Subject: College Football

Date: Mon Jan 5 21:48:57 2009
User: bu11sgits
Message:
Oops, 20 of 27 for 198 yards, and now with a crucial INT. What a difference a few minutes makes, eh?

Date: Mon Jan 5 22:02:30 2009
User: Colt_McCoy
Message:
Okay, it's halftime now. I'll concentrate more in the second half. See y'all after the game.

Date: Mon Jan 5 23:54:58 2009
User: Colt_McCoy
Message:
Woohoo! Texas wins their first Fiesta Bowl trophy!

Date: Mon Jan 5 23:55:32 2009
User: julia
Message:
Nice comeback there Colt. They had pretty much given the game to OSU.

Date: Tue Jan 6 06:05:10 2009
User: BCS
Message:
One down, one to go. Good game, Colt.

Date: Tue Jan 6 07:22:32 2009
User: Colt_McCoy
Message:
Thank you, Mr. BCS.

Date: Tue Jan 6 08:52:33 2009
User: bu11sgits
Message:
Yes, congratulations to Texas on a great season!

Date: Tue Jan 6 09:47:18 2009
User: BuzzClik
Message:
More evidence that the BCS system is a fraud. Without a true playoff, all of this is meaningless.

Date: Tue Jan 6 11:48:49 2009
User: Snowguy
Message:
Not only is it a fraud, but their "reasoning" is a joke. If they can't have a playoff in Div I (BCS) they have no business having playoffs in the other NCAA divisions and NAIA. Period. (The "reasoning" would be the same.) Whoops, I forgot. The reasoning couldn't really be thge same, because the other divisions don't have decades-old cash cow Bowl games. Sorry.

Date: Mon Oct 6 10:17:24 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
The four-team playoff is a beginning, but a weak beginning. The four top ranked teams at the end of the season will play in a mini tournament to determine the champion. Good concept, but depending on the polls is insane. (Yes, there's a "committee", but some notable members of the committee are merely big fans.) Case in point: this weekend saw the most number of upsets of top-ranked teams in the history of ranking. That's an oddity, but the resulting shakeup in the polls is pure lunacy: 1) Alabama/Ole Miss. Alabama (#1 or #3 in different polls) was on the road to play a really good Ole Miss (#11) team and lost. Ole Miss vaulted to #4/#3 and Alabama dropped to #7. Not a totally unreasonable drop for Alabama, but the move by Ole Miss is crazy. 2) Oregon (#2/#4) lost at home to unranked Arizona .Oregon dropped to 11/12, and Arizona moved to 10/13. So, despite undefeated (5-0) Arizona going on the road to beat one of the best teams in the country, they polls put the teams as dead even. Gee, that makes sense. NOT! 3) Here's the worst of the bunch: Texas A&M was ranked #6/#7 and traveled to #12/#14 Mississippi State. All the pundits were picking Miss State to win, and they did. Texas A&M plummeted to #14 and Miss State is now #3/#6. The new rankings clearly state that those filling out the polls admit that they had no idea how good Mississippi State was or how totally overrated Texas A&M was. So, now, according to these geniuses, Miss State is a top five team because the beat an overrated A&M team at home. Seriously? And we trust these fools to choose the four teams in a playoff? When does basketball season begin....

Date: Mon Oct 6 23:52:57 2014
User: rocky77
Message:
Seriously no, we don't trust those idiots, or even sain people. Actual played games can't be replaced with any kind of voting junk. So the playoffs will never be alright.

Date: Tue Oct 7 09:43:30 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Wise words from Andy Staples at SI.com: "Everyone in Oxford kept asking where Ole Miss would be ranked after the Rebels' win over Alabama, which is understandable. What isn't understandable, however, is any consternation about the answer. It does not matter where your team is ranked on Oct. 5. It only matters a little where your team is ranked on Nov. 5. It matters a great deal where the selection committee ranks your team on Dec. 7. Until then, stop worrying. Or better yet, follow the advice of Ricky Bobby and the fan bases at Bama and Florida State: If you ain't first, you're last. Just keep trying to be first. Everything else will sort itself out."

Date: Tue Oct 7 11:03:15 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
I think you captured it, TN -- the selection process for the football playoff has all the intellectual horsepower of Ricky Bobby from "Talladega Nights." The process and the cast of idiots will not change between now and December 7.

Date: Tue Oct 7 11:13:58 2014
User: The_Interpreter
Message:
You people need to follow the money.

Date: Tue Oct 7 11:35:02 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
The same mindset (more or less) that wants to 'rank' the top 25 college football teams is the same one that drives humans to create the selection of the year's best movie (Ha!), best Olympic skating routine, or to say who has the best hamburger, pizza, whatever. Ordinalization is apparently very deeply ingrained in human (or at least human *male*) DNA (for probably very valid evolutionary reasons). However, subjectivity is rife with error. Meditate deeply thereon.

Date: Tue Oct 7 17:21:58 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
Agreed, TN, and very insightful. I give you a 9 out of 10. ;) "Sports" that are not sports are any of those that require the opinion of a judge. Unfortunately, that includes modern boxing. I admire the athletic prowess of boxers, gynasts, figure skaters, etc, but I very much dislike the method used to choose the winners.

Date: Tue Oct 7 17:25:06 2014
User: The_Interpreter
Message:
I always pick the team with the nicest Nike uniforms.

Date: Wed Oct 8 10:04:33 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
That's an interpretation? Seems more like something from The_Revelator.

Date: Wed Nov 12 12:08:44 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
And just in case there was the notion that the selection committee would be avoiding the normal annoyances, we get this week's rankings: "As the College Football Playoff Selection Committee turns, Episode III: "The sport's new serialized soap opera continues to provide interesting Tuesday television that continues to be rife with lapses in logic. In soaps, stars come back to life or have amnesia or split personalities – all sorts of fanciful plot twists. The playoff selection committee now seems to be performing its own jaunt through the absurd on a weekly basis. "In this episode, the committee falls stone-cold in love with the Pac-12. "In one particularly steamy scene, the committee jumped one-loss Oregon ahead of undefeated Florida State for second – and while it might not matter at this moment who is second and who is third, a loss by No. 1 Mississippi State could alter the geography of the entire playoff if it elevates the Ducks to the top seed. (Hello, Rose Bowl as the potential site of the No. 1 seed's semifinal game, instead of the Sugar Bowl.) <snip> "The committee's red-hot romance with the Pac-12 also includes vaulting Arizona State up the rankings – from 14th two weeks ago to ninth last week to sixth this week. The Sun Devils may have lost by 35 points to UCLA in September, but they're ahead of fellow one-loss teams Baylor at No. 7 and Ohio State at No. 8. Oh, and that UCLA team was the single-biggest riser in the rankings this week, jumping from 18th to 11th on the strength of, um, beating 6-4 Washington." Why the focus on the Pac-12? It's not like a prominent member of the committee has indelible ties to the Pac-12 or anything...

Link: Different year, new system, same problems

Date: Sun Nov 16 21:30:00 2014
User: Kaos
Message:
Washington is actually pretty good and I'll defend the Pac-12 as the 2nd best conference in the land (for the 4th year in-a-row or so). It's interesting to see what the computer polls make of all of this. They've got 3 SEC west teams in the top four with only Oregon sandwiched in at 2nd. Undefeated FSU does not impress the impartial computers and sits at 6th.

Link: Computer consensus

Date: Sun Nov 16 22:57:35 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I just hope that Marshall and Colorado St. are selected for the playoffs. That'd be cool. Duke blew it yesterday, or they coulda been in there, too.

Date: Mon Nov 17 16:13:49 2014
User: Snowguy
Message:
Pretty pessimistic about "scholar-athletes" at D-1 and even some D-2 schools these days. I point to the investigation at Carolina about fake classes to qualify "scholars" who sometims can't even read. And now, Cal U of PA, which apparently has a pattern of recruiting "students" of questionable character. The University has its own review of the entire football program going on. Football, and Basketball, has apparently left sports played by actual college students behind some years/decades ago. And when coaches are paid mega-times more than university presidents, it kinda pinpoints the loss of focus as to what college athletic s should be, and likely will never be again. http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/cal-u-forfeits-football-game-after-5-players-arres/nhwp9/ (It later developed there were 6 players implicated in the attack.) The victim has severe brain injuries. So, folks, what has happened in major men's money-producing sports programs? Has that ship sailed, while torching the dock?

Link: THe latest at Call U is 6 football players beating a guy half to

Date: Fri Nov 28 17:08:03 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Marshall finally went down in an overtime loss to Western Kentucky, in a game that 'featured' 17 different players catching 64 complete passes (over 900 total passing yards in the game). In fact, the WKU qb (Brandon Doughty, who leads the nation in TD passes and passing yardage) set the CUSA record with 8 TD passes in the game. Marshall's Rakeem Cato slung 7 more, to break the FBS record for total TD passes in a game with 15. WKU was up 49-42...........at halftime. Really. .....After the pre-game fight. Really. That's just too bad, as it really would have been cool to see a Marshall vs. Colorado St. final for the national championship. And Colorado St. is down near the half against Air Force. Looks like this Marshall loss opens the door for Alabama, Oregon, Florida St., or someone like that to creep in.

Date: Sun Nov 30 13:00:22 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
Wild day in college football yesterday. The SEC was teetering on not having a team in the playoffs. It could still happen, and that would be a joke. Ohio State will be playing in the Big Ten championship against Wisconsin with a third string qb. Nebraska fired their coach who just wrapped up a 9-3 season.

Date: Sun Dec 7 22:04:30 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
So, the first football championship "tournament" will consist of Oregon playing Florida State, and Alabama playing Ohio State. I think the committee did a reasonable job under the circumstances and considering that a four-team playoff is a bit of a joke. Better than two teams but still shy by about a factor of 4. The committee will take some well-deserved heat about leaving out Baylor and TCU, but that is the result of starting the ranking process with several weeks left in the season. When the playoff is finally expanded to 16 teams, the argument will be about the 15-17 teams, teams that essentially have no chance of winning the championship. Can't wait.

Date: Mon Dec 8 03:02:28 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
They did do a reasonable job. But then so could have most 8th graders with the scenario. Had either of the Texas teams gotten in, the controversy over why one and not the other would have been even greater than both of them being left out. Both would have had fairly legit arguments why they deserved it more than the other. So letting in the Buckeyes is almost the path of least resistance. And they are probably the slightly better team due to their defense. That despite how much I hate Ohio St. Really too bad Marshall couldn't have hung on so that they could have taken them down in some "Battle of the Ohio River". But 'bama and Oregon seem to be the two best teams, based on their "body of work", as it's termed. But clearly Ohio St. is "feeling it" and seeming to have that air of "having something to prove". Really too bad one or both of the Mississippi teams couldn't have made it in there, but that's the bed the SEC West has made for themselves. The matchups are fairly compelling: Mariota vs. Winston; and big boy smashmouth vs. big boy smashmouth. (Not that it completely boils down to that - just channeling my inner hypster (as if...).) One is tempted to think of the 'noles continued 'escapes' as almost forecasting a "destiny" path to the championship, but surely their luck will run out. I must say it's somewhat reminiscent of the 1990 season when both Ga. Tech and Colorado had several near losses while surviving to split the championship. We needed a championship game that year perhaps more than any other, although it's been needed for decades, as all but the NCAA know. I think 16 teams is FAR too many. 8 is probably too many, although that's believable, if only marginally workable. If there was a fair way to have about 6 in, that's about right, but any teams with 2 losses would be excluded, as in "what's the point?". 6 really deserved to be in this year, or maybe 7 if you give Miss St. the benefit-of-the-SEC-West doubt. But that history has already been poured. Footnote to the weekend: Is Iowa St. the worst tackling team in the history of Div I/FBS? Sure looked like it to me.

Date: Mon Dec 8 07:39:35 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
Sixteen is bare minimum.

Date: Mon Dec 8 10:13:33 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
That would be something like a 17-game season for the two finalists, unless you shorten the whole season by a game or two, and/or give byes to the top 4 teams or so (and that then becomes a 12-team playoff). And what about (academic) finals? These diligent student-athletes need time to prepare adequately for their post-college careers, after all. That's just too much wear and tear, imo.

Date: Mon Dec 8 11:29:04 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
Colleges have been adding more and more games to their schedules since 1970 when (even with a bowl game) the max number of games went from 11 to 12. Now, if a team play a conference championship, they play 14. During the regular season, the top teams play two or three non-conference cupcakes. It's really not hard to visualize a scenario with a maximum of 14 games: Nine regular season games, conference championship, and a maximum four-game tournament. Fifteen games would be no big deal for those playing in the national title game. Scheduling around finals would be trivial, and we could even maintain playing four games on New Years Day, and wrap it all up by mid January, just like now. It's time to kill the bowl concept. Get rid of meaningless bowl games matching 6-6 teams few care about and actually cost the schools to participate. Leave the mediocre teams at home (or start the NIT equivalent consolation series), and crown a real champion after a real tournament.

Date: Mon Dec 8 13:24:48 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
No, it's not hard to imagine a team playing 14 games. I believe it's possible to play 13 regular season ones now, if one is overseas, or some other extraordinary circumstances. (Don't quote me on that; and I'm not gonna check it out.) But anyway, you won't get even the Big 5 conferences to agree to only 9 regular season games; nor even 10. Just ain't gonna happen. But I certainly do agree the meaningless bowl games need to be put to rest............but even that ain't gonna happen, sadly. Too much money involved all the way around. And even "civic pride" for the host cities, for that matter. You wanna tell Shreveport they can't have their Independence Bowl? Or Boise that they can't have their Famous Idaho Potato Bowl? What would they have left (esp. Shreveport)?

Date: Mon Dec 8 13:36:16 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
The impasse you describe exists because the NCAA and the universities themselves are slaves the to lucrative television contracts; but, they are without conscience and will eventually move forward with an expanded (and profitable) playoff system at the expense of the unpaid gladiators, aka "student athletes". And let the crappy bowl games continue outside the context of the playoffs. Shreveport can host whatever bowl they want if they can lure someone to play. And, they probably can. Participation ribbons for everyone!

Date: Tue Dec 9 00:21:18 2014
User: Kaos
Message:
The 10-team Big-12 likely did get hosed by not having a definitive conference champion. Or, perhaps what really hosed TCU is having FSU run the table in a mediocre ACC. Still, you can't exclude FSU. At least they did try with their non-conference schedule that included Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, and Florida (plus the scrimmage game against Citadel). I'm sure 5 years ago when the FSU schedule was set it looked solid but this year OkStU, ND, and UF all s*ck. Who'd have thunk that scheduling TCU, Navy, and Miss State would have been more impressive? It's interesting that if the computers were scheduling the final four, TCU would be in (as would Ohio State) and FSU would be the odd team out. FBS football is such a brutal game I can't ever see going to more than six teams: that covers the five power conferences and a plus one. So, you could have Baylor-FSU and TCU-OSU playing to match up with Ore - Ala. Thank God it's not last year at least where it would have been FSU vs. Ala for all the marbles and an Oregon team that so far looks like its either 1st or 2nd would be left out in the colde.

Date: Tue Dec 9 01:41:30 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
That's the kind of 6-team format I was imagining. But....just being conference champ doesn't guarantee one entry. It should, perhaps, but would, hypothetically, a 10-2 PAC 12 champion, or a 10-2 ACC champ get in over a 12-0 Boise St.? Depends, of course; I'm just saying a team should have the bona fides besides being conference champ, imo.

Date: Tue Dec 9 07:58:16 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
The six team format will have two teams potentially playing three playoff games. Why not expand to eight teams and have all teams play three? (And then expand to 16.) If you don't have every conference champion in the mix, you are still depending on polls and committees to leave deserving teams out of the playoffs. And polls and committees are a horrible way to make these decisions. The regular season is important to determine champions, but not when power teams are playing Citadel and Western Kentucky. Cut those games out, and play a nine game conference schedule plus the conference championship, or ten game schedule if there's no championship game. The basketball tournament is wildly successful, highly profitable, and crowns the definitive champion. The fact that it is so painful and takes so long for ONLY the highest level of college football to get there is actually kind of amusing.

Date: Tue Dec 9 11:44:27 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I would actually be for a more "free-form" format, in which some years 6 teams would qualify, some years 8 (at the margin, and rarely), some years 5, etc. Would be terribly nuanced and fraught with subjectivity, though. But on the other hand, would add yet another level of excitement(?). And the uncertainty of scheduling the games would be quite an obstacle. That's just me being idealistic. So if you don't a least tie for your conference championship, then you're out (unless you are Miss. St. and lost to 'bama by less than 4 points, (the hypothetical presumed champ in year 202x) (for example); if you've accumulated more than 2 losses; if you've lost to Citadel (for example), or even had a very close win over them *and* have another bad loss to...oh....Wake Forest or Rice, for example. That kind of complicated algorithm. Or to put it another way, were there really a 7th and 8th team this year that "deserved" to be in there with the 6 we all know about? Had Miss. St. not lost to Ole Miss, yes; but they did. Mich. St.? Well, except that they've already lost to *two* teams already in, so why give them yet another chance? Who else? Truly, nobody outside of the top 6 deserves to be in any playoff this year. That's just the facts. That said....we all know that's ignoring the money side of the equation, so no matter how good one's logic is, it's considerably irrelevant when it comes right down to it. Although I was making (mostly tongue-in-cheek) comments about hoping Marshall gets into the final four this year, that is truly a factor that needs to be considered. I come at this partially from the underdog view of things - the have nots being left out by the big money schools. Look at what Boise St. had to struggle thru to get a real shot at the big boys some years ago. Look at what Gonzaga had to struggle thru to get seriously considered in basketball. Point being the system is rigged against the wannabes. If you're a coach at Marshall, say, try getting Ohio St. to play you. They've got virtually nothing to gain, and much to lose by doing so. Or if you were Appalachian St. after they beat Michigan. In the same way the NCAA hoops tournament has been rigged forever against the small guys, the Big 5 want to institutionalize (literally!) that even further. The occasional game against a Big 5 school helps the smaller teams. I know, I know.....it somewhat 'warps' the schedules of the big schools, but I think that's a small price to pay (if they don't overdo it). I.e., if Marshall had survived that crazy game against WKU, they should have been in the mix -- or.....more specifically, the system should have 'allowed' them that chance, based on said complicated algorithm. And I just know the NCAA is closely monitoring this board for their next move. lol.

Date: Fri Dec 12 21:10:26 2014
User: Snowguy
Message:
What disturbs me is that 72 College head coaches make over $1M up to $7M. While some are outraged that 9 college presidents earned over $1M in total compensation. Major college football is a business, and one rife with both excesses and abuses. College presidents: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/18/public-college-presidents-1-million_n_5349241.html (Not saying presidents should make m,ore, but instead it's an outrage that coaches at the university level make so much. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re. pro caches vs. college: "The nation's 25 highest-paid college football coaches at public universities are paid an average of $3.85 million a year in guaranteed money -- more than the $3 million Jets coach Rex Ryan earned last year. The coaches' income has soared as the debate over whether college athletes should get paid to play has intensified. And the coaches' pay and perks, propelled by billion-dollar television contracts with the five major conferences, are coming under scrutiny because many universities are struggling with declining revenues and flat enrollment." http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/fbs-college-football-coaches-salaries-are-perks-are-soaring-newsday-special-report-1.9461669 To me, it's an outrage, and it makes major university money sports less appealing to watch.

Link: Head coaches

Date: Sat Dec 13 14:14:48 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
I'm watching the North Dakota State - Coastal Carolina quarterfinal FCS game. Both teams are 12-1 coming in; if one team advances to the final, that team will play a total of 16 games this season. But that's not really why I'm posting this. The head coach for Coastal Carolina is Joe Moglia. Moglia used to be CEO of TD Ameritrade, making about $4-$5 million annually with salary and other compensation. He now makes $185,000. Curious, no?

Date: Sat Dec 13 15:12:08 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Indeed. And actually, I think he's still Chairman of tdAmeritrade, although I'm not certain. Interesting story down there at Myrtle Beach, where CCU has been slowly transforming themselves from a 'beach school' into a 'real' university. A good friend of mine is a prof there. Their football program is only like 30 years old, I believe, and their basketball program is becoming at least respectable. Very interesting story....

Link: 2+ years ago.....

Date: Thu Dec 25 03:32:59 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Ok....I wasn't actually sitting around watching the "Popeye's Bahamas Bowl" like the rest of you guys, but just flipped to ESPN to see what was on, and it was late in the 3rd quarter, and seemed like WKU had the game well in hand. I was doing other things, just every once in a while glancing at the screen, and catching a little bit of Doughty (mentioned above in my Nov. 28 post). At the end of the third it was 49-14 WKU. Game over. But for some odd reason I kept it on, mostly as background activity, which I normally don't do. Anyway, the Chippewas happen to have a gunslinger, too. And what transpired in that fourth quarter was, to put it mildly, unbelievable and truly bizarre. Cooper Rush, said Chippewas' qb, proceeded to punish the record books, as well as the Hilltoppers' secondary - to the tune of 5 straight TDs. Yes, in just the fourth quarter. With under a minute left, and WKU with the ball after a second straight failed onsides kick by CMU, Lou Holtz and the other broadcasters were nonchalantly talking about how to wrap this up, and that they were going to be missing their flights back out of the Bahamas because of all the scoring, etc., etc. Instead of running out the clock on a fourth-down play, WKU punted, and well........just watch the video.... Total TD passes: 12 (7 by Rush; 5 by Doughty) (Rush had never had more than 3 in a whole game before, yet had 5 in the 4th quarter) Total yards: 1254(!!) Total passing yards: 979 " In the [sic] Western Kentucky's last two games, the teams have combined for 230 points and 2,699 yards, and QB Brandon Doughty has thrown for 977 yards and 13 touchdowns." "In his last 3 games including today, Western Kentucky's Brandon Doughty has thrown 18 touchdown passes. That is more than 47 FBS teams have all season including teams such as Michigan (10) and Florida (16)." Read more of the "Research Notes" down at the bottom of the page. It was a completely absurd way to see a football game play out. Other notes: Good to see Rice doing well. Looks like Colorado St. wasn't the real deal after all. lol. Air Force closes 10-3 after going 2-10 last year. Memphis also closes 10-3, with the 10 wins equaling their total for the previous 4 years. (Big fight at the end of that game: the "Miami Beach (We-couldn't-get-another-sponsor-because-they-were-all-used-up) Bowl")

Link: shades of Cal vs. Stanford

Date: Wed Dec 31 16:04:48 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:
TCU just finished explaining why a four-team playoff just doesn't cut it.

Date: Thu Jan 1 20:09:52 2015
User: BuzzClik
Message:
Not sure what to make of the Mich State/Baylor game. The #6 and #8 teams in a track meet. They most certainly were playoff worthy.

Date: Sat Jan 3 04:03:59 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:
How 'bout them Cougars, Snowguy?

Date: Sat Jan 3 10:44:02 2015
User: Snowguy
Message:
The Pitt "defense" (small letters) has been awful all year. Hopefully, Narduzzi can make a difference. The game does go to show how, once a team is truly back on its heels and has lost its confidence, no lead is ever truly safe. One quarter destroyed what was built over a very sound three quarters. Narduzzi's work is cut out for him!

Date: Sat Jan 3 22:44:53 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Uh....I was asking about the Cougars....

Date: Sat Jan 3 23:13:11 2015
User: Kaos
Message:
Confusion about Pitt aside, this year in CFB is far more satisfying than any in recent years. Arguably (or in-arguably from my perspective) we have 2 of 3 of the best teams this year playing for the national companionship. If this had been ANY of the 100 previous years, we would have had 0 of 3 of the best teams playing for the championship. It would have been Alabama vs. FSU and the SEC would be gloating once again. The problem has always been the human voters (or at least the idiotic humans that have a vote). They could not resist ranking FSU 3rd while the computer poll consensus had them 6th. And if you throw out the pure-ELO computer polls, FSU wasn't even top-10. The Sagarin Predictor ranking had FSU as 15th which seems closer to reality than 1 or 2 or 3. At least the "committee" was way better than AP/UPI/Coaches/ who would have had FSU 1st or 2nd so hats-off to Condi Rice for at least ranking them 3rd. It's just too bad they didn't have the guts to rank them 13th.

Date: Sun Jan 4 08:50:08 2015
User: Snowguy
Message:
Let m see, TN. Houston is basically dominated for three quarters, but then mounts a comeback against one of the absolute (proven season-long) defenses. Yes, I would say that Houston is a good team, to a certain extent. But Pitt, unable to handle the comeback and a couple on-side kicks, certainly had a lot to do with it. The odds are the receiving team will possess any on-side kick. That Pitt couldn't handle either of two tells a lot. Special teams, at least on that day, sucked when Pitt was back on its heels. The lack of handling at least one on-side kick meant Pitt's strong offense didn't get the ball. And Houston's offense did. My point is that Pitt had at least as much, and probably more, to do with the game's outcome as did Houston. I would say a lot more.

Date: Sun Jan 4 09:28:01 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Thank you. And as you know, I was just pulling your chain. But....it's also good to see another way-out-of-the-money team begin to get respectable again. I'm no fan of the city of Houston; just like to appreciate the step towards parity when the always-downtrodden guys made a tiny step up like that.

Date: Sun Jan 4 12:06:49 2015
User: Snowguy
Message:
It would be nice to see Pitt take a step toward parity, too. That game was the past 30 years in a nutshell!

Date: Mon Jan 5 01:22:00 2015
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Understood. But by virtually all measures, Pitt's record over the last 30 years - or since 1976 - is still gonna be superior to Houston's. And I know expectations are higher at Pitt, but since success breeds success, let the also-rans catch up a bit more. That's ok, though; since you live there, you're allowed to be biased. (That said, it's also nice to see the curse of Flacco - whom Pitt didn't play so he transferred to Delaware - come back to haunt the same city's Steelers.)

Date: Mon Jan 5 10:41:05 2015
User: Snowguy
Message:
One of a Pitt coach's dumber moves. Went "all-in" with the other guy, and Flacco went on to a much better career, at Delaware and beyond. Not exactly a "curse"--as in the case of Unitas, (and of course, Ruth)--because the Steelers have been holding serve a lot, but still a poor decision. It is a team sport, after all, and 24 guys, plus subs, win and lose as a team.