'm sure, but I personally consider Auburn to have won a National Championship in 2004. It's the SEC homer in me, I suppose.

 

It was one of the biggest travesties the BCS has wrought yet. It should have been USC and Auburn in that game.

 

Why? Because Oklahoma ended up getting beat down in the title game? I don't remember anybody complaining about Auburn getting left out of the title game (in terms of them being more deserving, not that there should be a playoff) before it happened. Also, if Oklahoma loses that game by a touchdown, nobody is complaining either. USC and Oklahoma were regarded as the top two teams in the nation going into the year and everybody wanted to see the matchup between the two at the end of the year.

 

Also, people thought Auburn deserved to get a share of the National Title, they would have gotten plenty of first place votes. Instead, they got 3 in the AP poll and none in the Coaches Poll. USC the year before (when they were the 1-loss team that got left out) got 48 of the 65 AP votes and was ranked first after the bowls.

 

Well they got none in the Coaches poll because that poll has a committment with the BCS. Whoever wins the BCS Title game gets a unanimous vote for the best team in the final Coaches poll.

 

That said, I agree with you. I think it was pretty evident that USC and Oklahoma were the two best teams in the nation all year long that season. It wasn't until after the BCS Title Game (or right after Mark Bradley did one of the dumbest things I've ever seen a football player do) that people were clamoring for Auburn to get their fair share.

[Flames24Rulz]

Ball State just got called out on Tirico and Van Pelt for not taking the game against Boise in Boise. I see no reason they were at fault since they (according to our own Andy anyway) offered to play the game wherever on a neutral field. Thoughts?

 

I don't think teams should be able to host bowl games. It pretty much runs directly against the entire point of bowl games (which is two similarly talented teams meeting on a neutral field)

 

Disclaimer: I'm a Big Ten homer (I know you're a PSU guy)

 

How do you feel about USC getting to play in the Rose Bowl, LSU in the Sugar Bowl, ASU (once in a blue moon) in the Fiesta, or Miami in the Orange Bowl?

 

Hawaii in the Hawaii Bowl, Georgia Tech in the Peach Bowl (or whatever they call it now), UAB in the GMAC Bowl, etc etc etc. College football bowls are littered with these examples.

 

Whenever New Mexico is bowl eligible, they're always in the New Mexico Bowl.

 

It's kind of tough for two teams to play on a "neutral" field when you have 184 teams that make bowls.

[dew1679666265]

When did Tuberville win one? He got robbed of a deserved chance in 2004, but I don't remember him winning another.

 

I'm in the minority I'm sure, but I personally consider Auburn to have won a National Championship in 2004. It's the SEC homer in me, I suppose.

 

It was one of the biggest travesties the BCS has wrought yet. It should have been USC and Auburn in that game.

 

Why? Because Oklahoma ended up getting beat down in the title game? I don't remember anybody complaining about Auburn getting left out of the title game (in terms of them being more deserving, not that there should be a playoff) before it happened. Also, if Oklahoma loses that game by a touchdown, nobody is complaining either. USC and Oklahoma were regarded as the top two teams in the nation going into the year and everybody wanted to see the matchup between the two at the end of the year.

 

Also, people thought Auburn deserved to get a share of the National Title, they would have gotten plenty of first place votes. Instead, they got 3 in the AP poll and none in the Coaches Poll. USC the year before (when they were the 1-loss team that got left out) got 48 of the 65 AP votes and was ranked first after the bowls.

 

Well they got none in the Coaches poll because that poll has a committment with the BCS. Whoever wins the BCS Title game gets a unanimous vote for the best team in the final Coaches poll.

 

That said, I agree with you. I think it was pretty evident that USC and Oklahoma were the two best teams in the nation all year long that season. It wasn't until after the BCS Title Game (or right after Mark Bradley did one of the dumbest things I've ever seen a football player do) that people were clamoring for Auburn to get their fair share.

 

I was clamoring for Auburn to go over OU long before the BCS Title Game and I heard plenty of people (both around me and nationally) questioning why OU was going over Auburn.

[fiver]

Wasn't Tubberville almost fired a couple of years ago by the "boosters". Didn't they go directly to the board of directors of Auburn and demand he be fired?

 

I believe he was all but fired after the 2003 season. If I recall correctly, Tuberville was basically fired after the year and Petrino was set to be hired. Then, for whatever reason, Petrino backed out or Auburn boosters decided not to go through with it or something.

 

Thus, Tuberville remained the head coach and went 13-0 the next season and got screwed out of a national championship berth.

 

Auburn was a preseason top 5 team in '03 IIRC. They went on to disappoint for much of that year, going 6-5 in their first 11 games. After the Georgia game, JetGate took place, Petrino was interviewed. However, Auburn won the next game, the Alabama-Auburn game. They also beat Wisconsin in the bowl game by two touchdowns, and those two final games of the '03 season temporarily saved Tuberville's job. Auburn went on to go 13-0 in the 2004 season, cementing Tuberville as head coach for several more years.

[fiver]

When did Tuberville win one? He got robbed of a deserved chance in 2004, but I don't remember him winning another.

 

I'm in the minority I'm sure, but I personally consider Auburn to have won a National Championship in 2004. It's the SEC homer in me, I suppose.

 

It was one of the biggest travesties the BCS has wrought yet. It should have been USC and Auburn in that game.

 

Why? Because Oklahoma ended up getting beat down in the title game? I don't remember anybody complaining about Auburn getting left out of the title game (in terms of them being more deserving, not that there should be a playoff) before it happened. Also, if Oklahoma loses that game by a touchdown, nobody is complaining either. USC and Oklahoma were regarded as the top two teams in the nation going into the year and everybody wanted to see the matchup between the two at the end of the year.

 

Also, people thought Auburn deserved to get a share of the National Title, they would have gotten plenty of first place votes. Instead, they got 3 in the AP poll and none in the Coaches Poll. USC the year before (when they were the 1-loss team that got left out) got 48 of the 65 AP votes and was ranked first after the bowls.

 

Well they got none in the Coaches poll because that poll has a committment with the BCS. Whoever wins the BCS Title game gets a unanimous vote for the best team in the final Coaches poll.

 

That said, I agree with you. I think it was pretty evident that USC and Oklahoma were the two best teams in the nation all year long that season. It wasn't until after the BCS Title Game (or right after Mark Bradley did one of the dumbest things I've ever seen a football player do) that people were clamoring for Auburn to get their fair share.

 

I was clamoring for Auburn to go over OU long before the BCS Title Game and I heard plenty of people (both around me and nationally) questioning why OU was going over Auburn.

 

Yes, I was clamoring for this as well. Auburn ended up playing Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl. I attended and was able to watch the 13th and final victory of the season....that was a fun several days in NOLA...wow.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'm not a fan of Jason Whitlock (who is?), but I actually enjoyed his latest article: http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/8853534/The-story-ESPN-doesn%27t-want-you-to-know

 

There's a lot of Ball St. bias in there, but I really can't disagree with his major points.

[Andy]

I'm not a fan of Jason Whitlock (who is?), but I actually enjoyed his latest article: http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/8853534/The-story-ESPN-doesn%27t-want-you-to-know

 

There's a lot of Ball St. bias in there, but I really can't disagree with his major points.

It's a decent article, and his overall point is correct. But I read that a week or so ago and was flummoxed that the impetus for it was that Nate Davis isn't getting Heisman consideration. I mean...I love Nate. He's the best player we've ever had and has a really good chance to go down as the best QB the MAC has ever seen (in college anyway, we'll see how the NFL goes). But though I think the argument against our schedule has been exaggerated at times, Nate simply hasn't played a good enough defense to even begin to get considered for that award.

 

Ball State just got called out on Tirico and Van Pelt for not taking the game against Boise in Boise. I see no reason they were at fault since they (according to our own Andy anyway) offered to play the game wherever on a neutral field. Thoughts?

Ball State was trying to get the game in Detroit...if Boise were located in, say, Iowa, I think Ball State would've done it. I think the decision came down to money more so than anything. The university would've lost money on our ticket allotment alone for that bowl game because no one was going to be able to go to Boise on a few weeks' notice. (Schools have to buy any tickets they're allotted that don't get bought - BSU lost money going to the International Bowl last year due to this.)

 

ESPN personalities, for the most part, can go screw themselves when it comes to Ball State. I love that the network has broadcasted six of our games (two more to come), but crap like Chris Fowler leaving us 25th-ranked for forever, coming out and saying he wouldn't vote us any higher due to the schedule, etc. is ridiculous. We still seem for the most part to be being considered a cutesy little story as opposed to a good football team.

 

Of course, after Whitlock eviscerated him in his column, Fowler moved us from 25th to 19th after we beat Western Mich. But guess who dropped us from 16th to 19th for no apparent reason after we crushed a nine-win team in our regular season finale? ESPN colleague Kirk Herbstreit. It's like they had some sort of deal or something.

[Smack]

Too much Kool-Aid for this Nittany Lion.