The problem with putting in Lee at QB was that he had previously thrown 1 TD vs something like 7 INTS in games against Bama or ranked teams or something like that.
Printable View
The problem with putting in Lee at QB was that he had previously thrown 1 TD vs something like 7 INTS in games against Bama or ranked teams or something like that.
Anything would have been better than what Jordan Jefferson put forth.
Yeah, it couldn't have gotten any worse.
oregon qb, darron thomas, declares for the nfl draft.
WTF why? He hasn't shown he can be a good throwing qb.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
that was my reaction at first. but maybe he feels that his stock is already at its peak and another year at whoregon wont improve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DariusLock
i've also heard slight rumors that there would have been a qb battle next year, with the current backup (who's faster and has a better arm). maybe that's something he didnt want?
Personal opinion, but he's shown about as much as Cam Newton had last year ...Quote:
Originally Posted by DariusLock
Cam had a much stronger arm and was a beast, Darron Thomas can't carry that team and he has more playmakers than Cam did.
I was solely talking about "good throwing QB". Cam has a strong arm, but I still didn't expect him to perform the way he did this year. Was expecting him to be more like Tebow than he has been.
The self-admitted way too early top 25 poll for the 2012 college football season.
I'd actually go with USC at #1 right now.
USC is selling shirts that say "our 75 are better than your 85" right now
At least WVU is in the top 10. I was about to be pissed...
Funny how they have LSU at #1 and Gunner Kiel a likely starter at QB and he just verballed to Notre Dame yesterday.
Michigan State will likely struggle more than people think without Worthy on the DL. Replacing Cousins is good and bad, given that he was pretty good at times but threw way too many interceptions than a longtime starter should.
that article was also written 8 days ago. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by psuexv
Yeah I was just laughing at the fact that he's no longer there.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
joe paterno reportedly near death. according to feldman
Doubt anything will come of this, but interesting read. Don't have a link as it was sent in an email among the daily Navy football emails/stories sent out by Scott Strasemeier and the Navy Sports Information department.
Quote:
By Brett McMurphy (CBS Sports)
There is "growing support" among conference commissioners, athletic directors and bowl officials to increase the difficulty of becoming bowl eligible by requiring teams to have seven victories, or a winning record, when the new BCS cycle begins in 2014, multiple sources have told CBSSports.com. The seven-win requirement would also mean a handful of bowls likely would be discontinued because there would not be enough eligible teams to fill all of the current 70 berths. In the past two years alone, 27 teams with 6-6 records were needed to fill all the bowl slots, meaning nearly 20 percent of the bowl field didn't have a winning record.
"The 7-5 discussion is percolating," a bowl official said. "I don't know of many athletic directors or conference commissioners who think a 6-6 team has earned a bowl berth." Teams are now only required to finish .500 (6-6) or better to be bowl eligible. Increasing the number is expected to be discussed at the Football Bowl Association meetings in Miami in April. The university presidents would have to vote for any change as part of NCAA legislation.
If the winning record requirement did pass, bowl sources estimated up to 12 of the current 35 bowls could be "lopped off." Which would go by the wayside? That would not be an easy decision, especially since a number of conferences initially created these bowls to guarantee their teams would have one to play in. ESPN also has created and runs seven bowls that the network utilizes as programming. Even though they have hosted a number of 6-6 teams, it's doubtful ESPN would willingly discontinue any of them.
"I think a lot of people would like to see the increase [in wins] to be bowl eligible, but conferences have contracts with the bowls, and if a bowl has to go dark, that conference gets embarrassed," a bowl official said.
Until 2006, teams had 11-game regular seasons, and schools needed to finish with a winning record (at least 6-5) to be bowl eligible. Before the 2006 season, a 12th regular-season game was added and minimum bowl eligibility was changed to 6-6. In the six years since, 22 of the current 35 bowls have had a team with that record.
Between the 2005 and 2006 seasons, four bowls were added to take advantage of the new 6-6 rule and bigger pool of teams. In the first season 6-6 teams were eligible, only seven went to bowl games. Four years later, despite adding only three more bowls, the number of 6-6 teams that went bowling doubled to 14.
In the past two seasons, 27 of the 140 bowl teams (19.2 percent of the bowl field) were 6-6. Overall since 2006, 59 of the 404 bowl teams (14.6 percent) did not have a winning record.
As I pointed out in Part 1 of my look at the bowl system, <http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/16975644/slipping-bowl-attendance-has-bcs-scrambling-for-reasons-fixes> bowl attendance continues to decline for various reasons. Even Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson admitted earlier this month there are too many bowls. "You're asking people to come across the country to watch mediocre teams," a BCS bowl official said. "They're not going to do it."
A conference official suggested if you asked each of the 35 bowls if they favored increasing the bowl eligibility to seven wins, the "top 80 percent would say yes, the rest would say no."
The same official added that some of the low attendance numbers can be attributed to "fan travel fatigue."
"If a fan base is going to a bowl every year, it's a lot of money out of their pockets," he said. "They might not be thrilled going to a high level bowl one year and then going to a lesser bowl the next. For some fan bases, maybe a year off [not going to a bowl] isn't a bad thing. The fans might miss it and might be juiced for the next bowl trip."
Since 2006, there have been eight bowl games featuring teams without a winning record. Four of those 6-6 "classics" were this past season, including a historic Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl between 6-6 Illinois and 6-7 UCLA, which needed a waiver to play in the game with a losing record. In the past six seasons, the mighty SEC has won a record six consecutive BCS national titles. But the SEC also is tied with the Big Ten as the conference with the most 6-6 bowl teams (nine each). The ACC is next with eight.
"Bowl games have lost the special feel with too many games," another conference official said. "It used to be a reward but now it feels like an obligation for the last 10 to 15 bowls.
"For some schools you have to have a pretty special or unexpected year for fans to embrace the bowl scenarios, because once you are eliminated from BCS bowl contention, then you've had a bad year." Besides rewarding undeserving teams, a number of athletic directors are not happy having to pay out hefty bowl bonuses for coaches that went 6-6 and underachieved. This past season, 11 coaches were fired or left for another job after their teams earned a bowl berth.
"The 7-5 proposal is getting serious support," a non-BCS bowl official said. "They're telling a coach [that] 6-6 doesn't cut it, but then the coach gets a $50,000 or $100,000 bonus for a bowl game that none of the fan base wants to see. Athletic directors feel like they're pouring money down a hole and they're getting frustrated with it. The only people making out on 6-6 bowl games are the coaches." The bowls that have relied on 6-6 teams the most have been the Independence and New Mexico bowls.
The Independence Bowl has had seven 6-6 teams in six years, including consecutive games in 2006 and 2007 featuring two of them. This past season ended a string of five consecutive years for the Independence Bowl with a 6-6 team playing in Shreveport, La. ESPN created the New Mexico Bowl in 2006 and has hosted six 6-6 teams. This past season was its first ever without one.
The Little Caesars, Music City, Insight and Kraft Fight Hunger bowls have each featured four 6-6 teams. The Texas, Liberty, Gator, Compass and Beef 'O Brady's bowls have each had three. ESPN owns the Texas, Compass and Beef 'O Brady's bowls.
Fewer bowls would actually benefit the overall bowl system, a non-BCS bowl official said. "It would make the existing bowls more valuable and drive up the sponsorships and television ratings for the survivors," the official said. UCLA has benefitted more than any other school by the 6-6 bowl eligibility rule, earning three bids without a winning record. The Bruins went to bowls in 2007 and 2009 at 6-6 and 2011 at 6-7. Nine other schools have played in two bowl games with 6-6 records: Alabama, Florida State, Illinois, Iowa State, Kentucky, Marshall, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Vanderbilt.
A potential drawback of the tougher bowl eligibility requirement is fewer teams would be able to take advantage of the additional practices allowed. These mostly benefit younger players and help schools prepare for next season. But a conference official said that could easily be solved by allowing every team to participate in the same number of December practices whether it goes to a bowl or not.
"The bowls use to be special," a BCS conference official said. "Increasing the bowl eligibility to seven wins would get the bowls back to being special. There's nothing special about being 6-6."
Interesting. I hope it does happen. It's just more of the same old bullshit additive of everyone winning even when they're losing. Terrible 6-6 season? Hell, you still get a bowl game to try to feel good about yourselves again. It's just stupid. Bowl games did use to mean something.
Of course, I'd much rather they completely got rid of the bowls and had a real 16 team playoff where the conference champions got automatic bids and everything else was based on rankings but the rankings didn't start coming into play until week 8 of the college football season so there's no such thing as the bullshit pre-season ranking bullshit.
Take a hint from the FCS and March Madness. Playoffs equals AMAZING TV ratings and more money than god!
Wait ... ESPN has created and runs some of the bowls? Well I'll be damned.
Don't go overboard here. It has nothing to do with the "everyone gets a trophy!" bullshit. The old requirement was 6-5. With the move to the 12 game schedule, they could have either chosen 6-6 or 7-5. They went 6-6 because of -- wait for it -- MORE MONEY!Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis