If we can carry the day as favorites this year and then bring it back home in 2018, an 0-4 start for Hair ball could ruffle some feathers...
Went 1, 5, 6, and 2. All of them were tough decisions for me except putting Holy Buckeye through. I'm in the minority voting the walk-off sack over the shutting up of Notre Dame, I know, but I think that game in Beaver was so intense and had such memorable performances in overtime that it deserved to be on top.
As amazing as those memories are of us dusting off Oregon to take the natty, I picked the '97 Rose Bowl in that match-up. Germaine's final drive is the stuff of legend.
Honestly surprised this will only be our ninth true road opener. Blessings of being a powerhouse, I guess.
Yeah, especially since they usually get countered with like 3-4 upvotes when it's unwarranted.
Downvotes are meant to be reserved for those who break the commenting policy, as stated and linked above. But there are those who will downvote opinions not in line with their view, or even in some cases a certain user will grow a certain disdain for another user and downvote all their comments pretty much regardless of what it says (this has happened to me and several others in the past).
I know, they're all such a problem on this site, aren't they? /s
Great games across the board. The only lower seed I picked was 1974 over 1968, because while "Because I could not go for three" is iconic and we won a natty in 1968, the game wasn't in question after halftime. 1974 was a thriller right down to the final second.
The point you're making about striving for greater success than your program is suppose to is a great one. Reminds me of how Jimmy V had the '83 N.C. State team cut down the nets in practice. They believed they could contend on the national stage, and they did.
On a side note, a user with "coffee" and "black" in his handle talking about basketball reminds me of a certain Will Ferrell movie...
To me, unless the NFL shows us some evidence that was not used in the previous investigations, this whole thing is a travesty. Multiple text message conversations where she asked people to lie. Conflicting stories. Medical examiners saying that many of the injuries occurred prior to the week in question.
They went and made an example of Zeke for the sole purpose of trying to improve their image, and only because they don't know whether he did or not. So they assumed he did. I understand they carry a lower burden of proof, but come on. Their statement as to how the assault was proven was something to the effect of:
"The injuries in the pictures match her account of the events."
It takes nothing else but her side into account. She couldn't have, I don't know, made sure she had an explanation for each injury as she was setting him up, as the CPD seems to believe she did?
I believe domestic violence should warrant at least a year suspension in the NFL when proven in a court of law (preferably even a lifetime ban), and if the player is acquitted or charges dropped, etc., then something like six games is fine by me when the NFL can say "he probably did it." This is not the case. They can't say for sure what happened in that week, so they decided to make an example of Zeke.
That's how I honestly see it, and if they can show me actual evidence to the contrary outside of her account that has had multiple holes
gouged poked through it, I will whole-heartedly agree with their decision. But, with the current evidence out as it stands now, this is a complete travesty.
Might not be a bad idea to roll the dice and put Gamble in the starting unit.
Best of luck Andrew (nice name, by the way). Hopefully this is good news for Parsons, Oweh, Smith.
I can see your point about having too many in the eight team format, but I don't see how "rewarding" two teams with a bye is a negative. In the current system, what is really the advantage of which seed you are? The gap between the top four teams is pretty small in a lot of cases, and there's no upside on being a two versus being a three. I just think it adds a lot more reason to strive for the best regular season, since getting a bye would be a huge deal. Rewarding a likely undefeated team is not something I have a problem with.
Overall though, I think we can both agree that either way is better than the BCS.
On a serious note, I always enjoy obscure stats like this. Helps the offseason pass quicker. +1
I always liked six, with the top two teams getting byes. Have home field advantage for the 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs. 5 match-ups, then do the usual "New Year's Six" locations for the last three games. All this adds a lot more intrigue to the seeding process, and all five major conferences now have a team in most likely.
Play the first two games December 30th (I always thought this date would do better than New Year's Eve anyway), the two semi-final match-ups a week later, and the national title game how they usually structure time frame wise (a week from the following Monday of the semi-final games).
Glad to hear Chatfield is 100 percent committed and not 110 percent.
We added some weapons, but the O-line was bad last year and got much worse. I don't see how we can get it to those weapons without a decent front five.
Defense should be at least above average, excited to see our development on that side of the ball.
I'm hoping around 9-7, realistically I say 7-9 or 8-8.
I don't see how our Offensive line is anything but worse than last season. We lost our two best players up front, and I don't think we added anybody back.
Good. He can witness the beatdown first hand.
Rushing the field last year against TTUN and singing Sweet Caroline with the entire stadium was definitely the best.
Worst was also last year, watching the Penn State game in my dorm. My anger was strong and loud enough to scare a lot of the people on my floor... I felt prett bad about that.
Not bringing on Gary Cole and Jason Bateman to announce is a bold strategy. We'll have to see if it pays off for 'em.
Tell you what Jack. If it happens, if we actually rotate QBs (not subbing one in if JT goes down or one playing garbage time or for one play of some special package), I will post a thread where I eat crow. I'm that confident.
And you completely ignored the bulk of my reply by the way, didn't address the part about the quote later in the same article from the same guy who is:
one of the most respected , if not the most respected beat writers in Hoosier sports.
And you also didn't address the whole theme of my reply, which I made clear was to state that he hasn't rotated QBs in a year where he had a definitive starter.
I'll concede he used multiple QBs in 2013 when he had no clear starter (I already did in my previous comment), but he has in no other year. Especially not in years where he has a clear-cut starter, like this one, which was my point.