iggymcfly

It's an easy choice. Take the guy who's averaging over a yard a carry more than any of the other competitors, and has run for at least 100 yards in every game this season. Oh wait, I forgot. The hype machine didn't get around to him in time, so JJ Arrington's not even a finalist for the award.

Well, I guess everybody sees the early round KO here, and it's pretty hard to argue with a knockout. Williams does have some talent and just to be a rebel, I'll say he hangs in there until the 8th, but there's no way he can actually win the fight. As for the next Tyson? He's ben in jail for quite a while. ESPN does an article or a feature on him every now and then, but his name escapes me at the moment. Anyway, he's getting a little older now, but he has loads of talent, and a lot of people think he'd be heavyweight champion if he was a free man. By the way, I like the metaphor of a penis and an asshole for good and evil. It might have been done in a gay porn or something, but I don't know if it's ever been used in a regular conversation like that.

I guess the serious argument over the substance of the article is kind of interesting, but here's what really caught my eye. Under what circumstances exactly, does a female interrogator remove her blouse during questioning? Is she trying to say "join with America, we've got plenty of whores?" Does she think that she'll get him to betray his country if she shows him her boobs? What exactly is the goal here? This is one part of the article that I thought could have really used a lot more detail.

COULDN'T CARE LESS OK, now that's picky. It's a pretty common form of speech to say could care less instead of couldn't care less. That's the kind of thing that people say on a discussion forum all the time. It's only stuff like understanding the difference between nouns and adjectives that actually merits flaming. As for who's going to win the trophy, it's going to be Leinart. He's got the hype, and that's enough to get picked by all the voters who don't know who to vote for. Also, he'll be getting a ton of second-place and third-place votes, whereas a lot of voters will leave White or Peterson off their ballots completely. I did watch Mel Kiper today, and all I remember about is that I was laughing really hard, and thinking about Damaramu when they were talking about how White wasn't going to get anywhere in the NFL. If it's any consolation though, Matt Leinart's going to be the next Eli Manning, as the hyped QB who's not really all that good, and will either fade into obscurity as a backup or follow the Ryan Leaf path to infamy. If I was a GM looking to get a QB in this draft, I'd either take Alex Smith or wait until the late rounds and scoop up Stefan Lefors.

ESPN just announced the finalists for the Heisman and there are five of them. Here they are: Jason White (QB, Oklahoma) Adrian Peterson (RB, Oklahoma) Matt Leinart (QB, USC) Reggie Bush (RB, USC) Alex Smith (QB, Utah)

No, Rodgers played great against USC, but he really hasn't done anything since. JJ Arrington's been carrying that team all year long, and on the whole, Arrington is probably the most overlooked candidate there is, but Rodgers can't really be taken seriously as a candidate at this point.

NOTE: This was originally going to be a reply in the "last week in college football" thread, but it got pretty long, and I thought it deserved its own topic. I'd really like to see people's opinion on this playoff plan. From a fairness standpoint, a 16-team playoff with every conference champion getting it doesn't work. A team like North Texas just barely belongs in a bowl game, let alone in a playoff to determine the national champion. The fact is that there is enough disparity betwen the upper and lower levels of I-A football that there does need to be some reward for the lower level teams. A 16-team playoff would destroy the bowl system, and in the long run, that would greatly damage most of the mid-majors, as well as take a lot of the magic away from college football, in devaluing regular season games for top level teams. In order to fairly determine a national champion, an 8-team playoff is the only way to go. However, instead of giving automatic berths to the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-10, and SEC Champions, just give berths to the top 6 conference champions by BCS rank, regardless of what conference they're in. In order to make sure Notre Dame has an easy road, they can even count I-A independents as its own conference. That way, the system doesn't explicitly discriminate against mid-majors, and we won't get stuck with lame-duck teams like West Virginia. This year, for example, Michigan and West Virginia would have gotten left out, while Boise State and California would have made it in. The only real problem with an eight-team playoff is how to implement it without damaging the bowl system. The idea of making an eight-team playoff consist of seven bowl games doesn't work, because no team's fans will travel to three different games, and the bowls wouldn't be able to draw in any traditional sense. However, the playoff games would all be a television ratings bonanza, so there is money to be made with them. The first thing to do with a playoff is to make sure the regular season ends by the last week in November. The conference championship games can be held the week after rivalry week instead of dragging things out for multiple weeks. Then, the quarterfinals of the playoffs can be held at campus sites the week before final exams while the students are still around to go to the games. This will also give enough time that the losers of the BCS games can go to bowls, and their fans will still want to see them. They can even let the bowls mix the quarterfinal losers with non-playoff teams, so that there will be intriguing storylines with the last teams that made the playoffs going against the teams that thought they should have been in. Meanwhile, the semifinal games will also take place at bowl sites on New Year's Day, as plenty of fans will travel to watch their team play in a traditional bowl for a chance to go the national championship. Finally, the national championship can be held two weeks after New Year's Day, even on a weekday if people are worried about conflicts with the NFL playoffs. Both teams will have time to prepare, and there will be enough national interest that the lost travel really won't be that much of a motivation. In order to maximize travel opportunities, they can say that the national championship will be held at the closest major bowl site (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, or Sugar) to the campus of the higher-ranked BCS team in the game. That way, I-A football would be able to determine a true national champion, the bowl system would be (for the most part) intact, exams wouldn't be interrupted, and the NCAA would be able to get a financial bonanza from the playoff system. Even the quarterfinal games at campus sites would be worth about $10 million each in television rights, and the "real national championship game" would probably be worth about $20 million to a network. It seems like the positives of this system would greatly outweigh the negatives, and there's really no good reason not to implement it.

Yeah, but Louisville lost when they faced Miami. Utah beat Texas A&M handily, which is a far better win than anything the Cardinals done. And the way that Utah's been dominating this year, I wouldn't be surprised to see them beat Cal or Oklahoma on the road, let alone Miami.

Just like in the Orange Bowl thread, I'm going to do my part, and be the only one to focus on the actual game. The Big 10 has been terrible this year, and is just barely ahead of the Big East. Michigan's best win all year was probably over an Iowa team that lost to Arizona State 41-7. In addition, they lost to an extremely mediocre Notre Dame team, and choked on the last day of the season against OSU in a game they thought they needed to make the Rose Bowl. While Texas has been fairly overrated this year, and has shown a propensity in the past to choke in big games, Michigan has been both of those things to an even greater degree. If I'm going to pick a score for the final, I'll take the score of the OSU/Michigan game, and drop a TD from Texas's score for Texas's offense choking and take away a TD from Michigan because Texas's defense is clutch. That gives us final score of: Texas 30 Michigan 14

Oh yeah. If Mack Brown had Cal ranked above seventh, I'd be shocked. I just want to know who else he put in there. Virginia Tech that lost to USC at home by even more? Georgia who lost twice in the conference whose undefeated champion "doesn't belong in the Orange Bowl." Louisville who played a weaker schedule and lost to Miami instead of USC? Hell, maybe it was just Texas A&M to "support the conference."

Yeah, they benefitted from a slightly above average offense and being in the Big East. Especially being in the Big East. Edited for accuracy.

different = an adjective an adjective = something that modifies a noun write= a verb an adverb = something that modifies a verb differently = an adverb and while we're at it, even though it's been said a million times bias = a NOUN biased = an adjective A noun never ever modifies another noun. It's like saying, the victim was death on the scene, instead of saying the victim was dead.

No, what he was saying was that by the time the Irish did contact him, (which is well-documented), he had already made up his mind to go to Florida. Since the contract was all but signed by the time Notre Dame came out, he never really considered them, and just told them that they were too late because he was going to coach Florida instead.

Well, I'll try to stick with the message of the thread here. Looking at the actual football to be played and not the controversy, I think USC matches up extremely well with Oklahoma. Oklahoma has a really strong defensive front and is able to shut down grind-it-out rushing teams well. (see Texas) However, they showed themselves to be vulnerable to the big play when they played more of a passing team in Texas A&M, and even gave up big plays in the secondary to what was traditionally a running team in Oklahoma State. This leads me to believe that USC who hits tons of big plays, but is unable to make a consistent drive running the ball to save their lives will have a field day. As for the other side of the ball, USC has done at least a decent job against balanced offenses, and has if anything shown themselves to be more vulnerable against more west coast offense type schemes than a vertical passing game. They won't be able to completely shut down the combo of Jason White and Adrian Peterson, but they should at least be able to keep them in check. This analysis leads me to believe that while USC will be able to, for the most part play their game on offense, and put up similar numbers to what they usually do, Oklahoma will be slown down somewhat and will not quite reach their usual heights. I'd give USC their usual score of about 38, and then put Oklahoma halfway between the 12 points they scored against Texas and the 42 they run up on Texas A&M. This leads to a 38-27 score, so subtracting a field goal for the fact that national championship games tend to be primarily defensive struggles, we're left with a final score of: USC 35 Oklahoma 24

Nah, the Big 10's terrible this year. Their co-champion Iowa lost to Arizona State 44-7. The way that Michigan fell apart the last weekend leads me to believe that even overrated shitty Texas will be able to beat them.

UCF went 0-12 this year, so I don't think George O' Leary's a very hot commodity right now. I think that Norm Chow would be an absolutely ideal candidate for Notre Dame, if they can lure him away from USC. Notre Dame's not a hot enough job to take away top head coaches anymore, but that doesn't mean that they can't take a top assistant away from a good job to coach the Irish.

They only lose the down for the incomplete pass, not an extra one besides. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have been able to kick the field goal. Again, if the QB just threw it down in bounds after going way past the line, the referee could treat it like an intentional fumble, but otherwise, it should have worked just fine and been an extremely smart play to boot.

OK, missed that, but when the same guy leads the country in total rushing yards, and yards per carry (with a 100 carry minimum), it's pretty obvious who the real leading rusher was. I just don't get why he's not considered a serious Heisman candidate when his numbers are so far ahead of Peterson and Benson's.

Looking at the responses here, the only real criticism I see is that an eight-team playoff would give too many unworthy competitors a chance. However, teams like Boise State and Utah that "haven't proven themselves" really haven't had a chance to do so. Would there really be any argument if say Boise State won a national championship by going 14-0 and beating USC, Texas, and Auburn to win the title? If it's truly a championship for all of Division I-A football, it seems like all 117 teams should have some kind of shot at it, if they go undefeated, and do so in at least moderately impressive fashion. Under the current system, you could make the argument that only USC, Oklahoma, and those two teams' opponents really had a chance to win the national championship this year. Short of blowing every team out by 40 points, Auburn was doomed as soon as the season started. If USC chokes in the national championship game to a 13-2 Virginia Tech team and ends up at 14-1, they still have much less claim that they were "screwed out of the title" then a 13-0 Auburn team or a 12-0 Utah team that did everything that was asked of it. I don't really get how the same people who say "Cal lost on the road to USC by one possession, they don't deserve to be in any kind of playoff" can also say it's not fair for an undefeated to lose their championship claim with one loss in a playoff. As for the idea of a 16-team playoff, my point with North Texas wasn't just that they don't belong in a playoff to determine the national champion, but also that they do deserve some reward for having as good of a season as they can be expected to given their circumstances. If there was a 16-team playoff, so may attractive teams would be used up in a tournament which would have to take place largely at campus sites to be viable, that the bowl system would become obsolete. This would leave most mid-major teams out in the cold, and completely eliminate a sub-structure which helps support the smaller teams in college football, and gives the 90% who don't reach the playoffs something to strive for throughout their seasons.

This has got to be one of the worst BCS snubs ever, Cal had one loss by one possession on the road against the #1 team in the country. The idea that a team playing that way would not get a BCS berth, especially when overrated Texas is the beneficiary, is unconscionable. All those stupid coaches who moved Texas ahead of Cal based on that Southern Miss game last night should have their votes revoked. Oh, and I guarantee you that Mack Brown voted Texas #2 in the country.

Well, the computers obviously aren't biased against a particular conference. The reason they favor Texas so much over Cal is that they can't factor in margin of victory. If the computers knew that Texas almost lost to Kansas, and they knew how much Cal blew out every team but Southern Miss and Oregon by, they'd have Cal ahead of Texas easy. For example, the Sagarin rankings that are used by the BCS have Cal at 5 and Texas at 4. His official rankings for who the best teams in the country are, however, have Cal at 3 ahead of Auburn, and Texas down at 6.

I'm probably going to get a Top 25 in basketball too really soon, but in the meantime, here's the three teams who will get to the Final Four on talent and not upsets and a lucky draw.: 1. Georgia Tech- Still the most talented team in the country. Has tournament experience and will likely finish the job with a title this year. 2. Illinois- Executing perfectly early in the season, and is just destroying top teams, leading both Wake Forest and Gonzaga by 20 points. 3. Oklahoma State- Returns the nucleus of last year's Final Four team, and knows how to execute at the absolute top level on offense and defense, as shown by their dominant performance yesterday where they led WSU 58-12 at one point.

The leader rusher was Jamarrio Williams from North Texas. Peterson finished 2 yards behind J.J. Arrington 1845-843 for total rushing yards. Jamario Thomas has actually fallen all the way to sixth at this point. JJ Arrington's the leading rusher in the country, but what's really impressive is that he has more yards in 11 games than Adrian Peterson has in 12 games. If anyone wants a quick statistical comparison among RBs, here it is: JJ Arrington: 264 carries for 1845 yards, 7.0 ypc, 14 TDs Adrian Peterson: 314 carries for 1843 yards, 5.9 ypc, 15 TDs Cedric Benson: 303 carries for 1764 yards, 5.8 ypc, 19 TDs Jamario Thomas: 256 carries for 1709 yards, 6.7 ypc, 17 TDs Really, considering that Arrington's stats are so much better than everyone else's and considering that he's performed well whenever the Golden Bears were put in a big-game situation, I don't see why he's not being given more consideration for the Heisman. He truly is the best all-around player in the game this year. Here's my final top five: 1. JJ Arrington (Cal, RB) 2. Adrian Peterson (Oklahoma, RB) 3. Derrick Johnson (Texas, LB) 4. Reggie Bush (USC, RB) 5. Alex Smith (Utah, QB)

Actually, the preseason rankings aren't really the problem, as the computers have a much larger disparity between Auburn and the other undefeateds than the polls do. Basically, when they were making the schedule, and they added The Citadel, Louisian Tech, and Louisiana Monroe, they were fucked. I heard that they had other teams scheduled that backed out, but it doesn't matter. They needed at least one major non-conference opponent to put them over the top. If they would have scheduled some mediocre team like OSU or Texas Tech and blown them out instead of playing straight cupcakes, they'd probably be playing for the title instead of Oklahoma.

Arrington's stats are just as impressive as Smith's if not more, as he's been averaging over 7 yards a carry. Then, when they're putting up comparable stats, the edge has to go to the guy who's done it against Pac-10 defenses all year over the guy who's been lighting up the Mountain West. Who's to say that Alex Smith wouldn't have a Jason White in the Red River Shootout kind of performance if he had to face a truly great defense. I really think that for a mid-major guy to win it, he has to put up significantly better stats than the other competitors.