Subject: College Football
Date: Mon Jan 5 10:55:18 2015
User: Snowguy
Message:By the way, Palko was a local guy and a top high school QB. (2001 Pennsylvania Big School Player of the Year, and a member of the USA Today All-America Team.) His dad was his football coach, and he may have gained far too much influence with the Pitt coaching staff, especially Wannstedt. I have no idea how the two QB's compared at that stage of their development, but clearly Flacco's upside was much higher, but Palko's career at Pitt was very successful. In the Pitt record books, he stood, and maybe stands, in the top 2 or 3 in several categories. (Only trailed Marino by a handful of yards.) So, how did they compare at that stage of their careers? Can't even hazard a guess.
Date: Tue Jan 6 14:01:11 2015
User: BuzzClik
Message:So ... it ends up that the overnight market shares for the Ohio State/Alabama and Oregon/Florida State games set records for non-championship events.
This year's playoff has tripled to payouts to the conferences compared to last year.
Look forward to a bigger field in the near future.
cha-ching
Date: Thu Jan 8 11:14:57 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:Interesting tidbits about the bowl situation:
1. ESPN Events, a subsidiary of ESPN, "owns" and operates 11(!) of this season's bowl games, including both of the new ones.
2. All but 1 of the 39 postseason games were/are being broadcast by ESPN or ABC (which is the same company of course, which is Disney).
3. There were a total of 81 teams "bowl-eligible" this season, out of a total 'population' of 125 FBS teams (as Buzz said (paraphrasing), "Let's hear it for a participation ribbon for everyone!") (Or....to think of it as they might on "Prairie Home Companion", 2/3 of the teams are above average. lol.)
4. 76 of those 81 teams got into the action in the 38 games.
Sort of the point of my post is that it's TV revenue driving this proliferation of bowl games, to absolutely no one's surprise. (Although, as I pointed out earlier, Shreveport and Boise want their bowls!) For example, only 18,223 souls attended the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl, but it got 1.45 million viewers for ESPN - very much worth their while.
Date: Thu Jan 8 11:28:34 2015
User: BuzzClik
Message:Unfortunately, in the lesser bowls, the schools are losing money. Low payouts, high costs of travel, and mandatory ticket sales (the school buys the required allotment and hopes to sell them all) can be a bit of a disaster for the schools involved. There is some marketing value for the school, but is it worth it?
Link: Forbes -- Economics of Bowl Games
Date: Thu Jan 8 12:05:31 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:Of course; but as that article well notes, that excludes the notoriously-hard-to-pin-down marketing angle, which is huge for colleges, perhaps even moreso than ever. You'll notice that exceedingly few schools turn down bowl bids/participation ribbons. Without going into detail, I happen to know a fair amount about that particular facet, and I think I can say that in virtually all cases, yes, it's worth it. (With exceptions, perhaps such as UConn in the 2011(?) Fiesta Bowl.) Although it's one of those cases where statistics can prove almost anything. Don't get me wrong - I think they should rein all these crappy bowl games back in; but I also believe in allowing the market to 'regulate' itself, extremely problematic though that may be. Meaning - for example - that Shreveport should have the "right" to have it's bowl game if it wants. But just because it's (mostly) "worth it", from a nebulous financial standpoint, doesn't make it right or appropriate. I.e., my doublespeak means that I know of no good solution.
Also, I think I've seen recently where the NCAA is going to pay for the families of teams to travel to these games. Not sure of the details of that, nor of the propriety.
Date: Tue Jan 13 00:31:45 2015
User: Punster
Message:Ohio State Buckeyes are 2015 NCAA Football Champions !!
Defeating the Oregon Ducks 42 – 20 !!!
Date: Tue Jan 13 09:30:10 2015
User: Snowguy
Message:Just wondering when it began to appear to folks that the outcome was no longer in doubt. Pretty early in the game for me. On this night, the Oregon Ducks just weren't matched well at all. A few turnovers fewer and it would have been a total rout, imho. And it was in doubt that they would even have been included in the playoff field.
Date: Tue Jan 13 11:15:28 2015
User: BuzzClik
Message:The first pass dropped by an Oregon receiver on third down was a bad sign. The second drop on the next series was a trend. The pass interference call on Oregon on the subsequent OSU series was clear statement of how this was going.
I had enough to do that I only checked in on the game occasionally. I didn't miss much.
Date: Tue Jan 13 12:16:58 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:I really hate to say it, but the Buckeyes really did seem to be the best team. Hard to imagine they lost a game, but things happen.
Elliott and Jones were both phenomenal. It strained credulity to see Elliott *keep* plowing through the line even when Oregon knew it was gonna happen. And Jones had great protection when he needed it, so obviously the o-line of the Buckeyes was sensational. As others have said, Meyer really has successfully installed an SEC-type team in Columbus - without losing the strength aspects of the Big 10.
Date: Tue Jan 13 12:39:21 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:From ESPN:
"How dominant was Elliott? According to ESPN Stats & Information tracking, he had 171 rushing yards before contact, more than Oregon's total rushing yards (132). Most of his damage came between the tackles, where he gained 213 yards, the third-highest total by a player from a Power 5 team this season. Elliott lost yardage on only one of his 36 carries, the best percentage against Oregon in the past 10 seasons among players with a minimum of 20 rushes in a game."
Date: Thu Jan 15 00:08:20 2015
User: Kaos
Message:Snowguy, what games were you watching when you mention Oregon not even being worthy? A few non-drops of passes on 3rd and X for drives 2 and 3 by Oregon and it might have been 21-0 before OSU knew what hit them. I did not see any difference in the domination eye-test between OSU-Alabama and OSU-Oregon other than the fact that Alabama capitalized in the 1st half while Oregon did not throughout the entire game.
I see the end-of-year assessment similar to the average of all non-neutered computer polls (linked below):
They got the top two teams right (OSU is a clear #1 but I'd view Oregon over Alabama much closer than the computers did). Bama 3rd and TCU 4th also correct.
Thank god for the 4 team playoff with the "committee" deciding the teams. Otherwise, we would have had stupid humans and neutered computers pitting FSU vs. Alabama for the title (which I'd view as #3 vs. #10 and the overblown SEC lauding over us all again when Alabama won since FSU was never worthy).
Oh, and for all the TCU (or even worse Baylor) fans out there: if TCU played 'Bama, Oregon, or OSU at the end of the year 100 times, they are losing 65, 75, and 90 times out of 100 respectively.
Link: How the computers sum it all up
Date: Thu Jan 15 00:53:51 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:I gotta lot of respect for Nate Silver and his number-crunching, and it's hard to argue with that assessment. Ohio St. was not *remotely* the team early in the year they were the last few weeks, and as Jones took over as qb, they had an extra dimension that seemed to add some sort of synergistic multiplier to their existing weapons. I told others as the playoffs started that Ohio St. was the team that most "meant business". I hated it when Urban Meyer went bad, suspected it would be bad news, and it became that quicker than one could have imagined. But hats off to him and his accomplishment. (And make note of the last comment in Kaos's second link. i.e, it's no accident.)
Great link, Kaos.
Date: Thu Jan 15 01:04:01 2015
User: Kaos
Message:The OSU player who has really impressed me is Joey Bosa. If he declared for the NFL draft right now and I was an NFL GM, he's #2 on my draft board.
Date: Thu Jan 15 01:51:47 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:You might already know this, but his father also played in the NFL a few seasons.
Date: Thu Jan 15 11:05:34 2015
User: Snowguy
Message:I never even implied that OU was not "worthy." What I posted was this: "On this night, the Oregon Ducks just weren't matched well at all. " (On this night they weren't matched well. With no skin in the game, I just had the feeling early-on, and the feeling grew throughout, that it would not be an even contest. For example, the time OSU marched something like 70 yards in about three plays, and the OSU receiver fumbled in OU territory after a long reception. I would count the OSU fumbles to be more critical, overall, than dropped passes (by the way, OSU also suffered from dropped passes.) But not as much.
On that night, they didn't seem evenly matched. I mean, even with a minus-three turnover margin, the end result was something close to domination, as the score would attest. Played the next night? The outcome could have been different. I am talking that night. Maybe on another night Elliot might not have eclipsed 200 yards rushing (with the vast majority of those yards before contact) but then again, he may have. It was his third straight 200-plus game, including the semi-final.
Many folks say it's better to be spanked in a critical game like a championship, than to lose it close, when you afterward are tormented, "if only..."
Date: Thu Jan 15 13:06:40 2015
User: Punster
Message:FYI, Ohio State took some time at the beginning of the year adjusting to new players. They lost Braxton Miller, their quarterback, to a season ending injury, they lost Carlos Hyde, RB who went pro and they lost "4" starting offensive lineman, as seniors last year, so that's why they had such a slow start. And I can't say enough about J.T. Barrett, QB, and how much he improved over the year, before breaking his leg.
Date: Fri Jan 16 09:20:08 2015
User: ValpoJim
Message:I grew up in Ohio, listened to OSU games on the radio when they weren't on TV (back in the Archie Griffin era), graduated from Ohio State with both BS and MS degrees, and had season tickets to all home football games while there. My first year was Woody Hayes' last. He was quite the character, as some of us know. Any other OSU alums out there?
I watched the VA Tech game, thought the Buckeyes looked more like a high school team, and thought it was going to be a long season. Then Barrett grew up, and fast. I missed most of the games due to Saturday daytime commitments, and even missed the big one against the team from up north. I was stunned by the game against Wisconsin, screamed like a superfan during the Bama game, and was super nervous for almost the entire game against Oregon but screamed far less. I'm rather thankful that the committee put the Buckeyes in the playoff, but know that no system will ever be perfect.
Date: Fri Jan 16 10:07:53 2015
User: BuzzClik
Message:There was a lot of clamor about Jones possibly going pro. He is a big guy with great tools, but he has played on three games in college and has a way to go. His qb ratings for the season are the third best on his team.
Date: Fri Jan 16 12:40:27 2015
User: Punster
Message:ValpoJim, I graduated from an Ohio college that doesn't have a football program, so I began following Ohio State, around the time of Woody Hayes as coach. And I've been a fan of them, since then.
Date: Thu Nov 5 17:01:11 2015
User: BuzzClik
Message:Just saw this video featuring Nick Saban, head coach of Alabama. I'm not sure what question he was asked, but I think it was, "Could you please give us a demonstration of why you are impossible to like?" Saban nailed it!!!
Link: Started to sound like a rant about polls....
Date: Thu Nov 19 15:27:52 2015
User: BuzzClik
Message:Surfing around to look for footballs on the tube tonight, I found that NFL game is less than intriguing: 2-7 Tenn vs 3-6 Jax. Yuck.
The college games: 4-6 East Carolina vs 0-10 U Cent Fla and 1-9 La Monroe vs 2-7 Texas St.
Wow. Cumulative win/loss records of 12-45 among the six teams.
Ok. Hoops it is. Lots of Top 20 action...
Date: Mon Dec 7 10:21:51 2015
User: BuzzClik
Message:I see we're up to 40 bowl games now.
One of my favorite teams, Kansas State, became bowl eligible after sneaking past West Virginia on Saturday to elevate their record to 6-6. Ugh.
Date: Sat Jan 2 02:44:10 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:For all those of you out there who've been wondering how 5-7 Nebraska, San Jose State and Minnesota were "bowl-eligible".......
This system actually makes a mockery of the term "participation ribbons".
(But as it turns out, each of the three student-athlete athletic squads I mention above won their bowl games, to finish a lofty 6-7, although perhaps against somewhat less-than-studly opponents.)
I was about to give credit to Mizzou for announcing that they would not participate in a bowl game if invited (based on academic performance), but digging a bit further revealed that their stated reason was not embarrassment, but to focus on finding a new head coach:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14262106/ncaa-announces-5-7-teams-receive-bowl-bids-based-apr-missouri-tigers-seek-bid-high-score
Link: They *are* students first, after all
Date: Sat Jan 2 03:32:16 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:Somewhat consequentially.....I've not paid much attention to the bowl games thus far, other than the two games last night with national championship implications, of course. However, I did sort of pay attention, at first almost accidentally, to the two main games tonight, Stanford vs. Iowa, and then Ole Miss vs. the Cowboys. I really must admit that I've been very slow to pick up on the season-long excellence of Stanford's sophomore offensive do-everything guy Christian McCaffrey. The guy finished second in the Heisman voting, but I hadn't really watched much of him during the year. But wow, the guy is amazing. 368 all-purpose yards in the game (a record), as they absolutely crushed the Hawkeyes.
During the game, they kept showing his parents in the stands, and talked a bit about their background. They both went to Stanford, both played on athletic teams (he as football receiver, she on the soccer team). He (Ed McCaffrey) went on to have a 13-yr. NFL career and win 3 Super Bowl rings. Ed's brother, Billy, helped Duke win an NCAA basketball title ('91 - remember it well) before transferring to Vanderbilt, where he shared SEC co-player of the year with UK's Jamal Mashburn. Christian's brother Max was Duke's leading receiver this year.
So....just out of curiosity I looked into Christian's high school background. He led his team to 4 consecutive state championships (Colorado), with some truly gaudy stats. For example, he scored 141 touchdowns. Even assuming he played as a freshman, that's *averaging* 35 touchdowns a year. Think about that. And apparently ("Denver Post" article), the last two years his coaches limited his playing time for mercy reasons. Most games his senior year he carried the ball less than 10 times/game. Anyway, enough about him (well, not really, but I'll stop).
All that said (and that's just a thumbnail sketch), *her* side's athletic background is perhaps even more amazing. I'll spare the details here in this post, for they are a-plenty, but will post the link to a great SI-quality article in my next post following this one.
Link: McCaffrey's big day leads the Cardinal
Date: Sat Jan 2 03:46:24 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:Ok, so Christian's mother's father is one Dave Sime (rhymes with "rim"), and he apparently was (and in some ways *is* "all that"). He won a sprinting silver (lost in a photo finish) in the 100 at the Rome Olympics in '60. In 1956, he was on the cover of SI with fellow sprinter Bobby Morrow, who won 3 golds in Melbourne instead of Sime (read the story to learn why). He was voted Duke's "most outstanding athlete of the century" in 2010. Think about that, too. That's a lot of excellence right there. And his story goes on and on and on.
This is an excellent, SI-quality article, even tho it appeared in "Newsweek" Nov. 20, 2015. In fact, I just now checked, and the author, John Walters, was at SI for 15 years. I actually looked because I suspected such might be the case. (He's also won 2 sports Emmys for sportswriting.)
Got yet one more football post after this one.....
Link: Dave Sime - "the most interesting man in the world"?
Date: Sat Jan 2 04:08:07 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:Ok, so Clemson's Deshaun Watson is a pretty awesome QB, one of the, if not *the*, very best in the country, and certainly the best in the ACC. Now, quick, who's the *second* best QB in the ACC? No matter what answer you've proffered, it's almost certainly wrong. It happens to be sorority sister Michelle Roque, of Delta Gamma, at FSU. The girl's got real game, real moves, mad skill. Check out the entirety of the highlight reel.
Link: As they say....."you can't teach that"
Date: Sun Dec 4 09:58:32 2016
User: BuzzClik
Message:Time to blow the dust off this thread:
Because the NCAA selection system is ridiculous, here's the actual playoff list (order is of secondary importance):
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Washington
4. Penn State
5. Oklahoma
6. Temple
7. Western Michigan
8. Western Kentucky or San Diego State (play-in game?)
If you don't win your conference, you don't get to play for the championship. Period.
Date: Sun Dec 4 20:11:40 2016
User: joeygray
Message:Disagree. The money-grabbing system that allows a wisconsin/penn state game to decide a conference championship when neither team was the best or second best in the conference renders the conference championship bisness, IMO, totally irrelevant. As the committee also decided, evidently.
Date: Sun Dec 4 22:38:23 2016
User: BuzzClik
Message:"Money grubbing"? Other than D-1 basketball, FBS football is the only sport on campuses that pay their own way; and, bball and football pay for the existence of all the other sports, too.
It's ALL about money and nothing else. So, unless you watch something other than NAIA, you're contributing to the "money grubbing."
The committee and I differ on only one team in the top four, but the committee is simply the latest facilitator of the playoff charade.
By the way, when the national championships in football were truly "mythical" and crowned by the polls, the winner of the Big 10 got an automatic bid to the Rose Bowl. Neither Michigan nor Ohio State would be going to Pasadena this year.
Date: Mon Dec 5 00:52:17 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:While I agree with you idealistically, Buzz, joey is right. These conferences long ago (and some more recently) gave up said ideals in choosing their "champion", for the ubiquitous almighty dollar. For further example, there was absolutely no need to play an SEC championship game - sans the lucre. In fact, there *may* not be any need to continue this play-off. I don't think there's any doubt that Alabama is the best team - but there *is* that "on any given day" thing, which I imagine can give faint hope to the winner of Clemson/Ohio St. "That's why they play the game", etc.
As to paying their way.....that's a hollow argument. Does the English Dept. "pay it's way"? The Philosophy Dept.? Intercollegiate athletics, despite it's abuses and incredible self-indulgence, does contribute heavily to the college experience. Yes, some of that is negative, but by and large, it's a good thing. Not the place or thread to go deeply into that argument, however.
"When the national championships in football were truly mythical", Penn St. wouldn't be going, either, as they weren't in the Big 10 back then - for most of that period, at least. But you're certainly right in saying that the committee is merely the latest charade enabler. That said, this method, flawed tho it is, is still better than what we used to have.
I'm not picking sides here - other than I guess I hope either Clemson or Washington wins the whole thing - only because Ohio St. is so tainted (and has won it multiple times already) and Alabama has won it far too many times already. But I think the chances of either of them (Clemson or Washington) winning the title is likely less than 15-20% - cumulatively. Would love to be wrong on that.
Date: Mon Dec 5 07:44:12 2016
User: BuzzClik
Message:>>>TN: "These conferences long ago (and some more recently) gave up said ideals in choosing their "champion", for the ubiquitous almighty dollar." The conferences still choose a champion. I don't understand your point.
>>>TN: "Does the English Dept. 'pay it's way'?" In most public schools, yes.
>>>TN: "The Philosophy Dept.?" No. Not sure where we are going here. I never suggested that schools give up wrestling or tennis (or English or Philosophy).
>>>TN: "Penn St. wouldn't be going" I've doubted your grasp of historical facts, but you're being pedantic. It would be a simple task to find an instance where the "old" Big 10 sent a representative to the Rose Bowl that was not the Big 10 team with the highest ranking in the polls.
Date: Mon Dec 5 09:03:06 2016
User: The_Longhorn
Message:Penn State got ripped off.
Date: Mon Dec 5 10:00:15 2016
User: BuzzClik
Message:Not at all, LH. Penn State is a willing and eager participant in a flawed system and merely is suffering the logical consequences of that participation.
The Nittany Lions will skip off to the Miss Congeniality bowl to play a meaningless game in front of a huge tv audience.
Date: Mon Dec 5 15:46:17 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:To BuzzClik, without copying the relevant quotes, 'cause I hope it'll be clear which of my responses go to which comments of yours.
Although the Big 10 still "chooses" a champion, as joey points out, it's a very flawed system, by most ways of analyzing. The Penn St. vs. Wisconsin game didn't 'correctly' identify the best team in the conference - or at very least that's what most think, and with good reason. The Big 10 allowed financial interests to skew their 'reasoning', so to speak. Not that I care enough about how they do it to have a better system, though; just that it is flawed.
In most public schools (assumedly we're talking about universities and colleges here), English Depts. pay their own way? Not in the way most would cipher it. In virtually all (public) English Depts. that I'm aware of (and although few, I think they're reasonably representative), any directly attributable income to that department is dwarfed by expenses (salary, buildings, support staff, infrastructure, etc.). I'm sure there are numerous English Depts. scattered around with enough wealthy alumni, and/or endowments specifically designed for them, but I think those are in the clear minority. If English Depts., as a reasonable proxy for all, or most, non-high-revenue departments, were self-sufficient, there would be little need for state expenditures for higher education. Clearly, that's not the case. Perhaps there's some revenue source you're considering that I'm not counting, but tuition and contributions for most public colleges and universities don't begin to cover the costs for such departments.
[And I could broaden this discussion to make the argument that having a football team, even one that 'costs' money, can be attributed as being a net financial positive to a university or college, depending on how one calculates costs and benefits. And I know you know this, too. Maybe that's how you're saying that most English Depts. pay their own way, but I doubt it.]
My examples of the English and Philosophy Depts. was merely to give a parallel to your point that D1 basketball (sometimes) and football (oftentimes but far from always) are the only sports on campus that "pay their own way". Meaning.....that just because something doesn't pay it's own way doesn't mean it's not valuable. I'm not sure we're far off here on these things - just maybe talking about them from different angles.
You've "doubted my grasp of historical facts"? (Not sure exactly what that's about, but I guess I could cop to the occasional pedantic riff - not that it applies here.) Sure, I don't deny that the old Big 10 didn't send their best qualified team to the Rose Bowl in quite a few years. Which is exactly the *theoretical* reason to have a conference championship - or at least part of it. The fact that it apparently didn't work this year I think makes both our points - it's all about the money.
Personally, I hope the Big 10 is embarrassed about what they've gotten themselves into. They make a big hoopla about this "championship", but clearly it was a (nearly) hollow event. More hilarious would have been if Florida somehow beat Alabama. Almost certainly Alabama would still have gotten in, unless they really got pummeled.
And I kinda hate to draw this analogy, but I'll gingerly try: in this most recent political season, people kept saying "words matter", when in the end, they really apparently didn't. Likewise, conferences were telling us "championships" mattered, when ultimately they didn't.
Date: Mon Dec 5 22:25:52 2016
User: BuzzClik
Message:Let's get this out of the way: I've NEVER doubted your grasp of historical facts. Leaving out "never" was a typo. I have never known anyone better at dredging up historical facts. (jcj is similarly awesome)
As for departmental funding: at most public universities, funds from tuition etc are funneled to departments based heavily on student credit hours. The more students in your classes, the more money comes your way. Freshman comp is usually required of every student on campus; other service courses are packed. As a result, the English Departments get a lot of cash.
Regardless of cash flow, philosophy departments are valuable and funds are found to keep them afloat. (Yes, we agree)
The rest is simply debate issues.
Date: Tue Dec 6 03:16:21 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:Ok, thanks for clearing up the "never" typo. I was quite puzzled by that. Although I wasn't a history major, I know 3 or 4 of them quite well, and I would say my history knowledge far exceeds theirs, on most counts. It's one of my keenest interests, after science, of course.
Funding formulas for state higher education vary by state, of course, but yes, often have a factor based on student credit hours. But that's not self-supporting (to my way of thinking). That's taking/shifting money from taxpayers (which is absolutely positively one of the best uses of taxpayer money one can think of, along with possibly roads and infrastructure, and health care). So altho an English Dept. may get a lot of cash, they usually have a fairly high faculty count, and to me that's not "paying their way". As I mentioned on another thread, a good friend of mine is chair (of English) at my local university, and I knew 2 of the 3 previous chairs, so I know a little about that.
I just don't think we're far apart on our beliefs about this stuff; we may have some semantical differences, but maybe not much beyond that.
Date: Thu Dec 15 03:18:42 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:It's that time again (sigh)...........
I could make a lot of notes here, but I'll just list a few:
Miami (OH) started the season 0-6, and is in a bowl game.
Boston College vs. Maryland - "Two 6-6 teams with zero combined victories against winning FBS opponents." (Rather astonishing)
Baylor has lost 6 in a row going into their game against Boise St.
Link: 40 bowl games in 17 days - Collect 'em all!
Date: Thu Dec 15 08:06:12 2016
User: BuzzClik
Message:Grades are due at noon on Monday. The Saturday games (muted) will provide an excellent backdrop with absolutely no chance of distracting me from my task.
Date: Thu Dec 15 08:14:58 2016
User: The_Inquisitor
Message:Do the women get graded on curves?
Date: Thu Dec 15 10:51:06 2016
User: BuzzClik
Message:Very few women in football these days.
Date: Thu Dec 15 10:56:27 2016
User: The_Interpreter
Message:Give it time. Ten years from now, it will be tag football. It's part of the wussing of America.
Date: Thu Dec 15 12:04:56 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:She's graduated now (and playing on the U.S. national flag football team (and yes, there is such a thing)), but last season, Michelle Roque was the *second* best QB in the ACC conference. I'll refer and remind you, "The_Interpreter", to check out Michelle Roque from my post of Jan 2, 2016 above. America can perhaps stand a bit of *that* kind of wussing?
(I re-link the same video from above. For those who want to know more......she now has a series of "trick shot" videos.)
Link: Michelle Roque (last year)
Date: Thu Dec 15 12:27:08 2016
User: The_Interpreter
Message:She needs to put some pads on and play with the big boys. Then we will see how long she lasts.
Date: Thu Dec 15 12:38:37 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:Uh, no. Her "padding" is just fine as is.
Date: Sat Dec 17 13:08:08 2016
User: Snowguy
Message:Michelle Rogue is an amazing athlete. Her ability to catch footballs one-handed, her "trick" throws and deep passes are something to behold. And he field goal kicking out to the 40 yard line! Same with her quickness and elusiveness in flag football. But one small aside here. If opponents were not trying just to grab a flag from her waistband, many could have just tackled her. Still, and amazing athlkete.
Date: Sat Dec 17 16:07:14 2016
User: hotnurse
Message:Almost on the same page as college football...I am finishing a great book by Lars Anderson. The book goes into detail about the Army-Navy game of Nov.29,"41. It revolves around four of the main players...two from each team and how they were involved in the epic beginning of the U.S. involvement in WW!!. It was written in 2004 but I just happened upon it at Amazon for less than $3.00 used.
Not only does the book talk about that game but it talks about the history of early football in America, head injuries and famous politicians/presidents of the time.
Date: Sat Dec 17 22:45:35 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:That said, hotnurse.........what did you think of Houston's play selection today against San Diego St.?
Date: Sun Dec 18 10:30:47 2016
User: BuzzClik
Message:It was almost as if they didn't have a coaching staff...
Post follow-up