College Football 9/10

[imb]

AD=All Day.

 

It was his nickname in high school, plus, we already had an AP.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Ahh, that is definately a fitting nickname.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'd just like to thank Ohio State for not even giving Mr. Sutton, Big Ten Player of the Week, a look because of his size.

 

And for the shorter folks here, I thought I'd pass this observation along from the Daily Herald: Of the top 7 leading rushers, 6 of them are under 6 feet tall.

 

Garrett Wolfe = leading rusher in the nation :D

[AcesHigh]

Arizona is going to be a tricky game for us. Stoops scares me and Arizona almost beat Utah earlier this year. In the desert, too.

 

I havent see PU play this year, but listened to some of a radio show about them today. I believe I heard they are running an option offense now. Is that true? I cant see tiller running much of the option. Also I am gonna root for PU so when ND comes into town hopefully it will be two unbeatens playing, making the game that much better.

Oh yeah, we ran the option between 40-50% of the time on Saturday. Kirsch looked pretty good. The offense was almost in the Urban Meyer mold with slot guys real involved in the running game. It's weird to watch the Boilers do that, so different.

 

I, too, am rooting for ND to go undefeated until they come to Lafayette. That has Gameday written all over it and it would be an unbelievable game.

[photoguy9883]

Their also completely redoing McKinley Avenue (with help from INDOT), their building another telecom. building (sadly it won't be named after Dave), and two new dorms (one to replace the sinking LaFollette Complex).

Interesting; I lived in LaFollette during my four years there as an undergraduate.

 

That is interesting. Are they just going to get rid of LaFollete. That takes up a pretty good amount of land. Also how are they fixing McKinley? Will the road finally go around the tower they built? That looked ridiculous the way it was set up. Also is the new parking garage on Calvert? I had some friends who lived there and our last year there BSU forced them to move out and tore down their house. Always wondered what ended up going there.

 

I'm not sure about the plans for LaFollette's replacement, but one of the new dorms is currently under construction. I don't know where they're going to put the other one.

McKinley is being replaced in three stages. Stage one (from Neeley Ave. to Riverside Ave.) is complete the road now splits around around the bell tower and has a median down the middle with trees and landscaping.

The new garage is partially on Calvert. The new music buidling also rests on Calvert. And NC I'm writing this post from LaFollette, or as it is more commonly called "the ghetto."

These webcams show most of the new construction.

 

http://www.bsu.edu/up/article/0,,33960--,00.html

[CaliforniaRaisin]

AD better play, it's no big deal if the Bruins beat Oklahoma without him.

 

Of course he's going to beat up on our front 4, hopefully they can handle Peterson. The linebackers are the strength of the defense.

Edited September 14, 2005 by CaliforniaRaisin

[Laura]

There's a reason why December 7, 2004 is Tyrell Sutton day in Akron, Ohio.

 

At least they have their priorities straight.

[TruffleShuffle]

Holy Cross is 2-0 with a 104-27 point differential... unfortunately they can't play Sacred Heart and Georgetown every week.

[CuseCubFan69]

There's a reason why December 7, 2004 is Tyrell Sutton day in Akron, Ohio.

 

At least they have their priorities straight.

 

Lebron Day is September 11th.

[adamb0719]

Q. I want to put a fine point on something you said about instant replay yesterday. You said something about the officials are going to err on the side of safety and I'm not sure what that..

 

COACH WEIS: Yeah, it confused me, too, a little bit, that's a good question. Because when the official came over to the sideline, I said, "You couldn't see that he was down"? I might have had an adjective or two in there. I said, "You couldn't see that he was down?"

 

And he goes, "Don't worry, Coach."

 

"Don't worry? You just called a fumble, you tell me not to worry?"

 

He goes, "We're told, what we're told to do is if it's close, for them to call it the way they called it," because the officials because the replay official could always correct it. Because if they called it the other way, if they called that he was down, then for the replay official, it was a moot point. Because if they had already called it down, then they could not have reversed it the other way, so that's why they are told that.

 

So at least I understood the explanation, but I just thought that he was down so obviously to me. Maybe I was wrong, but he was down so obviously that I could not understand when he said that to me. But as I sit back to reflect on it, I do at least understand what the thought process was.

 

If I am reading this correctly are Big 10 officials told to make the wrong call and just use replay. Wasn't part of the reason replay was taken away in the first place because it was so time consuming? Also if it was so obvious on the field, why call it a fumble and hope that the booth will call to review it. If UM had hustled onto the field and snapped the ball, there could be no replay. Seems kind of like a bad idea to me, to call a fumble because that can be reversed, but being down can't be.

 

PS this is in regards to Quinns fumble in the fourth quarter of the ND game

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Q. I want to put a fine point on something you said about instant replay yesterday. You said something about the officials are going to err on the side of safety and I'm not sure what that..

 

COACH WEIS: Yeah, it confused me, too, a little bit, that's a good question. Because when the official came over to the sideline, I said, "You couldn't see that he was down"? I might have had an adjective or two in there. I said, "You couldn't see that he was down?"

 

And he goes, "Don't worry, Coach."

 

"Don't worry? You just called a fumble, you tell me not to worry?"

 

He goes, "We're told, what we're told to do is if it's close, for them to call it the way they called it," because the officials because the replay official could always correct it. Because if they called it the other way, if they called that he was down, then for the replay official, it was a moot point. Because if they had already called it down, then they could not have reversed it the other way, so that's why they are told that.

 

So at least I understood the explanation, but I just thought that he was down so obviously to me. Maybe I was wrong, but he was down so obviously that I could not understand when he said that to me. But as I sit back to reflect on it, I do at least understand what the thought process was.

 

If I am reading this correctly are Big 10 officials told to make the wrong call and just use replay. Wasn't part of the reason replay was taken away in the first place because it was so time consuming? Also if it was so obvious on the field, why call it a fumble and hope that the booth will call to review it. If UM had hustled onto the field and snapped the ball, there could be no replay. Seems kind of like a bad idea to me, to call a fumble because that can be reversed, but being down can't be.

 

PS this is in regards to Quinns fumble in the fourth quarter of the ND game

 

I didn't see the fumble in question so I can't comment on that specific occurrence. It seems like what they are seeing is that if the refs are faced with a tossup decision where they aren't positive either way, to choose the play with the potential to be reviewed. From that point of view, they have just as much a chance of being right calling a fumble(since from what they see is basically a 50-50 call), and if they are wrong, the replay will show that. They still have the same 50 percent chance of being right by calling him down, but without the chance of ultimately checking the call that they were unsure of to begin with.

[hawkeyecub]

Well if there is a fumble that is very close or could go either way, they should always call it a fumble because that can be overturned. If they call him down and they're wrong, there's nothing that can be done to correct it.

 

With that said it did seem like officials were almost relying on replay to do their job at times this weekend. If you know he was down, just call him down and avoid the break in the game.

[adamb0719]

Q. I want to put a fine point on something you said about instant replay yesterday. You said something about the officials are going to err on the side of safety and I'm not sure what that..

 

COACH WEIS: Yeah, it confused me, too, a little bit, that's a good question. Because when the official came over to the sideline, I said, "You couldn't see that he was down"? I might have had an adjective or two in there. I said, "You couldn't see that he was down?"

 

And he goes, "Don't worry, Coach."

 

"Don't worry? You just called a fumble, you tell me not to worry?"

 

He goes, "We're told, what we're told to do is if it's close, for them to call it the way they called it," because the officials because the replay official could always correct it. Because if they called it the other way, if they called that he was down, then for the replay official, it was a moot point. Because if they had already called it down, then they could not have reversed it the other way, so that's why they are told that.

 

So at least I understood the explanation, but I just thought that he was down so obviously to me. Maybe I was wrong, but he was down so obviously that I could not understand when he said that to me. But as I sit back to reflect on it, I do at least understand what the thought process was.

If I am reading this correctly are Big 10 officials told to make the wrong call and just use replay. Wasn't part of the reason replay was taken away in the first place because it was so time consuming? Also if it was so obvious on the field, why call it a fumble and hope that the booth will call to review it. If UM had hustled onto the field and snapped the ball, there could be no replay. Seems kind of like a bad idea to me, to call a fumble because that can be reversed, but being down can't be.

 

PS this is in regards to Quinns fumble in the fourth quarter of the ND game

I didn't see the fumble in question so I can't comment on that specific occurrence. It seems like what they are seeing is that if the refs are faced with a tossup decision where they aren't positive either way, to choose the play with the potential to be reviewed. From that point of view, they have just as much a chance of being right calling a fumble(since from what they see is basically a 50-50 call), and if they are wrong, the replay will show that. They still have the same 50 percent chance of being right by calling him down, but without the chance of ultimately checking the call that they were unsure of to begin with

 

The play in question was obviously not a fumble. I belive even the announcers were confused, and as soon as they called it UM's ball they were saying he was obvioiusly down. I see what you are saying, and that does make sense, if the call could go either way. However wnen the ref tells the Coach not to worry, while the play is being reviewed, it is pretty obvious that the refs knew he was down as well. It just seems to me that if it was that obvious, then why call it a fumble in the first place? I don't think replay should be used to that extent. WHile it is nice to have, I would rather see the refs confident in the call they made, and not rely on the replay, only use it when it is absolutley necessary. (like Henne fumbling at the goal line :wink: )

[CuseCubFan69]

It's AD, not AP, fool!

 

And I highly, highly doubt he misses much time at all, one series, max.

 

What's the deal with that IMB? You skip school and you don't practice but you can play? It's like saying you can't have supper but desert is ok.

[imb]

I'm going to assume it's like that at every major football school.

[Chocolate Milk]

I'm going to assume it's like that at every major football school.

 

My roomate worked for the Wisconsin Athletic department and was the dude who used to go to all the classes and see if the football players were going. They all knew who he was and used to joke around with him. He'd stay for like 15 mins, do a head count, then take off.

 

What a funny job.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm going to assume it's like that at every major football school.

 

Yeah but what about Oklahoma?

[imb]

That really burns.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Man, you have the easiest comeback ever and you didn't use it. I'm disappointed IMB.

[imb]

What was it? Sorry, OU sucking this year has really depressed me.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

He goes to U of I.

[imb]

Oh, I was actually going to say that, but then I figured that no one could be [expletive] enough to make fun of OU when they go to a school that barely fields a D1 team.

[adamb0719]

I think some people take their college football a little too seriously, or have just a little too much time on their hands.

Ohio State tight end Ryan Hamby has received a couple of hate letters since dropping a sure touchdown pass during the Buckeyes' loss to Texas last week.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2161381

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think some people take their college football a little too seriously, or have just a little too much time on their hands.

Ohio State tight end Ryan Hamby has received a couple of hate letters since dropping a sure touchdown pass during the Buckeyes' loss to Texas last week.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2161381

 

Those people don't pay him to drop passes, that's for sure.

 

Seriously though, hate letters are bad.

[adamb0719]

Those people don't pay him to drop passes, that's for sure.

 

If by "those people" you were refering to OSU, then that was quite funny.