2008 College Football In-Season Thread!

[hifigator]

Dec 15, 2008 16:27:02 GMT -5 vcjack said:

Dec 15, 2008 15:29:26 GMT -5 Jack said:

So it looks like Auburn picked a real winner with their fans.

Charles Barkley is calling the pick racist, athough I think for it to qualify as such you'd have to pick NOT the least qualified white coach out there.

Paging RuskyHoya...

I didn't hear that particular comment, but Barkley was some kind of Pi$$ed! I heard him say: "Urban Meyer's not going anywhere. Mark Richt isn't going anywhere. Nick Saban isn't going anywhere. Les Miles isn't going anywhere. I just think we would have to hire somebody a little better than some guy who's just a coach!"

I liked that last part: "just a coach" ... I think he left out an adjective or two.

[RDF]

Les Miles not going anywhere is good for Auburn and rest of SEC.

[AustinHoya03]

Dec 16, 2008 8:51:26 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

The rumors are now that Gill didn't get the job because it was thought he wouldn't be accepted due to his being married to a white woman (who is a very nice lady, by the way).

It is preposterous Auburn hired this loser over Gill simply because he used to coach at Auburn. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's still here... but Barkley may actually be onto something.

Additionally... we're still sitting at ONE black coach in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the SEC. That's appalling (and the numbers ain't much better over college football as a whole).

Does the NCAA have some sort of Rooney Rule? Its apparent Gill was just a token interview, but was that something mandated by the NCAA or did Auburn do that out of the kindness of their heart?

For the record, I think Turner Gill would have been a better hire than Gene Chizik. But it's disappointing to see unsubstantiated rumors of serious old-time racism fly around with regard to this decision. If Auburn University weren't 145 miles from Birmingham, no way rumors of hood-wearing natives crying "miscegenation!" go out across the nation. Last I checked, Bull Connor and George Wallace were still dead.

How many black head coaches have there been in Big Ten history?

[HoyaFanNY]

barkley is an idiot. the rooney rule is moronic as well. professional teams and universities are going to hire who they want, plain and simple. giving a charity interview to someone just based on their race is as insulting as what barkley says happened to gill. people like barkley and wilbon perpetuate the problems with race even more by crying racism whenever someone they like doesn't get hired.

[hifigator]

I am still not what to make of Barkley's comments. On one hand, he could just be an upset "fan" of Auburn, that was extremely upset with Chizik's hire and decided to fan the flames with claims of racism, when in fact, his real ire is towards the man they did hire, rather than the one they didn't. On the other hand, maybe he really was a strong supporter of Gill and was convinced that he would be the hire. When the Administration went in a different direction, then maybe he decided to go public with unsubstantiated claims of what really motivated the decision makers. Or -- and this the the least likely -- maybe Barkley does in fact hame some close ties with people on the inside, and maybe that was the explanation he heard second hand. Like I said, I doubt that's the case, but I guess it's fair to at least give it some consideration.

[kchoya]

No chatter on the injury to the Oklahoma RB? The media is downplaying it saying OU has a bunch of other good RBs. However, like the Percy Harvin injury to UF in the SEC championship, I think it slows OU down a little. Plus, he was OU's big return guy. I think this is more of a factor than most have let on so far.

[hifigator]

Kc, there might not be much chatter on DeMarco Murray's injury here, but it has quite a few threads on GatorCountry and soonersfans.com.


They are downplaying it for sure, even to the (absurd) point that it's actually a benefit.

They have other guys for sure, but it certainly isn't a benefit. I think we really stomp a mudhole in them now!

[hoyarooter]

Florida is only a three point favorite. I smell a lot of action going down on this in Gator Country.

[RDF]

Who cares about the RB on OU when their problem is they have no defense. Their defense is going to be overmatched. If you don't believe--watch the WVU vs OU game in Fiesta a year ago.

Out of OU RB's--I think Murray is overrated. He's more suited to play slot WR and really flourishes whenever he faces overmatched teams or game is out of hand.

If Florida were to not win by at least 3 TD's, I'd be stunned. If that happens--I don't want to see Oklahoma get any benefit of doubt from voters again. They disgrace the BCS worse then Ohio State has--it's just not talked about as much--because most people haven't watched or have forgotten their best team gagging and ruining '03 Sugar Bowl and then being humiliated by USC in '04 Orange--leaving more deserving USC and Auburn to sit and watch both games.

[AustinHoya03]

Dec 17, 2008 16:10:44 GMT -5 hifigator said:

They have other guys for sure, but it certainly isn't a benefit. I think we really stomp a mudhole in them now!

The "other guys" looked better than Murray in the Big 12 Championship Game. RDF has this one right -- the bigger injuries for OU are the LBs Reynolds and Box who have been out.

OU has huge holes on defense and we've seen this season that the Sooners' offense is ineffective when taken out of its rhythm. If Vegas really has the Gators giving only three points, I need to get out to Caesar's.

[kchoya]

Dec 17, 2008 23:08:40 GMT -5 RDF said:

Who cares about the RB on OU when their problem is they have no defense. Their defense is going to be overmatched. If you don't believe--watch the WVU vs OU game in Fiesta a year ago.

Out of OU RB's--I think Murray is overrated. He's more suited to play slot WR and really flourishes whenever he faces overmatched teams or game is out of hand.

If Florida were to not win by at least 3 TD's, I'd be stunned. If that happens--I don't want to see Oklahoma get any benefit of doubt from voters again. They disgrace the BCS worse then Ohio State has--it's just not talked about as much--because most people haven't watched or have forgotten their best team gagging and ruining '03 Sugar Bowl and then being humiliated by USC in '04 Orange--leaving more deserving USC and Auburn to sit and watch both games.

That's why I'm confused that anyone thinks this will be close. It's OU's great offense versus Florida's great offense and great defense. How does Florida not come out ahead? Big Game Bob looses big time once again. Hifi, isn't there some stat that when Urban and his staff have more than a week to prep for a game they're [almost] undefeated?

[hifigator]

Yeah, Kc. Prior to last year's bowl game loss to Michigan, Meyer had been undefeated in 7 combined seasons at 3 schools when having more than a week to prepare. That included opening games, Championship games, Bowl games and games following off weeks. Granted, we blemished that record with our showing in Orlando last January, but I think this time will be different.

Also, there is one more injury for Oklahoma. I forget his last name, but his first name is DeMarcus and he is a 2nd team D-lineman who recorded 20 tackles on the year and recovered 2 fumbles. I don't know enough about the Sooners to evaluate how big an impact his loss might make, but it can't help.

[theexorcist]

sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&page=dash08bowls&sportCat=ncf

Read the "why to watch" for the Sheraton Hawaii Bowl.

[AustinHoya03]

TCU certainly made some blunders in the first half of tonight's bowl game, but I LOVE watching a college football team that tackles as well as the Horned Frogs. Looking forward to a competitive second half.

[DFW HOYA]

TCU is a fun team to watch, plays with a lot of intensity, and Gary Patterson remains the best coach in the nation outside the BCS spotlight. Always worth the trip to Amon Carter Stadium for one of their games, unlike, of late, SMU.

[hifigator]

Just one more day and the real bowl games start ... ok, well, maybe not the marquee games, and I didn't mean any slight to TCU and Boise St. That was an entertaining and mostly well played game. My point is that starting tomorrow, we get bowl games everyday, unless there are meaningful NFL contests. In my personal opinion, the sports fan, the 2 weeks of daily bowl games rival March madness, even though more than a handful of games don't exactly feature premier teams. Still, I love this time of year. The fact that the Gators have a date with destiny to finish off the period some two weeks from now, doesn't hurt a bit either!

[RDF]

I disagree as the bowls have matchups that everyone knows will happen due to the stupid conference tie-in--and that is why it will never approach March Madness in interest until they get a Playoff. Let's see you are comparing:

"If Butthole State can win this game, they will be the Big XII South's 8th place team and go to the Sour Apple Bowl to face Stink University--the 90th place team in the SunBelt".

VS

watching the NCAA selection show and seeing who is going to matchup against who. That factor alone blows away anything that CFB throws out and I love the sport but think some simple alterations can make it 100 times more fun to follow and more interesting. Even if you don't get a playoff--quit with the stupid bowl tie-ins as they SUCK. Nothing fun about knowing who is going to play simply by where they finish in their conferences.

[hifigator]

I'm not sure that I see your point RDF. We both agree that a real playoff would be better. Even still, that would likely involve 16 teams at most. That would mean a max of 8 games, followed by 4, 2, and then a title game. Even under that system, we would still probably have bowl games for teams not in the top 16. I would still enjoy those games as well. So if your gripe with bowls is that they are keeping us from a real playoff, then I agree, but refusing to enjoy what we do have (and what is about to be over for another long nearly 9 months ...) isn't beneficial. As to the tie-ins, I don't really see the problem. They do all that they can to avoid rematches, which benefit virtually nobody. Aside from that, I'm not really sure what the big deal is. I understand at the top, there could be a lot better bowls. For instance, is Bama vs. Utah really all that apetizing? I doubt it. Similarly, wouldn't a Texas-USC be much more attractive than the Rose and Fiesta Bowls that we have this year? But those aren't the tie-ins that you are referencing. We end up with FSU-Wisconsin and UNC-West Va. for example today. I'm not saying that I couldn't dream up better or more enticing matchups, but I don't see much of a problem with games of that sort. If we are going to b!tch, then I would start with the silly "homer" bowls. Games like the Hawaii Bowl, St. Pete Bowl and Nevada Bowl would be near the top of the list. Heck, the Humanitarian Bowl could arguable qualify, as for years, it was nothing but an opportunity for Boise St. to share the National spotlight and showcase their unique field. All in all, however, I really enjoy these two weeks. Speaking of, W. Va and UNC just kicked off ...


Later all ...

[RDF]

Dec 27, 2008 13:05:01 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I'm not sure that I see your point RDF. We both agree that a real playoff would be better. Even still, that would likely involve 16 teams at most. That would mean a max of 8 games, followed by 4, 2, and then a title game. Even under that system, we would still probably have bowl games for teams not in the top 16. I would still enjoy those games as well. So if your gripe with bowls is that they are keeping us from a real playoff, then I agree, but refusing to enjoy what we do have (and what is about to be over for another long nearly 9 months ...) isn't beneficial. As to the tie-ins, I don't really see the problem. They do all that they can to avoid rematches, which benefit virtually nobody. Aside from that, I'm not really sure what the big deal is. I understand at the top, there could be a lot better bowls. For instance, is Bama vs. Utah really all that apetizing? I doubt it. Similarly, wouldn't a Texas-USC be much more attractive than the Rose and Fiesta Bowls that we have this year? But those aren't the tie-ins that you are referencing. We end up with FSU-Wisconsin and UNC-West Va. for example today. I'm not saying that I couldn't dream up better or more enticing matchups, but I don't see much of a problem with games of that sort. If we are going to b!tch, then I would start with the silly "homer" bowls. Games like the Hawaii Bowl, St. Pete Bowl and Nevada Bowl would be near the top of the list. Heck, the Humanitarian Bowl could arguable qualify, as for years, it was nothing but an opportunity for Boise St. to share the National spotlight and showcase their unique field. All in all, however, I really enjoy these two weeks. Speaking of, W. Va and UNC just kicked off ...


Later all ...

How do you not understand an answer to your own comment about CFB bowls being more exciting then March Madness? That is my response. It's much more fun to follow March Madness because of the fact you dont' know the matchups and the pre-determined matchups in CFB Bowl system take a lot of fun out of it. You don't get the best games/match ups--you get pre determined matchups based on conference affiliations and that is TRASH.

As for the BCS--it's a better system then before but it still sucks because you don't get great matchups--or best you can get-you get "If this team doesn't make the Title game--they go to their "home" bowl"--i.e the Rose, Sugar, Orange, etc.. and if you think watching Cincinnati/Va Tech is going to equal my excitement of watching a 1st Round NCAA Tournament game, then we can agree to disagree.

[SFHoya99]

It's much more fun to follow March Madness because, by definition, the later matchups are better matchups as the best teams keep playing.

In college football, the best teams play once, and the matchups often suck.