iggymcfly

Umm, excuse me? Vince Young has the highest QB rating in the country. At 168.58, he's three points higher than Olson and 10 points higher than Leinart. USC has a tremendous offense, Bush has had an amazing year, and you can't really fault him getting the Heisman. However, I'm sick of people ignoring what Vince Young has done this season. He's probably had the third best individual season in the last decade. He was leading the conference in rushing until he focused on being a better pocket passer, and now he leads the nation in passing efficiency instead. He's basically everything that Michael Vick wished he was in college. The idea that anyone has had a far better season than Vince Young from under center is just crazy. Granted, it will be quite a test to see what VY does against USC (despite their propensity to give up a lot of rushing yards, they have one of the best secondaries in the country.) However, up to this point in the year, he's been pretty much the perfect weapon from the quarterback position.

ESPN's got Jerome Harrison up to fifth. I'd put him at third myself behind Bush and Young. You'd think that they would have announced the actual finalists by now though if they're holding the ceremony on Saturday. I guess too many people wanted to actually watch all the games before they voted. I'm still not quite sure who deserves to win though. I was all over the VY bandwagon before the last 2 weeks, but with Bush rushing for over 250 yards in each of his last two games, it's hard to vote against him. On one hand, Vince Young is fifth in the Big XII in rushing playing half the game, and he leads the nation in passing efficiency. Meanwhile, Bush is averaging an unheard of 8.9 yards per carry. I guess, just based on the fact that VY had a slightly off game when Texas was battling A&M, and that Bush has come up huge for the Trojans whenever they've had a big game, I'd have to give the slight nod to Reggie, but I think that Vince Young wins the Heisman any of the last five years before this one. The last Heisman winner good enough to beat out VY was probably Ricky Williams.

Wait I'm confused. Which dynasty did you watch? Was it John Wooden's UCLA Bruins or Red Auerbach's Boston Celtics? Maybe the Montreal Canadiens or New York Yankees from the early part of the century? I know you're not talking about USC because their dominance doesn't even approach any of those teams. The Trojans are an extremely good football team and a blowout over Texas might put them ahead of mid-90s Nebraska for the best college football team of the modern era, but calling them the greatest dynasty in the history of sports is a little much.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the modern Sooner fan has been beating Texas so badly over the last four or five years that they don't really feel threatened byt them, even after the loss this year. Therefore, they're transferring all their rage onto the USC team that started them into this descent last year. I can actually kind of sympathize as I grew up in Missoula, and Montana had beaten Montana State 12 years in a row. Then, when our 14-0 team got raped in the I-AA Championship by Marshall (with Randy Moss and Chad Pennington, talk about unfair), we really hated them more than any team in the country. If we could have gotten Marshall to come to Missoula back then, it would have meant more than every other game for the rest of the year combined.

Honestly, count me as being way off the "Oregon got screwed" bandwagon. Notre Dame isn't in a BCS conference, so they got in automatically as a result of finishing in the Top 6. It's a good rule, and it's the same rule that Utah qualified under last year. I didn't here anybody complaining last year that #6 Utah got an at-large berth even though Cal was ranked higher.

I actually agree with the ND thing. There really won't be anyone in the Pac Ten that will be able to challenge SC next year, (big change right?), but with the way that Charlie Weis is rebuilding that Irish program, and with the history they have, I think they can take down the Trojans next year. If USC does beat the Irish at home next year, the streak will probably still be going into next year's title game. Texas is a really good team and all, but I just don't think there's anyone in CFB this year that can do anything against this year's Trojan team. The offense is just unstoppable. Honestly, that's the best offensive line since at least the Nebraska dynasty. They give the backs about 4 or 5 yards before they even have to hit anyone, and Leinart never gets touched for about 5 or 6 seconds. Then, when you add on the fastest runner in the country, (Bush), tremendous receivers, and a former Heisman winner at QB, I just don't see how anyone can beat them. That UCLA game was the first time all year that they actually bothered to pull out the 'A' game for 4 quarters, and they scored 66 points against a team that was 9-1 going in. Oregon, ASU, and ND all saw for it a half, and it was devastating, but UCLA's the first team to really feel the full force of the Trojan beatdown. If they bring that against Texas, there's no way the Longhorns hold them under 40 points. I don't doubt that VY and the Horns will be able to run up points as well, but Carroll will be able to scheme well enough to at least slow them down. Despite the terrible performance against Fresno, the Trojan defense does have quite a bit of talent, especially in the secondary. They'll get a stop here, a big pick there, and it will be just enough to keep Texas from keeping pace. Here's a few final thoughts to remember about USC. 1. The last time they were in this situation (big game against an "equally talented" opponent; a month to prepare), they scored 38 points in the first half, and were up 48-10 at the end of the third quarter. 2. This year, the offense is better. 3. This year, they're playing at home. Honestly, there's no way in hell Texas can keep pace. I know I posted a final score earlier, but it was a little off, and a better one came to me: USC 44 Texas 31 Texas is better than probably 4 or 5 of the last 10 national champions, and they're going to try to make a game out of it, but this USC team's just special. I really can't imagine that they'd lose a game with this much preparation.

It's too bad the bowl alliance isn't still around. That would have been even better. We still would have had Penn State vs. USC in the Rose Bowl, but we'd also get Texas vs. Ohio State matching the #1 and #2 (non-Pac Ten/Big Ten champs) in the national championship. Notre Dame vs. West Virginia and Georgia vs. Florida State would also be tremendous bowl games.

I think this will actually be a good game. However, USC's offense is a little better tested, and you just know that Pete Carroll's going to come up with a hell of a game plan over the next month. USC 41 Texas 27

Nah, let PSU play Va. Tech; the Hokies are better. Trust me, Ohio State will have no problem beating the Irish in Tempe.

Not much change this week. (Previous week's ranking in parenthesis) 1. Texas 11-0 (1) 2. USC 11-0 (2) 3. Penn State 10-1 (3) 4. Ohio State 9-2 (4) 5. LSU 10-1 (5) 6. Virginia Tech 10-1 (6) 7. Auburn 9-2 (7) 8. Notre Dame 9-2 (8) 9. Oregon 10-1 (9) 10. Miami 9-2 (10) 11. West Virginia 9-1 (11) 12. Georgia 9-2 (12) 13. UCLA 9-1 (13) 14. Alabama 9-2 (15) 15. TCU 10-1 (16) 16. Michigan 7-4 (17) 17. Florida 8-3 (24) 18. Boston College 8-3 (20) 19. Louisville 8-2 (21) 20. Wisconsin 9-3 (23) 21. Texas Tech 9-2 (25) 22. Georgia Tech 7-4 (19) 23. Iowa 7-4 (NR) 24. Clemson 7-4 (NR) 25. South Carolina 7-4 (NR)

Yeah, actually OSU was getting 19 points. I just figured that because of their history against OU, they'd play them close and lose by 7 or something. They played Texas close in a similar situation, and I thought 19 was too much against OU. I actually knew that Pitt and GT weren't very good bets, and I made both of those on impulse at the last second. I bet on Pitt because it was Thanksgiving and I wanted some action so I'd have a reason to watch the late game, and with GT I bet the moneyline (+155) because I like Tech, I needed them in Bored's contest, and I figured they at least had a decent chance to beat Georgia.

Hey Dama, I know what you're talking about. I've occasionally had people talk me into going early to football games, and then "sat" in the student section where no one's allowed to sit down the entire football game, and yes it's miserable. What you really need to do is buck the crowd, show up right around kickoff, and just sit wherever you can. (End zone seats are perfect if you can sit there with student admission.) Also, if you can smuggle an alcoholic beverage in, that will help tremendously. I've found that what I really enjoy at college is the basketball games. It's only a two hour commitment, and you can usually find a perfectly good seat ten minutes before tipoff. You can sit down except when standing up is actually warranted, it's warm (probably not a problem in Oklahoma), and nobody checks at the gate to see if you have a Coke and rum in your pocket. Honestly, it's tons of fun to think up creative insults for the FT shooters when you're a little trashed, and by the last five minutes or so, you're really into the game.

Hey, I'll get a chance to defend my title in the Pussy Bowl! All right! I guess if I'm not going to make it to the Bored Bowl, I might as well try to win the bowl game that I named myself.

Well, actually my big pick was the Iowa State game. ($400 out of $1300) With Stevie Hicks healthy, they were 6-0 including blowouts over Iowa and Texas A&M, and the big win over Colorado. What I didn't realize was that he'd reinjured the ankle in the fourth quarter against Colorado, and that even though he was starting against Kansas, he wasn't the same running back at all. He was visibly limping during the game and ended up with 14 yards on 14 carries. As for Florida State ($200 and my other big bet), I just figured that when they got their first loss (no Rose Bowl), and already had clinched the division, they really had nothing to play for, and that's why they'd been losing to teams like Clemson. I figured that in their big rivalry game they'd show signs of being a Top Ten team in terms of talent and easily beat the Gators. OK, wrong again. With Louisville and Notre Dame, I guess I just underestimated the letdown factor, as they had their worst home showing and worst road showing respectively. Out of their eight wins going into the game, Notre Dame's only win by less than 19 points was the win over Michigan. As for Louisville, sure 36 points looks like a huge spread, but look at the home scores for Louisville this year. def. Oregon State 63-27 (36 points) def. FAU 61-10 (51 points) def. North Carolina 69-14 (55 points) def. Pittsburgh 42-20 (22 points) def. Rutgers 56-5 (51 points) That 56-5 score also gave me the idea that Rutgers would have some leftover humiliation that would translate into a poor showing against Cincinnatti, but apparently that was completely wrong as well. As for LSU, they've actually done great against the spread for me against jobber teams this year, covering against Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, North Texas, and Ole Miss. Anyway, yesterday, I was thinking it was all regression to the mean, and that maybe I really knew nothing at all, but now I'm thinking that once rivalry games start, everything's bizarro world. If I do the football betting thing next year, I'll of course tread more carefully all around, but I'm really going to tread carefully during the rivalry weeks. My 6-8 showing last week was worse than anything I'd done over the last month and a half, and then I followed it up with the 0-12 goose egg.

I bet on: Pittsburgh LSU Colorado Iowa State Mississippi Cincinnatti Notre Dame Louisville Oklahoma State UL Monroe Georgia Tech Florida State God, it's still hard to imagine that many games could be wrong. All told, I lost $1300. Again, I was up $2000 for the year on college football going in, and I'm up a lot more than that on poker, so the money doesn't really hurt, but my ego's severely bruised, and I can't imagine counting on betting college football to get me anywhere ever again.

Hey, I can talk college football fine, I've got plenty of knowledge on the subject, and I'd been doing really well betting it until this week. That's why the whole thing bothers me so much. I was convinced that I was a fucking expert on college football, and then I got so many games wrong this week that it defied the laws of probability.

Just for the record, I'd like to state that I know absolutely nothing about college football. Nothing. On my bets this week, I went.....(wait for it)....... 0-12 The odds of that happening through random chance are over 4,000-1. Honestly, I can't decide whether I want to crawl into a dark hole, or just whip myself until I leave scars. I think I'll settle on moping around and laughing at how stupid I am. It's not even the money, (I've won plenty playing poker lately, so I'm not worried about it.) It's the idea that all this time, while I was poring over scores, and studying the past history of teams, I was basically beating my head against the wall because I know NOTHING about football. NOTHING. OK. Rant over.

Hey, A-Train put on some great matches back then. I'd rather see A-Train as champ than Cena any day.

I think Notre Dame deserves their spot. The thing about Oregon, Ohio State, Auburn, etc., is that they all had the chance to win their conference and get a free BCS berth. Since Notre Dame's an independent that didn't have that chance, it's only fair that they be made some special allowances to get into the BCS. Sure some years, Big Ten teams get screwed (this year OSU's top 8 (although they'll probably make it), but sometimes they get bonuses too. (Last year's Michigan team wouldn't have had a prayer of a chance as an at-large. As for Oregon getting in as the other at-large, I might say give them the spot if they'd even beaten UCLA, but the fact is that most of their schedule was a joke. They beat Fresno State in a close game, they got raped by USC, and other than that, what did they do? Nothing. If the Fiesta Bowl wants to bring in the most storied program in the country in to play the fourth best team in the country, and wants to leave the ninth best team that coasted to a 10-1 record on the sideline, I think that's their prerogative.

What kind of crazy nonsense talk is that? Did they think they got screwed out of the national title shot or something? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No it's definitely not that, but I still don't understand exactly what he was talking about. He was babbling something about how USC were the hottest team by the end and that he wanted to see them play tOSU to see who the best team was, and that there are "writers" (nothing elaborated here) that recognize them as "champions, but not the national champion". Don't ask me to figure out what all that means. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, in CFN's column on what would have likely happened with a four team playoff each year, they did have USC knocking off Miami and OSU to win the national championship that year. Other than that though, I've never heard anyone try to connect that USC team with a championship at all.

FRIDAY Arizona at Arizona State Nebraska at Colorado SATURDAY Maryland at N.C. State UAB at East Carolina Tennessee at Kentucky Iowa State at Kansas Mississippi at Mississippi State Marshall at Memphis Louisiana-Lafayette at Louisiana-Monroe Florida State at Florida Idaho at San Jose State Georgia at Georgia Tech Tiebreak #1: How many total points will be scored in the Nebraska/Colorado game? 51 Tiebreak #2: How many yards passing will Florida's Chris Leak have against Florida State? 189 I need a miracle here. I'm thinking I'm gonna have to go 12 for 12 to have any shot at the Bored Bowl. (Assuming you don't get penalized for not making the conference championship. If you do, then I'm already f*cked.)

Ditto on Major Applewhite. It always drove me crazy watching Simms throw away big game after big game, when Applewhite was one of the most clutch QBs in Texas history. Honestly, if he started all four years, Texas would have at least gotten to a national championship, and they might have even won one. As for Texas losing this year, it's possible, but not against Colorado. The only way Texas loses now is if Nebraska knocks off Colorado, and they have to play Iowa State. The Cyclones are the second best team in the Big XII right now, and with Stevie Hicks starting, they're 6-0 including wins over Iowa, Texas A&M, and Colorado.

It would be 6-5 Pittsburgh. Pitt and USF would both be 2-1 against co-champions, while Pitt would have the head-to-head tiebreaker with USF for beating them. Just think Pittsburgh could be the worst team ever to go to a BCS game........ two years in a row! Well, at least I think that's the case. If the Big East tiebreaking procedure isn't that complicated, then the Sugar Bowl would just get to take their pick.

When looking at the rankings, keep in mind that the teams can only be judged on how well they've played. No matter how talented X team is, or what you think they might do against Y team in a bowl game, you have to look at their resumes thus far, and evaluate them on how they've played. So, with that out of the way, here's the Top 25: (Previous week's ranking in parenthesis) 1. Texas 11-0 (2) 2. USC 11-0 (1) 3. Penn State 10-1 (4) 4. Ohio State 9-2 (5) 5. LSU 9-1 (6) 6. Virginia Tech 9-1 (7) 7. Auburn 9-2 (9) 8. Notre Dame 8-2 (8) 9. Oregon 10-1 (10) 10. Miami 8-2 (3) 11. West Virginia 8-1 (12) 12. Georgia 8-2 (14) 13. UCLA 9-1 (15) 14. Fresno State 8-2 (21) 15. Alabama 9-2 (11) 16. TCU 10-1 (16) 17. Michigan 7-4 (13) 18. Florida State 7-3 (18) 19. Georgia Tech 7-3 (NR) 20. Boston College 8-3 (22) 21. Louisville 7-2 (19) 22. Iowa State 7-3 (20) 23. Wisconsin 8-3 (23) 24. Florida 7-3 (25) 25. Texas Tech 9-2 (NR)

He did spray shit all over the Big Show. Anyway, the point is that I haven't followed his work much lately, and so I'm not going to feel very emotional when a tragedy happens to him. I'm sure that if I'd sat through the crapfest that Smackdown's been for the last couple years, I'd be into Eddie, but I haven't and I'm not. As far as I'm concerned, Angle comes across as a lot more sincere than pretty much anyone in the business. It seems like he's a genuinely good guy that's really concerned about entertaining the fans. He's been my favorite wrestler since probably Royal Rumble 2002, (well, at least when he wasn't floundering on Smackdown), so that's a big part of it, but really the fact that he was one of the main guys when I was really into wrestling is a big part of it too. I was really into the product in 2001, and he's one of the only top guys from that time period that's still around.