DDD Forum
https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/

College Football.
https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=146		 Page 29 of 106
Author:  Jess [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
oh yeah i forgot about the wvu game. i mean i would love to see that stanford-lsu game too. just saying i'm cool with a rematch because it would be intense. but now that i think about it more i would mainly want to see a rematch just for the hell of it and not in the ncg. boise state-stanford would be awesome to watch.
Author:  Paulie [ Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
lonewolf371 wrote:
Paulie wrote:
:lol: I'm just going to assume you're joking.

Purdue lost to Wisconsin 62-17. By my super-advanced calculations, Mizzou would have lost 63-16.


:lol: <3 Bad week for both schools. Oh and that whole top 5 team in the country thing...there was an invisible disclaimer at the bottom of that post that said "only if Mizzou stays in the big 12." I promise. And I was really enjoying Missouri being relatively competent and competitive in football! At least they're moving to the 'easier' division. MEH.
Author:  batman [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
You know what's funny is that if Stanford goes undefeated (and presumably goes to the national championship game), then I'm pretty sure the new Pac 12 setup is that the loser of the Pac 12 championship game goes to the Rose Bowl...which will likely be UCLA. I wonder where that would rank in the history of teams getting blown out in BCS bowl games.
Author:  Jess [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
i don't think they have to choose the loser of that game if they don't get stanford. they would get at at-large bid if they wanted, unless something has changed recently. in 2004 with usc in the ncg the rose bowl selected texas as an at-large to play michigan--though the pac-10 didn't have divisions. but i think the big 12 2nd place was never a shoo-in for the fiesta bowl whenever texas or ou played for the ncg. in 2008 texas was second (technically, definitely not realistically) in the big 12 south and ou beat a pretty decent mizzou team to play for the ncg, and texas got an at-large bid instead of mizzou who was officially second in the conference. it might be different for the pac-12 now.
Author:  batman [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
Yeah I actually don't know how it works, I was just assuming they changed it with the creation of the two divisions
Author:  lonewolf371 [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
I don't think so. I think they have to take the Pac-12 and the Big Ten champs and if either one doesn't show they pick who they want.
Author:  corrections [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
lonewolf371 wrote:
LSU's D got run over by West "by God" Virginia so I think the best QB in college football could find points against them.


West Virginia has a very, very good offense and system. But more to the point LSU makes most teams go the full distance of the field because their punter is a badass. It's pretty tough to do that.
Author:  lonewolf371 [ Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
corrections wrote:
West Virginia has a very, very good offense and system.

Yeah but so does Stanford. I think the real issue is Stanford doesn't have Alabama's defense. They would score more than Bama, but they'd give up more, too.
Author:  batman [ Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
Not that I'm close to expecting a rematch (or even totally rooting for one), but this article is kind of making me rethink my stance that the Ducks are having a bad year.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id ... ole-oregon

Quote:
Who's going to note that Oregon gained 335 yards -- 95 rushing -- against LSU's MANLY MAN DEFENSE that held Alabama -- in overtime! -- to 295 yards (96 rushing)? Who's going to say, hey, did you know that Oregon's dinky little Pac-12 defense held LSU to 273 yards, not much more than ALABAMA's MANLY MAN DEFENSE, which held the Tigers to 239?
Author:  corrections [ Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
lonewolf371 wrote:
corrections wrote:
West Virginia has a very, very good offense and system.

Yeah but so does Stanford. I think the real issue is Stanford doesn't have Alabama's defense. They would score more than Bama, but they'd give up more, too.



And so did/does Oregon. How'd that work out when LSU basically had a month to prepare?
Author:  corrections [ Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
batman wrote:
Not that I'm close to expecting a rematch (or even totally rooting for one), but this article is kind of making me rethink my stance that the Ducks are having a bad year.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id ... ole-oregon

Quote:
Who's going to note that Oregon gained 335 yards -- 95 rushing -- against LSU's MANLY MAN DEFENSE that held Alabama -- in overtime! -- to 295 yards (96 rushing)? Who's going to say, hey, did you know that Oregon's dinky little Pac-12 defense held LSU to 273 yards, not much more than ALABAMA's MANLY MAN DEFENSE, which held the Tigers to 239?


The problem is that ignores the context of the field position LSU had in the game from the turnovers they forced. Why did LSU score so many more points against Oregon? Because they forced a couple of turnovers. 50% of their drives were successful. Also Oregon's only two long drives came in the 4th quarter where the outcome was close (and for the last drive was) decided. So I wouldn't be so sure that just looking at the yards tells you very much.
Author:  lonewolf371 [ Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
corrections wrote:
lonewolf371 wrote:
corrections wrote:
West Virginia has a very, very good offense and system.

Yeah but so does Stanford. I think the real issue is Stanford doesn't have Alabama's defense. They would score more than Bama, but they'd give up more, too.



And so did/does Oregon. How'd that work out when LSU basically had a month to prepare?

It basically worked out how I described it. Oregon scored more points and they gave up more. I never claimed that Stanford would beat LSU.
Author:  clarksided [ Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
This PSU thing is unreal.

Just crazy and, above all else, disturbing.
Author:  batman [ Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
corrections wrote:
batman wrote:
Not that I'm close to expecting a rematch (or even totally rooting for one), but this article is kind of making me rethink my stance that the Ducks are having a bad year.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id ... ole-oregon

Quote:
Who's going to note that Oregon gained 335 yards -- 95 rushing -- against LSU's MANLY MAN DEFENSE that held Alabama -- in overtime! -- to 295 yards (96 rushing)? Who's going to say, hey, did you know that Oregon's dinky little Pac-12 defense held LSU to 273 yards, not much more than ALABAMA's MANLY MAN DEFENSE, which held the Tigers to 239?


The problem is that ignores the context of the field position LSU had in the game from the turnovers they forced. Why did LSU score so many more points against Oregon? Because they forced a couple of turnovers. 50% of their drives were successful. Also Oregon's only two long drives came in the 4th quarter where the outcome was close (and for the last drive was) decided. So I wouldn't be so sure that just looking at the yards tells you very much.


Hmm, yeah those are some pretty good points. On the whole it will be unimportant after Stanford presumably beats Oregon this weekend :sad:
Our defense is really suffering from the lack of Cliff Harris. That dude was a boss.
Author:  lonewolf371 [ Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: College Football.
So... Joe Paterno...

Can't believe he's going out this way. After everything he's done, his career, even small things like leading Penn St. to first place in the Leaders and possibly another Big Ten title, it turns out that he basically harbored a sexual predator. Shocking.
Page 29 of 106 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/