College Football - Week 2 (Sept. 6)

[shnsajax]

My ATS games of the week are Iowa St covering against Kansas State, K State is overrated at this point and the Cyclones aren't as bad as what we saw. Kansas State will still win but closer to one touchdown instead of two.

 

My other one is Vanderbilt against Ole miss. 20 points for an away team is way too steep. Ole miss will still win but much closer than that.

 

In the pros, Kansas City will do much better than the 3 they're getting against Tennessee.

 

Iowa St. did lose its star WR for the year. Their starting C is also banged up. And their starting RT just quit the team. I think they might be in trouble this year. KSU does usually take a game or two to heat up, though, so it's tough to call.

 

Also, I saw Charlie Strong suspended both his OTs for this week's game.

 

Charlie Strong is no Les Miles. Not to mention a QB making his first career start and the starting C broke his ankle last week and is out for the season.

[NOLA]

My other one is Vanderbilt against Ole miss. 20 points for an away team is way too steep. Ole miss will still win but much closer than that.

I don't know. Vandy looks bad this year, and I have to think Ole Miss will come out with a vengeance after the slow start against Boise last week. I think they may run up the score.

[sneakypower]

ND line has moved from -6 to -3.5 in the past couple days

Not surprising as this game has all the looks of a shootout and you always want the points in one of those.

i assumed it's that the suspended players still aren't practicing so it's becoming more likely they don't suit up

[apete6]

I'm impressed by the advancement of the UT-San Antonio football program. They weren't even a program 4 years ago and are now in CUSA, beat Houston 27-7 last week and should have beaten Arizona last night and got over 33,000 people in the building and into the game. Excellent job by the university administration and coach Larry Coker. They have a chance to win CUSA.

[shnsajax]

San Antonio does a great job supporting their teams. Huge city with limited sports.

[Guest]

Man, it might hit 100 in Eugene tomorrow for the MSU-Oregon game.

[apete6]

Man, it might hit 100 in Eugene tomorrow for the MSU-Oregon game.

 

That's gotta favor the Ducks, right? Assuming that they don't just go 3 and out their first several series and lead to a tired defense.

[NOLA]

Man, it might hit 100 in Eugene tomorrow for the MSU-Oregon game.

Wait. What? It hasn't even gotten that hot down here this summer. What the hell is happening on the West Coast this year?

[jersey cubs fan]

Man, it might hit 100 in Eugene tomorrow for the MSU-Oregon game.

Wait. What? It hasn't even gotten that hot down here this summer. What the hell is happening on the West Coast this year?

El Nino

 

Warm waters off the coast of CA has also led to fish typically found down by Cabo being up by LA.

[NOLA]

Man, it might hit 100 in Eugene tomorrow for the MSU-Oregon game.

Wait. What? It hasn't even gotten that hot down here this summer. What the hell is happening on the West Coast this year?

El Nino

 

Warm waters off the coast of CA has also led to fish typically found down by Cabo being up by LA.

Oh yeah. TWC said that's why we have had such a mild hurricane season this summer. *knocking on wood*

[Guest]

It actually hasn't been *that* hot this summer (just a few degrees above normal in July and August, not that bad considering most of California experienced their hottest winter and spring on record). Of course September is the hottest month of the year. Of course September is our hottest month of the year.

 

El Niño does partially explains the heat - it warmed the ocean to limit the coastal marine layer which cools us in the early part of the summer.

[OleMissCub]

My other one is Vanderbilt against Ole miss. 20 points for an away team is way too steep. Ole miss will still win but much closer than that.

I don't know. Vandy looks bad this year, and I have to think Ole Miss will come out with a vengeance after the slow start against Boise last week. I think they may run up the score.

 

Yeah, well Vandy always worries me, even when they really suck. For some reason they have us pegged as a rival and ALWAYS play us close.

 

However, they appear to be really, really, really bad this year.

[Derwood]

Nice to see the talking heads on GameDay taking schools to task for their embarrassing non-con scheduling.

[Ryne Ween]

There is just a ton of risk and nearly no upside to scheduling more than maybe one good non conference game. If I were an AD I wouldn't do it either. When the talking heads and voters and playoff committee base things on number of impressive wins vs number of losses than maybe teams will shedule tough games.

 

Right now college football is an exercise in not losing, and not winning against quality opponents. When that changes than the ADs will be forced to change.

 

The money is also not there. South Carolina is gonna sell the same amount of tickets for ECU today as they will for Clemson. So what's the point for the football program? If a school like Texas is gonna fire the coach and put the AD on blast for losing 8 games in 2 years (hypothetical example) then why put OSU on your schedule? These guys don't keep the job (or get the next job) by winning, they do it by not losing. How many impressive wins did Boise have under Peterson? A half dozen maybe in ten years? And yet he's the number one coaching prospect for a decade. The value, rightly or wrongly, is on not losing rather than winning.

 

And the same gameday guys will ignore a team with some good tough loses against quality opponents in favor of talking about a UCLA type team that goes 5-0 against bad competition.

[Derwood]

They're not saying that every team has to schedule power conference opponents in the non-con. They're blasting schools for scheduling Lamar or Sam Houston State. Comparatively, playing Akron or Louisiana-Monroe is an upgrade

[NewUserName]

I think the only way the scheduling changes is when a team that is 10-2 but played a very tough non-con schedule makes the championship playoff over a 11-1 or 12-0 team that played no one non-conference. I think this is more possible in the current format than it was in the past.

[Derwood]

I think for the non-championship schools (ie anyone under the top 5 or 6 countries in the country), you could make some change by simply saying that the 6 win threshold for bowl eligibility is FBS wins only. If you schedule South Texas State and DeVry Institute one year and end up with 7 wins total, tough cookies, no bowl for you

[Ryne Ween]

They're not saying that every team has to schedule power conference opponents in the non-con. They're blasting schools for scheduling Lamar or Sam Houston State. Comparatively, playing Akron or Louisiana-Monroe is an upgrade

 

With respect, the only winner in that scenario is Akron or ULMs bank account. That doesn't create an interesting matchup for for the general public and instead of a 40 pt dog you have a 35 pt dog.

 

What would be actually interesting is if top teams had their one non com rivalry game against a top program (which they already generally do) and then 3 games against a Utah state, NIU, UCF calibre opponent from a mid conference. But like I said there isn't incentive because wins against Utah State don't help you in the minds of the voters or talking heads and losses can crush your season.

[Ryne Ween]

I think for the non-championship schools (ie anyone under the top 5 or 6 countries in the country), you could make some change by simply saying that the 6 win threshold for bowl eligibility is FBS wins only. If you schedule South Texas State and DeVry Institute one year and end up with 7 wins total, tough cookies, no bowl for you

 

I think the top of the FCS is better than the very bottom of the FBS so in effect you are punishing the northern iowas and Dakota states Of the world and favoring the putrid FBS schools. But the approach isn't bad.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think for the non-championship schools (ie anyone under the top 5 or 6 countries in the country), you could make some change by simply saying that the 6 win threshold for bowl eligibility is FBS wins only. If you schedule South Texas State and DeVry Institute one year and end up with 7 wins total, tough cookies, no bowl for you

 

You're only allowed 1 FCS win in your count. It's a de facto 5 win rule

[stuy119]

I think that sounds great, until you realize that these are 18-22 year old kids who also spend some time (not a lot, let's be honest) in class. They aren't professionals, and we need to stop acting as if we expect them to be professionals.

 

And this comes from a guy who attended and is a fan of a football factory school.

[Derwood]

I think for the non-championship schools (ie anyone under the top 5 or 6 countries in the country), you could make some change by simply saying that the 6 win threshold for bowl eligibility is FBS wins only. If you schedule South Texas State and DeVry Institute one year and end up with 7 wins total, tough cookies, no bowl for you

 

You're only allowed 1 FCS win in your count. It's a de facto 5 win rule

 

It should be zero.

 

I also think that you shouldn't be bowl eligible if losing the bowl game results in the team having a losing record (ie no 6-6 teams allowed)

[SouthSideRyan]

I think for the non-championship schools (ie anyone under the top 5 or 6 countries in the country), you could make some change by simply saying that the 6 win threshold for bowl eligibility is FBS wins only. If you schedule South Texas State and DeVry Institute one year and end up with 7 wins total, tough cookies, no bowl for you

 

You're only allowed 1 FCS win in your count. It's a de facto 5 win rule

 

It should be zero.

 

I also think that you shouldn't be bowl eligible if losing the bowl game results in the team having a losing record (ie no 6-6 teams allowed)

 

Ok, you tell 10 bowls they have to stop existing.

[UMFan83]

I think for the non-championship schools (ie anyone under the top 5 or 6 countries in the country), you could make some change by simply saying that the 6 win threshold for bowl eligibility is FBS wins only. If you schedule South Texas State and DeVry Institute one year and end up with 7 wins total, tough cookies, no bowl for you

 

You're only allowed 1 FCS win in your count. It's a de facto 5 win rule

 

It should be zero.

 

I also think that you shouldn't be bowl eligible if losing the bowl game results in the team having a losing record (ie no 6-6 teams allowed)

 

Who cares? There's too many bowl games and they must be making money because they keep making more over them. Overall, it doesn't hurt anyone for a crappy 6-6 team to play another 6-6 game in a bowl game.

[Derwood]

I think for the non-championship schools (ie anyone under the top 5 or 6 countries in the country), you could make some change by simply saying that the 6 win threshold for bowl eligibility is FBS wins only. If you schedule South Texas State and DeVry Institute one year and end up with 7 wins total, tough cookies, no bowl for you

 

You're only allowed 1 FCS win in your count. It's a de facto 5 win rule

 

It should be zero.

 

I also think that you shouldn't be bowl eligible if losing the bowl game results in the team having a losing record (ie no 6-6 teams allowed)

 

Ok, you tell 10 bowls they have to stop existing.

 

Gladly. Though I'm sure those bowl games with 5000 sold tickets would be sorely missed