College Football -- Week 1 Thread

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Eh. Jefferson is my boy, since he went to my HS. But while he has improved, I don't think he will ever be the complete package at QB.

IMO of course, LSU has the best offensive and defensive athlete in the nation. Russell Shepard has Harvin's skill set, but is even faster. Patrick Peterson has elite CB athletic ability on a 6'1 222 frame. The story of the game is that Miles and company has found the way to put those guys in a position to win a game. They have to be the playmakers, not Jefferson. Don't know if we can compete for the SEC with Jefferson at QB and our current OL, but with Peterson and Shepard it should be a fun ride this year.

I'm not on the ground watching every practice, but not putting Russell Shepard at QB strikes me as the type of coaching that is over controlling and scared to put the ball in the hands of your best playmaker.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I mean, I knew this year would be tough as we lost a lot of graduating talent last year (which was such a missed opportunity as I thought we should have been so much better last year), but...

SI

Never fear.........October 15th is just around the corner.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm not on the ground watching every practice, but not putting Russell Shepard at QB strikes me as the type of coaching that is over controlling and scared to put the ball in the hands of your best playmaker.

I can't speak on RS's ability to throw the ball at the college level, because even when at QB last year he didn't throw the ball. But it appeared last year that RS isn't the type of guy that can lead a team out of the huddle. He is a bright kid, but even though he was a QB in HS he struggled with all the little things it takes to lead an offense pre-snap. Maybe it was just freshman inexperience/jitters, but it appears that the LSU staff thinks it was more than that.

I would be surprised if you don't see him as a wildcat QB here and there this year though. (Just like Harvin did on occasion.)

[Cuckoo]

Meltdown in Soonerland after the narrow win over Utah State. First games are often sloppy, but this one did not look good based on what OU expected. It's fair to say there's a lot more concern about next week's FSU game than there was before this weekend.

[Radii]

Anyone watching Tulsa/ECU? Down 49-45 with 5 seconds left in the game on the Tulsa 33 yard line, ECU throws up a hail mary that is caught by a 6'8 250 pound tight end, ECU wins 51-49. Crazy.

[DeToxRox]

ECU vs Tulsa, just wow. 10 straight possessions ended in TD's, with ECU capping it on a hail marry with no time left to win 51-49.

[DeToxRox]

WOW

SMU's Kicker hit a 61 yard FG!

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I mean, I knew this year would be tough as we lost a lot of graduating talent last year (which was such a missed opportunity as I thought we should have been so much better last year), but...

SI

The offense shouldn't be as poor as it looked last night. Play calling had a lot to do with it. You can't run 30+ times and your only runs over 2 yards are reverses. That means your offensive line isn't getting the push they need. So if that's the case then you need to change your game plan. Turner Gill and the offensive staff didn't do that, but instead threw a different QB and different RB out there. Ugh.

I'm not sure what to do with Kale Pick. He definitely has happy feet back there. There were times where he started feeling a little pressure and he would put himself into an even worse position. The sad thing is that Jordan Webb didn't look much better.

Running back and offensive line are key to this offense under Gill and those are probably the biggest weaknesses on this offense. If Turner Gill is dead set on running the ball this season then Kansas football is in for a world of hurt. And based off what I saw last night, Turner Gill is dead set on it. I did not expect this at all from Turner Gill.

[digamma]

The Black Santa resigned from UNC today.

[tarcone]

I got home about an hour ago from Iowa. Good game by the Hawks. Stayed within themselves. Scary moment when Stanzi went down.

I watched the TCU/Oregon State game. TCU is way overrated. They are like Northwestern or Missouri. A decent team. But if they played in a BCS conference they would have 3-5 losses. I hope their SOS kills any chance of the BCS title game.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I watched the TCU/Oregon State game. TCU is way overrated. They are like Northwestern or Missouri. A decent team. But if they played in a BCS conference they would have 3-5 losses. I hope their SOS kills any chance of the BCS title game.

Completely wrong.

[RainMaker]

There isn't a conference in the country where TCU would lose 3 games. The Mountain West was better than half the BCS Conferences last year.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There isn't a conference in the country where TCU would lose 3 games. The Mountain West was better than half the BCS Conferences last year.

TCU could compete in any conference, but it isn't inconceivable that they could lose 3+ games in a good conference.

The Mountain West has had some very good years, but they were top heavy last season and pretty clearly the 7th best conference. They essentially had two elite teams in TCU and BYU, two pretty good teams in Utah and Air Force, and then five teams that were among the worst in the country.

Most of the existing BCS conferences have one or maybe two teams that are worse than the fifth best team in the MWC. That makes a big difference over the course of a full season.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

TCU could compete in any conference, but it isn't inconceivable that they could lose 3+ games in a good conference.

The Mountain West has had some very good years, but they were top heavy last season and pretty clearly the 7th best conference. They essentially had two elite teams in TCU and BYU, two pretty good teams in Utah and Air Force, and then five teams that were among the worst in the country.

Most of the existing BCS conferences have one or maybe two teams that are worse than the fifth best team in the MWC. That makes a big difference over the course of a full season.

What conference do you feel like they'd lose 3-5 games in? I'm not saying they are world beaters or title contenders, but I just don't see any stacked conferences in college football this year.

[tarcone]

The Big10.
Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio St. are losses.
They would struggle with PsU, and on the road at MSU and Northwestern.
Michigan looks to have improved and would give them a game, if they played at the big house.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The Big10.
Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio St. are losses.
They would struggle with PsU, and on the road at MSU and Northwestern.
Michigan looks to have improved and would give them a game, if they played at the big house.

Shocking answer!

[RainMaker]

Ohio State is the only team in that conference that is better than them. They'd also be playing half their games at home and likely not hitting all the top teams in the conference in the same year. They'd finish 6-2 in the Big 10.

If you think they're at the bottom of that conference, you just don't watch much college football.

[tarcone]

I didnt say they were at the bottom. They may play Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois.
But if you really think they are better then Iowa and Wisconsin, you guys dont watch college football.

They dont play defense in the PAC 12. It is offense, offense, offense. And TCU struggled against a PAC 12 defense.
Play a real defense (Iowa and Wisconsin come to mind. Oh yeah, PsU plays pretty good defense too. Oh yeah, Northwestern plays pretty good defense, too.). I imagine it wouldnt be a 30-21 victory wouldnt happen.

TCU may pick one of those teams off. I bet they finish 5-3 in the Big10. But then again, you have to have depth to play in a BCS conference. Does TCU have depth?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The Big10.
Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio St. are losses.
They would struggle with PsU, and on the road at MSU and Northwestern.
Michigan looks to have improved and would give them a game, if they played at the big house.

I don't see that at all. Wisconsin is something like 3-10 against teams finishing in the top half of the Big Ten over the last 3 years, no way would I put them as a team that's a lock against for TCU. Iowa and PSU would both be a helluva game to watch against TCU, but I don't think either one is even close to an automatic defeat. And I'd probably pick TCU on the road against Northwestern or MSU, neither of those teams were even competitive against Penn State or Ohio State in their last home match ups. Ohio State is obviously the toughest, and even if they did win that one I think they stumble somewhere along the way, but I'd be surprised if they lost 3 games were they playing in the Big Ten this year.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by tarcone

They dont play defense in the PAC 12. It is offense, offense, offense. And TCU struggled against a PAC 12 defense.
Play a real defense (Iowa and Wisconsin come to mind. Oh yeah, PsU plays pretty good defense too. Oh yeah, Northwestern plays pretty good defense, too.). I imagine it wouldnt be a 30-21 victory wouldnt happen.

It's amazing to me that actual thinking individuals still hold to this. It just proves they don't have a clue.

[tarcone]

Ok. Oregon State doesnt play defense.

[tarcone]

PAC 10 total defense rankings 2009:

13. Arizona St
25. Arizona
32. UCLA
35. Oregon
40. USC
46. Oregon St.
72. California
79. Washington
90. Stanford
120. Washington St.

LOL. I stand by my original statement. These defenses stink. Its amazing to me that actual fans think the PAC 10 plays defense. It just proves they dont have a clue.

hxxp://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2009&rpt=IA_teamtotdef&site=org

[Eaglesfan27]

Why didn't you quote 2008 when USC's defense was 1st in the nation and put their entire set of linebackers in the NFL? There have been some very good defenses in the Pac-10 this past decade.

[RainMaker]

And the Big 10 doesn't play offense.

25. Wisconsin
36. Michigan State
41. Michigan
51. Ohio State
52. Penn State
56. Purdue
71. Northwestern
81. Illinois
84. Indiana
87. Iowa
100. Minnesota

Oregon State has a better offense than anyone Iowa will see all year.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What conference do you feel like they'd lose 3-5 games in? I'm not saying they are world beaters or title contenders, but I just don't see any stacked conferences in college football this year.

I think they are legitimate title contenders, but I think they could lose 3+ games in any of the other BCS conferences. In the SEC, would it be a complete shock if they lost to Florida, Alabama, and then got picked off by an Arkansas or South Carolina or Georgia? In the ACC, it wouldn't be a shock if they lost to one of the Florida teams (FSU or Miami), Virginia Tech, and then dropped one to a BC or Georgia Tech or Clemson. In the Big 12, would you bet your house or life savings that they would be above .500 if they had a stretch of games where they played Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State?

And even though I don't share tarcone's enthusiasm for the Big Ten, I still think playing a stretch of Michigan, Wisconisn, Ohio State, Penn State, (even) Purdue or Indiana, and then Iowa is a pretty tough stretch to go through without a couple of losses.

In most of the existing BCS conferences, you aren't going to have double digit spreads over more than one or two of your conference mates in any given season. In the Mountain West, over the past few seasons, if one of the big three (TCU, Utah, BYU) go undefeated against the other two, they are going to be double digit favorites over the other six teams in most seasons. They are extremely top heavy because of the varying levels of program development and dedication within the league.

[Swaggs]

Aren't there enough defensive players from USC in the NFL to pretty well negate the "Pac 10 doesn't play defense" mantra?

You could pretty much field an entire defense from current NFL defenders out of Southern Cal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Why didn't you quote 2008 when USC's defense was 1st in the nation and put their entire set of linebackers in the NFL?

You mean the year their schedule included teams ranked:
#119,#118,#115, and #110 in scoring offense? That's 4 of the 11 least productive offenses in D-1.

I'll acknowledge that they held both Arizona & Cal, who were high scoring teams in '08, far under their averages & that's good.
But when 1/3rd of your schedule is against the absolute offensive pits, it certainly helps the scoring defense number.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Aren't there enough defensive players from USC in the NFL to pretty well negate the "Pac 10 doesn't play defense" mantra?

You could pretty much field an entire defense from current NFL defenders out of Southern Cal.

I would assume that if the PAC-10 had offenses like those of the Big-11, we'd see much better defensive ratings. The opposite holds true as well

[tarcone]

I was thinking about the whole Pac 10 doesnt play defense and the Big 10 doesnt play offense. And I think we are both right. The Pac 10 is a conference that is geared towards dynamic offenses. And that makes the defenses worse. While the Big 10 is, and has always been, 3 yards and a cloud of dust. And that makes the offenses look worse.

So in reality, yes the Pac 10 doesnt play good defense and the Big 10 doesnt play good offense. Or the Pac 10 plays very good offense and the Big 10 plays very good defense.

I guess it depends on how you look at it.

[tarcone]

Just as mrBug said and I didnt read before I posted.

[Swaggs]

Kind of a bummer (even though I know he might not have many fans at Penn State or USC), but Vidal Hazelton is out for the season. He had to sit out all of last season as a transfer and then injured himself in Cincy's first game against Fresno State.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I was thinking about the whole Pac 10 doesnt play defense and the Big 10 doesnt play offense. And I think we are both right. The Pac 10 is a conference that is geared towards dynamic offenses. And that makes the defenses worse. While the Big 10 is, and has always been, 3 yards and a cloud of dust. And that makes the offenses look worse.

So in reality, yes the Pac 10 doesnt play good defense and the Big 10 doesnt play good offense. Or the Pac 10 plays very good offense and the Big 10 plays very good defense.

I guess it depends on how you look at it.

I would look at it from the POV of who puts the most talent from that side of the ball into the NFL.

The PAC 10 puts plenty of defensive guys into the NFL, how many offensive studs come out of the Big 10?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I would look at it from the POV of who puts the most talent from that side of the ball into the NFL.

The PAC 10 puts plenty of defensive guys into the NFL, how many offensive studs come out of the Big 10?

Plenty of offensive linemen and running backs. But then again, the Big10 plays smashmouth.

And, just because you put defensive studs into the NFL, doesnt mean you play good defense. Sure it helps, but its not the end all to a great defense.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The PAC 10 puts plenty of defensive guys into the NFL, how many offensive studs come out of the Big 10?

Michigan alone has been known for putting OL in the NFL.

EDIT: Oh, and Michigan has had it's share of QBs go as well.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I would look at it from the POV of who puts the most talent from that side of the ball into the NFL.

The PAC 10 puts plenty of defensive guys into the NFL, how many offensive studs come out of the Big 10?

Drew Brees and Tom Brady?

[Lathum]

OK, so 2 guys in the last 10 years. My point is they aren't putting an insane amount of offensive skill players into the NFL.

[Swaggs]

I dunno, maybe not everyone has panned out, but Michigan, Michigan St., and Ohio State have all put a ton of receivers into the NFL as high picks. Ohio State and Penn State have done pretty well with getting RBs drafted.

I continue to think that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the talent across college football. The style of play from the coaching and the officiating is probably a bigger contributor than talent inequality.

[tarcone]

Iowa has put Ladell Betts and Shonn Greene in the NFL recently And TE Tony Moeaki this season.

[Chief Rum]

My guess is the skill position talent is generally greater in the Pac 10 because most of their players are from California and a little bit from Texas. The Big 10, though, probably has more brawn, as they draw their kids from the colder Midwest (the Big Ten's draw will be wider, because they are closer to key spots in the South, Florida, and the East Coast, in addition to their own territory, but a higher percentage of kids out West end up at Pac 10 schools).

I think the local clime doesn't just affect the development of kids in those areas, but also the types of offenses and defenses which work the best, and the local attitudes about those offenses and defenses as well.

[mauchow]

It is pointless to talk about INDIVIDUAL players in a game where TEAM means so much.

[Atocep]

Took 1 week to be reminded of how terrible a coach Fridge is.

[tarcone]

Im real excited about the game tonight. Should be a barn burner. Or as Hayden Fry says "A high porch picnic."

[Galaril]

So this is considered a neutral field? I hope Boise smokes VT.

[Galaril]

bad call their on the PI I think.

[RainMaker]

College uniforms have jumped the shark.

[k0ruptr]

Boise Football !!! FUMBLE!!!

[k0ruptr]

I think the uni's look pretty sharp actually.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I think the uni's look pretty sharp actually.

Me too.

[k0ruptr]

Good opening Defense for VTech. 3-0 boise. I'm rooting for Boise, but I'd like to see VT play a solid game still.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

College uniforms have jumped the shark.

i see those vt uniforms and all i can think of is zubazz.