Exile on Waveland

Sagarin I doubt they finish that poorly. Pomeroy has them finishing 8-10, which looks more reasonable to me. They already have two conference wins and have two games left against Indiana. They'll win more than five. On Northwestern, they are much improved no doubt. They'll win a number of games in the league. I seriously doubt, however, they'll win enough to make the NCAA Tournament. They are already 0-2, meaning they'll have to go at least 10-6 to garner consideration (especially since their best non-conference win is against Pomeroy #72 Florida State). Not only that, but it will be imperative they win a couple against teams that finish at the top of the conference. I just don't see them winning enough, nor enough of the right games, to make the tournament.

It should be a good game. However, Michigan State is playing much better as of late, is very tough at home, Kansas lost their one road game by 17 to Arizona, and it wouldn't surprise me if Michigan State sees this as another out-of-conference "statement" game after their humiliating loss to North Carolina (though perhaps the win against Texas already eased some of that).

A kid made a random lucky 3-pointer. Iowa sucks.

The Titans won't be a great matchup either, though. A worse Titans team last year (with Vince at QB and no Chris Johnson) went to SD and led the entire 1st half and was down just 10-6 until a late Charger TD sealed the 11-point win. This year's Titans are much better and the game would be in Nashville. The Chargers scare me, but I think the Titans can win it. The Titans have been overlooked by most, methinks. They "slumped" at the end of the season by losing three of six, but won the only game they had to by 17 points over a 12-4 team. To me, that's far more indicative of the team they are and the team they'll be in the playoffs. Of course, if the Colts had won last night I would be rooting for the Dolphins today (more because the Colts won at Pittsburgh and not Tennessee and duplicating road wins is extremely difficult -- see last night). The Titans have certainly been overlooked much of the year, but when you play the style we do, you expect it. I'm guilty of it too. I thought, and probably still believe, that if the Colts could get by San Diego (and subsequently Pittsburgh, depending on today's outcome) they'd win at Tennessee. As I've said before, the Colts terrify me. I'm worried about most any team that is effective with the deep ball because that's where our defense seems most susceptible. There's no team better at the deep ball than the Colts and Peyton Manning. It would've been an awesome game and perfect case scenario for me. I'd obviously be rooting extremely hard for the Titans, but even if they lost, I could pull for Peyton in the Super Bowl. I'll be rooting for the Titans out of the AFC at least, I think. They have a number of former Colts that I like and I've always been extremely impressed by Jeff Fischer. Also, I don't like Pittsburgh or San Diego much at all. Good luck from here on out. I appreciate that. I assume you're talking about Nick Harper, David Thornton and Jake Scott - they've all been fantastic help since coming to Nashville. It's going to be a tough road, but I think this team has as good a shot - if not better - as anybody else. Yeah. I really miss David Thornton (Polian even said it was a mistake to let him leave and he is loathe to admit mistakes) and this year's team desperately missed Scott. They re-signed Ryan Lilja because he was cheaper -- mainly due to Scott's ability to play both guard and tackle -- but then Lilja got hurt and missed the entire season. Bad luck there; the Colts needed one of those guys, they had neither.

The Titans won't be a great matchup either, though. A worse Titans team last year (with Vince at QB and no Chris Johnson) went to SD and led the entire 1st half and was down just 10-6 until a late Charger TD sealed the 11-point win. This year's Titans are much better and the game would be in Nashville. The Chargers scare me, but I think the Titans can win it. The Titans have been overlooked by most, methinks. They "slumped" at the end of the season by losing three of six, but won the only game they had to by 17 points over a 12-4 team. To me, that's far more indicative of the team they are and the team they'll be in the playoffs. Of course, if the Colts had won last night I would be rooting for the Dolphins today (more because the Colts won at Pittsburgh and not Tennessee and duplicating road wins is extremely difficult -- see last night). The Titans have certainly been overlooked much of the year, but when you play the style we do, you expect it. I'm guilty of it too. I thought, and probably still believe, that if the Colts could get by San Diego (and subsequently Pittsburgh, depending on today's outcome) they'd win at Tennessee. As I've said before, the Colts terrify me. I'm worried about most any team that is effective with the deep ball because that's where our defense seems most susceptible. There's no team better at the deep ball than the Colts and Peyton Manning. It would've been an awesome game and perfect case scenario for me. I'd obviously be rooting extremely hard for the Titans, but even if they lost, I could pull for Peyton in the Super Bowl. I'll be rooting for the Titans out of the AFC at least, I think. They have a number of former Colts that I like and I've always been extremely impressed by Jeff Fischer. Also, I don't like Pittsburgh or San Diego much at all. Good luck from here on out.

The Titans won't be a great matchup either, though. A worse Titans team last year (with Vince at QB and no Chris Johnson) went to SD and led the entire 1st half and was down just 10-6 until a late Charger TD sealed the 11-point win. This year's Titans are much better and the game would be in Nashville. The Chargers scare me, but I think the Titans can win it. The Titans have been overlooked by most, methinks. They "slumped" at the end of the season by losing three of six, but won the only game they had to by 17 points over a 12-4 team. To me, that's far more indicative of the team they are and the team they'll be in the playoffs. Of course, if the Colts had won last night I would be rooting for the Dolphins today (more because the Colts won at Pittsburgh and not Tennessee and duplicating road wins is extremely difficult -- see last night). The Titans have certainly been overlooked much of the year, but when you play the style we do, you expect it. I'm guilty of it too. I thought, and probably still believe, that if the Colts could get by San Diego (and subsequently Pittsburgh, depending on today's outcome) they'd win at Tennessee.

The Titans won't be a great matchup either, though. A worse Titans team last year (with Vince at QB and no Chris Johnson) went to SD and led the entire 1st half and was down just 10-6 until a late Charger TD sealed the 11-point win. This year's Titans are much better and the game would be in Nashville. The Chargers scare me, but I think the Titans can win it. The Titans have been overlooked by most, methinks. They "slumped" at the end of the season by losing three of six, but won the only game they had to by 17 points over a 12-4 team. To me, that's far more indicative of the team they are and the team they'll be in the playoffs. Of course, if the Colts had won last night I would be rooting for the Dolphins today (more because the Colts won at Pittsburgh and not Tennessee and duplicating road wins is extremely difficult -- see last night).

The Colts got killed with punting and subsequently, field position. The two Charger touchdowns in the first half were set up by a poor punt and good field position because of a 15-20 yard return after a punt. Meanwhile, the Chargers got a 67 yard punt that bounced up/sideways instead of down the field that gave the Colts the ball at the five (and led to a punt that gave SD good field position) or the punt that went out of bounds. Not saying all that is luck because it isn't, just that punting/field position cost them the game. Sproles was great; but Scifres was the player of the game.

Yup, wish LT was healthy this game. Or last year. Sproles spells doom for the Colts. This is why I was concerned about the Chargers. It was always going to be a close game that came down to the end. I don't think the same was true with Denver. The Chargers were the last feasible team I wanted to play in the opening round.

I would like to believe today was a testament to IU's improvement and bodes well for the Hoosiers in the Big Ten. Instead, I think it portends doom for Iowa's chances in the league.

The Colts seem like a gimme today, don't they? Superior team facing an average at best team, who might be missing one of their elite players, and the Norv factor. The Chargers won last year in Indianapolis with Philip Rivers, LaDanian Tomlinson and Norv Turner all on the sidelines. Of course, they did have Michael Turner at that time. Rivers played that game (14-19 for 264, 3 TD/1 INT) and Tomlinson played a little bit. I think he was thinking about the NE game the following week when LT and Gates were hurt (sounds familiar) and Rivers was on a torn acl No, I was thinking about the Colts game the week before, as I said. I have a pretty good handle as to what happened in previous Colts games, as does CCP. In the playoff game last year, Rivers left the game and Billy Volek led the Chargers to a game-winning drive. LT rushed seven times the entire game. The Chargers won the game without LT and Rivers at the end.

The Colts seem like a gimme today, don't they? Superior team facing an average at best team, who might be missing one of their elite players, and the Norv factor. The Chargers won last year in Indianapolis with Philip Rivers, LaDanian Tomlinson and Norv Turner all on the sidelines. Of course, they did have Michael Turner at that time. I'd rather have LT than either Turner or Sproles. The Colts have contained LT pretty well in the games they have played him. When he went out last year in the playoff game, I knew it had the potential to be a big problem, and it certainly was as Turner and Sproles really hurt the Colts defense. That screen play to Sproles especially is something I'm very concerned about for tonight's game. Oh, no doubt. Sproles has been death to the Colts. Turner also, to a lesser extent. LT has never hurt the Colts the way he hurts others. I was sad to see LT leave the game last year, and hope he plays more than Sproles this year. I certainly didn't expect Rivers to leave the game and Volek to lead a game-winning drive though.

The Colts seem like a gimme today, don't they? Superior team facing an average at best team, who might be missing one of their elite players, and the Norv factor. The Chargers won last year in Indianapolis with Philip Rivers, LaDanian Tomlinson and Norv Turner all on the sidelines. Of course, they did have Michael Turner at that time.

1. Ole Miss is good. It was apparent by looking at their record and schedule this year; some simply didn't want to see it. The Ole Miss-Oregon State argument is a perfect example as to why point differential/scoring margin is imperative when comparing teams. 2. Utah is good, but remember what Alabama is. They pretty much lived off two big early season wins that weren't so big in retrospect. They demolished the Nos. 9 and 3 ranked teams. Those teams were 7-6 Clemson and 10-3 Georgia (a very good team, but not No. 3 good). They had solid (close) wins over Ole Miss and LSU, but, again, Alabama was never the fourth best team in the country, much less the best. Utah is good but Florida/Oklahoma/USC/Texas they aren't.

I was surprised how the game went as well. I didn't expect Penn State to shoot itself in the foot as they did. USC is and was better, but that wasn't what I expected of Penn State at all.

Oregon State lost two games (one at home) by more than Ole Miss lost all four of its games combined. Again, the Rebels were outscored by 19 points in their four losses combined; while Oregon State lost by 27 and 31 (at home). Ole Miss easily could have won every game it played, it was in every single game. Oregon State was demolished twice. Ole Miss is better, and a better loss (especially since it came on a blocked PAT).

I'll go ahead and beat that poor, dead horse: We need a playoff to correct this stuff. A playoff will crown the one of the best two teams national champion less than the current system. So? Then we're replacing one system that usually crowns one of the top three teams in the country as national champion with a system that usually crowns one of the worst 117 teams in the country as national champion. The sheer absurdity of this statement is enjoyable enough, but I'd love to hear your logic behind this. because the best team doesn't always win and making the best teams play more games against good teams makes it more likely they lose? it's not rocket science, to most people. Which, again, plays to my point. It's cute- or pretty naive- that you (or anyone else) think that ANY sport is set up to determine the "best" team. It's not. Only to crown a champion. The current system crowns a champion.

My point is given the top three teams or the field in the current setup you take the top three teams in any playoff (outside MAYBE a +1) you take the field. I understand your point, and agree. I just think, semantically, "worst" was a poor word choice.

I'll go ahead and beat that poor, dead horse: We need a playoff to correct this stuff. A playoff will crown the one of the best two teams national champion less than the current system. So? Then we're replacing one system that usually crowns one of the top three teams in the country as national champion with a system that usually crowns one of the worst 117 teams in the country as national champion. It would be nearly impossible for an eight- or sixteen-team playoff to crown one of the worst teams in the country as national champion. But, of course, adding more teams and more games would decrease the likelihood of the best team winning the championship.

They probably wouldn't jump the Florida/Oklahoma loser either. They wouldn't in my (nonexistent) poll. Perhaps if they crushed Alabama and Florida/Oklahoma crushed the other.

Utah is going to jump USC (which just dominated Penn State), Texas (assuming they beat Ohio State) and the Florida/Oklahoma winner? Not a chance.

The Ole Miss dogging has to stop. Ole Miss is a better team than Oregon State and is one of the top twenty teams in the country. They're not chopped liver. I think people are going to be surprised tomorrow afternoon. I don't think they will win, but I think it will be a close game. That being said, Florida and USC are a toss up. Thank you. Ole Miss is good. They're better than Oregon State. The Rebels' four losses are by a combined 19 points, all to bowl teams. They have wins at Florida and LSU. Oregon State not only lost to Stanford but lost by 31 points and 27 points (at home!). The Beavers obviously have the win over USC, in addition to beating Cal and their bowl win over Pitt. But, again, losses by 31 and 27. I also agree that Florida and USC are near indistinguishable.

So the only time a Big Ten school doesn't play for a championship is when the conference is down? Heck, a Big Ten school has played for the championship the last two years out of a down conference. I realize that this is primarily a USC argument, and I'm not saying I disagree with SSR, but the last point I would want to make is that USC is beating the brains out of the conference's 2nd best team when the "best" team is getting beaten in a fashion that proves they don't belong in a title game at all. Well, Ohio State did deserve the title game appearance two years ago. USC has dominated the Big Ten in bowl games this decade. I think that has a lot more to do with USC than the Big Ten. Following Carroll's first year, USC has only played two bowl games against other conferences. One was the epic Rose Bowl against Texas (which USC did lead by 12 with under seven minutes to play), the other was a 55-19 thrashing of Oklahoma. USC is dominant in bowl games under Carroll. They just happen to face the Big Ten more often -- and all but once in their back yard and thrice against the Big Ten's second place team.

So the only time a Big Ten school doesn't play for a championship is when the conference is down? Heck, a Big Ten school has played for the championship the last two years out of a down conference.

It certainly seems to me that's what SSR is implying when he says: Strong fan bases certainly have an adverse effect on the Big Ten in bowls. They get two BCS teams if at all possible, knocking every bowl team down a slot. The top Big Ten team would have a difficult enough time against USC in Pasadena. It's near impossible for the second best Big Ten team (as was the case the past two seasons). I'll give you Illinois but you seem to be forgetting that there was a good amount of people that thought that Michigan team should've been playing in a rematch against OSU for the national championship. "Near impossible" is hyperbole. I'm not forgetting; Michigan wasn't the second best team in the country. A good amount of people were wrong. Having watched the games, I don't think "near impossible" is hyperbolic at all.