Exile on Waveland

I can't remember being more excited for an IU football game. It's a very big game for both programs. With a win, IU should definitely go to a bowl game and could actually get to like 8-4 or so.

ah the nebulous claims of "you guys get as many as michigan does" by a michigan fan... yet zero detail on the calls that we do get. Meanwhile I can name 10 plays in the 2002 and 2005 games that were erroneous calls that went against penn state. If Michigan has gotten jobbed on fumble rulings, sideline calls and mysterious clock decisions, please provide some examples. I'd love to hear them. And by the way, Michigan did not have a better team in 2005... 2002 is arguable. Yeah, no way Michigan was better in 2005.

That's nonsensical propaganda for those that don't want a tournament. It has no bearing in this, or any, logical discussion.

I did no such thing. That's why, in my post, you can clearly read that I stated Penn State's schedule would be much more difficult.

cool. next year, we just won't have wins or losses and we'll nominate you to decide who "deserves" to be there If Hawaii goes undefeated they won't be in the title game. Nor will they deserve to be. Why? Strength of schedule; they won't have played or beaten anyone. The same logic can be applied to Penn State -- though, of course, they will have played a far more stringent schedule than Hawaii. If they go undefeated they won't necessarily deserve to be in the title game because a one-loss UF or LSU team likely will have the more impressive credentials. I suppose you have to break down what the credentials are. Hawaii's schedule is well, let's see how it plays out but they only play 1 BCS team and that's Washington. Again, the SEC, Big 12 and ACC's strength of schedule gets an extra push due to their playoff game. Yes, I am all for breaking down credentials. That was my point, undefeated isn't necessarily the end-all, be-all. But that's one of the beauty parts of college football that almost all or all other highly watched sports has, the undefeated season. If a group of kids win every game they deserve to play until someone beats them imo. Say Florida loses to LSU. They had their shot just as Michigan had their shot last year with OSU. I see no reason why you shouldn't let somebody else get a shot at beating LSU instead of giving another chance to win 2 out of 3. Well, perhaps I should've been more clear, but I wasn't pushing for both a one-loss UF and a one-loss LSU in the BCS game. But one of them might be more deserving than certain undefeated teams.

cool. next year, we just won't have wins or losses and we'll nominate you to decide who "deserves" to be there If Hawaii goes undefeated they won't be in the title game. Nor will they deserve to be. Why? Strength of schedule; they won't have played or beaten anyone. The same logic can be applied to Penn State -- though, of course, they will have played a far more stringent schedule than Hawaii. If they go undefeated they won't necessarily deserve to be in the title game because a one-loss UF or LSU team likely will have the more impressive credentials. I suppose you have to break down what the credentials are. Hawaii's schedule is well, let's see how it plays out but they only play 1 BCS team and that's Washington. Again, the SEC, Big 12 and ACC's strength of schedule gets an extra push due to their playoff game. Yes, I am all for breaking down credentials. That was my point, undefeated isn't necessarily the end-all, be-all. Edit: Also, I think Washington is improved this year and isn't "nobody"; however, for purposes of playing in the BCS Championship game and that's your best win, they basically are nobody.

cool. next year, we just won't have wins or losses and we'll nominate you to decide who "deserves" to be there If Hawaii goes undefeated they won't be in the title game. Nor will they deserve to be. Why? Strength of schedule; they won't have played or beaten anyone. The same logic can be applied to Penn State -- though, of course, they will have played a far more stringent schedule than Hawaii. If they go undefeated they won't necessarily deserve to be in the title game because a one-loss UF or LSU team likely will have the more impressive credentials.

Yeah, and at this time last year the Bears were going 16-0 as the greatest team ever. And in week 3 (I think) they discovered that if you had a decent fron 7, you could blitz rex to make him the worst quarterback in the league. I don't think anyone's making a similar discovery about Brady any time soon. Thank you for helping to prove my point. NFL coaches will figure weaknesses out. It's week 2 -- way, way, WAY too early to proclaim any team great. That said, even as a Colt fan, I do think the Patriots are the best team and Super Bowl favorites. So you're comparing the bears using an unknown quarterback to the Patriots returning one of the best few teams in the league plus a bunch of star players? that seems preposterous. Wow. Nowhere did say any such thing. The comparison is simply between what perception was after two weeks the past two years -- and last year it was way off. I'm saying calling any team great after two weeks is premature. Who's better between Grossman-Brady and Bears-Patriots is really irrelevant here. you said "nfl coaches willfigure out weaknesses" Well, why did they do it almost instantly against the bears yet have taken years to do it against the Pats? You didn't make a comparison, you made a statement about the ability of NFL coaches. That was simply a supporting statement of my overarching point -- the fact that two weeks is insufficient to determine greatness. Perhaps I should've stated that it's but one reason two weeks doesn't tell you much; along with injuries, complacency, chemistry, fluke starts, etc. However, I don't think it was too difficult to discern that the coaching statement was rather innocuous to my greater point.

Yeah, and at this time last year the Bears were going 16-0 as the greatest team ever. And in week 3 (I think) they discovered that if you had a decent fron 7, you could blitz rex to make him the worst quarterback in the league. I don't think anyone's making a similar discovery about Brady any time soon. Thank you for helping to prove my point. NFL coaches will figure weaknesses out. It's week 2 -- way, way, WAY too early to proclaim any team great. That said, even as a Colt fan, I do think the Patriots are the best team and Super Bowl favorites. So you're comparing the bears using an unknown quarterback to the Patriots returning one of the best few teams in the league plus a bunch of star players? that seems preposterous. Wow. Nowhere did say any such thing. The comparison is simply between what perception was after two weeks the past two years -- and last year it was way off. I'm saying calling any team great after two weeks is premature. Who's better between Grossman-Brady and Bears-Patriots is really irrelevant here.

Yeah, and at this time last year the Bears were going 16-0 as the greatest team ever. And in week 3 (I think) they discovered that if you had a decent fron 7, you could blitz rex to make him the worst quarterback in the league. I don't think anyone's making a similar discovery about Brady any time soon. Thank you for helping to prove my point. NFL coaches will figure weaknesses out. It's week 2 -- way, way, WAY too early to proclaim any team great. That said, even as a Colt fan, I do think the Patriots are the best team and Super Bowl favorites.

Yeah, and at this time last year the Bears were going 16-0 as the greatest team ever.

Surely, surely, Soto will be on the roster.

Honestly, who's done more than Oregon? They dominated a Michigan team that was playing for pride, obviously has talent and looked much better this week. Then, they dominated a team that nearly won on the road against a top-25 Big 12 team (albeit one that shouldn't be ranked). I'm not saying Oregon is great, but I think they've accomplished more than most and are deserving of a top-25 ranking.

He lives right here in good ole Bloomington, IN. Nice guy, bit of a math nerd (haha, big surprise).

I got some bad news for you. Lou Holtz predicted they would surprise in the Big Ten this year.. Looks like a 1-7 conference record for sure now. Want to place a wager on that? I certainly wouldn't. This coming weekend's Indiana-Illinois matchup is the biggest in recent memory. I really think the winner will be the surprise team of the Big 10 -- not that either will win the conference, of course. I think the winner could use the game to catapult itself into a surprising 5-3 or so finish. Not that either team is great, but the Big 10 is down. (However, Indiana is probably better position to surprise, as the Illini have a tougher conference schedule) I'm an IU fan, but I think Illinois wins this game. They have more talent and had IU down last year and should've won. Plus, with Lynch coaching instead of Hep, Illinois likely has an advantage there, too.

Agree. USC should just play LSU now for the national championship I think Florida and Oklahoma still have something to say about it. But yeah, I don't think there's any doubt that the top four teams are USC, LSU, Florida, and Oklahoma. I cannot fathom how one could fail to rank USC, LSU, Florida and Oklahoma the top four teams, in some order.

c'mon guys. noone doubts that the SEC is the best conference, but you're really putting perfume on a big turd of a day. Arkansas loses to a fairly ordinary Alabama squad Tennessee gets crushed by Florida Auburn loses to Mississippi state the only two teams from 16-25 that lost are SEC teams. if the pollsters find a way to vault both Alabama and Kentucky into the top 25, over several other teams that also won today, and without dropping either of the two SEC teams out, thus resulting in seven SEC teams in the top 25, it would be an absolute joke. Do you realize the irony that all SEC losses came to other SEC schools? Kentucky's win was big. Other than that, I'm not sure how today cements the fact the SEC is the best conference (which, of course, it is). The SEC lost a home game to a Big East team last week, remember.

The Big Ten is truly terrible. Loses to Duke, Florida Atlantic and Iowa State today. Ugh. Hopefully my Hoosiers (3-0 with a huge game next week against Illinois) can take advantage.

Big game for the Colts, if under the radar. It's a chance to assert their divisional dominance once again -- along with next week's game at Houston. The Titans appear to be an up-and-coming team, defeated the Colts last year (albeit on a 60-yard FG), have a great coach in Jeff Fischer who always comes up with some wrinkles for the Colts, plus an excellent rushing attack. Their defense dominated a typically strong Jacksonville rushing game last week. If the Colts defense can keep it's strong defensive play coming off last week's annihilation of the Saints, plus last year's playoff showing, they should be able to win. But, last year, the Titans gashed the Colts for like 200 yards rushing twice.

A minimum 7-8 games or you're gone with a sophomore at QB, a still somewhat (at best) iffy offensive line and another sophomore at tailback. There are high expectations and then there are unreasonable demands. In 2008 Notre Dame has near-gimme's against SD State, Stanford, North Carolina, Navy and Syracuse. If they can't win 2-3 games out of the remaining seven, then Weiss has failed -- I don't see how 7-8 wins is unreasonable at all next year. It should be expected. PS Again, I want to stress I dislike ND. I had forgotten about the beyond weak teams coming onto ND's schedule next year - though now that Butch Davis is coaching the Tarheels, I don't expect them to be pushovers after this year. 7-8 wins is definitely possible and reachable for ND next year, but because of the circumstances (extreme youth, etc) and two seasons of success, I think firing him after a dissapointing second season is overboard. I think a fifth year, with the littlest Clausen as a junior, should be a given for Weis then decide on his future. I agree Butch Davis will turn the Tar Heels around. But they've got next to nothing this year, I don't think next year is soon enough for a big turnaround. Notre Dame will be well into Weiss's strong recruiting classes. I also agree that Weiss should be given two more years. Of course, I think they'll rebound nicely next year and render that moot. Weiss is going to do very well at Notre Dame, I suspect. I don't think there will be a huge turnaround record-wise for North Carolina next year, but Davis already has had one talent heavy recruiting class and will almost certainly have a better one next year. The talent will be very young and, much like ND this year, lose a lot, but I think they'll actually give teams a fight before losing and even pull a few upsets (like I think ND could do this year if they played very many of their tough games late in the season). I think Weiss has a very good chance of turning the Irish around. My only problem with the coaching situation is why Ty deserved to be fired after just three years, but Weiss with a similar record (but granted much better recruiting classes) deserves a 10-year extension. Just like Weiss deserves two more years (at least), Ty deserved a little more time. I don't think Willingham was treated fairly, however, they did upgrade in coaching. I think there's enough difference between the jobs done that you can logically square keeping Weiss longer than Willingham. That said, I don't think there was enough difference to keep him longer and give him a monetarily huge 10-year extension. (ND will say it was to keep the NFL away, but ND was his dream job.)

A minimum 7-8 games or you're gone with a sophomore at QB, a still somewhat (at best) iffy offensive line and another sophomore at tailback. There are high expectations and then there are unreasonable demands. In 2008 Notre Dame has near-gimme's against SD State, Stanford, North Carolina, Navy and Syracuse. If they can't win 2-3 games out of the remaining seven, then Weiss has failed -- I don't see how 7-8 wins is unreasonable at all next year. It should be expected. PS Again, I want to stress I dislike ND. I had forgotten about the beyond weak teams coming onto ND's schedule next year - though now that Butch Davis is coaching the Tarheels, I don't expect them to be pushovers after this year. 7-8 wins is definitely possible and reachable for ND next year, but because of the circumstances (extreme youth, etc) and two seasons of success, I think firing him after a dissapointing second season is overboard. I think a fifth year, with the littlest Clausen as a junior, should be a given for Weis then decide on his future. I agree Butch Davis will turn the Tar Heels around. But they've got next to nothing this year, I don't think next year is soon enough for a big turnaround. Notre Dame will be well into Weiss's strong recruiting classes. I also agree that Weiss should be given two more years. Of course, I think they'll rebound nicely next year and render that moot. Weiss is going to do very well at Notre Dame, I suspect.

A minimum 7-8 games or you're gone with a sophomore at QB, a still somewhat (at best) iffy offensive line and another sophomore at tailback. There are high expectations and then there are unreasonable demands. In 2008 Notre Dame has near-gimme's against SD State, Stanford, North Carolina, Navy and Syracuse. If they can't win 2-3 games out of the remaining seven, then Weiss has failed -- I don't see how 7-8 wins is unreasonable at all next year. It should be expected. PS Again, I want to stress I dislike ND. That is true-I forgot their schedule will be easier than usual next year due to that game they had to give to SD State. He'll probably have to win 2-3 of the other 7 and not get embarrassed in no more than 2 games. Agree. The rest of the schedule includes: Michigan, at Michigan State, Purdue, at Washington (think that will be hyped?), Pitt, at BC and at USC. Honestly, they have a chance to have a good record without being terribly good. I don't mean to say that's a weak schedule; it's not at all. But, outside of USC and maybe Michigan, none of those teams are monsters. Edit: Way premature two games into this season, but I'd say that looks like 8-4 or so.

A minimum 7-8 games or you're gone with a sophomore at QB, a still somewhat (at best) iffy offensive line and another sophomore at tailback. There are high expectations and then there are unreasonable demands. In 2008 Notre Dame has near-gimme's against SD State, Stanford, North Carolina, Navy and Syracuse. If they can't win 2-3 games out of the remaining seven, then Weiss has failed -- I don't see how 7-8 wins is unreasonable at all next year. It should be expected. PS Again, I want to stress I dislike ND.

I don't like Notre Dame. They may be my least favorite college football program. However, I'm almost rooting for Weiss. I'm getting tired of people with little knowledge of the situation presuming to understand it. To me, it is comparable to the media and most non-IU fans saying that Mike Davis wasn't that bad and we were being unfair to him when he was clearly running the program into the ground. Sure, Willingham's and Weiss's records may look similar after this season, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Look at the recruiting, that's all you need to understand. *That said, I'm not necessarily saying Willingham's dismissal was fair after three years, but he wasn't doing a good job.

Link. if I were able to render legal opinions, I would say that contract provision is unenforceable. liquidated damages provisions are enforced if they reflect a reasonable approximation of damages that would be suffered upon breech. liquidated damages provisions are unenforceable if they are merely a penalty, which are never awarded in contract disputes. the award of damages certainly isn't reasonable as there is no basis upon which to conclude that LSU would suffer 1.25M in damages if Miles left Michigan. it also is an obvious penalty as this provision only applies if he leaves for Michigan and states no reason why leaving for Michigan in particular would lead to such damages. in reality, there would be a negotiated buyout, where Miles returned a lesser amount to LSU. Miles should negotiate a price somewhere around the amount that it would actually cost LSU to find a new coach. speculation about what this will cost LSU in lost revenues is just that, speculation, and will not be allowed into evidence and therefore not considered in the damages award. but I'm not allowed to render legal opinions, so Les, if you're reading, please disregard this post. if LSU's lawyer is reading this, you should be ashamed of yourself, as you know all the above to be true. If I were able to render legal opinions, I'd agree with this.