Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
He has to go 9-3 at least, and then win the bowl game, to be assured of the job. 9-3 means going 2-2 against the top teams/rivals in the big 10 and not losing any other games. That's somewhat realistic and would keep him out of the hot seat. Beating all of them and going 11-1 would certainly do it and would probably get a playoff get. But that's not realistic.
Scuzz wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:27 pmAnd I guess because they won't travel outside the south to play them.morlac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:53 amAre you serious? Or just jealous?
1. Really how many games we talking about here? The Kick off classic? So 1?
1. One of The best Venues in America for a neutral site game (Mercedes Benz)
2. Home of the College football Hall of Fame
3. Best/easiest Airport to fly into from anywhere
4. Huge convention Sporting event City so Hotels, Restaurants, etc.
5. Nice weather
6. Because they CAN but also because it just makes the most sense.
FSU didn't look that good last night. Here's Wilner's breakdown (before the FSU-VT game):Chrisoc13 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:13 pmMaybe top to bottom but the top of the acc is much better than anything the PAC has put out in a few years. Big 12... Yeah I would say worse. Regardless the bowl season left the PAC as the weakest p5 showing possibly ever and that's what counts to mind now for me. That was ugly. But it doesn't matter, the PAC will be just fine in the future.Pyperkub wrote:Actually, the ACC was far worse than the Pac12 as was the Big 12.Chrisoc13 wrote:Ooh conference fight. Awesome! This is the college football discussion we all hope for.
Sorry Apollo but you're not going to win arguing the SEC leaves it's footprint because largely... It doesn't. A few examples doesn't change that the powers that are in the conference not only play seven home games but they play their road games as close to home as possible.
And yes everyone knows the PAC is the weakest conference of the p5 right now. That's been shown on the field. At some point the fortunes may be reversed though... Success in college football can be fickle...
Kansas should be relegated to FCS...
It would be more interesting if True Home/Road/Neutral splits were included.1. SEC
Overall record: 13-1
Record vs. FCS: 6-0
Record vs. Power Five: 4-1
Best win: LSU over Miami
Worst loss: Tennessee to West Virginia
2. Big Ten
Overall record: 11-2
Record vs. FCS: 0-0
Record vs. Power Five: 3-2 (includes one conference game)
Best win: Maryland over Texas
Worst loss: Michigan to Notre Dame (no other options)
3. Pac-12
Overall record: 8-4
Record vs. FCS: 1-0
Record vs. Power Five: 1-2
Best win: Cal over North Carolina
Worst loss: Washington to Auburn (because of CFP implications)
4. Big 12
Overall record: 6-3
Record vs. FCS: 4-1
Record vs. Power Five: 1-2
Best win: West Virginia over Tennessee
Worst loss: Kansas to Nicholls
5. ACC
Overall record: 9-3
Record vs. FCS: 5-0
Record vs. Power Five: 0-3
Best win: None
Worst loss: Miami to LSU
(Note: Virginia Tech-Florida State is tonight.)
That is just a very long winded well written excuse blaming it all on losing one playerImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:52 pm Now, where was I?
The level of overreaction to this loss (at least on Twitter - I haven't really looked much elsewhere yet) is comical. I saw one tweet proclaiming that the big takeaways were that ND is a playoff contender and that Michigan is still far away. Huh? This was a seven point game at ND where Michigan actually outgained ND. Either Michigan is so good that a narrow home win against them is enough to make someone a playoff contender, or ND should be concerned that they only beat a lousy Michigan team by seven at home. Both of those being simultaneously true doesn't work logically.
Well, it's overly simplistic to blame it on just the one player, I'll admit. That said, it's a huge factor. Speight got hurt during the Iowa game (which was the first game of 9-9 streak, I believe). He still played against OSU and FSU that year, but not well (not to the standard he had been playing previously). His backup was a transfer that Michigan took out of desperation to get some QB experience, and O'Korn was a disaster. He was replaced by a freshman who was using a limited playbook. It didn't help that our best receivers were freshmen, and freshman receivers often need a year to get the hang of college (they can typically just outrun/jump high school competition, so they need to get better at route running). All of those QBs were playing behind terrible offensive lines. The offensive line is a huge problem, and one that Harbaugh needs to figure out. Unfortunately, it takes time to develop o linemen, and the guys we've got have been mostly busts. There's no quick fix there.
Lastly, I put the odds of Harbaugh getting fired at about 5%. He's probably not going to beat all the rivals (MSU and OSU are both on the road - thanks Big 10 schedulers), and he may not beat Wisconsin or PSU either. (That said, neither MSU or PSU looked particularly impressive in their openers against supposedly weak competition.) Still, Michigan is committed to Harbaugh, and there are no better alternatives on the horizon. A winless season would obviously lead to serious job security issues, but I don't think that's realistic. A scandal could also lead to a change (particularly if the scandal is paired with a sub-.500 record). Beyond that, if Harbaugh leaves it will be of his own accord.
He should have recruited better at QB and OL, had a capable backup in the pipeline, etc. That is a coaching/recruiting failure not an injury problem. Unfortunately, Speight appeared to re-injure his back in his first game at UCLA.morlac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:33 pmThat is just a very long winded well written excuse blaming it all on losing one playerImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:52 pm Now, where was I?
The level of overreaction to this loss (at least on Twitter - I haven't really looked much elsewhere yet) is comical. I saw one tweet proclaiming that the big takeaways were that ND is a playoff contender and that Michigan is still far away. Huh? This was a seven point game at ND where Michigan actually outgained ND. Either Michigan is so good that a narrow home win against them is enough to make someone a playoff contender, or ND should be concerned that they only beat a lousy Michigan team by seven at home. Both of those being simultaneously true doesn't work logically.
Well, it's overly simplistic to blame it on just the one player, I'll admit. That said, it's a huge factor. Speight got hurt during the Iowa game (which was the first game of 9-9 streak, I believe). He still played against OSU and FSU that year, but not well (not to the standard he had been playing previously). His backup was a transfer that Michigan took out of desperation to get some QB experience, and O'Korn was a disaster. He was replaced by a freshman who was using a limited playbook. It didn't help that our best receivers were freshmen, and freshman receivers often need a year to get the hang of college (they can typically just outrun/jump high school competition, so they need to get better at route running). All of those QBs were playing behind terrible offensive lines. The offensive line is a huge problem, and one that Harbaugh needs to figure out. Unfortunately, it takes time to develop o linemen, and the guys we've got have been mostly busts. There's no quick fix there.
Lastly, I put the odds of Harbaugh getting fired at about 5%. He's probably not going to beat all the rivals (MSU and OSU are both on the road - thanks Big 10 schedulers), and he may not beat Wisconsin or PSU either. (That said, neither MSU or PSU looked particularly impressive in their openers against supposedly weak competition.) Still, Michigan is committed to Harbaugh, and there are no better alternatives on the horizon. A winless season would obviously lead to serious job security issues, but I don't think that's realistic. A scandal could also lead to a change (particularly if the scandal is paired with a sub-.500 record). Beyond that, if Harbaugh leaves it will be of his own accord.
I do think patience is the best bet for Michigan to get outta the rut but patience and boosters don't go well together. If he goes 0-4 on the remaining big games I can't see them keeping him as that would be 4 years in a row going the wrong direction for the program and as you point out it's all about bad recruiting.
I agree with Apollo, he's in the NFL next year.
Our offense really sputtered out after he left and we put in the True Frosh - who did put up some yards, but mostly in garbage time at the end of each half.The starting quarterback watched, but didn’t participate in drills during the open viewing period of Monday’s practice after suffering a back injury during the second quarter of Saturday’s loss to Cincinnati. UCLA head coach Chip Kelly said the injury is “nothing serious.”
Kelly categorized Speight as “day-to-day” as the Bruins started preparation for this Saturday’s game at No. 7 Oklahoma, where the 23-year-old’s experience could go a long way in helping the young team navigate the difficulties of a road game against a top-10 opponent.
Kelly said Speight will be monitored through the week by the training staff. He rode the stationary bike while the rest of the team was warming and stretching Monday, then stood near the quarterbacks while they went through their throwing drills.
Thanks for the compliment that it was well written, but either it actually wasn't well written or you missed the point. I said that the QB injury was a big part of it, but it was also line and youth at receivers. I specifically noted that Harbaugh needed to fix the OL problem. And to say it was "not an injury problem" is absurd. Of course it was (in part) an injury problem, and to ignore that just because you want to put 100% of the blame on Harbaugh is obstinate.morlac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:33 pmThat is just a very long winded well written excuse blaming it all on losing one playerImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:52 pm Now, where was I?
The level of overreaction to this loss (at least on Twitter - I haven't really looked much elsewhere yet) is comical. I saw one tweet proclaiming that the big takeaways were that ND is a playoff contender and that Michigan is still far away. Huh? This was a seven point game at ND where Michigan actually outgained ND. Either Michigan is so good that a narrow home win against them is enough to make someone a playoff contender, or ND should be concerned that they only beat a lousy Michigan team by seven at home. Both of those being simultaneously true doesn't work logically.
Well, it's overly simplistic to blame it on just the one player, I'll admit. That said, it's a huge factor. Speight got hurt during the Iowa game (which was the first game of 9-9 streak, I believe). He still played against OSU and FSU that year, but not well (not to the standard he had been playing previously). His backup was a transfer that Michigan took out of desperation to get some QB experience, and O'Korn was a disaster. He was replaced by a freshman who was using a limited playbook. It didn't help that our best receivers were freshmen, and freshman receivers often need a year to get the hang of college (they can typically just outrun/jump high school competition, so they need to get better at route running). All of those QBs were playing behind terrible offensive lines. The offensive line is a huge problem, and one that Harbaugh needs to figure out. Unfortunately, it takes time to develop o linemen, and the guys we've got have been mostly busts. There's no quick fix there.
Lastly, I put the odds of Harbaugh getting fired at about 5%. He's probably not going to beat all the rivals (MSU and OSU are both on the road - thanks Big 10 schedulers), and he may not beat Wisconsin or PSU either. (That said, neither MSU or PSU looked particularly impressive in their openers against supposedly weak competition.) Still, Michigan is committed to Harbaugh, and there are no better alternatives on the horizon. A winless season would obviously lead to serious job security issues, but I don't think that's realistic. A scandal could also lead to a change (particularly if the scandal is paired with a sub-.500 record). Beyond that, if Harbaugh leaves it will be of his own accord.
The boosters are fine. I'll put it out here now - if Harbaugh goes 0-4 in the remaining big games, he'll still be the head coach at Michigan next year (unless he jumps ship voluntarily). Save that one for posterity and quote it back at me if my prediction is wrong.morlac wrote:I do think patience is the best bet for Michigan to get outta the rut but patience and boosters don't go well together. If he goes 0-4 on the remaining big games I can't see them keeping him as that would be 4 years in a row going the wrong direction for the program and as you point out it's all about bad recruiting.
That's a possibility, but I'd be disappointed in him if he left the program no better than when he came here. I think he really wants to be a success at Michigan and build a legacy there, so I'd be surprised if he cut and run because things weren't going well.morlac wrote:I agree with Apollo, he's in the NFL next year.
If they go 7-5 he's going to be on the bubble. He may not get fired but he'll definitely be on notice. When you're that close to .500, "quality losses" are kind of irrelevant.ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:58 pm
The boosters are fine. I'll put it out here now - if Harbaugh goes 0-4 in the remaining big games, he'll still be the head coach at Michigan next year (unless he jumps ship voluntarily). Save that one for posterity and quote it back at me if my prediction is wrong.
You're wrong. There is a roster limit (for quality (i.e., scholarship) players, anyway). And you fail to understand that you need to be able to build QB depth. It is not possible to come into a situation where you have one passable (heh) QB option and immediately have quality QB depth. He's been recruiting QB options and trying to fill the development gap with transfers. He had one bad season (of his three so far) with that strategy. He's had three full recruiting cycles, so his oldest recruited QB is a redshirt sophomore (and was a redshirt freshman when he played last year). Maybe in a fantasy world Harbaugh should have brought a stable of game ready QBs with him, but in the real world, he's doing fine on that front. It just takes time.morlac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:07 pm This is not the NFL where you have a fixed salary cap and roster limit. Lack of Depth, bad recruiting and poor development is absolutely a recruiting/coaching problem. Id even be willing to say it is 100% a Head coaching problem. You should recruit enough talent to overcome a single injury at any position.Here's your breakdown on the issues:
1. QB depth
2. poor recruiting of quality oline man
3. poor development of recruited players
I mean, if you're doing a Skip Bayless or Stephen A. Smith level of Hot Taek, sure. In reality, he's a botched punt snap away from being 2-1 vs. MSU and one inch away from being 1-2 against OSU. Small sample sizes tend to be overstated in football given the short schedules, but it's hardly indicative of a coaching failure. That's if you care to look beyond the surface.morlac wrote:Let's add the rest:
1. Can't beat a rival
2. 9-9 in last 18 games
Let's see how the rest of the year shakes out but an ugly pattern is forming.
That's painfully true but if you give a program 1 mulligan and 1 inch, I bet most of them could come up with 2 wins over the course of 3 years.
Sure, but that doesn't change that the "can't beat the rivals" argument is a bit lazy.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:51 pmThat's painfully true but if you give a program 1 mulligan and 1 inch, I bet most of them could come up with 2 wins over the course of 3 years.
Your right, there is technically a limit but 85 players should allow for a little more dept, no?ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:31 pmYou're wrong. There is a roster limit (for quality (i.e., scholarship) players, anyway). And you fail to understand that you need to be able to build QB depth. It is not possible to come into a situation where you have one passable (heh) QB option and immediately have quality QB depth. He's been recruiting QB options and trying to fill the development gap with transfers. He had one bad season (of his three so far) with that strategy. He's had three full recruiting cycles, so his oldest recruited QB is a redshirt sophomore (and was a redshirt freshman when he played last year). Maybe in a fantasy world Harbaugh should have brought a stable of game ready QBs with him, but in the real world, he's doing fine on that front. It just takes time.morlac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:07 pm This is not the NFL where you have a fixed salary cap and roster limit. Lack of Depth, bad recruiting and poor development is absolutely a recruiting/coaching problem. Id even be willing to say it is 100% a Head coaching problem. You should recruit enough talent to overcome a single injury at any position.Here's your breakdown on the issues:
1. QB depth
2. poor recruiting of quality oline man
3. poor development of recruited players
I mean, if you're doing a Skip Bayless or Stephen A. Smith level of Hot Taek, sure. In reality, he's a botched punt snap away from being 2-1 vs. MSU and one inch away from being 1-2 against OSU. Small sample sizes tend to be overstated in football given the short schedules, but it's hardly indicative of a coaching failure. That's if you care to look beyond the surface.morlac wrote:Let's add the rest:
1. Can't beat a rival
2. 9-9 in last 18 games
Let's see how the rest of the year shakes out but an ugly pattern is forming.
No it doesn't. Unless we are now counting "close losses" as wins? Between this and the lazy injury excuse I just don't get it.ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:54 pmSure, but that doesn't change that the "can't beat the rivals" argument is a bit lazy.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:51 pmThat's painfully true but if you give a program 1 mulligan and 1 inch, I bet most of them could come up with 2 wins over the course of 3 years.
And it's being built. He had one (1) even remotely playable QB when he took the job.
Did any of those teams you're talking about have functional offensive lines? (You don't need to answer. I already know the answer.) You can start a freshman or sophomore QB when you have sound line play, but it's hard to do that when the QB is scrambling for his life right away. If Michigan had the line play of Alabama or Georgia, the QB situation would not be an issue. Michigan probably wouldn't have even gone after Patterson. (It's still hard for veteran QB to do it with a sub-par line, but Speight was mostly getting the job done before he got injured.)morlac wrote:You fail to understand college recruiting and keep making excuses for poor coaching. I just watched a National championship game with 2 true freshman Qb's dueling it out. Georgia's lead their team the entire season after replacing a returning true Sophomore QB (who started the year before as a true freshman and won 8 games). This year He had to battle and hold off another true Freshman QB who will play this year as well. That is three True Freshman Qbs recruited in a row who either successfully did or could start in the SEC. Your telling me it is ok that in 3 years he hasn't been able to groom a quality backup QB? As a fan, you are ok with that?
I trust that you're joking and that you understand football better than that. That said, there's an argument to be made (and I've made it before) that Harbaugh turtles the offense with a close lead in the second half and allows the opposition to stay in it. He did that against Iowa a couple of years ago, and he did that in the spot game against OSU.morlac wrote:"In reality, he's a botched punt snap away from being 2-1 vs. MSU and one inch away from being 1-2 against OSU."
Oh wait, never mind. Good point though let me fix my list:
1. Can't beat a rival
2. 9-9 in last 18 games
3. Can't win the close game
It's lazy because it ignores the context of the losses and how they occurred. They're still losses, but losing by a point is different from losing by 55 when you're analyzing the job that the coaching staff did.morlac wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:45 pmNo it doesn't. Unless we are now counting "close losses" as wins? Between this and the lazy injury excuse I just don't get it.ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:54 pmSure, but that doesn't change that the "can't beat the rivals" argument is a bit lazy.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:51 pmThat's painfully true but if you give a program 1 mulligan and 1 inch, I bet most of them could come up with 2 wins over the course of 3 years.
Harbaugh is definitely a very old school offensive mind (big on fullbacks and blocking tight ends), but he's also been able to adapt previously. He went to the Super Bowl with Kaepernick, after all. I'm hoping that we'll see Harbaugh taking more advantage of Patterson's athleticism as we go on.
Great point here. UGA had a medicore line 3 years ago that progressively got to great last year. It was more about great RBs up until alst year where at all came together. They were still not top notch pass blockers. However, this is huge point.Did any of those teams you're talking about have functional offensive lines? (You don't need to answer. I already know the answer.) You can start a freshman or sophomore QB when you have sound line play, but it's hard to do that when the QB is scrambling for his life right away. If Michigan had the line play of Alabama or Georgia, the QB situation would not be an issue. Michigan probably wouldn't have even gone after Patterson. (It's still hard for veteran QB to do it with a sub-par line, but Speight was mostly getting the job done before he got injured.)
I was, but as you say there is some validity to this the last couple of years. He needs to know when to put teams away. That's bad coaching.I trust that you're joking and that you understand football better than that. That said, there's an argument to be made (and I've made it before) that Harbaugh turtles the offense with a close lead in the second half and allows the opposition to stay in it. He did that against Iowa a couple of years ago, and he did that in the spot game against OSU.
I read it but :And did you just ignore all the stuff I wrote about the injury, stressing numerous times that it was just a factor - an important factor, to be sure, but not the only factor? Because if not, re-read what I wrote. If you still think it's lazy, then you and I should stop talking football, because we're not even speaking the same language.
Sure. Healthy back and forth. Appropriate amount of snark for a sports argument. Good stuff.
Eh. Bad coaching is a bit of an overstatement. There's a reasonable argument that going conservative on offense is the right play (less risk of turnovers that allows the losing team back in the game, wind the clock to shorten the game). The key is getting the balance right. I think that Harbaugh sometimes goes too conservative, but I wouldn't say that makes him a bad coach. Just uses a strategy that I disagree with. So it's sub-optimal from my view, but not necessarily bad, if that makes sense. I mean, it's fully possible that Michigan goes on to lose those games if it keeps the pedal down and then folks are complaining that Harbaugh's a bad coach because he doesn't know how to properly end the game. Hindsight is 20/20.morlac wrote:I was, but as you say there is some validity to this the last couple of years. He needs to know when to put teams away. That's bad coaching.
This is BS for a few reasons. First, the strict application of this rule prevents honest analysis of the impact of an injury or injuries. Second, other teams also having injuries that impact their chances of winning or losing takes nothing away from this. Third, while it's arguably lazy if someone says, "My team is the best and would have won it all if not for an injury," that's not what's happening here. I'm talking about the very real impact that a certain injury had on Michigan and putting that injury into further context by discussing why that particular injury had an outsized impact given Michigan's particular situation.morlac wrote:The rest we are way off and why this talk probably can't continue.
There are two things you never do in football (coaching and playing)
1. Blame losing on an injury.
---It's a lazy excuse because it doesn't take into context the other teams' injuries in each game. If you are willing to dig that up and we can do a factual comparison of each team's injuries and their importance to victory than it is just an excuse. I'd be willing to bet they played a team or two along the way with some injuries of their own. May have even had a few critical starters in there. I'm not willing to research it though, because im lazy.
--I would concede points here if you can show me there were numerous long lasting injuries at multiple spots. For an 85 man roster and only 1 injury? nope.
Good thing I'm not doing that. I'm just pointing out that the narrative is very different if two plays went a different way. That's not the same as blaming the loss on those plays. It's just showing how two plays, both of which had very little (if any) coaching input, would have completely obviated the "can't beat the rivals" argument.morlac wrote:2. Blame one play on a loss (aka the "if only")
---It's a lazy excuse because it doesn't take into context the fact there are 59.5 minutes of other football that could have been played better to negate it coming down to one play. I get it. It sucks losing close games (I'm from Atlanta so well aware) but you just can't do it.
Convenient how in that last quoted phrase you omitted the "- an important factor, to be sure" part. So you're quibbling because at one point I said it was "huge" and at another point I only said it was "important", but in all cases I said it wasn't the only factor? OK.morlac wrote: Edit to add:
I read it but :And did you just ignore all the stuff I wrote about the injury, stressing numerous times that it was just a factor - an important factor, to be sure, but not the only factor? Because if not, re-read what I wrote. If you still think it's lazy, then you and I should stop talking football, because we're not even speaking the same language.
"Well, it's overly simplistic to blame it on just the one player, I'll admit. That said, it's a huge factor."
---at that point you were still blaming a loss on an injury. Since than it's gone to "stressing numerous times that it was just a factor".
Well, fans do it all the time.morlac wrote:1st I am enjoying this conversation!
Great point here. UGA had a medicore line 3 years ago that progressively got to great last year. It was more about great RBs up until alst year where at all came together. They were still not top notch pass blockers. However, this is huge point.Did any of those teams you're talking about have functional offensive lines? (You don't need to answer. I already know the answer.) You can start a freshman or sophomore QB when you have sound line play, but it's hard to do that when the QB is scrambling for his life right away. If Michigan had the line play of Alabama or Georgia, the QB situation would not be an issue. Michigan probably wouldn't have even gone after Patterson. (It's still hard for veteran QB to do it with a sub-par line, but Speight was mostly getting the job done before he got injured.)I was, but as you say there is some validity to this the last couple of years. He needs to know when to put teams away. That's bad coaching.I trust that you're joking and that you understand football better than that. That said, there's an argument to be made (and I've made it before) that Harbaugh turtles the offense with a close lead in the second half and allows the opposition to stay in it. He did that against Iowa a couple of years ago, and he did that in the spot game against OSU.
The rest we are way off and why this talk probably can't continue.
There are two things you never do in football (coaching and playing)
1. Blame losing on an injury.
---It's a lazy excuse because it doesn't take into context the other teams' injuries in each game. If you are willing to dig that up and we can do a factual comparison of each team's injuries and their importance to victory than it is just an excuse. I'd be willing to bet they played a team or two along the way with some injuries of their own. May have even had a few critical starters in there. I'm not willing to research it though, because im lazy.
--I would concede points here if you can show me there were numerous long lasting injuries at multiple spots. For an 85 man roster and only 1 injury? nope.
2. Blame one play on a loss (aka the "if only")
---It's a lazy excuse because it doesn't take into context the fact there are 59.5 minutes of other football that could have been played better to negate it coming down to one play. I get it. It sucks losing close games (I'm from Atlanta so well aware) but you just can't do it.
Edit to add:
I read it but :And did you just ignore all the stuff I wrote about the injury, stressing numerous times that it was just a factor - an important factor, to be sure, but not the only factor? Because if not, re-read what I wrote. If you still think it's lazy, then you and I should stop talking football, because we're not even speaking the same language.
"Well, it's overly simplistic to blame it on just the one player, I'll admit. That said, it's a huge factor."
---at that point you were still blaming a loss on an injury. Since than it's gone to "stressing numerous times that it was just a factor".
But Arizona today makes BYU's showing last week make so much more sense...Skinypupy wrote:Boy, that’s a nother strong showing by the P12 South this morning. UCLA getting destroyed by Oklahoma (expected), and Arizona absolutely getting curb-stomped by Houston. I heard lots of pre-season talk about AZ being a dark horse contender. Yeah...not so much.
But hey, at least they’re not Purdue. Ouch.
UCLA is getting there. The problem is that offensive line still sucks.Skinypupy wrote:Boy, that’s a nother strong showing by the P12 South this morning. UCLA getting destroyed by Oklahoma (expected), and Arizona absolutely getting curb-stomped by Houston. I heard lots of pre-season talk about AZ being a dark horse contender. Yeah...not so much.
But hey, at least they’re not Purdue. Ouch.
That was a fantastic game. Huge props to the Buffs, that’s a great win.
Football can’t upset the corporate masters, unless it’s undeniable.McNutt wrote:Texas A&M just got hosed on a touchback call. A&M was down 28-20 against Clemson with 2:00 minutes left in the game. A&M player stretches for the pylons and has the ball knocked out of his hands. It was called fumble and touchback, but to me the replay looked like the ball went out way before the pylon. Call was upheld.
I'm putting it at wide open (except for Arizona). Both USC and UCLA are going through growing pains replacing 1st round QBs with freshmen.Skinypupy wrote:Is ASU legit? Or was Mich St just wildly overrated? Probably a little of both, but I’m leaning toward ASU being legit. It was easy to laugh at Herm Edwards’ press conferences, but I think that’s a solid team.
Forget USC, Utah, and AZ. After the first couple weeks, I’d put the P12 South race as a dead heat between ASU and Colorado. Who’da thunk?
I don't know much about ASU this year, but they've got some serious juju over the Big 10. They're now 10-0 at home against the Big 10. Part of it is that whole cross-country travel time-zone thing that eastern teams face when playing on the west coast (which is of course reversed when west coast teams play in the eastern time zone), but it's crazy. With respect to MSU, I have a feeling that they weren't as bad as their 3-9 record two years ago, and they weren't as good as their record last year. That means they're probably still a bit overrated this year (although this loss might correct that rating).
