College football - Week 10

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Matthean

My biggest problem with the sheer number of bowl games is that all you need is a 6-6 record to have the chance to play in one. Considering how easy it is to get 2-3 wins to start the season and then merely get 3 wins in your conference, it's really not saying much to be 6-6.

Well, not every conference plays Chatanooga or The Citadel in their nonconference schedule, you know, although I understand your general point.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug} I'd have ruled it incomplete myself.

At least that call would've been remotely plausible.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I still do not understand why Pinkel doesn't at least try the freshman Franklin after Gabbert becomes clearly uneffective yet again!!!

Texas Tech switched QB's and won the fcking game!

Has Gabbert always had such happy feet? I've seen most of the Mizzou games the last two weeks and he never gets set, which leads to horrible overthrows and underthrows.

SI

[dawgfan]

Jim Harbaugh is a hell of a coach. He's definitely not out there to make any friends - he coaches with a massive chip on his shoulder and is the kind of guy that would step on your helmet rather than offer a hand to help you up, but it's all part of his way and he's turned Stanford into a smashmouth, tougher than the other guy program.

I only got to see about the last quarter of the game last night against Arizona, but I'd estimate he ran the same power running play 65% of the time, and often several times in a row, both because Arizona couldn't stop it and also, I'm sure, because Harbaugh wanted to rub Stoops' nose in that fact. They'd line up in a power-I formation with a TE/OT ahead of the FB ahead of the TB, with the TE/OT motioning to one side of the formation (usually the right side) and an off-tackle run to that side. Arizona's defense started to recognize it and would motion to overload that side but still couldn't stop it, and then Luck threw in a wrinkle where, when he saw Arizona overloading the strong side, he faked the handoff and ran around the left end untouched.

Too bad that Stanford fans couldn't come close to filling the stadium. Fantastic team, very important game, good weather, and they still were well short of a sellout in a 50,000 seat stadium. What Stanford football fans there are out there are going to be pissed when Harbaugh inevitably leaves. I think he'd love to stay in an ideal world, but he's clearly frustrated that the team isn't more popular than it is, and I suspect he'd relish a chance to come home to Michigan and/or prove himself in the NFL.

I think it's probably a toss-up as to who's the better coach in the Pac-10 - Harbaugh or Kelly.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Jim Harbaugh is a hell of a coach. He's definitely not out there to make any friends - he coaches with a massive chip on his shoulder and is the kind of guy that would step on your helmet rather than offer a hand to help you up, but it's all part of his way and he's turned Stanford into a smashmouth, tougher than the other guy program.

I only got to see about the last quarter of the game last night against Arizona, but I'd estimate he ran the same power running play 65% of the time, and often several times in a row, both because Arizona couldn't stop it and also, I'm sure, because Harbaugh wanted to rub Stoops' nose in that fact. They'd line up in a power-I formation with a TE/OT ahead of the FB ahead of the TB, with the TE/OT motioning to one side of the formation (usually the right side) and an off-tackle run to that side. Arizona's defense started to recognize it and would motion to overload that side but still couldn't stop it, and then Luck threw in a wrinkle where, when he saw Arizona overloading the strong side, he faked the handoff and ran around the left end untouched.

Too bad that Stanford fans couldn't come close to filling the stadium. Fantastic team, very important game, good weather, and they still were well short of a sellout in a 50,000 seat stadium. What Stanford football fans there are out there are going to be pissed when Harbaugh inevitably leaves. I think he'd love to stay in an ideal world, but he's clearly frustrated that the team isn't more popular than it is, and I suspect he'd relish a chance to come home to Michigan and/or prove himself in the NFL.

I think it's probably a toss-up as to who's the better coach in the Pac-10 - Harbaugh or Kelly.

Been wanting to see Harbaugh at Michigan for years now, but I am sure the AD will find a way to fck it up somehow.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Been wanting to see Harbaugh at Michigan for years now, but I am sure the AD will find a way to fck it up somehow.

My football friend swears he's going to the NFL.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by cartman

Garret Gilbert is looking more and more like Chris Simms Lite.

I don't know... Seemed like Simms pretty much beat the teams he was supposed to beat. My memory was that he just couldn't win when it counted the most.

Gilbert is not as bad as his stats would indicate. If his receivers weren't dropping balls, he would have much better numbers, including far fewer interceptions. And he's young. He's going to get better with recognition. In my opinion, Texas needs to be far more worried about the fact that they don't seem to have anyone making plays on any kind of consistent basis at all.

I thought Texas would struggle far more than people expected. It's just natural when you lose guys like McCoy and Shipley, but I figured the defense would win a few games by themselves. And I'm shocked that they are where they are right now.

As bad as it feels with OU losing to A&M, I just look around the Big 12 and see that it's as narrow a difference in team quality as there has ever been in the conference.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug} I'd have ruled it incomplete myself.

I agree with you...that is at least believable.

[Matthean]

BCS rankings are out. Oh, and in case you didn't already know this....

Dear TCU and BSU,

Screw you.

Love,

The BCS system.

Apparently smacking Chattanooga around for under 40 while at home is far more impressive than going on the road and beating an undefeated team by 40.

NCAA College Football BCS Standings Week 11 - ESPN

New listing of bowl projections as well. I kind of chuckled at 'Bama vs. OSU in the Capital One Bowl game. What's in your wallet? Not the national title you thought when the season started. *sigh* Well, it would be nice if one of my teams got to beat OSU this year.

NCAA College Football BCS Bowl Projections Week 10 - ESPN

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Apparently smacking Chattanooga around for under 40 while at home is far more impressive than going on the road and beating an undefeated team by 40.

I don't think the BCS ratings are based on just this past week's games.

[tarcone]

Iowa sneaks by Indiana, helped at the end by a dropped TD on 4th down.

Whew.

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Iowa sneaks by Indiana, helped at the end by a dropped TD on 4th down.

SPOILER ALERT

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I don't think the BCS ratings are based on just this past week's games.

And TCU actually did gain ground on Auburn, and put some distance between themselves and Boise St.

It doesn't matter though - if Auburn wins out, they'd clearly deserve to be the national title game, same with Oregon.

Of course, both of those teams losing and Boise St/TCU winning out is the best scenario for those who just like a lot of chaos and for the BCS to look bad.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I don't think the BCS ratings are based on just this past week's games.

Oh, I know. It's just out of the four main teams TCU has the least number one votes from the coaches and ties for third in the AP. TCU also ranks 2nd by the computers, but yet have no big game after this. If Oregon and Auburn go undefeated, TCU isn't playing for the title despite killing the best team they faced all year and on the road. TCU and BSU have to have the perfect storm season to get in.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Oh, I know. It's just out of the four main teams TCU has the least number one votes from the coaches and ties for third in the AP. TCU also ranks 2nd by the computers, but yet have no big game after this. If Oregon and Auburn go undefeated, TCU isn't playing for the title despite killing the best team they faced all year and on the road. TCU and BSU have to have the perfect storm season to get in.

And if Oregon and Auburn go undefeated they have played MUCH better schedules then TCU or BSU, so there really is no complaint.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And if Oregon and Auburn go undefeated they have played MUCH better schedules then TCU or BSU, so there really is no complaint.

I have no problem with Auburn vs. Oregon, IF they both go undefeated. If BSU and/or TCU finish undefeated and are kept out of the big game while a one-loss team plays for the title, the BCS will continue to be the laughingstock of all postseason systems currently in place. Bah, what am I saying...it is a laughingstock regardless of who plays for the title.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I have no problem with Auburn vs. Oregon, IF they both go undefeated. If BSU and/or TCU finish undefeated and are kept out of the big game while a one-loss team plays for the title, the BCS will continue to be the laughingstock of all postseason systems currently in place. Bah, what am I saying...it is a laughingstock regardless of who plays for the title.

I don't really agree. BSU and TCU would both lose 2-3 games playing in the SEC, do you really think either of them are better than a one loss Alabama or Auburn? ( yes I know Alabama has 2 losses)

Just because a team goes unbeaten doesn't mean it is their right to be one of the two teams selected to play for the title. You have to factor in their schedule.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I don't really agree. BSU and TCU would both lose 2-3 games playing in the SEC, do you really think either of them are better than a one loss Alabama or Auburn? ( yes I know Alabama has 2 losses)

Just because a team goes unbeaten doesn't mean it is their right to be one of the two teams selected to play for the title. You have to factor in their schedule.

If somebody wants to take Auburn as their team then I'll gladly take TCU as mine. I think 'Bama has the best A game in the country, but they probably have the lowest chance of it happening and hence the two losses. I could see 'Bama getting beat by TCU, or BSU for no other reason I think both of those schools would be more likely to bring their A game.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Matthean

If somebody wants to take Auburn as their team then I'll gladly take TCU as mine. I think 'Bama has the best A game in the country, but they probably have the lowest chance of it happening and hence the two losses. I could see 'Bama getting beat by TCU, or BSU for no other reason I think both of those schools would be more likely to bring their A game.

My point isn't that TCU could beat one of them head to head, my point is do you really think TCU is undefeated right now with Auburns schedule?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Just because a team goes unbeaten doesn't mean it is their right to be one of the two teams selected to play for the title. You have to factor in their schedule.

True, but just because a team has a weaker schedule, it doesn't mean they wouldn't have gone undefeated against a tougher schedule. Sure, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt against other undefeated teams when we're talking bowls/national championships, but if we're just talking who's BETTER - playing a weaker opponent doesn't make you worse. It just provides less evidence of how good you are.

TCU/Boise St have been dominant. How far down the rankings would TCU/Boise St. have to go to be neutral site underdogs? Certainly they'd be favorites against anyone outside the top 10. Teams 5-10 v. TCU/Boise St. would be a very small line in either direction. They both belong where they are as long as they keep winning.

And the SEC schedule ain't this murderer's row everyone seems to think it is. There's a lot of crappy teams there TCU/Boise St. would destroy. There's only a few SEC teams ranked higher than Virginia Tech at this point. Or even Nevada.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

True, but just because a team has a weaker schedule, it doesn't mean they wouldn't have gone undefeated against a tougher schedule. Sure, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt against other undefeated teams when we're talking bowls/national championships, but if we're just talking who's BETTER - playing a weaker opponent doesn't make you worse. It just provides less evidence of how good you are.

TCU/Boise St have been dominant. How far down the rankings would TCU/Boise St. have to go to be neutral site underdogs? Certainly they'd be favorites against anyone outside the top 10. Teams 5-10 v. TCU/Boise St. would be a very small line in either direction. They both belong where they are as long as they keep winning.

And the SEC schedule ain't this murderer's row everyone seems to think it is. There's a lot of crappy teams there TCU/Boise St. would destroy. There's only a few SEC teams ranked higher than Virginia Tech at this point. Or even Nevada.

And they don't take the regular week in week out beatings top tier teams take. That makes it a lot easier to stay healthy enough to administer regular beatings.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

And the SEC schedule ain't this murderer's row everyone seems to think it is. There's a lot of crappy teams there TCU/Boise St. would destroy. There's only a few SEC teams ranked higher than Virginia Tech at this point. Or even Nevada.

Do you honestly think if Florida or Georgia played Nevadas schedule they would have more than 1 loss?

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Lathum

My point isn't that TCU could beat one of them head to head, my point is do you really think TCU is undefeated right now with Auburns schedule?

LSU is the only game that makes me pause, but it was at home, so sure I think TCU could have gone through it undefeated. Auburn beat two teams with a combined record of 10-9 by a total of 6 points and needed OT on one, so it's not like they haven't been challenged by some lesser teams.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And they don't take the regular week in week out beatings top tier teams take. That makes it a lot easier to stay healthy enough to administer regular beatings.

I didn't know TCU and BSU simply got bye weeks where they filled in Ws into the win column.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Matthean

LSU is the only game that makes me pause, but it was at home, so sure I think TCU could have gone through it undefeated. Auburn beat two teams with a combined record of 10-9 by a total of 6 points and needed OT on one, so it's not like they haven't been challenged by some lesser teams.

It isn't a matter of taking those games one at a time. It's the fact that they are all tough games and they would take their toll on the team much more than their schedule does. Quality depth would become a much bigger issue with a tougher schedule.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And they don't take the regular week in week out beatings top tier teams take. That makes it a lot easier to stay healthy enough to administer regular beatings.

Auburn's schedule isn't really that amazing, I'm not sure that they're taking beatings "week in and week out". It's tougher than Boise St/TCU's schedules, but they still have plenty of weeks off where they should dominate and stay healthy - Arkansas St, Louisiana-Monroe, Chattanooga, Kentucky, Mississippi, and they play plenty of unranked, middle of the road BCS Schools (like Oregon St).

And the WAC/MWC are always a tad underrated in these discussions. They aren't the SEC but they aren't the Sun Belt either. Both are better than the ACC or Big East.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Matthean

LSU is the only game that makes me pause, but it was at home, so sure I think TCU could have gone through it undefeated. Auburn beat two teams with a combined record of 10-9 by a total of 6 points and needed OT on one, so it's not like they haven't been challenged by some lesser teams.

But it isn't just about the LSU game in a bubble. It is about two weeks earlier having to go on the road to KY, a game I agree TCU wins, then playing Arkansas, then having to play LSU.

And I think TCU likely loses to one of Arkansas, South Carolina, and maybe a Jeckyl and Hyde Clemson.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Do you honestly think if Florida or Georgia played Nevadas schedule they would have more than 1 loss?

Georgia might not be the best example

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

. It's the fact that they are all tough games and they would take their toll on the team much more than their schedule does.

If by "all" you mean "about half", then I'm with you.

No national championship contender should consider at Kentucky a "tough game" (or the rest of the bottom half of the SEC)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Has Gabbert always had such happy feet? I've seen most of the Mizzou games the last two weeks and he never gets set, which leads to horrible overthrows and underthrows.

SI

He has a really bad habit of 'feeling' a rush that's not there when facing better teams. I guess he assumes that the better teams are going to rush quicker. Often, he'll end up running when he just needs to step up into the pocket. It's something he'll need to learn. It would help his stock at the next level tremendously.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

If by "all" you mean "about half", then I'm with you.

By all I mean the schedule as a whole and not just individual games.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

My point isn't that TCU could beat one of them head to head, my point is do you really think TCU is undefeated right now with Auburns schedule?

Sat, Sept 4 vs Arkansas State W 52-26 1-0 (0-0)
Thu, Sept 9 @ Mississippi State W 17-14 2-0 (1-0)
Sat, Sept 18 vs Clemson W 27-24 OT 3-0 (1-0)
Sat, Sept 25 vs #12 South Carolina W 35-27 4-0 (2-0)
Sat, Oct 2 vs Louisiana-Monroe W 52-3 5-0 (2-0)
Sat, Oct 9 @ Kentucky W 37-34 6-0 (3-0)
Sat, Oct 16 vs #12 Arkansas W 65-43 7-0 (4-0)
Sat, Oct 23 vs #6 LSU W 24-17 8-0 (5-0)
Sat, Oct 30 @ Mississippi W 51-31 9-0 (6-0)
Sat, Nov 6 vs Chattanooga W 62-24 10-0 (6-0)

Eh, who can say. Ark st, L-M, Chattanooga are not all that impressive. Miss St has a good record, but good wins against a down Florida and a down Georgia (and will likely look much worse after playing Bama and Arkansas). Clemson really isn't any good. SC, not a bad win (at home). Same with Arkansas, I guess. LSU is a good win.

Really, most of this is still conjecture based on what folks think power conferences are and a few meaningful out-of-conference games here and there. Which here is...uh, Clemson I guess.

It's surprising when a Big 12/SEC/Big 10 team DOESN'T go undefeated these days, with the cupcakes and larger conferences where some teams miss each other (four 1-loss Big 10 teams? Really?). Guaranteed there will be 1-loss teams, and if even those get the benefit of the doubt over other undefeateds...

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

By all I mean all.

I realize SEC fans think their conference teams should be ranked 1-12 in the national rankings, but really, all tough games on the schedule? Even Chattanooga and Louisiana-Monroe and Arkansas St? And in the SEC, even Vanderbilt and Kentucky and Tennessee and Ole Miss? (I realize Auburn didn't play Vanderbilt or Ole Miss, just looking at the SEC).

Their top 4-6 teams are better than any other conference's top teams, and to get through that undefeated is damn impressive and worthy of a national championship. But I think you're dramatically overrating the middle and bottom of the conference.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

By all I mean the schedule as a whole and not just individual games.

.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

.

They get plenty of breathers during the season. At least, "breathers" by the standard of a national championship contender. What's up with playing Chattanooga in the middle of the season anyway? Kind of kills the "week in and week out" thing they'd otherwise have going for them.

A national championship contender shouldn't feel all that threatened by games against Chattanooga or Kentucky or Mississippi or Louisiana-Monroe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't believe Kentucky belongs in that Vandy/UT/Ole Miss group of weaklings. Most years? Yeah. This year? Not really, there's some weapons on offense there.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd agree. Gabbert has to be one of the more baffling QB's we've had in awhile. His highs and lows have a really wide range of performance.

With that said, I think MU's record is right about where I'd expect it at this point. The unfortunate part is that loss took all the drama out of the North race. Nebraska has to fall really flat to miss the Championship at this point.

The B12 is just a mess right now.

He got hit pretty good in the Nebraska game and I'm not so sure he doesn't have a mild concussion.

His staff always seems to have issues adjusting when things are not working according to the game plan. I still love him.. but I'm not big on the OC.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Has Gabbert always had such happy feet? I've seen most of the Mizzou games the last two weeks and he never gets set, which leads to horrible overthrows and underthrows.

SI

I think he has Bulger syndrome.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

.

Auburn's schedule was posted and there's definitely breather games in there. Was playing Louisiana-Monroe at home so utterly difficult and draining that going to play UK the next week was that difficult?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I don't really agree. BSU and TCU would both lose 2-3 games playing in the SEC, do you really think either of them are better than a one loss Alabama or Auburn? ( yes I know Alabama has 2 losses)

There is no way you can know this to be fact without them actually playing an SEC schedule for a period of enough years to get a realistic sample size. BSU and TCU do not have the depth that an Auburn/Florida/Alabama have this is true, but over a period of several seasons, would their recruiting not become better by playing these teams, thus increasing their quality of depth? I honestly don't see anyone in the SEC beating Boise State right now except for Auburn.

Originally Posted by Lathum

Just because a team goes unbeaten doesn't mean it is their right to be one of the two teams selected to play for the title. You have to factor in their schedule.

This is the type of BCS nonsense that makes the whole system a sham. Name another league, anywhere, that does not allow an undefeated regular season team to participate for a chance at a title. Going unbeaten automatically gives a team a right to be selected for a title game, and this is why the BCS is a farce.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Auburn's schedule was posted and there's definitely breather games in there. Was playing Louisiana-Monroe at home so utterly difficult and draining that going to play UK the next week was that difficult?

Yeah, but every game on BSU and TCUs schedule is a breather game except one or two. Auburn plays 7-8 games a season that have teams with NFL caliber players on them, no one TCU or BSU plays has that kind of talent, including the Nevadas of the world.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Lathum

But it isn't just about the LSU game in a bubble. It is about two weeks earlier having to go on the road to KY, a game I agree TCU wins, then playing Arkansas, then having to play LSU.

And I think TCU likely loses to one of Arkansas, South Carolina, and maybe a Jeckyl and Hyde Clemson.

I see TCU beating all three of those teams, although Arkansas would be a helluva matchup.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Yeah, but every game on BSU and TCUs schedule is a breather game except one or two. Auburn plays 7-8 games a season that have teams with NFL caliber players on them, no one TCU or BSU plays has that kind of talent, including the Nevadas of the world.

Try telling this to Idaho, Fresno State, Hawaii, etc., while they are not the quality of opponent that Auburn may play in conference, these teams bring their "A" game because of who and what Boise State is now. Also, while there are more NFL caliber players on SEC teams than in the WAC, how many come from Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

There is no way you can know this to be fact without them actually playing an SEC schedule for a period of enough years to get a realistic sample size. BSU and TCU do not have the depth that an Auburn/Florida/Alabama have this is true, but over a period of several seasons, would their recruiting not become better by playing these teams, thus increasing their quality of depth? I honestly don't see anyone in the SEC beating Boise State right now except for Auburn.
.

You aren't arguing the same point as everyone else. No one is saying BSU and/ or TCU couldn't build a program in the SEC over a long period of time. We are discussing this season, and this season both those teams lose 2-3 games. You want proof, look and see how many guys the SEC puts into the NFL and look and see how many thew WAC puts in.

As for your last point, you pretty much lose all credibility with that statement. Alabama would paste BSU by double digits. BSU probably losses to Arkansas, USC, and LSU as well. This is a BSU team that struggled to beat Va Tech who lost to James Madison.

[RomaGoth]

Dola

Not trying to start a fight with you Lathum, just a friendly debate is all it is.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You aren't arguing the same point as everyone else. No one is saying BSU and/ or TCU couldn't build a program in the SEC over a long period of time. We are discussing this season, and this season both those teams lose 2-3 games. You want proof, look and see how many guys the SEC puts into the NFL and look and see how many thew WAC puts in.

As for your last point, you pretty much lose all credibility with that statement. Alabama would paste BSU by double digits. BSU probably losses to Arkansas, USC, and LSU as well. This is a BSU team that struggled to beat Va Tech who lost to James Madison.

How exactly do I lose credibility? Because my OPINION is different than yours? There is no way you can state with any factual evidence that Alabama "pastes" BSU by double digits. They are a much better team than anyone realizes, and they won't be given the chance to prove it again because of the good 'ol boy network that is the ridiculous BCS.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Also, while there are more NFL caliber players on SEC teams than in the WAC, how many come from Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State?

To answer your question these 3 schools had 7 combined drafted players, the WAC, BSU included, had five as a whole.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Lathum

As for your last point, you pretty much lose all credibility with that statement. Alabama would paste BSU by double digits. BSU probably losses to Arkansas, USC, and LSU as well. This is a BSU team that struggled to beat Va Tech who lost to James Madison.

You have more faith in 'Bama than I do. Should they win? Yes, but I'm not sure this year's team gets it. Oh, if we are going to use single game arguments, can we talk about LSU's win against Tennessee?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

How exactly do I lose credibility? Because my OPINION is different than yours? There is no way you can state with any factual evidence that Alabama "pastes" BSU by double digits. They are a much better team than anyone realizes, and they won't be given the chance to prove it again because of the good 'ol boy network that is the ridiculous BCS.

In my eyes if you think for one second BSU beats Alabama you are nuts.

And I am far from an SEC homer, I graduated from Washington and grew up in Big East country. I also have watched every BSU game this season.

They get killed by Alabama. The Tide has all NFL athletes on their defense.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Lathum

To answer your question these 3 schools had 7 combined drafted players, the WAC, BSU included, had five as a whole.

Good thing games are played on paper based on talent.