CuseCubFan69

Pat White in his freshman year was about as bad passing-wise as Mustain was this year, and you can't tell me that Arkansas doesn't play better defenses than West Virginia does. We aren't talking about last year. We're talking about this year. This year White was a far better than Mustain and Dick, who you conveniently left off and is a sophomore and attempted just as many passes as Mustain did. This year, White had a far higher completion percentage, yards per attempt, more touchdowns, fewer picks and a way higher QB rating. Even if we were looking at each's freshman year, White as a freshman was better than Mustain. White had a higher completion percentage, more yards per attempt and a higher QB rating. Arkansas played 14 games, 6 of them against teams in the top 20. West Virginia played 13 games, 2 of them against teams in the top 25(and Louisville isn't exactly known for it's defense). There's clearly a strength of schedule component to consider with the difference in the quality of the two teams' opponents. Again, since the SEC has 12 teams and they do not play anyone out of conference this "top 25" thing is built on nothing. Read what I wrote about non-conference schedule, the top 3 SEC teams played 1 Bowl team...1. If Pitt, Cincy and SFlorida played AA teams out of conference they could have gone undefeated too and had a shot at being in the top 25. How did Arkansas do against USC? There is a reason these teams don't play anyone. They played USC(dominated a BCS bowl) out of conference, then Florida, LSU(dominated a BCS bowl), Tennessee(lost a close bowl game against a similar B10 team), Auburn(won a close bowl game against a similar B12 team), and Wisconsin(who beat Arkansas in a close bowl game). This is a tired argument, you're wrong. And Pitt, Cincy, and South Florida are not on the same plane as Auburn or Tennessee, not even if they played a joke non-conference schedule(oh wait, Pitt and USF already did). Even attempting to make this argument makes you appear like you can't be rational about the Big East. You have to read the content of what was written. You don't seem to be rational, listen...you mentioned top 25. OK, I'll write it again, Top 25. If Pitt....SFlorida.....Cincy play crappy AA teams they would undefeated and be in the Top 25 like Missouri was and the statement was that a SEC team played 6 bowl teams (ALL WITHIN IT'S OWN CONFERENCE). That was the rational. We are not talking about the bowl games at this point as I was talking about the regular season.

A Scott Mitchell with a lot of money.

Pat White in his freshman year was about as bad passing-wise as Mustain was this year, and you can't tell me that Arkansas doesn't play better defenses than West Virginia does. We aren't talking about last year. We're talking about this year. This year White was a far better than Mustain and Dick, who you conveniently left off and is a sophomore and attempted just as many passes as Mustain did. This year, White had a far higher completion percentage, yards per attempt, more touchdowns, fewer picks and a way higher QB rating. Even if we were looking at each's freshman year, White as a freshman was better than Mustain. White had a higher completion percentage, more yards per attempt and a higher QB rating. Arkansas played 14 games, 6 of them against teams in the top 20. West Virginia played 13 games, 2 of them against teams in the top 25(and Louisville isn't exactly known for it's defense). There's clearly a strength of schedule component to consider with the difference in the quality of the two teams' opponents. Again, since the SEC has 12 teams and they do not play anyone out of conference this "top 25" thing is built on nothing. Read what I wrote about non-conference schedule, the top 3 SEC teams played 1 Bowl team...1. If Pitt, Cincy and SFlorida played AA teams out of conference they could have gone undefeated too and had a shot at being in the top 25. How did Arkansas do against USC? There is a reason these teams don't play anyone.

This is why I want a playoff. The good ole boys vote and things just remain the same. I want the games decided on the field and not by voters and until it is this is what is going to happen time and time again, polls like this. Of course if there is a playoff I'm sure the people in charge would only let one Big East team in. SFlorida finished ahead of Cincy but please don't let facts get in the way. Assume away.

This is why I want a playoff. The good ole boys vote and things just remain the same. I want the games decided on the field and not by voters and until it is this is what is going to happen time and time again, polls like this. Of course if there is a playoff I'm sure the people in charge would only let one Big East team in. SFlorida finished ahead of Cincy but please don't let facts get in the way. Assume away.

I thought the Big East was. Now you're talking!

So far it's a vance kind of week.

Under/over bets?

Exactly what job was this? Please don't tell me he was going to start... http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070105rogers,1,1154597.column?page=2&coll=cs-home-utility Buried in the column: If Drew doesn't get signed by the Red Sox I seriously hope the Cubs make a play for him. They can trade JJ to the Red Sox. If they get Drew I will be very optimistic about 2007. I'm curious as to why? Drew completely changes the dynamics of this team. He hits lefthanded, can play CF and will put up at least .850 OPS in the middle of the order. He would easily make the Cubs offense the best in the NL, at least on paper. Next year they could trade Murton to make room for Pie, if he's ready, and slide Soriano to LF. Sorry, I meant why is Boston delaying this?

Don't they usually play a very easy non conference schedule?

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better. Well only 5 of the 6 eligible Big East teams were selected. But my statement wasn't as much saying the Big East deserves more team rather that there are way too many Bowl games. This is a more important stat IMO: # of teams each conference had in bowl games Jan 1 or later (excluding the crap games today and tomorrow): ACC: 2 Big 12: 2 Big East: 2 Big Ten: 4 Pac-10: 1 SEC: 5 Out of nine games, the SEC had teams in 5 of them. Exclude the three other BCS bowls that the SEC couldn't put teams into, and that's 5 out of 6 games. And that's crap. What day did the Pac-10's #2 and #3 teams play? December 28 and 29th. They also played games on the 21st, 24th, and 27th. When did the first SEC team play? December 28th. How about the first Big 10 team? December 29th. It's crap. I'm not going to lie, my beef here has to do with the Pac-10 and while Cuse's attacks the "good old boys" network in defense of the Big East, mine are in defense of the Pac-10. Cuse may not be right in everything he's saying but he's spot in in his assessment of the SEC and the Big 10. Well the Pac 10 is an offensive league (theory) and that's why they don't get respect and they have been left out for years. One is ok but more than 1 is something they don't allow. What are the Rose Bowl stats between the PAC10 and Big 10 win wise? There have been a ton of Rose Bowls played so I don't know. Plus, in 3 of the last 6 years it hasn't featured a matchup of Big 10-Pac 10. The Big 10 hasn't won a Rose Bowl since Jan 1, 2000. EDIT: And just because they're "an offensive league and that's why they don't get respect and they have been left out for years" doesn't make it right. I agree but there's always this perception of assumptions what a good team is.

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better. Well only 5 of the 6 eligible Big East teams were selected. But my statement wasn't as much saying the Big East deserves more team rather that there are way too many Bowl games. This is a more important stat IMO: # of teams each conference had in bowl games Jan 1 or later (excluding the crap games today and tomorrow): ACC: 2 Big 12: 2 Big East: 2 Big Ten: 4 Pac-10: 1 SEC: 5 Out of nine games, the SEC had teams in 5 of them. Exclude the three other BCS bowls that the SEC couldn't put teams into, and that's 5 out of 6 games. And that's crap. What day did the Pac-10's #2 and #3 teams play? December 28 and 29th. They also played games on the 21st, 24th, and 27th. When did the first SEC team play? December 28th. How about the first Big 10 team? December 29th. It's crap. I'm not going to lie, my beef here has to do with the Pac-10 and while Cuse's attacks the "good old boys" network in defense of the Big East, mine are in defense of the Pac-10. Cuse may not be right in everything he's saying but he's spot in in his assessment of the SEC and the Big 10. Well the Pac 10 is an offensive league (theory) and that's why they don't get respect and they have been left out for years. One is ok but more than 1 is something they don't allow. What are the Rose Bowl stats between the PAC10 and Big 10 win wise?

It's better to have won ugly than to have never won at all!

This doesn't make any sense. They lost 3 games (and maybe 4) because they had some tough matchups. Arkansas played a top 10 Wisconsin team. Alabama was mediocre and played a similarly mediocre Okie State team. You also had the SEC showing its depth by teams like Kentucky and Georgia pulling off upsets against favored opponents. Well one game is in the national championship game, so it's completely absurd that you're even including that one. As for the other two, you get the second or third best team in each conference to play each other in the Capitol One Bowl, making it the best non-BCS bowl out there, and sometimes better than the BCS bowls. Then the next team in line from each conference plays in the Outback Bowl, and that's usually a very good game as well. But to further answer your question, it's because you get two very good, high-profile teams from deep conferences to play in a bowl game, and that's good for ratings, and I'd argue that it's good for college football in general. Games like Arkansas-Wisconsin are definitely worth watching. I know you're all proud of your Big East, but let's not forget that two years ago they were getting completely embarassed by a Mountain West school in a BCS game. So let's have the Big East teams earn their stripes before we just automatically start assuming that they can hang depth-wise and talent-wise with the traditional power conferences. If Rutgers, WVU and Louisville all stay good and Pitt/Cincy/USF keep emerging, then I'm sure the Big East will get better, higher-profile bowl games. But to think that an 8-team conference that just lost three of its most prestigious members will receive the same treatment as well-established power conferences is idiotic. Isn't the Big East part of the BCS series? If so, I don't see what there is to gripe about. If a MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West or WAC (is that still a conference?) school goes undefeated they don't even get a shot. See that's the problem. They get a bite of the cookie so that should be good enough while the real conferences get the rest of the bag. It should be equal and the Big East has proved it is at least on equal terms but yet we get, hey they have a chance to have one team go they should be happy. No, they deserved at least this year to have 2 teams in the BCS and for Louisville to be mentioned for the Championship game. That's the thing that bugs me, they NEVER get mentioned to play in that game. Again, hey, they get to make the top 5 isn't that good enough? (I'm not saying you say this but this is the typical line of thinking). Louisville has one loss just like Michigan and Florida but never are they even mentioned as a team that could play in the big game. Think of it like this. USC is undefeated and are the only team that is undefeated. You are Ohio State and have 1 loss along with ND. ND goes to the big game, how do you feel about that? Are you happy with a hey, at least you made the top 5 and end up behind a 2 loss LSU team that didn't even win it's conference. Michigan fans at least were #3 but look how upset they were when a 1 loss team got the nod over them. This is my main beef, Louisville got not one chance...not one and they came out of a very good conference this year. The easy brushoff without thought is what upsets me. The assumption that the "big conference" teams have to lose twice while the Big East has to go undefeated is my point....undefeated like the MAC or WAC even though we ARE part of the BCS so a 1 loss Big East team should get the same treatment as a 1 loss SEC, Big 10 or 12 team. They don't.

same percentage (75%) of Big East teams were .500 or better. Pitt was eligible for a bowl but for some reason didn't get to go. I'm sure it wasn't because of the bowl system. See, you get a 6 win SEC, Big 10 or 12 team and they go bowling but you get a 6 win Big East team and they stay home.

That's my point. I'm sure if Rutgers, USF and WVU were SEC schools, Cuse would be hammering them for playing garbage OOC schedules. But I guess because they're in the Big East it's somehow okay for them not to play anyone. Then what makes the SEC teams better than? The 5-3 record in the Bowl games? I concede that the Big East teams play some easy teams but they also play major BCS conference teams too. Name one team that Auburn played that went to a bowl out of conference 0, Florida 1....LSU 0? Louisville played 3. WV played 2. Rutgers 1. Where did the SEC prove it was better? I'm not impressed by those wins.... East Carolina, Navy, Kansas State, Middle Tennessee State? Big deal. Those are unranked teams, maybe rating around #50-60 in the nation. If you're a true top 15 team, you shouldn't have any difficulty beating mediocre squads like that. Most SEC teams play at least 6 bowl teams in conference, which sure as hell isn't the case for Big East teams. Add Miami, Maryland and Kentucky. Top 3 SEC teams a 7-6 Florida St. That's it. This isn't homerism, it's a fact. So it's ok that the SEC doesn't play any BCS teams out of conference and then go 4-0 against AA teams? All they have to do is win 2 games in conference to go to a bowl. What determines they are the elite conference? They went 5-3 in bowls, that's good but not elite. They are good I agree but not the best and not the deepest. Among, yes but not hands down let's assume they are always the best conference. That's my point, they just don't play anyone to get a read on how good they are. Why didn't Auburn go to the BCS Championship that one year even though they went undefeated? They didn't play anyone out of conference that was even decent. If they just played 2 BCS conference teams out of conference then fine. They never do, except for Tennessee (out of the top teams).

That was way too easy. Now it's time for Manning and company to get a score.

Why should the defense get credit for Trent Green being aweful. I still credit the defense for that. Are there times Gren could have executed better, yes. But, when the defense is playing this well it effects a lot of things an offense can do.

I don't understand why the defenses don't get credit for this game? If it was 45-41 everyone would be saying it was a great game even though the defenses stink but when the defense dictates a game it's a horrible game.

Exactly what job was this? Please don't tell me he was going to start... http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070105rogers,1,1154597.column?page=2&coll=cs-home-utility Buried in the column: If Drew doesn't get signed by the Red Sox I seriously hope the Cubs make a play for him. They can trade JJ to the Red Sox. If they get Drew I will be very optimistic about 2007. I'm curious as to why?

Ty Law must have went to Florida because he is in Mannings head.

I'd like to see just the two of them on tape and see what happens during games like this. I do think the key is to put pressure on Manning.

That's my point. I'm sure if Rutgers, USF and WVU were SEC schools, Cuse would be hammering them for playing garbage OOC schedules. But I guess because they're in the Big East it's somehow okay for them not to play anyone. Then what makes the SEC teams better than? The 5-3 record in the Bowl games? I concede that the Big East teams play some easy teams but they also play major BCS conference teams too. Name one team that Auburn played that went to a bowl out of conference 0, Florida 1....LSU 0? Louisville played 3. WV played 2. Rutgers 1. Where did the SEC prove it was better?

OK, well the fact is that they beat the top two teams from the worst major conference in CFB, the 7th best Big XII team, the 4th or 5th best Conference USA team, and the 3rd best MAC team. Pardon me for not crapping my pants in amazement at that brutal Rutgers got screwed, no doubt. But games against the #1 and #2 ACC schools are usually going to yield really good matchups. And in previous years, the Big East has hardly been dominating its bowl games, so I can't say it's completely unfair that the current Big East teams have to prove themselves before getting matchups against similarly-seeded schools from the Big Ten or SEC. I mean, would Rutgers or USF really have belonged on the same field as Wisconsin, Auburn or Florida last year? No, they couldn't even beat mediocre Arizona State and NC State. Truffle the point is, no matter what the Big East does, they will not get the same opportunity as the "football" conferences. The past is the past and you have to look at the 2006 season. The BE has 3 undefeated teams late in the year. If this happened in one of the "elite" conferences ESPN would never let us hear the end of it....ever. My lord, the Ohio St vs Michigan was the second coming for christs sake. I heard broadcasters say this was the best game ever. Best game ever! "Game for the ages" They must have watched a different game than I did because OSU had that game in the bag and Michigan goes within 4 at the end. It was a good game but that's all. Also, for 4 or 5 years in a row the Big East had one of if not thee best bowl records in college football before Miami and company left leaving a hole. I too was worried and I don't deny that. But, this hole has been covered earlier than many expected and I saw how young these teams were last year and commented that they were going to be strong, how strong I didn't know but good. Last year is last year and if you go by last year why did WV not go to the BCS since they beat the SEC champ last year? I admit they were flaky on D but their offense is incredible. 2 loss LSU goes to the BCS while WV goes to the Liberty. I do not deny that the SEC and Big 10 are strong conferences but my reference of the perception of the Big 10 and SEC being spoiled is true. They hold almost all the cards as does the Big 12. Lets go back to January 1987. Penn State is playing Miami. Who had Penn State winning? You assume that Miami is going to win but you play the game on the field and what happens, Penn State wins. This happens all the time. But, the Big East team that has the same record as any....and I mean any....SEC, Big 10 or Big 12 team and they will be going to the lesser bowl. Let me add that to go 5-0 shows depth. The Mel Kippers of the world always say how much depth the SEC has. They went 5-3. If they are that good they shouldn't have lost 3 games but they somehow managed to do so. Don't you find it strange that the SEC and Big 10 play each other 3 times? Why is that? Gotta keep it in the family.

It doesnt matter how bad your defense is if you know exactly what the opposing team is going to do its not too hard to stop them. The Chiefs are really making it easy for them. They need to do some more play action and more passes on 1st and 2nd down. I disagree. You still have to execute.